IMF: social welfare benefits 'too high'

molloyjh · 27-07-2012 05:34PM

Heads the ball wrote: »

Why dont you tell us why it is justified?

And here was me thinking that I did in the post you quoted.

1. Everyone else has to take cuts.
2. The SW bill is high
3. Those paying for the SW bill are the same as those taking the cuts in point 1

Realistically point 2 alone is enough. We can't afford it therefore we shouldn't spend it.

djpbarry wrote: »

Both of my parents are unemployed and have been for some time. They have no mortgage to pay and no dependents any more. They each get €190 odd every week for doing absolutely nothing and will continue to do so indefinitely. I can assure you that a sizeable chunk of that money gets spent on cigarettes and alcohol. What's more, there is absolutely no incentive for them to go looking for a job.

Is it wrong that I'm jealous???

Heads the ball · 27-07-2012 05:39PM

djpbarry wrote: »

Heads the ball wrote: »

I really think its disgusting for people who are not on welfare (assuming you are not) to make these comments like "its easy" and "we can cut plenty more." Why should the most vulnerable in society pay more and more?

Oh please – can we drop this “vulnerable” nonsense once and for all?

Both of my parents are unemployed and have been for some time. They have no mortgage to pay and no dependents any more. They each get €190 odd every week for doing absolutely nothing and will continue to do so indefinitely. I can assure you that a sizeable chunk of that money gets spent on cigarettes and alcohol. What's more, there is absolutely no incentive for them to go looking for a job.

So you’ll have to forgive me for rolling my eyes just a little bit when people tell me welfare in Ireland cannot be cut because it will threaten “the most vulnerable in our society”. There are plenty of welfare recipients in Ireland who could not possibly be described as “vulnerable”.

EchoO wrote: »

Is it? Yes we have a rather large budget deficit, but is our expenditure on welfare colossal compared to other EU countries?

Perhaps I should have qualified that as colossal relative to the total tax take.

Most middle and upper class people i know spend more actual cash (not percentage of income) on cigs and booze so using your logic we should tackle their imcome further

Heads the ball · 27-07-2012 05:42PM

djpbarry wrote: »

Heads the ball wrote: »

I really think its disgusting for people who are not on welfare (assuming you are not) to make these comments like "its easy" and "we can cut plenty more." Why should the most vulnerable in society pay more and more?

Oh please – can we drop this “vulnerable” nonsense once and for all?

Both of my parents are unemployed and have been for some time. They have no mortgage to pay and no dependents any more. They each get €190 odd every week for doing absolutely nothing and will continue to do so indefinitely. I can assure you that a sizeable chunk of that money gets spent on cigarettes and alcohol. What's more, there is absolutely no incentive for them to go looking for a job.

So you’ll have to forgive me for rolling my eyes just a little bit when people tell me welfare in Ireland cannot be cut because it will threaten “the most vulnerable in our society”. There are plenty of welfare recipients in Ireland who could not possibly be described as “vulnerable”.

EchoO wrote: »

Is it? Yes we have a rather large budget deficit, but is our expenditure on welfare colossal compared to other EU countries?

Perhaps I should have qualified that as colossal relative to the total tax take.

And its not nonsense. You are pointing to two reasonably comfortable people. Not everyone fits that bill. 400 aint a lot to run a household.

djpbarry · 27-07-2012 05:47PM

Heads the ball wrote: »

Most middle and upper class people i know spend more actual cash (not percentage of income) on cigs and booze so using your logic we should tackle their imcome further

That's an absolutely ridiculous comparison. People can spend their own money on whatever the hell they like. The obvious point I was making is that there are unquestionably cases were people are spending other taxpayers' money on non-essential items.

Hence, their is scope to cut welfare.

djpbarry · 27-07-2012 05:52PM

Heads the ball wrote: »

And its not nonsense. You are pointing to two reasonably comfortable people. Not everyone fits that bill.

Did I say they did?

I'm just making the point that not everyone on welfare can be described as "vulnerable".

Heads the ball wrote: »

400 aint a lot to run a household.

I cannot believe that's a serious statement? You don't think two people can live comfortably on €400 per week (€376 to be precise)? Remember, that’s over €1,600 per month with no rent or mortgage to pay.

murphaph · 27-07-2012 05:53PM

Heads the ball wrote: »

And its not nonsense. You are pointing to two reasonably comfortable people. Not everyone fits that bill. 400 aint a lot to run a household.

400 quid a WEEK is more than enough for a couple to feed and clothe themselves, given that these 2 people have no housing costs to pay.

Anyway, if it was just the 400, actually 380, we'd be absolutely grand as the dole itself forms a fairly small part of the total welfare budget. It's the phone allowance, the fuel allowance, the free medical cards, the free travel passes etc. etc. (none of which are actually free, they are all billed to the taxpayer)

You talk about "the most vulnerable" a lot mate. Are these 2 adults in receipt of benefits, with no dependents and no mortgage really more vulnerable than a couple in their early thirties with a jumbo mortgage, 2 kids and hanging on to their jobs by the skins of their teeth? Give me a fcuking break pal. Being unemployed does not automatically make one a member of "the most vulnerable" no matter how often you repeat it.

golfwallah · 27-07-2012 06:38PM

djpbarry wrote: »

That's an absolutely ridiculous comparison. People can spend their own money on whatever the hell they like. The obvious point I was making is that there are unquestionably cases were people are spending other taxpayers' money on non-essential items.

Agreed, and all that’s before the additional interest on borrowings required because the taxes collected are not enough to pay the bill.

Meaning, today’s over generous welfare costs will have to be paid for by tomorrow’s taxpayers (i.e. all our children and grandchildren).

I think future generations would prefer we invest taxes and borrowings wisely on productive projects that will generate wealth for their futures as opposed to frittering it away on non-essentials (as per Heads the ball style economics).

djpbarry wrote: »

Hence, their is scope to cut welfare.

Agreed - couldn't have put it better myself.

Heads the ball · 27-07-2012 06:55PM

murphaph wrote: »

400 quid a WEEK is more than enough for a couple to feed and clothe themselves, given that these 2 people have no housing costs to pay.

Anyway, if it was just the 400, actually 380, we'd be absolutely grand as the dole itself forms a fairly small part of the total welfare budget. It's the phone allowance, the fuel allowance, the free medical cards, the free travel passes etc. etc. (none of which are actually free, they are all billed to the taxpayer)

You talk about "the most vulnerable" a lot mate. Are these 2 adults in receipt of benefits, with no dependents and no mortgage really more vulnerable than a couple in their early thirties with a jumbo mortgage, 2 kids and hanging on to their jobs by the skins of their teeth? Give me a fcuking break pal. Being unemployed does not automatically make one a member of "the most vulnerable" no matter how often you repeat it.

I think your use of profanity is a bit unwarranted.

My point is that whole section of society are the most vulnerable in society as it contains the highest proportion of vulnerable people. Of course you can point to people within that bracket who are less vulnerable than others. I mean I could say two people earning average industrial wage with no children are doing pretty well. But your logic can't be used as rational to cut welfare.

I think if welfare was cut by 10€ that would cause enormous hardship on many ( fully conceding not "everyone") people yet I think it would save a max of 500m. But in net terms it would be less as the govt would take less vat etc...

How can you justify this hardship when AIB paid €600m in legal fees last year. Nama spends hundreds of millions on same. And we cut the banks unlimited cheques for tens of BILLIONS. So have some sense of social justice will you please.

Heads the ball · 27-07-2012 07:15PM

djpbarry wrote: »

That's an absolutely ridiculous comparison. People can spend their own money on whatever the hell they like. The obvious point I was making is that there are unquestionably cases were people are spending other taxpayers' money on non-essential items.

Hence, their is scope to cut welfare.

But you can't say "it's other people's money." that's flawed reasoning. They are not spending your money so can't just shoulder in and say don't spend my money on a pint. People are entitled to have a pint if they want and it's not a sign of wealth just cause someone has a jar.

Personally I think you need more support than pointing to your mum and dad who have a few pints.

There is a seriously single minded view on here (someone mentioned "is 400 not plenty to feed and cloth yourself" but people have to do more with their lives than feed and cloth themselves, like save for the day a new washing machine is needed or save for the day someone gets ill or whatever).

I get a feeling that a lot of people on here are using hardman economics with the cutting and slashing here there everywhere because it's popular on this website to call for welfare cuts in particular. But it's not very mature. You are not dealing only with numbers you are dealing with HUMANS

EchoO · 27-07-2012 07:47PM

djpbarry wrote: »

Perhaps I should have qualified that as colossal relative to the total tax take.

We spend 17% of our Gross National Income on welfare, which is quite low compared to the rest of Europe.

Count Dooku · 27-07-2012 08:46PM

EchoO wrote: »

We spend 17% of our Gross National Income on welfare, which is quite low compared to the rest of Europe.

what if we compare as percent of tax take?
Don't forget that most of eu countries pay percent of previous income as jobseeker benefits and don't have so generous benefits for long term unemployed

djpbarry · 27-07-2012 09:11PM

Heads the ball wrote: »

How can you justify this hardship when AIB paid €600m in legal fees last year. Nama spends hundreds of millions on same. And we cut the banks unlimited cheques for tens of BILLIONS. So have some sense of social justice will you please.

Ignoring for a moment that Ireland spends BILLIONS every year on welfare, “social justice” is not an accepted form of payment when servicing the national debt.

Heads the ball wrote: »

But you can't say "it's other people's money." that's flawed reasoning.

In what way is it flawed? Welfare is funded by taxpayers, is it not? If you’re drawing from the welfare fund, you better have a good reason for doing so. Wanting to go to the pub doesn’t qualify.

Heads the ball wrote: »

Personally I think you need more support than pointing to your mum and dad who have a few pints.

Who said anything about a few pints? €188 per week will pay for a lot more than a few.

Do you not agree that €188 per week will pay for far more than just the bare essentials in a lot of cases? Do you not agree that the state cannot afford such lavish spending under the current circumstances? Do you not agree that if one is guaranteed such a sum indefinitely, there is little incentive in many cases to return to work?

Heads the ball wrote: »

There is a seriously single minded view on here (someone mentioned "is 400 not plenty to feed and cloth yourself" but people have to do more with their lives than feed and cloth themselves, like save for the day a new washing machine is needed or save for the day someone gets ill or whatever).

I think it was being implied that €400 per week would more than feed and clothe two people – don’t worry, there’ll be plenty left over to fix the washing machine. And as has already been pointed out to you, unemployed people are entitled to medical cards.

You know, welfare isn’t supposed to be supporting the kind of lifestyles people would be accustomed to while working. It’s called “welfare” for a reason.

Heads the ball · 27-07-2012 10:08PM

djpbarry wrote: »

Ignoring for a moment that Ireland spends BILLIONS every year on welfare, “social justice” is not an accepted form of payment when servicing the national debt.
In what way is it flawed? Welfare is funded by taxpayers, is it not? If you’re drawing from the welfare fund, you better have a good reason for doing so. Wanting to go to the pub doesn’t qualify.
Who said anything about a few pints? €188 per week will pay for a lot more than a few.

Do you not agree that €188 per week will pay for far more than just the bare essentials in a lot of cases? Do you not agree that the state cannot afford such lavish spending under the current circumstances? Do you not agree that if one is guaranteed such a sum indefinitely, there is little incentive in many cases to return to work?
I think it was being implied that €400 per week would more than feed and clothe two people – don’t worry, there’ll be plenty left over to fix the washing machine. And as has already been pointed out to you, unemployed people are entitled to medical cards.

You know, welfare isn’t supposed to be supporting the kind of lifestyles people would be accustomed to while working. It’s called “welfare” for a reason.

If you needed that money so badly. If you really did. Why didn't we let Anglo fail. Why did we pay them bond holders? Why did we give all the banks an open cheque book?

Why didn't we write some term into the contract-for-bailout that made us "super equity" holders whereby the state could reach into these entities and take out the 500€m annually as a dividend? Multiples of that cash is going to "professional services"

If the States money is good enough to pay foreign anonymous gambling bond holders then it's good enough if Paddy has the price of a pint at the end of the odd week. So what if he has. You realise that welfare is not a punishment don't you? Actually probably not.

Youre reasoning is flawed because you are associating the welfare as being your money somehow. But it's no more you're money than the money that gets spent on police officers and nurses and teachers. There is nothing extra special about welfare in this regard other than you think it's too high.

These people are probably the least blameworthy section of society: they are not corrupt politicians, bankers, or greedy the classes who bought more than should in terms of property.

You certainly haven't convinced me that ANY cut in welfare is justified. It's morally appalling to call for it and in my opinion shows real immaturity.

Colours · 27-07-2012 10:18PM

Heads the ball wrote: »

How can you justify this hardship when AIB paid €600m in legal fees last year. Nama spends hundreds of millions on same. And we cut the banks unlimited cheques for tens of BILLIONS. So have some sense of social justice will you please.

Let's not forget the CEO of Bank of Ireland - which we the taxpayer own a 15% stake in - who got paid a whopping €831,000 last year. That's EIGHT HUNDRED AND THIRTY ONE THOUSAND EURO. ( http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2012/0316/1224313394326.html )
This is €331,000 over and above the salary cap set by the government for all execs running companies which the state - ie us - have bailed out and therefore part own. If the government is looking at cutting the welfare rates of the vulnerable and marginalised in society then could they not show some balls and firstly put the foot down to these execs earning obscene amounts of money. Many of these suits were also living it up before during and after our economy nosedived in 2008. Even if these characters had their salaries halved they'd still be earning an excessive amount of money for the value they bring to us the tax payer who part funds their disgusting salaries.

I propose that there is a change to the script normally followed in these matters where the poor and vulnerable get shafted first and instead target the "untouchables" at the very top. If only just to set an example.

molloyjh · 27-07-2012 10:24PM

Heads the ball wrote: »

If the States money is good enough to pay foreign anonymous gambling bond holders then it's good enough if Paddy has the price of a pint at the end of the odd week. So what if he has. You realise that welfare is not a punishment don't you? Actually probably not.

And I'm assuming you realise it's not a reward for sitting on your arse doing nothing. It's there to ensure that if you are unfortunate enough to be out of work you are still able to afford the basics. A pint in the local is not a basic. It's a luxury.

You keep banging on about morality yet you want someone out of work to be able to afford a pint down in the local at the expense of working people, some of whom can't afford the pint down the local. It's pure hypocrasy the you are using to suit yourself and to hell with others.

If everyone else has to take the burden of cuts then so do the unemployed. It isn't fair or moral that employed people who are contributing most to the State are the sole ones to take the burden. Either you are a part of this society or you are not. And currently this society requires cutbacks. We all have to take our share of the burden. Anything else is immoral and unfair. And if that doesn't suit you personally then you're free to move elsewhere.

Heads the ball · 27-07-2012 11:06PM

molloyjh wrote: »

And I'm assuming you realise it's not a reward for sitting on your arse doing nothing. It's there to ensure that if you are unfortunate enough to be out of work you are still able to afford the basics. A pint in the local is not a basic. It's a luxury.

You keep banging on about morality yet you want someone out of work to be able to afford a pint down in the local at the expense of working people, some of whom can't afford the pint down the local. It's pure hypocrasy the you are using to suit yourself and to hell with others.

If everyone else has to take the burden of cuts then so do the unemployed. It isn't fair or moral that employed people who are contributing most to the State are the sole ones to take the burden. Either you are a part of this society or you are not. And currently this society requires cutbacks. We all have to take our share of the burden. Anything else is immoral and unfair. And if that doesn't suit you personally then you're free to move elsewhere.

Like I said earlier if spending money on pints is that obscene lets not pretend those on welfare are the only ones who have a pint. I know plenty of middle and upper class people who drink heavily. Im growing weary of this "who has a pint" argument. Let me save you the bother lets say you proved every welfare recipient has four pints and every middle class family have no pints (and I'm not for a moment conceding that because that's not the case) I still see far far more obscene stuff going on here like what I listed in an earlier post and like what another poster just mentioned about execs. So the pints argument can be spared.

I think if you don't lie a country that protects its vulnerable then why don't you move!

Nobody here has dealt head on with the morality point I am making. Instead the arguments are all tangential to that.

djpbarry · 27-07-2012 11:08PM

Heads the ball wrote: »

If you needed that money so badly. If you really did. Why didn't we let Anglo fail.

I don’t like the fact that Anglo was bailed out, but based on the available evidence, it was probably necessary.

But, you’re trying to establish a false dichotomy. Cutting government expenditure was always going to have to happen – bank bailout or not bank bailout. Ireland is spending way more than it can afford to and that has absolutely sod all to do with Anglo.

Heads the ball wrote: »

If the States money is good enough to pay foreign anonymous gambling bond holders then it's good enough if Paddy has the price of a pint at the end of the odd week. So what if he has.

Massive general government deficit. That’s what.

Heads the ball wrote: »

You realise that welfare is not a punishment don't you?

I do realise that yes. Do you realise that Ireland cannot afford to keep spending what it is currently spending? Do you realise how much welfare spending has increased in the past decade? Way, way above the level of inflation?

Heads the ball wrote: »

Youre reasoning is flawed because you are associating the welfare as being your money somehow. But it's no more you're money than the money that gets spent on police officers and nurses and teachers.

I didn’t say it was my money. I said it was taxpayers’ money. If it’s not taxpayers’ money, then whose is it?

Heads the ball wrote: »

These people are probably the least blameworthy section of society: they are not corrupt politicians, bankers, or greedy the classes who bought more than should in terms of property.

Yes because the world is just that black and white.

Can I conclude from the above that you’d be more than happy to cut the welfare of unemployed bankers, politicians and property speculators?

Heads the ball wrote: »

You certainly haven't convinced me that ANY cut in welfare is justified.

Ok, so how about we increase welfare? How much should we increase it by? Lot of vulnerable people out there that need help.

Heads the ball wrote: »

It's morally appalling to call for it and in my opinion shows real immaturity.

Seriously? That’s the level you’re reduced to?

I know a millionaire here in London who, through some creative accounting, has obtained non-domicile status, meaning their tax liabilities are substantially reduced. It’s not uncommon – there are an estimated 200,000 ‘non-doms’ in the UK. However, the individual in question has absolutely no qualms about using the free travel pass they became automatically entitled to when they hit 60. But apparently, according to you, it would be “morally appalling” to suggest that this person could, maybe, just maybe, go without said pass to save the taxpayer a bit of money.

djpbarry · 27-07-2012 11:11PM

Heads the ball wrote: »

Like I said earlier if spending money on pints is that obscene lets not pretend those on welfare are the only ones who have a pint.

Ok, I’m going to jack in my job, move back to Ireland and claim welfare for the rest of my life. Probably pop down the pub a few nights a week. That cool with you?

Sand · 27-07-2012 11:13PM

djpbarry wrote: »

I don’t like the fact that Anglo was bailed out, but based on the available evidence, it was probably necessary.

Jaysus - the only thing that might forgive the complete, total, braindead, inept and truly astounding stupidity of bailing out Anglo Irish was that the morons, fools and timewasters we have as a government didn't know any better,.

Based on the available evidence, bailing out Anglo Irish was totally unnecessary and vastly costly.

Havent we learnt *anything* from the past few years?

retroactive · 27-07-2012 11:24PM

Sand wrote: »

Jaysus - the only thing that might forgive the complete, total, braindead, inept and truly astounding stupidity of bailing out Anglo Irish was that the morons, fools and timewasters we have as a government didn't know any better,.

Based on the available evidence, bailing out Anglo Irish was totally unnecessary and vastly costly.

Havent we learnt *anything* from the past few years?

Our current government or the previous government?

Anyway, that's alot of adjectives, you must be very intelligent. Using your seemingly infinite wisdom, could you actually explain why, in simple terms, bailing out a bank was unnecessary?

Sand · 27-07-2012 11:37PM

Its unnecessary in the same way as bailing out a betting shop is unnecessary.

Anglo Irish bondholders list here

Pick out the old Irish grannies or Irish credit unions on the list to win a prize.

Anyway, that's alot of adjectives, you must be very intelligent.

Thanks - I know some people offer sarcastic or backhanded compliments, but I feel you're genuine.

timbyr · 27-07-2012 11:42PM

Sand wrote: »

Its unnecessary in the same way as bailing out a betting shop is unnecessary.

Anglo Irish bondholders list here

Pick out the old Irish grannies or Irish credit unions on the list to win a prize.

Thanks - I know some people offer sarcastic or backhanded compliments, but I feel you're genuine.

Just to be clear how do we know that the pensions and credit unions aren't being managed through some of these investment companies?

Sand · 27-07-2012 11:45PM

How do we know that every US president for the past 50 years hasn't been a space lizard in a human suit?

EDIT - Seriously, look up the concept of beneficial ownership vs. investment management.

EchoO · 27-07-2012 11:51PM

Count Dooku wrote: »

what if we compare as percent of tax take?

Why would a comparison as a percentage of total tax take be more relevant?

djpbarry · 28-07-2012 12:07AM

EchoO wrote: »

Why would a comparison as a percentage of total tax take be more relevant?

Because, in Ireland:

Total tax take <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< welfare + public sector salaries

ardmacha · 28-07-2012 12:13AM

Why would a comparison as a percentage of total tax take be more relevant?

It isn't relevant. Expenditure as a proportion of GNP is relevant, comparing it with a tax take that is lower than other places is not a reasonable comparison.

retroactive · 28-07-2012 12:36AM

Sand wrote: »

Its unnecessary in the same way as bailing out a betting shop is unnecessary.

Anglo Irish bondholders list here

Pick out the old Irish grannies or Irish credit unions on the list to win a prize.

Thanks - I know some people offer sarcastic or backhanded compliments, but I feel you're genuine.

Just out of curiousity, ever hear of a bank run? It isn't about bondholders, it's about confidence in the system. Ulsterbank had a glitch in their system and look what happened. Now imagine if there was a run on our banks and (considering the structure of a bank's portfolio of assets) there simply wasn't money there. Nothing in any ATM.

Bailing out the betting shop is an inaccurate analogy because betting shops are not a corner stone of our economy. You can sit in a pub with your mates and say "Burn the bond holders" and use all of your wonderful adjectives to describe our current government, our past government and all the bankers and lawyers ever. I'm sure you're friends will nod in agreement and say "yes Sand you tell them" but frankly neither you or them have a notion about economics.

I could stomach an argument comparing and contrasting the situation in Argentina and Iceland to the one here, but instead you give me betting shops and a list of bond holders. But hey, if it gets a nod of agreement from the listeners of Joe Duffy and the lads down the pub then you must be right.

Colours · 28-07-2012 12:50AM

retroactive wrote: »

...betting shops are not a corner stone of our economy.

Anglo was never a proper bank so the government should have let it sink. Unfortunately the regulator was so inept and incompetent and gullible, it recommended the complete opposite.

I think that the Irish government should have gone further with BoI and AIB and nationalised them in their entirety so that we the people would have full control of them. Instead they're still being run by greedy execs earning obscene amounts of money.

AlekSmart · 28-07-2012 01:02AM

djpbarry wrote: »

I'm just making the point that not everyone on welfare can be described as "vulnerable".
.

I believe that this new found Irish "Vulnerability Quotient" is an interesting sub-plot worth developing in parallell with the Welfare Too High topic.

We appear to have become a nation composed significantly of persons incapable,in some shape or form,of living constructively without some entity to either fund it or otherwise assist in the actual living process itself.

The Welfare debate is but a single aspect of a far broader malaise I fear.

We appear to have become incapable of independent living !!

Sand · 28-07-2012 01:10AM

retroactive wrote: »

Just out of curiousity, ever hear of a bank run?

Just out of curiosity, have you ever heard of Ireland? Tiny little open economy. Tried to bail out the worst banking system in the western world. Locked itself out of the sovereign debt markets in the midst of a global recession.

Confidence in a system? Are you serious? Bailing out banks like Anglo Irish is exactly what destroyed the confidence in the Irish sovereign.

Ulsterbank had a glitch in their system and look what happened.

Some whining on Joe Duffy?

Bailing out the betting shop is an inaccurate analogy because betting shops are not a corner stone of our economy.

Neither was Anglo Irish.

I'm sure you're friends will nod in agreement and say "yes Sand you tell them" but frankly neither you or them have a notion about economics.

Correct. Wrong. Wrong.

One out of three ...well, yeah, its bad.

I could stomach an argument comparing and contrasting the situation in Argentina and Iceland to the one here, but instead you give me betting shops and a list of bond holders.

Sorry, I'll try to avoid bothering your simplistic narratives with things like ... facts. Carry on telling your friends down the pub that "Shure we are where we are".

IMF: social welfare benefits 'too high'

Comments