better off on the dole

if the wife was getting fis then he wouldn't be able to claim for her as a dependent, the 118euro or am I wrong?

What kind of example are you setting to your kids?

Seriously why do people view it as simply as ill get more on the dole so im not bothering my arse looking for a job. if you are able to work dole shouldn't come into it.

I find it strange that it almost becomes an argument of unemployed vs employed

Would you be happier if the unemployed got less? I don't think that unemployed people are living like kings but I also know there are a lot of people out there struggling that are trying their best to work

I think the real issue here is childcare costs and that is what really needs to be looked at! They should bring something in for people on a certain wage to help with these costs!

yes its not fair at all - if a working family earn exactly the same or near to what a family on the dole get then the working family are at least -800to900 for one child down a month from paying childcare

V123 wrote: »

yes its not fair at all - if a working family earn exactly the same or near to what a family on the dole get then the working family are at least -800to900 for one child down a month from paying childcare

foxy06 wrote: »

Exactly my point.

Well then let one of the parents mind the kids, ye are already getting child maintaince.

Again what example is it to children when their parents are scrounging of the state(choosing to claim something they are not entitled to)

yes and I don't see how anyone could disagree with that.

The problem is not the amount of money that people get on the dole as the government have worked out that this is what is the sum needed for them to live - the problem is people who are working on the likes of a minimum wage are not getting a standard of living that the government have set for family that is not working!

How do they determine how much a family needs to survive or live on? it must be some kind of mathematical method! its not like people can get someone to mind their children for nothing and go out to work so how can they not take this cost into account!

everyone with a child receives children allowance

if your a millionaire with 10 kids you get paid the same amount as if you are unemployed with 10 kids!

foxy06 wrote: »

They would get that whether they are working or not though so for the question at hand I wouldn't even take it into account.

Ahh didn't realise you you were that type of person.

Sure don't forget to add in the medical card and whilst your at claim rent allowance or what about a council house and fuel allowance.

Again you are some poor example of a parent if you scrounge of the dole(dole is there to assist people who have fallen on hard times and can't find a job not a choice). What will they turn out like watching one of their parents breeze through life without working, having a great life of the state

ardmacha wrote: »

While this thread has a real point, this is in the kind of sloppy use of statistics that undermines this forum. If welfare is 70% of tax, but only 37% of expenditure, are you implying that expenditure is almost twice tax take?

Non-tax revenue - fees, charges etc. may make up the difference.

It's taken a while for it to sink in that the OP is NOT on the dole and the figures given are an EXAMPLE of a situation where a family would be better off on the dole and the point of the thread is HOW can it make sense to make more money sitting at home than it is to work. Hopefully that's the last clarification that will be needed on the thread.

Regarding your point OP, it is madness really. The situation you presented is pretty much the type of situation that many people wouldn't bother continuing in and that is a major part of our problem. Similar to what I mentioned in the Joan Burton thread, simply raising minimum wage is less effective to get people off their arse and look for a job based on what they could have and it would be more effective reducing what they do have.

If JSA/JSB maximum rate was reduced to €150 per week I think it would be a good start. The guts of 200 quid for doing nothing is far too much, especially given the financial condition we're in. There also needs to be a steeply declining scale of benefits, down to €100 per week after 6 months if you have not secured a job or completed at least one free FETAC course in that time and be registered and completing one for the duration of the time you remain on the dole. If at any point you fail to complete a FETAC course during this time, dole is then reduced to €75 per week until one is completed or you find a job.

You'd be amazed how much more motivated people become when their comforts are taken away, and genuine job seekers would have no problem upskilling during the time they are on the dole and looking for work.

The dole in the UK for a single person ranges from £34.60 (€40.79) per week to £57.45 (€67.73) per week depending on age. I think people here could live on €75 a week if they're not genuinely looking for work and would take a massive strain off of the country.

I always say it, but you've got to be ruthless, you can't play politics at times like this. The wage rates and employment levels in the civil service are also something that needs to be completely restructured and reformed. People can threaten industrial action all they like, but the bottom line is that no reasonably person can honestly say that public pay rates (including welfare) accross the entire spectrum are reflective of the financial situation we are in or of the value to the tax payer from the jobs being done.

Imagine an efficient public service and slashed welfare expenses, imagine all the money that could be pumped into industrial and corporate assistance and subsidise etc. to get the economy moving, job creation would be ten fold and the coggs might start turning again. The key is getting people back to work. If businesses are being given tax and subsidy assistance to take off and are making good money (both domestically and / or exporting) then in turn they will hire more staff, who will not be claiming benefits and instead paying tax, the scheme would pay for it's self.

It's the sitting here and waiting for it to pass and not wanting to rock the boat that is killing this country. If a Government had the balls to say "look, you're getting too much, and we're not going to give it any more, but in the medium term, these cuts will be the spark to ignite the economy again and more and better jobs will be created by it" then I think it's a fair resolution for all. The Government needs to be realistic and tough here, not trying to bring in crappy little taxes left, right and centre to get a few quid here and there and try and gently pick the pockets from every where, as every little move like this just pisses people off more and more, just get to the root of it, tear it off like a band aid and use your time in office to try and have it turned around by the next general election. Sure there'll be uproar, but that doesn't change the fact that it has to be done.