nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

What would happen if all welfare payments ended today

badabing106

Never to return.. What would happen in a month, six months or a year down the line

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

badabing106 wrote: »

Never to return.. What would happen in a month, six months or a year down the line

A month?!

Seven days will see riots at supermarkets and the National Guard called out. Society will break down. Never ceases to amaze me how people can't see this.

It's called 'social' security and not 'personal' security for a reason.

Electric Sheep

It would become much cheaper to hire servants ;-)

Wheeliebin30

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Jaysus.. me and you agreeing on a political point :eek:

I think FG are the best of a bad bunch but I still don’t agree with their left wing policies which are creeping in.

Pauliedragon

Dakota Dan wrote: »

In alcohol and cigarette sales.

A large chunk of which goes to the government in tax anyway so in a roundabout way those drunken smokers on welfare are giving the money back. Problem solved.

Mark Horgan

Social housing demand would decrease.

HappyAsLarE

Welfare payments prevent anarchy.

Odyssey 2005

It would put an end to a lot of bareback ridin..

archer22

Well all the staff in social welfare offices would be left unemployed and destitute for a start.

But anyhow another thing is employers would probably work the shyte out you as you would be desperate to keep your job and others would be desperate to get it.

Basically you would have a third world country with amazing wealth and astounding poverty.

previous user

I'd have to get a job then you slaags!

Kermit.de.frog

end of the road wrote: »

this "fear of actual consequences" also seems to be by the looks of it, a part motivator of a huge crime problem and prison population and the costs that go with it, as well as apparently quite the amount of destitution. so, certainly not a route i would suggest we go down if we want a properly functioning society.

our system is the least worst option IMO. the type of system you want, as in the american system, seems to cause more issues then it is actually worth.

So it's a ransom.

Give them money or they will harm you. Is that it? Extrapolating on your logic then the bigger the scumbag, the more chaos, the more money they should get. Right?

You can say what you like about the US. They don't tolerate that bullsh!t.

Why would you even care if someone who does not want to work or contribute ends up homeless?

It's their choices.

I am not saying cut them off straight away. But there most certainly should be an absolute time limit on aid from the state for able bodied people once their stamps are up.

It's deleterous to society to have a situation where people don't want to work and are supported in not wanting to work.

Not only for society is that disasterous - even worse is inter-generational dependency which is really immoral and it's devastating for the individuals who's lives are wasted. And it is not their fault - they are brought in to that world and it's all about how much you can get for doing nothing (and the parents of course are feckless)

And the US has proper law and order and they are not an intimidated society by total wasters who don't want to contribute and would rather commit crime. Those people are punished - not sustained and rewarded.

It's this country that has this whole thing wrong.

Geuze

As 48% approx of the population are on welfare, it is unrealistic to expect all schemes to end.

Kermit.de.frog

Geuze wrote: »

As 48% approx of the population are on welfare, it is unrealistic to expect all schemes to end.

I'm not suggesting all. I understand there are extreme circumstances for a small minority, carers etc. But the likes of Job Seekers Allowance are the most toxic and they should end.

They should be told:

"We will support you as the state for two years while you find work"...after that payments should be stopped. No excuse for anyone not to be able to find a job in that time.

Sonics2k

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I'm not suggesting all. I understand there are extreme circumstances for a small minority, carers etc. But the likes of Job Seekers Allowance are the most toxic and they should end.

They should be told:

"We will support you as the state for two years while you find work"...after that payments should be stopped. No excuse for anyone not to be able to find a job in that time.

I mean, I despise the welfare culture of many people in this country. But are you proposing that we cut people off from any income, allowing them to go homeless and/or starve to death?

archer22

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

The "most toxic" as you put it are those who are already so wealthy they don't know what to do with their money, who get richer and richer through avoiding taxes, paying their workers poorly, etc.

To my knowledge there's never been a financial crisis resulting from a country paying too much welfare. There have been plenty that happened as a result of the wealthy being too greedy.

In fact most social welfare money gets rapidly back into the economy..it acts as a stimulus every week as most welfare recipients aren't in a position to save it in banks.

Its not dead wasted money from an economic viewpoint...what ever peoples other views on the rights and wrongs of it.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I'm not suggesting all. I understand there are extreme circumstances for a small minority, carers etc. But the likes of Job Seekers Allowance are the most toxic and they should end.

They should be told:

"We will support you as the state for two years while you find work"...after that payments should be stopped. No excuse for anyone not to be able to find a job in that time.

I'm interested in hearing you plan for creating 100% employment (you are, having thought this through, no doubt aware that this is the only peaceful scenario in which your plan will work?)

relax carry on

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I'm not suggesting all. I understand there are extreme circumstances for a small minority, carers etc. But the likes of Job Seekers Allowance are the most toxic and they should end.

They should be told:

"We will support you as the state for two years while you find work"...after that payments should be stopped. No excuse for anyone not to be able to find a job in that time.

And then what? Die?

TheQuietFella

badabing106 wrote: »

Never to return.. What would happen in a month, six months or a year down the line

The pubs & bookies would close in their thousands!

Danny Donut

relax carry on wrote: »

And then what? Die?

rgace

ger vallely wrote: »

I work in a preschool, by all accounts we’re the cornerstone of education. Or so we’re told at most all of the many courses and seminars we must attend. But we do not get paid during the two summer months off nor do we get paid when off for Christmas or Easter. So we all sign on, every year, for two months. Go through the hassle and the intrusion into our financial affairs just to hopefully get perhaps half of our weekly wage. So, yeah, I’d be pretty annoyed should this be suddenly stopped. Although I would much rather get paid during the summer.

Are you not entitled to the statutory minimum amount of paid holidays? That sounds unfair if you don't.

Grayson

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I'm not suggesting all. I understand there are extreme circumstances for a small minority, carers etc. But the likes of Job Seekers Allowance are the most toxic and they should end.

They should be told:

"We will support you as the state for two years while you find work"...after that payments should be stopped. No excuse for anyone not to be able to find a job in that time.

You do realise that the vast majority of those on job seekers are not abusing the system? Yet you're framing it as if it's not the case.

the purple tin

This will be a drive down O'Connell St. if Ireland does away with welfare

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDwgIBVkU7g

Mr. teddywinkles

archer22 wrote: »

Well all the staff in social welfare offices would be left unemployed and destitute for a start.

But anyhow another thing is employers would probably work the shyte out you as you would be desperate to keep your job and others would be desperate to get it.

Basically you would have a third world country with amazing wealth and astounding poverty.

Massive massive wealth divide. And I also reckon youd have lots of wage decreases across the board. Hey ya can live in the gutter or put up n shut up.

Yer Da sells Avon

JustJoe7240 wrote: »

I suppose people would turn off the daytime telly go find jobs?

the purple tin wrote: »

Sales of cider, pyjamas and chinese takeaways would plummet.

Hector Bellend wrote: »

Think of all the off licences that would go out of business

Dakota Dan wrote: »

In alcohol and cigarette sales.

TheQuietFella wrote: »

The pubs & bookies would close in their thousands!

This is why I suspect half the posters on this site are the same dullard with multiple accounts.

end of the road

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

So it's a ransom.

Give them money or they will harm you. Is that it? Extrapolating on your logic then the bigger the scumbag, the more chaos, the more money they should get. Right?

no, it's simply dealing with reality by offering enough money to meet the bare basics of living to people who will need support for various reasons.

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

You can say what you like about the US. They don't tolerate that bullsh!t.

they also have a huge crime problem and prison population and all else in turn.

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Why would you even care if someone who does not want to work or contribute ends up homeless?

because i want to try and keep them from commiting crime and if having a support system in place prevents that either in full or to an extent, it's better then the alternatives. probably cheaper as well.

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

It's their choices.

in some cases yes, in others no

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I am not saying cut them off straight away. But there most certainly should be an absolute time limit on aid from the state for able bodied people once their stamps are up.

that's grand, as long as the government are incentivising enough job creation to employ everyone, and are going to force employers to give everyone a job no matter what. not going to happen in reality.

end of the road

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

It's deleterous to society to have a situation where people don't want to work and are supported in not wanting to work.

and it seems to be even more deleterous to society to simply leave them to their own divices with nothing.

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Not only for society is that disasterous - even worse is inter-generational dependency which is really immoral and it's devastating for the individuals who's lives are wasted. And it is not their fault - they are brought in to that world and it's all about how much you can get for doing nothing (and the parents of course are feckless)

agreed, however the amount of that is very very small in reality and that's where our education system can step in . it's certainly not an amount where we need to change to a system like you want which by the looks of it costs massive amounts of money for social problems in return for it.

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

And the US has proper law and order and they are not an intimidated society by total wasters who don't want to contribute and would rather commit crime. Those people are punished - not sustained and rewarded.

they have proper law in some cases yes, but order, well that is dependant on which part you go to.
ireland is not an intimidated society by total wasters who don't want to contribute and would rather commit crime, rather it's a society who does to an extent try to deal with reality and try and prevent social problems. it can do a lot more, but what it's doing is much better then the type of system you would like which is spending money on punishment but not on dealing with social problems and the causes of crime. nobody is "rewarded" however those who do need it are "sustained" because it's recognised that it's better then the alternative, for better or worse.
in most western countries, people are helped where they need to be helped and are punished if they break the law. that is the type of system we have been trying to implement but we refuse to spend money on enforcing the law.

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

It's this country that has this whole thing wrong.

it's really not. we have it the right way. yes there are some who abuse the system but there are remedies open to dealing with it, and they have been and are being used once someone is caught.

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I'm not suggesting all. I understand there are extreme circumstances for a small minority, carers etc. But the likes of Job Seekers Allowance are the most toxic and they should end.

They should be told:

"We will support you as the state for two years while you find work"...after that payments should be stopped. No excuse for anyone not to be able to find a job in that time.

the majority on the scheme will find work because they want to work, as they are doing already. so you aren't changing anything hre. however the reality is that for some, the fact they may be unemployable or an employer doesn't wish to take them on is a perfectly legitimate reason. because ultimately ireland isn't going to have enough jobs for everyone, and we aren't going to force employers to give everyone a job.

inspector frost

Niall Boylan would be out of a job.

Sephiroth_dude

the purple tin wrote: »

This will be a drive down O'Connell St. if Ireland does away with welfare

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDwgIBVkU7g

Can't stop laughing

Mr. teddywinkles

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

So it's a ransom.

Give them money or they will harm you. Is that it? Extrapolating on your logic then the bigger the scumbag, the more chaos, the more money they should get. Right?

You can say what you like about the US. They don't tolerate that bullsh!t.

Why would you even care if someone who does not want to work or contribute ends up homeless?

It's their choices.

I am not saying cut them off straight away. But there most certainly should be an absolute time limit on aid from the state for able bodied people once their stamps are up.

It's deleterous to society to have a situation where people don't want to work and are supported in not wanting to work.

Not only for society is that disasterous - even worse is inter-generational dependency which is really immoral and it's devastating for the individuals who's lives are wasted. And it is not their fault - they are brought in to that world and it's all about how much you can get for doing nothing (and the parents of course are feckless)

And the US has proper law and order and they are not an intimidated society by total wasters who don't want to contribute and would rather commit crime. Those people are punished - not sustained and rewarded.

It's this country that has this whole thing wrong.

Well it's costs the state roughly e60000 to imprision soneone. Compared with 10000 a year in welfare support. Makes sense from a financial point of view

Chaos Tourist

inspector frost wrote: »

Niall Boylan would be out of a job.

Didn't he spend time at a Mother and Baby home? At that time when the state basically could not/would not do social democracy and pushed it on the church?

Agricola

2007 - "Fúckin' dole wasters, why aren't more people like those bankers and financial wizards with all the money!"

2012 - "Fúckin' bankers and financial fúckers wot wrecked the country, why can't people be more like all them poor divils that have been thrown on the dole queues, the poor divils!"

2018 - See 2007