Budget day discussion thread. Your budget chat goes here.(Rules and links first post)

Kasabian

OisinT wrote: »

It's just a card like any other, chip and pin.

Would this card allow you to buy your kid a treat or would you have to check the approved purchases list first.

Would it only work if your purchases are on the food piramid.
Ever been on the dole?

FreudianSlippers

Kasabian wrote: »

Would this card allow you to buy your kid a treat or would you have to check the approved purchases list first.

Would it only work if your purchases aren't on the food piramid.
Ever been on the dole?

Yes, Yes & No

Kasabian

OisinT wrote: »

Yes, Yes & No

Dear God
Dear God

and count yourself lucky, though I think a stint on it may drastically change your views.

My name is URL

OisinT wrote: »

It's just a card like any other, chip and pin.

Doesn't the money spent on dole payments go back into the economy though? Why would a card system be any better? Other than to satisfy the populist idea that people on the dole are second class citizens and should be treated as as such?

The system certainly needs fixing but not at the expense of an individuals personal liberty. It's not the fault of the recently unemployed that you don't qualify for a payment should you lose your job.

Ardennes1944

theres only one way to sort out the genuine people on the dole from the rest. lie detectors:D

Millicent

OisinT wrote: »

It's just a card like any other, chip and pin.

So you as a solicitor (or barrister, apologies if I have it confused) are for the restriction of personal freedoms as a punitive measure for someone who hasn't committed a crime?

AckwelFoley

OisinT wrote: »

It's just a card like any other, chip and pin.

There is a fundamental problem with your "card"

Its pointless, it doesnt reduce the cost of the "dole"

Making it that they can only buy foods cloths and utilities essentially doesnt stop people spending their dole, they just spend it on what their allowed to - then of course there are places where people need to spend money that might not be on "the approved list"

Do fat people get more of a food allowance because they eat more?

The thing is - people saty that the dole isnt enough and they cant survive on it - yet you would find that if it was halved that many would still manage to live on it.

The bottom line is, the reason its not drastically cut is down to popularity, People wont be made homeless if it was cut by 30% people would simply need to cut out spending money on what they really dont need as opposed to what they think they need like sky HD.

Homeless people get the same dole as i will in January when i get the chop, i dont have a problem with drink. But giving a homeless person your card wont stop him being a person with an addiction habit - he will just increasingly turn to crime to fund his habit.

The government are well aware of the level of benefit fraud in the country and they do give nice soundbytes about cracking down on it and do appear to do it somewhat - yet they dont, for one simple reason - not to rock the boat too much -Its not a case they cant find out, revenue can almost tell you what your last visit to the toilet weighed, but the government dont want to cause too much civil unrest - people think the country is angry now, the country is not - the media is, the country are pissed off that we're broke and we have less than we had, but we in general are getting by

The same applies for these cards you speak of and trying to dictate on how people spend their social welfare, - it would rock toomany boats and the benefit if there is any of credance, is not worth it

Millicent

K-9 wrote: »

You can receive the dole if you satisfy the means test.

Unemployment Benefit, nope.

What's the difference between the two, if you don't mind me asking? Is it a different payment to Jobseekers?

FreudianSlippers

Kasabian wrote: »

Dear God
Dear God

and count yourself lucky, though I think a stint on it may drastically change your views.

Let me clarify:

Would this card allow you to buy your kid a treat?

Yes

Would it only work if your purchases aren't on the food piramid?

It would work for all foodstuffs in a shop, but not McDonalds etc.

and count yourself lucky, though I think a stint on it may drastically change your views.

I was born into an upper class family, but I have seen how the other side live in my personal life.
I also know for a fact that those who are legitimately on the dole would likely not object to regulations on how their social welfare can be used.
There would be less fraud if there were more controls on the dole.

High energy

Deutschlandfürimmer7 wrote: »

theres only one way to sort out the genuine people on the dole from the rest. lie detectors:D

We asked Billy: apart from the 4 times we know about, has he scammed the social welfare system any other time...

He said no...


HE WAS LYING!!

Trevor451

Ireland is so *ucked that it is kind of funny

FreudianSlippers

Millicent wrote: »

So you as a solicitor (or barrister, apologies if I have it confused) are for the restriction of personal freedoms as a punitive measure for someone who hasn't committed a crime?

I'm not a solicitor (:D) and I disagree that regulating how social welfare payments are used at all has an impact on "personal freedoms" - the dole is different to a system where legitimately earned monies were being restricted.

Paully D

High energy wrote: »

We asked Billy: apart from the 4 times we know about, has he scammed the social welfare system any other time...

He said no...


HE WAS LYING!!

Good old Jezza!

FreudianSlippers

Trevor451 wrote: »

Ireland is so *ucked that it is kind of funny

Good contribution troll.

FreudianSlippers

snyper wrote: »

There is a fundamental problem with your "card"

Its pointless, it doesnt reduce the cost of the "dole"

Making it that they can only buy foods cloths and utilities essentially doesnt stop people spending their dole, they just spend it on what their allowed to - then of course there are places where people need to spend money that might not be on "the approved list"

Do fat people get more of a food allowance because they eat more?

The thing is - people saty that the dole isnt enough and they cant survive on it - yet you would find that if it was halved that many would still manage to live on it.

The bottom line is, the reason its not drastically cut is down to popularity, People wont be made homeless if it was cut by 30% people would simply need to cut out spending money on what they really dont need as opposed to what they think they need like sky HD.

Homeless people get the same dole as i will in January when i get the chop, i dont have a problem with drink. But giving a homeless person your card wont stop him being a person with an addiction habit - he will just increasingly turn to crime to fund his habit.

The government are well aware of the level of benefit fraud in the country and they do give nice soundbytes about cracking down on it and do appear to do it somewhat - yet they dont, for one simple reason - not to rock the boat too much -Its not a case they cant find out, revenue can almost tell you what your last visit to the toilet weighed, but the government dont want to cause too much civil unrest - people think the country is angry now, the country is not - the media is, the country are pissed off that we're broke and we have less than we had, but we in general are getting by

The same applies for these cards you speak of and trying to dictate on how people spend their social welfare, - it would rock toomany boats and the benefit if there is any of credance, is not worth it

I dislike the idea that people are "entitled" to the dole and that it should be given to them without question or restriction on how the money is spent.

If the dole was restricted in its use, it could be reduced as it would be clear that payments would be going towards actual necessities, rather than cigarettes, booze and sky+.

Millicent

OisinT wrote: »

I'm not a solicitor (:D) and I disagree that regulating how social welfare payments are used at all has an impact on "personal freedoms" - the dole is different to a system where legitimately earned monies were being restricted.

Ah, sorry! Thought you were. Was I right the other way then? You genuinely cannot see the restrictive nature of a debit card? What happens to people at Christmas when they will have to buy presents? What moneys are they going to use if presents aren't on the approved list?

And those cards don't stop benefit fraud. There have been a number of cases in the States were people were selling them/bartering/striking deals with unscrupulous shop owners. If that is the case then and fraud cannot be prevented with one of these cards, what other reason is there for introducing them other than as a punitive measure?

AckwelFoley

OisinT wrote: »

I'm not a solicitor (:D) and I disagree that regulating how social welfare payments are used at all has an impact on "personal freedoms" - the dole is different to a system where legitimately earned monies were being restricted.

Ive paid income tax for over 14 years and been out of work for less than eight months at one point

Id like to assume i would be net contributor to the exchequer over my working life, so therefore the money i receive while unemployed would be "legitimatey earned" making your point moot

Millicent

snyper wrote: »

Ive paid income tax for over 14 years and been out of work for less than eight months.

Id like to assume i would be net contributor to the exchequer over my working life, so therefore the money i receive while unemployed would be "legitimatey earned" making your point moot

Don't forget PRSI.

beagle001

Good man Oisin T,why not paint a star of on each unemployed person so we can point at them in the shops and look down on the lazy lot of them(why dont the get jobs etc).
You need to take those short sighted goggles of your face as it clearly infringes on peoples rights classing them as second class citizens and also it is unethical to keep track of all a persons personal spending.
Big brother watching being taken too far

K-9

Millicent wrote: »

What's the difference between the two, if you don't mind me asking? Is it a different payment to Jobseekers?

Sorry, I used the old term, Unemployment Benefit is now Jobseekers payment, you get it for a year and it is based on PRSI paid. It's slightly higher than the dole.

Jobseekers Allowance would be what people refer to as the dole. It's means tested.

Unemployed » Department of Social Protection


@OisinT, I know of 3 lads who were self employed as Subcontractors and got dole payments due to the construction bubble/crash. Reason being I had to do up to date accounts for them.

Kasabian

OisinT wrote: »

I'm not a solicitor (:D) and I disagree that regulating how social welfare payments are used at all has an impact on "personal freedoms" - the dole is different to a system where legitimately earned monies were being restricted.

What is illegal about collecting the dole. The damage to this country caused by the people at the top should never be allowed to impact on the civil entitlements of anyone in this country. As it is today you are entitled to a payment in this country that allows us to enjoy at least a basic existance, your ideas are to restrict the rights of your fellow citizens because of their personal circumstances brought on by the failures of those given a mandate to serve. This is a very disturbing view point which I have heard before from the "upper class".

Today the government showed that protection of the most vulnerable in this country is also least of their priorties.

dr.bollocko

OisinT wrote: »

Good contribution troll.

Deutschlandfürimmer7 wrote: »

OISIN AND OTHERS I WILL HAVE TO INFRACT YE IF YE DON'T STOP. THIS IS A THREAD ON TODAYS BUDGET NOT A DEBATE ON WELFARE PAYMENTS

Leave the modding to the mods please.
Report posts rather than retort.

sandmanporto

I can't believe the hit carers allowance. the carers look after the people who built the economy(making their last years more comfortable)... its a bit hiprocritical and disrespectful of the government to slash the pensions and carers allowance of the people who built the economy that the last decade's government disintegrated! thats a hard hit in the face!!

FreudianSlippers

Millicent wrote: »

Ah, sorry! Thought you were. Was I right the other way then? You genuinely cannot see the restrictive nature of a debit card? What happens to people at Christmas when they will have to buy presents? What moneys are they going to use if presents aren't on the approved list?

And those cards don't stop benefit fraud. There have been a number of cases in the States were people were selling them/bartering/striking deals with unscrupulous shop owners. If that is the case then and fraud cannot be prevented with one of these cards, what other reason is there for introducing them other than as a punitive measure?

You were Fair point. I'm spitballing the idea more than anything else tbh.

I just think SOMETHING needs to be done.

snyper wrote: »

Ive paid income tax for over 14 years and been out of work for less than eight months at one point

Id like to assume i would be net contributor to the exchequer over my working life, so therefore the money i receive while unemployed would be "legitimatey earned" making your point moot

Agreed, and while this may be a large chunk of those one the dole it's not everyone.

beagle001 wrote: »

Good man Oisin T,why not paint a star of on each unemployed person so we can point at them in the shops and look down on the lazy lot of them(why dont the get jobs etc).
You need to take those short sighted goggles of your face as it clearly infringes on peoples rights classing them as second class citizens and also it is unethical to keep track of all a persons personal spending.
Big brother watching being taken too far

Yeah, why don't they get jobs? I think we should paint stars on them. Maybe work camps too!
That's TOTALLY what I was getting at. Thanks! You are so insightful and intelligent!

Millicent

K-9 wrote: »

Sorry, I used the old term, Unemployment Benefit is now Jobseekers payment, you get it for a year and it is based on PRSI paid. It's slightly higher than the dole.

Jobseekers Allowance would be what people refer to as the dole. It's means tested.

Unemployed » Department of Social Protection


@OisinT, I know of 3 lads who were self employed as Subcontractors and got dole payments due to the construction bubble/crash. Reason being I had to do up to date accounts for them.

So self-employed people can qualify for the allowance and not the benefit? I have heard of a lot of people who were denied for either though who were unemployed. Just assumed every unemployed person was disallowed. Thanks for clearing that up.

AckwelFoley

OisinT wrote: »

I dislike the idea that people are "entitled" to the dole and that it should be given to them without question or restriction on how the money is spent.

If the dole was restricted in its use, it could be reduced as it would be clear that payments would be going towards actual necessities, rather than cigarettes, booze and sky+.

"Actual necessities" is subjective and not definable.

Food and shelter is of course, but if i grew all my own food andlived in a communal hut and therefore needed to buy essentially very very little i could live on essentally nothing.

So the you have to define what is an essential, and its at that point you are going to as a government have to decide what standard of foods people are entitled to.

I know im giving an extreme example with the communal hut, but there are people that can essentially get by on practically nothing and there are others that would struggle on 500 per week

My point is while i understand your reasons for thinking its a good idea, its not - the governent cant decide what or where or how people choose to live, because people choose to live and spend differently and due to demographics and locations it differes. Its really no practical, nor in my opinion fair.

I do, over the last few months having read many of your posts would have to say that i would in many if noy most cases agree with your points, so we are actually playing for the same team - its just this point we obviously dont!

FreudianSlippers

K-9 wrote: »

Sorry, I used the old term, Unemployment Benefit is now Jobseekers payment, you get it for a year and it is based on PRSI paid. It's slightly higher than the dole.

Jobseekers Allowance would be what people refer to as the dole. It's means tested.

Unemployed » Department of Social Protection


@OisinT, I know of 3 lads who were self employed as Subcontractors and got dole payments due to the construction bubble/crash. Reason being I had to do up to date accounts for them.

It was looked into by the group that "oversees" us in my profession and it was stated unequivocally that while we are "entitled" we would never be considered appropriate following means testing.
I can literally get no social benefits except for paternity leave if my wife dies within 12 months of having the baby. No joke.

Mark200

The point of what Oisin is suggesting is simple:

Dole money should only be used for the purpose of the dole.

What is the purpose of the dole? Why do we have a system where the Government takes money off working people, and gives it to those who need it? The purpose is to ensure that people don't go hungry. That they have a safety net. The point of a welfare card that Oisin describes is to ensure that the Government isn't taking money off other people so that useless crap can be bought with it, instead of what it was intended for.

You can moan on all you want about the rights of those receiving the 'benefits', but ultimately it's not their money that they're spending*.

* = Of course, I'm talking about the medium/long-term unemployed.

Millicent

OisinT wrote: »

You were

Hurrah!

OisinT wrote: »

Fair point. I'm spitballing the idea more than anything else tbh.

I just think SOMETHING needs to be done.

I think I may try my hand at the auld barristering with my persuasive arguments. Ah, I know exactly the people you mean but they make up a small proportion of the current dole numbers. As with anything in this country, the dole requires better regulation than it currently has but we all know how regulation has gone in this country in the past few years.

FreudianSlippers

snyper wrote: »

"Actual necessities" is subjective and not definable.

Food and shelter is of course, but if i grew all my own food andlived in a communal hut and therefore needed to buy essentially very very little i could live on essentally nothing.

So the you have to define what is an essential, and its at that point you are going to as a government have to decide what standard of foods people are entitled to.

I know im giving an extreme example with the communal hut, but there are people that can essentially get by on practically nothing and there are others that would struggle on 500 per week

My point is while i understand your reasons for thinking its a good idea, its not - the governent cant decide what or where or how people choose to live, because people choose to live and spend differently and due to demographics and locations it differes. Its really no practical, nor in my opinion fair.

I do, over the last few months having read many of your posts would have to say that i would in many if noy most cases agree with your points, so we are actually playing for the same team - its just this point we obviously dont!

I don't necessarily agree. As I said in a previous post, I'm just "spitballing" the idea.

I'm not sure it would work, but IMO something drastic has to happen to cut down on fraud and to stop people from using allowances they are given (i.e. child) for getting their hair and nails done and buying smokes.