Entitlement Culture killing the will to work in Ireland

golfwallah

I keep coming across anecdotal evidence of people taking advantage of our welfare system in all its manifestations to attain a comfortable lifestyle.

There’s the “one parent families” claiming benefits, while the single mums and dads are effectively living together, with one partner working full time. There are also tales of people refusing minimum wage type work, simply, because they would lose benefits and it wasn’t worth their while working.

Where has self respect gone – particularly when we see our Minister for Social Protection, Joan Burton, extolling the values of the welfare state, which has to be financed from borrowings (secured on the basis of the state’s ability to raise yet more taxes in the future)?

Is it about time to get serious about the real social malaise brought about by the entitlement culture? Surely, this can’t be good for our long term benefit as a country?

Refreshing to hear one Hollywood personality talking a bit of sense about this issue in the USA:
http://poorrichardsnews.com/post/66346691371/ashton-kutcher-theres-an-entitlement-starting-to

Geuze

Yes, I think that the welfare state should be reformed towards more support for workers in work, and workers between jobs.

More generous JSB, less/shorter JSA.

More tax credits for workers with children, less/shorter support for OPF with no contribution histrory

Less generous benefits for those with no contributions.


A guaranteed offer of work for LT unemployed.

Scofflaw

golfwallah wrote:

Is it about time to get serious about the real social malaise brought about by the entitlement culture?

If the answer to that is to be yes, then it seems obvious that the first thing to do is to be able to step away from a position where your best evidence for the existence of 'entitlement culture' is this:

golfwallah wrote:

I keep coming across anecdotal evidence of people taking advantage of our welfare system in all its manifestations to attain a comfortable lifestyle.

The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'. If there is an "entitlement culture" which "kills the will to work", then there will be actual evidence of such, including, I don't doubt, studies and reports. First find those, and let's move away from "debates" where the scale of the problem is utterly subjective.

I shall await with interest such an objective approach.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Geuze

There is data that shows that the number of people living in households with VLWI, Very Low Work Intensity, is way above other EU countries.

I'm too busy now to post it, have a look for it yourself.

AlekSmart

Geuze wrote: »

Yes, I think that the welfare state should be reformed towards more support for workers in work, and workers between jobs.

More generous JSB, less/shorter JSA.

More tax credits for workers with children, less/shorter support for OPF withNO CONTRIBUTION HISTORY :eek:

Less generous benefits for those with no contributions.


A guaranteed offer of work for LT unemployed.

Surely a "No Brainer"....or at least one would imagine so ?

At the risk of being "scoffed" at ( ) I come across SO many users of DSP provided benefits whose opportunity to contribute INTO the same DSP's coffers has NEVER been tested ....;)

The actual value of productive Labour (Work) has to be reinstated,even if it is at the risk of "stigmatizing" those who drift towards long-term non-productivity.

However,one other rather scary element in the equation is the level of illness and long-term disability prevalent in our working-age population....

http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/2013/04/04/the-mystery-of-disability

Yep I know it's D.MacW,but the issue remains worth "debating" nonetheless !!

SCOOP 64

Here we go again!

Geuze

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/People_at_risk_of_poverty_or_social_exclusion#Work_intensity:_10.C2.A0.25_of_the_population_in_the_EU-27_living_in_households_with_very_low_work_intensity

Work intensity: 10 % of the population in the EU-27 living in households with very low work intensity

Low work intensity refers to the ratio between the number of months that household members of working age (aged 18-59, not being a student aged 18-24) worked during the income reference year, and the total number of months that could theoretically have been worked by the same household members. For persons who declared that they worked part-time, the number of months in terms of full time equivalents is estimated on the basis of the number of hours usually worked at the time of the interview.
People living in households with very low work intensity are defined as people of all ages (from 0-59 years) living in households where the adults (those aged 18-59, but excluding student aged 18-24) worked less than 20 % of their total potential during the previous 12 months.

Following this definition, 10.0 % (Figure 3) of the EU-27 population could be considered as living in a household with very low work intensity in 2011 with some variation between Member States. On the one hand, only less than 6 % of the target population was living in a household with very low work intensity in Cyprus and Luxembourg.

On the other hand, the indicator exceeded 12 % in Belgium, Lithuania, Spain, Latvia and Hungary. Although overall at the EU level the indicator has remained stable between 2010 and 2011, it has increased significantly in Greece (4.3 pp), Bulgaria and Lithuania (both by 3.1 pp) and Spain (2.4 pp), while somewhat decreased mainly in the United Kingdom (-1.6 pp).

Geuze

Graph of VLWI below:

Geuze

My point, which I will have to think about in more detail, is that the structure of the welfare state is part of the reason for Ireland having such a huge rate of households with VLWI.

It's not just the recession and the associated jump in unemployment, it's something more as well.

p1akuw47h5r3it

Geuze wrote: »

Yes, I think that the welfare state should be reformed towards more support for workers in work, and workers between jobs.

More generous JSB, less/shorter JSA.

More tax credits for workers with children, less/shorter support for OPF with no contribution histrory

Less generous benefits for those with no contributions.


A guaranteed offer of work for LT unemployed.

Why? Why should someone with no children essentially be punished for not having any?

A person with no children already pays tax which goes to a child's parent/s in the form of child benefit. Why should they have a double punishment?

Geuze

State subsidy for child-rearing is justified, on several grounds.


But what I am suggesting is less cash child benefits, and more child tax credits.

I suggest general (cash) support for all children, plus support for children of workers.

p1akuw47h5r3it

Geuze wrote: »

State subsidy for child-rearing is justified, on several grounds.


But what I am suggesting is less cash child benefits, and more child tax credits.

I suggest general (cash) support for all children, plus support for children of workers.

But is there really a difference at the end of the day? The government will plan to have a certain amount of tax intake a year, if this falls short it will have to be made up. GRanted this means that the government are going to have to under-estimate their tax intake. But with the governence that we have it's very likely:pac:

Gumbo

DanDan6592 wrote: »

Why? Why should someone with no children essentially be punished for not having any?

A person with no children already pays tax which goes to a child's parent/s in the form of child benefit. Why should they have a double punishment?

Because those children will be paying your pension at some stage.

RichardAnd

kceire wrote: »

Because those children will be paying your pension at some stage.

That's a fair point. However, realistically most people will be paying for their own pensions via defined contribution schemes. I personally expect no pension and even though I'm only 27, I pay into a pension scheme. Of course, that scheme might be P**sed away at some point by a government of the furute to bail out their mates, but let's not get into that.

srsly78

DanDan6592 wrote: »

Why? Why should someone with no children essentially be punished for not having any?

A person with no children already pays tax which goes to a child's parent/s in the form of child benefit. Why should they have a double punishment?

I agree. Free creches for workers kids would be a better idea, along with a reduction in child benefit.

woodoo

Its a terrible policy to pay long term unemployed the same rates as short term unemployed.

After a certain amount of time out of work benefits should come down to little more than basic sustenance. Perhaps set the time as 1 year in good times and maybe 3 years in worse times.

golfwallah

Scofflaw wrote: »

If the answer to that is to be yes, then it seems obvious that the first thing to do is to be able to step away from a position where your best evidence for the existence of 'entitlement culture' is this:



The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'. If there is an "entitlement culture" which "kills the will to work", then there will be actual evidence of such, including, I don't doubt, studies and reports. First find those, and let's move away from "debates" where the scale of the problem is utterly subjective.

I shall await with interest such an objective approach.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The fact that Ireland has a huge, unaffordable social welfare spend is about leadership and common sense more than about statistics. Just look at these figures relating to our Social Welfare spend:
http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1026476.shtml

People in senior Government positions, such as our Minister for Social Protection, Joan Burton, should be providing leadership by encouraging a work ethic, whereas she has become an advocate for social welfare as a “driver of the economy”.

The focus of the system should be about the temporary nature of welfare and guiding the unemployed towards getting back to work rather than making welfare a way of life. The focus should be on civic responsibility and not just on entitlement.

OK, we are doing a bit of anti-fraud activity, but is this enough, I ask myself? I would have thought that prioritising the encouragement of a self respect culture by earning a living was a lot more important than acting as an apologist for living on welfare – whatever the statistics.

With a positive work focused culture as opposed to welfare focused approach, I believe we would begin to show improvements in Ireland’s poor comparative position on “Very Low Work Intensity” (as demonstrated in the Eurostat data provided by Geuze) and the country’s long term economic health.

clairefontaine

The problem is it's too expensive to go to work.

1. Petrol

2. Motor tax costs

3. Car insurance costs.

4. And finally the BIGGIE.... childcare costs.

Mike 1972

Geuze wrote: »

More tax credits for workers with children,

DanDan6592 wrote: »

Why? Why should someone with no children essentially be punished for not having any?

A person with no children already pays tax which goes to a child's parent/s in the form of child benefit. Why should they have a double punishment?

Perhaps the tax credits could replace child benefit ?

p1akuw47h5r3it

kceire wrote: »

Because those children will be paying your pension at some stage.

I'll pay for my own pension.

Geuze

woodoo wrote: »

Its a terrible policy to pay long term unemployed the same rates as short term unemployed.

After a certain amount of time out of work benefits should come down to little more than basic sustenance. Perhaps set the time as 1 year in good times and maybe 3 years in worse times.

Many countries, e.g. USA and Germany, do this.

Nobody seems to be suggesting it here, apart from us.

Indeed, the Govt have done the opposite, by cutting the duration of JSB from 15 to 9 months.

Geuze

clairefontaine wrote: »

The problem is it's too expensive to go to work.

1. Petrol

2. Motor tax costs

3. Car insurance costs.

4. And finally the BIGGIE.... childcare costs.

Good point.

Workers need to be supported by the welfare state.

Childcare costs are a very good example.

The solution seems to be less cash child benefit, more subsidised childcare.

Dubl07

"Single-parent-families" are a key issue. Young women appear to view them as a ticket to an income and housing. I'd start community creches for the children and let the mothers live in dorms with litter-picking as the default job unless they can find something better or are staying in full-time education.

clairefontaine

Geuze wrote: »

Good point.

Workers need to be supported by the welfare state.

Childcare costs are a very good example.

The solution seems to be less cash child benefit, more subsidised childcare.

The problem is subsidies inflate the costs too.

Maybe less regulation on childcare, and more demands and enforcement on maintenance to go to childcare, if the single parents are only getting E 100 a week or less, how are they supposed to pay for childcare?

Lower taxes on fuel at the pump. It's INSANE.

Cookie_Monster

clairefontaine wrote: »

The problem is it's too expensive to go to work.

1. Petrol

2. Motor tax costs

3. Car insurance costs.

4. And finally the BIGGIE.... childcare costs.

the majority of people will need to incur none of those expenses to go to work.

clairefontaine

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

the majority of people will need to incur none of those expenses to go to work.

Back up with numbers please.

The majority of the population are childless and live in Dublin, is that what you are claiming?

wexie

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

the majority of people will need to incur none of those expenses to go to work.

whut?

ah okay...cause the majority of people live within walking distance of their jobs right?

He can't be inferring that we have a state of the art public transport system that enables the common worker to travel to their jobs efficiently and cheaply.....cause that'd be cookooo

Thoie

I still maintain that this idea of a "free" house for young, unworking OPFs is a bad idea. We certainly don't want to go back to the days of unmarried mothers being forced onto the streets, or into laundries, but there are too many OPFs getting a house, and then having their partner move in on the sly.

Most of us in our late teens and early 20s had to house share, because we're not earning enough for a place of our own at that stage. If OPFs were put into a house share situation (for example a 4 bed house shared between 2 mothers with 1 child each), there would be an impetus to work to get a place of your own, or to formally move in to a family home with your partner, with the associated reduction in benefits.

In terms of other people who've never contributed to the State, you have to remember that up until the 70s, the majority of women had to leave the workforce once they got married. That generation were unlikely to have gone to 3rd level education, and not very many had done the leaving cert. By the time their children were reared, things had moved on to such an extent that many of them never re-entered the workforce. It would have been quite unfair to punish them for not working, when they weren't allowed to work. The last generation impacted by that are now reaching retirement age, so there is an opportunity coming along in the next few years to change social welfare benefits to be more contribution based.

One area I'd look at is what jobs, that are of benefit to society as a whole, went undone during the boom years? Those are jobs that the unemployed could help out with in return for additional benefits/contributions. Let's say at the moment you get 9 months JSB - perhaps you could get an extra month of JSB for every140 hours of voluntary work you do?

Quatre Mains

If I could add another dimension and suggestion to this debate...

There is a difference of about €10 a week between contributory and non-contributory pension, which I find astounding. Its a tough call as to how to tackle this, and no government would dare bring in something in the short term for fear of their own seats. But I think a significant drop in non-contributory pension could be a popular measure if it had the following elements;

1. it didnt affect current pensioners
2. a long enough lead-in time was flagged to allow anyone currently not qualifying a chance to build up the stamps

- i'm not talking 5-10 years, I'm thinking long term => 25-30 years into the future, a 50% reduction in support for lifetime non-contributors, stepped back gradually according to number of stamps. So if announced now, it would only affect those under 45. I think that would be a real incentive for anyone inclined not to bother working from the time they leave school to the time they die (60-70 years).

Cookie_Monster

clairefontaine wrote: »

Back up with numbers please.

The majority of the population are childless and live in Dublin, is that what you are claiming?

you're the one who claimed it...
it's an easy option for most to walk, cycle or use PT to get to work, most don't due to laziness. if you are living more than 20-30km from your work place it's your own fault.

Aside from not having children there are other ways around childcare and it's a narrow band of people who require this before the kids are old enough to be in school anyway. If it's really that expensive then surely having one parent at home makes sense, or a relative?

Thoie

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

you're the one who claimed it...
it's an easy option for most to walk, cycle or use PT to get to work, most don't due to laziness. if you are living more than 20-30km from your work place it's your own fault.

Most people can't just pick up and move house every time they move job, and not every where in the country is easily accessible by foot, bike or public transport. What if there are no houses for sale or rent within your budget near your new job? What if no-one wants to buy your current house?

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Aside from not having children there are other ways around childcare and it's a narrow band of people who require this before the kids are old enough to be in school anyway. If it's really that expensive then surely having one parent at home makes sense, or a relative?

You do realise that once children go to school at the age of 5 you can't just fire them out the front door at 7:30 and wander off for 9 hours? And that not everyone lives near a relative who will provide free childcare? I think a lot of people would love to have one parent permanently at home with the kids, however they're then in the "non-contributory" bracket that we were talking about above.

You seem to have an extremely peculiar view on how the world works.

Idbatterim

The problem is it's too expensive to go to work.

1. Petrol

2. Motor tax costs

3. Car insurance costs.

4. And finally the BIGGIE.... childcare costs.

Id agree with childcare majorly, but even if you do need a car, you can get a small engined bangernomic...

It so depressing, I agree with pretty much all of the above posts, we could post our thoughts here all day long, what I cant get my head around is just how comfortably some can live off the hard work of the rest of us having never contributed anything and how relatively tiny if not non existent the standard of living is, between say a couple with kids who go out and break their balls working v the the wasters. Also the outrageous levels of marginal tax which kicks in at pittance of an amount in the scheme of things, given the levels of welfare and high cost of living here.

There is no way things will chance as long as Labour are in, I dont even know if FG even if they had a majority, would be prepared to tackle some of the issues...

Geuze

Johnnycabs wrote: »

If I could add another dimension and suggestion to this debate...

There is a difference of about €10 a week between contributory and non-contributory pension, which I find astounding. Its a tough call as to how to tackle this, and no government would dare bring in something in the short term for fear of their own seats. But I think a significant drop in non-contributory pension could be a popular measure if it had the following elements;

1. it didnt affect current pensioners
2. a long enough lead-in time was flagged to allow anyone currently not qualifying a chance to build up the stamps

- i'm not talking 5-10 years, I'm thinking long term => 25-30 years into the future, a 50% reduction in support for lifetime non-contributors, stepped back gradually according to number of stamps. So if announced now, it would only affect those under 45. I think that would be a real incentive for anyone inclined not to bother working from the time they leave school to the time they die (60-70 years).

Simpler alternative - don't increase the non-con SP from the current 219, and let future inflation eat away at its real value. No need for cuts to nominal value.

Meanwhile, link the cont SP to PRSI conts and to the price level.


Yes, your point is well made - you want a situation where people want to work and pay PRSI.

Idbatterim

Simpler alternative - don't increase the non-con SP from the current 219, and let future inflation eat away at its real value. No need for cuts to nominal value.

Meanwhile, link the cont SP to PRSI conts and to the price level.


Yes, your point is well made - you want people to want to pay PRSI.
Geuze is online now Report Post

exactly I have advocated that here before, just freeze it and let inflation do the dirty work, politically it is far more palatable, also if I was FG or Labour, I definitely wouldnt target the pensioners again before the next election, just pay some bull**** lip service to them... One of the biggest pitys was that we werent in a slightly worse scenario debt wise, where we couldnt have just skirted around reform or avoided it all together, well see what happens when we go back to the markets, one half of me would love to see us priced out of them again, the other half questions whether Id be able for even more of this ****! The only way I can see any reform or proper change is a crisis, there is no way the turkeys here will vote for christmas...

If I could add another dimension and suggestion to this debate...

There is a difference of about €10 a week between contributory and non-contributory pension, which I find astounding. Its a tough call as to how to tackle this, and no government would dare bring in something in the short term for fear of their own seats. But I think a significant drop in non-contributory pension could be a popular measure if it had the following elements;

1. it didnt affect current pensioners
2. a long enough lead-in time was flagged to allow anyone currently not qualifying a chance to build up the stamps

- i'm not talking 5-10 years, I'm thinking long term => 25-30 years into the future, a 50% reduction in support for lifetime non-contributors, stepped back gradually according to number of stamps. So if announced now, it would only affect those under 45. I think that would be a real incentive for anyone inclined not to bother working from the time they leave school to the time they die (60-70 years).

I agree and have thought the same myself. I will also add child benefit to that, say 1 year from now, it is announced that all fathers names will have to be on the birth cert, they will also have to pay a % of their dole or salary to the mother until the kid is 18 (in the case of single mothers), on top of that if the mother isnt currently working (or hasnt done so up until very recently), have any cash benefits slashed to virtually zero, at the end of the day, all they want is the free house and to leech off the state, they care about that far more than bringing a child into the world, make sure that the irresponsible will be far worse off, it they choose to be irresponsible, i.e. not able to afford to bring up a kid, without the help of those working, some of whom cant even afford one themselves!

I'm in the states once or twice a year, get chatting to quite a few americans, ( a lot of them would be well educated and with good jobs and comfortable enough) and their attitude is F**K off and earn it yourself, in relation to their taxes being spent on those not working etc, and to be honest I can see exactly where they are coming from...

skafish

clairefontaine wrote: »

The problem is it's too expensive to go to work.

1. Petrol

2. Motor tax costs

3. Car insurance costs.

4. And finally the BIGGIE.... childcare costs.

And here you have the proof of the pudding. The people who do go to work have the same issues with motoring costs, and many or most of us are faced with childcare costs. But it doesn't stop us going to work.

It is this kind of attitude that shows that SW levels are too high.

The_Honeybadger

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

you're the one who claimed it...
it's an easy option for most to walk, cycle or use PT to get to work, most don't due to laziness. if you are living more than 20-30km from your work place it's your own fault.

Aside from not having children there are other ways around childcare and it's a narrow band of people who require this before the kids are old enough to be in school anyway. If it's really that expensive then surely having one parent at home makes sense, or a relative?

Are you serious? Have you any idea how difficult it is to raise a family on an average wage in this country? Most families need both parents working. As for using public transport that is all very well in Dublin but try depending on in anywhere else in the country, it doesn't exist and if it does it is likely inconvenient and undependable. Also people change jobs more regularly than in the past making it difficult to plan where you live around work. Once kids start school it's difficult to move. Maybe you are lucky in your personal situation, good for you!

Please direct me towards this utopia where two people can get jobs within a stones throw of their home and have granny minding the kids, that's not reality for most people.

clairefontaine

skafish wrote: »

And here you have the proof of the pudding. The people who do go to work have the same issues with motoring costs, and many or most of us are faced with childcare costs. But it doesn't stop us going to work.

It is this kind of attitude that shows that SW levels are too high.

It may not stop you, but it stops many.

murphaph

DanDan6592 wrote: »

Why? Why should someone with no children essentially be punished for not having any?

I suppose because this generation needs children to be the taxpayers of the future to pay taxes to pay the pensions of all citizens, parents or otherwise.

Cookie_Monster

murphaph wrote: »

I suppose because this generation needs children to be the taxpayers of the future to pay taxes to pay the pensions of all citizens, parents or otherwise.

there are plenty of people in the world without the need to produce countless more just because. We can simply import workers if needed, much like we did during the boom and when the EU borders opened up

TheBrewMeister

We have a virtual epidemic here in the States. People here get more and more welfare money with every child. They have literally figured out how to never work. They collect their Tax-payer-funded house, their Tax-payer funded food stamps, their Tax-payer funded "Obamaphone," and they literally sit around on their front steps while their 8 kids run the neighborhood and break into cars and other property. The "baby-daddy" never signs a birth cert, so he can sly into the house with them. (these are the people skewing the gun-violence statistics.)

Probably more than half are on crack-cocaine or heroin. Which really burns us because we HAVE to pass drug tests to get a job to pay the taxes that they collect without having to pass a drug test. How ridiculous is that?

The simple fact is this, as long as there is welfare to be had, there will be people lazy enough to live happily in that level of poverty to collect it.

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for providing temporary housing and food, job placement assistance to those in need. I believe we are a wealthy enough society that there should be no one sleeping on the street. But, assistance is just that - assistance. It's a temporary supplement to ensure they don't die while searching for their next place of employment.

I'm moving to Ireland in 2 months and I'm really not looking forward to paying those taxes >(

Here's another question: how many people are on the dole, yet doing what we call "under the table" work? Meaning, earning money the gov't doesn't know about?

Scortho

I'd stay in the states...it's worse here and at least you're breweries produce hoppy beers! :pac:

TheBrewMeister

Scortho wrote: »

I'd stay in the states...it's worse here and at least you're breweries produce hoppy beers! :pac:

So will one of yours, once I get there

Scortho

TheBrewMeister wrote: »

So will one of yours, once I get there

I'm open to samplers!:) are you starting yourself or working for one already established? If the latter I'm going to guess the fw, but I could be miles off!

166man

clairefontaine wrote: »

The problem is it's too expensive to go to work.

1. Petrol

2. Motor tax costs

3. Car insurance costs.

4. And finally the BIGGIE.... childcare costs.

I have such issues with this post.

Ireland have one if the cheapest fuel costs in Europe and is a country with a noticeably higher average wage than many of it's EU neighbours. Fuel is cheap in Ireland and in the last while it's only gotten cheaper.

Motor tax? It's expensive if you want to drive a big Mercedes alright, buy a small run around and you're paying about €300 a year, if €30 a month is too much for you then you're doing something wrong.

Car insurance? We all have to pay it regardless of whether you're in employment or not, suck it up because there's no alternative.

I won't comment on the childcare costs as I don't know enough about it to make an educated post but your comments on the costs of a car are simply rubbish.

fliball123

166man wrote: »

I have such issues with this post.

Ireland have one if the cheapest fuel costs in Europe and is a country with a noticeably higher average wage than many of it's EU neighbours. Fuel is cheap in Ireland and in the last while it's only gotten cheaper.

Motor tax? It's expensive if you want to drive a big Mercedes alright, buy a small run around and you're paying about €300 a year, if €30 a month is too much for you then you're doing something wrong.

Car insurance? We all have to pay it regardless of whether you're in employment or not, suck it up because there's no alternative.

I won't comment on the childcare costs as I don't know enough about it to make an educated post but your comments on the costs of a car are simply rubbish.

But when it comes to running a car in this country the alternative is a p1ss poor public transport service..

Its not just the price of fuel on top you have VAT, carbon tax, motor tax, insurance, toll roads, getting the car serviced regularly as well as NCTs not to mention the cost of buying the car...

When you stack all of those costs up you are paying an awful lot just to get to work even before you start working.

We should introduce a company model where people can write off costs of working on tax that would not only lessen the burden on those working but it would also encourage people on the dole that it now pays for them to work

murphaph

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

there are plenty of people in the world without the need to produce countless more just because. We can simply import workers if needed, much like we did during the boom and when the EU borders opened up

That is true of course. It is short hop to a discussion on race and immigration from here, but of course such questions can't be ignored if our future plan involves replacing Irish people largely with people from countries that have a surplus of children. Apart from that, with all western countries experiencing collapsing birth rates and the improvement in the economies of the developing world, we might just find that WE are competing for THEM with countries that can offer more than we can. We might just regret not encouraging Irish people to produce Irish offspring with a decent work ethic who feel some attachment to Ireland. We will certainly regret (we already are IMO) encouraging Irish (and non Irish) parents to produce offspring with absolutely no work ethic instilled in them by their parents. It is a ticking time bomb to keep encouraging more and more kids from that section of society that doesn't really see any value in working for your needs and prefers to obtain them at others' expense.

It's not a simple matter at all really.

Thoie

166man wrote: »

I have such issues with this post.

Ireland have one if the cheapest fuel costs in Europe and is a country with a noticeably higher average wage than many of it's EU neighbours. Fuel is cheap in Ireland and in the last while it's only gotten cheaper.

Motor tax? It's expensive if you want to drive a big Mercedes alright, buy a small run around and you're paying about €300 a year, if €30 a month is too much for you then you're doing something wrong.

Car insurance? We all have to pay it regardless of whether you're in employment or not, suck it up because there's no alternative.

I won't comment on the childcare costs as I don't know enough about it to make an educated post but your comments on the costs of a car are simply rubbish.

Let's say you're currently unemployed, don't own a car, and you have an offer of a job that is a distance away from you that requires a car. Or the job starts/ends outside normal public transport times, meaning you need a car.

With car tax of €300 a year, a car loan of €190 a month (that's for €4,000 over 2 years), €30 petrol a week and insurance of €500 a year, you're looking at €387+ a month just to get you in a position where you can get to your new job. If you're earning €10 an hour, that's 1 week's wages a month just for transport. And that's before you get into servicing/NCTing the car, or possibly paying tolls or parking charges. You could buy a cheaper car, but that runs the risk of having more things going wrong with it/needing more repairs/servicing and time off work for those.

So that's a quarter of your salary gone. Of course, you may no longer be eligible for rent allowance/mortgage interest supplement/other accommodation help. So let's say your rent is around €800 per month. If you're working a 38 hour week, you're now left with €459 a month, after transport and accommodation.

Depending on what your new job is, you may need to buy new clothes/uniform for the job. Let's assume you're being frugal and bringing your own packed lunch to work every day, and not having to pay for coffee/water anywhere, so no extra costs there.

There are still bills to pay at home. Your utilities come to €20 a week(to cover electricity/heating/phone/internet). You could add another €5 if you wanted something other than the basic TV channels, and another €5 for mobile credit, but let's ignore those for now, as you're scrimping.

You've now got €85 a week to live on. Remember, this is someone earning €10 an hour. This is higher than the minimum wage of €8.65. If you were on minimum wage, you're down to €35 a week, before you've even bought any groceries. And all this is talking gross - you haven't paid taxes yet. That's another €178 a month (single person, no property, no children).

Now you've got €45 a week to live on. That has to cover groceries (not just food, but cleaning products, toilet paper, razors, tampons), clothing, medicine.

If you happen to have a child, your tax payable will reduce and you'll get child allowance, but your childcare costs will be in the region of €40 a day, unless you're lucky enough to have a free childminder like granny or grandad around.

Then, after all that, there are incidental payments - things like car services, NCT, TV license, birthdays, Christmas, weddings, christenings, house/contents insurance.

Sure, there are savings that could be made in the figures above - get a crappier car (though that may lead to more incidentals), move somewhere with cheaper rent (if available and possible), work longer hours (if available). But hopefully now you'll see how car costs can severely eat into low incomes, and could put someone off returning to work if they're going to have to get a car to do so.

Idbatterim

But when it comes to running a car in this country the alternative is a p1ss poor public transport service..

Its also piss poor in most areas of Dublin to be honest!

Sleepy

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Perhaps the tax credits could replace child benefit ?

I've been advocating this for years. Even if you increased current dependent child welfare payments by an equivalent amount the administrative savings should be enormous...

Of course the unions would have a fit as an entire office of the DoSP would be made redundant....

Geuze

Any opposition to child tax credits versus child cash benefit would be nothing to do with a few dozen staff being redeployed within govt offices.

Reforms/changes to 1-2bn tax/welfare progs vs maybe 50 staff with 2.5m admin cost.

Idbatterim

what would the cost of a universal basic income scheme be? excluding those under 18 and over 65... i.e I wonder roughly what the average would be, if we were to keep the existing spend, but divide it amongst everyone eligible...

taken from wikipedia from the 2011 census, so Im assuming about 40% of the population would be illegible..

Age structure
0-14 years 21.3%
15-64 years 67.0%
65-over 11.7%

out of interest, what is the total annual child benefit spend?