Replacing social welfare with a basic income

dr.fuzzenstein · 07-01-2016 4:58pm

Godge wrote: »

Ireland is not the US.

A flat tax will not turn Ireland into the US.

I never said that. I just said the attitude "I don't see why I should pay for the vulnerable in society" is comparable and a lot of people here have sympathy for the economic model of "every man for himself".

FreudianSlippers · 07-01-2016 5:21pm

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

I never said that. I just said the attitude "I don't see why I should pay for the vulnerable in society" is comparable and a lot of people here have sympathy for the economic model of "every man for himself".

I believe for the common good, we need to provide through taxation things like affordable housing, social welfare for the long-term unemployed and disabled, free health care... I just don't think the government is best placed to provide those services.

Sure, the government should collect all that money and the government should make the deals to ensure we're getting the most for our money... but the government should not be running our hospitals and building houses.

dr.fuzzenstein · 07-01-2016 5:36pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I believe for the common good, we need to provide through taxation things like affordable housing, social welfare for the long-term unemployed and disabled, free health care... I just don't think the government is best placed to provide those services.

Sure, the government should collect all that money and the government should make the deals to ensure we're getting the most for our money... but the government should not be running our hospitals and building houses.

We have the current homelessness crisis as a result of exactly that. The private sector has no more interest to provide social housing than I do in setting myself on fire. And since that really nifty FF deal, where they can buy their way out of that obligation, they haven't.
As for hospitals? I can only point you towards the US system. Heart attack? great, that'll be $60k please. Oh you don't have $60k? it was nice knowing you. Sure, there's health insurance. Can't afford it? Nice knowing you. Even the US has seen medicine for profit is insane.
Also, if the government is to collect our money and then we will have to pay private, for profit organisations to obtain services, how does that work?

FreudianSlippers · 07-01-2016 6:25pm

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

We have the current homelessness crisis as a result of exactly that. The private sector has no more interest to provide social housing than I do in setting myself on fire. And since that really nifty FF deal, where they can buy their way out of that obligation, they haven't.

Other than tax breaks, etc. ?
Government subsidy to build...

I can go on.

The government is the worst placed to build houses efficiently. Let the government give whatever incentive or subsidy to get the private sector to do it, but don't do it themselves.

As for hospitals? I can only point you towards the US system.

One of the best healthcare systems in the world. I'd rather get sick any day of the week in the US than in our best hospital here.

Heart attack? great, that'll be $60k please. Oh you don't have $60k? it was nice knowing you. Sure, there's health insurance. Can't afford it? Nice knowing you. Even the US has seen medicine for profit is insane.

You're about 6 years too late. ACA solved many of these problems. Health insurance isn't all that expensive and if you can't afford it there have been programmes for decades whereby the government provides your healthcare.

This type of statement is thrown around all the time when it's outdated and factually inaccurate.

Also, if the government is to collect our money and then we will have to pay private, for profit organisations to obtain services, how does that work?

The exact same it works now, except we don't have our bloated civil service twirling their thumbs all day. We do many things in this country as PPPs... the government simply contracts with the private companies to carry out the services. We pay tax and the government uses the money allocated for healthcare from that to do a deal with private companies to, effectively, insure the population to attend these hospitals.

dr.fuzzenstein · 07-01-2016 6:57pm

I would have limited trust in the government, but i would have zero trust in private companies. The current housing shortage neatly illustrates that. As in housing or healthcare, the industry doesn't give a flying fcuk as to what's required or if people end up dead in a ditch- their aim is profit first and foremost and nothing else. Would you put McDonalds in charge of feeding homeless people?

Water John · 08-01-2016 12:03am

It isn't simply a Government or a private company.
There are lots of alternatives, Trusts etc. As someone said PPP.
It comes more to the culture of the organisation than it ownership, quite often.
As a side issue;
Whilst the diet of McDonalds would not be good for the homeless or anyone else for that matter.
They are often used as the ultimate American company. I have family working for them and they are good employers.
Their model might be very efficient at providing certain services.

BI won't change us overnight. It would alter us in the longer term. Each person would evolve what's best for themselves and their family at different times in their lives.

08-01-2016 8:34am

Good piece in The Guardian today.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/07/basic-income-royal-family-living-wage-economy

""This year will see a universal basic income paid to residents of Utrecht and 19 other Dutch municipalities. Everyone will get about £150 a week, whether working or not. In Britain we’ve already experimented with a system in which one group of people receive a guaranteed income with no obligation to work for it. But what if this was extended beyond the royal family?"

K-9 · 08-01-2016 8:49am

Water John wrote: »

It isn't simply a Government or a private company.
There are lots of alternatives, Trusts etc. As someone said PPP.
It comes more to the culture of the organisation than it ownership, quite often.
As a side issue;
Whilst the diet of McDonalds would not be good for the homeless or anyone else for that matter.
They are often used as the ultimate American company. I have family working for them and they are good employers.
Their model might be very efficient at providing certain services.

BI won't change us overnight. It would alter us in the longer term. Each person would evolve what's best for themselves and their family at different times in their lives.

Just when you mention McDonald's, the States, here, the U.K. and I'm sure many other countries already provides substantial allocations in the Budget to top up low incomes, minimum wage, that type of thing. I suppose it is Corporate Welfare when the state provides a top up to make work more attractive and bridge the welfare gap, and also contribute to work related costs. In that respect we already have B.I.

dr.fuzzenstein · 08-01-2016 3:04pm

Water John wrote: »

It isn't simply a Government or a private company.
There are lots of alternatives, Trusts etc. As someone said PPP.
It comes more to the culture of the organisation than it ownership, quite often.
As a side issue;
Whilst the diet of McDonalds would not be good for the homeless or anyone else for that matter.
They are often used as the ultimate American company. I have family working for them and they are good employers.
Their model might be very efficient at providing certain services.

BI won't change us overnight. It would alter us in the longer term. Each person would evolve what's best for themselves and their family at different times in their lives.

I am skeptical about them providing services, apart from the nutritional value of their food. If they are good to work for is not the issue here. if they are, great.
But my point is, fast food giants have beancounters who look at the bottom line and everything above it. They will very carefully check any outgoings and see how they can make them smaller and then income and see how to increase that. The sole aim of the game is profit, not providing for the socially disadvantaged. In fact you could say what they do is pretty much the exact opposite of that.
You're saying their model might be good. OK, so would have to have a state agency that has been tasked with providing for the vulnerable and maybe they could use business models based on successful companies to function more efficiently.
But fast food giants themselves would probably say "no, fuggof" if asked if they are willing to provide social services to the needy. They will ask the question "where's the profit". They has less than zero interest if people are starving and can't afford food. No profit in these people, doesn't fit in with the business model. They wouldn't even give their leftovers to the poor, because their company policy probably demands they be thrown out for health and safety reasons, plus anything you give away is possibly hurting your own sales, so it's more economically viable to throw food in the bin, so the hobos have to beg a Euro of people to buy themselves a burger. That is good business. it's called maximising profits. In that name you will close down profitable factories and move them to China, close down offices and move them to India, buy cheaper ingredients and negotiate lower rents, wages and taxes. Oh yes, and jack up the price. Remember, if your profit forecast on the stock exchange is 20 billion and you make "only" 18 billion, everyone begins to panic and sell stocks and that is a sh*tstorm nobody wants. Because a business that has rock solid profits for years is seen as a gigantic failure and you'll go bust. You have to grow by 10% every year, no excuse, or you are a failure. Sorry buddy, no room room for charity.

Water John · 08-01-2016 8:25pm

Fuzzensteen, I am not a supporter of McDonalds. I don't support the american system which leads to a very unequal society. In fact the opposite.

I just was disagreeing with McDonalds being used to describe the harshest aspects of capitalism. That is not their record and I was only trying to be fair.

We have fine examples ourselves. Just to mention Clery's.

kippy · 09-01-2016 1:16am

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

That's the American argument. Poor people are poor because they are stupid and lazy, therefore they don't deserve help, because it's a waste of time.
This has the added benefit that the rich, who got there because they are intelligent and hard-working, have more of their money to enjoy, because it would be pointless wasting it on people who don't deserve it. Of course in America it's ensured that the status quo is maintained, by having "for profit" education, so it costs you the equivalent of a house for each of your children to get anything more than marginal education, condemning them to work in a burger joint if they're lucky. Of course this is also part of the reason why large parts of America don't just resemble a 3rd world country, they ARE a 3rd world country:

http://www.salon.com/2013/12/10/look_at_the_stats_america_resembles_a_poor_country_partner/

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/23535-usa-the-worlds-newest-third-world-nation

This is what the "only the strongest survive" economic model will buy you. And no one believes it more fervently than the Yanks. Do we want that here?

It's not the American argument, not even close to it, and calling an opinion "The american argument" is not a great way to disagree with a point.

For a start, people tend to be poor because of circumstances. However if someone IS POOR because of laziness, then perhaps they deserve less help than the rest of the poor out there.
However the key bit is changing that circumstance. Incentivising work and education are key.
You seem to have a bit of an issue from the outset so apologies for stoking that fire.

If you think the other guy has the better life then you need to see how you can get that life. That's not American. That's common sense.

kippy · 09-01-2016 1:18am

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

I never said that. I just said the attitude "I don't see why I should pay for the vulnerable in society" is comparable and a lot of people here have sympathy for the economic model of "every man for himself".

You're putting a lot of words in my mouth there.
My comments were in relation to that posters attitude towards the "rich".
I have no issues with assisting the poor improve their own lot or those who cannot improve their own lot through no fault of their own have a fair life.

dr.fuzzenstein · 09-01-2016 1:41am

kippy wrote: »

It's not the American argument, not even close to it, and calling an opinion "The american argument" is not a great way to disagree with a point.

For a start, people tend to be poor because of circumstances. However if someone IS POOR because of laziness, then perhaps they deserve less help than the rest of the poor out there.
However the key bit is changing that circumstance. Incentivising work and education are key.
You seem to have a bit of an issue from the outset so apologies for stoking that fire.

If you think the other guy has the better life then you need to see how you can get that life. That's not American. That's common sense.

I have an OK life, no complaints personally. I just know that not everyone can be a boss, a high-flyer and a mega success. If we were all millionaires, we would all be poor, because a million won't be worth anything. So much for the argument "we can all be mega successful if we apply ourselves!". That is even nonsense from a purely mathematical point of view. I am actually arguing from a position of relative success. Many people think "I've made it, time to kick the ladder away, why should I pay for others?", but that's not what life is about.
Also, as for lazy, do you think that after 2008 half a million people suddenly became lazy? I think the whole "them unemployed is all lazy" argument is, well, lazy. If we go by the lowest unemployment figure we've had, we can't even say that all those are lazy. I believe that some people are just completely unemployable or they have been out of work for too long, are too old but too young to retire, or have the wrong skillset. And a tiny minority might even be lazy, but it's not the epidemic people make it out to be. Look, I'm bone lazy, but even I manage to be employed and make a living, so it's not the crippling handicap you think.

Geuze · 09-01-2016 2:14am

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Also, as for lazy, do you think that after 2008 half a million people suddenly became lazy? I think the whole "them unemployed is all lazy" argument is, well, lazy. If we go by the lowest unemployment figure we've had, we can't even say that all those are lazy. I believe that some people are just completely unemployable or they have been out of work for too long, are too old but too young to retire, or have the wrong skillset. And a tiny minority might even be lazy, but it's not the epidemic people make it out to be. Look, I'm bone lazy, but even I manage to be employed and make a living, so it's not the crippling handicap you think.

The LT unemployed that I know are not lazy.

The reason they stay LT on welfare is to get college grants, med cards, etc.

Not due to laziness.

One of them operates a 40k gross income nixer, so they are not lazy.

dr.fuzzenstein · 09-01-2016 3:22pm

Geuze wrote: »

The LT unemployed that I know are not lazy.

The reason they stay LT on welfare is to get college grants, med cards, etc.

Not due to laziness.

One of them operates a 40k gross income nixer, so they are not lazy.

You see, that's part of the problem. I know 2 people who are long term unemployed (on paper), they work harder than anyone else. They are both trying to succeed as practitioners, but its extremely hard to build up a practice out of nothing, especially when its not the kind of business where you have a business plan, an army of advisors, accountants, marketing people and solicitors and a couple of hundred k from the bank at your disposal. Basic income for them would be great, because they constantly have to beg and kowtow to the social welfare office, because that concept is foreign to them.
I have been saying all along, the myth that the typical unemployed gets up around 12, fires up a spliff and the PlayStation, then goes to the offie and picks up his daily sixpack and smokes and drinks till 4 am is idiotic and lazy, but has been perpetrated by the state a little bit to make us all think that's the norm.
Bollocks! I say. Lazy stereotypes perpetrated by people who just think "I'm alright, jack".

johnnyskeleton · 09-01-2016 6:54pm

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

You see, that's part of the problem. I know 2 people who are long term unemployed (on paper), they work harder than anyone else. They are both trying to succeed as practitioners, but its extremely hard to build up a practice out of nothing, especially when its not the kind of business where you have a business plan, an army of advisors, accountants, marketing people and solicitors and a couple of hundred k from the bank at your disposal. Basic income for them would be great, because they constantly have to beg and kowtow to the social welfare office, because that concept is foreign to them.
I have been saying all along, the myth that the typical unemployed gets up around 12, fires up a spliff and the PlayStation, then goes to the offie and picks up his daily sixpack and smokes and drinks till 4 am is idiotic and lazy, but has been perpetrated by the state a little bit to make us all think that's the norm.
Bollocks! I say. Lazy stereotypes perpetrated by people who just think "I'm alright, jack".

All things being equal, Id have a more favourable view of the person who sits at home drinking and smoking than the guys claiming welfare and working.

The former may be lazy but may have serious physical or mental health issues, may have had a bad upbringing, maybe never really felt they could get a job or better themselces or is facing an immediate drop in income if they went off welfare into a minimum wage job. These are real social issues.

The guys doing nixers are committing fraud on the rest of us. They are criminals and they must be doing it deliberately and consciously. The guy who has been removed (volunarily or otherwise) from economic activity is an unfortunate soul. But the guy who decides to do nixers is not only stealing welfare but is committing tax fraud by not declaring his income.

I think we should devote more resources to helping the former category and prosecuting the latter and putting them in jail. I have zero sympathy for them and hope they are caught and punished.

And the idea that a basic income instead of social welfare would turn them honest is an argument that I would have great difficulty accepting. If they will cheat us now, they will cheat us again when we make it easier for them to do so.

09-01-2016 8:11pm

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

All things being equal, Id have a more favourable view of the person who sits at home drinking and smoking than the guys claiming welfare and working.

The former may be lazy but may have serious physical or mental health issues, may have had a bad upbringing, maybe never really felt they could get a job or better themselces or is facing an immediate drop in income if they went off welfare into a minimum wage job. These are real social issues.

The guys doing nixers are committing fraud on the rest of us. They are criminals and they must be doing it deliberately and consciously. The guy who has been removed (volunarily or otherwise) from economic activity is an unfortunate soul. But the guy who decides to do nixers is not only stealing welfare but is committing tax fraud by not declaring his income.

I think we should devote more resources to helping the former category and prosecuting the latter and putting them in jail. I have zero sympathy for them and hope they are caught and punished.

And the idea that a basic income instead of social welfare would turn them honest is an argument that I would have great difficulty accepting. If they will cheat us now, they will cheat us again when we make it easier for them to do so.

Have you ever been self employed? A friend of mine, honest as the day is long was self employed for 2 years. One year, his tax bill was 18-20grand. When he had to close his business he was entitled to no dole at all. How can we try and start entrepreneurial business with the mentality of, "Fail and you're f*cked".

Of course more people will be more honest. You will never have 100% compliance, due to human nature. But there would definitely be less cheating than now. It's sheer cynicism to think otherwise.

Water John · 09-01-2016 8:28pm

Alena Better Dachshund, there seems to be a second thread on BI versus flat tax?

dr.fuzzenstein · 09-01-2016 8:41pm

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

All things being equal, Id have a more favourable view of the person who sits at home drinking and smoking than the guys claiming welfare and working.

The former may be lazy but may have serious physical or mental health issues, may have had a bad upbringing, maybe never really felt they could get a job or better themselces or is facing an immediate drop in income if they went off welfare into a minimum wage job. These are real social issues.

The guys doing nixers are committing fraud on the rest of us. They are criminals and they must be doing it deliberately and consciously. The guy who has been removed (volunarily or otherwise) from economic activity is an unfortunate soul. But the guy who decides to do nixers is not only stealing welfare but is committing tax fraud by not declaring his income.

I think we should devote more resources to helping the former category and prosecuting the latter and putting them in jail. I have zero sympathy for them and hope they are caught and punished.

And the idea that a basic income instead of social welfare would turn them honest is an argument that I would have great difficulty accepting. If they will cheat us now, they will cheat us again when we make it easier for them to do so.

And that is EXACTLY the kind of attitude that belongs in the bin as antiquated, outdated, unimaginative and narrow-minded thinking. You DO know it's not 1985 anymore?
And you know what? I lost my job at some stage. I had to sign on. In order to survive and keep the roof over my head, I had to work on the side. Yes, I am a criminal! Oh Noes! Lock me up! It HAD to be done until I found a full time job, no lying around on the couch playing playstation for me.
How does it feel arguing with a real life criminal that should be locked up? Maybe you are partially guilty now that you know! If I were you I'd start panicking.
Actually, relax. I did it, people I know have done it and there ain't a damn thing you can do about it. If that annoys you, good!

kippy · 09-01-2016 10:53pm

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

I have an OK life, no complaints personally. I just know that not everyone can be a boss, a high-flyer and a mega success. If we were all millionaires, we would all be poor, because a million won't be worth anything. So much for the argument "we can all be mega successful if we apply ourselves!". That is even nonsense from a purely mathematical point of view. I am actually arguing from a position of relative success. Many people think "I've made it, time to kick the ladder away, why should I pay for others?", but that's not what life is about.
Also, as for lazy, do you think that after 2008 half a million people suddenly became lazy? I think the whole "them unemployed is all lazy" argument is, well, lazy. If we go by the lowest unemployment figure we've had, we can't even say that all those are lazy. I believe that some people are just completely unemployable or they have been out of work for too long, are too old but too young to retire, or have the wrong skillset. And a tiny minority might even be lazy, but it's not the epidemic people make it out to be. Look, I'm bone lazy, but even I manage to be employed and make a living, so it's not the crippling handicap you think.

I never once said all umemployed people were lazy and of course I don't believe that. I said if a person is unemployed BECAUSE they are lazy, then they deserve little support off the rest of us - surely you agree with that.
And of course not everyone can be a multimillionaire.
But for a lot of people, a "rich" person is just someone who appears to have more money than they do.
Which I suspect is the category of the poster I was replying to originally. Sometimes it isn't that difficult to improve your own circumstances to get "rich" - as you say yourself, even you have a job and you admit to being lazy.

Water John · 09-01-2016 11:01pm

Most people don't want to be 'rich'. But that is a subjective term.
They want enough for a comfortable lifestyle for themselves and family.
They also want to use their time in a positive way, 'working' at something that gives them fulfilment

BI would actually suit the vast majority of people.

dr.fuzzenstein · 09-01-2016 11:18pm

kippy wrote: »

I never once said all umemployed people were lazy and of course I don't believe that. I said if a person is unemployed BECAUSE they are lazy, then they deserve little support off the rest of us - surely you agree with that.
And of course not everyone can be a multimillionaire.
But for a lot of people, a "rich" person is just someone who appears to have more money than they do.
Which I suspect is the category of the poster I was replying to originally. Sometimes it isn't that difficult to improve your own circumstances to get "rich" - as you say yourself, even you have a job and you admit to being lazy.

Yeah, I see where you're coming from and I am torn on the subject. BI would kinda fly in the face of that sentiment. We automatically think "if BI comes in, we will simply all stop working", but I doubt that's true. Even lazy me likes his standard of living.
I have known unemployed people who I don't think could hold down any kind of a job for any length of time. I wouldn't trust some people to serve up a burger.
I wonder how bad the problem really is. The lowest unemployment rate was around 4%, how many of those were genuinely lazy and how many were just plain unemployable?

JustTheOne · 09-01-2016 11:24pm

Alena Better Dachshund wrote: »

Have you ever been self employed? A friend of mine, honest as the day is long was self employed for 2 years. One year, his tax bill was 18-20grand. When he had to close his business he was entitled to no dole at all. How can we try and start entrepreneurial business with the mentality of, "Fail and you're f*cked".

Of course more people will be more honest. You will never have 100% compliance, due to human nature. But there would definitely be less cheating than now. It's sheer cynicism to think otherwise.

Why didn't he pay his tax bill?

You only owe tax when you earn money. He obviously earned the money so why didn't he pay the tax?

kippy · 09-01-2016 11:29pm

JustTheOne wrote: »

Alena Better Dachshund wrote: »

Have you ever been self employed? A friend of mine, honest as the day is long was self employed for 2 years. One year, his tax bill was 18-20grand. When he had to close his business he was entitled to no dole at all. How can we try and start entrepreneurial business with the mentality of, "Fail and you're f*cked".

Of course more people will be more honest. You will never have 100% compliance, due to human nature. But there would definitely be less cheating than now. It's sheer cynicism to think otherwise.

Why didn't he pay his tax bill?

You only owe tax when you earn money. He obviously earned the money so why didn't he pay the tax?

I assume he did pay his tax bill but for some reason the business went south and because he had been self employed he was not eligible for most social welfare supports despite contributing to the state while the business was viable.This is a disgrace in my own opinion and no sign of getting it changed either.

JustTheOne · 09-01-2016 11:40pm

kippy wrote: »

I assume he did pay his tax bill but for some reason the business went south and because he had been self employed he was not eligible for most social welfare supports despite contributing to the state while the business was viable.This is a disgrace in my own opinion and no sign of getting it changed either.

Oh right sorry misunderstood you there.

Yeah self employed people get no grace in this country.

Late by a day with a vat payment and their onto you straightaway with letters and e mails.

Renua seem to have something in their manifesto about the self employed.

Might have a look.

johnnyskeleton · 10-01-2016 1:33pm

Alena Better Dachshund wrote: »

Have you ever been self employed? A friend of mine, honest as the day is long was self employed for 2 years. One year, his tax bill was 18-20grand. When he had to close his business he was entitled to no dole at all. How can we try and start entrepreneurial business with the mentality of, "Fail and you're f*cked".

Of course more people will be more honest. You will never have 100% compliance, due to human nature. But there would definitely be less cheating than now. It's sheer cynicism to think otherwise.

Im self employed. Ive gone through years where, even though i earned far less than the minimum wage, ive still had to pay prsi. Ive done so in the full knowledge that if I close my business I dont get automatic welfare payments.

I have a lot of empathy for the difficulties self employed people face, such as reduced tax credits etc. That is not in issue.

What we are discussing is people clajmig welfare while also working and not paying tax. Its wrong to associate honest hard working self employed people with these tax dodgers - it gives us hard working self employed people a bad name.

johnnyskeleton · 10-01-2016 1:41pm

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Actually, relax. I did it, people I know have done it and there ain't a damn thing you can do about it. If that annoys you, good!

Yes it annoys me. The social welfare payments dont just drop out of the sky, they come out of peoples pay cheques each month. If you believe that it is politically acceptable that people abuse that scheme without repurcussion, then it would be better to do away with welfare altogether.

We cant just pick and choose which laws to comply with depending on what suits us at the time.

dr.fuzzenstein · 10-01-2016 3:02pm

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Yes it annoys me. The social welfare payments dont just drop out of the sky, they come out of peoples pay cheques each month. If you believe that it is politically acceptable that people abuse that scheme without repurcussion, then it would be better to do away with welfare altogether.

We cant just pick and choose which laws to comply with depending on what suits us at the time.

Its called survival. Imagine there's 2 people working, paying tax (also having paid €20k stamp duty) and suddenly the arse falls out if the economy. First herself loses her job and 2 years later his job goes south. The bills are still the same, and in order to survive and keep the roof over their head, both previously honest people now have to turn every trick in the book. Not for fun and not because of a "fcuk you" attitude. Just to keep the show on the road. The dole ain't gonna pay your mortgage. Just to keep the head above water until things pick up and jobs can be had again. If you now say "those people are criminals the same as bank robbers and should thrown in prison", I think you need a major attitude and reality check. I paid ****loads of tax over the last 20 years and I'll be fcuked if I'm going to lose my home over it. There is a difference between doing something illegal to survive and being a criminal. I know you probably can't see that, but I believe the sabbath was made for the man, not then other way round. The rules must never be more important than the people. Don't worry, I'm not about to start selling crack cocaine to schoolchildren.
And I believe I speak for all of the half million people who list their job when I say you must have lead a charmed and sheltered life and you obviously haven't walked even one step in our shoes. I guess you must be 20, parents paid for everything and you haven't seen a lot of reality. Come back in 20 years when you stood onnyou own 2 feet for a bit.

johnnyskeleton · 10-01-2016 3:40pm

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

There is a difference between doing something illegal to survive and being a criminal. I know you probably can't see that, but I believe the sabbath was made for the man, not then other way round. The rules must never be more important than the people.

Just to be clear, and I donhave sympathy on a personl level of youve had hard times, this is a political discussion. Are you suggesting that we should change the rules of welfare so that if someone wants more than they get on welfare we should allow them to work on the side and not pay tax on it?

And I believe I speak for all of the half million people who list their job when I say....

First of all, half a million people didnt lose their jobs. From peak to trough total employment decreased by just over 310k:

http://www.cso.ie/en/statistics/labourmarket/principalstatistics/

Of those, some retired, others emigrated etc.

Second, while those people were out of work, the other 1.8m were paying increased taxes and prsi on lower incomes because of wage cuts etc. Should those people also be able to work on the side and not declare it to keep their income up?

If its the case that the welfare and tax rules can simply be ignored if the alternative is a drop in ones lifestyle, then all those 1.8m people would stop paying prsi and may take on untaxed nixers themselves. And thus breaking the rules erodes confidence and the system falls apart. We would become like Greece.

In any event, this is far removed from the example of a person earning 40k in nixers on the dole. Thats the equivalent of a 70-80k p.a. legitimate salary.

dr.fuzzenstein · 10-01-2016 5:22pm

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Just to be clear, and I donhave sympathy on a personl level of youve had hard times, this is a political discussion. Are you suggesting that we should change the rules of welfare so that if someone wants more than they get on welfare we should allow them to work on the side and not pay tax on it?

You cannot make rules to 100% reflect real life. The rules are not the B all and end all in life (imagine a German telling that to an Irish person). "the rules apply 100% without any personal judgement by the person enforcing them" is not something that happens in real life. The person enforcing the rules has to have some leeway in how to interpret and enforce them. Example would be a Gard who sees you doing something you shouldn't, but lets you off with a warning. Otherwise we would be living in North Korea.

First of all, half a million people didnt lose their jobs. From peak to trough total employment decreased by just over 310k:

http://www.cso.ie/en/statistics/labourmarket/principalstatistics/

Of those, some retired, others emigrated etc.

Second, while those people were out of work, the other 1.8m were paying increased taxes and prsi on lower incomes because of wage cuts etc. Should those people also be able to work on the side and not declare it to keep their income up?

If its the case that the welfare and tax rules can simply be ignored if the alternative is a drop in ones lifestyle, then all those 1.8m people would stop paying prsi and may take on untaxed nixers themselves. And thus breaking the rules erodes confidence and the system falls apart. We would become like Greece.

In any event, this is far removed from the example of a person earning 40k in nixers on the dole. Thats the equivalent of a 70-80k p.a. legitimate salary.

You see, that is your interpretation of what would happen with BI. It's not a fact, it's an opinion. If pilot schemes in countries with a lot more forward thinking, guts and imagination than Ireland work out, then it might be implemented here. Of course you could be right and everyone will immediately stop doing all and any work and just smoke joints and play PlayStation all day. But I don't believe that.
The dole system here is idiotic and belongs into the 19th century. It forces you to stay on the dole, because if you have any income, you will lose out or be struck off. So in fact the dole system is responsible for nixers and the black market, because it only has ONE thing in mind, that you pick up a regular job. But if you decide you want something else, it is near impossible to do it by the book. Under BI people won't have to worry about declaring income, so in fact this would reduce nixers! Quite an oversight. So you can have your BI (maybe up to a certain threshold, we just don't know yet) and you don't have to worry about the Filth booting your door down and you being carted off to prison.

It is a good idea in a changing world. Doing your 9-5 job, then being laid off and being paid unemployment benefit until you get your next 9-5 job just doesn't cover it anymore, any more than a 99% catholic school system covers Ireland's current demographic. It doesn't work in a system where employers have eroded all worker's rights by short-term contracts that are being constantly rolled over, agency work, seasonal work, part-time work, etc... I keep saying it, but Ireland has to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 20th century, nevermind the 21st.

Replacing social welfare with a basic income

Comments