Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Sick of Unemployed People Getting abuse on
Options
Comments
-
puffishoes wrote: »the mis conception is that such a small tight economy as ireland can "spend" it's way out of recession by borrowing german money (again) and instead of building houses this time we give it to the SW so they can generate jobs?
Are you serious?
Given that we have no control over our own currency, I don't really see an alternative. Either we borrow money or we end up in a worse position when we push hundreds of thousands further into poverty through reductions in welfare, destroying what's left of our economy. I'm not sure what you mean by building houses either, is there really a need for that given the number of empty estates and properties to buy and let right now? I suppose my question to you is: do you really think we can save our way out of this recession?daltonmd wrote:
You see this is the strawman argument. If we pay less SW then people will spend less in the economy right? And if they spend less then business's will fold and jobs will be lost right? Tax take will fall right?
Do you not see the problem? No?
It's not a strawman argument, I'm not misrepresenting anyone's position. You're talking about cutting welfare and I'm talking about likely consequences.
And no, I don't see the problem. If we cut social welfare then we are effectively taking money out of the economy, that is obviously not a good thing. It will result in business closures and an increase in the number of people claiming welfare which only worsens the problem.daltonmd wrote:
Obviously not.
SW is BORROWED money - not a stimulus to the economy. We are borrowing money that we cannot afford to pay back, to put into the economy for revenue, which we need to pay high rates of SW.
It's called a "debt spiral" and we are in the middle of one. Something has to give.
Borrowing money is not an automatic evil, particularly during a recession. Without that money being injected into the economy from the outside we would face dire social and economic problems when the unemployment rate skyrockets even further. The state needs to do what it can to stimulate the economy, including borrowing for social welfare payments and projects that help to get people employed. Borrowed money can be paid back when we can actually afford to do so.0 -
how does one apply to get these benifits ?0 -
General Atomic wrote: »Given that we have no control over our own currency, I don't really see an alternative. Either we borrow money or we end up in a worse position when we push hundreds of thousands further into poverty through reductions in welfare, destroying what's left of our economy. I'm not sure what you mean by building houses either, is there really a need for that given the number of empty estates and properties to buy and let right now? I suppose my question to you is: do you really think we can save our way out of this recession?
how can a single person on in excess of 800e a month be in poverty? wtf are they doing with the money?
you missed the whole point on building houses. how the boom started was people in the country borrowing money from germany building houses and selling them to each other for profit.
now as much as the above didn't work nor will borrowing and passing it to SW to hand out to claimant's to spend.
borrowing money in itself is not the problem. borrowing the amounts we do for the purpose we do is the problem.0 -
lets just tax the bajaysus out of the employed., they seem to think €188 is a luxury, their increase then can fund those.looking for work and.not burden the state0
-
puffishoes wrote: »These sector's have been dropping since late 2006 why are they not re-trained in something else at this point?
This is not a problem, we have a huge rental market. plus taking out loans is a personal choice. what should we do? write off all the debt and have people who didn't take out loans pay it back in increased taxes? what exactly are you suggesting here?
I find this hard to belive, 1.25 would generally last a single person about 10 days. this is less than 5e a month a SW is on excess of over 800e a month. this is more disposable income than a lot of professional workers.
I'd just move to black tea, it's nicer anyway.
Puffishoes, I fail to see how demanding someone who has pursued a degree or certificate in a particular sector must retrain just because the economy has hit the skids is fair or appropriate.
I don't suggest that home ownership is in some way a right or the correct thing to do, it's just something that a long term unemployed person may never be able to consider.
As it is, borrowing money is a sad necessity in this country; sometimes wage packets or benefits just do not cover things people genuinely need.
And as for watering down milk, when you have household expenses to cover on an income of c.€190 per week, you make your savings when and where you can, especially during financial emergencies.0 -
Advertisement
-
General Atomic wrote: »It's not a strawman argument, I'm not misrepresenting anyone's position. You're talking about cutting welfare and I'm talking about likely consequences.
Actually, I'm talking about making the euro left in our pockets more powerful - you know, looking at why certain costs are so high, ESB. Gas, visiting a Doctor?
You are looking at the likely consequences of cutting social welfare - but ignoring the point that we are borrowing this money.General Atomic wrote: »And no, I don't see the problem. If we cut social welfare then we are effectively taking money out of the economy, that is obviously not a good thing. It will result in business closures and an increase in the number of people claiming welfare which only worsens the problem.
Which I explained to you is the problem - we are borrowing to pay ourselves to much to keep our tax take up to pay ourselves - we are all (for the most part) paid too much. That is the problem. If we didn't pay ourselves SO much then the cost of living would have to come down in line with what we actually have as opposed to what we are borrowing.General Atomic wrote: »Borrowing money is not an automatic evil, particularly during a recession. Without that money being injected into the economy from the outside we would face dire social and economic problems when the unemployment rate skyrockets even further. The state needs to do what it can to stimulate the economy, including borrowing for social welfare payments and projects that help to get people employed. Borrowed money can be paid back when we can actually afford to do so.
It is an automatic evil when it is not used to generate growth - real growth. It is an automatic evil when you can never repay it.
Say that Ireland is a household (and I don't like using this comparison but will for this example) and the head of the household is now out of work,they have spent their savings paying rent and bills and are now on their CC.
They are still living way beyond their means, but can repay the min payment on the CC.
Then, because they have not cut enough from their spend they start using another card, paying the min payment for the first card using this - they continue on until they reach that limit. At some point the bank will say to them - NO more CC's or loans until you cut your spend.
We are at that limit. It's now cut SW spend, PS wages, Doctors fees etc.
And look at the reasons why SW/PS wages are NOT being cut - it's becasue Labour doesn't want to break their promises - this is a POLITICAL decision - not an economic one. It's party politics time again, just like the good ole days.0 -
Puffishoes, I fail to see how demanding someone who has pursued a degree or certificate in a particular sector must retrain just because the economy has hit the skids is fair or appropriate.
I'm not demanding anything. I would have thought it was a very logical thing to do? so what should they do? wait for the sector to come back?I don't suggest that home ownership is in some way a right or the correct thing to do, it's just something that a long term unemployed person may never be able to consider.
Well they may also not be able to consider a Ferrari, but there's not much we can do about that either.As it is, borrowing money is a sad necessity in this country; sometimes wage packets or benefits just do not cover things people genuinely need.
How come so many people on average salaries to low salaries get by perfectly fine without borrowing money? is this about mis managing money? sense of entitlement? the want it now can't wait generation?And as for watering down milk, when you have household expenses to cover on an income of c.€190 per week, you make your savings when and where you can, especially during financial emergencies.
As I said. you can have enough milk for 1 person for a month for less than 6e
This person is mis managing their finances or should consider black tea.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 13644
No jobs availability makes people less likely to work
But there are jobs out there. I don't blame people for refusing a minimum wage job because it is less than their welfare, but I do blame the system which allows that to happen.
I also think welfare is an impediment to people becomig self employed - there is an atitude out there that th only way to earn a living is to have someone else tell you what to do and to punch a clock.
Finally, laziness is not the worst problem when it comes to welfare - people defrauding welfare by overclaiming, underdeclaraing savings, working on the side etc are all abuses that the system is responsible for.0 -
Have you thought this one through?Puffishoes, I fail to see how demanding someone who has pursued a degree or certificate in a particular sector must retrain just because the economy has hit the skids is fair or appropriate.
What do you suggest, how should people with useless qualifications be treated?0 -
I think it's a simple issue really, people who have jobs think that those on social welfare have it way too easy, they should not have any luxuries and are costing the state way too much.
Those on welfare think that they are finding difficult as it is and any more cuts and they would find it difficult to survive, they argue that they need a phone etc.
People say look at the UK you get nothing over there to survive on and people manage it, they are not dying but the fact of the matter is the cost of living is way cheaper in the UK than it is here, that is a fact and nobody can deny it. You can get a loaf of bread and a pint of milk for under a pound for feck sake.
Are there people who take advantage of welfare, yes and they are assholes who milk the system for every penny they can get, but the vast majority of people on welfare are normal people who make it from one week to the next, they survive but they aren't massively comfortable. But at the end of the day no one has any right to tell someone on welfare how they should spend their money. If they want a phone then they can have it, it is their money, giving out to a man on welfare because he has a car is a bit much tbh, maybe he he needs that car to go to Dr.s appointments due to his disability, who knows.0 -
Advertisement
-
johnnyskeleton wrote: »people defrauding welfare by overclaiming, underdeclaraing savings, working on the side etc are all abuses that the system is responsible for.
Bollox tbh.
This is the 'everyone does it' excuse. Just because you can get away with it, doesn't make it ok.
People defrauding welfare are knowingly stealing money both from taxpayers and from genuine recipients and they are responsible for their own actions.
They should be treated exactly the same as muggers and bank robbers.0 -
@dchris
Many billions in "benefits" dont appear on the Dept Social Protection bill but on the bills of other departments such as Health, medical card being one huge benefit to point out.
The cost of living is directly related to benefits and minimum wage, the higher the benefits the higher the baseline prices.the cost of living is way cheaper in the UK than it is here, that is a fact and nobody can deny it. You can get a loaf of bread and a pint of milk for under a pound for feck sake.0 -
johnnyskeleton wrote: »But there are jobs out there. I don't blame people for refusing a minimum wage job because it is less than their welfare, but I do blame the system which allows that to happen.
I also think welfare is an impediment to people becomig self employed - there is an atitude out there that th only way to earn a living is to have someone else tell you what to do and to punch a clock.
Finally, laziness is not the worst problem when it comes to welfare - people defrauding welfare by overclaiming, underdeclaraing savings, working on the side etc are all abuses that the system is responsible for.
The only jobs I ever see are the door to door sales men who only get paid paid by commisson , ie not a steady wage (and possibly no wage at all at times) Thats not a job
You want people to start up their own business, yeah that would work, except for the fact that you are likley top fail and then not be enitiled to any dole afterwards0 -
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.
Excellent post, very informative and really makes you think0 -
The only jobs I ever see are the door to door sales men who only get paid paid by commisson , ie not a steady wage (and possibly no wage at all at times) Thats not a job
you don't search very hard, jobs.ieYou want people to start up their own business, yeah that would work, except for the fact that you are likley top fail and then not be enitiled to any dole afterwards
Wow, failed before it event starts, very optimistic. But they're entitled to SW the same as anyone else, they may not have a stamp but IIRC you can opt to pay one while self employed.0 -
We have a €3.5 billion gap in the budget in Dec, Cut the €3.5 from the €20 billion budget, Leave the working people alone (the people who contribute to this society) We pay enough as it is...we get the USC, A person on the dole loses about 9 euro p/w...enough said.0
-
Have you thought this one through?
What do you suggest, how should people with useless qualifications be treated?
These qualifications weren't necessarily useless when those affected decided to pursue them.
I would posit that the answer is to try and stimulate the sectors effected and create job growth.
Also, if you look at the cost to the government of sending someone back to university, it costs alot more to the state than the €188 a week dole payments. Then you're talking back to education allowance, the waiver of the €2100 uni reg fee and then the actual 'fees' themselves.
If you send someone to UCD to do computer science, for example, it's going to cost the state €10000 per academic year not counting allowances paid out to the student.
FAS and further education courses also cost the state more than benefits do.
We should be using the skills and knowledge that we have; it's an outright waste of money for the Irish State to spend four years and €70000 of public money training an engineer only for that person to be forced to emigrate to Oz, taking their skills with them.
The retraining end of things opens a massive can of worms-should we even be letting people on to certain uni courses now if those skills are going to be useless in three years time?
I am an advocate of education, but this way the state is paying to educate someone twice and that's a ridiculous financial outlay when the state has no money.0 -
These qualifications weren't necessarily useless when those affected decided to pursue them.
But they are now.I would posit that the answer is to try and stimulate the sectors effected and create job growth.
But in the meantime people should look outside their chosen field.Also, if you look at the cost to the government of sending someone back to university, it costs alot more to the state than the €188 a week dole payments. Then you're talking back to education allowance, the waiver of the €2100 uni reg fee and then the actual 'fees' themselves.
But at least they would be retraining or updatin their skills to give THEM a chance to be, in the future, in a postion to be a taxpayer and a person able to spend moeny in the economy, short term pain for long term gain.If you send someone to UCD to do computer science, for example, it's going to cost the state €10000 per academic year not counting allowances paid out to the student.
See above.We should be using the skills and knowledge that we have; it's an outright waste of money for the Irish State to spend four years and €70000 of public money training an engineer only for the to be forced to emigrate to Oz.
That's why they need to retrain for the future, where there will be growth adn jobs.The retraining end of things opens a massive can of worms-should we even be letting people on to certain uni courses now if those skills are going to be useless in three years time?I am an advocate of education, but this way the state is paying to educate someone twice and that's a ridiculous financial outlay when the state has no money.
No, you are absolutely not an advocate of education - you think it's a waste of money.0 -
''Those in recession-weak sectors like hospitality, retail and construction (especially younger people) may struggle for long, long periods to find work now''...
I understand what youre saying about retail and construction but,people really are losing their jobs everywhere,ngos who rely on government funding and all sorts of organisations are laying off workers in rail and everywhere..0 -
puffishoes wrote: »you don't search very hard, jobs.ie
Wow, failed before it event starts, very optimistic. But they're entitled to SW the same as anyone else, they may not have a stamp but IIRC you can opt to pay one while self employed.
Yes jobs.ie field sales , door to door, customer care with foreign language (Norwegian seems to be the most popular) with the odd chef or other job Im not qualified to do, so no there are no jobs available
As for self employed, your telling me that the majority of start up dont fail , even in a recession, wow, you should spread the word of this little nugget of information, quick to Joan Burton and tell her to get everyone on the dole to start up their own companies and all will be saved0 -
Advertisement
-
These qualifications weren't necessarily useless when those affected decided to pursue them.
I would posit that the answer is to try and stimulate the sectors effected and create job growth.
huh?
The qualifications are useless now, say for example someone with a degree relating to the construction industry what do you do to stimulate the affected sector? build houses? oh wait.....
You take a chance when you go to college you get educated and at the end of it all you may get a job in your related field. "create job growth" how would you do this? where are you going to get the money from when a huge % of your incoming is going out in SW payments of one form or another?T
Also, if you look at the cost to the government of sending someone back to university, it costs alot more to the state than the €188 a week dole payments. Then you're talking back to education allowance, the waiver of the €2100 uni reg fee and then the actual 'fees' themselves.
So we'll pay them to sit around and do nothing instead? at least if they re-train they can potentially get back into the work force and not be Dependant on the state. you don't have to go to uni to "re-train"T
FAS and further education courses also cost the state more than benefits do.
again you get a return by getting the person back into work.T
We should be using the skills and knowledge that we have; it's an outright waste of money for the Irish State to spend four years and €70000 of public money training an engineer only for that person to be forced to emigrate to Oz, taking their skills with them.
Emigration for a small island like this has always happened and always will happen. if you look in the late 90's a lot of them returned with a lot of expirence and ideas. skills and knowledge at the moment that companies don't need. if that's the case you re-train, you adapt to the circumstances you find yourself in, not everyone can just bugger off to oz.T
The retraining end of things opens a massive can of worms-should we even be letting people on to certain uni courses now if those skills are going to be useless in three years time?
I am an advocate of education, but this way the state is paying to educate someone twice and that's a ridiculous financial outlay when the state has no money.
As has been mentioned you don't seem at all interested in education.0 -
Yes jobs.ie field sales , door to door, customer care with foreign language (Norwegian seems to be the most popular) with the odd chef or other job Im not qualified to do, so no there are no jobs available
Weird, my jobs.ie is completely different to yours. The jobs on your jobs.ie seem to be generated based on your argument here? There is jobs on there in all sectors.As for self employed, your telling me that the majority of start up dont fail , even in a recession, wow, you should spread the word of this little nugget of information, quick to Joan Burton and tell her to get everyone on the dole to start up their own companies and all will be saved
I'm telling you if everyone thought it was going to fail then why would they bother starting in the first place? no one would ever do it?
where do you think all the jobs in the private sector comes from? you're expecting someone else to take the risk and start up a company so they can then hire you?
nice.0 -
puffishoes wrote: »Weird, my jobs.ie is completely different to yours. The jobs on your jobs.ie seem to be generated based on your argument here? There is jobs on there in all sectors.
I'm telling you if everyone thought it was going to fail then why would they bother starting in the first place? no one would ever do it?
where do you think all the jobs in the private sector comes from? you're expecting someone else to take the risk and start up a company so they can then hire you?
nice.
Ah bit where are the jobs?
Yes I am expecting someone else to take all the risk
If it backfires Im not going to be the one bankrupt.0 -
The only jobs I ever see are the door to door sales men who only get paid paid by commisson , ie not a steady wage (and possibly no wage at all at times) Thats not a job
You want people to start up their own business, yeah that would work, except for the fact that you are likley top fail and then not be enitiled to any dole afterwards
I am always reading that people who have their own business do not get welfare afterwards. That is not the whole story. Self employed pay a lower rate of PRSI then PAYE workers (BAND S). This is mainly for pension and maternity benefit.
The only difference in somebody self employed going on the dole is that it is means tested. If they have the means or their partner has means then they don't get anything. Self employed have the same access to job seekers allowance and other benefits as anyone else. Its job seekers benefit that is based on PRSI stamps paid. There are great benefits available for unemployed people to start their own business.
Anyone who has nothing in Ireland and is a citizen is entitled to welfare. Those who have not paid the applicable PRSI stamps and those living in a household with means are not.0 -
-
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.
I do get help with phone/esb/and rent allowance. Only phone and esb are related to the disability, and lest you forget, I do get a free tv license. If I had a co-habitating partner on SW, I would still get these benefits.
My point, once again, is that co-habitating couples, both of whom are on SW availing of the benefits they are entitled to, are better of than a single person. Whether this means that couples or couples with families should have some entitlements scaled back or changes made to the single person, I do not know. I am making the point about the system, not necessarily my own circumstances. I recognise that the Disability Benefits are quite good and am thankful for that.
But I cannot understand how anyone can believe that two cannot live cheaper than one, even with the reduced benefit for the dependent qualifying adult.0 -
Of course not, but things change and we have to keep up.These qualifications weren't necessarily useless when those affected decided to pursue them.
In marketing terms, this is product pushing: Here is what we have, please buy it.I would posit that the answer is to try and stimulate the sectors effected and create job growth.
It doesn't work.
4 years of funding them through education, followed by 40 years of taxing them. The economics of a professional workforce are long proven.Also, if you look at the cost to the government of sending someone back to university, it costs alot more to the state than the €188 a week dole payments. Then you're talking back to education allowance, the waiver of the €2100 uni reg fee and then the actual 'fees' themselves.
If you send someone to UCD to do computer science, for example, it's going to cost the state €10000 per academic year not counting allowances paid out to the student.
Agreed, but that's down decades of mis-management in FAS, not a fault in the founding principles of the organization.FAS and further education courses also cost the state more than benefits do.
But we don't have work for them here.We should be using the skills and knowledge that we have; it's an outright waste of money for the Irish State to spend four years and €70000 of public money training an engineer only for that person to be forced to emigrate to Oz, taking their skills with them.
Letting them in? Yes, of course. There is no such thing as being over-educated, just that some qualifications won't get you employment these days.The retraining end of things opens a massive can of worms-should we even be letting people on to certain uni courses now if those skills are going to be useless in three years time?
It's not educating somebody twice, its educating them twice as much. As per my point above, there is no such thing as somebody with too much education.I am an advocate of education, but this way the state is paying to educate someone twice and that's a ridiculous financial outlay when the state has no money.0 -
[QUOTE=puffishoes;79393071]What I'm reading is correct me if i'm wrong, you have no real need for a car?
At his point, no, I do not need a car, and selling it is seriously being considered. For the last year, my savings has financed the running of it, tho a current tax disc would be nice.I understand what you meant, my point was if you have a mobile, you don't need a landline or internet access. these are extra costs that are not _essential_
I have a mobile, yes, a huge 20 per month, its nice to have the security and be able to talk to my friends and children.
Internet, another big 20 yo yos, but with the saving using internet banking, emails, some instant messaging, and a read of the newspapers online, I think its good value. Or do you begrudge me the local newspaper €2 a week, and one national newspaper once a week? That nearly pays for my internet charge.Maybe you can find somewhere to live that doesn't have such awkward restrictions easing your financial burden as this as far as i can tell is not a tempory situation for you? again, the point really is that there a lots of things we can say the SW don't do right, but we should generally look at what we can do to help ourselves.
A valid point, but it can be difficult to just uproot oneself, but it is something to be considered. The awarding of DA was a double edged sword. In one way it validated my illness and not having to fight with SW, on the negative side, it is kind of hard to accept I will probably never work again.
.0 -
struggling sam wrote: »I have a mobile, yes, a huge 20 per month, its nice to have the security and be able to talk to my friends and children.
absolutley again, I stated there was no need for both landlines and mobile.struggling sam wrote: »Internet, another big 20 yo yos, but with the saving using internet banking, emails, some instant messaging, and a read of the newspapers online, I think its good value. Or do you begrudge me the local newspaper €2 a week, and one national newspaper once a week? That nearly pays for my internet charge.
I don't really like the "big" 20 yo'yo's being something small. it's not about me begrudging you. I don't read newspapers as I find them a waste of money and I can afford to. so it would seem odd to me that someone who is finding things a bit tight would waste money on things like newspapers.
again, I understand it's you and I discussing your situation, but it's not really about your situation it's about everyone's and the vast majority of SW claimaints are close to free internet eithier in the form of library's or hot spots etc. (i understand this might be the case for you) so there's no real need for it.
This is not about begrudging, the fact is we can't afford the levels of SW that we currently pay out. to single persons or otherwisestruggling sam wrote: »A valid point, but it can be difficult to just uproot oneself, but it is something to be considered. The awarding of DA was a double edged sword. In one way it validated my illness and not having to fight with SW, on the negative side, it is kind of hard to accept I will probably never work again.
Yep i imagine it's very difficult to accept that, but no amount of money per week is going to change that.0 -
Advertisement
-
[QUOTE=daltonmd;79393821]Then the allowance should be for 20 euro pm - not the generous package that is paid now.
Allowance paid into my bank account is €22.58 per month.0
Advertisement