one in 7

dj jarvis

According to the sino , an astonishing 1 in 7 who gets the dole has NEVER worked a day
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/one-in-seven-people-on-the-dole-has-never-worked-a-single-day-29278033.html

lets me break that down for ya , it is apx 43,000 people who receive the payment have NEVER worked :eek: (CSO figures )

i think 43,000 people need a good kick up the hole , and STOP the payments.
Leeches, watch how quickly they would change their tune if they were hauled up and forced to explain WHY they have never contributed to the state,

As i read it , this has nothing to do with illness or sick benefit , it has nothing to do with people who have had jobs and lost them
these are assholes who drain resources from areas needed so they can sit on their holes.
and fu2k anyone who says its the system not the man , ****e to that , its the man - time to get tough.

if you add just the basic dole payment per week it comes to 8,084,000 (420,368,000 per year ).

this comes to the shortfall in the health service , or the wages being cut for civil servants , and on and on.

enough of this crap , time to act , and if this government wont do it , as a people we should elect one that will - we are being robbed , and true others are doing it , and they should be dealt with also , but this thread is about THIS topic , so leave the bankers out of this for once,

these are different scum that need dealing with !!

Almaviva

dj, have you finished school or college in the last four years ?
What chances do you think you have of getting a job if you have finished education lately ?

Guy:Incognito

Almaviva wrote: »

dj, have you finished school or college in the last four years ?
What chances do you think you have of getting a job if you have finished education lately ?

All through the good times it was said we had zero unemployment. Afaik what that meant was that we only had the "permanent" unemployed claiming the dole, which was 4%. Theres plenty of people that choose/chose it.

cletus van damme

a lot of that 43000 are probably not fit for employment

to qualify for state benefit for medical conditions (or other disability) you must tick many boxes.
You would be surprised how many people fall between the cracks and are entitled to nothing but the dole.
It doesn't lessen their condition or inability to work

so such wide ranging statements about cutting all dole is just stupid

dj jarvis

Almaviva wrote: »

dj, have you finished school or college in the last four years ?
What chances do you think you have of getting a job if you have finished education lately ?

granted some could be school leavers , but i strongly doubt even sub 10% are school leavers , most would go on to do post grad , or if they have any cop on would have left the country.

we BOTH know who this thread is aimed at - as the sindo said " PROFESSIONAL " unemployed
as i said in my OP , if they are hauled up to show why they have NEVER worked , i would imagine pointing out you have just finished 3rd level education would be enough to satisfy the social welfare.

you know what type of claimant we are talking about

dj jarvis

cletus van damme wrote: »

a lot of that 43000 are probably not fit for employment

to qualify for state benefit for medical conditions (or other disability) you must tick many boxes.
You would be surprised how many people fall between the cracks and are entitled to nothing but the dole.
It doesn't lessen their condition or inability to work

so such wide ranging statements about cutting all dole is just stupid

did you read the thread OP , or the link ?

it has nothing to do with sick or people on sick leave
show me the figures to contradict that , or is that just your opinion ?

cutting dole for people who have NEVER worked , robbing the state , stupid ???? really !!!

** a requirement to receive the dole is that you ARE fit and able to work , so you cant say these are people with an illness or some sort of learning disability **

Specialun

73% of all stats are makey uppey

0ph0rce0

Ohhhh Not On A Sunday. Please!!!

Terrontress

dj jarvis wrote: »

granted some could be school leavers , but i strongly doubt even sub 10% are school leavers , most would go on to do post grad , or if they have any cop on would have left the country.

we BOTH know who this thread is aimed at - as the sindo said " PROFESSIONAL " unemployed
as i said in my OP , if they are hauled up to show why they have NEVER worked , i would imagine pointing out you have just finished 3rd level education would be enough to satisfy the social welfare.

you know what type of claimant we are talking about

A lot of these people have worked, just not declared or paid tax on it.

Toby Take a Bow

dj jarvis wrote: »

granted some could be school leavers , but i strongly doubt even sub 10% are school leavers , most would go on to do post grad , or if they have any cop on would have left the country.

we BOTH know who this thread is aimed at - as the sindo said " PROFESSIONAL " unemployed
as i said in my OP , if they are hauled up to show why they have NEVER worked , i would imagine pointing out you have just finished 3rd level education would be enough to satisfy the social welfare.

you know what type of claimant we are talking about

But you're quoting those figures suggesting that 'those' type of claimants number 43,000 or whatever the figure it was. It is likely to be a small percentage of that figure. Yes it exists, but does it cost as much as people like yourself are claiming? Nope. Is Joan releasing these figures in order to deflect from the disastrous running of the country? Yep. Is she also causing further light to show on her own particular mismanagement? Yes, again.

dj jarvis

Terrontress wrote: »

A lot of these people have worked, just not declared or paid tax on it.

oh , well tax and dole fraud , that makes it all ok then , silly me

i know of a nurse who is on buttons for the sterling work she does , getting more money cut , so these wasters can sit on their holes

well im sorry but something need to be done

kneemos

0ph0rce0 wrote: »

Ohhhh Not On A Sunday. Please!!!

Second that.

kneemos

dj jarvis wrote: »

oh , well tax and dole fraud , that makes it all ok then , silly me

i know of a nurse who is on buttons for the sterling work she does , getting more money cut , so these wasters can sit on their holes

well im sorry but something need to be done

You're one fired up dj.

Almaviva

Nobody realy wants to live on the dole and never work.
Anyone stuck in that position long term is an unfortunate victim of the injustices of our society, and need our help. The minimum, and its a bad minimum, we can do is pay them a decent civilised dole. But helping them properly is a very difficult social engineering problem and no one yet has a way of achieving it successfully. So we take the easy way out - pay them dole and hope for the best.

TwoShedsJackson

dj jarvis wrote: »

cutting dole for people who have NEVER worked , robbing the state , stupid ???? really !!!

Cut it so they won't rob you indirectly via the State. Then they can come and rob you directly instead.

Guy:Incognito

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

Cut it so they won't rob you indirectly via the State. Then they can come and rob you directly instead.

State sponsored protection money?

cletus van damme

dj jarvis wrote: »

did you read the thread OP , or the link ?

it has nothing to do with sick or people on sick leave
show me the figures to contradict that , or is that just your opinion ?

cutting dole for people who have NEVER worked , robbing the state , stupid ???? really !!!

** a requirement to receive the dole is that you ARE fit and able to work , so you cant say these are people with an illness or some sort of learning disability **

sadly you are mistaken on the reality of the situation.
Or you misunderstood me.

People who have disabilities do not always qualify for state aid due to stringent criteria.
their ability to function in society is not changed in any way based on the states judgement on their entitlement.
they are still unable to get work and probably won't be

no doubt their are layabouts out there, but not all 43000

dj jarvis

[QUOTE=Almaviva;84686572]Nobody realy wants to live on the dole and never work.
Anyone stuck in that position long term is an unfortunate victim of the injustices of our society, and need our help. The minimum, and its a bad minimum, we can do is pay them a decent civilised dole. But helping them properly is a very difficult social engineering problem and no one yet has a way of achieving it successfully. So we take the easy way out - pay them dole and hope for the best.[/QUOTE]

these figures are saying otherwise

if you believe the second highlighted line you are living in a dream world,
hope the weather is nice in that dimension :rolleyes:

dj jarvis

cletus van damme wrote: »

sadly you are mistaken on the reality of the situation.
Or you misunderstood me.

People who have disabilities do not always qualify for state aid due to stringent criteria.
their ability to function in society is not changed in any way based on the states judgement on their entitlement.
they are still unable to get work and probably won't be

no doubt their are layabouts out there, but not all 43000

ok , im open for more figures on this , can you get me the break down of able and un able to work for me ?
you look like you know what you are talking about , not just another poster who is grasping at straws becasue they don't like the sentiment of the OP,
nothing worse than making a statement and not being able to back it up

my figures might come from the DSW and the sindo , but at least i have some
so again , just pop up links to back you statement , our would you be assuming things ?

mattjack

Maybe it might worth be investigating why they've never held down a job first rather than calling them scum and giving them kicks up the hole.
Addiction , very poor or no education , homelessness , choosing to look after family members first over employment, poor family structure , convictions all could contribute to not ever seeking work.

hyperborean

What are they spending their money on? Bills and goods! Both of which get regurgitated by the economy in the form of Jobs and tax.



The truth is full time scroungers don't really cost all that much,

dj jarvis

0ph0rce0 wrote: »

Ohhhh Not On A Sunday. Please!!!

REALLY sorry dude , if i had of seen it on Saturday i would have posted then,
not trying to annoy any one on the Sabbath

but these type of dole scrounger annoy the balls off me , plenty really need help , but these **** are talking it from them.

TwoShedsJackson

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

State sponsored protection money?

Part of it could be described as that. Let's face it, if you cut the dole to people who are able to work but choose to spend their life on the dole, what are they likely to do? It's not likely they'll suddenly become productive members of society anyway.

Guy:Incognito

hyperborean wrote: »

What are they spending their money on? Bills and goods! Both of which get regurgitated by the economy in the form of Jobs and tax.



The truth is full time scroungers don't really cost all that much,

Surely we should all be given the money so seeing as it doesn't cost much.

razorgil

dj jarvis wrote: »

oh , well tax and dole fraud , that makes it all ok then , silly me

i know of a nurse who is on buttons for the sterling work she does , getting more money cut , so these wasters can sit on their holes

well im sorry but something need to be done

ah, yes, i know the ones. they'll be standin outside the pub havin the crack, and a smoke later today, as i drive by on my way to work.

Guy:Incognito

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

Part of it could be described as that. Let's face it, if you cut the dole to people who are able to work but choose to spend their life on the dole, what are they likely to do? It's not likely they'll suddenly become productive members of society anyway.

Your in to a bit of burglary and theft , I doubt getting 188 a week off the government is stopping you doing it.

dj jarvis

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

Part of it could be described as that. Let's face it, if you cut the dole to people who are able to work but choose to spend their life on the dole, what are they likely to do? It's not likely they'll suddenly become productive members of society anyway.

so just pay them , and good luck ?

no , sorry , there PLENTY things they could do
hundreds of social schemes need people to help them , why not these people

you answer is just a cop out , becasue it a difficult task to deal with , but FAR from impossible

Almaviva

A suggestion dj - do a months voluntary work with the St V de Paul and report back on your views of the long term unemployed.

omahaid

1 in 7? I believe that. I have daily interaction with families all of who are on the dole, multiple generations (although some are on disability as far as I know, bad backs).

TwoShedsJackson

dj jarvis wrote: »

hundreds of social schemes need people to help them , why not these people

So what social schemes would you suggest they get employed on? Helping people etc. that needs Garda vetting, so that's probably a no-no. Or they'll just refuse. Then what?

Or are we back to the 'make them sweep the roads!!' stuff?

There is always going to be an element of society that is anti-social and/or unproductive. We have control as a society over how we choose to deal with them.

dj jarvis

hyperborean wrote: »

What are they spending their money on? Bills and goods! Both of which get regurgitated by the economy in the form of Jobs and tax.



The truth is full time scroungers don't really cost all that much,

that is assuming they are not costing additionally to their dole

health care , court services , probation services , AGS , social workers , social housing ect ect

all this whole not contributing a red cent - your statement is a red herring

hyperborean

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Surely we should all be given the money so seeing as it doesn't cost much.

Would you rather 43,000 homeless destitutes?


If there are nearly 500,000 out of employment, what chance have these wasters of getting employment if the cord was cut?

hyperborean

dj jarvis wrote: »

that is assuming they are not costing additionally to their dole

health care , court services , probation services , AGS , social workers , social housing ect ect

all this whole not contributing a red cent - your statement is a red herring

Really, and employing nurses, admin workers, builders to provide basic services doesn't contribute to the the economy?

I am not sticking up for these wasters but you have to look at the bigger picture,

dj jarvis

hyperborean wrote: »

Would you rather 43,000 homeless destitutes?


If there are nearly 500,000 out of employment, what chance have these wasters of getting employment if the cord was cut?

but that is the issue , they should NEVER have been let use the SW to fund a jobless life style , SW have a lot to answer for on this one
did no one notice that they were sitting on their hole ?
for all their lives ?

what some people forget is there ARE people who choose this lifestyle
might not be the full 43,000 , but i would GUESS its the higher percentage

assuming the sindo figures are correct , the figure is for people FIT AND ABLE for work , and must be LOOKING for work , but for some reason , have NEVER been able to find a job

mattjack

dj jarvis wrote: »

that is assuming they are not costing additionally to their dole

health care , court services , probation services , AGS , social workers , social housing ect ect

all this whole not contributing a red cent - your statement is a red herring

All those services are provided for every one.
I've used three out of those six you named in the last few years.

dj jarvis

hyperborean wrote: »

Really, and employing nurses, admin workers, builders to provide basic services doesn't contribute to the the economy?

I am not sticking up for these wasters but you have to look at the bigger picture,

i do see the bigger picture , people who pay taxes and contribute to the state also use those services ,
we are talking about people who have NEVER paid into the system.
people who have paid in have the moral right to use these services.

BIG difference - just think about that one word , NEVER

dj jarvis

mattjack wrote: »

All those services are provided for every one.
I've used three out of those six you named in the last few years.

Sorry mattjack , but im going to go out on a limb and presume you have at SOME STAGE in your adult life have worked and paid into the system

if you have , then you are PERFECTLY entitled to use the above services

my beef is with people who have NEVER paid in , never worked , ya know who im talking about

hyperborean

dj jarvis wrote: »

but that is the issue , they should NEVER have been let use the SW to fund a jobless life style , SW have a lot to answer for on this one
did no one notice that they were sitting on their hole ?
for all their lives ?

what some people forget is there ARE people who choose this lifestyle
might not be the full 43,000 , but i would GUESS its the higher percentage

assuming the sindo figures are correct , the figure is for people FIT AND ABLE for work , and must be LOOKING for work , but for some reason , have NEVER been able to find a job

Your very naive if you think the resources needed to get employment (or forcibly employ)for these 43,000 people added to the money they get going straight back into the economy is viable?

Do you think other people have not looked at the costs and outlay? You really think you are that smart? lol

hyperborean

dj jarvis wrote: »

i do see the bigger picture , people who pay taxes and contribute to the state also use those services ,
we are talking about people who have NEVER paid into the system.
people who have paid in have the moral right to use these services.

BIG difference - just think about that one word , NEVER

Moral right? what do you know about morals? your putting forward a case for putting 43,000 people into absolute poverty and you preach morals?

mattjack

dj jarvis wrote: »

but that is the issue , they should NEVER have been let use the SW to fund a jobless life style , SW have a lot to answer for on this one
did no one notice that they were sitting on their hole ?
for all their lives ?

what some people forget is there ARE people who choose this lifestyle
might not be the full 43,000 , but i would GUESS its the higher percentage

assuming the sindo figures are correct , the figure is for people FIT AND ABLE for work , and must be LOOKING for work , but for some reason , have NEVER been able to find a job

Look beyond people who choose this lifestyle , look at why they choose it.
Targeting groups creates more and more dis-enfranchisement.Look at their education , housing , health , availability of suitable work.

We.re post industrial now , meaning large low skilled labour intensive employment is no longer there , no construction , no shipping , mines etc

Our traditional countries of choice for emigration are suffering economically or have immigration to them more difficult.

returnNull

kneemos wrote: »

You're one fired up dj.

His OP needs more BASS!

dj jarvis

Almaviva wrote: »

A suggestion dj - do a months voluntary work with the St V de Paul and report back on your views of the long term unemployed.

but not all long term unemployed have never worked , your assuming again,

i know PLENTY of people that would be considered long term , but they have also worked for decades

so , nice try tugging on the heart strings , but you are missing the point of the OP.

Its about people whom have NEVER worked , not long term unemployed , they can and are two different things.

Capt'n Midnight

Did we need another thread on the long term unemployable ?

dj jarvis

hyperborean wrote: »

Your very naive if you think the resources needed to get employment (or forcibly employ)for these 43,000 people added to the money they get going straight back into the economy is viable?

Do you think other people have not looked at the costs and outlay? You really think you are that smart? lol

sorry , but you are missing the point , they should have never been allowed to get to this point in the first place
they should have been picked up the the system from he start

i never said once they should be forcibly employed or anything like it

but no one should be allowed to choose doing nothing while the state pays for it

loving your suggestions to remedy this problem :rolleyes:

dj jarvis

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Did we need another thread on the long term unemployable ?

its not about long term unemployed at all , they were NEVER employed,
they never contributed , never helped out the people.

dont mix up the two , or the real debate will be lost in bull****

Taxburden carrier

dj jarvis wrote: »

sorry , but you are missing the point , they should have never been allowed to get to this point in the first place
they should have been picked up the the system from he start

i never said once they should be forcibly employed or anything like it

but no one should be allowed to choose doing nothing while the state pays for it

loving your suggestions to remedy this problem :rolleyes:

Absolutely. If you chose not to contribute to a society you should not expect to benefit from it.

mattjack

dj jarvis wrote: »

Sorry mattjack , but im going to go out on a limb and presume you have at SOME STAGE in your adult life have worked and paid into the system

if you have , then you are PERFECTLY entitled to use the above services

my beef is with people who have NEVER paid in , never worked , ya know who im talking about

Indeed , but your talking about undermining whole tenets of social structure.
Regardless of who you are , all first world countries will strive to deliver a suitable standard education , housing , welfare , healthcare and the opportunity to work.Right now you're targeting a group of individuals who may be very vulnerable .

If you don't deliver some of these or even one of these or even partially deliver any of them you create an inequality for some that ripples off through their life .

So a poorly educated child , develops into young man with little or no chance
of decent employment creates who realises he may never work becomes dependent on welfare .

wolfpawnat

Yeah, there are some that have never worked a day, I am ashamed to say I know of a few. They are usually the ones doing better than those trying to better themselves and do well in life. Every go to sign on? You can see the shame in many people's faces, my own included at being stuck in this situation. Then you have those that turned 18, left school and signed on all on the one day! Another area there is severe abuse is the OPFP. People going on it at 16 and never once bothering to attempt to better themselves, they are happy with their money in hand and don't care about going anywhere in life.

It's a vicious catch 22. We have to look after those who want to work but cannot get work, but it means you allow for these sorts to exist too.

dj jarvis

hyperborean wrote: »

Moral right? what do you know about morals? your putting forward a case for putting 43,000 people into absolute poverty and you preach morals?

where did i say i wanted them put into poverty ?
i said nothing of the sort , i have said ( repeatably ) they could do social work in return for their dole

sitting doing NOTHING from day ONE is not an option

i know plenty about morals - and i do know that never working while putting your hand out from the state is morally wrong whole others in real need go with out

so get off your high horse buddy and justify these guys for me
with out sucking in the long term unemployed or the people on illness benefit , as these people have nothing to to with the debate.

mattjack

dj jarvis wrote: »

sorry , but you are missing the point , they should have never been allowed to get to this point in the first place
they should have been picked up the the system from he start

i never said once they should be forcibly employed or anything like it

but no one should be allowed to choose doing nothing while the state pays for it

loving your suggestions to remedy this problem :rolleyes:

Subtle change of opinion there , OP.

mattjack

Taxburden carrier wrote: »

Absolutely. If you chose not to contribute to a society you should not expect to benefit from it.

Look at what's causing them to choose this , remedy it if you can and resolve the problem for further generations.