Abolish the Dole

BorneTobyWilde

fxotoole wrote: »

Why bother your hole bettering yourself or advancing your career if everyone is paid the same?

Position. So it's all about money. You want to be a Doctor, not to help people, but to rinse them , cool.

TheBully

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Position. So it's all about money. You want to be a Doctor, not to help people, but to rinse them , cool.

I think money is the main reason people get up and go to work everyday.

tayto lover

Has this idea ever been suggested by the powers that be?

Doctor Jimbob

Infini wrote: »

In term's of the dole what should be provided is basic food, drinks, and a roof over one's head. Cash shouldn't be provided unless they're doing something constructive like a course or part time employment. Encourage those who are down on their luck to want to be able to stand and pull their own weight and help em out. What shouldn't be encouraged is the total waster lifestyle of some who sit on the dole for life and do NOTHING credible to try and improve their situation.

All that's going to achieve is driving some people who don't want to work towards criminal activity.

storker

fxotoole wrote: »

Why bother your hole bettering yourself or advancing your career if everyone is paid the same?

You get the opportunity to win a "Hero of the Soviet Union" award.

Lollipop95

Well, OP, it genuinely makes me feel "genuine rage" that you seem to box everyone who's on the dole into the same corner. There couldn't possibly be some people on it who aren't gleefully laughing as they receive it? There couldn't possibly be people on it who are actually quiet decent? Nobody ever signed on to it after exhausting all options? Nobody ever signed on to it because they were suddenly made redundant? I'm not on the dole and have only recently secured employment after college. Not for the want of trying either. I was well entitled to go on it and I have probably lost out on hundreds but I did not sign onto it because I had some money spared up and didn't genuinely need it. Other people aren't that lucky. I know of a girl who suffers from depression and draws social welfare payments to support her because she genuinely isn't in a place where she could hold down a job at the moment


'

CerebralCortex

Lollipop95 wrote: »

I'm not on the dole and have only recently secured employment after college. Not for the want of trying either. I was well entitled to go on it and I have probably lost out on hundreds but I did not sign onto it because I had some money spared up and didn't genuinely need it.

You should have taken it if eligible. I think. You might even be able to back claim it. Every item you buy the money you spent while college all contributes to tax revenue thus by my reasoning that money is yours.

CerebralCortex

Glenalla wrote: »

I fully agree. My wife has three siblings, 2 of which have opted for a life on the dole and have stated they will never work.

Well that's illegal. A failure of enforcement.

Lollipop95

CerebralCortex wrote: »

You should have taken it if eligible. I think. You might even be able to back claim it. Every item you buy the money you spent while college all contributes to tax revenue thus by my reasoning that money is yours.

Yes, you're right. I think it's because there's so much stigma associated with it (especially among people my age) that stopped me from claiming it. And I've always read that it should be a "last resort" and seeing as I had money saved up from what I got from the SUSI Grant, I reasoned to myself that I could go without it. My parents couldn't understand why I didn't want to claim what was rightfully mine. A friend of mine also told me that he was on it and it's not a nice thing to do and he insisted that most people working in social welfare offices 'look down their nose at you'. No idea if it was just his particular office or if he was broadly speaking

animaal

Deleted User wrote: »

We should be looking into having a UBI (universal Basic Income) to "decriminalise" unemployment. The savings in simply providing such income to all citizens, instead of a web of benefits would be quite substantial.

I honestly don't know how UBI would make things better; maybe somebody can point out what I'm missing?

As I see it, introduction of UBI would be accompanied by guarantees that nobody on benefits would be would be worse off. Imagine all the media outrage if substantial numbers of welfare beneficiaries were to be worse off. So we'd end up with the existing payments being a floor. And some recipients would presumably be better off.

Those who work would receive an extra €x per month. That would be great.

But all this needs to be paid for. New expenditure means new taxes. And we know which group pays the vast bulk of taxes in this country. We have a very narrow tax base, and narrowing further all the time. Those who work will be receiving a new payment, but paying more than that in additional tax to fund it for everybody. Those who don't work will be no worse off, and in some cases possibly better off.

4068ac1elhodqr

animaal wrote: »

I honestly don't know how UBI would make things better; maybe somebody can point out what I'm missing?.

The benefits is national productivity.

UBI means 'everyone' (including workers) get more cash.

i.e. There would be no barriers to someone currently on welfare from doing the odd bit of 'gig-work' that they wouldn't do. Even study or skills enhancement could become an option.

It would also deter overpopulation, as anyone on welfare would be detered from having more than e.g. 4 offspring.

It can be paid for by chasing down folk (usually the 1%, such as Bono) who use various 'tax-avoidance' (not evasion) measures. Yet these super-rich are happy to lecture us on filling Europe with the world's poor and unskilled.

Graces7

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

All that's going to achieve is driving some people who don't want to work towards criminal activity.

and is the suicide rate not too high already?

CerebralCortex

Lollipop95 wrote: »

Yes, you're right. I think it's because there's so much stigma associated with it (especially among people my age) that stopped me from claiming it. And I've always read that it should be a "last resort" and seeing as I had money saved up from what I got from the SUSI Grant, I reasoned to myself that I could go without it. My parents couldn't understand why I didn't want to claim what was rightfully mine. A friend of mine also told me that he was on it and it's not a nice thing to do and he insisted that most people working in social welfare offices 'look down their nose at you'. No idea if it was just his particular office or if he was broadly speaking

Well the way I was treated the second time I applied for it in Intreo I wouldn't blame you for letting it slide all other factors included.

CerebralCortex

Antonella Bewildered Snowman wrote: »

The benefits is national productivity.

UBI means 'everyone' (including workers) get more cash.

i.e. There would be no barriers to someone currently on welfare from doing the odd bit of 'gig-work' that they wouldn't do. Even study or skills enhancement could become an option.

It would also deter overpopulation, as anyone on welfare would be detered from having more than e.g. 4 offspring.

It can be paid for by chasing down folk (usually the 1%, such as Bono) who use various 'tax-avoidance' (not evasion) measures. Yet these super-rich are happy to lecture us on filling Europe with the world's poor and unskilled.

I'd be happy with a decent social safety net where no one falls into miserable existence. Anecdotally I know of a lady who suffers from schizophrenia and is depressed by way of it's treatment that finds it hard to be around people and focus on work. What to do? Well in the country she lives she's given a place to live.

So OP how about the rich fat cat, double chinned cretins who sit on vacant properties while kids are on the streets. Are they not worse then a minority of people taking a relatively small amount of cash from the government?

storker

Antonella Bewildered Snowman wrote: »

The benefits is national productivity.

UBI means 'everyone' (including workers) get more cash.

i.e. There would be no barriers to someone currently on welfare from doing the odd bit of 'gig-work' that they wouldn't do. Even study or skills enhancement could become an option.

It would also deter overpopulation, as anyone on welfare would be detered from having more than e.g. 4 offspring.

It can be paid for by chasing down folk (usually the 1%, such as Bono) who use various 'tax-avoidance' (not evasion) measures. Yet these super-rich are happy to lecture us on filling Europe with the world's poor and unskilled.

Also, in its purest form (as I understand it) the savings to be made in funding the bureaucracy of social welfare would be considerable.

Yer Da sells Avon

Infini wrote: »

Cash shouldn't be provided unless they're doing something constructive like a course or part time employment.

I presume job-seeking would also count as something constructive? I recently spent three months job-seeking, having just finished a course, and I can tell you now that the whole process required access to cash and €198 a week only just about covered it.

animaal

storker wrote: »

Also, in its purest form (as I understand it) the savings to be made in funding the bureaucracy of social welfare would be considerable.

More probably, the change will itself cost money; more than the slimlining will save. The bureaucracy costs are the people running the current system. Unless we're going to fire a substantial number of them, I can't see cost savings materialising.

If the benefit is that there will be more economic activity overall - isn't that really just legalising nixers?

I think if we were starting a new country from scratch, and designing a system, of social welfare for it, then UBI might be something to consider. But if we can't achieve any savings because (a) we can't fire people to realise the savings, and (b) we can't allow anybody's benefit to be lower than it is today, then what's the point?

Jim Bob Scratcher

Antonella Bewildered Snowman wrote: »

The benefits is national productivity.

UBI means 'everyone' (including workers) get more cash.

i.e. There would be no barriers to someone currently on welfare from doing the odd bit of 'gig-work' that they wouldn't do. Even study or skills enhancement could become an option.

It would also deter overpopulation, as anyone on welfare would be detered from having more than e.g. 4 offspring.

It can be paid for by chasing down folk (usually the 1%, such as Bono) who use various 'tax-avoidance' (not evasion) measures. Yet these super-rich are happy to lecture us on filling Europe with the world's poor and unskilled.

That's one good way of stopping Anto and Jacinta from having a load of kids.

4068ac1elhodqr

animaal wrote: »

If the benefit is that there will be more economic activity overall - isn't that really just legalising nixers?

Allowing everyone to dip their toes into the economy on a more flexible basis may well boost national productivity +10/15%, that in itself is a good reason.

In the future electronic payment will become the norm (mPay or tapngo), so tax evasion is less of an issue. Folks will be able to send in 'SoleTrader' of 'Gigger' tax returns easier simply by email their 'gig bank account' statement.

'Nixers' insn't a bad word, as long as it isn't a conflict of interest, or breach of a previous NDA. Essentially it's 'paid work-experience' for the typical mary and joe on welfare they wouldn't normally risk. It's also meeting peak capacity temporary demand that would otherwise be unresourced.

A typical week in the gig economy for a couple of D2/E unskilled welfare folks might be:

0hrs: UBI payments x2 - Significant payment, but which helps with study/on-line course fees, new bike, new e-lawnmower, babysitter {creates gigwork for someone else}, hairdressing (or other) tools for their gig-trades (below).

4hrs: Deliveroo gigs
2hrs: Tune someone piano
2.5hrs: Cut someones lawn
4hrs: Weekend Bar work during peak weekend demand
3hrs: Uber taxi work during peak 7-10am demand period
2hrs: Hairdressing as freelancer during peak time
3hrsx2: Amazon morning deliveries during peak Sat am.
4hrs: Fixing monobrows/nails in the salon
4hrs: Call centre (a) to satisfy peak evening demand 6-10pm
4hrs: Call centre (b) to satisfy peak weekend time

storker

animaal wrote: »

If the benefit is that there will be more economic activity overall - isn't that really just legalising nixers?

No, because the work would be taxable.