"The Unemployed are all Spongers"

Dr. Baltar

I want to make a quick point about this. There has been attitude on this board recently that seems to say that if you're unemployed or if you are on the dole ect. then you are ruining this country.

Now, don't get me wrong: I completely agree with those of you who believe that if you haven't worked a day in your life then you should not be entitled to any benefits whatsoever but there is a distinction between those spongers and the genuinely unemployed.

My father is 53 years old. Before the recession, he worked for 39 years of his life and paid all of his taxes. Last year, due to these idiots in power, the construction industry collapsed and like thousands of others, my dad is out of work.

Now unlike all of these spongers he is trying to find work and is determined to find it!

I would just like to point out that it sickens me to see many posters on these boards turn around and view all of those on the labour/dole as spongers.

/END Rant.

Mario007

Sir Baralot wrote: »

I want to make a quick point about this. There has been attitude on this board recently that seems to say that if you're unemployed or if you are on the dole ect. then you are ruining this country.

Now, don't get me wrong: I completely agree with those of you who believe that if you haven't worked a day in your life then you should not be entitled to any benefits whatsoever but there is a distinction between those spongers and the genuinely unemployed.

My father is 53 years old. Before the recession, he worked for 49 years of his life and paid all of his taxes. Last year, due to these idiots in power, the construction industry collapsed and like thousands of others, my dad is out of work.

Now unlike all of these spongers he is trying to find work and is determined to find it!

I would just like to point out that it sickens me to see many posters on these boards turn around and view all of those on the labour/dole as spongers.

/END Rant.

i agree. just one thing though, its the idiots in power that the construction industry got so big and its aslo thanks to them that it collapsed...

Joey the lips

Your dad started working when he was 4. Bet he was a chimney sweep apprentice, I saw it on discovery! Seriously though. This is PI not politics. Obv your dad is a brilliant man and has been working all his life, On forums and boards as such people tend to be blunt. Does not mean they are actually that serious.

Hope you dad is ok. You seem upset to be posting, Dont worry there is a lot of people there,

Dr. Baltar

Joey the lips wrote: »

Your dad started working when he was 4. Bet he was a chimney sweep apprentice, I saw it on discovery! Seriously though. This is PI not politics. Obv your dad is a brilliant man and has been working all his life, On forums and boards as such people tend to be blunt. Does not mean they are actually that serious.

Hope you dad is ok. You seem upset to be posting, Dont worry there is a lot of people there,

Oh, I'm fine, it's just that it angers me when I hear of hardworking people being placed into the same boat as the true spongers.
Also, regarding the maths - eh lol. He was 13 or 14 when he began working.

Riskymove

Sir Baralot wrote: »

I would just like to point out that it sickens me to see many posters on these boards turn around and view all of those on the labour/dole as spongers.

/END Rant.

populist soundbites are order of the day, just follow the media

people on the dole - lazy spongers who wont work

lone parents - a drain on resources

public sector workers - highly paid pen-pushers with no work to do

politicians - heartless, expense-obsessed, chancers

bankers - destroyers of the universe

Duckjob

I'm sure your Dad would get up and go out to work tomorrow if he could. He has made a huge contribution to the economy, and whatever the future holds for him can hold his head high.

The fact that he doesn't like or accept his current situation as normal is exactly what separates him from the scroungers - those who think sitting scratching their holes and living off other people a morally acceptable way of life.

Zambia

I dont think your dad is ever in anyones mind when they say spongers.

Anyone who has ever lived in Ireland knows a sponger, when they see one.

super_furry

I don't think any would think that someone in your Dad's position in a sponger, however there is a benefits culture in this country which many people milk for all it's worth, content to take everything and give nothing back.

purple_hatstand

Sir Baralot wrote: »

I want to make a quick point about this. There has been attitude on this board recently that seems to say that if you're unemployed or if you are on the dole ect. then you are ruining this country.

Now, don't get me wrong: I completely agree with those of you who believe that if you haven't worked a day in your life then you should not be entitled to any benefits whatsoever but there is a distinction between those spongers and the genuinely unemployed.

My father is 53 years old. Before the recession, he worked for 39 years of his life and paid all of his taxes. Last year, due to these idiots in power, the construction industry collapsed and like thousands of others, my dad is out of work.

Now unlike all of these spongers he is trying to find work and is determined to find it!

I would just like to point out that it sickens me to see many posters on these boards turn around and view all of those on the labour/dole as spongers.

/END Rant.

I am not for one second calling into question the validity of your father's claim, but I feel I must take issue with the part of your post I have quoted in bold.

I wonder:

1. what kind of welfare system you think we should have? and:
2. what effect the removal of these 'spongers' from the current system might have on the fabric of society in the long-term as well as (and, perhaps, more importantly) in the short-medium-term?

iwannagoonstric

I agree and disagree. I know lots of people who haven't worked a fulkl time job in years and are living off the taxes that I pay. And the rally annoying thing is they have bigger houses, nicer cars, better education opportunities, fewer bills. It is a crazy culture we have here, its all laid on for you, the only thing you have to do is NOT get a job when you leave school. Do the odd FAS course here or there, or work maybe a few hours one day in the week and you are made.

On the other hand, for people, like the OPs dad, who worked and raised a family through the last recession - is it really too much that he can now claim? And claim everything, JSB /JSA, Mortgage relief, medical card, Sad thing is, his kids are all probably through the 'free' education system and 'subsidised' health care system that Ireland has. The OP's dad has fallen on hard times and now he probably won't get all the benifits he is entitled to.

Terrontress

The problem is with the system. Not the OP's father, the school leavers who do nothing or the workshy. If the system is weak, it will be easy to exploit.

The social welfare system is too generous, and I include that offered to the OP's father in that.

Riskymove

Riskymove wrote: »

populist soundbites are order of the day, just follow the media

bankers - destroyers of the universe

Exactly.

You can add "Developers - see bankers above"

It's just lazy stereotyping.

iwannagoonstric

Terrontress wrote: »

The problem is with the system. Not the OP's father, the school leavers who do nothing or the workshy. If the system is weak, it will be easy to exploit.

The social welfare system is too generous, and I include that offered to the OP's father in that.

- Famous Last Words -

ChocolateSauce

They are only spongers if they have the chance to work and don't take it, or if they don't look.

tbaymusicman

Well iv been screwed by the construction collapse but iv applied for every type of job out there so fingers crossed i wont be a sponger for much longer(op your dad is not a sponger).Where im from there is so many people who never did a days work and just live in the pub its shocking

iwannagoonstric

i completely agree with musicman and chocolate sauce.

But jobs are hard to get now, and unless you are in (or have been in) the situation where you lost your job you shouldn't throw stones as it were.

But those who have never bothered to even try or apply for jobs shouldnt get the full dole. You should have to prove that you've applied for jobs, like supply names and numbers for the jobs you applied for and have these checked up on.

But I don't think the system is too generous, not to those who actually need it - those who are carers etc. The rate of the carers allowance is an absolute joke, considering the alternative cost to the state of having the people housed in nursing homes!

Idbatterim

i dont understand why it constantly has to be clarified on boards! but when people say they are sick of the welfare scroungers and abusers, they are not talking about people who have just lost their jobs are are actually seeking employment, they are talking about the large amount of degenerates who have never lifted a finger in their life!

iwannagoonstric

iwannagoonstric wrote: »

The rate of the carers allowance is an absolute joke, considering the alternative cost to the state of having the people housed in nursing homes!

Which shouldn't be a cost to the state at all, and should be paid by the individual or their family...

Riskymove

Deleted User wrote: »

Which shouldn't be a cost to the state at all, and should be paid by the individual or their family...

yes and it is...... but there are those in the public health system who could be cared for at home with the correct assistance (not always an allowance to a carer)

worldrepublic

This problem of attitudes is set to get worse. I think the younger generation (c. 18-25yrs), or many of them anyway, have grown up during the best of times, and now can only think in terms of soft work. How do you get someone who has a D&G belt and a college degree in the Arts to pick up a shovel, if s/he can't get work in their area of interest? I think Irish people are willing to work, and, for the most part, really do not want to be drawing benefits. But, compromises will have to be made. That is why many countries have some form of civilian service or conscription. Try the army, or some alternative (maybe a couple of months working voluntarily with handicapped people). It's time to stop sitting in nice sofas watching the X-factor, and get out and see what the real world is like (because this is not a recession, it is not a depression, it is a GLOBAL BREAKDOWN CRISIS).

Sorry if this offends anyone, but it's a point that needs to be made repeatedly, by many people, starting NOW.

iwannagoonstric

Deleted User wrote: »

Which shouldn't be a cost to the state at all, and should be paid by the individual or their family...

Conor74 - I take it you have yet to experience life caring for another individual is it?

Riskymove

iwannagoonstric wrote: »

Conor74 - I take it you have yet to experience life caring for another individual is it?

thats a low blow

I have experience of it and I agree that the state should not be provide care for everyone regardless and assistance need not be fully paid for nursing home

iwannagoonstric

iwannagoonstric wrote: »

Conor74 - I take it you have yet to experience life caring for another individual is it?

My father had a series of strokes over the past few years of his life.

And yet we got by. Just like civilization did for the thousands of years up to recently when someone decided this was another entitlement/basic human right.

iwannagoonstric

Didnt mean to offend. My parents looked after my grandmother for years, both with full time jobs - but this was only possible because us kids (6 of us) could pick up the slack.

I meant it as in - as far as I am aware - the rate paid to carers is actually lower than that of the regular Job Seeker. Which I think is unfair as the carer has little or no choice about working.

If I am wrong, then I totally retract the statement.

I'm sorry if I offended.

worldrepublic

I agree, there is way too much political correctness, such that it becomes very difficult to speak to the establishment view. Often, those who decide policy (in terms of the politic) have no direct experience or practical understanding of the targets or subject matter of their constructed policies. For example, so called "environmentalists" tend to come from urban area -they don't know where their water comes from, where their electricity comes from, they have no real concept of where their food comes from... and yet, as a demographic and power centre, they direct policy and set out the regulations. "Environmentalists" aka city dwellers, who have the most superficial and politically constructed understanding of nature. Similarly, those who think in terms of "over-population" (something must be done -save the panda bears!) have a highly questionable concept of human life and human rights. In this view, there are no individuals, just populations that should be "controlled" or "managed" or "sustained" or whatever politically correct term you care to deploy. So if you stop contributing, or get sick... watch out! There are politically correct ways of "sustaining" you!

iwannagoonstric

iwannagoonstric wrote: »

Didnt mean to offend. My parents looked after my grandmother for years, both with full time jobs - but this was only possible because us kids (6 of us) could pick up the slack.

No offence taken at all. You don't know me so I know you couldn't have meant to cause offence.

And maybe I was getting a bit flippant to be honest. Of course there are many elderly people out there who don't have the large family to fall back on, or will grow old alone, and for whom carers are vital. I guess the point I really should make is I just wish more people filled this gap on a voluntary basis, maybe it's a sign of the times but years ago (when admittedly a lot of things were terribly wrong in this country) poeple just looked out for each other a bit more. I'm sure many here will remember being sent round to the elderly neighbours...I thought it was a bit of a chore at the time, looking back I realise it was the network of support that rurla life provided.

Riskymove

iwannagoonstric wrote: »

I meant it as in - as far as I am aware - the rate paid to carers is actually lower than that of the regular Job Seeker. Which I think is unfair as the carer has little or no choice about working.

the carer's allowance is just that...an allowance given to someone as a contribution..it is not intended to be a substitute salary and frankly could not be afforded

job seekers and others is designed as a short term benefit for someone seeking work. Now I know there are issues and a multitude of views over things like unemployment benefit and so on so i dont want to get into that here.

i think whats important is cases where other forms of asistance such as medical cards, home help, nursing visits, mobility aids and equipment, etc can be provided by the state

Kernel

Sir Baralot wrote: »

I want to make a quick point about this. There has been attitude on this board recently that seems to say that if you're unemployed or if you are on the dole ect. then you are ruining this country.

Now, don't get me wrong: I completely agree with those of you who believe that if you haven't worked a day in your life then you should not be entitled to any benefits whatsoever but there is a distinction between those spongers and the genuinely unemployed.

My father is 53 years old. Before the recession, he worked for 39 years of his life and paid all of his taxes. Last year, due to these idiots in power, the construction industry collapsed and like thousands of others, my dad is out of work.

Now unlike all of these spongers he is trying to find work and is determined to find it!

I would just like to point out that it sickens me to see many posters on these boards turn around and view all of those on the labour/dole as spongers.

/END Rant.

I doubt any posters would label your father as a sponger. And that's coming from the guy who wants to pretty much scrap the social welfare system with the exception of disabled people and old age pensioners.

nicola09

This might offend a few people so apologies in advance but one thing that gets on my nerves is the amount of hand-outs given to teenage mothers. Where I live, it's treated as a career choice! I think it's brutally unfair that just because a girl is silly enough (again causing offence, but girls in my locality do so on purpose!) to get pregnant she can basically receive enough money to live quite comfortably! I know every case is different but in my town they go out every weekend and can afford holidays and cars! It's extremely annoying when most of my friends and I can't even get summer jobs, yet once you have a baby, no problem?!

I realise this is all highly offensive but it annoys me because these are girls the same age as me getting quite a lot of money just because they have babies, whereas when I go to college I won't receive a penny! My parents have to pay to put me through college, if I had a baby I'd be quite self-sufficient financially! When I get a job, I'll have to fund another generation of them...! I know the needs of every child must be catered for, but why on earth make a system so generous that it practically encourages teenage pregancy? Do we really want to turn into the UK?!

Joey the lips

Deleted User wrote: »

Which shouldn't be a cost to the state at all, and should be paid by the individual or their family...

That is not a nice thing to say. Clearly you are very young and very unwise. I hope you are not blessed and put in the same situation one day.

Just for the record. How can an individual pay for there care if they need care. its actually in the wording and secondly why should the family pay? Do you think your family should pay your dole! I dont think so,

Dont justify your answer becuase there is nothing you can say to support this arguement and i wonder how carers came into the subject.

Riskymove

Joey the lips wrote: »

That is not a nice thing to say. Clearly you are very young and very unwise. I hope you are not blessed and put in the same situation one day.

Just for the record. How can an individual pay for there care if they need care. its actually in the wording and secondly why should the family pay? Do you think your family should pay your dole! I dont think so,

Dont justify your answer becuase there is nothing you can say to support this arguement and i wonder how carers came into the subject.

maybe you could read all the posts that came after that....


lots of families/individuals have to pay for nursing home care

"why should the family pay"????...why shouldn't a family ?

Idbatterim

They should bring in means testing for child benefit, only give it to those earning 30,000 or so per annum. I.e deter scum from having kids, and promote it for the middle and upper classes!

worldrepublic

Joey the lips wrote: »

That is not a nice thing to say. Clearly you are very young and very unwise. I hope you are not blessed and put in the same situation one day.

Just for the record. How can an individual pay for there care if they need care. its actually in the wording and secondly why should the family pay? Do you think your family should pay your dole! I dont think so,

Dont justify your answer becuase there is nothing you can say to support this arguement and i wonder how carers came into the subject.

You are suggesting that there is no argument to be had on what basis? That the SW system is absolutely perfect and that zero abuse occurs? ABUSE is rampant! It is the many many abusers, not the minority of bona fida candidates that are being attacked by some previous posters!

Riskymove

Idbatterim wrote: »

They should bring in means testing for child benefit, only give it to those earning 30,000 or so per annum. I.e deter scum from having kids, and promote it for the middle and upper classes!

reverse means testing?

"Do you need child benefit?" "No"..."here you go"

Idbatterim

the point of the child benefit would be to promote them to have kids, who is going to cost the state more money a middle or upper class person having a kid or a lower class, abusing all of its benefits? The problem here is its far to PC!

Joey the lips

Joey the lips wrote: »

That is not a nice thing to say. Clearly you are very young and very unwise.

35.

Not sure if you consider that young. I guess that's all relative.

As for unwise, I'm not sure you are in a position to judge. I have an opinion that paying for care is a most unfortunate, and very very recent, turn of events. I am not blaming carers or the elderly, I accept that it may reflect on society. Either way, it's only an opnion. I don't think paying for care hand over fist is 'wise'.

Joey the lips wrote: »

How can an individual pay for there care if they need care.

I'm not sure that makes sense. Are you saying that only the poor are unhealthy or need care? My father needed care, we as a family were happy to provide it and not fall back on handouts to bail us out.

I won't make any smart comment about your age or wisdom.

Joey the lips wrote: »

why should the family pay?

Was it Thatcher who said there was no such thing as society, only family? Not that I like to quote her too much. But it is an opinion, albeit hers was expressed in a very extreme manner.

Joey the lips wrote: »

Dont justify your answer becuase there is nothing you can say to support this arguement

The internet equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting 'I'm not listening, I'm not listening'.

Riskymove

Idbatterim wrote: »

the point of the child benefit would be to promote them to have kids, who is going to cost the state more money a middle or upper class person having a kid or a lower class, abusing all of its benefits? The problem here is its far to PC!

:rolleyes:

why not just bring in compulsary sterilisation for "lower" classes


*shakes head*

Idbatterim

the compulsory sterilisation is but a mere dream!

worldrepublic

Riskymove wrote: »

:rolleyes:

why not just bring in compulsary sterilisation for "lower" classes


*shakes head*

Actually the distinction between the lower classes and the middle classes is a blur. Far too many people consider themselves "middle-class". In America, if you own a bank they call you "upper middle-class"! So really we are all in the gutter. Any action that the moneyed classes, the corporate regimes, or the elitists take against the "lower classes" includes virtually all people. In a world where 1% of the world controls 40% of the world's wealth, and then some, there really is an apex at the top of the pyramid. No one from or representing this apex would dare speak in terms of sterilisation -rather it's "population control" and "sustainability" -but watch out, because unless you are LOADED with money, power, influence and serious networking abilities, YOU are the target population.

Riskymove

worldrepublic wrote: »

-but watch out, because unless you are LOADED with money, power, influence and serious networking abilities, YOU are the target population.

well thankfully I am a public servant so obviously am LOADED

greendom

Idbatterim wrote: »

the point of the child benefit would be to promote them to have kids, who is going to cost the state more money a middle or upper class person having a kid or a lower class, abusing all of its benefits? The problem here is its far to PC!

The problem here is that it's absolute lunacy

worldrepublic

Well Ireland has got a very small population. So, in promoting social diversity and mobility, our population could be accelerated to c. 20,000,000! That means lots and lots and lots of babies on the way! Hmmm maybe 20,000,000 is a tad conservative... if we really want to get with the program?

purple_hatstand

I think we need to address the Welfare System in regard to what we expect to be able to collectively achieve with our lives with respect to 2 things:

1. Learning from history and:
2. Leaving a useful legacy

These discussions go right to the heart of the way we view society; the way we perceive situations as they are, the ways in which we might like them to be different, the differences between the two and the choices and decisions which have to be made in order that we can all live in the society we want to live in.

In theory, we trust a democratically-elected body to make many of these choices and decisions on our behalf, sure and safe in the knowledge that they are based on commonly-held ideas about the nature of morality, sustainability and progress and that they are made with the best interests of all at their centre.

We entrust to this body (as we see fit) the organisation and management of services fundamental to these principles (eg. health and welfare services, law & order and its asscoiated enforcement and judicial systems etc...) and understand that a certain financial sacrifice is required for these.

Beyond this, it becomes more complicated. Most people subscribe to the idea that it is better to earn more money than less because of the greater opportunities and comforts afforded. Government simultaneously realises that greater wealth in the population increases its own opportunity and that education advances the wealth-generating opportunities of all.

The point at which this equating of wealth with political power begins to drive the decision-making process is the point at which society starts to break apart as decisions are no longer always made with the best interests of all at their centre.

The end result is, of course, unclear; but the current fragmentation of society is one along the path. Let's be clear: we want the best with respect to history and legacy - to be able to raise families in greater comfort than our parents did and lay the groundwork for our children to do the same (ie. better than us).


The Welfare System is a way of protecting and enhancing the lives of those who cannot do it for themselves. It's quite simple, really - children will contribute in the future (both financially and in terms of votes) and old people have already contributed and still vote.

That others are dependant on the Welfare System is merely a reflection of how badly we, collectively, have managed our society and forgotten what it is for.

Dob74

Joey the lips wrote: »

Your dad started working when he was 4. Bet he was a chimney sweep apprentice, I saw it on discovery! Seriously though. This is PI not politics. Obv your dad is a brilliant man and has been working all his life, On forums and boards as such people tend to be blunt. Does not mean they are actually that serious.

Hope you dad is ok. You seem upset to be posting, Dont worry there is a lot of people there,

I take it you didnt do honours Math in the leaving.
For the record 53 - 39 = 14.
A common age to start work prior to the 80's.

Wheely

iwannagoonstric wrote: »

I agree and disagree. I know lots of people who haven't worked a fulkl time job in years and are living off the taxes that I pay. And the rally annoying thing is they have bigger houses, nicer cars, better education opportunities, fewer bills. It is a crazy culture we have here, its all laid on for you, the only thing you have to do is NOT get a job when you leave school. Do the odd FAS course here or there, or work maybe a few hours one day in the week and you are made.

Sorry-all the people who are on welfare their whole life have bigger cars, houses, better education opportunities and fewer bills than those who have worked all their lives? How do you figure this!?

Wheely

Kernel wrote: »

I doubt any posters would label your father as a sponger. And that's coming from the guy who wants to pretty much scrap the social welfare system with the exception of disabled people and old age pensioners.

His father's not disabled or an old age pensioner so you obviously don't think he's entitled to anything. But you don't think he's a sponger either? Or you just wouldn't label him as such.....:rolleyes:

Wheely

Idbatterim wrote: »

They should bring in means testing for child benefit, only give it to those earning 30,000 or so per annum. I.e deter scum from having kids, and promote it for the middle and upper classes!

We've tried to means-test in this country, it hasn't worked in the past. To do so would probably involve quite an expansion of bureaucratic structures within the public service at a time when the govt are intent on cutting it so it's not gonna happen.

Yeah I hate scum too. You're great idea to introduce means-testing for, believe it or not, the exact OPPOSITE of the reason most people advocate it is superb. Cut off funds to those scumbags who actually need it and redistribute wealth to the middle and upper classes who don't!!! Brilliant!!!

Wheely

worldrepublic wrote: »

You are suggesting that there is no argument to be had on what basis? That the SW system is absolutely perfect and that zero abuse occurs? ABUSE is rampant! It is the many many abusers, not the minority of bona fida candidates that are being attacked by some previous posters!

Sorry I looked for but couldn't find the post where Joey the Lips praised the perfection of the system and the absence completely of abuse. Can you direct me to it please?

Wheely

Idbatterim wrote: »

the point of the child benefit would be to promote them to have kids, who is going to cost the state more money a middle or upper class person having a kid or a lower class, abusing all of its benefits? The problem here is its far to PC!

Its a great plan! I'm sure also that in depth research will affirm the fact that the predominant reason most of the middle and upper classes decide to have children is to collect their measly child benefit. Furthermore we should increase child benefit for the middle classes to encourage them further and massively hike it for the upper classes cos, let's face it, their kids are more valuable to society. We need far more of THIS type of child being born and far less scum.:rolleyes:

Also eh, the problem is too politically correct.......? Hmmmmm. What does that mean exactly?

Riskymove

Dob74 wrote: »

I take it you didnt do honours Math in the leaving.
For the record 53 - 39 = 14.
A common age to start work prior to the 80's.

ooohh!! a smart person arrives on the thread:rolleyes:


unfortunately the OP has since sneakily edited his first post where he said his dad was 53 and was working for 49 years!!

Riskymove

Riskymove wrote: »

unfortunately the OP has since sneakily edited his first post where he said his dad was 53 and was working for 49 years!!

Was wondering what had happened, cos wjhile I don't remember the figures when I did the math yesterday I remember it coming out as 4 as well.