Man Who Led Walking Protest Has His Dole Cut

Xenophile · 05-04-2012 8:35pm

Just look at all the free advertising he is getting, he should be back in business in no time!

woodoo · 05-04-2012 8:43pm

Could he not have said he was walking up to Dublin to ask Enda to help him get a job.

oppenheimer1 · 05-04-2012 8:54pm

MaxyJazz wrote: »

Well I'm posting a cheque to Joe Murphy for €100 and he can spend it as he wishes fair play to him to protest on something he believes in...this government needs to realise that they can't pull the wool over our eyes no more,the amount of tax payers money wasted is just crazy,and it needs to start at the top...Phil hogan's quote when he was asked in 2009 to take a 10% pay cut on his estimated €200,000 salary & expences. Quote: “My personal circumstances don’t allow that at the moment"....yeah great example Phil keep up the good work.

Whats one mans waste is another mans necessity. Many people would argue that giving this man his normal payment would be wasteful since he was not seeking work.

The government are hardly pulling the wool over anyones eyes, or at least anyone who can do basic math. The government spends more than it takes in so it has to borrow the shortfall. Only the troika will lend to us so we have to play by their rules. There will be more tax increases and spending cuts and protests like Mr Murphys above will achieve nothing - simply because the books have to be balanced. People will suffer, but there is no alternative. People will moan about politicians salaries but that is ignoratio elenchi of the highest form. They are small beer compared to the big two, pay and welfare.

Yes that will mean people will be seriously worse off than before like Mr Murphy, but thems the breaks that life deals you. We'll just have to suck it up and move on.

A Disgrace · 05-04-2012 9:02pm

ejmaztec wrote: »

It's nothing to do with child benefit. They get the basic dole plus additions for each dependant.

It's a couples rate right? As far as I know, if a married couple are both unemployed, one single payment is made (to the husband usually) and it is considerably less than if the two individuals were claiming seperately (something to do with the means testing of two people rather than one)

xsiborg · 05-04-2012 9:25pm

wait a minute, did i read that properly? that when you are on social welfare you are allowed claim "holidays"?

fúcking heard it all now! :rolleyes:

"im on holidays, taking a break from sitting on my ass all day, maybe i might head into town and look for work"...

iguana · 05-04-2012 9:27pm

A Disgrace wrote: »

It's a couples rate right? As far as I know, if a married couple are both unemployed, one single payment is made (to the husband usually) and it is considerably less than if the two individuals were claiming seperately (something to do with the means testing of two people rather than one)

Yes it is. A family with 2 adults and 2 children gets less dole than 2 single people.

MaxyJazz · 05-04-2012 9:33pm

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

MaxyJazz wrote: »

Well I'm posting a cheque to Joe Murphy for €100 and he can spend it as he wishes fair play to him to protest on something he believes in...this government needs to realise that they can't pull the wool over our eyes no more,the amount of tax payers money wasted is just crazy,and it needs to start at the top...Phil hogan's quote when he was asked in 2009 to take a 10% pay cut on his estimated €200,000 salary & expences. Quote: “My personal circumstances don’t allow that at the moment"....yeah great example Phil keep up the good work.

Whats one mans waste is another mans necessity. Many people would argue that giving this man his normal payment would be wasteful since he was not seeking work.

The government are hardly pulling the wool over anyones eyes, or at least anyone who can do basic math. The government spends more than it takes in so it has to borrow the shortfall. Only the troika will lend to us so we have to play by their rules. There will be more tax increases and spending cuts and protests like Mr Murphys above will achieve nothing - simply because the books have to be balanced. People will suffer, but their is no alternative. People will moan about politicians salaries but that is ignoratio elenchi of the highest form. They are small beer compared to the big two, pay and welfare.

Yes that will mean people will be seriously worse off than before like Mr Murphy, but thems the breaks that life deals you. We'll just have to suck it up and move on.

Of course they are tryin to pull the wool over our eyes...So you want me to believe that the household charge fund will just go to local authority ?? Not a hope.
I agree with taxes...I pay them all except this household charge,im self employed and count myself lucky as I'm doing ok...I'm on a water meter and pay about €4,000 per year for it and also €5,000 of rates on my small business unit ..plus all the usual PRSI /VAT/USC plus income tax...I've no problem with that ...but enough is enough...freedom of information has showed me so much on government spending and salaries that Im disgusted at this "pay cap"
Have a good read on it then come back to me and tell me that this government isn't trying to pull wool over our eyes.

Millicent · 05-04-2012 10:07pm

xsiborg wrote: »

wait a minute, did i read that properly? that when you are on social welfare you are allowed claim "holidays"?

fúcking heard it all now! :rolleyes:

"im on holidays, taking a break from sitting on my ass all day, maybe i might head into town and look for work"...

So anyone on the dole is not allowed any enjoyment in their lives? Should we stick a fucking bell on them so we know who to spit on as they walk by?

What if they're going down the country somewhere to stay with family? Or dealing with an emergency that's going to be time consuming? Or scraping the pennies together to go away for a short while?

"Sitting on their ass all day"--what a lovely person you are. It sounds like you've never had to deal with the horrible realities of finding yourself unemployed and I sincerely hope you never will. That said, it might help to teach you some empathy.

oppenheimer1 · 05-04-2012 10:08pm

MaxyJazz wrote: »

Of course they are tryin to pull the wool over our eyes...So you want me to believe that the household charge fund will just go to local authority ?? Not a hope.
I agree with taxes...I pay them all except this household charge,im self employed and count myself lucky as I'm doing ok...I'm on a water meter and pay about €4,000 per year for it and also €5,000 of rates on my small business unit ..plus all the usual PRSI /VAT/USC plus income tax...I've no problem with that ...but enough is enough...freedom of information has showed me so much on government spending and salaries that Im disgusted at this "pay cap"
Have a good read on it then come back to me and tell me that this government isn't trying to pull wool over our eyes.

I know what the government spends its money on. Yes the household charge will may as well go into the general government fund I agree, but does it matter? The household charge doesn't raise enough to cover the full cost of running the councils.

Enough is enough of what? The government doesn't take in enough money to meet its expenses so it needs to raise taxes and cut expenditure. The pay caps you mention are a tiny tiny drop in the ocean and you are getting hung up on a tiny detail whilst failing to see the bigger picture. General PS pay and welfare are the two big bills that need to be cut in order to achieve the deficit goals.

If you can't see that then the wool has been pulled over your eyes.

Alfasud · 05-04-2012 10:19pm

Biggins wrote: »

To be clear.
A person on the dole is entitled to a number of days 'off' but to be correct according to their dole receiving conditions, must in advance, notify their nearest social Security office of those desired days.

If he didn't in advance tell them of the days he was going to be 'unavailable' - technically he was indeed breaking their rules.
Now if it was done with a political bias really behind it - thats a whole worrying aspect altogether!

It sounds very like something one would expect from the Chinese Gov. but then Enda is mesmorised by them.

gsxr1 · 05-04-2012 10:48pm

gsxr1 wrote: »

400 a week? If this is true I am very upset. I work 40 hours a week for 500 and have to support my family.

I would love to take a 100 cut and sit on my hole eating cornflakes .

Please tell me its not true that non working feckers are getting as much working feckers.

fecking hell.

iguana wrote: »

The dole and ancillary benefits, like rent allowance, are very generous here. A lot of low to mid level earners would be financially better off on the dole at the moment if they do not have a mortgage and can find a suitable rental property within the rent allowance limits.

This country is truly in trouble when not only do I have to support the dole with a large cut of my own money, but also find out that the dole people make as much as me.( or very near it)

It needs cut to bits in the budget. I am very angry right now.

Never thought I would ever say that. But there you go. I was on it, but got 180 then it was cut to 130 and then to 30 because my missis got up of her hole and got a job. As I soon did also. Thats the difference between lazy feckers and life long dole leeches.
Instead of going for long walks , we are at work.

I should be better off that those who do not work. Not the other way around.

Why would that Lazy Donegal fecker ever want to work again? :mad:

Smidge · 05-04-2012 10:52pm

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Voluntary work is against the rules unless its approved by the Welfare office. There are also restrictions on the amount of time you can spend volunteering afaik.

Welfare is not there to provide cheap labour for charities. Its there as a safety net for people who find themselves out of work so that they can maintain a basic standard of living whilst looking for work.

Is this not what the Jobridge is doing?
Except instead of helping a charity it is private enterprises who benefit from free labour?

Pottler · 05-04-2012 10:56pm

I think the big thing to take from all this is that people have to apply "FOR TIME OFF FROM BEING ON THE DOLE", I am now breaking my hole laughing, rolling around, trying to reach up and press a key every now and then between kinks. There is no emoticon thing made to express how feckin funny I find that. I thought the whole point of dole was you were, err, fecking OFF FROM WORK, like, on a fairly permanent basis????

oppenheimer1 · 05-04-2012 11:01pm

mishkalucy wrote: »

[/B]

Is this not what the Jobridge is doing?
Except instead of helping a charity it is private enterprises who benefit from free labour?

Yes it is. Job bridge is being abused by a lot of employers.

MaxyJazz · 05-04-2012 11:46pm

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

MaxyJazz wrote: »

Of course they are tryin to pull the wool over our eyes...So you want me to believe that the household charge fund will just go to local authority ?? Not a hope.
I agree with taxes...I pay them all except this household charge,im self employed and count myself lucky as I'm doing ok...I'm on a water meter and pay about €4,000 per year for it and also €5,000 of rates on my small business unit ..plus all the usual PRSI /VAT/USC plus income tax...I've no problem with that ...but enough is enough...freedom of information has showed me so much on government spending and salaries that Im disgusted at this "pay cap"
Have a good read on it then come back to me and tell me that this government isn't trying to pull wool over our eyes.

I know what the government spends its money on. Yes the household charge will may as well go into the general government fund I agree, but does it matter? The household charge doesn't raise enough to cover the full cost of running the councils.

Enough is enough of what? The government doesn't take in enough money to meet its expenses so it needs to raise taxes and cut expenditure. The pay caps you mention are a tiny tiny drop in the ocean and you are getting hung up on a tiny detail whilst failing to see the bigger picture. General PS pay and welfare are the two big bills that need to be cut in order to achieve the deficit goals.

If you can't see that then the wool has been pulled over your eyes.

tiny or not they are wrong,they should get their house in order and tighten their belts first and show example to the public.
Or do we learn from Phil Hogan and copy him? Pot kettle black

xsiborg · 06-04-2012 2:33am

Millicent wrote: »

So anyone on the dole is not allowed any enjoyment in their lives?

it's a welfare payment for unemployment, where is the logic in giving "holiday" payments to a person who is unemployed?

Millicent wrote: »

Should we stick a fucking bell on them so we know who to spit on as they walk by?

i dont know how in hell you extrapolated that from my post?

Millicent wrote: »

What if they're going down the country somewhere to stay with family? Or dealing with an emergency that's going to be time consuming?

they should inform their local social welfare office?

Millicent wrote: »

Or scraping the pennies together to go away for a short while?

this would surely then make them unavailable to take up work, but you've raised an interesting point that would indicate that if someone is able to save money when they are on social welfare, then they are getting too much! it's supposed to be merely a payment that allows you to sustain yourself or your family from week to week, or from one payment to the next.

Millicent wrote: »

"Sitting on their ass all day"--what a lovely person you are.

i apologise if that came across as flippant, it was merely meant tongue in cheek, as the small minority of those claiming social welfare who actually DO sit at home on their ass all day, are the ones who get the most exposure, as opposed to the majority that are out every day and actively looking for work, to get off social welfare.

Millicent wrote: »

It sounds like you've never had to deal with the horrible realities of finding yourself unemployed and I sincerely hope you never will. That said, it might help to teach you some empathy.

Millicent i actually HAVE had to deal with the harsh reality of finding myself unemployed, on many occasions in my life, i've also had to deal with the harsh reality of being self-employed and not having taken a holiday in four years, and the odd occasion that i take time off to take my son down to the park for a game of football, i have to try and avoid the able bodied layabouts who spend their days drinking in the park instead of actively looking for work or even so much as picking their cans up after themselves!

i do not envy anyone on social welfare, nor do i begrudge it to anybody who genuinely needs it, i understand fully the meaning of social responsibility and helping the vulnerable in our society, i know many people who are on social welfare who i would love to give them a job in the morning if i could afford to, but i cannot because i pay so much in taxes and so on.

i hope you can understand that it's very hard to empathise with anyone on social welfare that is unwilling to better themselves or "screw the system", etc, because if i was able to come back from social welfare many times, so should these young and able bodied people.

fine, one might argue that there are no jobs, but in the meantime as has already been suggested in this thread, even for these people apply to do voluntary work would at least be something, at least to keep them motivated and keep their brain from turning to mush (believe me, i DO know only too well how soul destroying and demotivating it can be to have rejection letters come in the post every, single, day!), and at least they will have something to get up for in the morning, to keep their minds occupied, even training or upskilling themselves.

as adults they should know by now that we all have to do things we dont like in order to provide for ourselves, provide for our families, pay the bills, put some savings aside for retirement, and THEN maybe think about being able to afford a holiday or some of the nicer things in life.

please can i just say before you make the argument for the elderly, disabled, or other exceptional circumstances that would prevent a person from working, that they are just that- exceptional circumstances, that would be evaluated on a means tested basis. it doesnt mean that the person cannot contribute to society in some other way, they just need to explore these avenues for themselves, as nobody else is going to do it for them.

im all for helping anyone i see making an effort and at least TRYING, as distinct from the tiny minority that seem to get the most exposure in the media and are therefore causing society to tar all unemployed people with the same brush, which is where i think you were coming from with that incredible extrapolation.

yore · 06-04-2012 3:04am

trooney wrote: »

With the advent of mobile technology you can be actively seeking work from any geographical location in the country (once you have a signal). Do they deduct SW payments for when you are asleep (and not actively seeking work)?

Extend that logic to include someone going to UK for a few days for a holiday. Then extend it to the person staying over there to "look for work" over there too. Then extend it to the student that fecks off backpacking around Thailand for a few months. Are you seriously suggesting they should get dole by claiming they are checking their email on their iphone every day for jobs?

This is the reason why people on the dole get "holidays". If they aren't looking for work, then they have a holiday. They get a finite number of holidays so they can't gto on an extended holiday, or even just emmigrate and claim to be still here looking for work.

And in fairness, unless I picked up something wrong, they docked him for 4 days and the local staff gave him 320 to make up for this loss. That's 80 quid a day * 365 days = 29k a year. A married person making 34k takes home about this much a year according to http://www.redoaktaxrefunds.ie/budget-calculator-ireland .

My question is, how did those workers just arbitrarily decide to give this man 320 Euro? Can they do this? Who is checking this?

Edit: Sorry, it was 310. Still the points hold. That still comes to over 28k a year

K-9 · 06-04-2012 3:29am

iguana wrote: »

No but people with children and dependant spouses pay less tax than their single equivalents.

What tax you pay is irrelevant to an employer, PAYE is an employee deduction, none of their business.

DonQuay1 · 06-04-2012 7:54am

Canis Lupus wrote: »

Sounds too conspiracy theoy to me. He was on telly publicly showing he wasn't available for work. Tough luck but if them's the rules.

Agreed. You either want to work - or walk. I hope all the lads outside the central bank for months - before running home to mammys house every night for din dins and bed - were all cut in their dole too .....

conorhal · 06-04-2012 9:09am

dvpower wrote: »

You're sick of the state because they don't send social welfare officers out to tackle gangland crime?

If you were a social welfare officer, would you call around to the the McCarthys and the Dundons?

When a social welfare officer signed a letter ending his dole payments, Cahill immediately had the man shot in both legs. Here was a civil servant simply doing his job - the decision to stop the dole had been made at a higher level - but that sort of logic was lost on a thug like Martin Cahill. He didn’t take kindly to personal slights.

If what you're saying is that the law (and people on this thread seem to be real sticklers for it in the case of this man) only applies to 'the little people', well isn't that a depressing state of affairs, and surely one of the reasons why people are so justifiably angry?

If however you're suggesting that the only way to axe the tax and force the government to listen is to knee-cap Phil Hogan, well there's a suggestion that I could get behind!

fishy fishy · 06-04-2012 9:36am

toexpress wrote: »

Well on that basis they are just as screwed because it offends me that I pay a tax bill so that someone can head off and get a nice bottle of Voddie in Aldi for €10 and then behave in a way that is just not acceptable, end up in court, costing money to the state for both court time and legal aid

you tell us this NOW, on GOOD FRIDAY, try to be a bit more considerate next time and let people know about this excellent deal on a day they can purchase it. I'm sure lots of people on the dole would be very delighted to hear this. Beats Dunnes, hands down.

oh, I hope it keeps fine for you with your little business an your "I'm alright Jack" attitude. i'd say you'll get a fine round of applause from all those you insult, when it goes belly up for you.

dvpower · 06-04-2012 9:39am

conorhal wrote: »

If what you're saying is that the law (and people on this thread seem to be real sticklers for it in the case of this man) only applies to 'the little people', well isn't that a depressing state of affairs, and surely one of the reasons why people are so justifiably angry?

If however you're suggesting that the only way to axe the tax and force the government to listen is to knee-cap Phil Hogan, well there's a suggestion that I could get behind!

No. I'm suggesting that ordinary public servants shouldn't have to risk their lives to do their jobs.

You failed to answer the question I put btw.

Biggins · 06-04-2012 10:17am

Getting slightly back on track of my original post, I find it concerning that out of all the 20+ (maybe a lot more involved giving additional support) people walking on the mans protest march, only he was reportedly penalised for his involvement/action.

If we are to trust media reports, he was joined by others that was unemployed also - were they punished?
So far, there has been no word to say they have.
Who was punished? Just the organiser!

They all set out from one particular area.
I'm assuming (again, could be wrong) that at least the majority of those that joined him on this march, were from the same area and as such would be signing at the same area dole offices?
Why was he singled out then for punishment - maybe besides he being an organiser?

This is a worrying aspect for me.

Again, he did NOT do himself any favours if he didn't clear his days off previously - but if all of those on the march who didn't do similar, yet they were let off unpunished - his received punishment handed down by the state, smacks of clear victimisation against one person where all should (if equally guilty) be treated in the same respect.

fishy fishy · 06-04-2012 10:21am

I cannot understand why he would have had to clear his days. He never said he was unavailable for work. I'm sure if he was offered a job he would have headed straight back.

He was still available for work.

did he get offered/called about a job on the days he was away

if he goes to a different county to visit relatives, would that be considered "unavailable" for work.

The had no grounds to do this - unless he stated he would be unavailable.

At least let them be fair and tell everyone on the dole that they must sit at their house by the phone at all times awaiting a call for work. If they venture out at all, it mean they are unavailable and can be docked.

What nonsense.

44leto · 06-04-2012 10:22am

Its sending out a message we are getting tough on dole cheats, a zero tolerance, I am all for this, pity this is the man who was made an example of. I could certainly point towards some more suitable candidates as I am certain to say, all of us could.

Biggins · 06-04-2012 10:36am

44leto wrote: »

Its sending out a message we are getting tough on dole cheats, a zero tolerance, I am all for this, pity this is the man who was made an example of. I could certainly point towards some more suitable candidates as I am certain to say, all of us could.

Thats partly my point.
(I'm all for seeing dole cheats seeing right punishment)
If the dole office involved wanted to punish all those on the march that broke the rules (if we like them or not) then ALL should have been punished.
They were all together on the march. It wouldn't have been rocket science to send a message by being fairer (via public view) by giving all any possible rule breakers, a deduction across each one - but they didn't.
They just punished the organiser!
I'd like to know why they just picked on him in particular.
It concerns me that someone in a state department can (a) over look the rest and (b) single out a person in such a way that it might look like he's being picked on just because he was the organiser and speaking out against the present government!

If the latter is clearly the case, who's next to be singled out for speaking against the state?

44leto · 06-04-2012 10:51am

Biggins wrote: »

Thats partly my point.
(I'm all for seeing dole cheats seeing right punishment)
If the dole office involved wanted to punish all those on the march that broke the rules (if we like them or not) then ALL should have been punished.
They were all together on the march. It wouldn't have been rocket science to send a message by being fairer (via public view) by giving all any possible rule breakers, a deduction across each one - but they didn't.
They just punished the organiser!
I'd like to know why they just picked on him in particular.
It concerns me that someone in a state department can (a) over look the rest and (b) single out a person in such a way that it might look like he's being picked on just because he was the organiser and speaking out against the present government!

If the latter is clearly the case, who's next to be singled out for speaking against the state?

Simple really,,they knew his name, it was published, the others on the march were numbers but anonymous.

But all get the message.

Its like speed traps and drink driving tests your chances of getting caught are slim, there are only 14,000 guards who have to patrol all of Ireland. But catch as many as you can in opportune places and that sends out a warning to all the others to alter their behaviour. The risk isn't worth it. ETC

conorhal · 06-04-2012 10:55am

dvpower wrote: »

No. I'm suggesting that ordinary public servants shouldn't have to risk their lives to do their jobs.

You failed to answer the question I put btw.

In answer to your question, if it was my job, yes I would, backed up by the Guards of course as that would be a necessary precaution.

What I'd refuse to do is dock this man's dole payment for having the temerity to peacefully protest against the state.
The example I cited should tell you all you need to know about the attitude of the state to it’s citizens, which is pretty much ‘fvck the little guy, he’ll take it’, and because he will, we won’t have to make the hard choices to tackle the golden circles, be the political, criminal or professional. They won’t dock bankers bonuses, they wont ask where travelers on the dole get a hundred grand to spend on a wedding ir why some consultants earn half a million quid, but if the masses who’s pockets they are picking to keep their gravy train on the rails get uppity, they come down on a ton of bricks deploying tactics that a Chinese autocrat or Russian premier would be proud of.
This government REALLY don’t want the ‘little guy’ getting any ideas above his station about his betters.

Biggins · 06-04-2012 11:07am

44leto wrote: »

Simple really,,they knew his name, it was published, the others on the march were numbers but anonymous.

But all get the message.

You could be right to be fair.
Sadly however, by their singling out action, it certainly comes across to some as possible political victimisation - and the possibility of that arising is never a good thing to see.

44leto · 06-04-2012 11:16am

Biggins wrote: »

You could be right to be fair.
Sadly however, by their singling out action, it certainly comes across to some as possible political victimisation - and the possibility of that arising is never a good thing to see.

True and in truth because I worked in similar bureaucracy's a move like this seldom comes directly from the head. But from a junior petty official obeying the rules from a new policy which came down from the head to a T,with little common sense.

The gravy train has to be stopped, I know people abusing it forever, I mean they drew the dole all their lives and worked but never paid income tax or a stamp. That is their lifestyle.

Man Who Led Walking Protest Has His Dole Cut

Comments