District Court judge: Replace social welfare money with vouchers

Mike 1972 · 29-07-2011 09:04PM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

drink, smokes, holidays, designer clothes, drugs etc.. are not essential parts of surviving, let alone the people saving dole in savings accounts.

If someone on the dole has the money management skills and self discipline to actually manage to set aside some of their money for savings its something I reckon should actually be applauded.

The country needs more people like that.

Eric Cartman · 29-07-2011 09:07PM

Mike 1972 wrote: »

If someone on the dole has the money management skills and self discipline to actually manage to set aside some of their money for savings its something I reckon should actually be applauded.

The country needs more people like that.

its fairly easy to do if your still living with your parents and getting 120 a week or whatever it is

Einhard · 29-07-2011 09:07PM

IngazZagni wrote: »

Eh because he's spending taxpayer money on alcohol and possibly drugs. Therefore it is to an extent all our business.

Why? Why should it bother you what a dole recipient spends his money on as long as it's legal? Are you saying that you're ok with him spending his dole on apples and oranges, but not on alcohol? Seems pretty puritanical to me.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

because social welfare , paid for by the judge, you, me and every other working person in ireland is going to fund these people.

The dole is for surviving , not living ,

drink, smokes, holidays, designer clothes, drugs etc.. are not essential parts of surviving, let alone the people saving dole in savings accounts , why should you get to save my tax money for the next time you need a holiday. its a disgrace and it should have been done as vouchers years ago , we wouldnt have half the drug problem we do in this country if the dole wasnt in cash, id also say there would be a sharp decrease in foreign nationals on the dole aswell as single mothers just out of school.

Well, I don't believe that the dole should only cover the core costs of survival, and nothing else. People don't become less human when they lose their jobs...

I understand that people are frustrated at the SW system in Ireland, but once money is handed over to someone, it shouldn't be the concern of anyone else how that money is spent- as long as it's legal obviously. You want to reform the dole, and reduce the amounts paid? Fine, that's a reasonable POV- but to seek to contro how people spend their money crosses the line IMO.

Chuck Stone · 29-07-2011 09:08PM

Who gives a fuck what a gobshite judge thinks? He makes much of his living from the (immoral) fact that drugs are illegal - the stupid prick is probably costing the public way more than that junkie.

Dismatle the prohibition of drugs farce and get rid of half the legal profession.

.

Tehachapi · 29-07-2011 09:08PM

Shane L wrote: »

I never want to follow the model of a country which is in 14 trillion dollars worth of debt.

As a percentage of their GDP it's not even 100%.

Ireland GDP = €160 billion. We already owe a lot more than 100% of that. In fact by 2014 it's looking closer to 200% of that so they are actually in better shape than us.

My name is URL · 29-07-2011 09:09PM

IngazZagni wrote: »

Of course it's not going to solve the problem by doing this. But by having less physical cash and more vouchers it makes it harder to buy things outside of what they are intended for. Yes you probably could try selling them but I doubt they would be very popular and thus yield less cash verses how much the voucher is worth. There is no one solution to the puzzle, this is just one small piece to it.

Are we talking about only issuing them to people who have shown to have problems with addiction, or everyone on the dole? I hardly think it's fair to place restrictions like that on people who are fully entitled to and not abusive towards the welfare system. Why should someone who has paid taxes for years be forced to only spend their money on certain things?

Adyx · 29-07-2011 09:12PM

IngazZagni wrote: »

Eh because he's spending taxpayer money on alcohol and possibly drugs. Therefore it is to an extent all our business.
The foodstamp program in the States, while far from perfect I think is a much better way of providing basic support for those that need it. It would be worth investing in research into how such a program could work in Ireland.

That doesn't mean it's for the judge to comment on in his capacity as a judge.
As for the first part of your post which I bolded, the same is true of all public sector employees (including judges and politicians) to an extent, although granted they pay tax themselves.

Skunkle wrote: »

State should take over a supermarket chain, allow people on welfare to pay with welfare card. Allow a certain amount to be cashable and the rest to only be used in the supermarket. Wouldnt be as embarrassing as using vouchers, would avoid all the waste of people spending their dole on drink and drugs and whatnot. And would actually be a money maker for the state. Profit goes into expanding the supermarket chain leading to more jobs.

Yes yes I know GTFO you commie scum, coming in here with your crack pot ideas of saving money and helping everyone.

gets me coat

Who's going to pay for this supermarket chain and how will you establish a branch in every city, town and village in the country?

Mike 1972 · 29-07-2011 09:12PM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

its fairly easy to do .....

Speaking from experience are we ?

Eric Cartman · 29-07-2011 09:13PM

Einhard wrote: »

Why? Why should it bother you what a dole recipient spends his money on as long as it's legal? Are you saying that you're ok with him spending his dole on apples and oranges, but not on alcohol? Seems pretty puritanical to me.

I have nothign against people buying alcohol , on social welfare or not , but a bit of restriction and not allowing this comfortable lifestyle some people have living on the dole would definitley get people back to work.

its all to easy to sit there in a flat with rent allowance paid , and your dole covering smokes, beer, sky tv etc.... and not look for a job , if you get people into a mindset of 'shít i cant drink , cant smoke, have no tv, cant go on holiday, cant go to a gig' it leaves you with people going mad with boredom instead of being comfortable, youd soon have a bunch of people up off the dole and activley looking for work and trying to find any way off the dole so they could enjoy themselves again.

Eric Cartman · 29-07-2011 09:15PM

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Speaking from experience are we ?

i went to school/college with people who made living on welfare their careers , theyve told me all the tricks and scams and how wonderful it is , its a disgrace

marxcoo · 29-07-2011 09:17PM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I have nothign against people buying alcohol , on social welfare or not , but a bit of restriction and not allowing this comfortable lifestyle some people have living on the dole would definitley get people back to work.

its all to easy to sit there in a flat with rent allowance paid , and your dole covering smokes, beer, sky tv etc.... and not look for a job , if you get people into a mindset of 'shít i cant drink , cant smoke, have no tv, cant go on holiday, cant go to a gig' it leaves you with people going mad with boredom instead of being comfortable, youd soon have a bunch of people up off the dole and activley looking for work and trying to find any way off the dole so they could enjoy themselves again.

The vast majority of people cannot live comfortably on the dole. Don't believe the hype.

sollar · 29-07-2011 09:18PM

Einhard wrote: »

Why is it any business of the judge what anyone else spends their money on, as long as it's not illegal?

Because its the states money and they can decide how to dole it out as they please.

afrodub · 29-07-2011 09:20PM

I think this was a poor `judgement`remark to have made,the point is entitlement first to welfare and not to `judge` what individuals do with it,it is not unlawful to spend on alcohol,yet.

dvpower · 29-07-2011 09:28PM

sollar wrote: »

Because its the states money and they can decide how to dole it out as they please.

A judge is an employee of the state, not a representative.

If he thought he had a good idea, he should probably have written a letter to Joan Burton or Alan Shatter whose departments could evaluate it.

I'm not sure its a good idea for judges to be making public pronouncements on matters of public policy; separation of powers and all that.

IngazZagni · 29-07-2011 09:31PM

My name is URL wrote: »

Are we talking about only issuing them to people who have shown to have problems with addiction, or everyone on the dole? I hardly think it's fair to place restrictions like that on people who are fully entitled to and not abusive towards the welfare system. Why should someone who has paid taxes for years be forced to only spend their money on certain things?

Because it's tax-payer money. It's so you can get by. It's not to buy a new telly or go out and get wasted in town. I feel buying fancy products like an ipad with dole money is abusing the system. That's not what it meant for. It is to provide basic support for you including food and bills. And if you are paying bills for 50meg broadband, cut it to 10megor whatever. Things like this is what I'm talking about.

marxcoo · 29-07-2011 09:38PM

IngazZagni wrote: »

Because it's tax-payer money. It's so you can get by. It's not to buy a new telly or go out and get wasted in town. I feel buying fancy products like an ipad with dole money is abusing the system. That's not what it meant for. It is to provide basic support for you including food and bills. And if you are paying bills for 50meg broadband, cut it to 10megor whatever. Things like this is what I'm talking about.

You can't dictate what people spend their dole money on. If the money is going to stretch to buy something nice (which for most it won't) then why stop them doing it. Do you think you should provide people with money that they should spend on only the neccessities and anything that's left over they should return to the SW office??? Businesses are reliant on people spending their dole money as much as they are reliant on people spending their wages.

IngazZagni · 29-07-2011 09:49PM

marxcoo wrote: »

You can't dictate what people spend their dole money on. If the money is going to stretch to buy something nice (which for most it won't) then why stop them doing it. Do you think you should provide people with money that they should spend on only the neccessities and anything that's left over they should return to the SW office??? Businesses are reliant on people spending their dole money as much as they are reliant on people spending their wages.

You are talking about an ideal World, something that we can only dream of. Yes if someone is able to afford to spend dole money on luxury items on top of basic needs, then something is wrong with the system. My issue lies with those abusing their dole money on alcohol/gambling and drugs and then find themselves with no money for basic levels of living. These people should have their dole taken off them and given vouchers/stamps instead. Also I don't think stamps are degrading. Only maybe to those that HAD an inflated ego. Having lived in the States for a year I would see many people in the line at the supermarket handing over food stamps and it was such a regular occurrence I never gave a second thought to it. All I'm asking is for it to be given thought to because clearly the current system is a mess. One that is used and abused and it's the regular joe tax-payer that suffers in the end.

bmarley · 29-07-2011 09:50PM

Unfortunately, there are a large group of people who use and abuse our generous welfare state. There are those who have no interest in supporting themselves and their families, because in some cases it is more beneficial to be on welfare with entitlements such as rent allowances, medical cards, clothing/footwear allowances etc. People who are long term unemployed should be made to take up a placement or other such scheme to set an example for their children. In many families, children's nutritional needs are not being met, not only because parents may not be educated in how to shop for and prepare nutritious meals but also because income into the families is being mis-spent. New schemes introduced by the government do not appear to target those who do not want to work/educate themselves but are instead being taken up by people who already are well educated and want to work. The system is all wrong!

dvpower · 29-07-2011 10:00PM

IngazZagni wrote: »

Because it's tax-payer money. It's so you can get by. It's not to buy a new telly or go out and get wasted in town. I feel buying fancy products like an ipad with dole money is abusing the system. That's not what it meant for. It is to provide basic support for you including food and bills.

Yes. The basics. Certainly not televisions sets. Having a television isn't a basic requirement...

IngazZagni wrote: »

And if you are paying bills for 50meg broadband, cut it to 10megor whatever. Things like this is what I'm talking about.

... but broadband internet is!!

29-07-2011 10:06PM

Hand vouchers out, your name on them, your ID required to use them. Have them only redeemable on certain goods, anyone handing over cash for them should be treated as fraudsters, and dealt with by jail.

Simples.

Mike 1972 · 29-07-2011 10:06PM

Televisions may not be strictly speaking a requirement but in this day and age a TV is hardly a big ticket item. Unless were talking about 72 inch surround sound bells and whistles or somesuch. Ipads might be taking the piss though

dvpower wrote: »

... but broadband internet is!!

They might want it to do things like.....you know....look for a job

In many families, children's nutritional needs are not being met, not only because parents may not be educated in how to shop for and prepare nutritious meals but also because income into the families is being mis-spent.

Some peoples money/home management skills are undoubtedly shyte but in all fairness this is an entirely different issue to social welfare payments.

Toby Take a Bow · 29-07-2011 10:07PM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

its fairly easy to do if your still living with your parents and getting 120 a week or whatever it is

But fairly impossible to get by on if you're the vast, vast majority of sw recipients who are not living with their parents, and not scamming the system, right?

Eric Cartman wrote: »

i went to school/college with people who made living on welfare their careers , theyve told me all the tricks and scams and how wonderful it is , its a disgrace

And of course, considering how much time you spend writing about the benefits of converting our whole economic system to a cashless one purely to weed out social welfare fraud, you immediately reported these 'scams', thus alerting social welfare to possible future abuses of the system, and we can now rest safely that these scams are being looked out for. Right?

needadvi · 29-07-2011 10:08PM

IngazZagni wrote: »

Because it's tax-payer money. It's so you can get by. It's not to buy a new telly or go out and get wasted in town. I feel buying fancy products like an ipad with dole money is abusing the system. That's not what it meant for. It is to provide basic support for you including food and bills. And if you are paying bills for 50meg broadband, cut it to 10megor whatever. Things like this is what I'm talking about.

Says you until you end queuing in the dole office yourself..

IngazZagni · 29-07-2011 10:09PM

dvpower wrote: »

Yes. The basics. Certainly not televisions sets. Having a television isn't a basic requirement...

... but broadband internet is!!

Sorry my sarcasm detector has a fault! Broadband internet can be a vital tool in finding new work which is why I consider that a basic need while unemployed on the dole, I'll let that pass!

Toby Take a Bow · 29-07-2011 10:12PM

IngazZagni wrote: »

I feel buying fancy products like an ipad with dole money is abusing the system. That's not what it meant for.

I remember the last time I got my dole money. After paying for groceries and setting aside money for bills, rent and bus fare and a little extra for unforeseen events, I then whistled and skipped to my local Apple shop and attempted to purchase an iPad. Unfortunately this was retailing for something in excess of 500 euro, and even if I had no living expenses whatsoever, it would take three weekly payments to buy the iPad.

I then remembered that even when i had a job, I could not afford an iPad.

7sr2z3fely84g5 · 29-07-2011 10:14PM

bmarley wrote: »

Unfortunately, there are a large group of people who use and abuse our generous welfare state. There are those who have no interest in supporting themselves and their families, because in some cases it is more beneficial to be on welfare with entitlements such as rent allowances, medical cards, clothing/footwear allowances etc. People who are long term unemployed should be made to take up a placement or other such scheme to set an example for their children. In many families, children's nutritional needs are not being met, not only because parents may not be educated in how to shop for and prepare nutritious meals but also because income into the families is being mis-spent. New schemes introduced by the government do not appear to target those who do not want to work/educate themselves but are instead being taken up by people who already are well educated and want to work. The system is all wrong!

The allowances and exemptions available to med card holders is astounding.

Eric Cartman · 29-07-2011 10:18PM

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

But fairly impossible to get by on if you're the vast, vast majority of sw recipients who are not living with their parents, and not scamming the system, right?

wouldnt agree with 2 vasts being in there , of irish nationals on social welfare over the age of 25 i would agree that 90% of them are genuine cases who need the welfare and are not living comfortably . Of people on social welfare under 25 or immigrants, I would say atleast 51% are abusing the system in some way.

And of course, considering how much time you spend writing about the benefits of converting our whole economic system to a cashless one purely to weed out social welfare fraud, you immediately reported these 'scams', thus alerting social welfare to possible future abuses of the system, and we can now rest safely that these scams are being looked out for. Right?

https://www.welfare.ie/EN/Secure/Pages/ReportSuspectFraud.aspx

bookmarked on my phone and all

IngazZagni · 29-07-2011 10:19PM

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

I remember the last time I got my dole money. After paying for groceries and setting aside money for bills, rent and bus fare and a little extra for unforeseen events, I then whistled and skipped to my local Apple shop and attempted to purchase an iPad. Unfortunately this was retailing for something in excess of 500 euro, and even if I had no living expenses whatsoever, it would take three weekly payments to buy the iPad.

I then remembered that even when i had a job, I could not afford an iPad.

I hear ya man, I chose a bad example. Change the a to an o and it's a better example

And to reiterate I know the vast majority barely have enough to get by, I'm only saying in theory you shouldn't be able to buy luxury items because this should have all been spent on the basics.

needadvi wrote: »

Says you until you end queuing in the dole office yourself..

Well this is it isn't it. It's just like being in a union (most anyway). Scum from the outside but hey I won't complain if I'm in a company with a Union.

I'm trying to look at it from a neutral perspective. The job seekers allowance should give you enough to get by but little enough so it gets you up off your ass and handing in CV's on every street corner.

wolfpawnat · 29-07-2011 10:24PM

Too many different things people buy with their payments. Some have transport costs, others spend more on food that clothes. Some people have higher bills than other.

So solution, if someone is in front of the courts for more than 5 crimes in a 2year period. Cut their SW and give them the vouchers.

Why should the 450,000 on the live register be punished for what must be only 15,000-30,000 people!

Mike 1972 · 29-07-2011 10:26PM

IngazZagni wrote: »

I'm only saying in theory you shouldn't be able to buy luxury items because this should have all been spent on the basics..

Has it ever occurred to anyone when they see a SW recipient with an Ipad/pod/phone/other piece of overpriced sweatshop produced shyte that perhaps that person might have bought it when they....you know....had a job ?

wolfpawnat wrote: »

So solution, if someone is in front of the courts for more than 5 crimes in a 2year period. Cut their SW and give them the vouchers.

Unless the crimes in question are of a pretty trivial nature would it not be time to start thinking about .....you know......a stretch in the big house ?

District Court judge: Replace social welfare money with vouchers

Comments