Dole

googlehead

i myself am on the Dole at the moment after being laid of my work several months ago.there is alot of chat about cutting the dole, some people saying the dole should be cut and others saying it shouldn't as alot of people like myself who have always worked are now suffering the effects of a recession and should get help at this time.i don't think it should be cut at this time. but I think in the next 2-3 years when hopefully this recession and there is alot more jobs(hopefully) that the govenment should seriously take a look at cutting the dole ,also i think people on the dole for over 2-3 years, should be made to do a course and find employment.

ciano6

God help you if you honestly think there will be alot more jobs in 2-3 years. Alot more than what? There are 100,000s of jobs going to be lost by all forecasts in the next 18months. And then you think that there will be 2 or 300,000 jobs created just to bring it back to this terrible level? Maybe 20 years. Maybe:(

googlehead

ciano6 wrote: »

God help you if you honestly think there will be alot more jobs in 2-3 years. Alot more than what? There are 100,000s of jobs going to be lost by all forecasts in the next 18months. And then you think that there will be 2 or 300,000 jobs created just to bring it back to this terrible level? Maybe 20 years. Maybe:(

yeah your probably right, but i hope we can get back some normality, which then i hope they will look at the dole issue.

Daithinski

googlehead wrote: »

some people saying the dole should be cut and others saying it shouldn't

The dole is being sneakily cut on a piecemeal basis, in the usual stealthy tax-ish manner, for house owners and families that are on the dole.

ie The reduction in mortgage allowance and the reduction in childare

These measures might as well have been a cut in social welfare because they equate to less money every month for those on welfare.

These measures penalise house owners with families.

If you have no kids and are renting a house you are now better off (relatively speaking) than a good portion of your fellow dole-ees.

murphaph

googlehead wrote: »

yeah your probably right, but i hope we can get back some normality, which then i hope they will look at the dole issue.

I'm sorry that you're out of work at the moment but we can't really afford to wait before dole is cut. The country needs to baance its books and at present we are spending 54 million a DAY more than we are getting in taxes.

Tech3

murphaph wrote: »

I'm sorry that you're out of work at the moment but we can't really afford to wait before dole is cut. The country needs to baance its books and at present we are spending 54 million a DAY more than we are getting in taxes.

I agree expenditure really needs to be cut down in line with the loss in income tax, VAT etc...

cavedave

tech2

I agree expenditure really needs to be cut down in line with the loss in income tax, VAT etc...

The number unemployed has doubled in the last year. So from roughly 5% it looks like its going to rise to over 15%. If we cut the dole the 10% of people who paid toward it and genuinely cannot find jobs wont receive as much as those people who were unemployed at a time of full employment. Not that that means it cannot be cut. I just think its worth noting that if you cut the dole now the majority of those hit will be people who did work when it was available and paid PRSI at the time.

Small Change

Daithinski wrote: »

If you have no kids and are renting a house you are now better off (relatively speaking) than a good portion of your fellow dole-ees.

This is not necessarily a bad thing. The same would hold true for people with jobs also

googlehead

murphaph wrote: »

I'm sorry that you're out of work at the moment but we can't really afford to wait before dole is cut. The country needs to baance its books and at present we are spending 54 million a DAY more than we are getting in taxes.

your probably right, but to lower the dole it might leave a bigger mess for alot
of people, me for example i have mortgage and if it is lowered anymore, i will 100% lose my house, if i lose my house i will leave ireland for good.

dresden8

googlehead wrote: »

your probably right, but to lower the dole it might leave a bigger mess for alot
of people, me for example i have mortgage and if it is lowered anymore, i will 100% lose my house, if i lose my house i will leave ireland for good.

That's very much the point. You are not a citizen any more, you are an economic unit.

As of now, you are a useless economic unit. IBEC, ISME and the government would be very happy if you fncked off out of the place.

Tech3

cavedave wrote: »

The number unemployed has doubled in the last year. So from roughly 5% it looks like its going to rise to over 15%. If we cut the dole the 10% of people who paid toward it and genuinely cannot find jobs wont receive as much as those people who were unemployed at a time of full employment. Not that that means it cannot be cut. I just think its worth noting that if you cut the dole now the majority of those hit will be people who did work when it was available and paid PRSI at the time.

That was the governments problem that the unemployed during the celtic tiger were receiving the dole. If it was another country these people would have been made to work. 204 euro a week encouraged those to stay on the dole as it was comfortable enough income to live on.

The weekly dole payment of 204 EURO is not sustainable. It has to be means tested for people on mortgages at the high rate with a single person with no dependents at the lowest. Other areas in the public sector need to be cut with more increased taxes in the next few months.

thebman

To be fair if you were paying your PRSI, then you have paid into this system so until your PRSI payments run out you should receive that amount as you have paid into the system for that long.

I think the government should really cut it for those who have been unemployed for two years or more. They should take the biggest hit.

I'm not against cutting it for everyone, I know it is necessary and will have to come. It should be line with the drop in cost of living though. It has to be really as those people are trying to get work and are productive members of society if given the opportunity.

The government will most likely not do any kind of appropriate or fair cut IMO. They see the dole as a vote buying exercise.

hallelujajordan

murphaph wrote: »

I'm sorry that you're out of work at the moment but we can't really afford to wait before dole is cut. The country needs to baance its books and at present we are spending 54 million a DAY more than we are getting in taxes.

They say that the measure of a society is how it treats its most vulnerable. . .

"I'm sorry that you are out of work, but we really cannot afford to keep you . . I am truly sorry that your children are hungry but we have books to balance and did you know that we are spending 54 Million a day more than we are getting in taxes"

How we take care of our most vulnerable should not be determined by the accountants but rather should be driven by need . . a fair system should honour PRSI payments (after all, the I stands for Insurance) . . a fair system should also insist that those drawing the dole make every effort to find work and reduce payments for those who are not bothered contributing to society.

aare

Daithinski wrote: »

.
If you have no kids and are renting a house you are now better off (relatively speaking) than a good portion of your fellow dole-ees.

Err...no...there were "stealth cuts" to rent allowances too...€6 per week cut since October, further €5 per week cut now, and 8% to be cut from all rent allowances regardless of rent being paid.

cavedave

tech2

The weekly dole payment of 204 EURO is not sustainable. It has to be means tested for people on mortgages at the high rate with a single person with no dependents at the lowest. Other areas in the public sector need to be cut with more increased taxes in the next few months.

There is the danger of a moral hazard there. A sensible person who decided that buying a house was a bad idea and that they should wait till they were more financially stable to have children would be punished. Whereas someone who overextended themselves and bought a house wouldn't. Not that i have a better solution.

irish_bob

hallelujajordan wrote: »

They say that the measure of a society is how it treats its most vulnerable. . .

"I'm sorry that you are out of work, but we really cannot afford to keep you . . I am truly sorry that your children are hungry but we have books to balance and did you know that we are spending 54 Million a day more than we are getting in taxes"

How we take care of our most vulnerable should not be determined by the accountants but rather should be driven by need . . a fair system should honour PRSI payments (after all, the I stands for Insurance) . . a fair system should also insist that those drawing the dole make every effort to find work and reduce payments for those who are not bothered contributing to society.

the term MOST VULNERABLE seems to have been so over used , its lost all meaning in this country , retired doctors and gardas inspectors who just happend to be over 70 found themselves in that category last november

mikemac

tech2 wrote: »

The weekly dole payment of 204 EURO is not sustainable. It has to be means tested for people on mortgages at the high rate with a single person with no dependents at the lowest. Other areas in the public sector need to be cut with more increased taxes in the next few months.

The single person could have made contributions for years but suddenly they are now entitled to less?

The person without a mortgage and prudently saved their money gets less then the person who took out a mortgage and probably overextended themselves?

Can't agree with that.

Tech3

mikemac wrote: »

The single person could have made contributions for years but suddenly they are now entitled to less?

The person without a mortgage and prudently saved their money gets less then the person who took out a mortgage and probably overextended themselves?

Can't agree with that.

The structure of the way its paid out needs to be examined.

So what will the person with a mortgage do when he/she/they realise that they will have less social welfare for the week. There will be more people losing their homes.

I honestly cant see any other way of implementing the change in payment structures. Its not fair but something has to change in the amount of expenditure being lost in dole payment.

mikemac

I agree it probably does need to be cut though I don't know exactly how much and I wouldn't like to be the one making that decision.

A family should get more welfare provision then a single person definitly.

But a single person with a mortgage or a single person renting should be getting the same unemployment benefit/allowance rate.
No way should someone with a mortgage be getting more, they can apply for that mortgage supplement scheme if they want though that's another thing that may be cut.
Most people never knew that scheme existed this time last year

Save your money and get less help then the person who cannot pay their overpriced mortgage, just ain't right

aare

mikemac wrote: »

But a single person with a mortgage or a single person renting should be getting the same unemployment benefit/allowance rate.

Where is this idea coming from? They DO get the exact same rate...

A person renting can apply for rent supplement, a person with a mortgage can apply for mortgage interest supplement.

As a matter of fact, stealth cuts were made through the rent supplement scheme with no equal cuts being made through the mortgage interest supplement scheme (AFAIK, if there were, apologies)...

Also, while you are means tested on any savings and investments, you are not means tested on the value of your home.

So that, technically, a person with a mortgage could be considered to be paid more than a person who saved their money and is renting.

mikemac

True enough, I was referring to the thread title

Daithinski

aare wrote: »

Err...no...there were "stealth cuts" to rent allowances too...€6 per week cut since October, further €5 per week cut now, and 8% to be cut from all rent allowances regardless of rent being paid.

I stand corrected!:)

jenzz

Is the solution not simply cut WASTE ! Dont cripple the old/ kiddies/poor /unemployed/mortgage payer etc etc or tax the teachers or put a levy on anything that moves now. Yes limit expenditure to a certain degree but cut out the waste.

I am not interested in politics. I dont understand economics. Im no expert at all. But the waste this government creates. ie lightbulb sagas , voting machine etc is sinful.

I havent a bean, im heading for the dole queue like a lot of others shortly, we're down to one income since last year & the 1st thing we did was cut WASTE. So what - Its as simple as reheating the left overs just on a bigger scale.

& why in Gods name was valuable money spent on election posters when there are people trying to simply survive out there. Forget about cutting the kiddies allowance or the fuel or the butter vouchers - cut the squander !

Daithinski

cavedave wrote: »

There is the danger of a moral hazard there. A sensible person who decided that buying a house was a bad idea and that they should wait till they were more financially stable to have children would be punished. Whereas someone who overextended themselves and bought a house wouldn't. Not that i have a better solution.

But for all intents and purposes people were financially stable. Or so they thought. Until the economy that FF told us was fine and sound etc came crashing around their ears.

The consensus (wrong of course) of the vast majority of people in this country was that we were in a great economy, buying a house was a fabulous investment, and there was always a fear that you had to get onto the property ladder asap or you may never get the chance.

There were very few "sensible" people who decided not to buy a house in the last 6-7 years, because they "knew" a severe property crash was coming.

There were plenty who could not afford to, or did not want to.

It wouldn't surprise me if a good portion of which, are probably claiming now that they knew property was a bad buy, and that's the reason why they didn't buy.

The whole "oh lets punish the foolish who had kids and bought houses when they weren't financially stable" is a load of cobblers and doesn't make sense when you really think about. It sounds like it does/should, but it actually doesn't.

We are after getting a severe walloping from our incompetent government and the global economy. People don't factor in a 1 in a 100 hundred years perfect economic storm when making life choices such as having kids or buying houses.

If people were to base their decisions on such things, (basically living their lives in fear of disaster) what would happen?

I'd imagine, there would be feck all people choosing to have kids and nobody buying houses.

cavedave

I'd imagine, there would be feck all kids and nobody buying houses.

Well the kids thing is weird. Making children homeless and hungry because their father thought property was a good buy and their job was stable is not what anyone wants to do.

However when I look at a situation described and analysed here where someone is better off not working it makes me think the incentive structure is wrong.

If people were to base their decisions on such things, (basically living their lives in fear of disaster) what would happen?

I don't think believing property prices will not go up forever is or was being overly paranoid.

Daithinski

cavedave wrote: »

However when I look at a situation described and analysed here where someone is better off not working it makes me think the incentive structure is wrong.

I think yer man was a bit of a spoofer and was being a but frugal with the truth. There was another post that pretty much proved that.

cavedave wrote: »

I don't think believing property prices will not go up forever is or was being overly paranoid.

Thats not what I meant, the vast majority of people knew property that prices would not keep "going up forever".

What they didn't know, was they wouldn't be able to pay their mortgage (because they lost their job).

House prices going down or up in not the problem, the problem is people not being able to afford to pay back their mortgage with no income.

Say house prices hadn't fallen and everybody who lost their job sold their house and managed to pay off the bank fully.

They now have no house.

Now the government has to provide them with accommodation.

Stick them in a council house ?

The government would not have enough council houses. So they would have to either buy houses or rent houses.

Either way the government will be paying for accommodation of some sort whether it be, home owners mortgage, the mortgage of a landlord, or their own mortgage (taken out to buy houses).

The government is saving money with the mortgage interest scheme.
Some people would have small mortgages, it would cost more to pay for private accommodation for them.

cavedave

The government is saving money with the mortgage interest scheme.
Some people would have small mortgages, it would cost more to pay for private accommodation for them.

They are. There is no way in the current environment it would be socially economically or politically doable to stop paying peoples interest on reasonable sized/costing homes.

Now the government has to provide them with accommodation.

I would not guarantee the government will forever be able to pay this cost. Eventually at some % unemployment the government would just say something like "were setting up soup kitchens and all other social welfare payments are canceled". Thankfully were are not at that stage and its very unlikely we will ever be.

hallelujajordan

irish_bob wrote: »

the term MOST VULNERABLE seems to have been so over used , its lost all meaning in this country , retired doctors and gardas inspectors who just happend to be over 70 found themselves in that category last november

Agreed . . there are lots of social welfare payments made to those who do not need them . . A fair society would introduce means testing for such things as medical cards, childrens allowance etc. . .

There are other opportunities to reduce the welfare bill rather than just reducing the basic dole payments.

astrofool

The dole will have to be cut, it sets a floor to what people are willing to work for, and also sets a floor to the cost of living in this country. If Ireland wants to start creating jobs, then we need to reduce our cost of living, cutting the dole is one part of this (along with reducing min wage, reducing energy prices etc.).

The dole is also run as a current account, so the years people have been paying PRSI for, is worth nothing these days, all the money was burned when they raised the dole to the level that they have.

Daithinski

astrofool wrote: »

The dole will have to be cut, ...If Ireland wants to start creating jobs, t

I think you got the order of these two statements mixed up.

If the jobs are there for people to go to, by all means cutting the dole would be a fantastic idea.

Cutting the dole when there are no jobs isn't going to magically create any new jobs.

astrofool

Daithinski wrote: »

I think you got the order of these two statements mixed up.

If the jobs are there for people to go to, by all means cutting the dole would be a fantastic idea.

Cutting the dole when there are no jobs isn't going to magically create any new jobs.

Ah, I see you have a buzzword problem.

You need to read the whole post in order to make any sense out of it, picking any two random bits of a post does not work, and puts the user into the confusion you are now witnessing first hand.

thebman

astrofool wrote: »

The dole will have to be cut, it sets a floor to what people are willing to work for, and also sets a floor to the cost of living in this country. If Ireland wants to start creating jobs, then we need to reduce our cost of living, cutting the dole is one part of this (along with reducing min wage, reducing energy prices etc.).

The dole is also run as a current account, so the years people have been paying PRSI for, is worth nothing these days, all the money was burned when they raised the dole to the level that they have.

The problem is you have to reduce the cost of living before the dole or people starve.

astrofool

The cost of living is set by the level of the dole, it's no surprise that we have a high cost of living along with a high dole payment. Reduce one, and the other will fall.

The same thing happens in the rental market, with rent allowance setting a floor to what the market will fall to. Crappiest accommodation = rent allowance rate with the ladder going up from there.

For people to starve (and you're being dramatic here), you'd need to reduce the rate to 25% or less than the rate it is now.

Daithinski

astrofool wrote: »

The cost of living is set by the level of the dole,

Eh? Says who? Do you have anything to back up this statement with?

astrofool

astrofool wrote: »

The cost of living is set by the level of the dole, it's no surprise that we have a high cost of living along with a high dole payment. Reduce one, and the other will fall.

High dole payments, say that to a family in receipt of it and see what reply you get.

As for "reduce one and the other will fall", the dole may drop but the cost of living sure as hell won't drop and match it fairly. Just like when the cost of living was going up and up, the dole and other benefits didn't go up enough.

irish_bob

hellboy99 wrote: »

High dole payments, say that to a family in receipt of it and see what reply you get.

As for "reduce one and the other will fall", the dole may drop but the cost of living sure as hell won't drop and match it fairly. Just like when the cost of living was going up and up, the dole and other benefits didn't go up enough.

nonesense , the one thing worse for retailers than having to drop thier prices is not being able to sell at all , retailers will follow suit by reducing thier prices if both incomes or wellfare receipts fall , while the state takes several months to cop on to whats happening on the ground , the markets scent is much much sharper and knows it has to keep resonabley in line with purchasing power

your comment that benefits didnt go up enough doesnt even warrant a reply

murphaph

The cost of living IS falling. E;ectricity from BGES fell 11% two weeks ago! The cost of home heating oil etc has collapsed from 2007 prices (one third cheaper per tank at least!), Tesco just this week announced massive price cuts in its 11 border stores and states that as soon as logistically possible they will extend this pricing policy nationwide. Lidl and Aldi will reduce their prices to match Tesco..just wait, it'll be a bloodbath. Superquinn will fold IMO. Dunne may survive but will start sourcing direct from the UK and cut out the wholesalers in RoI (how Tesco are achieving their price cuts). Even mortgages and rent have reduced in cost significantly over the last 12 months. The cost of living IS falling.

eamonnm79

murphaph wrote: »

The cost of living IS falling. E;ectricity from BGES fell 11% two weeks ago! The cost of home heating oil etc has collapsed from 2007 prices (one third cheaper per tank at least!), Tesco just this week announced massive price cuts in its 11 border stores and states that as soon as logistically possible they will extend this pricing policy nationwide. Lidl and Aldi will reduce their prices to match Tesco..just wait, it'll be a bloodbath. Superquinn will fold IMO. Dunne may survive but will start sourcing direct from the UK and cut out the wholesalers in RoI (how Tesco are achieving their price cuts). Even mortgages and rent have reduced in cost significantly over the last 12 months. The cost of living IS falling.

childrens allowance is coming down and I am sure the dole will follow. However this will not do anything for job creation, and only save us about a billion a year. The government just gave bank of Ireland and AIB7 billion (and rising) for 25% share when they could have bought the lot for 1.3 billion.
5.7 looted from the coffers to prop up a failed banking sector while they reduce child welfare by 16 euro a month per child.
Surely you cant square that circle in your conscience?

astrofool

We need to create jobs, to do this, we need companies to set up here, either foreign companies, or entrepreneurs, the big problem companies are having is the high cost of the Irish worker compared to their compatriots around the globe, the high cost is a result of the high living costs.

If living costs can be brought down, then we can be competitive in the job market, and jobs will be created here. We already have utility costs, interest rates, grocery costs and rent costs come down, the dole and the min wage need to come down to match this. The dole sets a floor to what anyone can afford, if we lower this floor, we reduce the living costs here. Germany was able to do it (http://www.stefancollignon.de/PDF/FT_0109_Germanykeepsdancing.pdf), and we now must do it too to survive. We increased the dole far too much when credit was easy, and we had extra tax take from cars and houses, creating a wage spiral, that had a knock on effect on everything.

murphaph

eamonnm79 wrote: »

childrens allowance is coming down and I am sure the dole will follow. However this will not do anything for job creation, and only save us about a billion a year. The government just gave bank of Ireland and AIB7 billion (and rising) for 25% share when they could have bought the lot for 1.3 billion.
5.7 looted from the coffers to prop up a failed banking sector while they reduce child welfare by 16 euro a month per child.
Surely you cant square that circle in your conscience?

Eh? Where did I even mention the banks? I think FF shafted the taxpayer with the bank bailout and I think we should have bought AIB and BoI outright and lumped all the toxic assets into Anglo, pressuring the developers to coug up and eventually winding Angl up when the last drop is squeezed from the last developer. It doesn't change the fact that the cost of living is falling, we are borrowing 54m a day and social welfare needs to be cut at least in line with deflation.

astrofool

murphaph wrote: »

Eh? Where did I even mention the banks? I think FF shafted the taxpayer with the bank bailout and I think we should have bought AIB and BoI outright and lumped all the toxic assets into Anglo, pressuring the developers to coug up and eventually winding Angl up when the last drop is squeezed from the last developer. It doesn't change the fact that the cost of living is falling, we are borrowing 54m a day and social welfare needs to be cut at least in line with deflation.

I do find it funny that people are calling for Fianna Fáil to be put in charge of the banks. I think that would turn Bertie's missing bank account, the purchase and storage of never being used voting machines and creating a giant property bubble, into mere footnotes in the history of a failed Irish state.

thebman

astrofool wrote: »

We need to create jobs, to do this, we need companies to set up here, either foreign companies, or entrepreneurs, the big problem companies are having is the high cost of the Irish worker compared to their compatriots around the globe, the high cost is a result of the high living costs.

Our living costs aren't that high compared to other nations. Our biggest problem is our crap infrastructure that some developing nations can top. As a supposedly developed economy we cannot allow this to continue. FF refused to invest in infrastructure sufficiently during the boom years and squandered EU funding. Now we are left with incredibly poor infrastructure, a monopoly on our communications infrastructure and then high costs for businesses.

If living costs can be brought down, then we can be competitive in the job market, and jobs will be created here. We already have utility costs, interest rates, grocery costs and rent costs come down, the dole and the min wage need to come down to match this. The dole sets a floor to what anyone can afford, if we lower this floor, we reduce the living costs here. Germany was able to do it (http://www.stefancollignon.de/PDF/FT_0109_Germanykeepsdancing.pdf), and we now must do it too to survive. We increased the dole far too much when credit was easy, and we had extra tax take from cars and houses, creating a wage spiral, that had a knock on effect on everything.

I don't doubt that we need to decrease the dole too and this will happen but it should only do so at the same rate that the cost of living decreases otherwise as I said before people will starve.

The lack of infrastructure according to competitiveness surveys posted here by other users is our main disadvantage not wages. We are only average for wages compared to other countries according to surveys of how businesses (both nation and multi-national) view Ireland.

murphaph

thebman wrote: »

The lack of infrastructure according to competitiveness surveys posted here by other users is our main disadvantage not wages.

It's wages, it really is wages. Our infrastructure isn't nearly as bad as it used to be (needs a lot of improvement still). Have you driven in Poland (where Dell are moving to) recently? They have a handful of nice new motorways and a medieval network everywhere else. Ireland is light years ahead-ask any Pole living there whose roads are better! We have 3 major issues wrt infrastructure IMO, energy generation, broadband, public transport.

astrofool

I suppose China and India have really great infrastructure.

And that Japan, the country with one of the best infrastructures in the world, must have a booming job and stock market.

If it weren't for our low corporation tax rates, I doubt we'd have a job to share between us due to the high amounts we pay ourselves (and don't doubt that the dole is a wage).

Again, I see the word starve, how would people starve if the dole was reduced, I'd love to see your figures showing that €200 a week was not enough for someone to buy basic food with.

thebman

astrofool wrote: »

I suppose China and India have really great infrastructure.

Yes your right, we should wish we had the Chinese government, nobody starves in China.

And that Japan, the country with one of the best infrastructures in the world, must have a booming job and stock market.

Japan is still suffering from the problems caused by its massive housing crash and a lot of their industries would be doing very well if global demand had not dropped.

If it weren't for our low corporation tax rates, I doubt we'd have a job to share between us due to the high amounts we pay ourselves (and don't doubt that the dole is a wage).

Our low corporation tax offsets our location of being an isolated island off the coast of Britain which is an isolated island off the coast of mainland Europe. Part of our economic problems are caused by our over reliance on exports to a single country and we need to diversify our economy.

lol, the dole isn't a wage at all.

Again, I see the word starve, how would people starve if the dole was reduced, I'd love to see your figures showing that €200 a week was not enough for someone to buy basic food with.

Its up to you to show that reducing it wouldn't make people starve TBH. I'd rather not reduce it and find out. And I have already said it has to come down but in line with the cost of living. Everything has to be examined to determine how much it can come down by without starving people.

I live on less than 200 euro a week so I know it is possible but I'm a single youngish man. I think if I was living on the dole, it could be reduced by 200 euro a month and I wouldn't have to adjust my living style. I think they are plenty of people with different responsibilities and so different costs of living to me that must also be considered though.

One thing that should happen is it should be reduced for people without sufficient PRSI payments to test the water once the appropriate amount has been decided on. This will give the long term unemployed more incentive to get a job, punish them for not having a job during the boom and show them that living on the dole isn't a stable income. If they can survive on reduced payments then you can reduce them for everyone else. Once that has occurred, people without the relevant payments should just be screwed and have theirs reduced further and have it tested and if they don't look like they are trying to get jobs, penalise them for it. This could be done with voluntary work placements with the government for things like street cleaning.

I also don't think the same payment should be given to people nationally as the cost of living isn't the same across the entire country so that has to be considered.

murphaph

Indeed, and as I posted elsewhere, in Germany once you become "long term unemployed" (after about 18 months on a sliding scale from two thirds of your last salary downwards) you receive just €351 PER MONTH plus rent (in a reasonable flat, you must move if your flat is "too expensive"). In ireland you get €816 plus rent supplement. You can survive easily on 816 a month when all you really need to buy out of it is basic foodstuffs given the myriad of allowances you get once long term unemployed (heating, travel, medical card etc.).

cavedave

A discussion took place on this thread about what the dole needs to be. If anyone has better figures with references that would be useful in an economics discussion.

Cost of living estimates for students which should be fairly independent as it is not from someone asking for more money or someone trying to pay less.

here puts cost of food at 70-100 per week

here
costs medical 13 euro a month on average (but students are young). Also you get a medical card after a while on welfare.

here says heat and light say € 57 per month

So that is about 120 a week for food, light, heat and medical. Clothes I have not counted. Transport + phone I have not counted. Various charges for bins and tv licence etc I have not counted. Accommodation I have not counted.

astrofool

thebman wrote: »

Yes your right, we should wish we had the Chinese government, nobody starves in China.

Japan is still suffering from the problems caused by its massive housing crash and a lot of their industries would be doing very well if global demand had not dropped.

Without going too far into multi quote back and forths, your premise was that it was infrastructure we needed to attract jobs, this is patently not true, regardless of the Chinese government. Japan has been in deflation/recession for nearly 20 years, they haven't been doing "very well" for a long long time.

thebman wrote: »

Its up to you to show that reducing it wouldn't make people starve TBH. I'd rather not reduce it and find out. And I have already said it has to come down but in line with the cost of living. Everything has to be examined to determine how much it can come down by without starving people.

Do people starve in other countries in Europe where the dole is less (sometimes a lot less)? Is there a famine in the UK, where the dole is significantly less, where living costs are not significantly lower?

Your posts are all a bit too full of "think of the children" hysterics to be taken seriously.

If the dole was reduced by a reasonable figure (say 5-10% for now):
People may not be able to go on holiday
People may have to move house, or sell their home
People may have to cancel Sky
People may have to send their kids to a public rather than private school
People may not be able to buy clothes as often
People may have to drink less
People may have to stop smoking
People may have to give up their car and use public transport
People may have to buy store brand food rather than name brand
People would not starve

thebman

murphaph wrote: »

Indeed, and as I posted elsewhere, in Germany once you become "long term unemployed" (after about 18 months on a sliding scale from two thirds of your last salary downwards) you receive just €351 PER MONTH plus rent (in a reasonable flat, you must move if your flat is "too expensive"). In ireland you get €816 plus rent supplement. You can survive easily on 816 a month when all you really need to buy out of it is basic foodstuffs given the myriad of allowances you get once long term unemployed (heating, travel, medical card etc.).

Not everyone gets rent supplement in Ireland AFAIK and it doesn't pay the rent. I don't know how many of the other benefits you listed that most people would be entitled to either but I doubt everyone gets them TBH.

thebman

astrofool wrote: »

Without going too far into multi quote back and forths, your premise was that it was infrastructure we needed to attract jobs, this is patently not true, regardless of the Chinese government. Japan has been in deflation/recession for nearly 20 years, they haven't been doing "very well" for a long long time.

I'm saying our biggest problem is our infrastructure not that it is our only problem. I'm not that naive to believe there is one solution/quick fix to the problem.

Do people starve in other countries in Europe where the dole is less (sometimes a lot less)? Is there a famine in the UK, where the dole is significantly less, where living costs are not significantly higher?

The cost of living is different in other countries. People in the UK are starting to have massive problems living on their dole payments to the point that they are talking about raising them. The cost of living is lower in the UK which is why Irish people have been going half way across the country to buy groceries there.

Your posts are all a bit too full of "think of the children" hysterics to be taken seriously.

Pfft, that is the last kind of person I am TBH. I'm more a rational person that thinks things through. I don't have the figures to say the dole should be cut so I won't say it should be cut. I say it needs to be examined and reduced in line with the cost of living.

TBH you sound like you don't care if people live or die as long as it doesn't effect you. You want to have the dole cut to make you feel better that the government are sorting out the countries problems and don't care about the effect it will have on the people on the dole.

A very dangerous line of thought IMO which is the only reason I'm bothering to reply to this nonsense your posting.

If the dole was reduced by a reasonable figure (say 5-10% for now):
People may not be able to go on holiday
People may have to move house, or sell their home
People may have to cancel Sky
People may have to send their kids to a public rather than private school
People may not be able to buy clothes as often
People may have to drink less
People may have to stop smoking
People may have to give up their car and use public transport
People may have to buy store brand food rather than name brand
People would not starve

Lol so everyone on the dole is living the above lifestyle :pac: You clearly don't know what your talking about TBH. Your making massive assumptions to get to your conclusion yet you aggressively call for reductions.

Your dangerous TBH. I wouldn't let you make any decisions.

astrofool

The end result if we don't cut social welfare costs will be a massive cut or abolishment of the dole, as the country is unable to borrow funds on the international markets. There has to be a concerted effort to drive down living costs and social welfare costs immediately if the country is to survive.

The list was an example of different lifestyles, and there would be at least one item that would apply to everyone on the dole in order to reduce their costs. It was not meant to be a checklist of the average person on the dole, sorry if it looked that way.

The UK dole level is less than 50% of what it is here, if they raise it, it will be of the order of a couple of %, and likely still be less than 50% of our dole.

Anyway, the point is that we need to reduce the cost of living here, the dole sets a floor to the minimum that people can afford, reduce this cost (in a humane manner) and you can reduce the cost of living and in turn foster job creation (getting people off the dole) as wage demands are reduced.

And you still haven't pointed out the starving masses due to lower dole payments in other countries.