Reduce unemployment benefit

Sage'sMama

Sage'sMama wrote: »

This is a great idea,i haven't heard of this before.Imagine all the money we'd save.We could invest it in banks who in turn could invest it in overseas property and devolpers.We could even get the goverment to control the finances.

The people on the dole should be then made to paint the cliffs of moher and when they are finished jump.

you're a talking tabloid newspaper.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

ok, any age with no kids = 150euro plus rent allowance?

well there are lots of flaws in your argument. Unfortunately it's not just you that is paying for people's unemployment benefit, in alot of cases nowadays the unemployed person has worked hard for many years and paid their taxes themselves and earned their stamps in order to be entitled to social welfare allowance if they lose their jobs in unfortunate circumstances. I 100% agree that long term unemployed should have their allowances reduced, definitely, but for people who have lost their jobs because of the recession, it's unfair to make them suffer further.

I bought my first house at 22 was married and had no children and at that stage I had been working and paying tax for 8 years, had I been made redundant I don't think it would have been fair to say - oh - no job - move out of your house so and you can feck off if you think that tax you paid was worth anything!

That's all, I just think people need to realise that there are alot of people on the dole who really would rather not be - who would love to be out working - but at this moment in time are finding that even supermarkets won't employ them.

I have never been on the dole by the way and hopefully will never have to be.

Novella

Damn right it should be reduced! No one deserves that amount of money for doing sweet **** all. The only people who don't agree with this are the one's claiming it. I think it's fair enough if you've just been made redundant or whatever but for those who've never worked, those people should get zilch! Oh, and if you have kids, that is your problem. I'm sorry but if you couldn't afford them, you shouldn't have had them.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

well there are lots of flaws in your argument. Unfortunately it's not just you that is paying for people's unemployment benefit, in alot of cases nowadays the unemployed person has worked hard for many years and paid their taxes themselves and earned their stamps in order to be entitled to social welfare allowance if they lose their jobs in unfortunate circumstances. I 100% agree that long term unemployed should have their allowances reduced, definitely, but for people who have lost their jobs because of the recession, it's unfair to make them suffer further.

I bought my first house at 22 was married and had no children and at that stage I had been working and paying tax for 8 years, had I been made redundant I don't think it would have been fair to say - oh - no job - move out of your house so and you can feck off if you think that tax you paid was worth anything!

That's all, I just think people need to realise that there are alot of people on the dole who really would rather not be - who would love to be out working - but at this moment in time are finding that even supermarkets won't employ them.

I have never been on the dole by the way and hopefully will never have to be.

i can see your point yes.. but our country's finances are fuked.

i refuse to accept that just because someone has signed into a mortgage, they are entitled to more welfare.. the house is collateral for the mortgage, not my income tax. if the person can't afford their house because of redundancy, that's the risk associated with signing into it in the first place?

My name is URL

Novella wrote: »

Oh, and if you have kids, that is your problem. I'm sorry but if you couldn't afford them, you shouldn't have had them.

That's BS, people breed, people support their young. If State provision of means to support children is taken away it will invariably mean that crime increases as a result.

Upward Spiral

Upward Spiral wrote: »

That's BS, people breed, people support their young.

you said it yourself really..


like in fairness, i don't enjoy supporting the spawn of some pyjammy mammy knacker.. our social welfare system means that it isn't even a financial disaster to have a kid at 16.
it should be a financial disaster.. it should cripple you.

littletiger

Deleted User wrote: »

That's all, I just think people need to realise that there are alot of people on the dole who really would rather not be - who would love to be out working - but at this moment in time are finding that even supermarkets won't employ them.

I have never been on the dole by the way and hopefully will never have to be.

BTW I would probably have a s**te attack if I lost my job. My stomach is sinking just thinking about it. However, my original statement stands

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

i can see your point yes.. but our country's finances are fuked.

i refuse to accept that just because someone has signed into a mortgage, they are entitled to more welfare.. the house is collateral for the mortgage, not my income tax. if the person can't afford their house because of redundancy, that's the risk associated with signing into it in the first place?

yes but the point I'm making is they have paid their taxes too. And I didn't mean to imply that I think you should get more because you have a mortgage just that you shouldn't have to lose your house because the banks have fúcked our country up. Anyway, tis too late on a school night to be arguing, so sorry if you think that's what I'm at

My name is URL

Deleted User wrote: »

you said it yourself really..


like in fairness, i don't enjoy supporting the spawn of some pyjammy mammy knacker.. our social welfare system means that it isn't even a financial disaster to have a kid at 16.
it should be a financial disaster.. it should cripple you.

It should have nothing to do with finance.

The only reason it is is because we created a world where only the more well-off can or are expected to survive.

If this was an uncivilized world the tables would soon turn on what wealth even means. We are 'civilized' thankfully, and need to support that idea.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

yes but the point I'm making is they have paid their taxes too. And I didn't mean to imply that I think you should get more because you have a mortgage just that you shouldn't have to lose your house because the banks have fúcked our country up. Anyway, tis too late on a school night to be arguing, so sorry if you think that's what I'm at

well our taxes don't just goto welfare either.. and you're right, it is too late. this argument has been had and will be had many more times on boards without any agreed upon solution..

Upward Spiral wrote: »

It should have nothing to do with finance.

The only reason it is is because we created a world where only the more well-off can or are expected to survive.

If this was an uncivilized world the tables would soon turn on what wealth even means. We are 'civilized' thankfully, and need to support that idea.

ah now, is a topic about unemployment benefit really the place for a discussion on capitalism..

having a kid is a big financial undertaking.. way too many people have too many kids because this financial burden is carried by the tax-payer.

irish_bob

professore wrote: »

Well if I lost my house i would be in robbing yours ... and since you follow a neocon republican social model, there would be no cops to catch me

since i follow a neo con model , i would keep a gun in my house , you might meet him some day

seanybiker

ntlbell wrote: »

without the bull**** of AH?

hey after hours isnt bullsh1t.

Some people tut tut.

deepriver

having a kid is a big financial undertaking.. way too many people have too many kids because this financial burden is carried by the tax-payer.



welfare kids should be made dig the tunnels to the airport

easyeason3

I could afford to have social welfare cut by a maximum of €10. Anymore than that & I don't think I would manage financially. As it is things are extremely tight money wise.

But I agree that a reduction should be at least considered if not implemented straight away. I know one of my friends would be better off signing on because of the pay cut she had to take as well as reduced hours. So it don't think it's fair on people like her who are still working, paying taxes & being crippled by pay cuts.

Also I'd like to see a massive clamp down on single mothers having a house paid for by the state all to themselves. One woman who lives a street away from me has one child & has a four bedroom house being paid for at the moment. That in my opinion is an absolute disgrace. And it's not an isolated case either. Most single mothers who have a house provided for them have at the minimum a three bedroom house when there is only an adult & child living in it.

I'm not targetting single mothers here at all, it's just an example that popped into my head. I know they have to live somewhere too.

deepriver

it never ceases to amaze me how pubs in some lower socio-economic areas are rammed at lunch time, me thinks the welfare is mispent - replace 50% of welfare with food stamps for the same value...that would knock daytime drinking on the head...

... those same pubs always have a bookies 2 doors down... I have no illusions as to where most of welfare payments go

professore

easyeason3 wrote: »

Most single mothers who have a house provided for them have at the minimum a three bedroom house when there is only an adult & child living in it.

This is simply not true. Most unemployed single mothers I know have pretty poor cramped accommodation (not that I know many, but I know a few).

It never ceases to amaze me how people attack the vulnerable in society yet are delighted to support the government giving away their taxes to banks and property developers. Wake up !!!! :mad: You're only 2 paydays away from them yourselves !!!!

professore

professore wrote: »

This is simply not true. Most unemployed single mothers I know have pretty poor cramped accommodation (not that I know many, but I know a few).

It never ceases to amaze me how people attack the vulnerable in society yet are delighted to support the government giving away their taxes to banks and property developers. Wake up !!!! :mad: You're only 2 paydays away from them yourselves !!!!

show me one single post on the whole of boards that shows support for the government giving away their taxes to banks and property developers?

deepriver

professore wrote: »

This is simply not true. Most unemployed single mothers I know have pretty poor cramped accommodation (not that I know many, but I know a few).

i bet you try and tap them up.. get off that PC horse

easyeason3

professore wrote: »

This is simply not true. Most unemployed single mothers I know have pretty poor cramped accommodation (not that I know many, but I know a few).

It never ceases to amaze me how people attack the vulnerable in society yet are delighted to support the government giving away their taxes to banks and property developers. Wake up !!!! :mad:

No, I'm not attacking them but I'm pointing out an obvious waste of money.
Jesus I'm not saying that they shouldn't get help but you have to agree that one adult & one child in a four bedroom house is excessive?
I happen to know a good few single mothers & none of them are unfortunate to live in cramped conditions.
One lady was due to get married in two months time & has called off the wedding because ' I wouldn't get as many benefits ', her words not mine.

ShooterSF

deepriver wrote: »

it never ceases to amaze me how pubs in some lower socio-economic areas are rammed at lunch time, me thinks the welfare is mispent - replace 50% of welfare with food stamps for the same value...that would knock daytime drinking on the head...

... those same pubs always have a bookies 2 doors down... I have no illusions as to where most of welfare payments go

Ah yes the old "People on the dole are lazy drunk gamblers". Excellent.

deepriver

deepriver wrote: »

it never ceases to amaze me how pubs in some lower socio-economic areas are rammed at lunch time, me thinks the welfare is mispent - replace 50% of welfare with food stamps for the same value...that would knock daytime drinking on the head...

... those same pubs always have a bookies 2 doors down... I have no illusions as to where most of welfare payments go

true true..


sure when i was on dole last summer, and i've said this alot on boards, my 197euro was spent as follows..

80 rent and bills,
40 food
80 drink/nights out

if i had been gettin rent allowance aswell, it would have been ridiculous. that's how dole money is spent by the majority so the basic payment should be dropped and extra allowances made to bring up the payments for people who actually deserve it.

i didn't deserve 197euro plus rent allowance if i had went for it.. neither do all the boy-racers, alcoholics and gamblers that make up a massive proportion of the dole.

so yea, if we could lower the basic to 150.. or at least a falling scale with extra allowances for mortgages etc. i think we'd be better off. except for the bookies and publicans of course who'd lose their clientele

deepriver

ShooterSF wrote: »

Ah yes the old "People on the dole are lazy drunk gamblers". Excellent.

no I would say the opposite, they show amazing mental agility doodling over bookie odds and great tenacity in long recreational drinking sessions during work hours that would send a normal man to the edge of sanity

ronbyrne2005

How much does a single person need to just survive for a week? I could live on less than a hundred excluding rent that this rental supplement thing would cover.
For lots of uneducated or low skilled people in poorer areas the dole is a no brainer as they havent the skills,education or drive to earn more than the dole would provided them with.
A single mother gets dole for herself, accomodation paid for, money for every sprog, free medical care, all sorts of back to work and back to college schemes etc etc. She doesnt have to provide evidence of father of child so state can get money back from him. In most of the world this type of lifestyle could only be dreamed of!!! DNA tests for all the sprogs of single mother claimants. Compulsoray activities to stop them sitting round smoking and watching Jeremy Kyle all day. I've had enough of the welfare spongers who spend their whole life living on the backs of hard working people.

ShooterSF

Deleted User wrote: »

so yea, if we could lower the basic to 150.. or at least a falling scale with extra allowances for mortgages etc. i think we'd be better off. except for the bookies and publicans of course who'd lose their clientele

Wait... were you not against giving more to those with a mortgage? (I might be mixing ya up)

Joey the lips

I have not the strength to argue this but just ti say if saint vincent de paul feel it should not be reduced I support them

For the record thank god I dont draw the dole and for you who voted for the cut I would ask you to consider your circumatances carefully as you might not be far away from it yourselves..... Bear 2 things in mind. The first stange is based on your stamps so I imagine you have earned the right to claim. The second stage is about a means test. If you qualify and are in receipt of it. I apologise for the insensitive nature of this subject

deepriver

Deleted User wrote: »

true true..


sure when i was on dole last summer, and i've said this alot on boards, my 197euro was spent as follows..

80 rent and bills,
40 food
80 drink/nights out

if i had been gettin rent allowance aswell, it would have been ridiculous. that's how dole money is spent by the majority so the basic payment should be dropped and extra allowances made to bring up the payments for people who actually deserve it.

i didn't deserve 197euro plus rent allowance if i had went for it.. neither do all the boy-racers, alcoholics and gamblers that make up a massive proportion of the dole.

so yea, if we could lower the basic to 150.. or at least a falling scale with extra allowances for mortgages etc. i think we'd be better off. except for the bookies and publicans of course who'd lose their clientele

i would agree with that, I spent 1 year on the dole and used to pay a mortgage while the rest let me lead a fairly active social life... 200 euro in most dveloping countries would be considered a decent salary

ShooterSF

ShooterSF wrote: »

Wait... were you not against giving more to those with a mortgage? (I might be mixing ya up)

i was trying to compromise.. my new stance is as follows.

Person A: single with no kids: 150 euro

Person B: married with mortgage: 205 euro


thoughts?

ShooterSF

Deleted User wrote: »

i was trying to compromise.. my new stance is as follows.

Person A: single with no kids: 150 euro

Person B: married with mortgage: 205 euro


thoughts?

Hmmm I'd prefer the old way myself Kids allowance is a seperate issue and if you're eligible for it that's fine, no extra. If ya have a mortgage maybe a set 3 month assist to help sell it if you can't afford it anymore. After that a rent allowance based on the average for basic living standards.

If anything lower allowance and leave benefit.

??

easyeason3

Deleted User wrote: »

i was trying to compromise.. my new stance is as follows.

Person A: single with no kids: 150 euro

Person B: married with mortgage: 205 euro


thoughts?

I would agree with that except for one thing. I currently have a car loan (trying to sell but no buyers), a personal loan & rent. I'm not including food in that because I basically live on pasta & rice which Lidl sell really cheap.
Now I know the loans are my responsibilty but without the €204 a week I get I'd probably have the baliffs at the door.
So car loan is €80, personal loan is €20 & rent is €50. So that leaves me with €54 a week to try & squirrel away money for electricity etc.
As it is I can't afford to go to the doctor & I need to get a check up done but I'm putting it on the long finger because I'm too embarrassed by my financial situation.
I would gladly live on €150 a week if I didn't have the above responsibilites but at the moment it's not an option for me.

ShooterSF

easyeason3 wrote: »

I would agree with that except for one thing. I currently have a car loan (trying to sell but no buyers), a personal loan & rent. I'm not including food in that because I basically live on pasta & rice which Lidl sell really cheap.
Now I know the loans are my responsibilty but without the €204 a week I get I'd probably have the baliffs at the door.
So car loan is €80, personal loan is €20 & rent is €50. So that leaves me with €54 a week to try & squirrel away money for electricity etc.
As it is I can't afford to go to the doctor & I need to get a check up done but I'm putting it on the long finger because I'm too embarrassed by my financial situation.
I would gladly live on €150 a week if I didn't have the above responsibilites but at the moment it's not an option for me.

Not to be rude but medical card?