Christmas bonus for welfare recipients not only restored but increased

Melendez

Cabaal wrote: »

Some people seem to think all of them do jump into BMW's and range rovers
:rolleyes:

And can you not be happy for them and hope they enjoy them? Do you really want the less fortunate to eke out a meagre, miserable existence? Is it not good that they get a little happiness out of life.

ELM327

Melendez wrote: »

And can you not be happy for them and hope they enjoy them? Do you really want the less fortunate to eek out a meagre, miserable existence? Is it not good that they get a little happiness out of life.

When I and my partner can't afford the same things as the "less fortunate" that I am subsidising, then no I can't!

Hitman3000

ELM327 wrote:

Considering I lived near the second for some time, yeah I do

I said town , Dublin is a city. You do realise there are other places outside of the Pale.

Melendez

ELM327 wrote: »

When I and my partner can't afford the same things as the "less fortunate" that I am subsidising, then no I can't!

So you do not want anyone who, for whatever reason, cannot work, to enjoy life? Just exist.

Sardonicat

ELM327 wrote: »

Melendez wrote: »

And can you not be happy for them and hope they enjoy them? Do you really want the less fortunate to eek out a meagre, miserable existence? Is it not good that they get a little happiness out of life.

When I and my partner can't afford the same things as the "less fortunate" that I am subsidising, then no I can't!

You cant afford what your local TV can either. They've just given themselves a nice fat payrise. You subsidised that too. Are you not also apoplectic with rage about them?

ELM327

Hitman3000 wrote: »

I said town , Dublin is a city. You do realise there are other places outside of the Pale.

I note you have not named any other location. If it is not the D6/12 location I mentioned then please name the other location.

Melendez wrote: »

So you do not want anyone who, for whatever reason, cannot work, to enjoy life? Just exist.

I want them to subsist until they can support themselves financially.
Same as I did in 2009, as I did not qualify for any of the supplemental allowances (medical card, HAP/RA etc) as I was not a lifer.

ELM327

Sardonicat wrote: »

You cant afford what your local TV can either. They've just given themselves a nice fat payrise. You subsidised that too. Are you not also apoplectic with rage about them?

You're making an assumption there about my household wages. Regardless - At least they are contributing to society.
If you've a problem with your political representative you can vote them out.
How do I vote out the wasters that never work a day in their lives?

Gonad

ELM327 wrote: »

When I and my partner can't afford the same things as the "less fortunate" that I am subsidising, then no I can't!

Think about what you are saying ...

ELM327

Gonad wrote: »

Think about what you are saying ...

Care to elaborate....

Hitman3000

ELM327 wrote:

I note you have not named any other location. If it is not the D6/12 location I mentioned then please name the other location.

I didn't name the town but I do like how you and another poster posted bs based on assumptions. The town is in the Midlands. Quite far Dublin. As I side there is life outside of Dublin

ELM327

Hitman3000 wrote: »

I didn't name the town but I do like how you and another poster posted bs based on assumptions. The town is in the Midlands. Quite far Dublin. As I side there is life outside of Dublin

That's funny, because a search for "Cherryfield Avenue Midlands" reveals no results, whereas "Cherryfield Avenue" on its own reveals many listings in Ireland, all in south dublin.



https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-ab&biw=1227&bih=698&ei=Kie6W9mLFYLmgAacwLWgBQ&q=cherryfield+avenue+midlands&oq=cherryfield+avenue+midlands&gs_l=psy-ab.3...1402.3650.0.3783.9.9.0.0.0.0.120.760.7j1.8.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..1.7.673...0j38j0i22i30k1j33i160k1j33i21k1.0.3qqktVsvrt8

Hitman3000

ELM327 wrote:

That's funny, because a search for "Cherryfield Avenue Midlands" reveals no results, whereas "Cherryfield Avenue" on its own reveals many listings in Ireland, all in south dublin.

Funny I put the name in and it showed me Cherryfield ave. in Google maps right near the old train station. You could of course have asked the name of the town instead of making stupid assumptions, but I suppose there's no fun in that.

ELM327

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Funny I put the name in and it showed me Cherryfield ave. in Google maps right near the old train station. You could of course have asked the name of the town instead of making stupid assumptions, but I suppose there's no fun in that.

Funny because I have just done that and there are no non-dublin results for "Cherryfield ave" either.


Making up fake towns to illustrate whatever rubbish you are spouting is a new low. Even for you.

Hitman3000

ELM327 wrote:

Making up fake towns to illustrate whatever rubbish you are spouting is a new low. Even for you.

Fake towns? I said a town in the Midlands. You are the one who assumed Midlands was a town name. Maybe read a post properly before you reply.

ELM327

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Fake towns? I said a town in the Midlands. You are the one who assumed Midlands was a town name. Maybe read a post properly before you reply.

I never assumed it was a town name.
Jeez, okay seems I must really word things carefully for you.


I looked for the town name specified. And location not mentioned.
All results in Dublin.
Then I looked for town name specified, and location as midlands. No result.


Capiche?

Bubbaclaus

Can anyone explain why you must be long term unemployed to get the bonus? Short term unemployed getting dick all just because they used to actually work recently.

Hitman3000

ELM327 wrote:

I looked for the town name specified. And location not mentioned. All results in Dublin. Then I looked for town name specified, and location as midlands. No result.

I specified no town name in any of my posts. So genuinely curious to know what town name you used .

ELM327

ELM327 wrote: »

Funny because I have just done that and there are no non-dublin results for "Cherryfield ave" either.

.

I found another one. In the midlands!

weldoninhio

Mike Foxtrot wrote: »

If your income was that high, you should have saving and not be scrounging off the SW.

However someone living on SW for a year which is well below the living wage, would find it very hard to save money after paying all there bills and possibly a mortgage or Car (which they would need if they have any hope of looking for work).

I would understand if you said you would equal need it, but to suggest you would need it more?? Seems OTT

I don’t have a car. Never affected me getting jobs.

Melendez

ELM327 wrote: »

I note you have not named any other location. If it is not the D6/12 location I mentioned then please name the other location.




I want them to subsist until they can support themselves financially.
Same as I did in 2009, as I did not qualify for any of the supplemental allowances (medical card, HAP/RA etc) as I was not a lifer.

But some people are lifers. Some by no choice of their own, some by choices they made a long time ago that cannot now be revisited. They should have no entitlement to enjoy life?

ELM327

Melendez wrote: »

But some people are lifers. Some by no choice of their own, some by choices they made a long time ago that cannot now be revisited. They should have no entitlement to enjoy life?

Not on my dime

ELM327

Hitman3000 wrote: »

I specified no town name in any of my posts. So genuinely curious to know what town name you used .

The two council estates were what I searched for.
"I looked for the town name specified. And location not mentioned."


You're just being ridiculous now. Strawmanning to the extreme

Melendez

ELM327 wrote: »

Not on my dime

I strongly suspect "your dime" barely stretches far enough to cover your own footprint.

weldoninhio

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Long term doalers, maybe. If you’re unfortunate enough to lose your job in the morning, you get very few of the above.
Regarding long term doalers, many are unemployable for various reasons. Health issues, mental or otherwise that may make it difficult for them to get disability. Personality disorders, etc. not all long term doalers are workshy. Should they all be left to fend for themselves?
It’s to our credit, as a nation that we care for all.
Of course there are some that abuse the system. In reality they are the poorer for it. Despite how tough it can be, earning your own living is rewarding.

Yes they should be left fend for themselves.

ELM327

Melendez wrote: »

I strongly suspect "your dime" barely stretches far enough to cover your own footprint.

My effective tax rate is over 30%, I earn enough that half way through the year I'm already well into the 50% tax band. I would suggest that I paid more tax last year than you have in your working (assuming you're not a leech) life.


Your suspicions are strongly misplaced and if you look through my posting history here about salaries, investments, career etc you will garner some idea as to why.


Not that any of the above is relevant, but since your assertion is incorrect I will not let it go unchallenged.

Hitman3000

ELM327 wrote:

You're just being ridiculous now. Strawmanning to the extreme

Not a strawman at all. A poster made a ridiculous comment about most council estates condition. Although he used 'welfare' instead of council. I countered it by mentioning town estates from my home town. You have not once asked the name of the town I referred to. Instead you carried on with ridiculous assumptions aswell.

Melendez

ELM327 wrote: »

My effective tax rate is over 30%, I earn enough that half way through the year I'm already well into the 50% tax band. I would suggest that I paid more tax last year than you have in your working (assuming you're not a leech) life.


Your suspicions are strongly misplaced and if you look through my posting history here about salaries, investments, career etc you will garner some idea as to why.


Not that any of the above is relevant, but since your assertion is incorrect I will not let it go unchallenged.

If your effective tax rate is 30%, you are barely covering your own footprint.

ELM327

odetooi wrote: »

After its pissed away in paddy power and Saturday night out with the lads .

As I have ASD I don't feel comfortable in such environments.
Will post the below again for reference.

ELM327 wrote: »

My effective tax rate is over 30%, I earn enough that half way through the year I'm already well into the 50% tax band. I would suggest that I paid more tax last year than you have in your working (assuming you're not a leech) life.


Your suspicions are strongly misplaced and if you look through my posting history here about salaries, investments, career etc you will garner some idea as to why.


Not that any of the above is relevant, but since your assertion is incorrect I will not let it go unchallenged.

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Not a strawman at all. A poster made a ridiculous comment about most council estates condition. Although he used 'welfare' instead of council. I countered it by mentioning town estates from my home town. You have not once asked the name of the town I referred to. Instead you carried on with ridiculous assumptions aswell.

Care to volunteer the name, instead of me and that other poster making (apparently) incorrect assumptions.

ELM327

Melendez wrote: »

If your effective tax rate is 30%, you are barely covering your own footprint.

Over. I think it is 35-37 currently.
Not to mention the part you missed

ELM327 wrote: »

My effective tax rate is over 30%, I earn enough that half way through the year I'm already well into the 50% tax band. I would suggest that I paid more tax last year than you have in your working (assuming you're not a leech) life.


Your suspicions are strongly misplaced and if you look through my posting history here about salaries, investments, career etc you will garner some idea as to why.


Not that any of the above is relevant, but since your assertion is incorrect I will not let it go unchallenged.

And what is your earning status, since you're clearly bringing this so far off topic and making it a wages issue?

Cabaal

The hatred in some people in relation to the social welfare is unreal,

I've worked all but about 2 months of my adult life, I was unemployed for a 2 month period during the recession.
However my wife also worked pretty much all her adult life but was unemployed for longer then me when she was made redundant more then once during the recession and she had trouble getting a decent job, we worked hard to get by and the likes of the Christmas bonus made a bloody big difference and allowed us to just about scrap by what is a very expensive time of year.

I wouldn't begrudge people the Christmas bonus, it can be the difference between some people getting Santa presents for kids or just paying off some higher bills.
Yes, there are people that work the system but they are not in a majority and if you have an issue with them then come up with a workable scheme to focus on them.

But to begrudge the Christmas bonus as a whole makes you a sorry excuse for a human being.