Minister to cut down on Dole scroungers.

Hobbes

So whats the thought on this then? Heard it on the radio they plan to chance the Dole system so prove more often you are actively looking for work (before it was twice a year).

Haven't heard the full details yet. Anyone a link?

dbnavan

I think it should be monitiored more rigoursly then twice a year IMO, if more people where caught frauding the system it would free up more money to give to people who really need it, the disabled and careers, who live on very little incomes, and have no options to work.

Zombrex

Seems like a bit of a white wash TBH

At the moment I though the only people who were claiming dole were graduates, disabled people and people who were just incapable of functioning in society

It hardly seems like this should be a high priority of the government with terminally ill people waiting days in halls in out A&E departments.

But I suppose it there is really a major problem in the dole system it should be tackled

Nevyn

The do need to look at the waiting time for back to work , retraining and back to education schemes. Currently they range from a person needing to be sogned on as unemployed for 6 mnths to a year before they can be accessed.

patzer117

I'm of the opinion that if someone isn't actively looking for work then they shouldn't get the dole. Just because it doesn't seem to be a current problem doesn't mean we shouldn't fix a loophole Wicknight.

By actively I mean they must have applied for a job at least once a month, or be attending a training or education scheme, otherwise they can (and some do) sit at home on their asses and watch television. That is a scandalous thought - us, the taxpayer, being forced to pay for people watching tv all day? No thanks. Good work to the government.

Ray777

patzer117 wrote:

I'm of the opinion that if someone isn't actively looking for work then they shouldn't get the dole.

Yes let them starve, the bastards.

Tbh, there are a lot of long-term-unemployed people out there, who, if they were forced out to work, would probably cost the economy a hell of a lot more than a mere €150 per week. Having spent time on Unemployment Assistance myself, I saw plenty of people queuing at the social welfare office, who are probably best kept out of the workforce.

I agree that the current system needs to be changed/abolished. The majority of people receiving unemployment payments do actually want to work. Unfortunately though, getting a job when you don't already have one is difficult and I can understand how easy it would be to get lured into a depressing redundant life of staying in bed until 'Des & Mel' starts. The government does need to introduce a new system, to prevent creating tomorrow's long-term-unemployed. Living on a weekly pittance is not fun. Nor is being regarded as the dregs of society, right down there with the tax-dodgers, paedophiles, junkies and lawyers. The pig-ignorant title of this thread, is a perfectly good example of the phenomenon of viewing the unemployed as being somehow 'subhuman'.

flogen

Wicknight wrote:

At the moment I though the only people who were claiming dole were graduates, disabled people and people who were just incapable of functioning in society

It hardly seems like this should be a high priority of the government with terminally ill people waiting days in halls in out A&E departments.

But I suppose it there is really a major problem in the dole system it should be tackled

I don't have the figures to hand but dole fraud is a pretty expensive problem. I personally can think of two instances that I know of where people were abusing the social welfare system.
To tighten the reigns wouldn't be a big deal anyway, it would just make it easier to catch the liars.

GuanYin

Wicknight wrote:

It hardly seems like this should be a high priority of the government with terminally ill people waiting days in halls in out A&E departments.

Right, so those on the borderline already may lose out, there will be some significant rise in malnutrition and ill health due to poverty, A&E then get more cases of knock on disease.

Clever.

patzer117

Ray777 wrote:

Yes let them starve, the bastards.

Yeah, we should let them starve... :rolleyes:

If they don't get the dole then we aren't letting them starve, the same way as I wouldn't starve - they can get work... and then get paid. Is that not what we should be encouraging people to do?

psi wrote:

Right, so those on the borderline already may lose out, there will be some significant rise in malnutrition and ill health due to poverty, A&E then get more cases of knock on disease.

That's one of the most contrived arguements i've ever heard. if people don't get the dole then they will starve and their living conditions will disimprove? it's called getting up off your ass and looking for a job. And if they find it, then they get paid MORE and can improve their dwellings and diet.

Hobbes

Ray777 wrote:

Yes let them starve, the bastards.

From what I remember of the radio show those not actively looking for work have to apply for other benefits. Yes scroungers will get nothing.

GuanYin

patzer117 wrote:

That's one of the most contrived arguements i've ever heard. if people don't get the dole then they will starve and their living conditions will disimprove? it's called getting up off your ass and looking for a job. And if they find it, then they get paid MORE and can improve their dwellings and diet.

Oh, I'm not saying the dole shouldn't be looked at. But reactionary causes like A&E doesn't actually solve anything, it merely shifts the onus of the problem.

While many scroungers exists, there are many families living on the breadline for legitimate reasons. There are many kids in families with irresponsible parents. Insufficient living standards is still a big problem in medical fields (mostly due to poor financial managment).

Its contrived yes, but its not far from the probible truth of the scenario.

Cork

The state is pouring millions of euros into Fas each year for training.

Simply handing out dole payments is no answer.

What is needed is targeting early school leavers and the unemployed for training.

Tipsy Mac

In the current budget a married man with two kids would have to be accepting a job with starting wage of 30k for it to be worth his while giving up what he's getting on the dole. There's where the problem is, nowhere else.

lostexpectation

the minister should cut the bollocks off property speculators first?

Cork

In the current budget a married man with two kids would have to be accepting a job with starting wage of 30k for it to be worth his while giving up what he's getting on the dole. There's where the problem is, nowhere else

The person who is on the dole has the ultimate choice either to take a job or remain on the dole. This is crazy. Abuses of the system while not widespead need to be stamped out.

the minister should cut the bollocks off property speculators first?

It was not too long ago when FF had the courage to introduce a limited property tax that was opposed by opposition, vested interests and sections in our media.

I cannot see the government trying the same again, which is a pity.

People prefer to tax labour than property which does nothing to relax house prices.

Victor

Of course tax evasion costs the state substantially more than welfare fraud.

More of the state's resources for pensions goes towards subsidising private pensions than goes on social welfare pensions.

Cork wrote:

The state is pouring millions of euros into Fas each year for training.

Most of what FÁS spends is spent on corporate training programmes.

Cork

Victor wrote:

Most of what FÁS spends is spent on corporate training programmes.

This should change.

Fas should target and re-train the long term unemployed.

stevenmu

I propose a simple compromise, if the dole scroungers can be cut back on, this means both less money will be payed out by the exchequer and more money in taxes will be recieved, leaving more money to go to the people who genuinely do need it and the health service too. Through work I come in contact with many FAS courses, and there are a hell of a lot of people who have no intention of finding a job, and just do the course to stay on the dole. That said, the majority genuinely do want to improve their skills and qualifications to find a job.

samb

Tipsy Mac wrote:

In the current budget a married man with two kids would have to be accepting a job with starting wage of 30k for it to be worth his while giving up what he's getting on the dole. There's where the problem is, nowhere else.

This is not right. Much of the income supplements such as child benefit are for all families. Please explain this? but i can't see it adding up.

I think many on this thread are being very unfair. Very few people are currently unemployed and those that are would nearly all like to work. It must be very sad to be long-term unemployed. I think we should pity and help these people, not make thier problems worse.

It is the same uncaring attitude people have towards drug addicts. It is not a nice thing to be, they need help, not a slagging.

Zombrex

psi wrote:

Right, so those on the borderline already may lose out, there will be some significant rise in malnutrition and ill health due to poverty, A&E then get more cases of knock on disease.

Clever.

I am not quite sure you are following my point.

I am saying that the government fixating on areas where we don't actually have that big a problem, such as dole fraud, at the expense of really seriously problems such as the health care system, is just a white wash by the government.

I really don't give a crap if there exists a loop hole in the dole system where the 2%, the chronically unemployable people, in the country can live off the dole for 6 months each time till they have to look for work again. We have far far more serious problems to be turning attention to

The government always do this, if it isn't fixing a none existant problem with the Dole system it is fixing a largely non-existant problem with the citizenship laws, or introducing a transport plan that will solve all our transport problems in 20 years.

I just wish they would fix the real problems first.

GuanYin

Wicknight wrote:

I am not quite sure you are following my point.

I am saying that the government fixating on areas where we don't actually have that big a problem, such as dole fraud, at the expense of really seriously problems such as the health care system, is just a white wash by the government.

I really don't give a crap if there exists a loop hole in the dole system where the 2%, the chronically unemployable people, in the country can live off the dole for 6 months each time till they have to look for work again. We have far far more serious problems to be turning attention to

The government always do this, if it isn't fixing a none existant problem with the Dole system it is fixing a largely non-existant problem with the citizenship laws, or introducing a transport plan that will solve all our transport problems in 20 years.

I just wish they would fix the real problems first.

Ah right, I took your post to suggest abolish dole in favour of pumping money into A&E.

I may have been tired (or drunk).

rsynnott

Surely this will cost more than it will recover?

samb

I am no expert economist so if any of you guys are perhaps you might debate the validity of the following point I heard being made by an economist a while ago.
Social welfare recepients (unfortunate people, or scroungers?) tend to invest, save, or travel much less, if at all. Most of the money they recieve is spent very quickly and re-enters the economy. They are therefore mearly subsisting off the economy, not contributing, but not scrounging. (We are talking about the long term unemployed here).

It makes sense to me but as I said it may be dubious. Savers and overseas property investers are the real threat to the economy, although saving now may make our current growth more sustainable.

Executive Steve

rsynnott wrote:

Surely this will cost more than it will recover?

its not an issue of ECONOMICS at all... being "tough on poor people who are all probably drunken criminals anyway" is a big vote winner, regardless of whether the actual measures benefit society as a whole....



lets face it, the sections of the upper middle classes who can afford a decent accountant are probably keeping far far far more money from the state than the 5% of irish nationals in the workforce who are getting €165 a week are getting from it to be honest.... but who turns up to vote???

being nasty to poor people is very trendy all of a sudden... go to after hours and check out the amount of "scumbag" bashing threads... - if you can effectively dehumanise the poor and make it look like they're like that by virtue of their subhumanity then you don't have to feel guilty about living in a society where they exist.

stevenmu

samb wrote:

Most of the money they recieve is spent very quickly and re-enters the economy. They are therefore mearly subsisting off the economy, not contributing, but not scrounging. (We are talking about the long term unemployed here).

That makes sense to me, except that in the case of people who are "subsisting off the economy" when they actually could be contributing, then that is scrounging. Obviously some people aren't in a position to enter the workforce or do genuinely try but can't, which is different.

[quote=[cm]tyranny]lets face it, the sections of the upper middle classes who can afford a decent accountant are probably keeping far far far more money from the state than the 5% of irish nationals in the workforce who are getting €165 a week are getting from it to be honest....[/quote]I do agree they should be contributing more through taxes, but from an economic point of view (particularly in relation to 'trickle down' economics), they do contribute hugely to the economy in other ways. These people are generally business leaders, providing jobs for huge sections of the community, and they drive economic growth. Sure they do it mainly for their own benefit, but it benefits the rest of us too. Similarly they spend much more money than most of us, again providing employment and driving economic growth. Without the higher classes, there wouldn't be the jobs for the middle/lower classes, and there wouldn't be the excess in the economy to support the unemployed.

Boggle

Most of the money they recieve is spent very quickly and re-enters the economy. They are therefore mearly subsisting off the economy, not contributing, but not scrounging. (We are talking about the long term unemployed here).

Correct me if I'm wrong but instead of them earning their own way we are paying for it... Fair enough much of it comes directly in taxes but it's still scrounging when the unemployment comes out of lazyness... or preferring work in the black market.

Victor

stevenmu wrote:

Without the higher classes, there wouldn't be the jobs for the middle/lower classes, and there wouldn't be the excess in the economy to support the unemployed.

Cuts both ways. Without employees, there would be no employers.

Boggle wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong but instead of them earning their own way we are paying for it... Fair enough much of it comes directly in taxes but it's still scrounging when the unemployment comes out of lazyness... or preferring work in the black market.

Actually, the black market is typicly good for an economy, the problem arises when it impacts excessively on tax revenues or general law & order.

Stabshauptmann

Wicknight wrote:

I am not quite sure you are following my point.

I am saying that the government fixating on areas where we don't actually have that big a problem, such as dole fraud, at the expense of really seriously problems such as the health care system, is just a white wash by the government.

I really don't give a crap if there exists a loop hole in the dole system where the 2%, the chronically unemployable people, in the country can live off the dole for 6 months each time till they have to look for work again. We have far far more serious problems to be turning attention to

The government always do this, if it isn't fixing a none existant problem with the Dole system it is fixing a largely non-existant problem with the citizenship laws, or introducing a transport plan that will solve all our transport problems in 20 years.

I just wish they would fix the real problems first.

The government may have higher priorities, but the Department of Social and Family Affairs may not.

See the difference?

Stabshauptmann

stevenmu wrote:

I do agree they should be contributing more through taxes, but from an economic point of view (particularly in relation to 'trickle down' economics), they do contribute hugely to the economy in other ways. These people are generally business leaders, providing jobs for huge sections of the community, and they drive economic growth. Sure they do it mainly for their own benefit, but it benefits the rest of us too. Similarly they spend much more money than most of us, again providing employment and driving economic growth. Without the higher classes, there wouldn't be the jobs for the middle/lower classes, and there wouldn't be the excess in the economy to support the unemployed.

In my lectures opinion, the trickle down effect is a myth perpetuated by lobby groups. Sure it exists but is blown well out of proportion. With deminishing marginal propensity (to consume or save). I think there was an example where the trickle down effect became meaningles after the 5th transaction, but that was last year and I drink too much. Well, more than I should, but less than Id like

Victor

rsynnott wrote:

Surely this will cost more than it will recover?

It's called "corporate welfare" and "middle-class welfare".