Varadkar suggests prior income related welfare

Idbatterim

I highly agree with this, but as usual , nearly the first thing out of his mouth is the opposition will have an issue with it. People that voted for you dont care about the opposition, the reason so many became dissilusioned with varadkar, is his constant backing down.... there is no way tax cuts can be afforded or would be implemented by any irish party now over the next few years ...

Fg know that workers have had enough of the lies they need to do something to try and win back some support... this is possibly the cheapest option. The Mickey mouse income tax cuts they gave and dodnt give over the last few budgets, were an insult. Of course the housing scandal rumbles on and is getting worse...

https://www.thejournal.ie/unemployment-payment-pup-5344900-Feb2021/?utm_source=shortlink

McMurphy

Idbatterim wrote: »

I highly agree with this, but as usual , nearly the first thing out of his mouth is the opposition will have an issue with it. People that voted for you dont care about the opposition, the reason so many became dissilusioned with varadkar, is his constant backing down.... there is no way tax cuts can be afforded or would be implemented by any irish party now over the next few years ...

Fg know that workers have had enough of the lies they need to do something to try and win back some support... this is possibly the cheapest option. The Mickey mouse income tax cuts they gave and dodnt give over the last few budgets, were an insult. Of course the housing scandal rumbles on and is getting worse...

https://www.thejournal.ie/unemployment-payment-pup-5344900-Feb2021/?utm_source=shortlink

I'm actually with Leo on this one.

We should absolutely introduce a system that ensures, god forbid through no fault of your own, you find yourself out of work, that there's a safety net in place based on the more you put in, the more you get out.

Someone who has worked for 25 years paying hundreds of thousands of euro of tax and prsi should not be getting the same welfare benefits as Decko, who is 42 and has been on the scratcher since leaving school.

There, I agree with something Leo Varadkar suggested. Is it too early for a stiff spirit? :pac:

Idbatterim

If he introduces it, fair play, it's a very basic start. Resources now need to go, where they should be going, not on ever increasing black hole of " de vulneable "

grassylawn

Yeah you're basically ****ed if you are expected to cover dependents, insurance and mortgage repayments from the dole as it is now. Meanwhile long term unemployed people get forever homes worth over half a million.

drunkmonkey

I'm not with him on this but they do need a plan, the state made these people unemployed and denied them their right to earn a living.
Not everyone on pup is going to be happy with this as it's just a gateway to the standard unemployment rate.
I believe it will be challenged in the courts and the state held liable for their full earnings until they resume employment.
These people are due compensation from the state, that's my reading of their rights.

Invidious

Completely agreed with this. If you find yourself unemployed, your benefits should be a defined percentage of your previous year's earnings, not a flat rate of €203 or whatever it is.

Remember we pay PRSI, which stands for "Pay Related Social Insurance."

We seem to have forgotten about the "Pay Related" part.

McMurphy

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I'm not with him on this but they do need a plan, the state made these people unemployed and denied them their right to earn a living.
Not everyone on pup is going to be happy with this as it's just a gateway to the standard unemployment rate.
I believe it will be challenged in the courts and the state held liable for their full earnings until they resume employment.
These people are due compensation from the state, that's my reading of their rights.

It's not for PUP, they're considering overhauling the SW payment structure and linking it to previous prsi contribution when PUP is phased out.

However, he said when the payment is eventually wound down, it is an opportunity to reform the current social welfare system.

Good idea in theory, but I wouldn't hold my breath on Leo sticking to it either.

suicide_circus

It's an absolute no brainer.

The fact that someone who loses their job after working 10/20/30 years receives the same dole as someone who has never worked is morally reprehensible. It's a slap in the face. Any of the Scandi/Germanic social utopias provide dole rates based on contributions...then again these counties also charge for water by usage which is anathema to those in Ireland who like to trot out these counties' systems as something to emulate.

drunkmonkey

McMurphy wrote: »

It's not for PUP, they're considering overhauling the SW payment structure and linking it to previous prsi contribution when PUP is phased out.

Sorry yea I took it up wrong, I read it as a soft landing for the pup.
No issue with the idea it seems fair. We're a nation of begruggers, I'm sure people will take issue with it, pbp etc.

FileNotFound

Seems solid to be fair.

Don't believe anyone in society should be left desperate but most certainly the current system is broken and abused.

Look forward to the proposals, no doubt won't be perfect but better will do.

jam_mac_jam

While I agree with this in principle, the normal dole is not going to be reduced.

All this is going to do is increase it for some people just meaning a higher spend in social welfare.

If it was offset in reductions for those who have never worked it would be better but in practice this is just going to increase spending.

ThunbergsAreGo

It is a good idea. But as important is finding ways to make work pay for people at lower income, hopefully this is a step in the right direction

suicide_circus

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

While I agree with this in principle, the normal dole is not going to be reduced.

All this is going to do is increase it for some people just meaning a higher spend in social welfare.

If it was offset in reductions for those who have never worked it would be better but in practice this is just going to increase spending.

Personally i'd be ok with paying a bit more tax if this came in

Antares35

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

While I agree with this in principle, the normal dole is not going to be reduced.

All this is going to do is increase it for some people just meaning a higher spend in social welfare.

If it was offset in reductions for those who have never worked it would be better but in practice this is just going to increase spending.

And will we all just end up paying more PRSI? That was my initial reaction.

drunkmonkey

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

While I agree with this in principle, the normal dole is not going to be reduced.

All this is going to do is increase it for some people just meaning a higher spend in social welfare.

If it was offset in reductions for those who have never worked it would be better but in practice this is just going to increase spending.

I'd say the thinking is those on higher previous wages won't be unemployed long, it's just an extra helping hand while they get something else, their outgoings would be more than someone long term unemployed so they need a bit extra especially since they contributed more.

The J Stands for Jay

There needs to be a cap on the payments, and possibly some occupational exclusions. For example, you'd be sickened if the TD you voted out was getting ⅔ of their TD earnings from social welfare.

drunkmonkey

McGaggs wrote: »

There needs to be a cap on the payments, and possibly some occupational exclusions. For example, you'd be sickened if the TD you voted out was getting ⅔ of their TD earnings from social welfare.

It shouldn't be means tested, we could see cases where social welfare are valuing assets that they may be forced to sell or denied payment because of. Should be an exclusion period of 12mt.
I don't think we can exclude occupations, if there is a cap it should be relative to the person's outgoings.

jam_mac_jam

drunkmonkey wrote: »

It shouldn't be means tested, we could see cases where social welfare are valuing assets that they may be forced to sell or denied payment because of. Should be an exclusion period of 12mt.
I don't think we can exclude occupations, if there is a cap it should be relative to the person's outgoings.

So those who are sensible with money on their outgoings should be penalised?

Should be a time cap on it. Which should be implemented with the normal social welfare.

And if you have assets you can sell. I don't see the problem in selling them.

The J Stands for Jay

drunkmonkey wrote: »

It shouldn't be means tested, we could see cases where social welfare are valuing assets that they may be forced to sell or denied payment because of. Should be an exclusion period of 12mt.
I don't think we can exclude occupations, if there is a cap it should be relative to the person's outgoings.

The notion of a cap is to avoid a situation where a CEO is fired and the State pays them a weekly sum equivalent to €300k a year. I don't believe it should be means tested, basing it on contributions is enough. Basing it on outgoings doesn't seem fair to me. Should the State be funding CPC payments on a 7 series beemer?

Am I reading this wrong?

People who haven't contributed as much, would not get as much social supports as those who have?

How can this be anything other than fair?

Do it Leo.

drunkmonkey

McGaggs wrote: »

The notion of a cap is to avoid a situation where a CEO is fired and the State pays them a weekly sum equivalent to €300k a year. I don't believe it should be means tested, basing it on contributions is enough. Basing it on outgoings doesn't seem fair to me. Should the State be funding CPC payments on a 7 series beemer?

They'd only get the 300k if that had contributions to justify it. Car repayments shouldn't be taken into account, mortgage , school fees that kind of thing should be allowed.
How many CEO's are really going to sign on to social welfare for long on a sliding scale of payment.

Galwayguy35

Seems like a good idea, Varadkar comes up with something like this while Martin is stuttering his way through interviews and making very little sense.

Samsonsmasher

How about we just open up and get to work?

drunkmonkey

Hopefully he stumbles his way to the states for Paddy's Day, his position will be untenable when he returns.

The J Stands for Jay

drunkmonkey wrote: »

They'd only get the 300k if that had contributions to justify it. Car repayments shouldn't be taken into account, mortgage , school fees that kind of thing should be allowed.
How many CEO's are really going to sign on to social welfare for long on a sliding scale of payment.

It was just a ridiculous example to show what I meant. I don't think paying money to people in amounts that aren't strictly needed is a good idea, as it will potentially take tax/prsi money away from other areas.

jam_mac_jam

drunkmonkey wrote: »

They'd only get the 300k if that had contributions to justify it. Car repayments shouldn't be taken into account, mortgage , school fees that kind of thing should be allowed.
How many CEO's are really going to sign on to social welfare for long on a sliding scale of payment.

Not really. Why should a giant mortgage or private school fees be taken into account or paid for by the taxpayer.

There has to be a cap on the amount received. Social welfare is a safety net.

drunkmonkey

McGaggs wrote: »

It was just a ridiculous example to show what I meant. I don't think paying money to people in amounts that aren't strictly needed is a good idea, as it will potentially take tax/prsi money away from other areas.

They've already paid out this money though, it's not like they didn't contribute more than they'll get back for a few months.

stateofflux

Cant see anything happening any time soon because...

A)We have one of the most generous SW systems on the planet as it stands

B)the current cost of it is massive

C)any SW increases would have potential increased income tax implications

D)We are coming out of a pandemic and the economic recovery will take a while with wages set to stagnate even more (total bollox but it is what is is)

ShagNastii

I think he is just reiterating what so many believe the dole should be. It really should genuinely be seen as a helping hand for those who have lost their jobs and are actively pursuing employment somewhere new.

As a taxpayer I’d gladly row in behind somebody busting their balls and going one-nil down. Beats supplementing the people that don’t even want to play.

drunkmonkey

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Not really. Why should a giant mortgage or private school fees be taken into account or paid for by the taxpayer.

There has to be a cap on the amount received. Social welfare is a safety net.

As to not create unnecessary hardship. I agree it's a safety net it's just some people require a stronger one.

Outkast_IRE

The more you contribute as an individual or a family , the more support should be a available to you. Obviously with a reasonable threshold above which a maximum income doesnt entitle you to any more.



The unemployment support is a good first step but tonnes more work to be done on
1. Supporting families with both parents working - Childcare costs are outrageous.

2. In a country with a socialised healthcare system virtually every family feels the need to have private health insurance. This is bonkers, and we have accepted it far too easily. We rely on private healthcare far too much in the country considering what is spent in the health budget per annum.

3. When someone who has worked for many years is made unemployed they should immediately be given the choice of Looking for work or participate in a university level upskilling course (Not mickey mouse course)

Idbatterim

They are politucally done without a measure like this, at the very least. delighted. No chance core welfare gets cut to fund it, but the extra resources now focused on those who should be getting it, means therw wont be more increases on over the top rates for the wasters...

jester77

That's how to works here in Germany, you get roughly 66% of your previous income for 12 months. After that you have to use up savings, sell assets and downsize your house if it is deemed too big before you get any further assistance. Good system as 12 months is more than enough to get some sort of a job.

Pensions is also based on what you contributed throughout your whole working career and not a fixed amount that is given to everyone.

It's about time common sense kicked in around welfare.

Cannot believe the idea is only being tabled now.

doublejobbing 2

Do this, and cut the dole to bits of any relatively young person who is on it too long. I know a lad of 32 and I doubt he has worked two full years since the last crash. Smoking joints, campaigning for SF and other radical left movements and ranting and raving about communism on Facebook is quite literally all he does with his life. He should be cut from the 205 per week and given weekly food vouchers and quarterly clothing vouchers, see how quick he gets himself a job once he can't afford to buy weed.

He is the primary reason I think left wing politics has become a dangerous cult to young people who are too enveloped in it.

Another much needed money saver- do an audit of all foreign born people who live in any form of state supported housing. If they have an any way patchy employment history, deport, whether they and their children are citizens or not. The events in Blanch at new years really were a wake up call. We are too heavily in debt and too mired in an affordable housing crisis to be supporting these workshy ingrates.. The fact an unemployed gyosy from Romania can live in a semi detatched 3 or 4 bed house worth 350K for 30 quid a week while people from the area are forced out by high rent/ purchase costs is a national disgrace.

maccored

i dont understand how long term unemployed get the same money every year. not trying to slag off anyone on the dole, but I know a few people who have been unemployed for 30 years and they are medically fit - and arent shinners (FG supporters in fact, very much anti SF). Thats madness to not get money cut if you cant be arsed looking for work.

Red card is a a bit OTT for that post to be honest.

And the site wonders why they are losing posters.

Over moderation.

Jane98

Personally, I think the whole social welfare system needa to be overhauled, including:
1. Limiting the amount of social welfare any household can receive
2. Not paying 18 year olds social welfare unemployment benefits unless they sign up to further training
3. Making those on unemployment benefit do a certain number of hours volunteering in their community before they receive full benefits. Good for the community and good for the person.

DraftDodger

This site has become one big welfare and social housing bashing yawnfest.

Kivaro

DraftDodger wrote: »

This site has become one big welfare and social housing bashing yawnfest.

Says the DraftDodger ........

ThunbergsAreGo

Jane98 wrote: »

Personally, I think the whole social welfare system needa to be overhauled, including:
1. Limiting the amount of social welfare any household can receive
2. Not paying 18 year olds social welfare unemployment benefits unless they sign up to further training
3. Making those on unemployment benefit do a certain number of hours volunteering in their community before they receive full benefits. Good for the community and good for the person.

Agree, along the allocation of social housing.

Make work pay, not make workers pay

Tony EH

Getting a job should be easier to achieve in this country and I'd rather see Social Welfare departments pursue greater efforts in helping people get back into the workplace when they've lost their job, or had their job taken from them to put it more correctly. People who, more often than not, have been made unemployed through no fault of their own. The thing is, getting a job in Ireland is not an easy task and we routinely go through periods of joblessness as a country. So until that issue is tackled in a serious way, discussions about payments won't really mean anything.

Does Unemployment Benefit need to be looked at? Yes, indeed. Cos at the moment, 9 months UB is a joke. Down from 12, BTW, thanks to Fine Gael. However, there is a danger that increasing Benefit in terms of money paid out may only encourage people to stay out of work longer. 66% (like Germany) of a previously decent wage would mean living perfectly fine for a lot of people. Unlike Germany, though, our welfare depts. are just about harassing people and making them feel like shit. Whereas over there they engage and actually help people to find new jobs. A mate of mine moved there over 10 years ago, because he was out of work here and said the difference is night and day. Here, he was hounded unreasonably. There he was helped and got a decent job because of that help.

wexfordman2

McMurphy wrote: »

I'm actually with Leo on this one.

We should absolutely introduce a system that ensures, god forbid through no fault of your own, you find yourself out of work, that there's a safety net in place based on the more you put in, the more you get out.

Someone who has worked for 25 years paying hundreds of thousands of euro of tax and prsi should not be getting the same welfare benefits as Decko, who is 42 and has been on the scratcher since leaving school.

There, I agree with something Leo Varadkar suggested. Is it too early for a stiff spirit? :pac:

I was made redundant a few years back, after 20 years of service. I got 6months of dole @298 a week
for my trouble, a was paying close to 30k in tax a year when I got made redundant, really quite stomach churning to be given 6minths with of dole after than

joseywhales

Queue, everyone getting the sack one year before retirement. I definitely would.

Dempo1

Whilst it sounds on the surface a good idea, Leo has been anti social welfare for years and therefore its very hard to believe or trust anything he proposes when it comes to SW matters. Both he and Heather Humphries were gun ho to stop PUP earlier and got their way with reductions for at least 30% of recepients, indeed its infuriating hearing constant references to the €350 per week when the truth is the opposite for many on this scheme. Its also worth pointing out the scandalous Jobs Path has been extended into this year, 100"s of millions given to 2 private recruitment agency to bully and harass people on SW with less than 12% success rate in long term job creation. (Leo's little baby)

I'm all for SW reform that is equitable but really find it hard to believe a word that comes out of Leaky Leo's mouth. This latest leak is just a toe dipping exercise to see what the lay of the land is regarding ending PUP on the 31st March. There's little chance of it ending in March. There's more of a chance of Leo and Pearse Doherty becoming best buddies.

KyussB

Correct headline: Pandemic Unemployment Payment to soon be withdrawn, and people put on unemployment payments instead (which have been reformed a bit to soften the blow).

JeffKenna

I presume this is all just a sound bite from Leo, hopefully I'm wrong but that's really all he's good for.

James Brown

Yes I'm with me aul' segotia Leo on this.
I don't see why anyone would have an issue.

Why do I feel there's a catch?

lawred2

He'll be accused of discrimination

A nice hike in taxes on the way.

Geuze

Gordon Rapid Rhinoceros wrote: »

It's about time common sense kicked in around welfare.

Cannot believe the idea is only being tabled now.

Varadker has mentioned this many times before.

He has done something about it, but not much in my opinion.

JSB has been extended to the self-employed, I think.

I think Treatment Benefit was improved (probably just restored?).

Parental leave has been extended.

Parent's Leave introduced



I am a strong supporter of social insurance, and making SI more generous than social assistance.


My suggestions:

(1) Xmas bonus only for SI recipients - (can you believe long-term JSA people get it, short-term JSB people don't = madness)


(2) Bring JSB / IB / maternity/paternity up to the amount of the State Pension 248 pw

(3) Leave JSA rates alone, move over-time to abolish JSA and replace with Job Guarantee scheme

(4) change the gap between the contributory and non-con pensions. Getting 11 euro extra pw after 40 years work is insane, 248 vs 237 pw.
How to do this? Maybe tighten the means-test for the non-con, or freeze the non-con rate for several years, and only increase the contributory.

(5) everybody should pay some PRSI, that gives people a stake in the system, so start PRSI at 100 pw wages, instead of the current exemption to 352pw.