Unpopular Opinions.

Paddy Cow

Babybuff wrote: »

eh, no.
If they were a confident person and giving someone sh*t then they're probably a bully. Not taking sh*t from people doesn't make you a bully.

I wasn't being literal. I meant that sometimes people who think they are confident and don't take sh!t from anyone, really can't see that actually they are jerks who walk all over people. Kinda like how people use "I tell it like it is" to be really rude and unnecessarily hurtful.

pickarooney

wonderfullife wrote: »

Male tennis players deserve their higher prize money on the basis they play 5 set matches, equal pay for unequal work isn't fairness

I think they should be paid more for achieving the job in a shorter time.

RichieC wrote: »

I don't agree... I like that there's a few more teams giving the top lads a run for their money. Boring is the ****ty scotch league with two dominating forces and a bunch of school boy teams.

Two, you say? :pac:

karaokeman

Tatyo crisps are dire.

talkinyite

custard creams are manky

Gevie Stee

Florence and the machine are sh1t

onlyrocknroll

mikemac1 wrote: »

Bullying shouldn't happen but it does, it's not a perfect world

If you had this in school and the local skangers recognize you and give you hassle down the shops and the teamleader in work picks on you then you need to take a look at yourself.

I'm not victim blaming

Of course you are.

That's like me saying... You're completely wrong, nothing you say is correct

But I'm not disagreeing with you.

pickarooney

Two year olds are, on average, far more interesting than twenty year olds although each group will generally have the opposite opinion.

lastlaugh

pickarooney wrote: »

Two year olds are, on average, far more interesting than twenty year olds although each group will generally have the opposite opinion.

I wouldn't imagine a two year old has much of an opinion.

Or maybe you're attempting to be funny?

LH Pathe

The guy in the current Road Safety Awareness ad looks like an older Brian Ormond, sitting down. I wonder will his wife see this

Lash_Alert

I think people under the age of 25 or so, who still live at home shouldnt be allowed to go on the dole if their family are financially able to provide for them. Have a number of friends who went on dole at 22/23/23, while living at home, but yet they're family owned own 3/4 homes in Ireland (combination of holiday homes and investment properties)

some random drunk

Grossly obese women can still be sexy. My favorite pornstar at the moment is Superstarxxx (google image search at your own risk). To me she's gorgeous.

stupidusername

Lash_Alert wrote: »

I think people under the age of 25 or so, who still live at home shouldnt be allowed to go on the dole if their family are financially able to provide for them. Have a number of friends who went on dole at 22/23/23, while living at home, but yet they're family owned own 3/4 homes in Ireland (combination of holiday homes and investment properties)

well that just sounds like they lied about their means then.

Lash_Alert

stupidusername wrote: »

well that just sounds like they lied about their means then.

No, once you get to 23 i think it is, you're viewed independently, even if you live with them.

stupidusername

Lash_Alert wrote: »

No, once you get to 23 i think it is, you're viewed independently, even if you live with them.

It's under 25.

Paddy Cow

stupidusername wrote: »

well that just sounds like they lied about their means then.

Totally agree. Social welfare sent me out a letter saying that since I was on the dole I should apply for fuel allowance. I filled out the form and they sent me a letter back saying that I wasn't entitled to it as I lived with two people who weren't on social welfare. The two people I lived with were flatmates who were under no obligation to pay for me. We split all bills three ways regardless of income.

Unless they lied, I find it very hard to believe that social welfare would pay out to people who are living with family. I was means tested and had to provide bank statements and a letter from my landlord to prove my income and outgoings before I could get JSA.

Lash_Alert

stupidusername wrote: »

It's under 25.

Maybe it was job seekers then they were getting? As none were over 24 and i know for a fact that they didnt lie.

Paddy Cow

Lash_Alert wrote: »

No, once you get to 23 i think it is, you're viewed independently, even if you live with them.

You can still get the dole but it will be means tested. You still have to prove that you are paying rent etc. If you are living somewhere you don't have to pay bills then you are not/should not be getting the full dole.

Paddy Cow

Lash_Alert wrote: »

Maybe it was job seekers then hey were getting? As none were over 24 and i know for a fact that they didnt lie.

I always get confused between the two but the first one you go on is related to how many stamps you have paid. The second one after that is means tested.

stupidusername

Paddy Cow wrote: »

Totally agree. Social welfare sent me out a letter saying that since I was on the dole I should apply for fuel allowance. I filled out the form and they sent me a letter back saying that I wasn't entitled to it as I lived with two people who weren't on social welfare. The two people I lived with were flatmates who were under no obligation to pay for me. We split all bills three ways regardless of income.

Unless they lied, I find it very hard to believe that social welfare would pay out to people who are living with family. I was means tested and had to provide bank statements and a letter from my landlord to prove my income and outgoings before I could get JSA.

I never got why a person in rented accommodation couldn't claim things like that.

but what I was saying to Lash_Alert is that living with family, they do pay, but it's based on the parents means, including land and property/assets. I wasn't saying they wouldn't pay to someone living at home.

Lash_Alert wrote: »

Maybe it was job seekers then hey were getting? As none were over 24 and i know for a fact that they didnt lie.

'jobseekers' doesn't distinguish which you're talking about - it's jobseekers allowance and jobseekers benefit. benefit is based on your prsi contributions. if you're on JSA and living at home, and under 25, your parents means are taken into account. if you think there's something dodgy going on, report them.

Lash_Alert

Paddy Cow wrote: »

I always get confused between the two but the first one you go on is related to how many stamps you have paid. The second one after that is means tested.

Ha ok well im still confused! But they were definitely getting something, and they were telling the truth, as it was my mates ma who dealt with the case of she isnt even of a fan of one or two of them and knows their business so wouldnt cut any corners for them.

Lash_Alert

stupidusername wrote: »

I never got why a person in rented accommodation couldn't claim things like that.

but what I was saying to Lash_Alert is that living with family, they do pay, but it's based on the parents means, including land and property/assets. I wasn't saying they wouldn't pay to someone living at home.



'jobseekers' doesn't distinguish which you're talking about - it's jobseekers allowance and jobseekers benefit. benefit is based on your prsi contributions. if you're on JSA and living at home, and under 25, your parents means are taken into account. if you think there's something dodgy going on, report them.

I know for a fact theres nothing 'dodgy' going on. Its probably job seeker benefit then that they were on no?

stupidusername

Lash_Alert wrote: »

I know for a fact theres nothing 'dodgy' going on. Its probably job seeker benefit then that they were on no?

How would I know? If there's nothing dodgy going on, then they're entitled to it. I don't know what way it works if they're on JSB and living at home. but the way JSB is viewed is you've earned the money, so everybody better shut up about them getting it.

Lash_Alert

stupidusername wrote: »

How would I know? If there's nothing dodgy going on, then they're entitled to it. I don't know what way it works if they're on JSB and living at home. but the way JSB is viewed is you've earned the money, so everybody better shut up about them getting it.

Ill find out tomorrow what they were getting. But moral of the story is, my unpopular opinion is, they shouldnt:)

stupidusername

Lash_Alert wrote: »

Ill find out tomorrow what they were getting. But moral of the story is, my unpopular opinion is, they shouldnt:)

the way I would view it is why should your family have to support you at that age?

Lash_Alert

stupidusername wrote: »

the way I would view it is why should your family have to support you at that age?

Because they can. If they're in a position to own so many houses etc, they should support you through some bad times early on in your life if you havent flown the nest yet.

stupidusername

Lash_Alert wrote: »

Because they can. If they're in a position to own so many houses etc, they should support you through some bad times early on in your life if you havent flown the nest yet.

ok, I wasn't speaking specifically about the people you know as I don't know them! what about a family that doesn't have loads of money / houses etc. a child finishes college, can't find a job and has to move home? especially in rural areas, it's hardly going to help them get a job.

Lash_Alert

stupidusername wrote: »

ok, I wasn't speaking specifically about the people you know as I don't know them! what about a family that doesn't have loads of money / houses etc. a child finishes college, can't find a job and has to move home? especially in rural areas, it's hardly going to help them get a job.

No but im saying, even that JB benefit, should be be means tested then if they're still living at home if you get me? No matter how much they 'earned it'.

stupidusername

Lash_Alert wrote: »

No but im saying, even that JB benefit, should be be means tested then if they're still living at home if you get me? No matter how much they 'earned it'.

yeah I get ya.

Paddy Cow

Lash_Alert wrote: »

I know for a fact theres nothing 'dodgy' going on. Its probably job seeker benefit then that they were on no?

Lash_Alert wrote: »

Ill find out tomorrow what they were getting. But moral of the story is, my unpopular opinion is, they shouldnt:)

Lash_Alert wrote: »

No but im saying, even that JB benefit, should be be means tested then if they're still living at home if you get me? No matter how much they 'earned it'.

If they have done nothing dodgy and are on Job Seekers Benefit then they should get it. JSB is related to how much PRSI you have paid. If you have paid into the system when you were working, then you should get it when you aren't, regardless of how much money you have in savings/who supports you. That's the whole point of the system.

I can understand JSA being means tested. If you have run out of contributions then what you get should be means tested. It would make no sense to give someone benefits who didn't have to pay rent/bills. It would just encourage people to never work again.

The only way it would be fair to take into account someone's circumstances when they go on JSB would be if we had a blanket tax. We don't. People who earn more pay higher taxes, so if they should find themselves unemployed then they should be allowed to stay on JSB for longer than those who earn less. The amount of money you get for both is the same so it's not like people on JSB are living the high life.

K-9

stupidusername wrote: »

ok, I wasn't speaking specifically about the people you know as I don't know them! what about a family that doesn't have loads of money / houses etc. a child finishes college, can't find a job and has to move home? especially in rural areas, it's hardly going to help them get a job.

It's means tested so the test should reflect that.