Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

IMF: social welfare benefits 'too high'

18911131428

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 353 ✭✭EchoO


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Because, in Ireland:

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

    Yes and by 2015 when all the adjustments agreed with the troika have been made this will no longer be the case, but Ireland will have still have the 3rd lowest(if not lower) spending on social protection as a percentage of GNI in the EU.
    ardmacha wrote: »
    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.

    I would tend to agree.




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,002 ✭✭✭✭AlekSmart


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Not to mention free travel passes, which can be worth a lot of money in London.

    Never mind London.......

    Table G3 & G4 on Page 86 of this fine document of record are illustrative of whither stands Ireland right now.

    http://www.welfare.ie/EN/Policy/ResearchSurveysAndStatistics/Documents/2011stats.pdf

    Electricity Allowance 2011 € 179,251,000
    TV Licence 2011 € 57,647,000
    Telephone Allowance 2011 € 111,961,000
    Gas Allowance 2011 € 20,716,000
    Travel Allowance 2011 € 75,597,000
    Fuel Allowance 2011 € 265,839,000

    Giving a total (Provisional) cost for 2011 of....€711,011,000

    A cracking good read.....:o


    Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.

    Charles Mackay (1812-1889)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,313 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Colours wrote: »
    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.

    Apparently the Department of Finance couldn't see any reason to save Anglo either, but that was ignored anyway. Suppose we'll never know what exactly happened that night as the records don't exist.

    Anyway, mod voice on:

    Can we please try and keep it Welfare based, instead of everything barring the kitchen sink!

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Regarding the complaints about how unemployed people spend their benefits (on pints etc.):
    While I don't agree with clamping down on such stuff, can someone explain an actual practical method of how that would be clamped down on?

    I don't see how food stamps or restricted welfare credit-card type things will work, because it's extremely easy to get around that by just organizing with a friend that you'll buy some food he needs, and he'll give you the cash for that; there you go, the restrictions are rendered a completely useless waste of money in organizing food stamps or a credit system etc..

    Even if you accept the principle that there are some things people should not be allowed to buy, it's just not possible to enforce that and it's a waste of money trying to, so what is the point in debating over it?


    It's not really a valid argument against reducing welfare either (n.b. I think welfare should see a slight reduction, unrelated to this), because that would be generalizing and lumping all people together who are on benefits as if they all abuse their welfare to take undue luxuries.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,313 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    AlekSmart wrote: »
    Never mind London.......

    Table G3 & G4 on Page 86 of this fine document of record are illustrative of whither stands Ireland right now.

    http://www.welfare.ie/EN/Policy/ResearchSurveysAndStatistics/Documents/2011stats.pdf

    Electricity Allowance 2011 € 179,251,000
    TV Licence 2011 € 57,647,000
    Telephone Allowance 2011 € 111,961,000
    Gas Allowance 2011 € 20,716,000
    Travel Allowance 2011 € 75,597,000
    Fuel Allowance 2011 € 265,839,000

    Giving a total (Provisional) cost for 2011 of....€711,011,000

    A cracking good read.....:o

    Pensioner would probably get the majority of that expenditure, on top of pension payments that haven't been touched at all. They wont be touched as we all know, they'd prefer to cut carers payments while increasing their burden through cutbacks.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    EchoO wrote: »
    Yes and by 2015 when all the adjustments agreed with the troika have been made this will no longer be the case, but Ireland will have still have the 3rd lowest(if not lower) spending on social protection as a percentage of GNI in the EU.
    I’m guessing government revenue as a percentage of GNI is also one of the lowest in the EU? Spending on welfare in Ireland might be low relative to how much money is in the economy, but it’s high relative to government revenue. Hence the problem.
    Regarding the complaints about how unemployed people spend their benefits (on pints etc.):
    While I don't agree with clamping down on such stuff, can someone explain an actual practical method of how that would be clamped down on?
    I don’t know if this has arisen as a result of what I’ve posted, but that’s certainly not what I was advocating. I was simply making the point that if one has no housing costs and no dependents, then €188 per week is going to leave you with a fair bit of disposable income. To me, that’s just not right.

    The whole point of welfare is that it’s supposed to be there if you need it. It shouldn’t be viewed, as it is by so many in Ireland, as an entitlement.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 353 ✭✭EchoO


    djpbarry wrote: »
    I’m guessing government revenue as a percentage of GNI is also one of the lowest in the EU? Spending on welfare in Ireland might be low relative to how much money is in the economy, but it’s high relative to government revenue. Hence the problem.

    You're right it is one of the lowest, but in 2006 spending on welfare was still the 3rd lowest in the EU. Go back to 1999 it was the same. The point being, Ireland's spending on social protection was always low relatively speaking. A crash in government revenue and a huge jump in the number of welfare recipients means an adjustment has to be made, but once that is done our spending in this area will continue to be what it has always been - low.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    djpbarry wrote:
    I don’t know if this has arisen as a result of what I’ve posted, but that’s certainly not what I was advocating. I was simply making the point that if one has no housing costs and no dependents, then €188 per week is going to leave you with a fair bit of disposable income. To me, that’s just not right.

    The whole point of welfare is that it’s supposed to be there if you need it. It shouldn’t be viewed, as it is by so many in Ireland, as an entitlement.
    Okey, it's just something that seems to be recurringly picked out as an issue with welfare.

    Does it matter also though, if people do view it as an entitlement? (not the way I view it, I think people should do what they can to get work of course) I mean, how people view it has little significance, as they either qualify for benefits or not; why does it matter if they qualify for it with a bad attitude, vs a good attitude?

    If they are engaged in fraud, or if they skimp on searching/applying for jobs, they should be cut off, but if they aren't engaged in fraud and yet still have a bad attitude, there's not really anything that can be done about that either, bar enforcing the rules already in place.
    A lot of ideas for further clamping down on the minority who abuse, often seem like they would either be unsuccessful, or that they would end up causing harm to most legitimate recipients as well.

    It would be good, to have the general civic attitude that you should only take it if you need it, but on the flip side I think the general societal attitude has gone too far past that, with anyone on benefits under risk of getting vilified and associated with the scrounger label.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Does it matter also though, if people do view it as an entitlement? (not the way I view it, I think people should do what they can to get work of course) I mean, how people view it has little significance, as they either qualify for benefits or not; why does it matter if they qualify for it with a bad attitude, vs a good attitude?
    Because peoples' attitude towards welfare influence political decisions on the issue and, therefore, the availability of welfare.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,419 ✭✭✭Count Dooku


    ardmacha wrote: »
    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.
    Expenditure as a proportion of GNP is irrelevant because Irish economy is based on low corporate tax and cannot be compared with developed countries with own indigenous industries


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,511 ✭✭✭golfwallah


    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.
    EchoO wrote: »
    You're right it is one of the lowest, but in 2006 spending on welfare was still the 3rd lowest in the EU. Go back to 1999 it was the same. The point being, Ireland's spending on social protection was always low relatively speaking. A crash in government revenue and a huge jump in the number of welfare recipients means an adjustment has to be made, but once that is done our spending in this area will continue to be what it has always been - low.

    The real problem spending money we don’t have on social welfare has nothing to do with narrow views of morality / fairness or whether recipients should be entitled to have a few pints or how we stack up compared to other countries – it’s to do with borrowing and all the bad outcomes and avoidable risks such borrowings entail.

    We could do a lot more good for society at large by reducing the spend on a social welfare system we simply can’t afford and redeploying it to more productive purposes such as reducing debt and the interest payments it brings, reducing taxes to encourage / reward enterprise, re-focussing our health and education systems to make them more effective and fit for purpose, etc. The list of alternatives to socialist minded borrowing goes on and on.

    If anyone needs persuading that unaffordable and risky borrowing for immediate consumption is a bad idea – just look at the examples of people all around us in negative equity or better still, look at the example of the economic and political mess that borrowing created for Argentina.

    Argentina started out on a par with the United States in the late 18th / early 19th centuries but made bad choices in their subsequent development, including unrealistic political promises requiring borrowing to prop up their social welfare system. Click for link to book synopsis on the subject in ft.com.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 331 ✭✭Heads the ball


    golfwallah wrote: »
    The real problem spending money we don’t have on social welfare has nothing to do with narrow views of morality / fairness or whether recipients should be entitled to have a few pints or how we stack up compared to other countries – it’s to do with borrowing and all the bad outcomes and avoidable risks such borrowings entail.

    We could do a lot more good for society at large by reducing the spend on a social welfare system we simply can’t afford and redeploying it to more productive purposes such as reducing debt and the interest payments it brings, reducing taxes to encourage / reward enterprise, re-focussing our health and education systems to make them more effective and fit for purpose, etc. The list of alternatives to socialist minded borrowing goes on and on.

    If anyone needs persuading that unaffordable and risky borrowing for immediate consumption is a bad idea – just look at the examples of people all around us in negative equity or better still, look at the example of the economic and political mess that borrowing created for Argentina.

    Argentina started out on a par with the United States in the late 18th / early 19th centuries but made bad choices in their subsequent development, including unrealistic political promises requiring borrowing to prop up their social welfare system. Click for link to book synopsis on the subject in ft.com.

    But again you haven't addressed the morality point other than to just dismiss it.

    It's distasteful to victimise the vulnerable in society after everything that has happened over the past number of years.

    It's plain wrong. It's vile. It's indicative of a nasty streak we have in us as a people (ie scapegoating). If something is immoral, it cannot be argued that it is economically necessary. All economic policies must pass a basic morality test and in my opinion, the proposal to reduce welfare fails it by a distance.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    It's distasteful to victimise the vulnerable in society...
    As has been said countless times, it's naive to equate "vulnerable" with "in receipt of welfare".
    It's plain wrong. It's vile. It's indicative of a nasty streak we have in us as a people (ie scapegoating). If something is immoral, it cannot be argued that it is economically necessary. All economic policies must pass a basic morality test and in my opinion, the proposal to reduce welfare fails it by a distance.
    Should Ireland therefore increase welfare spending?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,419 ✭✭✭Count Dooku


    But again you haven't addressed the morality point other than to just dismiss it.
    I don't see any morality when family on dole will have more than family with single earner


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 353 ✭✭EchoO


    Expenditure as a proportion of GNP is irrelevant because Irish economy is based on low corporate tax and cannot be compared with developed countries with own indigenous industries

    Whether you use GNP or GDP, Ireland's expenditure on social protection is well below the EU15 average.

    Ireland's total expenditure on social protection per head of population is the fourth lowest in the EU15.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,419 ✭✭✭Count Dooku


    EchoO wrote: »
    Whether you use GNP or GDP, Ireland's expenditure on social protection is well below the EU15 average.
    Mostly because country obsessed with equality and doesn't pay jobseekers benefit as percent of previous income, while jobseeker allowance is highest in all OECD countries
    http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/60/51/49971098.xlsx
    Ireland is only country where long term unemployed family will get more than family with single earner ( net replacement rate is 108%)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 331 ✭✭Heads the ball


    djpbarry wrote: »
    As has been said countless times, it's naive to equate "vulnerable" with "in receipt of welfare".
    Should Ireland therefore increase welfare spending?

    It certainly has been said but I have also said many times that not everyone in receipt of welfare is as vulnerable as the next but that generally this section of society has a higher number of vulnerable people. That's a fact. It's not a shocking claim.

    And on that basis we shouldn't target that area.

    Re your second question, I am expressing opinions as to why welfare should not be reduced and I am not going down that road with you.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 331 ✭✭Heads the ball


    I don't see any morality when family on dole will have more than family with single earner


    WADR that's not a reason to cut welfare. There will be anomalies within the system like what you pointed to above, but that's typically around the margins. Unless you have a perfect system people will always be able to point to anomalies.

    The purpose of welfare would seem to be to allow those are out of work, or in some other way vulnerable to live with a certain amount of dignity. I don't think it's right if we operated a system whereby once someone could point to someone not on welfare who is worse off than someone on welfare that welfare would be reduced immediately. And we don't operate such a system here.

    Even if you cut welfare, you will still be able to find some people working who are less well off than those on welfare.

    So for the above reasons I reject your argument.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 353 ✭✭EchoO


    Mostly because country obsessed with equality and doesn't pay jobseekers benefit as percent of previous income, while jobseeker allowance is highest in all OECD countries
    http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/60/51/49971098.xlsx
    Ireland is only country where long term unemployed family will get more than family with single earner ( net replacement rate is 108%)

    But the amount time spent on unemployment benefit before a person is moved onto unemployment assistance is relatively low in Ireland. At 13 months Ireland would be the 5th lowest. Denmark 48 months, Netherlands 38 months, France 36 months, Portugal 32 months, Germany 24...etc...etc.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,419 ✭✭✭Count Dooku


    EchoO wrote: »
    But the amount time spent on unemployment benefit before a person is moved onto unemployment assistance is relatively low in Ireland. At 13 months Ireland would be the 5th lowest. Denmark 48 months, Netherlands 38 months, France 36 months, Portugal 32 months, Germany 24...etc...etc.

    Because Ireland is poor country and looks different mostly because GDP is inflated by MNC's transactions and GNP inflated by borrowings ( from bondholders before and from Troika now)
    Countries what you mentioned before have corporate tax between 30% and 40% of total tax take, while 75% of Irish economy based on attracting MNC's by low corporate tax and taxing their workers


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,419 ✭✭✭Count Dooku


    WADR that's not a reason to cut welfare. There will be anomalies within the system like what you pointed to above, but that's typically around the margins. Unless you have a perfect system people will always be able to point to anomalies.

    The purpose of welfare would seem to be to allow those are out of work, or in some other way vulnerable to live with a certain amount of dignity. I don't think it's right if we operated a system whereby once someone could point to someone not on welfare who is worse off than someone on welfare that welfare would be reduced immediately. And we don't operate such a system here.

    Even if you cut welfare, you will still be able to find some people working who are less well off than those on welfare.

    So for the above reasons I reject your argument.
    Do you mean that everything what is not suit your theory is anomaly?
    So why people should search for job if they will have plenty of dignity while staying on dole?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 331 ✭✭Heads the ball


    WADR that's not a reason to cut welfare. There will be anomalies within the system like what you pointed to above, but that's typically around the margins. Unless you have a perfect system people will always be able to point to anomalies.

    The purpose of welfare would seem to be to allow those are out of work, or in some other way vulnerable to live with a certain amount of dignity. I don't think it's right if we operated a system whereby once someone could point to someone not on welfare who is worse off than someone on welfare that welfare would be reduced immediately. And we don't operate such a system here.

    Even if you cut welfare, you will still be able to find some people working who are less well off than those on welfare.

    So for the above reasons I reject your argument.
    Do you mean that everything what is not suit your theory is anomaly?
    So why people should search for job if they will have plenty of dignity while staying on dole?

    Answer to q1 is: "no" and do you not see how your example is an anomaly?

    Answer to q2 is: lots really. Like perhaps not being on that pay rate forever and i think you are legally required to be searching for work to claim dole.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,511 ✭✭✭golfwallah


    But again you haven't addressed the morality point other than to just dismiss it.

    It's distasteful to victimise the vulnerable in society after everything that has happened over the past number of years.

    It's plain wrong. It's vile. It's indicative of a nasty streak we have in us as a people (ie scapegoating). If something is immoral, it cannot be argued that it is economically necessary. All economic policies must pass a basic morality test and in my opinion, the proposal to reduce welfare fails it by a distance.

    No, I haven’t dismissed anything, nor do I believe it appropriate to pass narrow moral judgements on a forum, whose purpose is debating economics. Quite the contrary, I hold the view that it’s perfectly reasonable to discuss choices in public spending without pulling the “morality card”.

    Resorting to emotive high sounding terms like “morality” “distasteful to victimise the vulnerable in society”, “It's plain wrong”, “It's vile”, “It's indicative of a nasty streak” is calculated to stifle rational debate with an overarching “moral prerogative / dogma”, particularly when constantly reinforced with barracking demands like “you haven't addressed the morality point”.

    If you can’t make your point in economic terms, without the one track logic of “it’s wrong because I say so”, I don’t know what you are doing on the economics forum.

    This type of self righteous language is more suited to debating Religion & Spirituality, for which there is a separate forum on boards.ie.

    Nor do I do not see economics through the narrow lens of protecting any particular sectional interest in Irish society, be that the beneficiaries of an unaffordable social welfare system or of other inefficiencies in spending from the public purse.

    No, my concern is promoting debate on the economic issues. And my point is that we should protect the overall economic interests of Irish society from government policies requiring unsustainable borrowing. I believe that such a policy of spending vast amounts of money, that we simply do not have, will inevitably lead to the bankruptcy of the state (just as it has for Argentina).

    This type of spendthrift policy, as followed by our present government, is not in the overall long-term interest of this little country of ours, regardless of immediate short-term impact on any particular partisan group.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 331 ✭✭Heads the ball


    golfwallah wrote: »
    But again you haven't addressed the morality point other than to just dismiss it.

    It's distasteful to victimise the vulnerable in society after everything that has happened over the past number of years.

    It's plain wrong. It's vile. It's indicative of a nasty streak we have in us as a people (ie scapegoating). If something is immoral, it cannot be argued that it is economically necessary. All economic policies must pass a basic morality test and in my opinion, the proposal to reduce welfare fails it by a distance.

    No, I haven’t dismissed anything, nor do I believe it appropriate to pass narrow moral judgements on a forum, whose purpose is debating economics. Quite the contrary, I hold the view that it’s perfectly reasonable to discuss choices in public spending without pulling the “morality card”.

    Resorting to emotive high sounding terms like “morality” “distasteful to victimise the vulnerable in society”, “It's plain wrong”, “It's vile”, “It's indicative of a nasty streak” is calculated to stifle rational debate with an overarching “moral prerogative / dogma”, particularly when constantly reinforced with barracking demands like “you haven't addressed the morality point”.

    If you can’t make your point in economic terms, without the one track logic of “it’s wrong because I say so”, I don’t know what you are doing on the economics forum.

    This type of self righteous language is more suited to debating Religion & Spirituality, for which there is a separate forum on boards.ie.

    Nor do I do not see economics through the narrow lens of protecting any particular sectional interest in Irish society, be that the beneficiaries of an unaffordable social welfare system or of other inefficiencies in spending from the public purse.

    No, my concern is promoting debate on the economic issues. And my point is that we should protect the overall economic interests of Irish society from government policies requiring unsustainable borrowing. I believe that such a policy of spending vast amounts of money, that we simply do not have, will inevitably lead to the bankruptcy of the state (just as it has for Argentina).

    This type of spendthrift policy, as followed by our present government, is not in the overall long-term interest of this little country of ours, regardless of immediate short-term impact on any particular partisan group.

    Ah i see. Now your position is morality doesnt belong on this thread. Now that, sir, is a narrow, artificial view.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,039 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    EchoO wrote: »
    But the amount time spent on unemployment benefit before a person is moved onto unemployment assistance is relatively low in Ireland. At 13 months Ireland would be the 5th lowest. Denmark 48 months, Netherlands 38 months, France 36 months, Portugal 32 months, Germany 24...etc...etc.
    AFAIK under 55's in Germany move to Arbeitslosengeld II after 12 months in receipt of Arbeitslosengeld I, 18 months for over 55's.

    Anyway, I'd be fine if it was 24 months in Ireland, so long as it happened. People who have contributed should not end up receiving the same or worse benefits than those who have never contributed.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    EchoO wrote: »
    Whether you use GNP or GDP, Ireland's expenditure on social protection is well below the EU15 average.
    And if you use government revenue? Because in the context of managing general government deficit, that’s the only measure that matters.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    It certainly has been said but I have also said many times that not everyone in receipt of welfare is as vulnerable as the next...
    Now we’re getting somewhere. So do you accept that maybe, just maybe, those who you are not placing in the “vulnerable” category could survive a cut to their welfare payments?
    Re your second question, I am expressing opinions as to why welfare should not be reduced and I am not going down that road with you.
    That’s a cop out. Because you know the answer is obviously no, Ireland should not increase spending on welfare, don’t you?

    So if Ireland should not increase spending on welfare and should not decrease spending on welfare, that implies that the current level of spending on welfare is just right. That’s quite a remarkable coincidence, wouldn’t you say?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,313 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Thread is starting to run its course at this stage. Stating something is morally right doesn't really add much to the discussion, neither does not answering valid questions.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 353 ✭✭EchoO


    djpbarry wrote: »
    And if you use government revenue? Because in the context of managing general government deficit, that’s the only measure that matters.

    Well the process of managing that deficit involves both increasing revenue and reducing Government spending. Over the course of the bailout at least 2.8 billion euro will be cut from the social protection budget. I would be inclined to raise the total tax take by a greater amount than the Government is planning to do, others want deeper cuts. But it's all academic because unless we need another bailout, what actually is going to happen has already been agreed.

    How the Government is going is to make the rest of that 2.8 billion euro cut to the welfare budget without cutting the basic welfare rates remains to be seen, but those cuts will be made one way or another.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 331 ✭✭Heads the ball


    djpbarry wrote: »
    It certainly has been said but I have also said many times that not everyone in receipt of welfare is as vulnerable as the next...
    Now we’re getting somewhere. So do you accept that maybe, just maybe, those who you are not placing in the “vulnerable” category could survive a cut to their welfare payments?
    Re your second question, I am expressing opinions as to why welfare should not be reduced and I am not going down that road with you.
    That’s a cop out. Because you know the answer is obviously no, Ireland should not increase spending on welfare, don’t you?

    So if Ireland should not increase spending on welfare and should not decrease spending on welfare, that implies that the current level of spending on welfare is just right. That’s quite a remarkable coincidence, wouldn’t you say?

    Im not getting involved in that discussion because its extraordinarily ridiculous in my opinion because that same flawed methodology could be applied to every department/area of spending and that certainly would stifle what another poster is calling for, which is the ability to have an economic debate without "pulling certain cards"

    This thread is primarily about th IMF suggestion that welfare is too high. It is not an argument about "is it too low"
    plus i dont see how it is unbelievable/coincidental that the welfare rate is broadly appropriate at the moment.


Advertisement