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.