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

Dole

googlehead

i myself am on the Dole at the moment after being laid of my work several months ago.there is alot of chat about cutting the dole, some people saying the dole should be cut and others saying it shouldn't as alot of people like myself who have always worked are now suffering the effects of a recession and should get help at this time.i don't think it should be cut at this time. but I think in the next 2-3 years when hopefully this recession and there is alot more jobs(hopefully) that the govenment should seriously take a look at cutting the dole ,also i think people on the dole for over 2-3 years, should be made to do a course and find employment.

Find more posts tagged with

doley mcdolington

Quick Links

Comments

ciano6

God help you if you honestly think there will be alot more jobs in 2-3 years. Alot more than what? There are 100,000s of jobs going to be lost by all forecasts in the next 18months. And then you think that there will be 2 or 300,000 jobs created just to bring it back to this terrible level? Maybe 20 years. Maybe:(

googlehead

ciano6 wrote: »

God help you if you honestly think there will be alot more jobs in 2-3 years. Alot more than what? There are 100,000s of jobs going to be lost by all forecasts in the next 18months. And then you think that there will be 2 or 300,000 jobs created just to bring it back to this terrible level? Maybe 20 years. Maybe:(

yeah your probably right, but i hope we can get back some normality, which then i hope they will look at the dole issue.

Daithinski

googlehead wrote: »

some people saying the dole should be cut and others saying it shouldn't

The dole is being sneakily cut on a piecemeal basis, in the usual stealthy tax-ish manner, for house owners and families that are on the dole.

ie The reduction in mortgage allowance and the reduction in childare

These measures might as well have been a cut in social welfare because they equate to less money every month for those on welfare.

These measures penalise house owners with families.

If you have no kids and are renting a house you are now better off (relatively speaking) than a good portion of your fellow dole-ees.

murphaph

googlehead wrote: »

yeah your probably right, but i hope we can get back some normality, which then i hope they will look at the dole issue.

I'm sorry that you're out of work at the moment but we can't really afford to wait before dole is cut. The country needs to baance its books and at present we are spending 54 million a DAY more than we are getting in taxes.

Tech3

murphaph wrote: »

I'm sorry that you're out of work at the moment but we can't really afford to wait before dole is cut. The country needs to baance its books and at present we are spending 54 million a DAY more than we are getting in taxes.

I agree expenditure really needs to be cut down in line with the loss in income tax, VAT etc...

cavedave

tech2

I agree expenditure really needs to be cut down in line with the loss in income tax, VAT etc...

The number unemployed has doubled in the last year. So from roughly 5% it looks like its going to rise to over 15%. If we cut the dole the 10% of people who paid toward it and genuinely cannot find jobs wont receive as much as those people who were unemployed at a time of full employment. Not that that means it cannot be cut. I just think its worth noting that if you cut the dole now the majority of those hit will be people who did work when it was available and paid PRSI at the time.

Small Change

Daithinski wrote: »

If you have no kids and are renting a house you are now better off (relatively speaking) than a good portion of your fellow dole-ees.

This is not necessarily a bad thing. The same would hold true for people with jobs also

googlehead

murphaph wrote: »

I'm sorry that you're out of work at the moment but we can't really afford to wait before dole is cut. The country needs to baance its books and at present we are spending 54 million a DAY more than we are getting in taxes.

your probably right, but to lower the dole it might leave a bigger mess for alot
of people, me for example i have mortgage and if it is lowered anymore, i will 100% lose my house, if i lose my house i will leave ireland for good.

dresden8

googlehead wrote: »

your probably right, but to lower the dole it might leave a bigger mess for alot
of people, me for example i have mortgage and if it is lowered anymore, i will 100% lose my house, if i lose my house i will leave ireland for good.

That's very much the point. You are not a citizen any more, you are an economic unit.

As of now, you are a useless economic unit. IBEC, ISME and the government would be very happy if you fncked off out of the place.

Tech3

cavedave wrote: »

The number unemployed has doubled in the last year. So from roughly 5% it looks like its going to rise to over 15%. If we cut the dole the 10% of people who paid toward it and genuinely cannot find jobs wont receive as much as those people who were unemployed at a time of full employment. Not that that means it cannot be cut. I just think its worth noting that if you cut the dole now the majority of those hit will be people who did work when it was available and paid PRSI at the time.

That was the governments problem that the unemployed during the celtic tiger were receiving the dole. If it was another country these people would have been made to work. 204 euro a week encouraged those to stay on the dole as it was comfortable enough income to live on.

The weekly dole payment of 204 EURO is not sustainable. It has to be means tested for people on mortgages at the high rate with a single person with no dependents at the lowest. Other areas in the public sector need to be cut with more increased taxes in the next few months.

thebman

To be fair if you were paying your PRSI, then you have paid into this system so until your PRSI payments run out you should receive that amount as you have paid into the system for that long.

I think the government should really cut it for those who have been unemployed for two years or more. They should take the biggest hit.

I'm not against cutting it for everyone, I know it is necessary and will have to come. It should be line with the drop in cost of living though. It has to be really as those people are trying to get work and are productive members of society if given the opportunity.

The government will most likely not do any kind of appropriate or fair cut IMO. They see the dole as a vote buying exercise.

hallelujajordan

murphaph wrote: »

I'm sorry that you're out of work at the moment but we can't really afford to wait before dole is cut. The country needs to baance its books and at present we are spending 54 million a DAY more than we are getting in taxes.

They say that the measure of a society is how it treats its most vulnerable. . .

"I'm sorry that you are out of work, but we really cannot afford to keep you . . I am truly sorry that your children are hungry but we have books to balance and did you know that we are spending 54 Million a day more than we are getting in taxes"

How we take care of our most vulnerable should not be determined by the accountants but rather should be driven by need . . a fair system should honour PRSI payments (after all, the I stands for Insurance) . . a fair system should also insist that those drawing the dole make every effort to find work and reduce payments for those who are not bothered contributing to society.

aare

Daithinski wrote: »

.
If you have no kids and are renting a house you are now better off (relatively speaking) than a good portion of your fellow dole-ees.

Err...no...there were "stealth cuts" to rent allowances too...€6 per week cut since October, further €5 per week cut now, and 8% to be cut from all rent allowances regardless of rent being paid.

cavedave

tech2

The weekly dole payment of 204 EURO is not sustainable. It has to be means tested for people on mortgages at the high rate with a single person with no dependents at the lowest. Other areas in the public sector need to be cut with more increased taxes in the next few months.

There is the danger of a moral hazard there. A sensible person who decided that buying a house was a bad idea and that they should wait till they were more financially stable to have children would be punished. Whereas someone who overextended themselves and bought a house wouldn't. Not that i have a better solution.

irish_bob

hallelujajordan wrote: »

They say that the measure of a society is how it treats its most vulnerable. . .

"I'm sorry that you are out of work, but we really cannot afford to keep you . . I am truly sorry that your children are hungry but we have books to balance and did you know that we are spending 54 Million a day more than we are getting in taxes"

How we take care of our most vulnerable should not be determined by the accountants but rather should be driven by need . . a fair system should honour PRSI payments (after all, the I stands for Insurance) . . a fair system should also insist that those drawing the dole make every effort to find work and reduce payments for those who are not bothered contributing to society.

the term MOST VULNERABLE seems to have been so over used , its lost all meaning in this country , retired doctors and gardas inspectors who just happend to be over 70 found themselves in that category last november

mikemac

tech2 wrote: »

The weekly dole payment of 204 EURO is not sustainable. It has to be means tested for people on mortgages at the high rate with a single person with no dependents at the lowest. Other areas in the public sector need to be cut with more increased taxes in the next few months.

The single person could have made contributions for years but suddenly they are now entitled to less?

The person without a mortgage and prudently saved their money gets less then the person who took out a mortgage and probably overextended themselves?

Can't agree with that.

Tech3

mikemac wrote: »

The single person could have made contributions for years but suddenly they are now entitled to less?

The person without a mortgage and prudently saved their money gets less then the person who took out a mortgage and probably overextended themselves?

Can't agree with that.

The structure of the way its paid out needs to be examined.

So what will the person with a mortgage do when he/she/they realise that they will have less social welfare for the week. There will be more people losing their homes.

I honestly cant see any other way of implementing the change in payment structures. Its not fair but something has to change in the amount of expenditure being lost in dole payment.

mikemac

I agree it probably does need to be cut though I don't know exactly how much and I wouldn't like to be the one making that decision.

A family should get more welfare provision then a single person definitly.

But a single person with a mortgage or a single person renting should be getting the same unemployment benefit/allowance rate.
No way should someone with a mortgage be getting more, they can apply for that mortgage supplement scheme if they want though that's another thing that may be cut.
Most people never knew that scheme existed this time last year

Save your money and get less help then the person who cannot pay their overpriced mortgage, just ain't right

aare

mikemac wrote: »

But a single person with a mortgage or a single person renting should be getting the same unemployment benefit/allowance rate.

Where is this idea coming from? They DO get the exact same rate...

A person renting can apply for rent supplement, a person with a mortgage can apply for mortgage interest supplement.

As a matter of fact, stealth cuts were made through the rent supplement scheme with no equal cuts being made through the mortgage interest supplement scheme (AFAIK, if there were, apologies)...

Also, while you are means tested on any savings and investments, you are not means tested on the value of your home.

So that, technically, a person with a mortgage could be considered to be paid more than a person who saved their money and is renting.

mikemac

True enough, I was referring to the thread title

Daithinski

aare wrote: »

Err...no...there were "stealth cuts" to rent allowances too...€6 per week cut since October, further €5 per week cut now, and 8% to be cut from all rent allowances regardless of rent being paid.

I stand corrected!:)

jenzz

Is the solution not simply cut WASTE ! Dont cripple the old/ kiddies/poor /unemployed/mortgage payer etc etc or tax the teachers or put a levy on anything that moves now. Yes limit expenditure to a certain degree but cut out the waste.

I am not interested in politics. I dont understand economics. Im no expert at all. But the waste this government creates. ie lightbulb sagas , voting machine etc is sinful.

I havent a bean, im heading for the dole queue like a lot of others shortly, we're down to one income since last year & the 1st thing we did was cut WASTE. So what - Its as simple as reheating the left overs just on a bigger scale.

& why in Gods name was valuable money spent on election posters when there are people trying to simply survive out there. Forget about cutting the kiddies allowance or the fuel or the butter vouchers - cut the squander !

Daithinski

cavedave wrote: »

There is the danger of a moral hazard there. A sensible person who decided that buying a house was a bad idea and that they should wait till they were more financially stable to have children would be punished. Whereas someone who overextended themselves and bought a house wouldn't. Not that i have a better solution.

But for all intents and purposes people were financially stable. Or so they thought. Until the economy that FF told us was fine and sound etc came crashing around their ears.

The consensus (wrong of course) of the vast majority of people in this country was that we were in a great economy, buying a house was a fabulous investment, and there was always a fear that you had to get onto the property ladder asap or you may never get the chance.

There were very few "sensible" people who decided not to buy a house in the last 6-7 years, because they "knew" a severe property crash was coming.

There were plenty who could not afford to, or did not want to.

It wouldn't surprise me if a good portion of which, are probably claiming now that they knew property was a bad buy, and that's the reason why they didn't buy.

The whole "oh lets punish the foolish who had kids and bought houses when they weren't financially stable" is a load of cobblers and doesn't make sense when you really think about. It sounds like it does/should, but it actually doesn't.

We are after getting a severe walloping from our incompetent government and the global economy. People don't factor in a 1 in a 100 hundred years perfect economic storm when making life choices such as having kids or buying houses.

If people were to base their decisions on such things, (basically living their lives in fear of disaster) what would happen?

I'd imagine, there would be feck all people choosing to have kids and nobody buying houses.

cavedave

I'd imagine, there would be feck all kids and nobody buying houses.

Well the kids thing is weird. Making children homeless and hungry because their father thought property was a good buy and their job was stable is not what anyone wants to do.

However when I look at a situation described and analysed here where someone is better off not working it makes me think the incentive structure is wrong.

If people were to base their decisions on such things, (basically living their lives in fear of disaster) what would happen?

I don't think believing property prices will not go up forever is or was being overly paranoid.

Daithinski

cavedave wrote: »

However when I look at a situation described and analysed here where someone is better off not working it makes me think the incentive structure is wrong.

I think yer man was a bit of a spoofer and was being a but frugal with the truth. There was another post that pretty much proved that.

cavedave wrote: »

I don't think believing property prices will not go up forever is or was being overly paranoid.

Thats not what I meant, the vast majority of people knew property that prices would not keep "going up forever".

What they didn't know, was they wouldn't be able to pay their mortgage (because they lost their job).

House prices going down or up in not the problem, the problem is people not being able to afford to pay back their mortgage with no income.

Say house prices hadn't fallen and everybody who lost their job sold their house and managed to pay off the bank fully.

They now have no house.

Now the government has to provide them with accommodation.

Stick them in a council house ?

The government would not have enough council houses. So they would have to either buy houses or rent houses.

Either way the government will be paying for accommodation of some sort whether it be, home owners mortgage, the mortgage of a landlord, or their own mortgage (taken out to buy houses).

The government is saving money with the mortgage interest scheme.
Some people would have small mortgages, it would cost more to pay for private accommodation for them.

cavedave

The government is saving money with the mortgage interest scheme.
Some people would have small mortgages, it would cost more to pay for private accommodation for them.

They are. There is no way in the current environment it would be socially economically or politically doable to stop paying peoples interest on reasonable sized/costing homes.

Now the government has to provide them with accommodation.

I would not guarantee the government will forever be able to pay this cost. Eventually at some % unemployment the government would just say something like "were setting up soup kitchens and all other social welfare payments are canceled". Thankfully were are not at that stage and its very unlikely we will ever be.

hallelujajordan

irish_bob wrote: »

the term MOST VULNERABLE seems to have been so over used , its lost all meaning in this country , retired doctors and gardas inspectors who just happend to be over 70 found themselves in that category last november

Agreed . . there are lots of social welfare payments made to those who do not need them . . A fair society would introduce means testing for such things as medical cards, childrens allowance etc. . .

There are other opportunities to reduce the welfare bill rather than just reducing the basic dole payments.

astrofool

The dole will have to be cut, it sets a floor to what people are willing to work for, and also sets a floor to the cost of living in this country. If Ireland wants to start creating jobs, then we need to reduce our cost of living, cutting the dole is one part of this (along with reducing min wage, reducing energy prices etc.).

The dole is also run as a current account, so the years people have been paying PRSI for, is worth nothing these days, all the money was burned when they raised the dole to the level that they have.

Daithinski

astrofool wrote: »

The dole will have to be cut, ...If Ireland wants to start creating jobs, t

I think you got the order of these two statements mixed up.

If the jobs are there for people to go to, by all means cutting the dole would be a fantastic idea.

Cutting the dole when there are no jobs isn't going to magically create any new jobs.

astrofool

Daithinski wrote: »

I think you got the order of these two statements mixed up.

If the jobs are there for people to go to, by all means cutting the dole would be a fantastic idea.

Cutting the dole when there are no jobs isn't going to magically create any new jobs.

Ah, I see you have a buzzword problem.

You need to read the whole post in order to make any sense out of it, picking any two random bits of a post does not work, and puts the user into the confusion you are now witnessing first hand.