No social welfare bonus this year

weldoninhio

Smertrius wrote: »

social welfare benefits covers those people too that are in wheelchairs and have dislocated limbs you asking those people to get jobs too

Stephen Hawking was in a wheelchair, i don't think he was on benefits.

weldoninhio

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Those people do not sound as if they would be attractive for employers to take on. Better to get workers from abroad, who are more suitable. What sort of work do you think bone idle selfish lazy people would be good at?

Forced labour perhaps, linked to the amount they get paid?

Loves_lorries

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Depends on the pensioner surely, it's not like all pensioners are created equally!

Civil servant gold plated pensioner is probably doing just fine.

State OAP probably not so much.

I'm specifically talking about the state pension and I'm saying this is generous enough as is.

The people who tell us pensioners are struggling either want votes or have a job working for some quango which represents the elderly and there are several.

Grayson

Loves_lorries wrote: »

I'm specifically talking about the state pension and I'm saying this is generous enough as is.

The people who tell us pensioners are struggling either want votes or have a job working for some quango which represents the elderly and there are several.

I'm not running for election and don't work for a quango. I know that it's tough living on the pension. My mum lives on it and it's not easy. If it's supplemented with a private pension it's a lot better but by itself it's not great.

Hitman3000

Loves_lorries wrote:

I'm specifically talking about the state pension and I'm saying this is generous enough as is.

Over 700, 000 pensioners. It is fact that they vote in large numbers. Politicians and aspiring Politicians ignore them at their peril.

Grayson

weldoninhio wrote: »

Stephen Hawking was in a wheelchair, i don't think he was on benefits.

Firstly not everyone is a cambridge educated genius.
Secondly, he wasn't disabled when he went to college.

Thirdly, in the UK today it's unlikely that someone who is disabled the way he is would actually be able to go to college. And to do so they would need massive amounts of money spent on them. they would need specialised living conditions, specialised equipment such as chairs etc.. And they would need a disability allowance. The UK government has made it harder and harder to get these.

I worked as a carer for the Irish wheelchair association. I cared for people who had MS, muscular dystrophy and people in accidents. If there's a reason to be in a wheelchair, I probably looked after someone who had it. This would include the 34 year old poet who was paralysed after getting meningitis as a kid and talked by tapping out individual letters on a keyboard. Or the 19 year old who suffered uncontrollable spasms when he was hit by a drunk driver as a kid. The fact is that these people couldn't work. They'd never be able to hold down a job. They just weren't physically capable. Although there will be some exceptions, holding up stephen hawking as an example of an average disabled person is really sick.

Rubberchikken

There have to be many who dont go scrounging off of vincent de paul who are grateful for this bonus to buy toys for kids, provide christmas dinner, even some treats.
I definitely dont begrudge it. And i wouldnt even qualify to carry a bleeding-hearts bag.

Smertrius

https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/exclusive-christmas-bonus-not-paid-13301005





Christmas bonus will not be paid to pensioners and social welfare recipients this year

this spirit of xmas is the greatest unhappiness to others — that isn't the true meaning of Christmas

pensioners DEFINES AS especially the retirement pension. old-age pensioner, OAP, senior citizen WILL NOT XMAS BONUS THIS TOO

social welfare WILL NOT XMAS BONUS THIS YEAR , I HOPE YOU LOT ARE HAPPY THIS WHEN YOUR DAD GETS retirement WELFARE BUT NO XMAS BONUS

Igotadose

Sleeper12 wrote: »

CinemaGuy45 wrote:

The bone idol selfish lazy and this is the single largest group on welfare apart from the OAPs. Anybody who IS ABLE to get a job should do so and you will find groups like those on the Autism Spectrum most do work. No issue with people who can not work I take an issue with people who will not work big difference.

I'm sorry but 80 percent of autistic adults are unemployed. This is a worldwide statistic and not just Ireland. It's not that they don't want to work. There just isn't enough suitable jobs for them. The state pumps money into autistic kids and even their parents but once they hit 18 they get no help so most can't get a job

Have you a linkti that original source? Your link to the nih study quoting the German work said 65% employed. Who did the worldwide study?

Faith+1

^^^That is old news. She said she is paying it.

Loves_lorries

Grayson wrote: »

I'm not running for election and don't work for a quango. I know that it's tough living on the pension. My mum lives on it and it's not easy. If it's supplemented with a private pension it's a lot better but by itself it's not great.

My mum lives exclusively on it too, she thinks it's more than enough.

weldoninhio

Grayson wrote: »

Firstly not everyone is a cambridge educated genius.
Secondly, he wasn't disabled when he went to college.

Thirdly, in the UK today it's unlikely that someone who is disabled the way he is would actually be able to go to college. And to do so they would need massive amounts of money spent on them. they would need specialised living conditions, specialised equipment such as chairs etc.. And they would need a disability allowance. The UK government has made it harder and harder to get these.

I worked as a carer for the Irish wheelchair association. I cared for people who had MS, muscular dystrophy and people in accidents. If there's a reason to be in a wheelchair, I probably looked after someone who had it. This would include the 34 year old poet who was paralysed after getting meningitis as a kid and talked by tapping out individual letters on a keyboard. Or the 19 year old who suffered uncontrollable spasms when he was hit by a drunk driver as a kid. The fact is that these people couldn't work. They'd never be able to hold down a job. They just weren't physically capable. Although there will be some exceptions, holding up stephen hawking as an example of an average disabled person is really sick.

You'll be able to quote where I held him up as an example of an average disabled person I presume??

McTigs

For people getting their knickers in a twist about their taxes going to long term unemployed there is a good website that puts things in perspective..... did for me anyway.

https://whereyourmoneygoes.gov.ie/en/

Of €72.5b total government spend of which:
€20b on social protection of which:
3.37b on Working age income supports .ie dole of which
One third is unemployed >1year so 1.12b

1.12 over 72.5 =1.5%

So of the tax you pay 1.5c in every euro goes to the people who refuse to work and the other 98.5c going to everything else. My advice is get over it, worse things will happen in your life than 1.5% of your taxes going to layabouts.

I visit the USA often enough to know I would sooner go along with it and not be stepping over them in the street.

Loves_lorries

Grayson wrote: »

Firstly not everyone is a cambridge educated genius.
Secondly, he wasn't disabled when he went to college.

Thirdly, in the UK today it's unlikely that someone who is disabled the way he is would actually be able to go to college. And to do so they would need massive amounts of money spent on them. they would need specialised living conditions, specialised equipment such as chairs etc.. And they would need a disability allowance. The UK government has made it harder and harder to get these.

I worked as a carer for the Irish wheelchair association. I cared for people who had MS, muscular dystrophy and people in accidents. If there's a reason to be in a wheelchair, I probably looked after someone who had it. This would include the 34 year old poet who was paralysed after getting meningitis as a kid and talked by tapping out individual letters on a keyboard. Or the 19 year old who suffered uncontrollable spasms when he was hit by a drunk driver as a kid. The fact is that these people couldn't work. They'd never be able to hold down a job. They just weren't physically capable. Although there will be some exceptions, holding up stephen hawking as an example of an average disabled person is really sick.

Disabled people are often ignored as they aren't a potent enough voting bloc.

Cina

McTigs wrote: »

For people getting their knickers in a twist about their taxes going to long term unemployed there is a good website that puts things in perspective..... did for me anyway.

https://whereyourmoneygoes.gov.ie/en/

Of €72.5b total government spend of which:
€20b on social protection of which:
3.37b on Working age income supports .ie dole of which
One third is unemployed >1year so 1.12b

1.12 over 72.5 =1.5%

So of the tax you pay 1.5c in every euro goes to the people who refuse to work and the other 98.5c going to everything else. My advice is get over it, worse things will happen in your life than 1.5% of your taxes going to layabouts.

I visit the USA often enough to know I would sooner go along with it and not be stepping over them in the street.

Not quite. That doesn't take into account all the other benefits they get. Free healthcare, one parent family allowance, fuel allowance, heavily subsidized rent etc. back to school etc.

I do get the point you're making however but to me it doesn't mean anything, it's the principle of our country making it so easy for these people to avoid working their whole lives that's the problem.

Smertrius

people that are paid with retirement money will not xmas bonus too , means they cannot afford xmas presents for you lot too

McTigs

Cina wrote: »

Not quite. That doesn't take into account all the other benefits they get. Free healthcare, one parent family allowance, fuel allowance, heavily subsidized rent etc. back to school etc.

I do get the point you're making however but to me it doesn't mean anything, it's the principle of our country making it so easy for these people to avoid working their whole lives that's the problem.

That doesn't sit well with me either but the problem as I see it if these benefits were pulled back:
(a) Children will suffer punishment on account of their parents poor choices which would not be fair
(b) Society as a whole would suffer as these people would be more than likely on the street
(c) Genuine cases would suffer on account of the abusers

Throw on an extra 1% for those other benefits and I'm still ok with it. As other posters mentioned, all the money goes back into circulation straight away anyway

Babooshka

McTigs wrote: »

That doesn't sit well with me either but the problem as I see it if these benefits were pulled back:
(a) Children will suffer punishment on account of their parents poor choices which would not be fair
(b) Society as a whole would suffer as these people would be more than likely on the street
(c) Genuine cases would suffer on account of the abusers

Throw on an extra 1% for those other benefits and I'm still ok with it. As other posters mentioned, all the money goes back into circulation straight away anyway

I think bonuses should be on a case by case basis, people living on the dole for years without ever working (for reasons not to do with ill health etc) should be offered least, and people using it as a help in between finding work should be helped out most. People incapable of working should also be helped as much as possible. However our system has failed in any way shape of form in being purely a stop gap for people seeking work and it is entirely the fault of those who designed it, not the scroungers who exist and who use it, because well, why not, if it's that easy. (I work full time and have been on the dole in the past but over 20 years ago by the way) But to do this, civil servants would have to work pretty hard instead of sitting on their holes signing papers, they would need to do face to face interviews with thousands of people, and hey, it's just too hard.

Hotblack Desiato

It's not too hard, it's that politicians would be giving the DEASP hell if they stopped being such a soft touch.

Grayson

McTigs wrote: »

That doesn't sit well with me either but the problem as I see it if these benefits were pulled back:
(a) Children will suffer punishment on account of their parents poor choices which would not be fair
(b) Society as a whole would suffer as these people would be more than likely on the street
(c) Genuine cases would suffer on account of the abusers

Throw on an extra 1% for those other benefits and I'm still ok with it. As other posters mentioned, all the money goes back into circulation straight away anyway

In the UK they cut back so much on benefits that regular people suffered. There's been cases of people developing clinical depression and even committing suicide.

people want to make it harder for the long term layabouts. But they are a minority and what really happens is that life is made harder for people who need it. And even with the layabouts, what can we do? Not give them money and make them and their families homeless?

decky1

Anastasia_ wrote: »

I work and don't get a Christmas bonus.. What entitles them to one?

find another job, if your boss thought anything of you he'd give you something at Christmas as least.

decky1

Give the pensioners a Double bonus,their not over paid either during the year.

Claw Hammer

McTigs wrote: »

That doesn't sit well with me either but the problem as I see it if these benefits were pulled back:
(a) Children will suffer punishment on account of their parents poor choices which would not be fair
(b) Society as a whole would suffer as these people would be more than likely on the street
(c) Genuine cases would suffer on account of the abusers

Throw on an extra 1% for those other benefits and I'm still ok with it. As other posters mentioned, all the money goes back into circulation straight away anyway

They can cut the dole and give free school breakfast, dinners and uniforms. That woud mean the dole money wouldn't be spent on drink instead of the children.

super_furry

Claw Hammer wrote: »

They can cut the dole and give free school breakfast, dinners and uniforms. That woud mean the dole money wouldn't be spent on drink instead of the children.

See it's bull**** like this that means there's never going to be a proper discussion on this kind of stuff here. You're painting it as if people on social welfare are sending their hungry children to school in sack-cloth so they can sit around and get drunk all day.

Cina

super_furry wrote: »

See it's bull**** like this that means there's never going to be a proper discussion on this kind of stuff here. You're painting it as if people on social welfare are sending their hungry children to school in sack-cloth so they can sit around and get drunk all day.

There are people who do that, though. i know a teacher in Clondalkin who says the staff have to give some of the children uniforms and books because their junkie parents won't buy them for them, and even sometimes shower them because they stink so bad. It's not an outrageous claim to say that someone on the dole long term who hasn't worked before is potentially a lazy, irresponsible person who would neglect their children.

EDIT: to clarify, I'm talking about minorities here, long-term social welfare abusers, and even then only a minority of them, before someone comes along and accuses me of branding all social welfare recipients with the same brush.

Claw Hammer

super_furry wrote: »

See it's bull**** like this that means there's never going to be a proper discussion on this kind of stuff here. You're painting it as if people on social welfare are sending their hungry children to school in sack-cloth so they can sit around and get drunk all day.

Where would they get sack cloth? They don't get drunk. They are too used to drink to get drunk.

Hotblack Desiato

Children in that position of neglect should be taken into care.

CaSCaDe711

Obviously excluding the elderly and genuine folk who are unable to work, it's common knowledge there are way too many absolute wasters sponging off the state, and a lot are happy to do so, has been like that for as long as I can remember, yet our Government don't seem to ever want to tackle the problem properly, and finally tighten up the system to prevent abuse.

Plenty of work to do out there, how about making some of them work for their payments? Help clean up the country, many cities are filthy, Dublin City is disgusting in some areas. Give them a routine, get something productive out of them, who knows, it might even encourage some to try get work proper, and start paying taxes.

dxhound2005

CaSCaDe711 wrote: »

Obviously excluding the elderly and genuine folk who are unable to work, it's common knowledge there are way too many absolute wasters sponging off the state, and a lot are happy to do so, has been like that for as long as I can remember, yet our Government don't seem to ever want to tackle the problem properly, and finally tighten up the system to prevent abuse.

Plenty of work to do out there, how about making some of them work for their payments? Help clean up the country, many cities are filthy, Dublin City is disgusting in some areas. Give them a routine, get something productive out of them, who knows, it might even encourage some to try get work proper, and start paying taxes.

There are numerous make work schemes and back to education schemes already. Job Bridge was a new one which was tried for a while, but met with much public resistance for some reason. It only ever had a maximum of 8,500, which was never achieved.

It is pointless asking employers to take on people who are more suited to a life as a permanent student, or just does not want to participate in the workforce.

Renegade Mechanic

Honestly we should just eat old people.