Jobseekers Allowance For New Applicants Under 26 to be Cut

Xenji · 14-10-2013 12:57PM

I know a person who has been on the dole since he was first eligible and is now 52 and still on it, he has not worked a day in his life in 34 years, he has never been made do any FAS schemes or training, has been given affordable housing with rent allowance and has always had a medical card. These are the people we need to target, not the youth.

UCDVet · 14-10-2013 01:12PM

Xenji wrote: »

I know a person who has been on the dole since he was first eligible and is now 52 and still on it, he has not worked a day in his life in 34 years, he has never been made do any FAS schemes or training, has been given affordable housing with rent allowance and has always had a medical card. These are the people we need to target, not the youth.

I agree with you, but realistically, I wonder what can be done?

If you took away the dole, would he go out and get a job? Let's assume he was willing, *could* he get a job? Is he employable? I doubt it.

Where do you turn when you need money, can't get a legal job, and can't rely on government aid? He's either going to be on the street begging for money or turn to crime. In either case, he is still a burden to the state.

Cunning Stunt · 14-10-2013 01:18PM

UCDVet wrote: »

I agree with you, but realistically, I wonder what can be done?

If you took away the dole, would he go out and get a job? Let's assume he was willing, *could* he get a job? Is he employable? I doubt it.

Where do you turn when you need money, can't get a legal job, and can't rely on government aid? He's either going to be on the street begging for money or turn to crime. In either case, he is still a burden to the state.

I really hope that is an extreme case, otherwise the country really is f*cked. They should put a cap on the length of time someone can be on full dole payments to avoid these situations. And for people using their parents addresses - they should be reduced payments aswell IMO.

NTMK · 14-10-2013 01:21PM

Cunning Stunt wrote: »

I really hope that is an extreme case, otherwise the country really is f*cked. They should put a cap on the length of time someone can be on full dole payments to avoid these situations. And for people using their parents addresses - they should be reduced payments aswell IMO.

they do already depending on the means test.

SCOOP 64 · 14-10-2013 01:28PM

Xenji wrote: »

I know a person who has been on the dole since he was first eligible and is now 52 and still on it, he has not worked a day in his life in 34 years, he has never been made do any FAS schemes or training, has been given affordable housing with rent allowance and has always had a medical card. These are the people we need to target, not the youth.

Cant understand why this person was not chased upon by social when employment was very low during boom times,only now under one of Ireland's worst recession's, now these people get mentioned.
too late now, unemployable.

Tombi! · 14-10-2013 01:31PM

If someone brings up rent allowance: keep in mind you need to be living somewhere in private accommodation for six months before you're even entitled to it. And then, you need to be "needing" private accommodation.
So if you can live with your parents, you won't be getting rent allowance.

Thing is though, if they keep reducing it for specific ages, it makes no sense.

It's as if they're saying "well, when you're 24/26/whatever you need to eat some more food so we'll let you do that".

The idea of freedom for the youth seems to be just gone in this country. Scary, almost. Like a dictatorship. It's kinda "either stay here and take the terrible existence or else f**k off out of here because we don't want you".

Shout Dust · 14-10-2013 01:37PM

I don't understand why it's only new people signing on who get cut, while people on it years keep all their benefits from when they first signed on.

Also, if someone finds temporary work, say on a contract of 2-3 months, are they classed as a new person signing on and so would end up getting less?

Tombi! · 14-10-2013 01:38PM

Shout Dust wrote: »

I don't understand why it's only new people signing on who get cut, while people on it years keep all their benefits from when they first signed on.

Also, if someone finds temporary work, say on a contract of 2-3 months, are they classed as a new person signing on and so would end up getting less?

Second question: I believe your original claim is still there. So you're considered as still being on it from whenever you started.

As for the first one: I assume it's part of this "they're young so get them to go on the Jobbridge Scheme" that they have going.

reginald · 14-10-2013 01:53PM

We need social welfare reform to be fair, the country cannot sustain the amount of people on the live register. However i'm not really concerned as i'm over 26 and receiving full JSB, my wife is a dependant and does'nt need to sign on, we get childrens allowance, fuel allowance,rent allowance and a medical card. We are expecting new baby soon so will have another few bob in the kitty. Going for s steak dinner now so talk soon

Gatling · 14-10-2013 02:00PM

reginald wrote: »

We need social welfare reform to be fair, the country cannot sustain the amount of people on the live register. However i'm not really concerned as i'm over 26 and receiving full JSB, my wife is a dependant and does'nt need to sign on, we get childrens allowance, fuel allowance,rent allowance and a medical card. We are expecting new baby soon so will have another few bob in the kitty. Going for s steak dinner now so talk soon

Well for some to have welfare pay for everything did your
CWO pay for fertility treatment

fedor.2. · 14-10-2013 02:01PM

judgefudge wrote: »

I'm 25, never been on the dole, have worked and been in college for 7 years. I've paid tax and never gotten a grant. I finish college in January with a decent chance of going some kind of work. However, there is undoubtably going to be a period if possibly 2-6 months before I find a suitable job. Now it looks like I'm going to get 144 which, with the bills I have is going to be scraping by. I know that the dole isn't there to make your life luxurious but this is really going to make me struggle.

I want to work, I have incentive to work. I don't understand why this payment will be lowered when the likes of my brother, who has been on the dole for 2-3 years (he's 28) and hasn't even looked for a job, will continue to get 188 per week.

It's really depressing how they've targeted the young and are trying to demoralize the unemployed even more. I have a postgrad degree in a good area and to be honest I just feel like getting the fck out of this country.

7 years in college and no job lined up for when you finished!!!! Having a laugh are ya?? 7 YEARS!!!!!!!!!!

Xenji · 14-10-2013 02:05PM

Shout Dust wrote: »

I don't understand why it's only new people signing on who get cut, while people on it years keep all their benefits from when they first signed on.

Also, if someone finds temporary work, say on a contract of 2-3 months, are they classed as a new person signing on and so would end up getting less?

If you tell the social welfare you have found a full time job and are taken off the system, if you have to go back on it, you will be deemed a new applicant and get less money as you will be means tested again. They will come up with someway to get people on the lower rate, like saying you have to sign on as a new applicant after you are unsuccessful in a Jobsbridge or something like that.

drunkmonkey · 14-10-2013 02:25PM

fedor.2. wrote: »

7 years in college and no job lined up for when you finished!!!! Having a laugh are ya?? 7 YEARS!!!!!!!!!!

Employers will love that, ohh look at this guy, done his leaving cert, went to college for 7 years and hasn't worked a day in his 25 years on the earth.
Highly unemployable. Job-Bridge may be the only hope of getting a foot in the door.

Ray Palmer · 14-10-2013 02:29PM

I really don't understand how it is legal. You can't discriminate based on age but that seems exactly what this is. Job seekers benefit is a paid contribution so isn't cut? Jobseekers allowance is means tested so I guess they can do as they like

Is this job seekers allowance they are cutting?

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

18-25 year olds are the first generation in living memory who will fare worse than our parents, and worse than older generations. .

My Gran who survived rationing from WW2 may think differently. They also went hungry a lot growing up as there wasn't much about and choice on food was limited. Education options were very limited too. I don't think people understand food is so cheap now.

Those of us who lived in the 80s and old enough to be parents of this generation also know things are way better now than then. Real world experience of this time may jar with people who look back and thinks things were better in a time they were never in.

Stinicker · 14-10-2013 02:35PM

So much for becoming an adult at 18, this is a disgrace and it should be the full rate for everyone over the age of 18.

Tombi! · 14-10-2013 02:39PM

Ray Palmer wrote: »

I really don't understand how it is legal. You can't discriminate based on age but that seems exactly what this is. Job seekers benefit is a paid contribution so isn't cut? Jobseekers allowance is means tested so I guess they can do as they like

Is this job seekers allowance they are cutting?

Assuming it's all true, yes just jobseekers allowance.

It's not illegal since it's a government thing. In theory (this is very f**k up logic BTW): the idea is that you're 18-26 and will hopefully take up the Jobbridge scheme for less than minimum wage. When you're doing a Jobridge scheme, you're not considered part of the unemployment register thus, the government gets to say "ooh look at how we reduced the number of unemployed youth".

Where in reality: they still pay you for being unemployed (Because you are)

Gatling · 14-10-2013 02:40PM

Stinicker wrote: »

So much for becoming an adult at 18, this is a disgrace and it should be the full rate for everyone over the age of 18.

Then again some believe if you haven't put in you shouldn't be able to take out

Ray Palmer · 14-10-2013 02:45PM

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

Assuming it's all true, yes just jobseekers allowance.

It's not illegal since it's a government thing. In theory (this is very f**k up logic BTW): the idea is that you're 18-26 and will hopefully take up the Jobbridge scheme for less than minimum wage. When you're doing a Jobridge scheme, you're not considered part of the unemployment register thus, the government gets to say "ooh look at how we reduced the number of unemployed youth".

Where in reality: they still pay you for being unemployed (Because you are)

The government have broken laws before and thought things out incorrectly.

I'll tell you what if you can show me how the figures are worked out for the unemployment register and that job bridge is excluded I'll believe you. If you can't you remove your post.

Sound fair?

Tombi! · 14-10-2013 02:48PM

Ray Palmer wrote: »

The government have broken laws before and thought things out incorrectly.

I'll tell you what if you can show me how the figures are worked out for the unemployment register and that job bridge is excluded I'll believe you. If you can't you remove your post.

Sound fair?

And how exactly would you like me to do it?
Not sounding smart but you could just deny anything I say.
So can you give me an example of what you'd like me to say? (or rather, how you'd want me to prove it)

FTA69 · 14-10-2013 02:53PM

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I'm going to use London as an example, flight to London Gatwick tomorrow from Dublin €91.99 including taxes and charges.
3 Weeks Bed in a Hostel in Central London €168. So that's €259.99 all in for 3 weeks bed and the flight.

First month's rent in London for a room in a house share - £400
Six Weeks Deposit - £600
Money to live on for a month while you wait to get paid - £600

It isn't as simple as you make out to be fair!

Ray Palmer · 14-10-2013 02:56PM

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

And how exactly would you like me to do it?
Not sounding smart but you could just deny anything I say.
So can you give me an example of what you'd like me to say? (or rather, how you'd want me to prove it)

You made the statement that it reduces the live register, prove it. You know like instead of just making it up show us how you know your statement is true.

AFAIK they stay on the live register.

Links to official calculation of these figure with you explaining with the actual figures how the JB program distorts the true figures.

Failing that why would you think that?

Tombi! · 14-10-2013 02:57PM

Well, all I have (apart from blogs which you won't believe) is the fact I was told that by staff in the welfare officer. Hence the "AFAIK" (as far as I know).

Xenji · 14-10-2013 02:57PM

Ray Palmer wrote: »

The government have broken laws before and thought things out incorrectly.

I'll tell you what if you can show me how the figures are worked out for the unemployment register and that job bridge is excluded I'll believe you. If you can't you remove your post.

Sound fair?

It is a known fact that when you take up a Jobsbridge position you are taken off the live register even though you are still receiving social welfare, in the governments eyes you are working in a job and not unemployed, they even tell you it in the social welfare offices when you do one.

Gongoozler · 14-10-2013 02:59PM

Ray Palmer wrote: »

The government have broken laws before and thought things out incorrectly.

I'll tell you what if you can show me how the figures are worked out for the unemployment register and that job bridge is excluded I'll believe you. If you can't you remove your post.

Sound fair?

Doubt it's written anywhere. I can tell you from my experience that it is true. I finished a jobsbridge and applied for a ce scheme job, which has unemployed as a requirement. Was offered the job only for welfare to tell them I wasn't eligible for it as I wasn't on the live register for the previous 9 months.

Xenji · 14-10-2013 03:01PM

Gongoozler wrote: »

Doubt it's written anywhere. I can tell you from my experience that it is true. I finished a jobsbridge and applied for a ce scheme job, which has unemployed as a requirement. Was offered the job only for welfare to tell them I wasn't eligible for it as I wasn't on the live register for the previous 9 months.

Exact same thing happened to my sister

Nate--IRL-- · 14-10-2013 03:02PM

Xenji wrote: »

It is a known fact that when you take up a Jobsbridge position you are taken off the live register even though you are still receiving social welfare, in the governments eyes you are working in a job and not unemployed, they even tell you it in the social welfare offices when you do one.

Yes, that is what the SW office told me when I did mine. I was no longer on the register, however that would not present a gap in my stamps.

Nate

Stinicker · 14-10-2013 03:04PM

Gatling wrote: »

Then again some believe if you haven't put in you shouldn't be able to take out

Everbody puts in, including those on the dole themselves, VAT is 23% and there are dozens of other non work related taxes. The truth is that if you go to work today in Ireland you are paying around 60% in taxes, between all the different direct and non-direct taxes that people pay. Unless you are on greater than €500-€600/ week it is an absolute waste of time to go out to work. Why work to repay the gambling debts of the Fianna Fail traitors?

Tombi! · 14-10-2013 03:05PM

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

Yes, that is what the SW office told me when I did mine. I was no longer on the register, however that would not present a gap in my stamps.

Nate

I was told something like: if you do take up a jobridge scheme you won't be consider a new claimant but while on jobridge you're not no the register and you should also be looking for a job. :rolleyes:

Gatling · 14-10-2013 03:06PM

Stinicker wrote: »

Everbody puts in, including those on the dole themselves, VAT is 23% and there are dozens of other non work related taxes. The truth is that if you go to work today in Ireland you are paying around 60% in taxes, between all the different direct and non-direct taxes that people pay. Unless you are on greater than €500-€600/ week it is an absolute waste of time to go out to work. Why work to repay the gambling debts of the Fianna Fail traitors?

Basically speaking laziness rules

Stinicker · 14-10-2013 03:09PM

Gatling wrote: »

Basically speaking laziness rules

No, basically speaking that drawing the dole is a more sensible approach to life than being a slave to the system. I know people on the dole who have far happier lives than working for a corrupt system which encourages private vultures to exploit the working people. This is the very same thing which drove our forefathers to oust the British establishment, the War of Independence was as much a class struggle as it was a bid for National freedom.

Jobseekers Allowance For New Applicants Under 26 to be Cut

Comments