David Norris - Social welfare shouldn't be spent on alcohol

gctest50

Originally Posted by esforum View Post
....either the state via my tax has to bail people out, or they should be responsible for themselves...

Surely criminals have to seek welfare payments if they are not working or they'd be wide open for "no visible means of support" ?

.

esforum

KomradeBishop wrote: »

If you'd spent more than a microsecond reading up on the source, you'd see it's a peer-reviewed journal...

Oh I see, all dole recipients are liars now, right? I guess the Irish dole recipients are unique among Europeans, in their propensity to lie as well? The German ones too?

You're also deliberating sidestepping the point: Those stats weren't even the focus, you're still completely wrong about the availability of jobs - as other stats, like unemployed per job vacancy, shows.
Not. Enough. Jobs. - the stats prove it, and you have no counter to it.

Well first, yes I would say all people claiming welfare are liars, I would say every single person in the country lies at times. Want to be pedantic we can certainly go that route

Its a wordpress blog typed by a random person. Generally not accepted as sources but as I presumed to accept the study thats neither here nor there. I am questioning the reliability of the study.

And yes, we are unique because Germany does not cut people off if they do not seek employment as they do not pay permanent jobseekers like we do. A German need not pretend to be looking for work to recieve the minimum support of 400 a month.

You must be getting me confused with someone else, I never claimed there are enough jobs in the present climate. I agreed with you on that point a long long time ago.

Now, answer this, do you accept that 1 in 3 unemployed in Ireland is not genuinely seeking employment?

Or how about that 1 in 7 has never ever had a job, ever?

that 1 in 3 people offered interviews werent even arsed attending an interview that had been arranged for them by the social welfare department?

That an admittedly small number of 1807 people (or 1 in 6 of those offered interviews) were so god damned lazy that they couldnt even pretend long enough to keep their full welfare?

Yes, the majority want work, not denying it and yes, for those folks a degree of a social life is acceptable, at least for me personally but I cannot just accept career-dolers who cheat and steal from hard working people, continuing to claim this money.

(http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/one-in-seven-people-on-the-dole-has-never-worked-a-single-day-29278033.html)

KomradeBishop

KomradeBishop wrote: »

More seriously (and obviously, the above is not serious): As you can see, the idea of 'choice' here is illusory, just like the 'choice' of whether or not to purchase electricity services - in both cases, the false 'choice' makes life completely impractical - so applying my argument from earlier, there is equally valid reason for people to demand a say in how their money is spent, by the operators of essential services which can't be avoided (as the payments for these services, which are mandatory/unavoidable, are very much like taxes).....

But what about my inalienable right to put forward a self-serving argument? Like, for example, when I pay tax it really counts, but when the other guy pays tax it's not "useful" tax so it doesn't really count. :rolleyes:

That's the other thing about political extremists; they neither understand nor respect democracy.

KomradeBishop

esforum wrote: »

Well first, yes I would say all people claiming welfare are liars, I would say every single person in the country lies at times. Want to be pedantic we can certainly go that route

Its a wordpress blog typed by a random person. Generally not accepted as sources but as I presumed to accept the study thats neither here nor there. I am questioning the reliability of the study.

And yes, we are unique because Germany does not cut people off if they do not seek employment as they do not pay permanent jobseekers like we do. A German need not pretend to be looking for work to recieve the minimum support of 400 a month.

You must be getting me confused with someone else, I never claimed there are enough jobs in the present climate. I agreed with you on that point a long long time ago.

Now, answer this, do you accept that 1 in 3 unemployed in Ireland is not genuinely seeking employment?

Or how about that 1 in 7 has never ever had a job, ever?

that 1 in 3 people offered interviews werent even arsed attending an interview that had been arranged for them by the social welfare department?

That an admittedly small number of 1807 people (or 1 in 6 of those offered interviews) were so god damned lazy that they couldnt even pretend long enough to keep their full welfare?

Yes, the majority want work, not denying it and yes, for those folks a degree of a social life is acceptable, at least for me personally but I cannot just accept career-dolers who cheat and steal from hard working people, continuing to claim this money.

(http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/one-in-seven-people-on-the-dole-has-never-worked-a-single-day-29278033.html)

Have you bothered at all Googling the name of the source? Please do that, and tell me whether or not you find something saying 'peer reviewed journal'. Then please acknowledge you're wrong again.

If you can't be bothered even doing that much, and make such unreliable statements about the journal, that it would take you seconds to verify - then I'm not really interested in taking the rest of your post seriously, as you seem to be spewing arguments to fit your point of view, without fact checking anything - which becomes really tedious to debunk repeatedly, again and again.

Feel free to present your own competing peer-reviewed sources, countering the study.

esforum

gctest50 wrote: »

Surely criminals have to seek welfare payments if they are not working or they'd be wide open for "no visible means of support"

That comment had nothing to do with what you quoted and in general I think is below a genuine reply. If thats your arguement, you have well and truly lost

esforum

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Have you bothered at all Googling the name of the source? Please do that, and tell me whether or not you find something saying 'peer reviewed journal'. Then please acknowledge you're wrong again.

I know who he is, but his personal blog remains that, a personal blog citing his opinion, its not a reliable source in any paper of note. The stats are not his, his comment is in a shortened version, theres people out of work that want work. I dont deny that, never have. I can say it for a third time in the space of an hour if you want

Now, I am decent enough to answer you, that long post I put up? Care to have a bash or do you agree with my points?

KomradeBishop

Also: 8 years into an economic crisis, with thousands upon thousands of people exiting education and entering the workforce for the first time: Of course, after such a long time, there will be people who have never worked, needing dole payments...

KomradeBishop

esforum wrote: »

Its not relevent, its the stats your talking about, not the guys personal views or so you said. Is that all you have to answer? If so I will consider it that you have agreed in large to my last post

Stats aren't 'personal views' - that's such a lazy rebuttal.

It's the usual nonsense in this thread. People trying to reduce hard objective stats, down to 'personal opinion'...

TheDoc

An odd amount of backlash to his comments which I find surprising. Granted he didn't articulate his point well in the first instance, but when asked subsequently was much clearer and I think he has a point.

He failed to distinguish between job seekers allowance and benefit. One of which is received by people recently out of work and covered by their PRSI contribution, the other compromised by the majority who have never held employment and are unlikely too. For those who are totally supplemented by state benefit, and have never contributed to the tax base, and never will, I think he has a fair point.

I know them in my area, most people would know them in their own area. Scroungers essentially. Perfectly capable of going into the local for a slab of cans or a shoulder of vodka, but when it comes to getting a job have 101 excuses. Norris later clarified that is the group he is talking about. And which contain a sub-category of the sort of individuals who will leave their children in horrendous poverty while making sure they sort themselves out with their cans week to week.

He is saying something here many have felt and wondered about for a long enough time, so I don't see anything contraversial if I'm honest. And if anything, the government have already tackled this in part by their min alcohol pricing. I don't think it's any surprise that the products being hit hardest, are those you would assosiate with kids on the nack, and social welfare recipients grabbing after they get their dole. While there is no way the government would actually come out and say it for fear of upsetting the power swinging lowerclass vote, it's clearly part of the policy.

gctest50

esforum wrote: »

That comment had nothing to do with what you quoted and in general I think is below a genuine reply. If thats your arguement, you have well and truly lost

not an argument at all, just a question - ( fixed my post you quoted)

deseil

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Who? Politicians and civil servants?

Are YOU for real?

They earn their living on the back of the taxpayers' money. If we claim that drink is a bad thing then why should those people be allowed spend taxpayers' money on drink?

By the way, we all know the real answer, which is rooted in the fact that we love our drink a lot more than we're willing to let on.

Unless you are some kind of extremist, there is no sane reason to interfere with anyone spending their money on legal products and services.

Doctors/nurses who work shifts?
Garda/firemen/paramedics/coast guard?etc
And all the admin staff involved in running these services.
Money well earned by hard work can not be put on a par with money earned from benefits!

steddyeddy

deseil wrote: »

Doctors/nurses who work shifts?
Garda/firemen/paramedics/coast guard?etc
And all the admin staff involved in running these services.
Money well earned by hard work can not be put on a par with money earned from benefits!

I worked in a HSE lab briefly. If you think waste is someone buying a few drinks on the dole you haven't a clue. The amount of waste in the HSE (and I'm guessing other public bodies e.g the senate) is staggering.

It really is a minor minor issue.

esforum

Deleted User wrote: »

Once the state (or anyone else for that matter) gives someone money it is their money,

On condition, you sign for your welfare, you sign a contract of sorts. After a while you dont have to sign weekly but you must sign the conditions of acceptance. You enter into a contract you are obliged to meet those requirements or forefeit the payment. Your arguement is like saying, "well he gave me money to buy materials to build his house but as its now in my pocket he can **** right off" or the teenager one I already stated.

darkpagandeath wrote: »

So one has a problem with criminals on the dole gottcha. Maybe call the revenue and the dole office and report the ones you know of ?

Sorry, whats the dole? I thought we were being very specific here. If you dont have a problem with that then theres not much I can say but suggest you may be a bit of a sucker happily paying someone who is also robbing you. If thats your stance, well I see no point in continuing, were just complete opposites on this one.

darkpagandeath wrote: »

How do heroin addicts get job seekers ? They don't they get disability.

the ones with associated illnesses do indeed but its incorrect to assume they all or even the majority do and heroin aint the only addictive narcotic. By the way, your original smart arse question was actually targeted at the homeless not junkies.

Deleted User wrote: »

policing how people spend their money is not a good way of dealing with our drink culture. Encouraging them to be responsible for their behaviour, including how they spend their money, is a good idea.

Nothing to do with the thread though is it? Deal with the topic. dont try and throw a red herring in.

Deleted User wrote: »

I understand how extremists and Victorian-style interfering nanny state busybodies might think that controlling other people and interfering with their right to spend their money as they see fit will help. But it won't.

Again its A or B, either Im looking after these people like children, or Im staying out of their affairs in which case they neednt bother taking my money. the state provides the money, regardless of where it comes from and taking tax payers out of the debate, you cant take from someone on condition then tell them to butt out of your life. Thats nonsense and sounds like a teenagers arguement.

Deleted User wrote: »

And by the way, it's our drink culture, not someone else's. Irish society has a real problem with our love affair with alcohol - and if politicians think we're going to fix it by attacking "skanger" drinking while encouraging "snobby middle class" drinking then they are sadly, sadly mistaken.....

again not the subject of the thread but I fail to see how pricing limits do that really. Theres many a skanger with more cash in his pocket than someone from a middle class background.

Deleted User wrote: »

.....and the same goes for you.

What goes for me? Im not one iota trying to solve the Irish unhealthy obsession with alcohol, I merely solved me own a number of years ago. Dont smoke or take heroin either. Pretty boring really

esforum

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Stats aren't 'personal views' - that's such a lazy rebuttal.

It's the usual nonsense in this thread. People trying to reduce hard objective stats, down to 'personal opinion'...

are you reading my comments at all? I very clearly seperated his opinion and the stats that ARE NOT HIS. he is giving his opinion on the stats in that article. Either read and answer in full or stop wasting my time

Iwasfrozen

Deleted User wrote: »

You never did get around to explaining why you want to stop welfare recipients buying the occasional pack of biscuits and why you want to make them all buy their clothes in charity shops and Penneys, by the way.

And I'm not going to engage your strawman.

steddyeddy wrote: »

I worked in a HSE lab briefly. If you think waste is someone buying a few drinks on the dole you haven't a clue. The amount of waste in the HSE (and I'm guessing other public bodies e.g the senate) is staggering.

It really is a minor minor issue.

Even if it was a minor issue, which I disagree with no waste of tax money is minor, then it's still a waste and should still be stopped.

KomradeBishop wrote: »

To take up your own facetiousness from earlier: No, it's your choice to pay tax - and instead of using money to purchase goods (thus incurring VAT), you can use barter - you can just quit your job and not earn any money, nobody is forcing you to pay tax - just like nobody is forced to purchase electricity services, from your example earlier :pac:

More seriously (and obviously, the above is not serious): As you can see, the idea of 'choice' here is illusory, just like the 'choice' of whether or not to purchase electricity services - in both cases, the false 'choice' makes life completely impractical - so applying my argument from earlier, there is equally valid reason for people to demand a say in how their money is spent, by the operators of essential services which can't be avoided (as the payments for these services, which are mandatory/unavoidable, are very much like taxes).

Considering that, the far greater moral concern, is not dole recipients blowing money on alcohol - but issues like excessive salaries, and excessive charges within essential industries - which take a far bigger hit out of our pockets than any drunken dole recipient.

Actually they are. Short of dieing of starvation there is no way for me to avoid paying tax, I will eventually run out of suitable items to barter with. There is no way to avoid tax, electricity on the other hand is an option. My parents didn't have electricity growing up, they managed to survive.

steddyeddy

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

And I'm not going to engage your strawman.


Even if it was a minor issue, which I disagree with no waste of tax money is minor, then it's still a waste and should still be stopped.


Actually they are. Short of dieing of starvation there is no way for me to avoid paying tax, I will eventually run out of suitable items to barter with. There is no way to avoid tax, electricity on the other hand is an option. My parents didn't have electricity growing up, they managed to survive.

Even If I agreed which I don't it would be idiocy to focus on this and ignore savings into the billions. It would be an emotional response to a dislike of people on the dole rather than a logical policy.

Iwasfrozen

steddyeddy wrote: »

Even If I agreed which I don't it would be idiocy to focus on this and ignore savings into the billions. It would be an emotional response to a dislike of people on the dole rather than a logical policy.

Who is ignoring the waste of billions? I'm certainly not. All waste should be eliminated. Every cent spent by the government should be painfully scrutinized and justified, including social welfare.

KomradeBishop

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Actually they are. Short of dieing of starvation there is no way for me to avoid paying tax, I will eventually run out of suitable items to barter with. There is no way to avoid tax, electricity on the other hand is an option. My parents didn't have electricity growing up, they managed to survive.

Yes there is: Grow your own food. Also, if you don't like paying taxes, you always have the 'choice' of getting up and moving to a different country.

You can try and argue that there is no practical way to avoid paying tax, but - in a nitpicking/facetious/pedantic way, just like your point about avoiding electricity altogether - it is 'possible'.

Oh your parents went without electricity their whole lives did they? Or, you mean: Once it became a practical necessity in modern society, they started using it...


I think practically any poster in the thread - who isn't just looking to make shít up to suit their argument - can agree that there is no 'choice' in both taxes and electricity being necessities...it's an utter waste of time, when someone will do everything possible, beyond all credibilty, to avoid acknowledging this though, just to suit their argument.

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

I worked in a HSE lab briefly. If you think waste is someone buying a few drinks on the dole you haven't a clue. The amount of waste in the HSE (and I'm guessing other public bodies e.g the senate) is staggering.

It really is a minor minor issue.

But what about my Victorian interfering busybody "morality"?

They don't even pay tax, Joe. :rolleyes:

Iwasfrozen

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Yes there is: Grow your own food. Also, if you don't like paying taxes, you always have the 'choice' of getting up and moving to a different country.

You can try and argue that there is no practical way to avoid paying tax, but - in a nitpicking/facetious/pedantic way, just like your point about avoiding electricity altogether - it is 'possible'.

Oh your parents went without electricity their whole lives did they? Or, you mean: Once it became a practical necessity in modern society, they started using it...


I think practically any poster in the thread - who isn't just looking to make shít up to suit their argument - can agree that there is no 'choice' in both taxes and electricity being necessities...it's an utter waste of time, when someone will do everything possible, beyond all credibilty, to avoid acknowledging this though, just to suit their argument.

The land needed to grow food is taxed and taxation exists in other countries. Money is also needed to obtain a passport. Please think this through before responding to me. There is no possible way to avoid tax.

It was never a necessity, they got it when teenagers because it had become cheap enough but even today large parts of the world exist without electricity.

It's incredible that you continue to force the inaccurate comparison of buying n optional service and taxation, ridiculous in fact. Even when I point out to you they're different you respond "yeah but they're not really different"

The fact is if every electricity company were run with as badly as the government I'd buy a generator.

esforum

esforum wrote: »

On condition...

Sensible conditions. Not conditions demanded by extremists and those who would build a nanny state.

esforum wrote: »

Nothing to do with the thread though is it? Deal with the topic. dont try and throw a red herring in.

It's everything to do with the topic - which you'd acknowledge if you were capable of arguing against it. People like you want to police the spending of people you "don't agree with". Policing the spending of people doesn't make them more responsible; it makes them less responsible. Policing the spending of people is the policy of nanny state interfering busybodies or political extremists. Don't be one of those.

esforum wrote: »

Again its A or B

If dropping the rest of the alphabet makes things simpler for you, then you carry on. But I'm not going to join in for your benefit. It's the same argument as above. Only extremists or busybodies would want to police the spending of other people. You want to police the spending of other people. Therefore you are either an extremist or an interfering busybody - or perhaps both.

esforum wrote: »

What goes for me? Im not one iota trying to solve the Irish unhealthy obsession with alcohol, I merely solved me own a number of years ago. Dont smoke or take heroin either. Pretty boring really

If you're not doing this on health grounds, then you're doing it to be illiberal.

Stop being illiberal. Seriously. Don't shilly-shally, and don't make excuses. Just stop trying to regulate the behaviour of other people.

Iwasfrozen

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

And I'm not going to engage your strawman.

No bother, thanks. I always like when people admit they're goosed, even if they have to go the long way round to do so.

But cheers for the debate anyway.

KomradeBishop

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The land needed to grow food is taxed and taxation exists in other countries. Money is also needed to obtain a passport. Please think this through before responding to me. There is no possible way to avoid tax.

It was never a necessity, they got it when teenagers because it had become cheap enough but even today large parts of the world exist without electricity.

Ireland has a Property Tax not a Land Tax - grow food on an allotment (rent one using barter if you have to). Ireland is in the Schengen Area, you don't need a passport - and you can skip over any of those borders without too much difficulty.

It's not impossible, it's just completely impractical - just like your own argument regarding doing without electricity in modern Ireland.

Oh so your parents did have electricity when they were growing up, contrary to what you said...

Iwasfrozen

Deleted User wrote: »

No bother, thanks. I always like when people admit they're goosed, even if they have to go the long way round to do so.

But cheers for the debate anyway.

Not exactly a debate, just you running around screaming "it's their money" "nanny state extremist".

I'm such a nanny state extremist I'd like to see social welfare cut to the bone, what a communist I am.

Iwasfrozen

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

[more stuff]

There's nothing worse than a fella who says he's out of a discussion, and then comes back giving out again. Sheesh, if they'd only make their minds up.

Anyway, if you've got nothing sensible to contribute, I'll leave it there.







(Still never got an answer to my very relevant question about why some "luxuries" are forbidden, while others aren't, but there you go.)

Iwasfrozen

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Ireland has a Property Tax not a Land Tax - grow food on an allotment. Ireland is in the Schengen Area, you don't need a passport - and you can skip over any of those borders without too much difficulty.

It's not impossible, it's just completely impractical - just like your own argument regarding doing without electricity in modern Ireland.

Oh so your parents did have electricity when they were growing up, contrary to what you said...

With what do you pay the allotment? Where do you live while growing your food? And how do you survive until the following years harvest? Also Ireland isn't part of Schengen, we need passports to travel and money to pay the costs of travel. Again, it is impossible to not pay tax.

Nope, their respective families got it while they were teenagers when it became cheap enough to do so. My posts are written, I shouldn't need to repeat them.

Iwasfrozen

Deleted User wrote: »

There's nothing worse than a fella who says he's out of a discussion, and then comes back giving out again. Sheesh, if they'd only make their minds up.

Anyway, if you've got nothing sensible to contribute, I'll leave it there.

(Still never got an answer to my very relevant question about why some "luxuries" are forbidden, while others aren't, but there you go.)

I never said I was out of the discussion, I said I wasn't engaging your strawman, please read my posts.

(Still not engaging your strawman)

CaptainInsano

Look at that poll. After Hours is completely divided. Let's organise a street fight to decide the winner.

It's amazing that Norris, such an eloquent man, so often needs to explain what he actually meant or needs others to step up and do so.

KomradeBishop

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

With what do you pay the allotment? Where do you live while growing your food? And how do you survive until the following years harvest? Also Ireland isn't part of Schengen, we need passports to travel and money to pay the costs of travel. Again, it is impossible to not pay tax.

Nope, their respective families got it while they were teenagers when it became cheap enough to do so. My posts are written, I shouldn't need to repeat them.

I edited my post earlier - pay for the allotment with barter. You could survive off charity, just like people would if Social Welfare were cut to the bone as you desire.

True, I missed that we are not in Schengen - odd, had always assumed we were - yet paying for a passport is a once off payment for a service, it is not a tax, and you can try to get the (fairly small) sum as charity; obviously again, all of this is facetious and wholly impractical, but possible, in the same manner as going with electricity in modern Ireland is 'possible'.

If your parents had electricity in their teenage years, they grew up with electricity...