Entitlement Culture killing the will to work in Ireland

everdead.ie wrote: »

The good news is that 61,000 extra people are in employment now then last year taking 41,400 off unemployment. (This means nay-sayers it isn't all emigration)

Also worth noting that the public sector lost 5,500 jobs so the government isn't going down the boom route of employing people instead of having them on the dole.

The most important thing is 58,000 of these jobs are full time.

So despite what a lot of people think about welfare being too high (certainly it's unsustainable for us), the Irish peoples will to work has not been completely obliterated there are still a ton of people looking for work to improve their lot in life.


Hopefully we can accelerate this growth in employment and get the double whammy of taking people off the states unemployment payments and paying income and PRSI taxes.

While you make a good point it would be worth while getting immigration figures into Ireland this year..As the people coming to this country from the likes of Poland etc have a very strong work ethic and I bet would be a good % of that figure going into full time jobs

chopper6 wrote: »

There's literally thousands of them on the dole at the moment.

That's not mutually exclusive with having a strong work ethic. Indeed it could be argued that the current SW system encourages people to be in both camps simultaneously.

creedp wrote: »

That's not mutually exclusive with having a strong work ethic. Indeed it could be argued that the current SW system encourages people to be in both camps simultaneously.

Well thats the other 20 billion dollar question the government are putting the squeeze on people getting welfare which they are not entitled to..What are they doing about the black market ecconomy

AlekSmart wrote: »

Additionally you'll most likely get a concurrent lash for tending to agree with fliball's use of the term "Dole".

I don't think I've ever seen a mod take issue with what a user means when they say dole!

lol at providing a link to a TV3 expose as proof of anything. You may as well have included a link to The Daily Mail as well.

DebDynamite wrote: »

If they have a couple of kids in college, that would suggest they're an older couple, not a young couple who might've bought a house in the boom years. So how much can their mortgage really be costing them, seeing as they live in Connaught?

Also this confuses me:



"childcare", "working people with kids"? She's a stay at home mother so what expenses is she talking about?

Also "mortages" (plural) suggests they have at least another mortgage besides their PPR. Did they try to become property magnates during the CT years?

They may well have moved house during the boom. It may have been the case that with a large family they felt that they needed to have a larger house. However they may even have a 30 year mortgage from the late 90's some of which have been hid hard by the rise in variable rate's. I am just dealing with the facts as presented. The real issue is the insanity of the way welfare/education grant scheme is structure and the way it hits those just above the income limits. I know a couple that have a hard choice to make this year as there second child will be going to 3rd level and this child ( expectation 500 points+) wants to pursue a course in Dublin and they feel they cannot afford it.

In the second I was posting about issue facing workers and working couples in general. And I was using the plural of mortgage as I was using the plural of workers at the time I think.

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

In the second I was posting about issue facing workers and working couples in general. And I was using the plural of mortgage as I was using the plural of workers at the time I think.

Apologies, I thought the bit I quoted was taken directly from the letter written to David McWilliams. It was actually DMcW saying it, not the lady who wrote the letter. I've edited my post above.

fliball123 wrote: »

I do believe they can get some type of assistance do maybe not the JA or JB

You do believe correctly Fliball123.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/social_welfare_payments/supplementary_welfare_schemes/exceptional_needs_payments.html

Exceptional Needs Payment and Urgent Needs Payment are payments under the Supplementary Welfare Allowance Scheme. You do not have to meet the habitual residence condition to qualify for either of these payments.

The actual working definition of these schemes has been tightened up in recent years,however as the preferred means of gaining initial access to the Welfare System as a whole,it has been fully utilized.

The key to the effective monitoring and protection of any such schemes,in order to ensure that those who have contributed to their operation may avail of their benefits if necessary,is in establishing a very full Identity Verification system.

This Positive ID Vetting is currently being (Slowly) rolled out via the DSFP's own Services Card,supported by parallell ID Verification systems for Driving Licence holders and Professional Drivers Qualification Card.

However,these processes are slow and remain subject to arguement and resistance from many Liberal Groupings in respect of their use for "Monitoring" the activities of "Free " people.

The issue has'nt and won't,simply go away,so it has to either be fully addressed or fully funded...OUR Choice really......;)

Idbatterim wrote: »

Can you elaborate on this please, are you implying that all self employed are creaming it off and if so, would they come under your "contributing classes" criteria?

Nope,far from it,however the ability of a self-employed person to structure their tax-affairs in a more targetted manner is one of the major benefits of being self-employed.

Some of my self-employed friends have just endured five years of absolute hell as they attempted to keep their businesses and lives together,whilst I as an employed person enjoyed a degree of protection from that insecurity.

However that does not take away from the reality that a middle income,Blue Collar PAYE employee will find it extremely difficult to qualify their children for the Grant,whilst a Self Employed/Farmer/Professional,with appropriate Accountancy advice will usually outflank the SUSI system.

One only has to see the savage rapidity of the response to Ruari Quinns floated notion of allocating a notional value to Farming Land to appreciate where the true power-base lies within the houses of An tOireachtas.

Even the manner in which SUSI effectively conceal the Actual Income limits for each given year fails to provide any great assurance of transparancy.

A P60 based "Household" income of €48,000 P.A. is enough to rule a student out straight away,an income threshold which,if persisted with,will return 3rd Level Education to being the preserve of the well-heeled & articulate rather than facilitating the childer of the great unwashed ?

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

The real issue is that those who contribute in tax cannot access educational grants. 50K/year is not a huge household income. It is approximately 1.5 tomes the average industrial wage.

On top of that it hits PAYE workers at lower levels as it is total income of the qualifying student and their parents.

Take a family with two earners on modest income of 23K/year each on the face of it you might think that these people might qualify, however if the student has a part time job earning 4K/year they are back without the grant.

This again discourages students on the grant from working in Ireland. It can lead to a easy street type of atitude by some students where they will spend the summer in the US or in a southern european country while a PAYE income earner's child with no grant on modest incomes will struggle to fund college.

The nub of the issue in a single post...well put Sir !

The SUSI criteria which uses Total HOUSEHOLD income as it's basis is incredibly unjust to the "ordinary" PAYE worker,aside from the lack of any meaningful deductions,as you suggest it immediately sets the Student on a precarious path in terms of work-ethic.

creedp wrote: »

That's not mutually exclusive with having a strong work ethic. Indeed it could be argued that the current SW system encourages people to be in both camps simultaneously.

Perhaps sometimes,it's necesssary to attempt to de-systemize the thing...:)

I came across this thread on the Biz forum that has me really bamboozled in so many ways.....

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057180826

Is this the "Entitlement" mentioned as the core issue here,or is this about Individuality,Independence and the State's obligation to provide for it's children etc....?

I suppose I'm asking if the Donegal situation can be relevant,in any way, to this thread...or is it a TOTALLY unrelated issue ?

golfwallah wrote: »

It's refreshing to see at least one Labour Councillor, Richard Humphreys, having the courage to stick his head above the parapet, calling for Welfare (and Justice) System Reform.

In his article in yesterday's Sunday Independent, among other things he says that the welfare system should always contain the incentive to work:

Given the continued impaired economic situation, that is likely to last for years to come, isn't it time for government to replace spin defending the status quo and, at least start the public debate on making welfare a ladder out of dependency rather than a trap to keep people in it?

A significant issue in "Our" system is the extent to which Benefit Payment levels were allowed to rise to....The Beastly Brits,at their best,never allowed their rates to become so significant.

golfwallah wrote: »

True.

But I prefer to focus on what is needed to make change happen. And the way I see it is to promote public debate on the issue of the welfare trap.

There are alternatives such as are being implemented in other EU states like the UK and Holland, where the system is being changed to incentivize work over welfare. Savings can be used to invest in wealth generating activities and/or to reduce our huge debt overhang.

You have to start somewhere and as politicians are generally followers rather than leaders, they will only respond to public pressure for change.

So more openness and public debate is required on key issues like social welfare costs and alternatives, to have a positive impact on the long-term economic well-being of the majority in this country.

Very valid indeed.

However,such Public Debate,in current Irish terms,doubtless centre upon the State taking away badly needed supports from the needy etc etc.

We have to remember that the Irish electorate voted continually,in great numbers,for those household political names who year after year declared in their budget speeches the intention to remove "X,000 People from the Tax-Net"....That sort of policy,if stated to a German,might have sparked a suspicious response along the lines of.."But,Herr Minister,who will then pay for all the Free-Stuff for the others ?"....We however,lapped it all up....:rolleyes:

In my own area of operation,the situation with the DSFA Free Travel Scheme is of note whereby c.748,000 persons out of an adult population of c.3,000,000 are deemed to merit Free Travel on Public Transport Nationwide,a figure to which must be added a further 300,000 Spouse-Partner/Companions,giving a total legitimate figure of c. 1.100,000 or approximately One Third of the Adult Population.

The merits or otherwise of the Free Travel Scheme are not of concern IMO,but rather whether any thought whatever has gone into any analysis of how such largesse can be realistically funded.

I guarantee that,very rapidly after a first post on such a topic,we will have a response pointing towards Bankers...... :rolleyes:

Idbatterim wrote: »

from todays independent.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/coalition-at-war-over-water-charges-30191493.html

Coalition at war over water charges

"It's the most serious disagreement to date. The thing is half-baked, they have not thought through details of key issues like metering, standing charge, ability to pay, vulnerable groups like pensioners, conservation etc. Would not survive public scrutiny if let out in current form. Fine Gael's desire to have a number out there has blinded them to lack of detail on critical issues," a senior government source said.

Here we go again "vulnerable" groups like pensioners, I take it those that he is referring to are those without any kids, probably an inheritance or two down and that most for own their own property? have free transport, most a medical card, fuel allowance, and unbelievably generous pension state pension by any standard?

Yet another clusterf**k from minister hogans department. Between himself, reilly and shatter one must wonder what it takes to get removed from your position in Irish politics. Any of the above would be long gone in most other civilised countries. That they stood behind our great leader during the infamous heave appears to be the only reasonable explanation for the fact that they are still ministers.

Heard Phil hogan on the last word a week or so ago slating the media and basically saying that he will clarify the water charges when he is good and ready and not a minute sooner. The arrogance and indifference was simply incredible.

I am very aware of the fiscal straitjacket we are wearing at the minute and think fg have done probably as good as anybody could have but arrogance and incompetence just boil my blood. The above three have no business running government departments. Time for a shake up mr. Kenny.

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

This is simplistic. Most people (as evidenced by pay rates) have been barely impacted by the recession, other than in the form of higher taxes. Many pensioners held bank shares and the like and always paid their way, but are now poorer because others are not paying their way.

Not entirely true. Low skilled workers pay has dropped substancially, a good few suffered the lost of jobs. Loads have emigrated. The old age pension is 220/week hardly enough to live high on the hog with. Those with private pension unless they had them in low risk funds were sharply hit.

Public service pensioners however have suffered only tax cuts and are still receiving pensions related to public pay rates reflective of boom period pay. The issue of PS pensions is still kicked down the road. No cap has being put on same. A max pension of 50K/year from PS would not be unfair, or even not index/inflation linking those above 50K until Inflation/index has reached taht point if it ever will.

Godge wrote: »

Not true at all.

Firstly, there is absolutely no evidence anywhere of widespread pay cuts to existing employees in the private sector at any time over the last few years.

Secondly, public service pensions have been cut at least twice while the private sector pensioners availaing of the State contributory pension (to which the vast majority of the public sector pensioners are not entitled) have seen no cuts to the State part of their pension.

Thirdly, there are many public sector pensioners with less than €220 a week from the State.

Those on lw PS pensions below 15-18K should not be touched and maybe above it as well. If you read my post I refered to those on pension of 50K and above. IMO these pension should be capped it could even start a bit lower around 35K. Any pension above 35K should not be indexed or inflation proof. All that is happening is the it is making some familiy's wealthy.

Very few PS last there jobs yes there was VL deals bot no compulsory redundancy. The same cannot be said for the private sector where some suffered the ultimate pay cut the loss of there job. More have emigrated and are working abroad coming home 2-4 time a year. I know two married men one is in Canada and the second is in middle east. It is the loss of employment across the private sector that cut wages also bonus's and benifits have been cut and lots of those starting back to work are on lower wages than before.