[Farmer Pudsey]

Originally Posted by Stheno

I took your first point to be that the IMF consider the total package of benefits that one can get compared to what can earn on the minimum wage as a disincentive for people to work?

I do think child benefit needs to be means tested and so too should pensions as talked about

Originally Posted by woodoo

I consider child benefit for well off people to be low hanging fruit. The same for medical cards for well off over 70's.

The social welfare bill is costing 21 billion a year so they really do have to take a long hard look at it.

They should also cut the dole for anyone who has been on it for more than 4 years by 20%.

At what income should we start to means test CB and if we do what are the repucussions.

[Stheno]

Originally Posted by Farmer Pudsey

At what income should we start to means test CB and if we do what are the repucussions.

I would base in on the current individualised tax system. I.e. if only one parent is working then the income level would be higher than for two.

It would be relatively complex to take into account the cost of childcare to do that, so secondarily, I would propose a tax credit.

FOr one parent/seperated families I'd have a tax credit

[Dannyboy83]

Originally Posted by Scofflaw

I can see that's going to be highly popular with some people, and highly unpopular with others - in other words, politically divisive and requiring both careful analysis and courage.

Looks like David McWiliams is already stirring it:

http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/2012/0...now-were-stuck
In the public sector it works differently because when the employer — the State — goes bust, the public sector unions must move to protect their members, otherwise they wouldn’t be doing their job. It’s up to the Government — the employer — to make the choice.
With the Croke Park agreement, we have a choice of sorts.

So where does this leave us? It leaves us with one part of the population paying a much fiercer price from the recession and another part protecting themselves.
The insiders are protected and the outsiders are left to fend for themselves.

But here’s where the problem gets more tricky because the interests of the unemployed and the employed clash.

The army of unemployed people wants to get back into a job and, typically, is prepared to accept lower wages for the chance of work. So it is in their interest to see the general wage level drop. But it is not in the interest of the people still in work to see the general wage level drop because they will lose out.

[EchoO]

Originally Posted by Scofflaw

I'm not sure it's well quoted, to be honest.

Yeah, there's a big difference in saying "contributing to low exit rates from the Live Register" and "responsible for low exit rates from the Live Register". Strange choice of wording by The Irish Times.

[spud_gunner]

Originally Posted by Dannyboy83

Looks like David McWiliams is already stirring it:

jack o connor said the main reason he didnt want to see cuts to public sector pay was because it might encourage employers to cut the wages of those in the private sector or those unemployed who are seeking work

[Stheno]

Originally Posted by spud_gunner

jack o connor said the main reason he didnt want to see cuts to public sector pay was because it might encourage employers to cut the wages of those in the private sector or those unemployed who are seeking work

Given that the private sector is so much better paid???????

[n97 mini]

Originally Posted by spud_gunner

jack o connor said the main reason he didnt want to see cuts to public sector pay was because it might encourage employers to cut the wages of those in the private sector or those unemployed who are seeking work

Jack O'Connor is trying desperately to avoid a public/private split (which has already happened) as he knows his position on public sector pay is untenable without support from "wurkers" in the private sector.

[EchoO]

Originally Posted by Stheno

It's not meant to reflect that thousands of jobs are there, but if there are 10 thousand min. rate jobs and ten thousand people won't take them as they are better off unemployed, that's an issue.

It's a contributory factor (rate of SW vs min. wage, especially for those with dependants) as to why people won't take jobs, not a solution to unemployment.

Decrease total benefits compared to minimum wage, educate people about FIS and you might find far more people taking up such roles
Plenty of posts on here in the past that for a father supporting a partner and two kids, they need to earn 40k to be better off not on benefit.

In my local town, there are at least five small businesses advertising full time vacancies, say 300 towns are the same, that's 1500 jobs.

Yes, there are anomalies in the system, the chief one being families with over two children who are also claiming a housing allowance. But they only make up a relatively small number of those on the live register. The vast majority would be significantly financially better off taking a minimum wage rate job than staying on the dole. Minimum wage rate jobs only account for the around 3% of all jobs in the economy. The recovery when/if it does come will be export lead, this is not a minimum wage rate sector. So the majority of new jobs that will be created in the economy will offer wages quite a bit higher than the minimum wage

[Pride Fighter]

Nothing wrong with the social welfare rates. The social welfare bill is far too high. For every person that is taken off it, it saves about 10k in welfare and 10k in administration per year.

The solution is to create jobs that are sustainable and long term and in large numbers.

[poeticseraphim]

Originally Posted by Pride Fighter

Nothing wrong with the social welfare rates. The social welfare bill is far too high. For every person that is taken off it, it saves about 10k in welfare and 10k in administration per year.

The solution is to create jobs that are sustainable and long term and in large numbers.

How exactly though?

Thats the issue in this economy. There is no room for growth. And the people left over from emigration are those of us already paying taxes or those unemployed. Many of whom are not the type oflabour force to supply any demand for a growth sector.

Paypal was forced to import 500 workers recently because those on the live reg in Ireland don't have a second European language.

It is not enough to have the leaving cert to have a job anymore. Many need to get their head around this. You need a second language now to work in a call centre. If we are the gateway to Europe we really need to change.

Sustainable jobs in large numbers (in our country as we have little in the way of natural resources ) require higher education investment. Min wage jobs are generally more transient and not sustainable. They are usually the types of jobs to be cut first.

To be honest for years the Govt (FF days) funnelled funding into welfare and benefits instead of setting target goals for education etc which gives a return on investment ..It is CRAZY that an EU country that calls itself the gateway to europe and has free Universities has so few graduates with a second language.

In other EU countries even secondary school graduates have a second language ...it is a huge issue in the IT sector and needs to be addressed.

We need to ask ourselves...WHAT KIND of jobs are we training those on the live reg for??? Could many of them have a second language learnt within a year? THOSE are the kinds of jobs out there that Ireland has to offer and we will lose these companies if we don't meet the demand.

On another thread a situation was brought up where an official suggested to someone onthe live reg that they retrain as a software developer. This was dismissed as the officail being unrealistic. I would suggest it is the other way around....THIS IS THE REALITY...these are the jobs on offer the old economy is over

It is not necessarily the only the jobs we need to supply...but the right kind of people....we can change the people ..not necessarily the jobs...there were 500 jobs available in paypal that it could not find suitable emloyees for because they could not find people with nordic languages or people who could learn quickly or help from the Govt to fund a progarmme for learning of lanagues for that company.

The Govt needs to approach companies and find who is hiring and can't find suitable applicants (they are there) and train people for those particular jobs.

And if people on the live reg are not prepared to change ....we have bigger problems...

But the PayPal situation is being repeated all over the country and it has been said before ....companies cannot find the employees not because of the lackof people...but the lack of correct skills suited towards their business

There is little point in havinga low corp tax rate for a company who needs IT workers who speak German if we don't have IT workers who speak German....

We had better find out what is out there ..what numbers are needed and what skills and organize training accordingly.

There are jobs there is seems there is a disconnect inn the economy between the people and jobs whether it be due to unsuitable skills or the salary not meet the monetary dependancies or responsiblities of people or not meeting them as well as benefits.


Even if it meant cutting benefits for unemployed but giving something to those on lower wages through housing or child benefit for a short time.

Make it better to work.


But really it seems to me there is a disconnect between the people and the jobs that are there.

And also we have to get real about the types of jobs that will be created in future and the type of people that will be needed...it's the 21st century if you don't have a degree and a language ..get them...and EVERYONE can...the influx of workers from oher countries to fullfill those jobs proves they are there.

Our tourism industry is not exploited because of language deficiencies...we could really sell Ireland to the EU much more easily than America...

If we want to be the ageway to the Eu for America and China we need to supply the kind of people who can facilitate those jobs. In all kinds of industries. THATS where our future and potential lies...but you have totrain the people for it.

It's like the Govt is not in the 21st century.....its be a teacher or a bulider era in their heads....i hope they join us in the year 2012

[Buttonftw]

Originally Posted by Pride Fighter

Nothing wrong with the social welfare rates. The social welfare bill is far too high. For every person that is taken off it, it saves about 10k in welfare and 10k in administration per year.

The solution is to create jobs that are sustainable and long term and in large numbers.

Really?

[jank]

How about implementing a credit card system for dole payments where certain items cannot be bought with it. I.E Booze and tobacco.
If the system is automated it could save billions. That would require the unions getting on board but I suppose they are more interested in protecting mary and joes job down the dole office.

[Dave!]

How would that scheme save the state money (billions, no less) if we're giving out the same amount? Surely we'd just get less tax back from booze and cigarettes...

How much would it cost to set it up?

And what unions do we need to get on board for your plan? I don't think there are any unions for unemployed people

I think we need to flesh out the details before we implement that scheme...

[Welease]

Originally Posted by jank

How about implementing a credit card system for dole payments where certain items cannot be bought with it. I.E Booze and tobacco.
If the system is automated it could save billions. That would require the unions getting on board but I suppose they are more interested in protecting mary and joes job down the dole office.

What difference does buying booze and tobacco make?
The payment will still be €188 per week (or whatever relevant amount).

[Nody]

Originally Posted by jank

How about implementing a credit card system for dole payments where certain items cannot be bought with it. I.E Booze and tobacco.
If the system is automated it could save billions. That would require the unions getting on board but I suppose they are more interested in protecting mary and joes job down the dole office.

Beyond the issues raised above the simple fact is that the dole receipent would sell them on at a slight discount to get cash to buy it anyway.