gwalk wrote: » Black Market for food vouchers hahahaha here i have a one4all i wanna shift for cash, can you point me in the direction of your food voucher dealer and see will he buy it off me
end of the road wrote: » the state does sanction people where there are clear breaches and abuses of the rules.
sometimes the state won't know that certain breaches and abuses are taking place, because people won't report such abuses to them
unfortunately, the state will spend your tax money on what it deems worth while for it to be spent on. should you have an issue with your taxes being spent on something, by all means raise it with your local td or your local election candidates when they come to the door at election time.
PlaneSpeeking wrote: » With all due respect that is the most simple, flawed, not thought out, utter nonsense post that I have ever read on here. Ever.
PlaneSpeeking wrote: » Huh ???? No one's going all Al Gore ffs
Jasiah Hot Talker wrote: » We’ve tried it your way, and it’s not working. Time to try something else
PlaneSpeeking wrote: » Are you familiar with "the bigotry of low expectations" theory ? You seem to have a cast iron certainty that every social welfare recipient is corrupt, thieving and one missed dole cheque away from bank robbery and tiger kidnappings.
SusieBlue wrote: » Would you go away, the black market?! This is a voucher for Aldi we're talking about, not cocaine and elephant tusks. Most people can just buy their own food with their own money so there would be little to no demand for exchanging food vouchers for cash on the "black market". It would be very simple actually. Instead of collecting their payment at the post office, they collect a book of stamps/vouchers. Its very clear the current system isn't working.
SusieBlue wrote: » I have seen, with my own eyes, a woman of traveller "ethnicity" arrive up to the SVdeP in a BMW, her backseat full of shopping bags, and cry and beg for food to feed her kids. She did it every single week without fail, she just saw it as free food. She took food that day that could have been given to a family that actually couldn't afford to eat that week. Its all take, take, take with them, and they contribute nothing. They're laughing at us for getting up and going to work every day while they live a comfortable life sponging off the tax payer. Its about time they were individually held accountable for their cost to the taxpayer, and I think giving them food stamps and vouchers instead of cold hard cash would be a good start.
Deebles McBeebles wrote: » Ah c'mon, I know for a fact I've posted worse
end of the road wrote: » far from it. i am very clear that most social wellfare recipients are genuine and receive wellfare for genuine reasons. if there were other options for them they wouldn't be on wellfare. however there are a small minority who are on wellfare because they would quite frankly, be no asset to an employer.
end of the road wrote: » yes, it is quite possible that some travelers would continue to have children without the supports in existence. something which would likely apply to non-travelers as well.
end of the road wrote: » anything has the potential to be traded on the black market. vouchers will have to be redeemed wherever, that means surely the state having to compensate the relevant outlets for their use. that quite likely has to be adminned and have huge oversight. then we have to try and remove all possible abuses of that system which would surely cost a bit. i'm not seeing why we should bother, when the money being spent on extra gardai and cab officers would have benefits outside wellfare fraud. the current system has it's faults (it is working to an extent) however more issues can be solved by spending the money on manpower, which can be used to tackle other issues as well.
end of the road wrote: » did you report her? people on here seem to have a habbit of seeing people doing this and that but they seem to never do anything about it. how is anyone within the relevant departments going to be able to do anything about women like her when people won't report them?
end of the road wrote: » i'd suggest that it's probably the opposite. vouchers and stamps can be exchanged for cash on the black market. sure, you could probably try to implement a system that would keep them to a person but no doubt there would be some way found around that. to me it sounds like a hugely expensive system to get up and running and to oversea, for which the money used could be better spent on more gardai and cab officers.
Raheem Euro wrote: » You don't need physical vouchers. Accounts for dole monkies can be opened at designated shops and credited once a week by social welfare. On presentation of photo id recipient can buy certain, designated, essential food and household products. No smokes, booze or cakes. That would eliminate most of the black market stuff.
Rory28 wrote: » See now we are getting a little to close to 1984 for my tastes. I disagree with everything you said here. How can you tell people to do this? How would it work? Would there be special police?
Lefty Bicek wrote: » Unless they're travellers.
Lefty Bicek wrote: » School register. The state does know.
Lefty Bicek wrote: » But as your pal here has indicated...https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=108726628&postcount=1712 ... they 'need the extra push'.
Lefty Bicek wrote: » QED, the sanctions that apply to everyone else for not schooling their children in accordance with the law... do not apply to travellers. Does your TD know that ?
Lefty Bicek wrote: » You're smart enough to be condescending, but I'm smart enough not to need your advice. Thanks anyway.
Raheem Euro wrote: » You're providing all their essential needs. Alcohol is not an essential need. There would be an administrative cost to this but no policing cost.
Matt Barrett wrote: » The problem with that monkey headed logic is it assumes the sick and poor are being fraudulent and punishes them all collectively. It's the height of pig ignorance. You should sign up to Fine Gael. We squander money on business and corporations. We then need to bring in cuts. Then we see people, working people, needing aid just to get by. Then we blame them for getting freebies because we find ourselves unhappy with government spending on them. It's a hilarious merry-go-round really.
Rory28 wrote: » And if you happen to lose your job and end up on welfare will you be happy with to go collect your food on the condition you supply them with photo ID? Is there to be special supermarkets or food banks where these people can collect there govt issued rations or are we to force private companies into this? If I may exaggerate a bit, your plan sounds like a dystopian nightmare.
Raheem Euro wrote: » The point of ID is to stop the aforementioned fraud. The first argument against vouchers is always that they will sold on black market. What if you turned up for weekly shop and they told you it had been given out already. Someone else gave your name. Sorry. Your goods are linked to you and your id to protect them and ensure only you get them. No different to producing id at post office or intreo centre.
end of the road wrote: » then you would surely know that contacting your td and raising issues at election time, are ways that are likely to bring about changes, whereas ranting on boards.ie isn't going to bring any change.
PlaneSpeeking wrote: » It was getting towards "settled people travel to halting sites to dispose of rubbish" levels!!!!!
PlaneSpeeking wrote: » And yet you believe that if we even reduce the benefits payable currently the Gardai will be overstretched with people turning to crime and the minute they get Lidl vouchers they'll be selling them to buy contraband rather than feed their kids ? Your posts are either coming from a very delusional point of view or they are designed as a complete wind up and I really cannot fathom which.
SusieBlue wrote: » You don't see why they should bother? Maybe because the current system has the country on its knees? Something being difficult is not a good reason not to do it. You are making excuse after excuse for their behaviour, yet offering no alternatives apart from "suck it up and put up with it". Well, to use your own words, why should I?
SusieBlue wrote: » I was volunteering there and there was nothing to report. They couldn't take the risk of the children actually being starving, child neglect is more common in their community than the "settled" community so there were fears the kids would go without if we didn't give them the food. The SVdeP also didn't want the media storm and backlash if the poor traveller woman went to the media about how a charity discriminated against her in her hour of need.
Tombo2001 wrote: » I know you have zero intention of changing your view, so I'm not going to try and then leave myself open to unchecked abuse. That's why its not a debate. Its too entrenched.
SusieBlue wrote: » The SVdeP also didn't want the media storm and backlash if the poor traveller woman went to the media about how a charity discriminated against her in her hour of need.
end of the road wrote: » you do know that post about "settled people travel to halting sites to dispose of rubbish" was satire right? i can't believe so many fell for it. yes, i believe that reducing the benefits does have the possibility of increasing crime. there is no 100% guarantee of it happening, but there is no guarantee of it not happening. either way, i'm personally not willing to take the risk. i'm entitled to be safe. i'm not making excuses for their behaviour at all. i never have done so either. i am suggesting that the alternatives people want, are likely to cause more problems then would be solved, then exist with the current system. with the greatist of respect, it sounds like there was something to report. you could have reported it if you were concerned and nobody would know apart from you and the wellfare. you made the choice not to report it which is fine, but you can't really complain that the state isn't doing enough about wellfare abuses when you ignore a possible abuse, IMO.
SusieBlue wrote: » EOTR, I'd like to hear your suggestions on how to deal with this crisis, that doesn't involve throwing even more money at them. What do you suggest to improve the current situation?
Raheem Euro wrote: » We actually have one of the most generous welfare systems in the world. A source of pride. So the premis of your guilt tripping sick, dying crippled is faulty. The approach I proposed does not mean one cent less to the unemployed. It is a different mechanism of delivery. And one which prevents abuse of the system. And we know not everyone abuses the system. And this won't impinge on those deceant people in any way.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wf.vanillicon.com/v2/f054c80ff399c4eba8d719c617220a57.svg)
