Something the welfare gripers ignore...

Sandvich

This is from the office of Office for Social Inclusion. The following are conditions, the majority of which need to be met to not be considered as living in some form of poverty.

1. Two pairs of strong shoes

2. A warm waterproof overcoat

3. Buy new not second-hand clothes

4. Eat meals with meat, chicken, fish (or vegetarian equivalent) every second day

5. Have a roast joint or its equivalent once a week

6. Had to go without heating during the last year through lack of money

7. Keep the home adequately warm

8. Buy presents for family or friends at least once a year

9. Replace any worn out furniture

10. Have family or friends for a drink or meal once a month

11. Have a morning, afternoon or evening out in the last fortnight, for entertainment

Despite the high welfare in this country, there are still people who have worked the last few years, and suddenly found themselves unemployed and in some cases facing not meeting the above criteria. It is not easy to come from a decent stable income to an income below minimum wage. Should they have saved up more money? Yes. Is that money likely to run out eventually anyway? Yes. Does lack of foresight mean they deserve to be treated like plebs? No. Social Darwinism is generally seen as a bad thing.

Now some of you may consider these "Luxurious", but even things like heating - heating is expensive. The people who claim to be able to save €50-100 a week on the dole, really? First off you have to pay for rent, if you get rent allowance, that's still €24 bare minimum, granted that's very little but chances are you'll get a **** hole for it.

You have to pay for food which will be at least €50 depending on the person(I find it very hard to budget on this). That doesn't sound so much so far, but look at some of the things required on this list. Shoes are expensive in this country, you need to spend €100 on a good pair at least. And if you're taking the advice of these people and finding ways to entertain yourself without money, that's probably going to involve a lot of walking, so that'll be a recurring expense. Furniture is expensive, heating is expensive, a good coat is expensive, good food can be expensive too.

Letting the health of the nation suffer is something we can't afford when it's already so bad. But most of the people living off little as they claim are buying Tesco value everything. A lot of cheap food has a lot of unhealthy material in it.

The conditions of the kind of housing you tend to get on rent allowance would not be meet these conditions. True some people don't care as much, but some people do. This is the 21st century and like it or not, even if we had less money than we thought we still at some point had enough to at least avoid bull**** like this. If we can't afford welfare anymore, it's because we squandered our money elsewhere and had no contingency plan for the economy - so don't take it out on the unemployed.

You have bills, transport, medical issues to pay for, in some cases a family to feed and put through school as well as(for a lot of people) debt. Of course people will say the dole isn't for dealing debt, **** off with that ****e. People complain about that more than they complain about NAMA, which is much like that on a larger scale. An economy can't recover with high personal debt anyway.

The fact is that it exists and it's an issue that isn't to be dealth with. Telling people they're at fault for not being able to predict a recession when you couldn't either is mean spirited and nonsensical.

A lot of people aren't good at budgeting. This isn't really their fault. Also, being better at budgeting also means less cash is being spent around which is technically worse for the economy. Welfare is a natural cash injection into the economy, and this is largely what has helped the rest of europe.

The people griping, they are simply people utterly incapable of understanding that different people in different situations are not able to tolerate the same levels of poverty. Call them pampered or what have you, but it's not they're fault, people didn't know a recession was going to happen and there was no reason to prepare people for a much harsher life. It's no surprise that many of these people are social conservatives, which is largely based on this fact too.

While the social welfare bill is a huge issue, I don't think anything is going to be solved by listening to spiteful individuals who refuse to acknowledge the fact that not everyone can live as successfully off little money. There are hermits that can live off nothing and people who struggle earning above minimum wage. Everyone has different interests to help them wane off general misery, different medical conditions, different tolerances for low temperature, the list goes on.

Some people can exist on very little money. Some people cannot do so, so easily. And this isn't an excuse to regard them as inferior stock.

Even if it is true the welfare bill needs to be cut considerably, I still do not see why it is appropriate to lambaste those on welfare for not being able to predict their condition. It's disgraceful and it's no wonder the discussion on this forum goes nowhere. This is what happens when you start to regard spite filled turds as valid political platforms. If we have to cut welfare, we do so compassionately, though it's still debatable as to how successful that would be for long term growth. There are no absolutes here, and no easy answers.

You can express an opinion regarding welfare without attacking the people that receive it. The majority of people especially those with "Libertarian" leaning seem unable to express their views without demeaning all 500,000+ people on the register, some of which I know and were hard working individuals, and then complain when they themselves are ultimately targeted.

ei.sdraob

So how about all of these are paid for in vouchers not cash?

Sandvich

ei.sdraob wrote: »

So how about all of these are paid for in vouchers not cash?

It would likely still end up costing the same, and be hectic to manage. Those requirements do still require what people would require as a lot of "non essentials". Paying for it in vouchers just limits people's freedom for the sake of it while largely paying for the same things anyway.

I'm lucky I had my parents to back me up for a while, but now my mother is off work with cancer on disability, I can't fall back on them if they decide to chop large amounts of welfare.

People are just obsessed with taking it out on the (relatively) poor somehow which I think is indicative of the malice present in general Irish society.

ntlbell

what about all the hard working people that can't afford parts of that list due to mortgage payments/rent/house insnrance/life insurance/health insurance/medicines/doctors fee's/etc etc ?

what part of that list do you thknk people on the current levels of SW can they not afford?

Sandvich

ntlbell wrote: »

what about all the hard working people that can't afford parts of that list due to mortgage payments/rent/house insnrance/life insurance/health insurance/medicines/doctors fee's/etc etc ?

what part of that list do you thknk people on the current levels of SW can they not afford?

What part of this justifies some of the negative remarks made on this forum towards people on SW?

The issue isn't about current levels of SW. It's the levels people like you want to bring it down to. You say yourself, we "can't afford" current levels of SW. But then you act like I'm complaining about the current levels of SW? You want it every which way and can't make a coherent argument.

Being on welfare shouldn't mean "Poverty". I honestly believe there's little excuse for having notable amounts of poverty in first world nations.

ntlbell

Sandvich wrote: »

What part of this justifies some of the negative remarks made on this forum towards people on SW?

The issue isn't about current levels of SW. It's the levels people like you want to bring it down to.

Being on welfare shouldn't mean "Poverty". I honestly believe there's little excuse for having notable amounts of poverty in first world nations.

I'll try again.

what part of the list above do you think people on SW cannot afford on over 800e a month?

ntlbell

If we were to bring SW levels down so people had enough money to hit that list. it would be probably a bigger cut than I would have thought was needed.

gurramok

Especially those last 4 as a worker i cannot afford. Guess i'm in poverty too.

8. Buy presents for family or friends at least once a year

9. Replace any worn out furniture

10. Have family or friends for a drink or meal once a month

11. Have a morning, afternoon or evening out in the last fortnight, for entertainment

Have a laugh at this on the spending levels.
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_welfare_chart_40.html

UK has 12 times the population and yet our welfare bill is a fifth of theirs. (20bn+) And certain people ask why this country is broke?

thebman

I've said it before on this forum, just reduce/kill rent relief. The state pays a crazy amount of rents in this country and are an artificial floor in the market.

Any landlord that won't accept the reduced amount will be left with an empty house. We live in a renters market, its time the government behaved like this!

ntlbell

Sandvich wrote: »

What part of this justifies some of the negative remarks made on this forum towards people on SW?

what negative remarks? the remarks are that we can't afford the current levels of SW so they need to come down.

From your list there is hard working people in poverty. Now if you work your arse off to pay for everything out of your own pocket and can't afford what people can afford on SW then why would you work?

On current levels of SW they can afford everything on that list with ease imo.

sure we had someone who could for everything AND save over 700e a year.

how can someone who can have everything they need to get by day to day and even buy "treats" save over 700e a year be considerined in poverty?

Truly baffeling.

ntlbell

Sandvich wrote: »

Despite the high welfare in this country, there are still people who have worked the last few years, and suddenly found themselves unemployed and in some cases facing not meeting the above criteria. It is not easy to come from a decent stable income to an income below minimum wage. Should they have saved up more money? Yes. Is that money likely to run out eventually anyway? Yes. Does lack of foresight mean they deserve to be treated like plebs? No. Social Darwinism is generally seen as a bad thing.

How are they been treated like plebs? over 800e a month before all the other allowances is not been treated like a pleb. Right they might be able to sit down to a 40e bottle of wine and eat fillet steak every night of the week. But they have enough money for everything one could need.

Sandvich wrote: »

Now some of you may consider these "Luxurious", but even things like heating - heating is expensive. The people who claim to be able to save €50-100 a week on the dole, really? First off you have to pay for rent, if you get rent allowance, that's still €24 bare minimum, granted that's very little but chances are you'll get a **** hole for it.

Heating gas/ESB has come down a lot over the last couple of years with people like air tricity and board gais offering significat discounts. A **** hole? I know people on RA who are renting brand new apartments or rooms in lovley houses. they're not all in the basement of some house on the north circular rd.

Sandvich wrote: »

You have to pay for food which will be at least €50 depending on the person(I find it very hard to budget on this). That doesn't sound so much so far, but look at some of the things required on this list. Shoes are expensive in this country, you need to spend €100 on a good pair at least. And if you're taking the advice of these people and finding ways to entertain yourself without money, that's probably going to involve a lot of walking, so that'll be a recurring expense. Furniture is expensive, heating is expensive, a good coat is expensive, good food can be expensive too.

A year two a go a regular poster put up an excellent food budget that came in at under 50e I'll try and find it very healthy balanced diet. sure you have to put a bit of effort into it. but it's not like when on the SW you don't have the time tos it down and do a bit of planning?

Why would you have to pay 100e for a pair of good shoes? you don't have to go to louis copelands to get him to design you a pair. I often see very strong solid shoes in lidl and aldi relativley cheap. sure you might have to look around but you can buy a pair of shoes fairly cheaply.

Also in lidl and aldi I have seen some excellent waterproof coats. warm waterproof, very cheap. again you don't need some top of the range gortex jacket.

Good food can also be fairly cheap. I see a lot of butchers these days offering what looks to me like enough meat to do a single person about a month for 20e steaks/chicken fillets/chops etc. there's no need to be going to georges arcade to buy fois grais :rolleyes:

furniture can be exspensive you can also get it bery cheap or for nothing, there's many websites were people give furniture and lots of other things away for nothing. again, bit of creativity put in a bit of time.

Sandvich wrote: »

Letting the health of the nation suffer is something we can't afford when it's already so bad. But most of the people living off little as they claim are buying Tesco value everything. A lot of cheap food has a lot of unhealthy material in it.

There's no reason to buy tesco value everything. bit of planning, proper budgeting.

Sandvich wrote: »

The conditions of the kind of housing you tend to get on rent allowance would not be meet these conditions. True some people don't care as much, but some people do. This is the 21st century and like it or not, even if we had less money than we thought we still at some point had enough to at least avoid bull**** like this. If we can't afford welfare anymore, it's because we squandered our money elsewhere and had no contingency plan for the economy - so don't take it out on the unemployed.

Again have you been to some of these houses? I have and the ones I have seen a better than my own home! new apartments, new houses. great BER rating (cheaper heating?)

No one's taking it out on the unemployed, but again, we can't aford to spend 40% of our daily borrowing on the SW. it's not their fault. but it's the reality of the situation.

Sandvich wrote: »

You have bills, transport, medical issues to pay for, in some cases a family to feed and put through school as well as(for a lot of people) debt. Of course people will say the dole isn't for dealing debt, **** off with that ****e. People complain about that more than they complain about NAMA, which is much like that on a larger scale. An economy can't recover with high personal debt anyway.

The majority of medical issues are covered in the public hospitals out paitents and on the medical card, sure there might be a few cases where it's not and by all means, the goverment should look to address this.

Not going to go into the debt thing too much, but as i said 100 times, go see your lenders.

Sandvich wrote: »

The fact is that it exists and it's an issue that isn't to be dealth with. Telling people they're at fault for not being able to predict a recession when you couldn't either is mean spirited and nonsensical.

no one has blamed people for being on SW, they may have made some poor financial desicions when they were working. but no one blames them for being on SW.

Sandvich wrote: »

A lot of people aren't good at budgeting. This isn't really their fault. Also, being better at budgeting also means less cash is being spent around which is technically worse for the economy. Welfare is a natural cash injection into the economy, and this is largely what has helped the rest of europe.

not being good at budgeting as an excuse is just pointless. if you're not good at it, there's 1001 books on the subject and a few million websites. get to the library and start learning.

Sandvich wrote: »

The people griping, they are simply people utterly incapable of understanding that different people in different situations are not able to tolerate the same levels of poverty. Call them pampered or what have you, but it's not they're fault, people didn't know a recession was going to happen and there was no reason to prepare people for a much harsher life. It's no surprise that many of these people are social conservatives, which is largely based on this fact too.

Grand and i'm sure they'll understand that we can't continue to pay the current levels, they will need to adjust as will the rest of the country with reduced disposable income due to higher taxes etc. we'll all feel it. I could be on SW tomorrow. I'll have to adjust.

Sandvich wrote: »

While the social welfare bill is a huge issue, I don't think anything is going to be solved by listening to spiteful individuals who refuse to acknowledge the fact that not everyone can live as successfully off little money. There are hermits that can live off nothing and people who struggle earning above minimum wage. Everyone has different interests to help them wane off general misery, different medical conditions, different tolerances for low temperature, the list goes on.

everyone has to adjust, not just people on SW, we can't bankrupt the country because someone can't go without the things they were accustomed to before hand. adjust, wait till your in a better position and then you can have your 40e bottle of wine with your fillet steak again. but right now, you will have to adjust to your new circumstances like everyone else

Sandvich wrote: »

Some people can exist on very little money. Some people cannot do so, so easily. And this isn't an excuse to regard them as inferior stock.

This is a really pittful excuse. people will have to learn. it's that simple.

Sandvich wrote: »

You can express an opinion regarding welfare without attacking the people that receive it. The majority of people especially those with "Libertarian" leaning seem unable to express their views without demeaning all 500,000+ people on the register, some of which I know and were hard working individuals, and then complain when they themselves are ultimately targeted.

I haven't seen anyone on welfare been attacked, I have seen some of them getting excellent advice tho, but they didn't really want to hear it.

also when i say your, i'm not referring you specifically in this case, just in the general sense.

Welease

I stopped reading at the €100+ for a pair of shoes..

I have been a high income earner for 20 years or so, and have never ever spent €100 on a pair of shoes. I think you need to readjust your expectations and shopping habits before calling everyone else gripers for not wanting to fund your designer lifestyle.

ei.sdraob

Sandvich wrote: »

It would likely still end up costing the same, and be hectic to manage. Those requirements do still require what people would require as a lot of "non essentials". Paying for it in vouchers just limits people's freedom for the sake of it while largely paying for the same things anyway.

I'm lucky I had my parents to back me up for a while, but now my mother is off work with cancer on disability, I can't fall back on them if they decide to chop large amounts of welfare.

People are just obsessed with taking it out on the (relatively) poor somehow which I think is indicative of the malice present in general Irish society.

Nothing to do with taking anything out on anyone, it was the government that drove the country into ground remember.

It also makes it harder to spend welfare money on things like alcohol, gambling and drugs.

Instead of vouchers could implement a dual currency system and pay welfare and PS in New Pounds, there we go problem solved Cuban socialist style

nessie911

I think there needs to be levels of social welfare, not based on age but based on need.

Someone living at home with there parents does not need as much as some one who is renting accommodation.

I know plenty of people in my area who are on social welfare who are living at home, who dont pay bills or buy there own food, so have loads of money to spend on nights out etc.

On the other hand I have a good few friends who have gone to college, and now cant get jobs, and are trying to pay back student loans, as well as pay rent, and food and bills, and are struggling to do so.

cson

Said it numerous times on here but anyway;

JSA Ireland: ~€200
UK Welfare: ~€70 [£60 at the top of the scale afaik which is around €70 based on exchange rates]

Question: Is it almost 200% more expensive to live in Dundalk than Newry?

I shouldn't need to answer that.

Put simply; Social Welfare in the State is far too high. It's too close to the minimum wage and it's acting as a disincentive to work. Granted you will have situations where some people may struggle on it [Single parent poster in the Minimum Wage thread for example] but overall it's far too much money for the vast majority.

Sandvich

ntlbell wrote: »

I'll try again.

what part of the list above do you think people on SW cannot afford on over 800e a month?

Both you and the guy thanking me either didn't read my post or are too arrogant to admit your mistake.

gurramok wrote: »

Especially those last 4 as a worker i cannot afford. Guess i'm in poverty too.


Have a laugh at this on the spending levels.
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_welfare_chart_40.html

UK has 12 times the population and yet our welfare bill is a fifth of theirs. (20bn+) And certain people ask why this country is broke?

Because we're a horribly mismanaged country who, aside from the welfare bill, spends wastefully in general?

You're basically saying their welfare bill is a little over twice as high as ours. Is their unemployment the same? Is their cost of living the same?

The way you deal with a large welfare bill and low tax intake, is to create new jobs. So far both the government and the denizens of this forum have been gung ho about cutting welfare but show no real ideas as to how to create employment.

A good idea was presented earlier and is currently being used in other countries, instead of paying out the full dole or a company paying full minimum wage or great, kill two birds with one stone and subsidise private employment.

This would effectively reduce the welfare bill without taking money out of the economy.

Of course it's not "easy", but what ntlbell is suggesting isn't "Easy" either, and doesn't improve the economy, and is still taking it out on the poorer members of society.

Said it numerous times on here but anyway;

JSA Ireland: ~€200
UK Welfare: ~€70 [£60 at the top of the scale afaik which is around €70 based on exchange rates]

I'm sure there are countries that pay no welfare. Does that mean we should look to them for examples?

Question: Is it almost 200% more expensive to live in Dundalk than Newry?

There are other entitlements under British SW too, that usually get ignored.

Put simply; Social Welfare in the State is far too high. It's too close to the minimum wage and it's acting as a disincentive to work.

There are no jobs out there regardless, and Ireland's unemployment was roughly the same as the UK's before the recession hit. Obviously, it's not much of a disincentive and less than 5% of the population are on minimum wage anyway, so it's a gateway to making more money. Also people forget that a lot of the benefits of welfare can be gotten on minimum wage too.

I have been a high income earner for 20 years or so, and have never ever spent €100 on a pair of shoes. I think you need to readjust your expectations and shopping habits before calling everyone else gripers for not wanting to fund your designer lifestyle.

That's less than the average price for a pair of good walking shoes. You can get shoes for cheaper than that, but good look seeing them last more than a few months if you're walking everywhere(which you're far more likely to do on welfare).

I suggest you've lost touch with reality utterly if you think people on the dole are living a "designer" lifestyle.

And this is exactly the kind of unnecessary comment I'm talking about.

It doesn't help when on average, the people griping about welfare the most, seem to be flat out jerks.

Sandvich

nessie911 wrote: »

I think there needs to be levels of social welfare, not based on age but based on need.

Someone living at home with there parents does not need as much as some one who is renting accommodation.

I know plenty of people in my area who are on social welfare who are living at home, who dont pay bills or buy there own food, so have loads of money to spend on nights out etc.

On the other hand I have a good few friends who have gone to college, and now cant get jobs, and are trying to pay back student loans, as well as pay rent, and food and bills, and are struggling to do so.

Yes, this is a very good point. People living at home do not need to receive as much(though you have to be careful not to further strain debt ridden parents). People with no real medical conditions likely do not need medical cards.

There are also some disgraceful things like the fact that you need to be out of work for a year to receive the full BTEA/VTOS amount and various other grants. What this means is that people end up doing nothing for a year, drawing welfare and not paying any taxes, so they can afford to get back into college, and we sure as hell need more educated workers to pull out of this. People aren't going to bother going in on the lower rate. So you lose a year's worth of tax and a larger amount of spending where there actually is employment already.

Things like this so rarely come up amongst the cries to cut and clash everything and anything to do with welfare. The fact that the people I'm referring to in my post don't even consider alternate solutions proves to me it's a position born out of malice rather than rational thinking.

Cutting and clashing are irresponsible and lazy ways to balance a budget. Obviously, there is a lot more money to be saved by optimising what we have rather than punishing people who can't afford it any more than the government can. If people study all the stuff our government does wrong, you'll see a healthy SW bill is sustainable. A corrupt and mismanaged government is not.

nessie911

cson wrote: »

Put simply; Social Welfare in the State is far too high. It's too close to the minimum wage and it's acting as a disincentive to work. Granted you will have situations where some people may struggle on it [Single parent poster in the Minimum Wage thread for example] but overall it's far too much money for the vast majority.

Well im sorry but why should the state pay for single mothers more so than anyone else, they get handed houses and everytin else on a plate just because they had a child. There should be no such thing as a single parent, cause if im not mistaken it took two people to make the child and its not the states fault that one of them has disappeared. There is now a generation of people who think that the handiest way to get a house is to have a child, and i know that from experience.

I know a few friends of mine who are on welfare and its very hard for them to budget. I help them make out a budget so they would not be short. They pay 24 a week on rent, 50 on a loan from when they were in college, 50 on food, 10 on transport, 5 on credit, 5 on internet, that leaves them 200 a month to pay for esb, cloths, and for heating for there house, which is very expensive as there is no insulation in there houses. So it leaves no money for them selves relay.

Sandvich

Well im sorry but why should the state pay for single mothers more so than anyone else, they get handed houses and everytin else on a plate just because they had a child. There should be no such thing as a single parent, cause if im not mistaken it took two people to make the child and its not the states fault that one of them has disappeared. There is now a generation of people who think that the handiest way to get a house is to have a child, and i know that from experience.

Everyone should have known better, especially "The state". It's irrelevant now, we have to solve the problems we have, and personal debt is a very real threat that people ignore in order to address the national debt.

Telling people they should have known better won't solve our problems and probably won't even make them not do it again next time.

Your friend's experience is very common place, though. And that's one of the examples where people use "You should have known better and somehow not have a loan". It doesn't matter. It's there now, and we have to deal with it. Crippling the country with personal debt to alleviate the national debt, way to go guys.

nessie911

cson wrote: »

Said it numerous times on here but anyway;

JSA Ireland: ~€200
UK Welfare: ~€70 [£60 at the top of the scale afaik which is around €70 based on exchange rates]

Question: Is it almost 200% more expensive to live in Dundalk than Newry?

Its not 200% more expensive to live here but it is bloody expensive to live here in comparison to most countries.

Also is Brian Cowen doing such a good job that he deserves to be paid more then the the president of america, if were going to compare our selves to other countries, maybe we should start at the top with the people who have caused this mess, and not the people who were just working in a normal job, and now find them selves out of work because of the mistakes that our stupid government have made.

Sandvich

Also, the rate is €196 a week, not €200. The top rate of the UK is £65.45 which is around €76. You need to deduct a further €24 for rent allowance as you don't get provided with a council house in the UK. I'm sure there are other benefits you can get similar to ours too, so we'll ignore those on both sides for now.

So you're looking at €76 vs. €172, which while not a huge difference, does a lot prove the dishonesty of the welfare gripers as even with a genuine gap they still have to exaggerate the figures to make a point.

And getting angry over this difference of course presumes that the UK welfare is good enough. Which I haven't seen anyone prove. Being able to survive on it doesn't mean it couldn't be higher, there are economic as well as social and health benefits involved there. Not only that, the system is different to ours, their country is different to ours so you can't directly compare rates.

The maximum rate in Sweden is around €1616 a month. And they're doing better than us.

Could it be that Ireland is actually just run by gowls who probably couldn't organise a game of 5 a side indoor soccer? I would be willing to bet that our current financial troubles are far more down to this factor than our welfare rates. After all, high welfare rates aren't as much of a problem if you have high employment, which we did pre-recession.

nessie911

Sandvich wrote: »

Your friend's experience is very common place, though. And that's one of the examples where people use "You should have known better and somehow not have a loan". It doesn't matter. It's there now, and we have to deal with it. Crippling the country with personal debt to alleviate the national debt, way to go guys.

well see there different to should have known better they took out loans to be able to afford to go to college, because they didnt qualify for grants, and there parents didnt support them going to college, so they took out loans thinking that there would be jobs for them when they finished in college, they didnt take them out to do anything but to educate them selves.

Also just in relation to some single mothers, my point is that some got pregnant on purpose, not that it was a mistake but that it was an easy way of geting a house, and they would tell you that. I know form my year in school, there are 15 who have children out of a year of 50, and there are only 2 of them living at home with parents, the rest of social housing.

Sandvich

nessie911 wrote: »

well see there different to should have known better they took out loans to be able to afford to go to college, because they didnt qualify for grants, and there parents didnt support them going to college, so they took out loans thinking that there would be jobs for them when they finished in college, they didnt take them out to do anything but to educate them selves.

Student loans are particularly crippling, and people are going to rely on such income when their parents have no spare cash and there are no jobs going around.

So you're quite right.

cson

nessie911 wrote: »

Well im sorry but why should the state pay for single mothers more so than anyone else, they get handed houses and everytin else on a plate just because they had a child. There should be no such thing as a single parent, cause if im not mistaken it took two people to make the child and its not the states fault that one of them has disappeared. There is now a generation of people who think that the handiest way to get a house is to have a child, and i know that from experience.

If you had read my post rather than glancing at it and seeing what you want to see you would have seen that I wasn't arguing the case for single mothers rather simply stating that you will have cases where the current welfare package is just about sustaining them and cuts will have a huge impact. Notwithstanding I feel these cuts have to come; I have a certain degree of sympathy for those who struggle in this manner but ultimately the Irish Exchequer cannot sustain current levels of Welfare payments.

nessie911 wrote: »

Its not 200% more expensive to live here but it is bloody expensive to live here in comparison to most countries.

Ergo JSA/Welfare is too high then. Thank you.

nessie911 wrote: »

Also is Brian Cowen doing such a good job that he deserves to be paid more then the the president of america, if were going to compare our selves to other countries, maybe we should start at the top with the people who have caused this mess, and not the people who were just working in a normal job, and now find them selves out of work because of the mistakes that our stupid government have made.

Thread title = Something the Welfare gripers ignore.

Subject Matter Thus Far = Welfare - should it be cut or not.

I do agree with the sentiment; the post of Taoiseach is somewhat overpaid. But seeing as this thread isn't about that matter please feel free to start one that is and I shall be happy to discuss it with you there.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

cson

Sandvich wrote: »

Also, the rate is €196 a week, not €200. The top rate of the UK is £65.45 which is around €76. You need to deduct a further €24 for rent allowance as you don't get provided with a council house in the UK. I'm sure there are other benefits you can get similar to ours too, so we'll ignore those on both sides for now.

So you're looking at €76 vs. €172, which while not a huge difference, does a lot prove the dishonesty of the welfare gripers as even with a genuine gap they still have to exaggerate the figures to make a point.

And getting angry over this difference of course presumes that the UK welfare is good enough. Which I haven't seen anyone prove. Being able to survive on it doesn't mean it couldn't be higher, there are economic as well as social and health benefits involved there. Not only that, the system is different to ours, their country is different to ours so you can't directly compare rates.

See this little symbol here -> ~

Means "up to" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tilde]

In other words; an approximation.

Which actually isn't too far off the mark; I was 8.5% off on the UK figure and 2% off on the Irish figure.

And the bit I've emboldened; why make an exception for Rent Allowance if we're ignoring everything else? Because it suits your argument I imagine.

Sandvich

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Inflation is not the only cost of living. Also it still isn't an argument in of itself against the welfare rates. Maybe people struggled on €130, or there were other economic factors involved. I do think €196 is more than sufficient for most people. But people struggling with loans and the like, and I'm sorry but you can't wave away reality with "they should have known better", not so much. This is why we shouldn't slash welfare, but reorganise it. Ironically, the best time to look at reducing the welfare rate is when you're actually out of recession. Then it might not be a bad idea, as long as they make sure the people who really need it aren't affected negatively. Which is, again, why you need to revamp the system.

Saying that somebody on €196 a week can't afford good shoes, a warm coat, and the like, is nonsense. You don't need to buy a new coat and new shoes every single week. A good quality coat can last for years. And shopping in sales and discount stores can save you a fortune.

Let's ignore the fact that a vast number of people who've ended up unemployed are paying off student loans and similar, are single parents, have medical costs not covered by medical card, etc.

Since you're a Freebertarian and all that's a hobby of yours.

Who makes heating expensive? The government. If they were to remove the carbon tax, lower excise duty on fuel to a reasonable level, people would have no problems heating their homes. It's not all that complicated.

Heating is inherently expensive to create, compare to say light which is relatively cheap. It's always going to be pricey with or without tax. The best way to deal with it is to have houses with good insulation built to begin with but people on rent allowance are going to be stuck in ****ty old mouse infested apartments in many cases.

I suggest you take a physics class. Maybe some of your suggestions are a good idea - but that's just more evidence that the real problem lies with the government, not as much the amount of social welfare we dish out. Though, if you remove these duties and taxes, that's less money for the government. See how there's no easy answer here?

Sandvich

cson wrote: »

See this little symbol here -> ~

Means "up to" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tilde]

In other words; an approximation.

Which actually isn't too far off the mark; I was 8.5% off on the UK figure and 2% off on the Irish figure.

And the bit I've emboldened; why make an exception for Rent Allowance if we're ignoring everything else? Because it suits your argument I imagine.

Because as far as I'm aware you don't pay that money in the British system and have your rent fully paid for you. I could be wrong as it's hard to get this information laid out coherently, but that's where you hit me with the facts instead of acting like a bit of a tool.

As for the rest of your post, :rolleyes:

cson

Sandvich wrote: »

Because as far as I'm aware you don't pay that money in the British system and have your rent fully paid for you. I could be wrong as it's hard to get this information laid out coherently, but that's where you hit me with the facts instead of acting like a bit of a tool.

As for the rest of your post, :rolleyes:

Look you can use that rolly eyes emoticon til the cows come home but the current level of Welfare/JSA is unsustainable no matter how much you might claim people need the €200 odd to live.

Again, with the emboldened piece; Touché. Perhaps you should consider taking some of your own advice. Play the ball and not the man

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

feicim

I'm fed up hearing the "in the Uk welfare is €70" Newsflash: This is not the UK. The Irish government has f*cked up this country by bailing out the banks. This is the root of our current economic evils.

In the Uk if you go on unemployment and lose your house, the banks take a hit. You are bankrupt for a year. The taxpayers are unaffected. The way that it should be.

In contrast...

Our gobshíte government by guaranteeing the banks ensure that in the case of mortgage default, that the taxpayer takes the hit.

In the end the money is getting hoovered into the bank anyway, thats where the wealth generated by our economy is going into the banks and then onto financial speculators.

Rolling Stone writer Matt Taibbi wrote "So the financial safari has moved elsewhere, and the big game in the hunt has become the only remaining pool of dumb, unguarded capital left to feed upon -- taxpayers' money." Guess who that is. Us, the Irish citizens who collectively bend over for the government,

If you buy into the governments bull that the banks have to be bailed out at whatever cost, then your fundamental assumption is flawed.

The bank bailout was supposed to prevent happening, exactly what is happening now. i.e. economic armaggedon. Their plan has been a total failure but yet they insist of flogging the twin dead horses of Nama and banking guarantees. Was Nama etc not supposed to save the economy? The economy seems from the start to be destined to fail either way, the governments way just means the irish taxpayer has been saddled with a lot more debt to pay off.

Sort out this crap first, then look at the budget and make the appropriate cuts. Ireland can afford to look after it citizens OR bail out the banks, but not both.

The government have chosen to bail out the banks and with every loan that goes bad from here on out, (every house bought within the last 10 years is likely in negative equity) every Irish citizen will be going dutch on the bill so that the likes of Roman abramovitch and his ilk can continue to live in the style they are accustomed to.

This is what you should be b*tching about not the people who are currently the most downtrodden and broke in the country. But hey, its your choice.

cson

feicim wrote: »

This is what you should be b*tching about not the people who are currently the most downtrodden and broke in the country. But hey, its your choice.

Plenty of threads debating what you've outlined on the forum. This one is on Welfare thus expect to find discussion on Welfare in it.

ei.sdraob

Sandvich wrote: »

Since you're a Freebertarian and all that's a hobby of yours.

As opposed to a Freebeertarian like yourself :P

ntlbell

Sandvich wrote: »

Both you and the guy thanking me either didn't read my post or are too arrogant to admit your mistake.

Is the mistake that you mean after cuts they won't be able to afford your list?

Ok, so they can afford the list now but won't be able to if we cut welfare?

Nonsnse, you could easiliy have a 20% cut in the basic SW and they could still afford your list.

If you're happy that the level of SW payment should be enough to deliver your list then you're saying exactly what everyone else is here.

I would be more than happy if the SW payment was reduced to a point where it gave people enough money to hit each of that list.

I think you're under estimating how little that payment would be.

feicim

cson wrote: »

Plenty of threads debating what you've outlined on the forum. This one is on Welfare thus expect to find discussion on Welfare in it.

And welfare gripers (see the title thread above). Like the OP I was merely outlining some issues that welfare gripers ignore.

ei.sdraob

Interesting how on the BBC news they are talking about making welfare recipients work for their dole after a year...

ntlbell

feicim wrote: »

And welfare gripers (see the title thread above). Like the OP I was merely outlining some issues that welfare gripers ignore.

something you seem to be ignoring.

The goverment has to borrow to pay SW. 40% of what we borrow goes to pay SW. at current interest rates on goverment bonds the goverment cannot borrow at those rates.

No borrowing = no SW payments.

this is nothing personal against people on SW, we simply cannot afford the SW levels and there's no need to pay such levels, in a time when the country is on it's knees even with decreases in SW they with deflation they have basically had a 2% increase in their payments.

we cannot afford it. there's nothing more to it.

johnnyskeleton

Sandvich wrote: »

The way you deal with a large welfare bill and low tax intake, is to create new jobs. So far both the government and the denizens of this forum have been gung ho about cutting welfare but show no real ideas as to how to create employment.

But there's a connection between the two. If I want to set up a high end machine tools factory in Europe, it would be very hard to get people to give up their benefits and work for €800 p.m. here, but in most other parts of Europe (including parts of the UK) they would.

So you want a jobs strategy eh? How about:

Don't increase social welfare benefits to such a high level that the workers of Dell would rather be made redundant rather than reduce their wages.

While I am normally not a big fan of such simplistic analogies, and don't agree that high social welfare is the sole reason for the job losses or the failure to attract new jobs, but nevertheless high social welfare is a considerable issue when it comes to our overall competitiveness.

johnnyskeleton

Sandvich wrote: »

Also, the rate is €196 a week, not €200. The top rate of the UK is £65.45 which is around €76. You need to deduct a further €24 for rent allowance as you don't get provided with a council house in the UK. I'm sure there are other benefits you can get similar to ours too, so we'll ignore those on both sides for now.

So you're looking at €76 vs. €172, which while not a huge difference, does a lot prove the dishonesty of the welfare gripers as even with a genuine gap they still have to exaggerate the figures to make a point.

And getting angry over this difference of course presumes that the UK welfare is good enough. Which I haven't seen anyone prove. Being able to survive on it doesn't mean it couldn't be higher, there are economic as well as social and health benefits involved there. Not only that, the system is different to ours, their country is different to ours so you can't directly compare rates.

The maximum rate in Sweden is around €1616 a month. And they're doing better than us.

Could it be that Ireland is actually just run by gowls who probably couldn't organise a game of 5 a side indoor soccer? I would be willing to bet that our current financial troubles are far more down to this factor than our welfare rates. After all, high welfare rates aren't as much of a problem if you have high employment, which we did pre-recession.

I'd happily accept Sweedish rates of welfare if it had Sweedish terms and conditions i.e. you can't just sign on having never worked and get such high benefits, nor can you sit on your benefits indefinately.

Spudmonkey

nessie911 wrote: »

I think there needs to be levels of social welfare, not based on age but based on need.

Someone living at home with there parents does not need as much as some one who is renting accommodation.

I know plenty of people in my area who are on social welfare who are living at home, who dont pay bills or buy there own food, so have loads of money to spend on nights out etc.

On the other hand I have a good few friends who have gone to college, and now cant get jobs, and are trying to pay back student loans, as well as pay rent, and food and bills, and are struggling to do so.

Seriously? People should be paid based on their need? I'm really getting fed up of this Marxist ideology that is starting to permeate this country.

How about this which I think is far fairer.... I've worked for 30 odd years, I deserve to get my 30 years worth of PRSI payments whereas this lad to my left has worked for 10 years and therefore only deserves 10 years worth of PRSI payments. Or do you think he should be given more because he has a bigger mortgage and car loan?

People have to be encouraged to take some personal responsibility. To provide for themselves and to make decisions that will not leave them with crippling debts.

Count Dooku

Sandvich wrote: »

The way you deal with a large welfare bill and low tax intake, is to create new jobs. So far both the government and the denizens of this forum have been gung ho about cutting welfare but show no real ideas as to how to create employment.

Without supply of affordable workforce, nobody will create mass employment for low qualified workers.
There is no manufacturing here and never will be, construction industry is dead for another 10 years.
The only choice is to attract MNC’s in hope that they will hire high paid high well educate workforce and the rest will service them

Scarab80

feicim wrote: »

In the Uk if you go on unemployment and lose your house, the banks take a hit. You are bankrupt for a year. The taxpayers are unaffected. The way that it should be.

Spudmonkey

Sandvich wrote: »

The way you deal with a large welfare bill and low tax intake, is to create new jobs. So far both the government and the denizens of this forum have been gung ho about cutting welfare but show no real ideas as to how to create employment.

Like it's as simple as that. When Dell's manufacturing left, that was ~2300 jobs that left the country. It isn't easy to fill a hole like that and it certainly isn't going to happen anytime soon.

It won't happen either when minimum wages are set at 8.65 and it has been shown to live better on welfare.

We won't be attracting any jobs with that.

Godge

Sandvich wrote: »

Letting the health of the nation suffer is something we can't afford when it's already so bad. But most of the people living off little as they claim are buying Tesco value everything. A lot of cheap food has a lot of unhealthy material in it.

.

This bit I found the most insulting. I work, I pay tax and I have to buy Tesco value when I am not shopping in Lidl or Aldi - vegetables are especially good value by the way, they are the same quality, just don't look as good.

Does the OP believe that social welfare recipients should be able to buy expensive food while the cheap food should be left for hard-working taxpayers?

I have two pairs of strong shoes but they are three years old and let in the rain, does that meet the test?

Godge

Sandvich wrote: »

Also, the rate is €196 a week, not €200. The top rate of the UK is £65.45 which is around €76. You need to deduct a further €24 for rent allowance as you don't get provided with a council house in the UK. I'm sure there are other benefits you can get similar to ours too, so we'll ignore those on both sides for now.

So you're looking at €76 vs. €172, which while not a huge difference, does a lot prove the dishonesty of the welfare gripers as even with a genuine gap they still have to exaggerate the figures to make a point.

And getting angry over this difference of course presumes that the UK welfare is good enough. Which I haven't seen anyone prove. Being able to survive on it doesn't mean it couldn't be higher, there are economic as well as social and health benefits involved there. Not only that, the system is different to ours, their country is different to ours so you can't directly compare rates.

.

The UK rate is only 2.26 times the Irish rate, yeah not a huge difference, which is the sarcasm smilie?

So there are economic reasons for the UK social welfare to be less, their country must be more messed up than ours. Oops, need that smilie again.

godwin

I don't have 8/10 , does this mean i'm nearly destitute ?

Sandvich wrote: »

2. A warm waterproof overcoat

4. Eat meals with meat, chicken, fish (or vegetarian equivalent) every second day

5. Have a roast joint or its equivalent once a week

7. Keep the home adequately warm

8. Buy presents for family or friends at least once a year

9. Replace any worn out furniture

10. Have family or friends for a drink or meal once a month

11. Have a morning, afternoon or evening out in the last fortnight, for entertainment

keithclancy

I think peoples ideas of basic needs these days are totally screwed

Luxury Item and the options.

1. Sky/UPC - Buy some second hand books, take up a hobby.

2. Eating out - Buy some candles and have a similar experience at home.

3. Takeaways - Besides making you fat they add up to a big cost, buy a second hand cook book.

4. Designer Brands - Penneys stuff is grand and theres a great selection for a fraction of the cost.

5. Smartphones (iPhones etc) - I've had my phone, and will have it until it breaks, I use it for phonecalls. Buying a heavily subsidised handset on contract while on the dole is just nuts, do you really need to read your e-mail while sitting on the jax ?

6. iPods - Again, Luxury Item.

7. Expensive christmas/birthday presents - This is one of the worst, I've seen people spending a few hundred euro on gifts because they'd 'feel bad' not giving someone a nice present.

8. Expensive Weddings - Madness, Its all about 'the day' but if getting married is that important to you in the legal sense then do that first and have the ceremony you want when your in a position to have it.

9. Extra Car - Cars a money hole. Tax, Insurance, Maintenence, Fuel etc all add up. If you have 2 cars then only use one (have one 'off the road', if you cannot afford to run two cars then don't

All of the above are luxurys, whereas I've seen people saying that they 'need' these things for various reasons. Everyones gotten used to these things and see them as a necessity i.e. "oh i need my car, the public transport is terrible"

I'm not saying that people on the Dole should lead a sh*t quality of life, I'm saying you can have a good quality of life without the stuff above. I cycle everywhere and only use my car to get to and from work. If I don't have the money for something then I don't spend it.

I think people need to get their priorities in order and not stick their head in the sand hoping it will all blow over.

angelfire9

Mmmm... I was looking at this list and thinking of last year when I was gainfully employed in a damn good job

1. Two pairs of strong shoes - Got a pair of boots in Aldi for 40 euro that i still wear the rest were dunnes best all less than 50.00

2. A warm waterproof overcoat NOPE I'm not really into coats though

3. Buy new not second-hand clothes yes

4. Eat meals with meat, chicken, fish (or vegetarian equivalent) every second day Yes

5. Have a roast joint or its equivalent once a week No, wouldn't be bothered to be honest

6. Had to go without heating during the last year through lack of money No

7. Keep the home adequately warm Yes

8. Buy presents for family or friends at least once a year Yes

9. Replace any worn out furniture I got my current sitting room suite from my sister when she was changing hers does that count??

10. Have family or friends for a drink or meal once a month NO never did probably never would except for over Christmas

11. Have a morning, afternoon or evening out in the last fortnight, for entertainment Only 3 times a year, my birthday & his & valentines

Does that mean I was living in poverty last year? Well... NO, i was on a salary of over 100k I just don't believe in wasting my money

krd

angelfire9 wrote: »

Does that mean I was living in poverty last year? Well... NO, i was on a salary of over 100k I just don't believe in wasting my money

You're very price concious. What did you spend your money on? Status car - huge mortgage on a status property?

Or did you save every penny?

There's something most people miss. You cut welfare - you pull that money out of the economy. Everything you take out has a multiplying effect, just like everything you put in. Cutting the dole may lead to more people on the dole.

Are you out of work now? I would be curious as to how someone once earning a 100k, would have trouble finding work. If someone thought you were worth paying 100k - you must be very valuable indeed.

thebman

krd wrote: »

You're very price concious. What did you spend your money on? Status car - huge mortgage on a status property?

Or did you save every penny?

There's something most people miss. You cut welfare - you pull that money out of the economy. Everything you take out has a multiplying effect, just like everything you put in. Cutting the dole may lead to more people on the dole.

Are you out of work now? I would be curious as to how someone once earning a 100k, would have trouble finding work. If someone thought you were worth paying 100k - you must be very valuable indeed.

Its effects are irrelevant, nobody will lend us money to give to people on the dole anymore.

krd

thebman wrote: »

Its effects are irrelevant, nobody will lend us money to give to people on the dole anymore.

It's very far from irrelevant. Economic activity is like dominoes - knock one bit over and the rest come tumbling down. Social welfare is not just there for the recipients. It has the action of sustaining businesses. Cut the dole, you cut these businesses. Cut rent allowance and you'll see property prices crash to nothing. €500k "luxury apartments" will be changing hands for €10k. "Smart and Ballsy" property speculators will default on their loans. More catastrophe.

If - more idiotic things are done to further erode the economy. Then lenders will be even less likely to lend to Ireland.

I don't think Ireland has a hope of survival. As a nation we're suicidally stupid.