Sick of Unemployed People Getting abuse on

dchris

I am sick of unemployed people getting stick on here for being lazy, or cheating the system, or not bothering to look for work.

I think people should make themselves aware of the facts and figures when it comes to social welfare expenditure in Ireland. A lot of people on here say things that are just ignorant of any facts.

Back in 2007 we had what is considered "full employment" which means that the unemployment rate is about 4% or less. This 4% equates to about 157K people. Now unemployment is at 15% almost a 4 fold increase in unemployment. However the amount paid out in Social Welfare Expenditure in 2007 was 15Billion, In 2011 it was 20 Billion

2007
Unemployment 4 % (157k)
Social Welfare Expenditure 15 Billion

2011
Unemployment 15% (440k)
Social Welfare Expenditure 20 Billion

It is clear to me that despite c. 300% increase in the amount of people unemployed, the expenditure only increased by 33%

This would that despite having c.300k more unemployed now ,it does not have a drastic (elastic) affect on Unemployment benefit expenditure. It also suggests that it is other areas, not unemployment benefits that are the huge drain on the Social Welfare Budget, and the same ones that were in existence in 2007

If 1/3 of the SW expenditure goes on paying an additional 300K people, (5 Billion) that would mean that about 7.5 billion in total is going on unemployment benefit. ie 440K people in total (including the c157k who were always unemployed...

So the remainder 12.5 billion of the budget is going on additional payments such as pensions, rent allowances, child benefit, etc .. Not unemployment benefit.

People seem to have the pre-conceived notion that people choose to be on Unemployment Benefit because they are lazy. I think this is ridiculous. There will always be people who scam and cheat the system. But in many cases it is people who are already below the poverty line who feel they have no choice but to cheat the system. Not everyone is powered by greed, in many cases it is through necessity.

I am sick of reading posts where people tar all unemployed people with the same brush. Using terms like lazy, drains on society etc. I also don't think moderators should allow.

I have seen on one thread whereby a guy was offered a "job" working for free. He refused to take it, and was berated by people with abuse for being a waster. People would seriously want to get a grip and see what's in front of them.

Schemes like Jobsbridge are extensions of what FAS and its predecessor The Anco. It has been statistically proven that anyone who jobhunt through FAS, is 17% LESS likely to find a job..


http://www.thejournal.ie/looking-for-work-dont-go-through-the-states-back-to-work-plan-report-finds-135800-May2011/
http://www.esri.ie/publications/latest_publications/view/index.xml?id=3144


My view on Jobsbridge is that it be a much fairer system if the employer had to match the contribution of 50 euro by the state. Or go one further and bring the individual up to the minimum wage. I am sure it is humiliating for individuals to enter companies on a Jobsbridge scheme when they are working alongside other employees doing the same Job , but for twice the pay. Furthermore travel expenses etc may leave the individual financially worse off for an extended period with no guarantees . The employer is receiving free labour. A further dis-incentive for employers to advertise for positions. It would be much more rewarding for unemployed people to approach New Business Start Ups and offer their time there. The experience one would get from working at the start up stage of a business is vast and there is a real potential that a paid role could be created. It's a potential Win-Win the , whereas the only ones who Win with Jobsbridge is employer. Business people , by nature are exploitative and I have no doubt that is what will happen to these people. Of the 6840 internships on Jobsbridge schemes, 797 interns got a job at the end of it? What happened to the other 90% ? Back on the dole perhaps, and better off? Maybe .

http://www.longfordleader.ie/news/business/opportunities-in-longford-as-jobbridge-extended-1-3872944

Maybe I am a massive cynic, but I hate seeing people bitching and back biting people of being unemployed. The majority of people are good people and want to work. I am sure people unemployed are doing the best in their situation and the last thing they need is to be kicked when they are down. No ones job is that safe, so remember before you post that you could be on the receiving end one day.

Lets not forget that it is not the unemployed peoples faults that the economy went the way it did. You can blame that on the government you voted for. Maybe your bitchy comments and back biting be better focused in their direction than individuals struggling to get by.

Rasheed

Well I do agree with what you are saying. I don't think there is any family not touched by unemployment now.

The people I have a problem with are that 4% that were unemployed in the boom times. Papers were filled with jobs, grants galore for further education, back to work schemes and still 150k plus on the dole. Completely unacceptable.

Also I totally disagree with your point that people are on the bread line and are forced to con the state. The welfare system are very generous in this country compared to the UK. Three times more generous. With single parent, rent allowance, money for uniforms and books etc, I find it very hard to believe anyone is 'poor' on the welfare system. And anyone that cries they are and try to justify ripping the state off, needs to take a long hard look at themselves.

dchris

You see this is where the misconception lies. 4% unemployment in any economy no matter how big of a boom you are in is considered Zero unemployment. It is hard to do any better than 4%. With the exception of Cuba and Monaco, I don't know of any country with lower levels than about 3 %. In economic terms, you will always have some people on unemployment benefit to allow for people waiting to leave one job and entering a new one, college graduates who have just started looking. Plus, a lot of people who are older ie 60-65 are technically job seekers until pensionable age, yet tend to struggle to find employment because of there age. (There are lots of factors. And not all of the 157k unemployed are the same people)

I do think some people are on the breadline. I know quite a few people who stuggle to pay their bills, who are in receipt of unemployment benefit and no other allowances. Not everyone, but many are living or at risk of living in poverty in Ireland. For example, 16 % of all Lone Parents in Ireland live in consistent poverty. Yet Lone Parents are forever getting slated because it is perceived they get huge amounts of money from social welfare. People forget living in Ireland is bloody expensive. Trying to raise a child on your own, on benefits, is hardly a lifestyle choice. Granted Increasing or decreasing their income will not change their situations.

The problem generated back during the boom times, when no provision was made for Lone Parents in addressing the issue of massive childcare costs. As a result, the welfare system created a monster whereby the cost of working for a lone parent was so high, that they were financially better off staying home. A poverty trap ensued. There was no foresight by government at the time to implement a proper childcare scheme, as it was seen as more cost effective to pay out more in welfare, than to invest childcare provision. This meant that lone parents became long term unemployed.

So it is for this reason that I would not begrudge a lone parent for example, working a shift in a local shop if the opportunity presents itself. They might be able to treat themselves to a pair of shoes...

johnnyskeleton

Would you consider a comment such as:

"the system makes not working more lucrative than working and is easier, thereby discoraging people from wanting to work"

as being abuse towards the unemployed people? I think the point most people make is that the system makes long term unemployed people less willing to get a job. Is that not a valid observation?

dchris

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Would you consider a comment such as:

"the system makes not working more lucrative than working and is easier, thereby discoraging people from wanting to work"

as being abuse towards the unemployed people? I think the point most people make is that the system makes long term unemployed people less willing to get a job. Is that not a valid observation?

It is fair to say that some people in society are financially better off being unemployed than they would be if they were employed. The system has many holes. You need to make it equally as "lucrative" for the likes of Lone Parents for example to go to work. By providing provision for Childcare/Early Pre School places etc.

One of the most contradictory cuts in benefits of late has been the cut of the Back to Work Allowance. People cannot get jobs because none exist, yet anyone who is lucky enough to get a job will be cut off of their benefit immediately and have to survive for a month or more before their first pay cheque arrives. Which would mean that in order to take a job , that pays monthly, an individual would have to save up a months worth of living expenses and the additional travel expenses. A lone parent could not for an instance take the chance of returning to work in fear their benefits would be cut and would have no food for there children. It's a poverty trap.

I don't have any problem with people saying the system creates this problem. I do have a problem with unemployed people being slated as being lazy dole cheats, when their circumstances is dictated by systems misgivings. . Hence why it is called a "The Poverty Trap" and not "The Poverty Choice"

Generally people want to work, and as many incentives as possible should be in place to bridge the transition from unemployment to employment.

Geuze

http://www.welfare.ie/EN/Policy/ResearchSurveysAndStatistics/Pages/2010stats.aspx

http://www.welfare.ie/EN/Policy/ResearchSurveysAndStatistics/Documents/2010stats.pdf

DSP stats above, press release and report.

2010 spending was 20,848m, of which jobseekers supports were 19.6%.

dchris

Geuze wrote: »

http://www.welfare.ie/EN/Policy/ResearchSurveysAndStatistics/Pages/2010stats.aspx

http://www.welfare.ie/EN/Policy/ResearchSurveysAndStatistics/Documents/2010stats.pdf

DSP stats above, press release and report.

2010 spending was 20,848m, of which jobseekers supports were 19.6%.

Thanks! Was looking for a summary on CSO and ESRI but didn't look hard enough

Cheers

Gurgle

Rasheed wrote: »

The people I have a problem with are that 4% that were unemployed in the boom times. Papers were filled with jobs, grants galore for further education, back to work schemes and still 150k plus on the dole. Completely unacceptable.

At the best of times there were companies shutting down / relocating and jobs being lost. A fair whack (nope, I don't know the numbers) of that 4% were people genuinely between jobs.

Sin City

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Would you consider a comment such as:

"the system makes not working more lucrative than working and is easier, thereby discoraging people from wanting to work"

as being abuse towards the unemployed people? I think the point most people make is that the system makes long term unemployed people less willing to get a job. Is that not a valid observation?

No jobs availability makes people less likely to work

dchris

Sin City wrote: »

No jobs availability makes people less likely to work

I should of led with that :rolleyes:

puffishoes

I think it's difficult to compare the people who were going to work in the boom.

It's one thing going to mix cement for 60-70k a year and working your backside of for minimum wage 6 days a week.

The person who was willing to do the former is now not willing to do the latter, so we can't really claim because they worked in the boom time's they're willing to work.

We created a large amount of non skilled/lowly educated laborers. If it wasn't for the "boom" and paying stupid amount's of money for these low skilled jobs the same work force may not have been working. As said a lot of them are the same one's who now won't get out of bed for less than x y and z.

There's no benefit to "bashing" the unemployed, but a lot of the time when talking to them you can certainly "bash" their little or no effort and finding work and how they badly manage the funds that are provisioned for them.

"but i sent out 200 CV's in the last 6 months" people actually regard this as job hunting. even posts in these forums the sense of entitlement from some is just staggering.

I have no problem with people who are genuinely putting an effort into finding work, I just don't think there's very many of them.

struggling sam

Interesting stats there dchris. If I may go off on a slight tangent, as far as all benefits are concerned, the "family" in particular but also couples are entitled to a proportionally higher amount than single people.

I am single, in my mid 50's, and now reliant on Disability Allowance and Rent Allowance. My rate is 188 per week and a 7.70 Living Alone Allowance. A couple would receive the 188 and 124 for the qualifying adult. Heating the home does not cost substantially more for two people. ESB is not substantially more for two people. I have a car (for the time being), there is no added cost for two people. Cooking for two is easier in some ways, but yes, it will cost more to feed two. My telephone/internet cost would not double, my home contents insurance does not double with a 2nd person.

Rent wise, most accomodation is suitable for a minimum of two, perhaps, except some bedsits. Therfore, there would tend to be no real reduction in rent. I must contribute 30.00 a week towards my rent, a couple must contribute a whopping 5.00 more.

I fully understand the state of the country's finances, and do agree the importance of providing for children and the family, however I do strongly believe that single people, certainly in my age bracket, are discriminated against.

However, I am also grateful that we do have a caring society and a Social Welfare System that for the most part, does its job reasonably well, it just needs some tweaking.

daltonmd

struggling sam wrote: »

Interesting stats there dchris. If I may go off on a slight tangent, as far as all benefits are concerned, the "family" in particular but also couples are entitled to a proportionally higher amount than single people.

I am single, in my mid 50's, and now reliant on Disability Allowance and Rent Allowance. My rate is 188 per week and a 7.70 Living Alone Allowance. A couple would receive the 188 and 124 for the qualifying adult. Heating the home does not cost substantially more for two people. ESB is not substantially more for two people. I have a car (for the time being), there is no added cost for two people. Cooking for two is easier in some ways, but yes, it will cost more to feed two. My telephone/internet cost would not double, my home contents insurance does not double with a 2nd person.

Rent wise, most accomodation is suitable for a minimum of two, perhaps, except some bedsits. Therfore, there would tend to be no real reduction in rent. I must contribute 30.00 a week towards my rent, a couple must contribute a whopping 5.00 more.

I fully understand the state of the country's finances, and do agree the importance of providing for children and the family, however I do strongly believe that single people, certainly in my age bracket, are discriminated against.

However, I am also grateful that we do have a caring society and a Social Welfare System that for the most part, does its job reasonably well, it just needs some tweaking.

I personally wouldn't agree with you Sam, as an aside, do you not qualify for the household package? Maybe you should check it out?

dchris

struggling sam wrote: »

I


I fully understand the state of the country's finances, and do agree the importance of providing for children and the family, however I do strongly believe that single people, certainly in my age bracket, are discriminated against.
.

I defo agree living alone is a much greater financial burden. There is no added extras at all, plus no bill sharing etc If you're running a car I'd imagine there be very little left for you at the end of a week. Plus, if anything needed replacing or if the car needed work, it would be a massive set back. I had forgotten that they took 30euro for rent every week before the supplement kicks in- good point!.

dchris

daltonmd wrote: »

I personally wouldn't agree with you Sam,

Which bit do you not agree on?

struggling sam

daltonmd wrote: »

I personally wouldn't agree with you Sam, as an aside, do you not qualify for the household package? Maybe you should check it out?

I do get the household benefit package, yes, and I am very grateful for it. It is very difficult adjusting from being a working man with a reasonable wage to being on DA even with the extra benefits.

What may I ask do you disagree with? That a single person does not fare as well as a couple?
Or my comments on how certain major household expenditure is only marginally more for two people?

EchoO

Rasheed wrote: »

The people I have a problem with are that 4% that were unemployed in the boom times. Papers were filled with jobs, grants galore for further education, back to work schemes and still 150k plus on the dole. Completely unacceptable.

The long term unemployment rate at the time was just 1.3%, or 28,000 people. As has already been stated, even in a period of full employment there will be people between jobs and there will be those who do not have the skills to apply for job vacancies in economy i.e., structural unemployment.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Would you consider a comment such as:

"the system makes not working more lucrative than working and is easier, thereby discoraging people from wanting to work"

as being abuse towards the unemployed people? I think the point most people make is that the system makes long term unemployed people less willing to get a job. Is that not a valid observation?

During the boom when people had the choice to work or claim the dole, people chose to work. The problem is not that our unemployment benefits are too generous, its the fact that we currently had 26 unemployed people for every job vacancy in the country.

puffishoes

struggling sam wrote: »

I am single, in my mid 50's, and now reliant on Disability Allowance and Rent Allowance. My rate is 188 per week and a 7.70 Living Alone Allowance. A couple would receive the 188 and 124 for the qualifying adult. Heating the home does not cost substantially more for two people. ESB is not substantially more for two people. I have a car (for the time being), there is no added cost for two people. Cooking for two is easier in some ways, but yes, it will cost more to feed two. My telephone/internet cost would not double, my home contents insurance does not double with a 2nd person.

I understand it can be a struggle, but sometimes people don't do much to help themselves.

The payment I imagine by the SW is not expected to take into consideration to cost of running a car/insurance/tax/petrol/diesiel/NCT/

Unless your disability stops you from walking/cycling/public transport I don't see a need for it and is a sustantial burden on your financial situation. Telephone costs? if you have a mobile ready to go at 20e a month or so couple's generally have idependant phones so would have the same costs here? with the internet is it something you _must_ have? it is, maybe you can get of the phone and use free services? like skype etc cutting down on phone costs.

regarding home contents insurance, personally if I'm in a situation were i'm struggling financially if i have anything of worth i'm more than likley selling it and wouldn't really have much need for content insurance again another burden on the finances that's not really designed to be covered by SW payments.

struggling sam wrote: »

Rent wise, most accomodation is suitable for a minimum of two, perhaps, except some bedsits. Therfore, there would tend to be no real reduction in rent. I must contribute 30.00 a week towards my rent, a couple must contribute a whopping 5.00 more.

Not sure why we're hung up on couples in this posts a couple is not a single entitiyy and both should be finanically dependant from the other.

so on one hand it's slightly cheaper with certain things, on the other they get a lot less money individuality which could be regarded as discrimination towards couples?

struggling sam wrote: »

I fully understand the state of the country's finances, and do agree the importance of providing for children and the family, however I do strongly believe that single people, certainly in my age bracket, are discriminated against.

As stated I'm not sure anyone can call discrimination when the state takes you on financially. I agree in looking after everyone but there's pro's and cons for all sides.

daltonmd

dchris wrote: »

Which bit do you not agree on?

That couples are entitled to a proportionally higher amount than single people.


If both received 188 then there would be a point, but they don't.

The second person actually receives 111.30 euro pw (take away the living alone allowance and the 5 euro extra for rent).

Add to that as Sam says, most property is geared towards couples, and this is advantageous to single people in my opinion.

Both these people may have paid full stamps - they live together and this is fairly taken into account given the reduction the second person takes.

bee_keeper

dchris wrote: »

It is fair to say that some people in society are financially better off being unemployed than they would be if they were employed. The system has many holes. You need to make it equally as "lucrative" for the likes of Lone Parents for example to go to work. By providing provision for Childcare/Early Pre School places etc.

One of the most contradictory cuts in benefits of late has been the cut of the Back to Work Allowance. People cannot get jobs because none exist, yet anyone who is lucky enough to get a job will be cut off of their benefit immediately and have to survive for a month or more before their first pay cheque arrives. Which would mean that in order to take a job , that pays monthly, an individual would have to save up a months worth of living expenses and the additional travel expenses. A lone parent could not for an instance take the chance of returning to work in fear their benefits would be cut and would have no food for there children. It's a poverty trap.

I don't have any problem with people saying the system creates this problem. I do have a problem with unemployed people being slated as being lazy dole cheats, when their circumstances is dictated by systems misgivings. . Hence why it is called a "The Poverty Trap" and not "The Poverty Choice"

Generally people want to work, and as many incentives as possible should be in place to bridge the transition from unemployment to employment.

the back to work allowance was cut so as to encourage young people to head to australia and canada , in tough times you try and force out those most likely to rail against the status quo

washman3

To go back to the OPs topic regarding the unemployed getting abuse, it is clear at this stage that this abuse is orchestrated in different ways in order to prepare them for what is coming down the line. The controlled media, ie RTE and the Irish Indo are the biggest sinners here. we also have areas like here on Boards.ie and Politics.ie where political parties have their lapdogs constantly on "keyboard duty" to peddle their spin and waffle.
The hidden agenda here is that while they can bad-mouth those on various social welfare allowances they are free to continue untouched on their very own gravy train.

P.S. i await the attacks here from the usual vested interests.

CamperMan

social welfare expenditure for 2011 €20 billion

Income tax receipts came in at the grand total of €13.798 billion..

so you tell me how the feck Ireland can sustain such a large welfare expense??

get it cut, force people to live back home with mummy and daddy, get a job..

I can't get dole because I am self employed, I pay my taxes and get nothing in return,

If I could get on the dole, I would be able to double my income overnight.

People on welfare have it easy!

bee_keeper

washman3 wrote: »

To go back to the OPs topic regarding the unemployed getting abuse, it is clear at this stage that this abuse is orchestrated in different ways in order to prepare them for what is coming down the line. The controlled media, ie RTE and the Irish Indo are the biggest sinners here. we also have areas like here on Boards.ie and Politics.ie where political parties have their lapdogs constantly on "keyboard duty" to peddle their spin and waffle.
The hidden agenda here is that while they can bad-mouth those on various social welfare allowances they are free to continue untouched on their very own gravy train.

P.S. i await the attacks here from the usual vested interests.

you think their are political operatives at work on boards.ie ?

dchris

CamperMan wrote: »

social welfare expenditure for 2011 €20 billion

Income tax receipts came in at the grand total of €13.798 billion..

so you tell me how the feck Ireland can sustain such a large welfare expense??

get it cut, force people to live back home with mummy and daddy, get a job..

I can't get dole because I am self employed, I pay my taxes and get nothing in return,

If I could get on the dole, I would be able to double my income overnight.

People on welfare have it easy!

With that attitude we would be right to close the hospitals down too.

If you set up your own business you can keep your social welfare for 2 years. 100% in the first year, 75 % in the second year. If you close your business, you can apply for social welfare allowance the same as anyone who is unemployed. I am not sure where the confusion over being self employed and not entitled to social welfare came from but I heard it before.



http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/social_welfare_payments/unemployed_people/self_employed_and_unemployment.html

People on Welfare have it easy? I am not going to bother debating comments like that.

puffishoes

dchris wrote: »

With that attitude we would be right to close the hospitals down too.

No one died because they didn't have a sky package and the ntl 100MB

It's a stupid statement. As a country we can't afford to keep people out of work with the luxury of lifestyle they're currently experiencing on SW. The point he was making clearly is when the SW is taken over so much of GDP we have to reduce it.

struggling sam

puffishoes wrote: »

I understand it can be a struggle, but sometimes people don't do much to help themselves.

The payment I imagine by the SW is not expected to take into consideration to cost of running a car/insurance/tax/petrol/diesiel/NCT/

For over 30 years I have had a car but getting used to the idea of not having one is seriously being considered. However, I live in a rural area, post office is 5 mile away, town is 15 miles, but there is a community bus which goes into town twice a week.


Unless your disability stops you from walking/cycling/public transport I don't see a need for it and is a sustantial burden on your financial situation. Telephone costs? if you have a mobile ready to go at 20e a month or so couple's generally have idependant phones so would have the same costs here? with the internet is it something you _must_ have? it is, maybe you can get of the phone and use free services? like skype etc cutting down on phone costs.


I was speaking more of landline costs, but I do take your point re as a couple might require 2 mobiles but can share one landline and internet.




regarding home contents insurance, personally if I'm in a situation were i'm struggling financially if i have anything of worth i'm more than likley selling it and wouldn't really have much need for content insurance again another burden on the finances that's not really designed to be covered by SW payments.

Insurance is required by the terms of my lease. I have worked hard all of my life, and the only luxuries I have is a good 35mm camera and accessories, an elaborate stereo, and a 32" telly, and of course my pc!



Not sure why we're hung up on couples in this posts a couple is not a single entitiyy and both should be finanically dependant from the other.

I am from the old school, when I was married, all of our money/income was pooled and jointly spent together. I know times have changed,


so on one hand it's slightly cheaper with certain things, on the other they get a lot less money individuality which could be regarded as discrimination towards couples?

The major costs in a household are food/heat & light, and rent. Two of the three do not increase substantially when another person is added to the household.

struggling sam

Apologies, formatting went wonky and lost connection at same time!

puffishoes wrote: »

I understand it can be a struggle, but sometimes people don't do much to help themselves.

The payment I imagine by the SW is not expected to take into consideration to cost of running a car/insurance/tax/petrol/diesiel/NCT/

Unless your disability stops you from walking/cycling/public transport I don't see a need for it and is a sustantial burden on your financial situation. Telephone costs? if you have a mobile ready to go at 20e a month or so couple's generally have idependant phones so would have the same costs here? with the internet is it something you _must_ have? it is, maybe you can get of the phone and use free services? like skype etc cutting down on phone costs.

regarding home contents insurance, personally if I'm in a situation were i'm struggling financially if i have anything of worth i'm more than likley selling it and wouldn't really have much need for content insurance again another burden on the finances that's not really designed to be covered by SW payments.




Not sure why we're hung up on couples in this posts a couple is not a single entitiyy and both should be finanically dependant from the other.

so on one hand it's slightly cheaper with certain things, on the other they get a lot less money individuality which could be regarded as discrimination towards couples?



As stated I'm not sure anyone can call discrimination when the state takes you on financially. I agree in looking after everyone but there's pro's and cons for all sides.

dchris

puffishoes wrote: »

No one died because they didn't have a sky package and the ntl 100MB

It's a stupid statement.

No, that is a stupid statement. And a massively ignorant one at that. It's people like you that I had in mind when I made the OP. So ignorant of what is really happening, in the real world, then come on to places like this and spread your ill-informed little opinions. The banks and the government bankrupt the country, yet you choose kick the real victims, who are the people that have lost their jobs? Institutionalised and conformist comes to mind..

washman3

bee_keeper wrote: »

you think their are political operatives at work on boards.ie ?

Dont just think it, im absolutely certain. While i'm just a registered member for over a year, i've been reading posts for 6-7 years and can identify instantly the "usual suspects" from the various political parties.
its funny really that most have changed their views entirely over the years to suit the particular political agenda at the time.
A quick example is those FG/LAB apologists who are now lampooning those on social welfare, but who continously complained 5-6 years ago that the then FF/GREEN/CORRUPT INDs government were
"victimising" the very same recipients.:)

I rest my case....

username123

CamperMan wrote: »

People on welfare have it easy!

If this is what you really think, then why dont you close your business, get your wife or partner to quit their jobs, and go and claim your entitlements? If people on welfare have it so easy - then why wouldnt you want to be one of them?

daltonmd

struggling sam wrote: »

I do get the household benefit package, yes, and I am very grateful for it. It is very difficult adjusting from being a working man with a reasonable wage to being on DA even with the extra benefits.

What may I ask do you disagree with? That a single person does not fare as well as a couple?
Or my comments on how certain major household expenditure is only marginally more for two people?

Sorry, your argument was: "couples are entitled to a proportionally higher amount than single people. "

You spoke about heating/esb/phone charges not being double for a couple - yet failed to disclose that you don't pay these on your own - your other half is "the state".

Your argument is completely wrong and you were a little more than disingenuous, when you left out this important piece of information.

Edit to add - "The major costs in a household are food/heat & light, and rent. Two of the three do not increase substantially when another person is added to the household. "

Sam, you get help with 3 of those costs, you get rent allowance, units of your Gas/ESB and a generous allowance off your phone. You are treated like this because you are single and living alone - I know it's not an easy place to be - but looking enviously on couples and incorrectly believing that "they have more than you" - is wrong.