Should date be set to cut off long-term dole wasters ?"

04-09-2017 11:07PM

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

That argument is circular as can be seen. The fact is welfare recipients do pay in, and pay a higher proportion of their disposable income than a lot of higher tax earners, as most of their small income is disposable, and is spent within the country as soon as they receive it.

Proportion shmoportion. Who asked anyone about proportion. Also skipping over earned vs unearned income or income from social welfare spend vs salaries, all important distinctions.

I'm not actually a bloody dole basher ffs, but the arguments used to try to defend any and all level of reliance on it over any length of time are spurious, lazy and nonsensical a lot of the time.

Would your time not be better spent, if you were of a mind to advance a personal philosophy of general strengthened social safety net, in arguing for it to be targeted, monitored, and subject to conditions that supported the aims of the society paying for it?

Or are you just idk for nonworkers Vs workers or think tax is for mugs or think the govt should be hit for every cent you can or think that dolebashing threads, and granted this is a ridiculous one, need you in here fighting an indefensible but right on rearguard action?

04-09-2017 11:12PM

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

You sure about that? It doesn't strike me that someone happily working and making a living would willingly castigate welfare recipients. Instead it would seem to be the sport of people deeply unhappy with their own lives and resentful of others seemingly getting something for nothing, all other things being equal.

You sure about that yourself? It doesn't strike me that anyone who is happy to work, earn their way and pay towards the general good should be expected to be held to any particular opinion or lack of it if their feeling is that theres a system in place rewarding opt-outs who by choice contribute little and are entitled to much.

Again, there's a level of social protection that is necessary, and imo in many areas it's actually too low a bar in the country at the moment. But people that are unwilling to contribute when fully able to do so should not enjoy long term benefits.

Arcade_Tryer · 04-09-2017 11:15PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Proportion shmoportion. Who asked anyone about proportion. Also skipping over earned vs unearned income or income from social welfare spend vs salaries, all important distinctions.

Proportion of welfare spent is a crucial point considering people's problem with the amount spent of welfare; welfare money is largely circulated back into the economy. If the proportion returned to the economy doesn't concern you, then perhaps your problem is with the welfare recipients themselves, the people? A lot of workers simply despise the idea of people receiving welfare for doing nothing to earn it. But where does that position get society? It doesn't ask any questions, and sure as hell doesn't provide any answers; it's merely deflecting one's own bitterness at life towards those on welfare.

Hammer89 · 04-09-2017 11:16PM

corner of hells wrote: »

This is not your slot.. it's reserved for discussion around wearing poppies for remembrance stuff.

That's what your one said to Wayne Rooney in the car I believe.

Taylor365 · 04-09-2017 11:22PM

Ha Why do you think it was increased?!

Most of it goes to excise tax :pac:

Rubberchikken · 04-09-2017 11:22PM

I work and hope my taxes are doing something useful including helping those not as fortunate.
I don't begrudge anyone anything. Those that have should contribute for those who haven't. There'll always be wasters on social welfare. Plenty of them in the working world too.

Your Face · 04-09-2017 11:25PM

Underpants gnome logic.

1.Cut off dole
2.?
3.Utopia

Arcade_Tryer · 04-09-2017 11:27PM

Deleted User wrote: »

You sure about that yourself? It doesn't strike me that anyone who is happy to work, earn their way and pay towards the general good should be expected to be held to any particular opinion or lack of it if their feeling is that theres a system in place rewarding opt-outs who by choice contribute little and are entitled to much.

It's a cliché, but it's also true; if life on welfare really was that good, you would be doing the same. Many will dispute that cliché, claiming they have too much self respect, and would much rather contribute to society, and so on and so forth. Yes, that's true, but that is also down to the culture within which you were raised and exist within. It also invariably always pays more for most people to work than receive welfare. So why then would people target the monetary aspect of welfare, rather than attempt to change the culture of some of the welfare dependent groups in society? Cutting their allowance is only going to cause them pain, and consequently society pain. At least there is the possibility of long term benefits if public investment is implemented instead. For example, the country is awash with money right now, and growing richer by the second, yet here is a thread about cutting the dole, rather than long term investment in public services which might prevent systemic welfare problems in the near and distant future. Short sightedness, blinded by bitterness and unhappiness.

Harry Palmr · 04-09-2017 11:31PM

People who are signing on for 6 months should be guided with some force towards education/training of some form based on their aptitude/education/work history. No one should be allowed to "just sit on their arse" and to be fair the DSP seems to be making efforts in this area though I suspect they are doing as little as possible in terms of "core mission"

corner of hells · 04-09-2017 11:33PM

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I don't think you can cut people off welfare completely. However, after a number of years on the dole people should be doing community work or something to contribute back to society.

Maybe after five years, make them join the army and indulge in peacekeeping efforts in Iraq?

Five years and I get to join d'army ?
Ok by me though in five years I'll be 52 .

rustynutz · 04-09-2017 11:39PM

More of an effort should be made to get long term dole recipients back to work, I cant understand anybody not being able to find a job if actively looking for five years, fair enough it might be minimum wage, but there are jobs out there.

But for a lot of people it is easier to sit on their hole and collect the dole than actually work for a living, anyone who thinks the majority of people on the dole cant find work, is deluded. If you have any more than two kids in this country, and are only eligible for a minimum wage job, then you are better off on the dole, rent allowance, medical card, back to School allowance etc. That is a fact, and until that changes, people will carry on abusing the system

I also think if you have any more than two kids you shouldn't get any extra payment from the third kid on wards. I live in rural Ireland and in our area the only people with more than 3 kids are travellers and long term welfare families, if nothing else it wont be sustainable into the future as kids who never see a parent work are unlikely to work themselves, so in a couple of generations the number of dole scroungers and travellers will start to outnumber the taxpayers, then the real fun will start.

Grayson · 04-09-2017 11:46PM

Harry Palmr wrote: »

People who are signing on for 6 months should be guided with some force towards education/training of some form based on their aptitude/education/work history. No one should be allowed to "just sit on their arse" and to be fair the DSP seems to be making efforts in this area though I suspect they are doing as little as possible in terms of "core mission"

They are. And if they don't turn up their dole is cut off.

Now, if you don't mind I'm off to burn my Irish passport and quit my job so I can become a dole scrounging refugee. I hear you get 10 prams on the first day. Ridiculous I hear everyone say! Well of course it is. You only get 10 if you have no kids. You have to have a sprog to qualify for the full 20.

WoollyRedHat · 04-09-2017 11:47PM

I think that it should be 6 months. 5 years is far too charitable. They should then be harvested for their organs.

Grayson · 04-09-2017 11:48PM

rustynutz wrote: »

I also think if you have any more than two kids you shouldn't get any extra payment from the third kid on wards. I live in rural Ireland and in our area the only people with more than 3 kids are travellers and long term welfare families Catholics who won't use a jonny, if nothing else it wont be sustainable into the future as kids who never see a parent work are unlikely to work themselves, so in a couple of generations the number of dole scroungers and travellers will start to outnumber the taxpayers, then the real fun will start.

I fixed your post for you.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k · 04-09-2017 11:49PM

There was a big hullabaloo a few years ago when the recession hit and Xmas bonuses were stopped. Then I think did they give 25% back the first year it was reintroduced (which only long term unemployed are entitled to, not those who've just lost their job, baffling) and I remember someone telling me "next year we'll be getting the whole lot". That just summed that attitude up for me, he had 52 weeks to try and change his circumstances, but he knew that he wasn't going to be working or off social welfare by next year and was happy enough with that.

That's the attitude that needs fixing

Kermit.de.frog · 04-09-2017 11:59PM

I remember at the last European Championships when we qualified fans that were present for the tournament were being identified as being on the dole.

Did prompt a few questions at the time.

jca · 05-09-2017 12:01AM

WoollyRedHat wrote: »

I think that it should be 6 months. 5 years is far too charitable. They should then be harvested for their organs.

Nah that wouldn't work the organs would be useless shur everyone on the dole is a can drinking druggie don't ya know.

RayM · 05-09-2017 12:03AM

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Instead it would seem to be the sport of people deeply unhappy with their own lives and resentful of others seemingly getting something for nothing, all other things being equal.

Pretty much. They don't want others to get something for nothing, but they sure as hell wouldn't want to work with people whom they attempt to dehumanise as "wasters" either. There is a certain cohort of dreadful people out there (and indeed on here) who always need someone to look down upon.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k · 05-09-2017 12:57AM

RayM wrote: »

Pretty much. They don't want others to get something for nothing, but they sure as hell wouldn't want to work with people whom they attempt to dehumanise as "wasters" either. There is a certain cohort of dreadful people out there (and indeed on here) who always need someone to look down upon.

I've done my fair share of hiring and firing and to be honest I'd be thrilled getting a cv from someone who wanted to work and not be on the dole. It wouldn't deter me in the slightest from giving them a chance. People coming in half arsed, asking for x amount of days on the books and available for extra off the books, but refusing a full time position would get my back up but never someone genuinely trying to help themselves.

Lord Nikon · 05-09-2017 12:58AM

Cut the dole is an easy solution, perhaps giving everyone €196 regardless of whether they work or not would be better. Wonder how many people on the dole would complain about it? Bit more of an incentive for those not working to go get a job.

RayM · 05-09-2017 01:29AM

LexieOnRale wrote: »

I've done my fair share of hiring and firing and to be honest I'd be thrilled getting a cv from someone who wanted to work and not be on the dole. It wouldn't deter me in the slightest from giving them a chance. People coming in half arsed, asking for x amount of days on the books and available for extra off the books, but refusing a full time position would get my back up but never someone genuinely trying to help themselves.

What if the applicant was (in the words of the OP) a "long-term dole waster"? All other things being equal, would the fact that their CV had a large dole-shaped gap not be a cause for concern?

Stonedpilot · 05-09-2017 02:30AM

All the self loathing unemployed on this bashing the dole (oh the irony!.)

Said it before and say it again.I believe People with good jobs and busy lifes dont bother with this forum. They haven't time and cant be bothered endulging in the incessant ego masturbation and petty squabbles that are utterly meaningless that makes up this site.

Count Marcula · 05-09-2017 02:31AM

Dole and airbnb is the way to go

Spider Web · 05-09-2017 05:37AM

Stonedpilot wrote: »

All the self loathing unemployed on this bashing the dole (oh the irony!.)

Because you've proof of course that the people in question are unemployed (however you know they're likely not).

Said it before and say it again.I believe People with good jobs and busy lifes dont bother with this forum. They haven't time and cant be bothered endulging in the incessant ego masturbation and petty squabbles that are utterly meaningless that makes up this site.

What was that about irony?

alberto67 · 05-09-2017 06:04AM

Yes, a date should be set and it should be on Paddy's day, to cheer them up.

05-09-2017 06:16AM

There are generally 3 types of person on the dole.

1. The genuine case making an effort to get work, generally has kids, mortgage, etc. and needs a job faster than you can imagine.

2. The genuine case who accepts it as a lifestyle as they can't be assed making an effort anymore because they've been worn down by the system and job/interview refusals, but will be on courses, schemes etc to try and get by.

3. The scumbag variety who views it as a lifestyle and the type you don't want to associate with.

If you cut off the dole, you incentivise all of the above to get an income. Unfortunately, I would imagine that the amount of hardship caused on people in brackets 1 and 2 above, would be overshadowed by the amount of burglaries, theft, pick-pocketing, etc. that bracket 3 would turn to, to increase their income.

Dublin, for example, would quickly become an extremely unsafe place, as people would know that only those with money would be out for the night, and therefore would aggressively target such people.

If you can't see that happening a mile off, you need your eyes checked. Cutting the dole is a great idea in theory. Not so much in practice.

bobbyss · 05-09-2017 06:30AM

I thought part of the conditions of getting the dole was to prove that you were looking for work? Is that not the case? Is any agency tracking the unemployed in that regard?

Kermit.de.frog · 05-09-2017 06:42AM

Deleted User wrote: »

If you can't see that happening a mile off, you need your eyes checked. Cutting the dole is a great idea in theory. Not so much in practice.

So you are intimidated by the wasters and therefore pay them off?

How about we had a proper police force and justice system and then cut them off?

It's your taxes, it's your hard earned money. **** them.

mikemac2 · 05-09-2017 06:42AM

anna080 wrote: »

Sometimes I wonder how can you be "genuinely seeking work" for 5 years?

If you're late fifties / early sixties and laboured on construction sites well your body may be wrecked and who is going to hire you? Plenty lost their jobs in factories too for another example

You could retrain but people here may just bide their time until the pension. Taxi driving would seem the most obvious job if they wanted to work

qo2cj1dsne8y4k · 05-09-2017 07:04AM

RayM wrote: »

What if the applicant was (in the words of the OP) a "long-term dole waster"? All other things being equal, would the fact that their CV had a large dole-shaped gap not be a cause for concern?

To be honest, if they were sitting in front of me asking for work, not so much. What have they done with their time? Have they done ce schemes, programmes courses etc trying to become more employable? Have they volunteered? Why are they looking for this job? Do they want work or are they only here to keep the social off their backs? If it's the former, it's fine but the latter? Nah.

Should date be set to cut off long-term dole wasters ?"

Comments