The basic rate of social welfare needs to be cut

cm2000

Our social welfare payment of 204 euro needs to be cut as it is too close to the minimum wage and stops people working for minimum wage. Here are some stats.

If I work a 35 hour week at minimum wage, I will earn a whopping €302.75 per week.
If I stay at home and choose not to I will earn €204 per week.
If I need to get one train to work and one train home that would be €4.60 a day, €23 a week.
Now say I need to get a very moderately priced lunch while at work, say €5 a day, €25 a week.
Therefore, my 35 hour week will in essence get me €50.75 more than if I choose not to.
This is wrong yes?

Scofflaw

cm2000 wrote: »

Our social welfare payment of 204 euro needs to be cut as it is too close to the minimum wage and stops people working for minimum wage. Here are some stats.

If I work a 35 hour week at minimum wage, I will earn a whopping €302.75 per week.
If I stay at home and choose not to I will earn €204 per week.
If I need to get one train to work and one train home that would be €4.60 a day, €23 a week.
Now say I need to get a very moderately priced lunch while at work, say €5 a day, €25 a week.
Therefore, my 35 hour week will in essence get me €50.75 more than if I choose not to.
This is wrong yes?

No offence, but why not a 40-hour week? Or indeed, anything up to a 48-hour week? That would net you €163 more a week than the dole - nearly an 80% increase.

Even on your 35-hour week, you've still put yourself in a better position to find more and/or better paid work by working than by being on the dole - in addition to earning 25% more.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Riskymove

cm2000 wrote: »

Now say I need to get a very moderately priced lunch while at work, say €5 a day, €25 a week.

do people eat for free on welfare?

cm2000

Scofflaw wrote: »

No offence, but why not a 40-hour week? Or indeed, anything up to a 48-hour week? That would net you €163 more a week than the dole - nearly an 80% increase.

Even on your 35-hour week, you've still put yourself in a better position to find more and/or better paid work by working than by being on the dole.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Because its a basic nine to five wage where your lunch hour is not paid, as is the case in most minimum wage jobs, i think thats a fair enough example tbh

cm2000

Riskymove wrote: »

do people eat for free on welfare?

yes, thats the nature of the thing

Scofflaw

cm2000 wrote: »

Because its a basic nine to five wage where your lunch hour is not paid, as is the case in most minimum wage jobs, i think thats a fair enough example tbh

Alright, but I'd still take it over welfare. I'd probably go a packed lunch though.

cordially,
Scofflaw

cm2000

Scofflaw wrote: »

Alright, but I'd still take it over welfare. I'd probably go a packed lunch though.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Does the only small difference not make you think it should be cut? 50 quid for a weeks work is what your actually getting

Riskymove

cm2000 wrote: »

yes, thats the nature of the thing

TESCO is free to welfare is it?

cm2000

Riskymove wrote: »

TESCO is free to welfare is it?

you asked if people ate for free on welfare, yes they do, they do everything for free.. its the nature of welfare..

Riskymove

cm2000 wrote: »

you asked if people ate for free on welfare, yes they do, they do everything for free.. its the nature of welfare..

but they still have to spend some of the €204 on food, your example above implied they did not and that the cost of lunch "ate" into the difference for a worker

kippy

Scofflaw wrote: »

Alright, but I'd still take it over welfare. I'd probably go a packed lunch though.

cordially,
Scofflaw

In fairness, people posting these kind of thread do have a point. It really us up to the individual what they chose and even this poster has forgotten a few key points.
Welfare is not just the 204 a week, there are many other potential benefits as well out there for people on welfare, allowances for training, other allowances,medcal card etc....

The whole lot needs to come down in my opinion. From social welfare and associated benefits to minimum wage, to public sector wages, which should in turn bring down cost of living costs across the board.

I know of many people who have gone on the dole for 6 months to a year rather than work for 6 months to a year because they are planning to do a college course which they will get very well paid for doing if they are on the dole, but if they leave a job to go on the course they get screwed over to pay for it.
Thats the reality and I am sure other areas of welfare are abused as well, thats just wrong.

The government should try reduce certain costs if they bring down families incomes, from VAT to fees for certain public services, to esb costs to other costs they can effect.
It has to happen from the bottom up though or the top down, whatever works.

_michelle_

at this moment in time i really dont think welfare rates should be cut as so many people are losing their jobs that you cant really say it is no incentive for people to work as many had no choice & if they were given the choice would choose to work, not be on welfare struggling to get by.

Taxipete29

cm2000 wrote: »

Our social welfare payment of 204 euro needs to be cut as it is too close to the minimum wage and stops people working for minimum wage. Here are some stats.

If I work a 35 hour week at minimum wage, I will earn a whopping €302.75 per week.
If I stay at home and choose not to I will earn €204 per week.
If I need to get one train to work and one train home that would be €4.60 a day, €23 a week.
Now say I need to get a very moderately priced lunch while at work, say €5 a day, €25 a week.
Therefore, my 35 hour week will in essence get me €50.75 more than if I choose not to.
This is wrong yes?

The vast majority of people in this country have more self respect than to choose welfare over a minimum wage job. There will always be people who wont work. It was like this when our welfare system wasnt so generous and will remain a sad fact of life.

Genuine people on welfare will be looking for work so it stands to reason they would also have transport costs not to mention the fact that they have to eat. I find your comparison lacking in substance.

Even finding a minimum wage job at the moment is difficult. While I am working at the moment as a taxi driver I desperatly want to get out of it so that I can devote the neccessary time to my part-time studies. A minimum wage job would do me fine, but they are few in number and with the level of competition there is, its a struggle to even get to an interview. In short the high welfare is not stopping genuine people from looking for work. You only have to look at the queues of people a month or 2 ago looking for christmas work in M+S. Irish people mostly have pride enough to want to work for their money.

cm2000

Riskymove wrote: »

but they still have to spend some of the €204 on food, your example above implied they did not and that the cost of lunch "ate" into the difference for a worker

Ah I know I was being pedantic. It is however much cheaper to prepare food at home, and someone working may not have the time to do so etc. its not really the point though. The basic point is that the gap between a minimum wage job and welfare is far far too small and it definitely does disincentivises minimum wage work

OP: You have forgotten Rent Allowance

Taxipete29

cm2000 wrote: »

Ah I know I was being pedantic. It is however much cheaper to prepare food at home, and someone working may not have the time to do so etc. its not really the point though. The basic point is that the gap between a minimum wage job and welfare is far far too small and it definitely does disincentivises minimum wage work

Sure if they only work 35 hours a week there is plenty of time left to prepare lunches, dinners etc

cm2000

Taxipete29 wrote: »

The vast majority of people in this country have more self respect than to choose welfare over a minimum wage job. There will always be people who wont work. It was like this when our welfare system wasnt so generous and will remain a sad fact of life.

Genuine people on welfare will be looking for work so it stands to reason they would also have transport costs not to mention the fact that they have to eat. I find your comparison lacking in substance.

Even finding a minimum wage job at the moment is difficult. While I am working at the moment as a taxi driver I desperatly want to get out of it so that I can devote the neccessary time to my part-time studies. A minimum wage job would do me fine, but they are few in number and with the level of competition there is, its a struggle to even get to an interview. In short the high welfare is not stopping genuine people from looking for work. You only have to look at the queues of people a month or 2 ago looking for christmas work in M+S. Irish people mostly have pride enough to want to work for their money.

I took up a temporary contract position a number of months ago on minimum wage which has since ceased. The hours were very bad, you could be told you were not needed certain days etc. The employer took on 65 or so people. Of these about 9/10 were Irish. Most were eastern european. I disagree. I think it's far too comfortable, with rent allowance, child benefit etc, its far to easy to be unemployed. It should be hard, especially for those who haven't made the necessary prsi contributions.

Taxipete29

cm2000 wrote: »

I took up a temporary contract position a number of months ago on minimum wage which has since ceased. The hours were very bad, you could be told you were not needed certain days etc. The employer took on 65 or so people. Of these about 9/10 were Irish. Most were eastern european. I disagree. I think it's far too comfortable, with rent allowance, child benefit etc, its far to easy to be unemployed. It should be hard, especially for those who haven't made the necessary prsi contributions.

Did it ever occur to you that perhaps these eastern eurpeans were better candidates for the positions than other Irish who applied. It doesnt follow that because more non-irish got the jobs that there were few irish who even applied. You cannot make that judgement unless you have evidence to the contrary.

cm2000

Taxipete29 wrote: »

Did it ever occur to you that perhaps these eastern eurpeans were better candidates for the positions than other Irish who applied. It doesnt follow that because more non-irish got the jobs that there were few irish who even applied. You cannot make that judgement unless you have evidence to the contrary.

No. my interview was basically
can you lift things? speak english? and get to work?
was a monkey job.. Irish just didnt apply

rasper

cm2000 wrote: »

I took up a temporary contract position a number of months ago on minimum wage which has since ceased. The hours were very bad, you could be told you were not needed certain days etc. The employer took on 65 or so people. Of these about 9/10 were Irish. Most were eastern european. I disagree. I think it's far too comfortable, with rent allowance, child benefit etc, its far to easy to be unemployed. It should be hard, especially for those who haven't made the necessary prsi contributions.

This lazy Irish won't work mentality really sickens me, generally an employer like the above with crap hours and short notice cancelllations prefers to hire workers who keep their mouths shut and can't complain so unless most of the applicants were EE then your story means nothing.
Fact is we had one of the lowest unemployment rates in Europe when we had jobs now we don't and we have one of the highest. so cut the welfare and there still no jobs just people f**k off out to another country.
Ohh I see

cm2000

rasper wrote: »

This lazy Irish won't work mentality really sickens me, generally an employer like the above with crap hours and short notice cancelllations prefers to hire workers who keep their mouths shut and can't complain so unless most of the applicants were EE then your story means nothing.
Fact is we had one of the lowest unemployment rates in Europe when we had jobs now we don't and we have one of the highest. so cut the welfare and there still no jobs just people f**k off out to another country.
Ohh I see

Most of the applicants were Eastern European, Myself and a friend, both Irish, Both with good degrees etc. applied and had the job in a couple of days, there was no anti irish bias, there just werent that many irish applicants. Why? because, 300 odd quid with crap hours is hardly worth it.... hense my point. its not even a lazy mentality, just a logical one.

Taxipete29

cm2000 wrote: »

No. my interview was basically
can you lift things? speak english? and get to work?
was a monkey job.. Irish just didnt apply

Well I think the lines of people queuing for jobs in M+S and Londis much earlier in the year do not back up your claims. There were Irish a plenty on those queues of all ages.

Irish people wouldnt work minimum wage jobs during the tiger years because they got better jobs not because they were lazy. Now they have little choice and from what I can see are quite happily accepting whatever work they can get. Your one experience does not tell even part of the story.

cm2000

Taxipete29 wrote: »

Well I think the lines of people queuing for jobs in M+S and Londis much earlier in the year do not back up your claims. There were Irish a plenty on those queues of all ages.

Irish people wouldnt work minimum wage jobs during the tiger years because they got better jobs not because they were lazy. Now they have little choice and from what I can see are quite happily accepting whatever work they can get. Your one experience does not tell even part of the story.

Do you think it is fair that someone who chooses not to work gets only 50-70 quid less per week than someone in the same boat who does work?

P. Breathnach

cm2000 wrote: »

Do you think it is fair that someone who chooses not to work gets only 50-70 quid less per week than someone in the same boat who does work?

That's a loaded question and, in present circumstances, unfairly so. There are many on social welfare through no choice of their own.

jimmmy

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That's a loaded question and, in present circumstances, unfairly so. There are many on social welfare through no choice of their own.

But there are some on social welfare because once they get all the allowances, medical card, social housing etc its not worth their while working. All government handouts need to be reduced, from the job-seekers allowance ( nearly 3 times what it is north of the border, even though lidl, aldi etc does not charge 3 times here UK or German prices ) to those who get their 40,000 and 100,000 euro per year public sector pensions.

Johnboy1951

cm2000 wrote: »

Do you think it is fair that someone who chooses not to work gets only 50-70 quid less per week than someone in the same boat who does work?

How do you propose to separate those who "choose" not to work from those who cannot find employment?

Is it not the case that if an unemployed person is offered a job and refuses it for no good reason, such as medical, that his benefits are cut?

It is a long time since I was in such a situation, but that was how it was administered ........

P. Breathnach

jimmmy wrote: »

But there are some on social welfare because once they get all the allowances, medical card, social housing etc its not worth their while working. All government handouts need to be reduced, from the job-seekers allowance ( nearly 3 times what it is north of the border, even though lidl, aldi etc does not charge 3 times here UK or German prices ) to those who get their 40,000 and 100,000 euro per year public sector pensions.

This is not a public-sector bashing thread; it's a social welfare bashing thread.

jimmmy

P. Breathnach wrote: »

This is not a public-sector bashing thread; it's a social welfare bashing thread.

Its nothing about bashing...its to do with the unsustainable ( and out of line compared with other countries ) amount of money the government gives out to people for doing no work in return.

Scofflaw

jimmmy wrote: »

Its nothing about bashing...its to do with the unsustainable ( and out of line compared with other countries ) amount of money the government gives out to people for doing no work in return.

Don't pull this thread off-topic, jimmmy. Your repeated condemnation of the public sector is perilously close to trolling already.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Taxipete29

cm2000 wrote: »

Do you think it is fair that someone who chooses not to work gets only 50-70 quid less per week than someone in the same boat who does work?

To be fair, if you work a full week ie 39/40 hours you get nearly 150 more.

Social welfare is there to help people.I will admit many have abused the system over the years and I am all for weeding out the spongers. However most of the people on the dole now are newly unemployed and it would be disgracful to hit them now, when they are the ones who are already feeling the burden of the current crisis the most.

Tackle the spongers and those who milk the system illegally, but you cannot punish the very people for who the welfare system was created to help.

cm2000

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

How do you propose to separate those who "choose" not to work from those who cannot find employment?

Is it not the case that if an unemployed person is offered a job and refuses it for no good reason, such as medical, that his benefits are cut?

It is a long time since I was in such a situation, but that was how it was administered ........

Easy enough, for every 6 months you are on social welfare, cut it 25%

Taxipete29

cm2000 wrote: »

Easy enough, for every 6 months you are on social welfare, cut it 25%

And what if you are genuinely trying but just cant get a job which in the current climate is not beyond the realms of possibility

Johnboy1951

cm2000 wrote: »

Easy enough, for every 6 months you are on social welfare, cut it 25%

How does that separate those who "choose" not to work and those who cannot find employment?

You say it is easy enough ....... well it is not very easy for me to understand how this achieves that separation, so maybe you will explain to me?

grahamo

jimmmy wrote: »

Its nothing about bashing...its to do with the unsustainable ( and out of line compared with other countries ) amount of money the government gives out to people for doing no work in return.

Christ on a bike!!:rolleyes:
Let it go! You really do have too much time on your hands...Go get a job.

c montgomery

Yes it needs to be cut.

Child benefit needs to be cut too.

Rents are coming down so rent allowance should be cut.

Hopefully all this will be done in December.

Daithinski

Taxipete29 wrote: »

but you cannot punish the very people for who the welfare system was created to help.

+1 This is a very important point a lot of people seem to have forgotten.

Daithinski

cm2000 wrote: »

Easy enough, for every 6 months you are on social welfare, cut it 25%

This is a pretty ignorant statement to come out with. You don't seem to have a grasp of the issues involved.

But as they say opinions are like arséholes, everyone has one.

mikemac

I've been there, competing for a minimum wage jobs against thousands of students and many more thousands from Eastern Europe. And reading in newspapers that mass immigration was fantastic for Ireland.....
Galway is a bad example though, so many students and so many young people looking for summer jobs.

Maybe the social welfare rate needs to be cut.
But it's not always possible to walk out your front door and get a job, any job that week. Took me nine weeks, a college degree and the only job going was hotel porter which I had experience at.
Don't tell me Irish people are lazy and don't want these jobs, when I got the job I saw the CV's coming in

I don't think the welfare rate should be cut. And I've certainly paid back my nine weeks on job seekers allowance since then!
After 6 months or 12 months and intervals after that it can be looked at.
But I wouldn't like to see it cut now, any of us can lose our jobs in the morning.
Edit: I read the thread again, I don't know much about rent allowance or medical cards or any other benefit, never applied or received those

Senna

The whole SW system needs to be reformed, people made redundant recently deserve the 204 payment, but there is no need to have this as a flat rate for everyone. If you were unemployed during the bubble days it meant you couldn't be bothered and you do not deserve the full rate.
Likewise, if SW put restrictions on work, its just encouraging people to stay on the dole. At the moment out of a staff of 40 people, 5-6 of them wont work over 20 hours (they arent needed for over 20hr for a good 30 weeks of the year) as the SW wont let them sign off for those weeks and back on for the rest.

Over the last few years (during the bubble also) i have seen numerous cases of staff saying "i can only work 20 hours because i'm on single parent welfare, FIS (and others that i cant recall)" these are staff that have been offered more hours but refuse because; 1. the payments they lose for doing 10 hours more would be more than the extra wages. 2. the SW wont allow them to do extra hours this week and less the week after.

I realise these types of payments are different to the dole, as they are looking after children etc (i should say in one case a mother thats on single parent, yet her child works more hours than she does). Having experienced it during the bubble and now, it is not an effective way to distribute SW payments.

corktina

my firm went bust...took 4 months to get anything from the SW.....6 months later Im still owed €7500 in back pay BY THE GOVT, in redundancy, holiday pay etc under the insurance scheme..what a shameful way to treat people who pay in for this benefit...its not a free money,

and now you are saying it should be cut? TRY IT YOURSELF FIRST...

china doll

Hi, i just dont understand this mentality at all. Surely the goal should be to raise people above the minimum wage catagory, positivity , not negativity. While i know that this is impossible right now, down here on ground zero, people are struggling to get, and keep the jobs they have. FACT!!!! I realise it is demoralising to get up daily and work for a mere pittance over social welfare payments, but, we are talking about people surviving here. people are turning badly on each other at the moment, yes, there are abuses of the system, but levelling that out as a cut across social welfare payments isnt the way i feel. We have employers here milking the current crisis to abuse workers, and this crisis was not formed by social welfare probs, it was formed by fat cats who still hold nice cushy pay checks. What happens to those minimum pay jobs when there isnt cash about to spend. Basic economy lesson there. Your main emphasis i felt was on job seekers benefit/allowance or dole as we still refer to it. Yet you term your whole argument under one banner..........social welfare. What about the sick, disabled, carers, mothers trying to keep their kids. Would the cut in pay to all this stop our crisis or just would some others take fatter perks and continue previous abuses.? I wish you well and commend your diligence to get and hold your job and i hope things improve for you in the future. Sorry for the rant.:)

Senna

The simple fact is the JSB payment of 204 per week is too close to the minimum wage. And the minimum wage is already too high, but wont be cut as as long as the dole is comparable.

Johnboymac

comparison: married couple 5 qualifying children!
10 yrs sevice = take home pay of 550pw!

SW/JA
normal personal rate- 204
adult dependant - 135.60
child dependant x5- 130.00
Total 469.90 PW
these figures are correct as per SW website! this does not include the extra benefits of

a:Medical card
b:Rent allowance/mortgage supplement
c:back to school grants
d: school book grants

Giving the above, it is more expensive on the family budget to go to work!

GER12

There seems to be a general assumptions in relation to welfare rates and what some would perceive that welfare rates creates a discentive to work. Firstly, not all people who are currently claiming jobseekers were while they were in employment were on min wage jobs. Secondly, its easy to assume that people are claiming secondary entitlements but just because a person is claiming jobseekers or other any other welfare entitlements - they may not be claiming or be entitled to other secondary entitlements. There is reference that payments should be cut after 6 mths by 25% - so tough luck that you dont get a job despite having many applications and having received 100's of PFO's?

Instead of focusing on welfare rates, what about coming up with effective strategies that respond to labour market needs. What about holding govt to account for not identifying that we were in a false boom.... christ how up in arms did we get about a football match... that in itself sums it up. Rather than be the passive Irish start asking questions those in authority ie. politicans where did our money go to - what do we actually have to show for our years of boom and tax intake... nothing much as far as I can see....? What was FAS doing apart from the obvious - why did they fail to keep track of labour market needs and why are these same people including its economists still in these jobs drawing salaries from public monies? Why was FAS training people in sectors that was totally unsustainable? What are they doing to respond to today's problem - what are the labour activation measures and policies of Govt? Is FAS actually able to deal with those who are unemployed ie. the educated or are they completely out of their depth? And lastly, what about the DSFA what were they doing to control and audit various schemes and particularly those who were not unemployed during the boom years? It always amazes me in relation control and audit - that society is expected to assume responsibility for doing what are the paid duties of a public servant.

Lockstep

Oh lawd, another of these threads.


Seeing as this thread revolves around anecdotal evidence;
Minimum wage jobs I had in 2007- nearly all my co-workers were EE
2008- less EE, but they were still a majority.
2009- Nearly all were Irish (a few Spanish and a half dozen EE)

In my experience, the reason I find employers to hire EE over some Irish person with a degree is that the EE has more relevent work experience. Having a degree means jack squat in a minimum wage job. Having a few years experience lifting crates or dealing with people on the telephone is much more of a bonus.

mikemac wrote: »

I've been there, competing for a minimum wage jobs against thousands of students and many more thousands from Eastern Europe. And reading in newspapers that mass immigration was fantastic for Ireland.....
Galway is a bad example though, so many students and so many young people looking for summer jobs.

Maybe the social welfare rate needs to be cut.
But it's not always possible to walk out your front door and get a job, any job that week. Took me nine weeks, a college degree and the only job going was hotel porter which I had experience at.
Don't tell me Irish people are lazy and don't want these jobs, when I got the job I saw the CV's coming in

Irish people are looking for jobs now but often are at a disadvantage; less work experience and so on. Can hardly fault the EE for that. That said, whenever I went back to one of my old workplaces, most of the staff were now Irish.

gerry28

Reduce soical welfare by 10 percent for every year someone is on it down to 50% after 5 years.

ntlbell

Taxipete29 wrote: »

And what if you are genuinely trying but just cant get a job which in the current climate is not beyond the realms of possibility

Rubbish.

There's plenty of work if people want to work.

but people are not getting it into their skulls that this is for real.

picking and choosing, you get out there and do whatever work you can get.

people in this country are still snigegring at the thought of working for a fast food chain, or laugh uncontrolably when you suggest a bucket of water and a ladder.

you do what you have to put the bread on the table.

this "i'm too good for that" attitude will have to go.

it was the same in the 80's; good, honest hard workers always found work.

dresden8

ntlbell wrote: »

you do what you have to put the bread on the table.

this "i'm too good for that" attitude will have to go.

it was the same in the 80's; good, honest hard workers always found work.

Indeed.

My first job involved sweeping the floor in a supermarket for 6 months.

Now I answer parliamentary question and representations from idiot TDs.

My first job was more honest and accomplished more of real value.

johnnyjb

cm2000 ,

Im unemployed for months.What am i to do, walk around everyday asking people for jobs.It doesnt work like that anymore.400 000 wouldnt be scratching there crotch if its that easy.

I would go back to work for the minimum wage.i was earning hundreds last year.I would love to get out there and earn more than im currently on 204 euro.Some people think that 400 000 people decided to take a year off.I think these people are just afraid that if we dont cut the welfare it will some how affect them or there jobs.If you are on 204 euro trust me its hard.There are families with mortages and children and are gonna lose there homes.

This is not about people having less money for drink so they can only go out one night of the weekend,its serious

There was always spongers on the welfare.The government just didnt bother monitering the system cause they were to busy with voting machines,decentralisation and berty bowl so now cant tell who is a sponger and who is just unlucky to be out of work

lmimmfn

johnnyjb wrote: »

cm2000 ,

Im unemployed for months.What am i to do, walk around everyday asking people for jobs.It doesnt work like that anymore.400 000 wouldnt be scratching there crotch if its that easy.

I would go back to work for the minimum wage.i was earning hundreds last year.I would love to get out there and earn more than im currently on 204 euro.Some people think that 400 000 people decided to take a year off.I think these people are just afraid that if we dont cut the welfare it will some how affect them or there jobs.If you are on 204 euro trust me its hard.There are families with mortages and children and are gonna lose there homes.

This is not about people having less money for drink so they can only go out one night of the weekend,its serious

There was always spongers on the welfare.The government just didnt bother monitering the system cause they were to busy with voting machines,decentralisation and berty bowl so now cant tell who is a sponger and who is just unlucky to be out of work

what would you do in the uk on £70 a week?
Much as your situation sux, i do not understand how anyone couldnt live on 150euro a week, its insane. Ex rent, i spend 250euro a week, 50 of that is petrol for commuting to work. 30euro of that is for lunch for work, the rest of the money goes on food and bills, that includes my broadband( not a necessity if i was on the dole ), sky tv etc.

If youre on 204euro a week you should have your house taken off you and should be housed by the council in rented accomodation. Dole and paying a mortgage? WTF?

SLUSK

I saved alot of money and I receive no SW. We should scrap all SW and lower taxes.