Sick of Unemployed People Getting abuse on

Kinski

KyussBishop wrote: »

Interesting figures, though when you consider that it is supporting an entire family of 4 people, it seems about right.

It's also worth noting that by choosing welfare over work, people would often be denying themselves the opportunity of making more in the future. Even if you could get almost the same on the dole as in your current job, you may get promotions and pay raises at work in future, or the opportunity to move on to greener pastures; welfare levels, on the other hand, are going nowhere but down. For a familyman or woman with a couple of kids to support, that kind of longer-term thinking should come into play.

Kurz

carm wrote: »

Exactly my point as to why rent allowance needs to be looked at. Remove the e11,100 pa and see how you can live on that €19,364.80 with a family of four.

Rent allowance was looked at and changed quite aggressively just this year. This resulted in people being forced to negotiate with private landlords on behalf of the government. I don't disagree that it's a bad system but the extra allowances are all means-tested payments so the authorities have the opportunity to scrutinise the finances of the claimants in the first place.

They could save multiples of that by cutting the base rate because 450,000 people claim the base rate, people who aren't means tested in the first place. They don't want to do this because they will lose votes.

K-9

Delancey wrote: »

I am very mindful of the moderator warning about Anecdotal ' Evidence ' but I would suggest folks who have an unqualified belief in the Jobridge scheme perhaps take a few minutes to read some of the stories posted in the Work and Jobs forum by those who have actually participated.

Lets just say they would tend to undermine one's confidence in the scheme.

That's a very fair point. We all know Welfare abuse occurs, when you have Government systems it will and Jobbridge is no exception. I think Tesco or some other group was withdrawn from the scheme because of complaints.


We all know abuse of Government system occurs, whether it be a Welfare recipient or an employer with Jobridge. However anecdotal evidence is exactly that, anecdotal!

daltonmd

KyussBishop wrote: »

It seems you didn't bother reading mine either, because nothing in your reply makes sense in the context of my post, not even the bit you quoted? (I don't know what in my post, specifically, you're replying to there; your arguments seem to try and refute ones I didn't make)

You said:

"your new argument "it's unsustainable" doesn't mean welfare is to be the sole recipient of cuts in funding, does it?"

I clarified that it is all about sustainability, It is not my "new" argument and had you read further back in the thread you would have seen that.

I also answered your question when you asked "Should welfare be the sole recipients of cuts in funding" - I stated that I never said this.

I went on to further clarify that a lot of people on welfare don't complain that it's too low, I gave the reasons for that, so I certainly am not "bashing" those on welfare which you implied in your response to me.

There are real reasons why people are struggling on welfare - but there's a huge difference between those trying to juggle debt, cutting out everything including food (after internet/phones and cars are gone), to those who see those items are "neccessities" (the car which you did not mention, but a few did earlier in the thread, giving their reasons for keeping them).

Now the debt issue s a different one, but by god if you are unemployed and can "afford" to have all these things then not only is there NO incentive to come off SW (as has been posted recently) but we have to look at the levels "some" people are getting. I have no problem targetting those who "need" help. SOme need more than others.

daltonmd

Tony EH wrote: »

i don't know. You're either very dumb, or deliberately trying misunderstand the point.

She's fearful of the repercussions. She's relying on a reference from her former employer...

...a good reference.

There's no "legal" requirement for that.

Is it really that hard for you to comprehend? Or are you just content to play silly buggers.

I really cannot make it any clearer for you.



Your level of debate leaves a lot to be desired, as does your level of comprehension.

For your benefit, I'll reproduce the original sentence for you below with the operative word both bolded and underlined:

"I agree with the OP. I find it incredible that some people, both here on Boards and elsewhere have this fetid, little begrudging view that unemployed people are scroungers, or wasters..."




I'm done with you.

For your friends information please see the following from irishjobs.ie

"What duty is there in providing a reference?
If an employer does provide a reference there is a duty of care to provide a reference, which is true, accurate and fair. It must not give a misleading impression overall. Due care and skill should be exercised by the employer in its preparation.
An employer who provides a reference owes a duty of care to both the addressee and the employee. The duty arises because the employer has special knowledge derived from experience of the employee’s character, skill and diligence while working for the employer. When the employer provides a reference to a third party he does so not only for the assistance of the third party, but also, for the assistance of the employee.
The Spring case gives an employee a right of action against an employer, for an economic loss from an incorrect reference. It held that the duty of the employer is to take reasonable care in compiling or giving a reference."


He cannot give her a bad reference for reporting that she lost her job to facilitate another person working in that job. There are laws and rules against such behaviour.

Sin City

daltonmd wrote: »

For your friends information please see the following from irishjobs.ie

"What duty is there in providing a reference?
If an employer does provide a reference there is a duty of care to provide a reference, which is true, accurate and fair. It must not give a misleading impression overall. Due care and skill should be exercised by the employer in its preparation.
An employer who provides a reference owes a duty of care to both the addressee and the employee. The duty arises because the employer has special knowledge derived from experience of the employee’s character, skill and diligence while working for the employer. When the employer provides a reference to a third party he does so not only for the assistance of the third party, but also, for the assistance of the employee.
The Spring case gives an employee a right of action against an employer, for an economic loss from an incorrect reference. It held that the duty of the employer is to take reasonable care in compiling or giving a reference."


He cannot give her a bad reference for reporting that she lost her job to facilitate another person working in that job. There are laws and rules against such behaviour.

Their word against hers

Sin City

puffishoes wrote: »

The idea behind the SW is to give people a fairly basic standard of living as a stop gap between jobs.

food/shelter/clothing/

now someone who's taking in excess of 820e a month. with just the above to pay out. will probably end up with more disposable income than most working people with mortages/cars/etc to finance.

so yes based on this it's a luxry.

can you stop accusing me of not being serious and take on my points address them explain why you think they're wrong and stop with the childish retorts.

and people on the boards , also dont have mortages/cars/bills etc

If your worried about your finaces sell your cars and move to a hostel or something, I assume thats what you would say to those on the dole

Sin City

I have to say, I am deeply saddened by those in employments reaction to those on the social welfare and their idiotic suggetsions.

99% of would love not to be on the dole

Asking someone to uproot and move is not a vialible option for most (especailly if you take our cars away)

The cost of living in this country is ridiculously high which is why we have a high dole, (so comparing us with other countries whose cost of living isnt as high is not a viable option)

There are not enough jobs to go around

The government are more preoccuiped with paying back unsecured bond holders than they are about job creation

Jobsbridge is useless and will not lead to full time employment for the majority

Fas have only a limited number of jobs on offer (most of which have suddenly changed from actual jobs to interns)

Those who have jobs should be greatfull and get o with their lot instead of worrying about how much the state is spending on the unemplyed as they will be plenty of others who would love to be in their position.

daltonmd

Sin City wrote: »

I have to say, I am deeply saddened by those in employments reaction to those on the social welfare and their idiotic suggetsions.

99% of would love not to be on the dole

Asking someone to uproot and move is not a vialible option for most (especailly if you take our cars away)

The cost of living in this country is ridiculously high which is why we have a high dole, (so comparing us with other countries whose cost of living isnt as high is not a viable option)

There are not enough jobs to go around

The government are more preoccuiped with paying back unsecured bond holders than they are about job creation

Jobsbridge is useless and will not lead to full time employment for the majority

Fas have only a limited number of jobs on offer (most of which have suddenly changed from actual jobs to interns)

Those who have jobs should be greatfull and get o with their lot instead of worrying about how much the state is spending on the unemplyed as they will be plenty of others who would love to be in their position.

The cost of living in this country is ridiculously high because we pay ourselves ridiculous wages and levels of social welfare.

Sleepy

KyussBishop wrote: »

Interesting figures, though when you consider that it is supporting an entire family of 4 people, it seems about right.

In the context of your original quote:

It's not accurate to take that 30k comparison, and generalize it to all welfare recipients, as the amount taking in that much from welfare will be very small indeed.

No, it's not. Which is why the rates need to be adjusted to handle more specific cases better. As they currently stand, a 22 year old living independently of their parents and who's paid stamps receives lower JSB than a waster who's never left their bedroom in their parents house at the age of 30. Welfare (and Tax) rates need to be based on circumstances (and previous contributions) rather than on arbitrary distinctions such as age or marital status.

carm wrote: »

Exactly my point as to why rent allowance needs to be looked at. Remove the e11,100 pa and see how you can live on that €19,364.80 with a family of four.

If you're going to attack social welfare payments, start there. 93800 in receipt of rent allowance. How many have 2 children? How many have one or more children?

I agree. The rent supplement is a floor on the rental market that's distorting the market greatly. The fear is that were it dramatically reduced (maybe via a centralisation of the negotiation process allowing competitive tendering for social housing provision?) we'd see further depression of the property market: something the vested interests are determined to avoid.

Kinski wrote: »

It's also worth noting that by choosing welfare over work, people would often be denying themselves the opportunity of making more in the future. Even if you could get almost the same on the dole as in your current job, you may get promotions and pay raises at work in future, or the opportunity to move on to greener pastures; welfare levels, on the other hand, are going nowhere but down. For a familyman or woman with a couple of kids to support, that kind of longer-term thinking should come into play.

Whilst I agree (and being 100% honest have considered it, I could take home a lot more than I do now with the odd nixer here and there). Unfortunately, not everyone sees life like this. Nor, to be fair, is it always the case: when faced with a shelf stacking job in Tesco or an almost equivalent amount on welfare, there's very many who'll not realise that the position in Tesco will attest to their work ethic when applying for more glamourous work, could perhaps offer opportunity for advancement into management etc.

Kurz wrote: »

Rent allowance was looked at and changed quite aggressively just this year. This resulted in people being forced to negotiate with private landlords on behalf of the government. I don't disagree that it's a bad system but the extra allowances are all means-tested payments so the authorities have the opportunity to scrutinise the finances of the claimants in the first place.

They could save multiples of that by cutting the base rate because 450,000 people claim the base rate, people who aren't means tested in the first place. They don't want to do this because they will lose votes.

To be fair, last time I did the calculations above, the government would have covered rent of 1,050 per month for a family in the position I described above. It's a step in the right direction but, in my view, rent allowance shouldn't exist. It's an artificial floor for the rental market, it distorts property values and it leads to a wild variation between the welfare entitlements of those paying mortgages and paying rent. No, welfare shouldn't cover someone's mortgage payments but at the same time, it doesn't seem equitable to me that we're prepared to pay almost twice the amount to welfare recipient A than to welfare recipient B

Sin City

daltonmd wrote: »

The cost of living in this country is ridiculously high because we pay ourselves ridiculous wages and levels of social welfare.

Welfare is high because the cost of living is high

Sort out the cost if living and everything else can drop

Gurgle

Sleepy wrote: »

I could take home a lot more than I do now with the odd nixer here and there. Unfortunately, not everyone sees life like this.

No, lots* of people prefer to collect the net equivalent of a €37k salary while still having all their time available for nixers.

Then they can afford all those luxuries we've been talking about.

*Nope, can't put a number on this.

daltonmd

Sin City wrote: »

Welfare is high because the cost of living is high

Sort out the cost if living and everything else can drop

We could go around and around - but we pay ourselves high wages, this costs employers (and the state), this adds to costs of goods and services. Until the problem of high income is addressed then the costs will keep on rising, but SW and disposable income won't. So something is going to give sooner rather than later.

Sin City

daltonmd wrote: »

We could go around and around - but we pay ourselves high wages, this costs employers (and the state), this adds to costs of goods and services. Until the problem of high income is addressed then the costs will keep on rising, but SW and disposable income won't. So something is going to give sooner rather than later.

Well if people think that the social is too high, then maybe everyone should take a drop in wages to bring our standered of living down to a more productive level

Gurgle

daltonmd wrote: »

we pay ourselves high wages

Would you be able to provide a reason to believe this?

I know unskilled jobs here are much better paid than in the developing world (as it should be), but in general are we paid more than equivalent positions in similarly developed countries?

daltonmd

Sin City wrote: »

Well if people think that the social is too high, then maybe everyone should take a drop in wages to bring our standered of living down to a more productive level

Which is exactly what I said in the post you replied to.

We. Pay. Oursleves.Too. Much.

Gurgle

Sin City wrote: »

Well if people think that the social is too high, then maybe everyone should take a drop in wages to bring our standered of living down to a more productive level

We have already, even those who haven't taken a cut in salary have taken a big hit in what they get.

I've lost almost 20% of my take-home to increased taxes.

Sin City

Gurgle wrote: »

We have already, even those who haven't taken a cut in salary have taken a big hit in what they get.

I've lost almost 20% of my take-home to increased taxes.

But if the cost of living goes down with your pay decrease you shouldnt really loose out

srsly78

Gurgle wrote: »

Would you be able to provide a reason to believe this?

I know unskilled jobs here are much better paid than in the developing world (as it should be), but in general are we paid more than equivalent positions in similarly developed countries?

Salaries in IT here are very good compared to abroad (with the exception of London maybe). Also tax is low here compared to say Germany. What we get for this tax is another story ofc...

Gurgle

Sin City wrote: »

But if the cost of living goes down with your pay decrease you shouldnt really loose out

>If<
My main costs are, in descending order:
Mortgage, childcare, food, petrol, electricity, oil, phone / broadband, arbitrary taxes (i.e road tax, tv license, household charge)
Leaving out smoking, as its a stupid waste rather than a cost.

Reduced in the last few years:
Food, phone / broadband.

Increased:
Petrol, electricity, oil, arbitrary taxes

Stayed the same:
Mortgage, childcare

Gurgle

srsly78 wrote: »

Salaries in IT here are very good compared to abroad.

I'm not sure how true this actually is anymore. I'm in a related field, and I know we earn less than the European average and a much smaller premium over China / India compared to 5 years ago.

I don't think the average earnings for IT here ever reached the level in the US either.

puffishoes

Gurgle wrote: »

>If<
My main costs are, in descending order:
Mortgage, childcare, food, petrol, electricity, oil, phone / broadband, arbitrary taxes (i.e road tax, tv license, household charge)
Leaving out smoking, as its a stupid waste rather than a cost.

Reduced in the last few years:
Food, phone / broadband.

Increased:
Petrol, electricity, oil, arbitrary taxes

Stayed the same:
Mortgage, childcare

I would have imagined with the competition between air tricity/esb/board gaise electricity has come down? it's certainly has for me. maybe shop around more.

If you're on a tracker mortgage it's still coming down. If not you may be paying more. Childcare has seen a fairly dramatic decrease again maybe you you need to shop around more.

So for me personally I've seen huge drops in my overall house hold bills including car insurance.

What's gone up for me is motor tax and diesel. Everything else is on the decline.

Sin City

Gurgle wrote: »

>If<
My main costs are, in descending order:
Mortgage, childcare, food, petrol, electricity, oil, phone / broadband, arbitrary taxes (i.e road tax, tv license, household charge)
Leaving out smoking, as its a stupid waste rather than a cost.

Reduced in the last few years:
Food, phone / broadband.

Increased:
Petrol, electricity, oil, arbitrary taxes

Stayed the same:
Mortgage, childcare

Petrol is going down
as is oil so that should have a knock on effect

if cost of living decrease childcare cost will decrease accoringly as will most other bills and services

daltonmd

Gurgle wrote: »

Would you be able to provide a reason to believe this?

I know unskilled jobs here are much better paid than in the developing world (as it should be), but in general are we paid more than equivalent positions in similarly developed countries?

I suppose it depends on the job. All I know is that I have family friends in the UK and they work in diverse jobs, PS, office admin and the like and they don't earn close to what we do here.
Anecdotal I know, but friend of mine does admin and has less than 20k (Euro) a year. Nurse in PS - not on close to the rates in Ireland.

daltonmd

Sin City wrote: »

But if the cost of living goes down with your pay decrease you shouldnt really loose out

Higher taxes/indirect taxes/charges wipe out any gain.

daltonmd

Sin City wrote: »

Petrol is going down
as is oil so that should have a knock on effect

if cost of living decrease childcare cost will decrease accoringly as will most other bills and services

Not if the creche was opened/built during the boom where the owner has a large mortgage on it and has to pay high wages to staff.

Sin City

daltonmd wrote: »

Sin City wrote: »

Petrol is going down
as is oil so that should have a kn ock on effect

if cost of living decrease childcare cost will decrease accoringly as will most other bills and services

Not if the creche was opened/built during the boom where the owner has a large mortgage on it and has to pay high wages to staff.

true but then you shop around for a cheaper creche

srsly78

Gurgle wrote: »

I'm not sure how true this actually is anymore. I'm in a related field, and I know we earn less than the European average and a much smaller premium over China / India compared to 5 years ago.

I don't think the average earnings for IT here ever reached the level in the US either.

In my experience it's true. Wouldn't be here otherwise. I could earn more in London, but the rent there etc completely nullifies any advantage.

If tax goes up here then that will tip the scales.

daltonmd

Sin City wrote: »

true but then you shop around for a cheaper creche

You could of course, but as Gurgle may tell you, the rates are pretty much the same and of course the reasons you choose a creche are locality and reputation and of course if the child is happy and safe there.

With respect, you seem to focus on what working people should do with their money, what they should change/cut out yet you have an issue with the same suggestions given to unemployed people, who are not earning the money.

Does this seem fair to you?

Gurgle

puffishoes wrote: »

I would have imagined with the competition between air tricity/esb/board gaise electricity has come down? it's certainly has for me.

Fell a bit in 2009 but rising steadily ever since
I do keep up with supplier costs.
At best, I could save €5 per month by switching to direct debit, but I'm no longer willing to allow an Irish service company to dip directly into my bank account. I've made that mistake in the past, I'd rather pay that extra €5.

puffishoes wrote: »

If you're on a tracker mortgage it's still coming down. If not you may be paying more.

ECB rate has been bouncing around 2% since march '09

puffishoes wrote: »

Childcare has seen a fairly dramatic decrease again maybe you you need to shop around more.

We've had the same person minding the kids for several years at the same price. Still below the 'going rate', and always way under creche prices.