Would you report a dole scammer?

osarusan

Glenster wrote: »

Limit the length people can get the dole for. six months, a year tops.

And what then?

What do we do with the person who has reached the time limit but has no income or way to pay for food and rent?

05eaftqbrs9jlh

I just love how the vast, vast majority on boards.ie thinks that work is the be all and end all of life and if you don't do it, you're some sort of low-life waster. How one-dimensional must your life be if that's your outlook. Many people I know are artists and scrape by financially week to week, but don't care because they get to do their art. They're the most liberated, happy people I know.

Glenster

osarusan wrote: »

And what then?

What do we do with the person who has reached the time limit but has no income or way to pay for food and rent?

Firstly there are obviously exceptions; old, young, disabled, people who contribute to society in ways other than working.

But, put simply, I believe if you don't participate in/contribute to society you should not be allowed to benefit from it.

Everyone can find some sort of useful contribution to society, it should be a requirement of society to do that. If you refuse to do that at the very least the free money you receive from the government should stop.

sashafierce

This post has been deleted.

Glenster

Malaysia Fat Fern wrote: »

I just love how the vast, vast majority on boards.ie thinks that work is the be all and end all of life and if you don't do it, you're some sort of low-life waster. How one-dimensional must your life be if that's your outlook. Many people I know are artists and scrape by financially week to week, but don't care because they get to do their art. They're the most liberated, happy people I know.

I'm happy for people to do whatever they like with their lives, be as fulfilled as possible.

But if someone goes to a state building, funded by me and everyone else who works, and asks the state for free money, my money, I don't think its unreasonable for the state to respond "Why? What have you done/going to do to deserve this"

mahoganygas

Lucas Hood wrote: »

No I wouldn't report anyone. If they can get away with it good luck to them.

Our politician rip us all off more.

If they can get away with it good luck to them. :cool:

mahoganygas

Malaysia Fat Fern wrote: »

I just love how the vast, vast majority on boards.ie thinks that work is the be all and end all of life and if you don't do it, you're some sort of low-life waster. How one-dimensional must your life be if that's your outlook. Many people I know are artists and scrape by financially week to week, but don't care because they get to do their art. They're the most liberated, happy people I know.

But being an artist is their career.

And with it, they contribute to society.

osarusan

Glenster wrote: »

Firstly there are obviously exceptions; old, young, disabled, people who contribute to society in ways other than working.

Fair enough.

Glenster wrote: »

But, put simply, I believe if you don't participate in/contribute to society you should not be allowed to benefit from it.

Everyone can find some sort of useful contribution to society, it should be a requirement of society to do that. If you refuse to do that at the very least the free money you receive from the government should stop.

But what do we do with the people who just refuse to make any useful contribution to society?

In practical terms, what do we do with them?

foxatron

I wouldnt report Family or friends. Unless I really didn't like them. Probably wouldn't bother if I thought someone was only temporarily on it but anyone else I thought was sponging, I'd report. Tough ****e

mahoganygas

osarusan wrote: »

Fair enough.


But what do we do with the people whop refuse to make any useful contribution to society?

In practical terms, what do we do with them?

This is the million dollar question.

If somebody can contribute but refuses to, how much should you take out of their welfare? And if you take too much, and as a result they end up on the streets, whose fault is it?

I don't think there's a right answer to the question.

05eaftqbrs9jlh

Glenster wrote:

But if someone goes to a state building, funded by me and everyone else who works, and asks the state for free money, my money, I don't think its unreasonable for the state to respond "Why? What have you done/going to do to deserve this"

And funded by the "scroungers" VAT as well. Just because you pay more taxes, doesn't give you more of a say as to how they are allocated. Rich people pay the most tax (or at least, that's how it's supposed to work), should they then decide how much relief you get, or how much welfare somebody else gets?

Just for the record, I've never been entitled to social welfare. But I think art is a valuable part of society and facilitating the lifestyle of people who engage in this type of work is fine.

Also, I know a good few people who just don't enjoy working. They reject convention and find it difficult to get along with people. They suffer from mental health problems whenever they try to make themselves productive. I don't think people like that should compromise their entire lives just so their money enters the system. That's so stupid.

We're basically brainwashed into working from the moment we're born, never stopping to question why or how it makes us feel. Who the hell are we, outside of what we do?

Glenster

osarusan wrote: »

But what do we do with the people whop refuse to make any useful contribution to society?

In practical terms, what do we do with them?

Stop their Dole.

Society means that some of your problems become our problems. That's why we fund the fire brigade, schools, hospitals, the police, roads, pensions, etc.

Out of work for a while? Here's a social safety net "there but for the grace of god go I" and all that. That's not designed to sustain someone forever.

osarusan

Glenster wrote: »

Stop their Dole.

And then Joe no longer has 188 a week to pay his rent from.

Do we (in the hope that he'll buck up and get a job) let Joe become homeless?

Glenster

Malaysia Fat Fern wrote: »

And funded by the "scroungers" VAT as well.

No. That's just some of the money they got for free coming back to the state.

Malaysia Fat Fern wrote: »

Just because you pay more taxes, doesn't give you more of a say as to how they are allocated. Rich people pay the most tax (or at least, that's how it's supposed to work), should they then decide how much relief you get, or how much welfare somebody else gets?

Just for the record, I've never been entitled to social welfare. But I think art is a valuable part of society and facilitating the lifestyle of people who engage in this type of work is fine.

I should be allowed to voice my opinion on it. And I agree with you on art. There's loads of tax breaks and assistance programmes for that. I just don't think jobseekers allowance should fund an arts career.

Malaysia Fat Fern wrote: »

Also, I know a good few people who just don't enjoy working. They reject convention and find it difficult to get along with people. They suffer from mental health problems whenever they try to make themselves productive. I don't think people like that should compromise their entire lives just so their money enters the system. That's so stupid.

We're basically brainwashed into working from the moment we're born, never stopping to question why or how it makes us feel. Who the hell are we, outside of what we do?

If you've mental health issues, fine, go on disability, that's different from the dole. and it should be funded appropriately.

And if you don't want to work, fine. But you shouldn't get the dole.

JOBSEEKERS benefit. Not free money for doing nothing.

Glenster

osarusan wrote: »

And then Joe no longer has 188 a week to pay his rent from.

Do we (in the hope that he'll buck up and get a job) let Joe become homeless?

Yes.

osarusan

Glenster wrote: »

Yes.

And if he becomes homeless, we just leave him to it?

mahoganygas

Malaysia Fat Fern wrote: »

And funded by the "scroungers" VAT as well. Just because you pay more taxes, doesn't give you more of a say as to how they are allocated. Rich people pay the most tax (or at least, that's how it's supposed to work), should they then decide how much relief you get, or how much welfare somebody else gets?

Each citizen has a right to vote on how they think government resources should be allocated. 1 person = 1 vote. Paying more taxes doesn't entitle anybody to more of a say. It just so happens that the majority of people believe that every citizen should contribute to the economy if they are able.

Malaysia Fat Fern wrote: »

Also, I know a good few people who just don't enjoy working.

I don't enjoy working. But I still feel responsible for paying taxes and contributing to society, rather than just taking.

Malaysia Fat Fern wrote: »

They suffer from mental health problems whenever they try to make themselves productive. I don't think people like that should compromise their entire lives just so their money enters the system. That's so stupid.

I find that a bit of a cop out. I know people who suffer anxiety and health problems when they work. They get on with it. Life is not a picnic.

If their mental health problems are so severe, then they can be assessed for disability support. A well functioning welfare system should be able to provide adequate support for these people. I doubt you will find anybody here who would force disabled people into the workforce.

Glenster

osarusan wrote: »

And if he becomes homeless, we just leave him to it?

I think we should fight the causes of vulnerability in society, Drug and alcohol addiction, Domestic Violence, Sexual abuse, Child Neglect, etc.

The things which cause long term homelessness.

But I do not think that people should be given money and houses for free unconditionally. It just creates a cycle of dependency and entitlement.

osarusan

mahoganygas wrote: »

This is the million dollar question.

If somebody can contribute but refuses to, how much should you take out of their welfare? And if you take too much, and as a result they end up on the streets, whose fault is it?

I don't think there's a right answer to the question.

It's a question of just what safety net there is for those at the bottom of the ladder, even for those who are there out of sheer laziness.

The better the safety net is, you can see how more people can be drawn towards it.

The worse it is, you can see how more people will be motivated to improve their own situation, but for those who can't or won't, there is more suffering.

It really depends on how far we are willing to go - if we are actually going to be a society that will 'motivate' people this way - by reducing/removing the safety net.

Or if we are just going to bluff, and there will be another way for them to receive aid - in which case we have to accept that a certain kind of person is going to exploit that as best they can.

osarusan

Glenster wrote: »

I think we should fight the causes of vulnerability in society, Drug and alcohol addiction, Domestic Violence, Sexual abuse, Child Neglect, etc.

Part of the reason these are the causes in Irish society is because our social safety net catches those who would be there for purely financial reasons.

In a place like the USA, you could be two or three missed paychecks away from being homeless. In Ireland, you could apply for and get some aid.

Remove or reduce that safety net, and we will see financial reasons take its place on the list of causes.

Glenster

osarusan wrote: »

Part of the reason these are the causes in Irish society is because our social safety net catches those who would be there for purely financial reasons.

In a place like the USA, you could be two or 3 missed paychecks away from being homeless. In Ireland, you would apply for and get some aid.

Remove or reduce that safety net, and we will see financial reasons take its place on the list of causes.

Agreed. I think our priorities are the wrong way around in Ireland.

We don't help people with mental health issues, we just subsidize them which isolates them from society and hurts them long term.

And we have a growing number of people who have chosen not contributing to society as a way of life.

sashafierce

This post has been deleted.

mahoganygas

sashafierce wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

There is no political appetite for that at the moment.
It's very difficult for a minister to cut welfare. The only practical way to reduce it is to hope that inflation outpaces it in the medium to long term.

05eaftqbrs9jlh

mahoganygas wrote:

I find that a bit of a cop out. I know people who suffer anxiety and health problems when they work. They get on with it. Life is not a picnic.

If their mental health problems are so severe, then they can be assessed for disability support. A well functioning welfare system should be able to provide adequate support for these people. I doubt you will find anybody here who would force disabled people into the workforce.

I don't think those people are disabled, I think they're sensible. Why work if irrespective you are paid? Why cause yourself undue anxiety just for more money and to assuage those who feel everyone should contribute to "society", whatever the hell that means to people who don't want to be part of it.

What about women who want to rear children? It's hard to find a job that will hire you if you're pregnant, or keep you if you require maternity leave. Should they be forced back into menial work because society has gotten so expensive to live in that both parents need to work now?

I'm hoping something will stop inflation before we bring back child labour here.

Glenster

Malaysia Fat Fern wrote: »

What about women who want to rear children? It's hard to find a job that will hire you if you're pregnant, or keep you if you require maternity leave. Should they be forced back into menial work because society has gotten so expensive to live in that both parents need to work now?

having kids should not be a passport to the dole for 18 years.

If it is the system is broken.

mahoganygas

Malaysia Fat Fern wrote: »

I don't think those people are disabled, I think they're sensible. Why work if irrespective you are paid? Why cause yourself undue anxiety just for more money and to assuage those who feel everyone should contribute to "society", whatever the hell that means to people who don't want to be part of it.

Please try to understand that general taxation pays for street lamps, schools, hospital, clean water, safe policing, electricity polls, the rule of law etc. If everyone decided not to contribute to "society" then there would be no society. Artists wouldn't have the time or freedom to pursue intellectual goals. They'd be wondering where their next meal was going to come from.

To be blunt, those people you are describing are selfish.

Malaysia Fat Fern wrote: »

What about women who want to rear children? It's hard to find a job that will hire you if you're pregnant, or keep you if you require maternity leave. Should they be forced back into menial work because society has gotten so expensive to live in that both parents need to work now?

This is a completely different issue. Women in high paying jobs or women who genuinely want to work face the same problems.

Widdershins

Malaysia Fat Fern wrote: »

I don't think those people are disabled, I think they're sensible. Why work if irrespective you are paid? Why cause yourself undue anxiety just for more money and to assuage those who feel everyone should contribute to "society", whatever the hell that means to people who don't want to be part of it.

What about women who want to rear children? It's hard to find a job that will hire you if you're pregnant, or keep you if you require maternity leave. Should they be forced back into menial work because society has gotten so expensive to live in that both parents need to work now?

I'm hoping something will stop inflation before we bring back child labour here.

Hmm. On one hand I believe in the importance of a parent raising their children but I also know women with depression, anxiety, fibromyalgia/m.e, supposed constant pain and incapacity yet they're having a baby every year. Supported by state benefits.

Glenster

I think we can all agree that the fairest and most logical thing to do with long term dole recipients who are able to work but don't is to put them on a raft and kick it out to sea. Exclude them from the society they refuse to contribute to.

Obviously we cant do that because of compassion.

But we cant do nothing because that's not fair to the people who pay their way.

My solution is for both sides to meet halfway. Let scroungers still use public services and the trappings of society (Hospitals, street lights, warm air coming from the vents of pubs, lack of wolf attacks) but stop giving them free money.

Glenster

Widdershins wrote: »

Hmm. On one hand I believe in the importance of a parent raising their children

I suppose, but blinking is important, it doesn't mean we pay people to do it.

Having kids is biological imperative. I don't see why people need to be paid for it.

05eaftqbrs9jlh

mahoganygas wrote:

To be blunt, those people you are describing are selfish.

What about people who opt out and live in communes and off the grid? F society, if society are the kind of people who hate travellers AND refugees and allow there to be homelessness and mental illness then they suck.

The roads are in disrepair, the hospitals are overcome, class sizes have become untenable, there is little to no tolerance for any alternative views and people are just generally miserable. The people who really need the system (disabled, elderly, chronically ill) are shafted by it.

The only people who really stand to benefit from the way it is set up are the rich. Your insistence on working and your adherence to this way of living because you think it's the only way that works - that's the real problem. You're just about scraping by, or maybe you're doing quite well, but it should matter to you more that an 80 year-old woman I care for only gets 16 hours respite a week as she looks after her totally immobile 60 year-old daughter with Cystic Fibrosis.

Glenster wrote:

Having kids is biological imperative. I don't see why people need to be paid for it.

Because having children is how society is perpetuated. It's not an entitlement, the system should be set up to facilitate the next generation and give them every opportunity. We're after regressing about ten decades since the government has brainwashed us into thinking having children should be the privilege of the rich and the misfortune of the ill-educated.

The whole system is set up to anally destroy the poor and middle classes over and over. Read some Adam Smith. Watch some Noam Chomsky. Don't feel bad about not working, don't resent others for not doing it. Things wouldn't be any better even if unemployment was completely eradicated. If you don't believe me, that's fine too.