Should we be allowing beggars to choose?

seamus

Maybe more of a Humanities topic, but we'll give it a go. I've no intention to be insensitive here as I know a lot of people are relying on social benefits at the moment.

There was an American talking on Newstalk during the week about how the US and Europe have lost sight of the purpose of social welfare. That is, it's supposed to be a means through which we prevent people having to sleep in their cars and keeps them fed and housed while they go search for a job. It's not supposed to be a "right" or a long-term means of survival. The idea is that people who receive unemployment benefit should be glad they're getting *something* instead of being out on their arse and completely broke. Yet the attitude in this country is one of entitlement and where people on unemployment benefit complain when they don't get a bonus at christmas, when instead they should really be glad they're getting anything at all. Of course many people are happy for it, but clearly vast swathes of recipients have a love affair with the dole.

Mary Hanafin mentioned during the week that the plan now is to issue all claimants with a card which will have information about the claimant on it, but will also have the ability to store biometric data. With the above paragraph in mind, should we move from a situation where the dole is a handout, to where the state provides specifically and only for the needs of those unemployed?

For example, you include a Laser-style chip on the card. You provide the person with a food allowance which is accessible through the card and can be used basically anywhere that you can buy food, and only food. What constitutes food is a fairly large net, but you can safely restrict it to prevent people purchasing non-essential, non-food items such as cigarettes and alcohol.
The state can also sign bulk agreements with facilities providers. So once someone signs on the dole, the cost of their electricity, heating and telephone (within a certain allowance) are looked after by the state, they never receive a bill until they sign off again.
You can extend the card to cover particular allowances - clothing and so forth. You provide free transit on public transport and unlimited access to educational opportunites.

The aim being that the person making the claim doesn't receive any cash at all, but their *needs* are fulfilled until they enter the workplace again. At the end of the day, the state should only be supplying what people need, they shouldn't be funding their cigarette habit or their beer.

I know the very first responses will be about taking away people's freedoms and "what about their right to choose", but at the end of the day beggars can't be choosers. You get what you're given and be happy with it until you get yourself back on your own feet.

I should also say that any such scheme should only cover "emergency" benefits. Disability allowance and maternity benefit and so forth should still be issued as cash to allow the recipient to purchase what they like.

/dons armour

P. Breathnach

That's the mindset that underpinned the building of workhouses in the middle of the 19th century.

seamus

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That's the mindset that underpinned the building of workhouses in the middle of the 19th century.

That's actually a fair comment to make, but I think the whole point of the workhouses was to make being unemployed a particularly harsh and undesirable place to be. It wasn't so much about supporting the unemployed rather than treating them as dunces and putting unemployment just one step above prison in terms of "places you don't want to be".
Notwithstanding that our laws wouldn't allow such draconian institutions anymore, what I'm talking about is letting people have their dignity while unemployed, while ensuring that it's not a suitable long-term way of living. Well, maybe for some.

I don't think it's harsh or punitive, do you?

dinneenp

There are a lot of people on the dole that would prefer to be working but there are also a lot of sponges out there. If you're without kids or mortgage then the dole is enough to get you by.

there should be some limits to it (can't be on it for X no of years) or a scheme put in place whereby people on it have to do some work (create jobs- cleaning streets etc.)

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

douglashyde

I think that is a great idea, however I think the cost and the amount of administration required might be the biggest issue.

As well , I agree that in certain cases people on the welfare are getting to much.

As for the dole, that is peoples own money and are entitled to it.

petethebrick

If we lived in a state in which we didn't contribute premiums towards our social welfare insurance in the case of being out of work then you could possibly make an argument about providing living essentials as opposed to a cash allowance.

The idea of providing people who have made prsi contributions for many years with food stamps and bus passes is ridiculous however- if out of work, people are fully entitled to monetary recompense to spend as they see fit.

I am of the opinion that measures need to be taken to sort out cases whereby people spend their entire adult lives on social welfare. Lines do need to be drawn somewhere in that regard.

Long Onion

It would lead to a black market economy with poeple hocking food allowances for cigarettes. I would also wonder about the possible effects it may have on children who have no say over their parents financial situation. What would we do coming up to christmas/ birthdays?

It would be harsh to punish children in such ways (N.b. I am not to be taken as proposing that kids deserve playstations, but some small present may be nice)

bonkey

I'm too long out of touch with the Irish system...

Does the difference exist between Social Welfare and Unemployment Benefit?

Long Onion

Just a thought, why not peg a subsistance cost of living and pay only this. Allow it to increase according to the PRSI paid by the individual. The longer you have worked and the more you have contributed, the more you get paid, you can choose the level of weekly payment you wish but when it runs out, it runs out and you revert to the basic level.

This would allow those who have been made unemployed to attempt to pay their commitments whilst looking for work and provide an incentive for people to get back earning as soon as possible? Perhaps you could have a system whereby people elect benefits such as ESB units, enhanced healthcare, heating allowances in lieu of cash - they could get these at a reduced rate.

EG - I elect a weekly payment of €300 plus x units of Electricity, vouchers for oil/coal and level two health care.

Bottle_of_Smoke

I liek the system but I would give an allowance of may €30 in cash per week for micellaneous spending. Cover kids birthday's and friend's 21sts, a few cans/cigarettes that kinda thing.

Giving someone nothing other than enough to keep them alive whilst its difficult to get a job is pretty much saying "have you considered organised crime?"

seamus

Long Onion wrote: »

It would lead to a black market economy with poeple hocking food allowances for cigarettes. I would also wonder about the possible effects it may have on children who have no say over their parents financial situation. What would we do coming up to christmas/ birthdays?

But if the card is tied to the person, how do you hock your allowance for cigarettes? No system is infallible obviously and you might get a few isolated cases of a working mate buying beer for his unemployed mate in return for the unemployed guy buying the shopping on his card, but it would be hard to do on any kind of grand scale. If you require all retailers to declare the exact purchases made on a card and have very punitive fines for selling restricted items to a welfare recipient, you move this kind of behaviour to the fringes.

In terms of children, that's a possible "allowance". Toys are essential for children's healthy development, so I don't see a problem with having an allowance for a certain amount of toys and "bonus" allowances around the child's birthday and christmas. Of course, they would be small enough that you wouldn't have people buying playstations on it.

bonkey wrote: »

I'm too long out of touch with the Irish system...

Does the difference exist between Social Welfare and Unemployment Benefit?

There are a whole raft of various benefits and supports which come under the "Social Welfare" umbrella, and which you don't necessarily have to be unemployed to claim. UB is one form of social welfare.

Giving someone nothing other than enough to keep them alive whilst its difficult to get a job is pretty much saying "have you considered organised crime?"

That's a valid point, but I have a bizarre faith in humanity in that most people will do the right thing unless they are actually struggling. That is, if they have what they need, they won't need to turn to petty crime. Otherwise normal individuals don't just "turn" to organised crime unless they are already open to the criminal way of living.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

GeeNorm

Good thread but it would need a LOT of tweaking to work. If you tell people they have free utilities, then the radiators will be on continually, Bord Gais/ESB will push up prices as they know they have a huge price-insensitive market and everyone else will suffer.

Medical cards spring to mind.

Hotblack Desiato

We can't do this. John Player and Dutch Gold will go bust.

starbelgrade

I think the Social Welfare system needs a complete overhaul, but not in the manner the OP suggests, which would only lead to a serious amount of black marketing on the fags & booze - it would lead back to the days where shopkeepers would trade butter vouchers for ciggies.

The main problem I see with the SW system is that provides a disicentive to low paid workers to actually work, it promotes single motherhood & many see that almost as a "career" option, it is very open to fraud & it is very inequitable.

By inequitable I mean this - when you work, you pay PRSI - Pay Related Social Insurance - but it is only related to what you are paid. If you are unfortunate enough to lose your job, the payment you recieve (if you are entitled to one) is the same as everyone else, regardless of how many years you've worked and how much PRSI you've paid. Someone who's NEVER worked a day in theri life, gets the same amount, plus whatever other extras they get.

No-one wants to lose their job. The majority of people who've been made unemployed recently would jump at the chance to enter the workplace again, but simply can't find work - not even in the likes of McDonalds. They are not "over qualified" for such work, they simply aren't considered for the jobs. As one hotel manager said on RTE news, "just because you have a degree in accountancy, doesn't mean you know how to clean toilets".

Many self-employed people have seen their businesses fail in recent times. They are not entitled to any SW benefits, despite them paying PRSI for whatever amount of time. Again, this is unfair.

During the boom times, no-one paid much attention to the long term unemployed. No real effort was made to try & train them & get them into the workplace. Yes, FAS was up & running, spending money on training facilities that were usually empty & spending a lot more on God knows what else. Now they are over-run with people recently been made unemployed & what have they got to offer to professionals, or the well educated? Courses in hairdressing, courses in basic computer skills, courses in kerb laying?

And what does the state have to offer in terms of monetary support? The same that it has given to welfare layabouts for donkeys years. That's if you're lucky enough to be entitled to the payments.

Yes, the system needs changing, but trying to stop the unemployed from spending their money on fags & booze really won't go a long way towards making it a system that actually works & benefits those who deserve it the most.

Medievalist

seamus wrote: »

what I'm talking about is letting people have their dignity while unemployed

Having your life dictated to you is not preserving dignity. Most people on the dole are embarrassed at being unemployed. Most people don't want to be standing in that queue. I've seen people trying to hide their cards in the post office so no knows they are unemployed. Having to produce a specific card in the local supermarket to get food is going to further demoralise an already depressed section of society. And being told you can't buy cigarettes? Now, I'm not a smoker and I hate smoking, but I think people are under enough stress as it is without having to give up cigarettes cold turkey.

Socialising is very important while unemployed. People on the dole no longer have daily interaction with others. This can have serious mental health issues. I don't condone partying every week on dole money, but not being able to go for a pint or two, or a coffee with friends and get out of the house to talk about stuff can have serious effects on people.

The system does need to be more means tested though. Those on the dole long term should have to provide proof they are looking for work. Social Welfare office doesn't seem to ask for proof on a regular basis anymore.

Joey the lips

Hi op i want to think of your arguement some more but just to give my view on your point

Unemployment benefit is paid to someone who has already earned that right through stamps. If the govt is going to take that right away they can start by refunding my RSI contrabutions

Unemployment assistance is either paid to someone who has not earned enough stamps yet or due to low payment will never earn enough

You note there is no mention in any of these statements that there is wasters on the dole so by this fact we have to conclude that they are not beggers and thus have the right to choose....

Hotblack Desiato

Medievalist wrote: »

Most people on the dole are embarrassed at being unemployed.

Have you ever been there? Yes it is embarrassing at first - but that wears off. For a single person living at home (As I was in the early 90s) it was an easy number

Having to produce a specific card in the local supermarket to get food is going to further demoralise an already depressed section of society.

There's no reason why it couldn't be a Laser/Chip & PIN card that at a glance looks just like any other.

And being told you can't buy cigarettes? Now, I'm not a smoker and I hate smoking, but I think people are under enough stress as it is without having to give up cigarettes cold turkey.

So taxpayers should subsidise drug habits now? On the one hand we are spending lots of money dealing with the ill-health that results from smoking. On the other, the state is paying for a large proportion of the cigarettes bought...

P_1

Interesting idea OP although it really should only be applied to people who have run out of stamps as otherwise it would pretty much go against the whole idea of the PRSI system.

Although €40 or so should be allowed for discrectionary spending otherwise you're just creating an automatic black market.

johnnyskeleton

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That's the mindset that underpinned the building of workhouses in the middle of the 19th century.

Workhouses in the mid 19th century were bad because of the slave labour and terrible conditions attached to them, not because they allowed people to work as an alternative to starving.

I'm not sure there is anything immoral or inherently wrong with the idea that if you want to eat you have to work for it. Certainly I would feel a lot more comfortable knowing that if I couldn't hold down a real job that I could put in a shift for a few day's feed rather than the rigmarole that comes with the dole. The social and economic effects also have to be considered.

starbelgrade

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I'm not sure there is anything immoral or inherently wrong with the idea that if you want to eat you have to work for it. Certainly I would feel a lot more comfortable knowing that if I couldn't hold down a real job that I could put in a shift for a few day's feed rather than the rigmarole that comes with the dole.

And what if you couldn't even find a few shifts to put in? What then? No, there is nothing wrong with earning your keep. There is nothing wrong with paying into a social system that helps those who cannot do the same. But what if you lost your job? Would you hold the same stance? I think not.

What happens when the choosers become beggars?

Taxipete29

While I agree that there are a substantial number of people on the dole who have made it a career choice, the vast majority at this point are new claimants who have lost their job due to the recent unpleasantness. It would be unfair to those who have worked hard and suddenly found themselves in this predicament to further remove their dignity by treating them in this fashion.

The Government have failed on a consistent basis to tackle the problem of long-term unemployed who have no interest in work. These people need to be targetted through work programmes whereby they provide a service to the community they have leeched off for years. You give them a choice, communtiy work for say 20-25 hours a week, if they choose not to do it you provide them with the card as suggested.

For those more recently unemployed they should have a grace period of a year to look for a job and or enter some class of training or education programme. In this way you target the spongers and dont punish those who have genuinely contributed over the years only to fall foul of the collapse in the economy. The added bonus is the community gets alot of cheap labour to perform tasks which otherwise go untended.

starbelgrade

Taxipete29 wrote: »

While I agree that there are a substantial number of people on the dole who have made it a career choice, the vast majority at this point are new claimants who have lost their job due to the recent unpleasantness. It would be unfair to those who have worked hard and suddenly found themselves in this predicament to further remove their dignity by treating them in this fashion.

The Government have failed on a consistent basis to tackle the problem of long-term unemployed who have no interest in work. These people need to be targetted through work programmes whereby they provide a service to the community they have leeched off for years. You give them a choice, communtiy work for say 20-25 hours a week, if they choose not to do it you provide them with the card as suggested.

For those more recently unemployed they should have a grace period of a year to look for a job and or enter some class of training or education programme. In this way you target the spongers and dont punish those who have genuinely contributed over the years only to fall foul of the collapse in the economy. The added bonus is the community gets alot of cheap labour to perform tasks which otherwise go untended.

At last, some sense.



I had to let 3 employees go this year, simply because there was no work for them. It was heartbreaking.


To have them face this kind of scrutiny is just beyond comprehension.

Medievalist

ninja900 wrote: »

Have you ever been there? Yes it is embarrassing at first - but that wears off. For a single person living at home (As I was in the early 90s) it was an easy number

Yes, I've been there. It was mortifying. It doesn't wear off. And I wasn't considering it an easy number.

There's no reason why it couldn't be a Laser/Chip & PIN card that at a glance looks just like any other.

That still means that after paying years of PRSI contributions, you are being judged by the groceries you buy. Someone may need to buy more food one week than the next. Who are we to judge?

So taxpayers should subsidise drug habits now? On the one hand we are spending lots of money dealing with the ill-health that results from smoking. On the other, the state is paying for a large proportion of the cigarettes bought...

The only tax payer subsidising the 'drug habit' is the smoker, who has paid money off every pay cheque to qualify for the dole. I'm sure the stress of unemployment increases the risk of developing a smoking habit. If the government focused on creating new jobs they'd be reducing the numbers of unemployed and helping the health system at the same time.

nesf

Taxipete29 wrote: »

While I agree that there are a substantial number of people on the dole who have made it a career choice, the vast majority at this point are new claimants who have lost their job due to the recent unpleasantness. It would be unfair to those who have worked hard and suddenly found themselves in this predicament to further remove their dignity by treating them in this fashion.

The Government have failed on a consistent basis to tackle the problem of long-term unemployed who have no interest in work. These people need to be targetted through work programmes whereby they provide a service to the community they have leeched off for years. You give them a choice, communtiy work for say 20-25 hours a week, if they choose not to do it you provide them with the card as suggested.

For those more recently unemployed they should have a grace period of a year to look for a job and or enter some class of training or education programme. In this way you target the spongers and dont punish those who have genuinely contributed over the years only to fall foul of the collapse in the economy. The added bonus is the community gets alot of cheap labour to perform tasks which otherwise go untended.

I agree completely with the above. Target the problem not the unlucky souls who want work but can't get it right now.

bonkey

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Ah, ok.

The reason I was asking is because the system here (Swissville) is quite different, from what I can see.

If I were to lose my job in the morning (having been employed full-time for over 3 years), I'm entitled to "Unemployment Benefit". This is something like 85% of my salary (taking the average of my last year of employment). I'm entitled to this for quite some time...somewhere between 1 and 3 years, AFAICR.

During this time, however, I have to be actively job-searching. This involves meeting my assigned social worker ("Employment assistant" or somesuch), showing that I've been actively applying for jobs (providing copies of the applications, which they will follow up on ), discussing alternatives...potentially being sent on training courses (for any cross-training / refresher / whatever they deem would help me get a job again).

As soon as someone offers me a job with a salary within some percentage of my previous job (85% again? I can't remember), and within something like 2 hours commute (reckoned by Swiss public transport), then I am obliged to take that job (or lose my Unemployment Benefit and revert to standard "social welfare" which is what the long-term unemployed get).

From speaking to some mates who've gone through it...its a system thats generally pretty-strongly policed. You can "game" it to a degree, if you really really want, but generally, its more trouble then its worth to even try.

Sounds quite a bit like what Taxipete29 is thinking of as worthwhile.

peasant

Another thing that people keep forgetting is that actively looking for work can be quite expensive.

You have to buy papers, looking for ads
Drive around a lot for interviews / dropping CV's on spec
Print and post hundreds of CV's ..possibly in smart looking folders and envelopes
Keep your car maintained and taxed so you can go to that interview
Keep your clothes and hair in trim
etc

You will find that many unemployed people have to eat into their savings in order to do that

Rb

peasant wrote: »

Another thing that people keep forgetting is that actively looking for work can be quite expensive.

You have to buy papers, looking for ads
Drive around a lot for interviews / dropping CV's on spec
Print and post hundreds of CV's ..possibly in smart looking folders and envelopes
Keep your car maintained and taxed so you can go to that interview
Keep your clothes and hair in trim
etc

You will find that many unemployed people have to eat into their savings in order to do that

That's an excuse, it has never been cheaper to jobhunt than it is now.

The biggest problem is that they're not enforcing job seekers to actually seek jobs. They should be doing random checks as to who has applied for what, and checking with the companies that said person actually applied. If people are found to be taking the piss, i.e a brickie applying for a CEO position or similar, then they should have the dole taken from them and told where to go.

I know of someone who recently turned down a job paying roughly 20k per year in favour of remaining on the dole where he gets roughly 400 per week as he has kids, along with his rent being covered, and doing side work every week for roughly 300-400 euro per week. Anyone caught to be actively turning down a job whilst on the dole should have their dole removed for a period of 5-10 years, as far as I'm concerned.

I'd also be in favour of removing the right to vote from those currently receiving unemployment benefit.

The card system is a great idea and should be brought into effect, these people are living off the state, they shouldn't be allowed spend the money on what they want, it should be spent on what they need.

peasant

Rb wrote: »

That's an excuse, it has never been cheaper to jobhunt than it is now.

And that's a grand, sweeping statement. If you live in the country and you have to keep a car to go job hunting (in addition to all other costs), see how far 200 euro a week gets you.

Rb

Rb wrote: »

I'd also be in favour of removing the right to vote from those currently receiving unemployment benefit.

I take it you are not being serious here? In the middle of a recession where a lot of people are desperate to get back to work, should not be ALLOWED to try and politically change things?


I am absolutely speechless.

ei.sdraob

petethebrick wrote: »

The idea of providing people who have made prsi contributions for many years with food stamps and bus passes is ridiculous however- if out of work, people are fully entitled to monetary recompense to spend as they see fit.

thats an interesting point

lets take this further


have public PRSI insurance like scheme with a card as per OP which is an electronic version of food stamps etc

and have a private PRSI insurance scheme which pays out in cash



and give the people a choice of which pot their PRSI goes, sort of like pension schemes are done

Meeja Ireland

Taxipete29 wrote: »

For those more recently unemployed they should have a grace period of a year to look for a job and or enter some class of training or education programme. In this way you target the spongers and dont punish those who have genuinely contributed over the years only to fall foul of the collapse in the economy. The added bonus is the community gets alot of cheap labour to perform tasks which otherwise go untended.

There was something called the Back To Work scheme a few years ago which was well-designed and supportive. It gave the applicant 75% of his dole, along with all the extra entitlements, for one year. During this time the applicant was supported in finding training, and allowed to earn money as well.

In the second year the figure dropped to 50%, and then to 25% in the third. By then the person had received three years of support, and had been allowed to integrate into the workforce in a realistic, unfrightening way.

The scheme recognised the blurry border between work and unemployment. You often don't get off the dole by walking into full-time employment. You pick up a few hours in a cafe or garage, and hope that it spins off into permanence. Sadly, the normal dole system penalises this, or at least disincentivises it.

ei.sdraob

Meeja Ireland wrote: »

There was something called the Back To Work scheme a few years ago which was well-designed and supportive. It gave the applicant 75% of his dole, along with all the extra entitlements, for one year. During this time the applicant was supported in finding training, and allowed to earn money as well.

is Back to work scheme gone now? :eek:


I know some people who benefited greatly from this back few years ago and now run several businesses

sceptre

Rb wrote: »

I'd also be in favour of removing the right to vote from those currently receiving unemployment benefit.

Part of me likes the idea of removing the right to vote from anyone without a treble-tested standardised IQ average of less than 140 or 170 or similar on the grounds that half of the Oireachtas is made up of idiots elected by idiots but I'd never support it because universal suffrage is a cornerstone of reasonable democracy; also, organised dismantling of universal suffrage is a slippery slope towards only allowing those who "deserve" a vote to vote, which comes with its own harrowing conclusion. None of us want to live there.

Sorry to be blunt but your suggestion is silly. I'm still curious though as to how the suggestion might make society better, democracy more representative or have any purpose at all apart from actually taking dignity away from people who, even with the coldest attitude towards utility contribution to society as a measure of worth, deserve it just as much as film studies students (to pick on a group at random), given that they contribute just as much to the universe simply by virtue of existing.

Meeja Ireland

ei.sdraob wrote: »

is Back to work scheme gone now? :eek:

I know some people who benefited greatly from this back few years ago and now run several businesses

I think it was dropped a few years ago, but to be honest I'm no expert. One of the audience members on Frontline a couple of weeks ago was pleading for it to be brought back.

I also know people it really helped.

Darlughda

The entitlement culture can be infuriating, particularly when its used as a defense legislatively.

But, imposing a morality upon people in receipt of basic social welfare is not far off from the punitive sysem of moral correction popular in the 19th century.
Who gets to decide what a person's basics needs are? If that basic sense of determination over one's choices of what they need for survival and priority in life is removed, then you have a situation where a sub-class of citizen emerges, whom everyone thinks they have a 'right' to judge morally and challenge aggressively.

Overheal

Long Onion wrote: »

It would lead to a black market economy with poeple hocking food allowances for cigarettes. I would also wonder about the possible effects it may have on children who have no say over their parents financial situation. What would we do coming up to christmas/ birthdays?

It would be harsh to punish children in such ways (N.b. I am not to be taken as proposing that kids deserve playstations, but some small present may be nice)

Seriously? This christmas comment seems ridiculous and unqualified.

As for the former, have a read over the Food Stamp Program (USA)

edit: Theres already a black market for cigarettes :rolleyes: and if you think single mammys dont dip in to their child benefits for this already Im sure youre gravely mistaken.

Toys are essential for children's healthy development, so I don't see a problem with having an allowance for a certain amount of toys and "bonus" allowances around the child's birthday and christmas. Of course, they would be small enough that you wouldn't have people buying playstations on it.

Again you're allowing those sentiments you were against in your OP to creep in. The State shouldnt be responsible for paying bonuses for religious holidays or Children's Birthdays. Childrens clothing and toys and prams fall under the jurisdiction of a flat rate Childrens Allowance.

Medievalist wrote: »

Having your life dictated to you is not preserving dignity. Most people on the dole are embarrassed at being unemployed. Most people don't want to be standing in that queue. I've seen people trying to hide their cards in the post office so no knows they are unemployed. Having to produce a specific card in the local supermarket to get food is going to further demoralise an already depressed section of society. And being told you can't buy cigarettes? Now, I'm not a smoker and I hate smoking, but I think people are under enough stress as it is without having to give up cigarettes cold turkey.

Socialising is very important while unemployed. People on the dole no longer have daily interaction with others. This can have serious mental health issues. I don't condone partying every week on dole money, but not being able to go for a pint or two, or a coffee with friends and get out of the house to talk about stuff can have serious effects on people.

The system does need to be more means tested though. Those on the dole long term should have to provide proof they are looking for work. Social Welfare office doesn't seem to ask for proof on a regular basis anymore.

Theres a line between Mental Health and Coddling. If you're worried about depression, theres The Medical Card.

It should not be the role of a welfare system to make the unemployed look happy and wealthy so they can socialize. It should also not be a primary concern whether they feel Dignified or not. The whole point is that being Unemployed sucks and that people need more reasons to want to aggressively seek re-employment, not less.

And pray-tell, whats the point in a few beers and feeling good about yourself, when suddenly that cute girl you were eying asks you what you do for a living and you have to either lie or tell her you're unemployed. Why live a lie? I would find that more embarrassing than the latter.

I was recently unemployed for 13 months. It does suck. You dont socialize. You want to socialize. to do that you want to have money. How to get money? Oh yeah, file for unemployment spend 40 hours a week finding a job. Embarrassing yes. But with hundreds of millions of people in the same boat, the only thing you have to be embarrassed by is if you aren't trying hard enough. Why should I feel embarrassed simply for falling on hard times? Just work your hardest to get through it. You then have little to be mortified of.

Taxipete29 wrote: »

While I agree that there are a substantial number of people on the dole who have made it a career choice, the vast majority at this point are new claimants who have lost their job due to the recent unpleasantness. It would be unfair to those who have worked hard and suddenly found themselves in this predicament to further remove their dignity by treating them in this fashion.

The Government have failed on a consistent basis to tackle the problem of long-term unemployed who have no interest in work. These people need to be targetted through work programmes whereby they provide a service to the community they have leeched off for years. You give them a choice, communtiy work for say 20-25 hours a week, if they choose not to do it you provide them with the card as suggested.

For those more recently unemployed they should have a grace period of a year to look for a job and or enter some class of training or education programme. In this way you target the spongers and dont punish those who have genuinely contributed over the years only to fall foul of the collapse in the economy. The added bonus is the community gets alot of cheap labour to perform tasks which otherwise go untended.

Thats a fair comment to make. The long-term employed should receive proportionately more benefits than someone who just entered or whom has never entered the workforce. And any worker should be able to get better benefits if they choose to pursue community service.

That being said against my last comment, they too need to grin and bear it. A bit of emotional maturity is required when waiting in a Dole queue. Your mortified. Tough. **** happens to all of us.

SLUSK

Papa Smut wrote: »

I take it you are not being serious here? In the middle of a recession where a lot of people are desperate to get back to work, should not be ALLOWED to try and politically change things?


I am absolutely speechless.

If you don't own any share isn a publicly traded company you are not allowed to vote in their annual shareholders meeting.

Why should people who do not pay any taxes be allowed to have the same say in how things are run as someone who pays loads of money in taxes?

bonkey

SLUSK wrote: »

If you don't own any share isn a publicly traded company you are not allowed to vote in their annual shareholders meeting.

Why should people who do not pay any taxes be allowed to have the same say in how things are run as someone who pays loads of money in taxes?

For the same reason that the rich get exactly the same number of votes as the poor in a democracy, but shareholders get to wield power commensurate with the number of shares they own.

If I earn twice what you do...should I get two votes to your one?
If I earn 1000 times what you do, should I get 1000 votes to your one?

And lets not even start on asking how the stay-at-home parents get figured into the whole "earn or you don't vote" line of reasoning.

Medievalist

SLUSK wrote: »

If you don't own any share isn a publicly traded company you are not allowed to vote in their annual shareholders meeting.

Why should people who do not pay any taxes be allowed to have the same say in how things are run as someone who pays loads of money in taxes?

That's ingenious! We should have introduced that years ago in this country.

All the very wealthy people who avoided paying taxes for years would not have been able to vote.

Then they wouldn't have voted in FF again.

Then FF wouldn't have fecked up the country and economy.

Then there'd be less unemployment.

And this whole conversation would be moot!

Overheal

I know youre being silly, but if you excluded the Superrich or even anyone making over 200k youd still probably account only for less than 5% of the voting population.

How much did FF win by?

Boskowski

Long Onion wrote: »

I would also wonder about the possible effects it may have on children who have no say over their parents financial situation. What would we do coming up to christmas/ birthdays?

It would be harsh to punish children in such ways (N.b. I am not to be taken as proposing that kids deserve playstations, but some small present may be nice)

Hello? Think of the children?

Of course it would be nice if the children got something but life is harsh and some parents have more and some have less. My parents were piss poor when I was a little boy. It didn't damage me all that badly. If anything I'm not taking anything for granted now.

Boskowski

Medievalist wrote: »

Having your life dictated to you is not preserving dignity. Most people on the dole are embarrassed at being unemployed. Most people don't want to be standing in that queue. I've seen people trying to hide their cards in the post office so no knows they are unemployed. Having to produce a specific card in the local supermarket to get food is going to further demoralise an already depressed section of society.

Well ,we're all having our lives dictated. Form the very beginning. We have to go to school where we have to work very hard to get the points that allow us to include the things we're interested in into our career choices. Then we have to go to work all our lives where we spend most of the time doing something completely different from the things we'd actually like to spend our lifetime on. If you don't agree with this there is no place for you in society. You're fvcked.

If that's not having your life dictated I don't know what is.

Now you lose your job for a long time (remember we're not talking about your PRSI stuff that you entitled to for what roughly a year, we're talking long term dole here) and you have your life dictated a little more but you receive services that prevent you from dropping out of society.

While not great it doesn't sound outrageously harsh either. Again, remember we're talking long term dole here.

Medievalist

realcam wrote: »

Again, remember we're talking long term dole here.

I'm not sure the OP was refering solely to the long-term unemployed receiving benefits via a card. If we are talking just long-term claimants, then the approach does need to change slightly.

I'm certainly very suprised that the social welfare offices don't check for proof of job applications. I think that's a severe shortcoming in the system. I don't think people should be punished for not finding jobs (they're not exactly growing on trees at the moment), but there should certainly be incentive to keep looking. Otherwise it would be very easy for people to give up/ realise they could exploit the system.

The newly unemployed shouldn't be targeted. Say for the first 12 months things continue as they are now. Person applies for dole and signs on every month. After 12 months, in order to continue receiving the dole, they must provide proof that they are a) seeking employment and b) involved in training/ volunteering/ community activities for 20-25hrs a week. This keeps people active and engaged, and they are contributing to society.

After 18 months, perhaps then a more restrictive form of benefit distribution could be introduced. Eg, they have a certain percentage of their benefits go directly to bank/ landlord for mortgage/ rent, or ESB etc. This would increase the pressure to continue looking for work, while still maintaining a certain level of dignity and flexibility.

Any restrictions should only take place after a person's benefits funded by their PRSI contibutions run out.

johnnyskeleton

starbelgrade wrote: »

And what if you couldn't even find a few shifts to put in? What then? No, there is nothing wrong with earning your keep. There is nothing wrong with paying into a social system that helps those who cannot do the same. But what if you lost your job? Would you hold the same stance? I think not.

All things being equal, a government sponsored (or whoever) system of casual work for a few quid's dole money would be a godsend compared to the reality of trying to sign on and being bounced around for a few weeks (you'd better have some savings) and what if you're self employed? It's very hard to claim the dole once you've closed the doors so to speak, and a system whereby you could top up your income by putting in a few shifts would help those of an entrepreneurial turn to muddle through the hard times. The current system demands effectively that you cease trading and go on the dole full time.

johnnyskeleton

Rb wrote: »

I'd also be in favour of removing the right to vote from those currently receiving unemployment benefit.

That would only relatively increase the voting power of public servants and, without making any negative comment about public servants as they are now, this could lead to a system whereby half the country is employed in the public sector and the other half lives in absolute poverty. The disenfranchisement of those on jobseekers could lead to a system where the government makes sure that there are no jobs for them to seek.

starbelgrade

Rb wrote: »

I'd also be in favour of removing the right to vote from those currently receiving unemployment benefit.

What the ****?! :eek::eek:

Joey the lips

Rb wrote: »

TI'd also be in favour of removing the right to vote from those currently receiving unemployment benefit.
.

You post really stinks and this is the lowest point. You know someone my eye. I reckon you read the exceptions in the news papers like most. Anybody who applys for a job and it pays less is actually entitiled to carious top ups etc.

Oh and by the way you seriously need to learn your history. The reason the irish had no rights many years ago is that the had no voteing rights becuase they owned no property. You take voteing rights of the unemployed and why in the name of god should politicians work to help them out of the hole they are in?

If we live in that fantasy the rich will run more of this country than they do now and the country will be truly beyond fooked.

Zambia

Excellent thread.

The OP was headed in the right direction and as the posts have gone on a real alternative began to crawl out of the thread.

Essentially it starts to look like a welfare step ladder. As you earn and pay PRSI you move up the ladder. Should you lose your job you start to descend on the other side with entitlements dwindling till you reach rock bottom. Which I see as the card idea in the OP.

The right of the vote is not that important as I gather half the lazy f**kers concerned would not bother walking to the polling station.

stefanj

Zambia232 wrote: »

The right of the vote is not that important as I gather half the lazy f**kers concerned would not bother walking to the polling station.

Let's move one step further to .... ?

This thread is scarey