Should the Dole be proportional to how much tax you have paid?

scuba8 · 15-05-2014 12:26AM

RayM wrote: »

Traveller-bashing and dole-bashing. This is shaping up to be one of those threads...

You are the first person to mention travellers.

Stheno · 15-05-2014 12:27AM

hfallada wrote: »

He was trying to tell the bottom 20% of irish society pay more tax than the top 10%. He didnt know what to see when I told him that Ireland has the second fairest tax system in the OECD and you can actually earn €10,300 without paying a single cent in tax

Should he return, grab your laptop/tablet and give him the following link.

http://www.colly.tv/irelands-income-tax-distribution-chart/

54% of the population earn under 30k – In total they pay 3.1% of the tax.
16% of the population earn over 60k – They pay 74% of the tax.

Hoster · 15-05-2014 12:28AM

Stheno wrote: »

The German Hartz iv system is quite harsh

Explain for the less knowledgeable folks amongst us!

RayM · 15-05-2014 12:28AM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Who's bashing ? Stating a fact is not allowed ?

Traveller unemployment is a very complicated issue. Simply referring to it (or alluding to it) in what is basically yet another dole-bashing thread is likely to result in the arrival of the traveller-bashing element. Not accusing you of traveller-bashing, btw.

Stheno · 15-05-2014 12:29AM

Hoster wrote: »

Explain for the less knowledgeable folks amongst us!

Already been posted about above

Hoster · 15-05-2014 12:31AM

Stheno wrote: »

Already been posted about above

But what happens in the end if they dont find work? Are they cut off completely or do they have a good minimum?

If thats the case i wouldnt call it harsh if i was coming off 80k to 70% of that.

Stheno · 15-05-2014 12:33AM

Hoster wrote: »

But what happens in the end if they dont find work? Are they cut off completely or do they have a good minimum?

If thats the case i wouldnt call it harsh if i was coming off 80k to 70% of that.

Nope they go down to a minimum of approx. 380e a month iirc

CIARAN_BOYLE · 15-05-2014 12:33AM

Hoster wrote: »

Explain for the less knowledgeable folks amongst us!

60% of your wages for six months gradually falling to €382 a month

67% if you have kids

D1stant · 15-05-2014 12:34AM

RayM wrote: »

Traveller unemployment is a very complicated issue. Simply referring to it (or alluding to it) in what is basically yet another dole-bashing thread is likely to result in the arrival of the traveller-bashing element. Not accusing you of traveller-bashing, btw.

This is not a dole-bashing thread or certainly not intended to be. I am asking a legit question on how to structure payments based on previous tax contributions. Some other countries have implemented a system like this - and they do have pros and cons. Please don't oversimplify

Hoster · 15-05-2014 12:38AM

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

60% of your wages for six months gradually falling to €382 a month

67% if you have kids

For someone on 20k a year and not highly demanded thats very harsh alright.

Stheno · 15-05-2014 12:40AM

Hoster wrote: »

For someone on 20k a year and not highly demanded thats very harsh alright.

For someone on 80k it's even harsher

twowheelsonly · 15-05-2014 12:48AM

Absolutely 100% it should be scaled according to the taxes that you've paid previously. Originally that is what PRSI (Stamps) was intended for.

Through my work today I met an immigrant that is living here 9 years, lives in a 3 bedroom house with 2 other immigrants (RA), drives a car, has no family, has a medical card, bank cards, €190 in his wallet - and he was due to get paid today on top of that - and he has never ever worked a day in this country.

My point relating to that is that if I was self employed and had no work I'd get squat. If I was laid off tomorrow I'd get basic rate of dole and probably have to fight to have any chance of a medical card. I'm working now and would never have €190 left over from my last payday when the next one comes around so I dread to think what It'd be like if I wasn't working. Pretty much like the OP I've paid well in excess of half a million in taxes yet I'll see no personal benefit from that - ever..

Anyone that argues that a system like that is the right way to have it must be a politician.

Stheno · 15-05-2014 12:50AM

twowheelsonly wrote: »

Absolutely 100% it should be scaled according to the taxes that you've paid previously. Originally that is what PRSI (Stamps) was intended for.

Through my work today I met an immigrant that is living here 9 years, lives in a 3 bedroom house with 2 other immigrants (RA), drives a car, has no family, has a medical card, bank cards, €190 in his wallet - and he was due to get paid today on top of that - and he has never ever worked a day in this country.

My point relating to that is that if I was self employed and had no work I'd get squat. If I was laid off tomorrow I'd get basic rate of dole and probably have to fight to have any chance of a medical card. I'm working now and would never have €190 left over from my last payday when the next one comes around so I dread to think what It'd be like if I wasn't working. Pretty much like the OP I've paid well in excess of half a million in taxes yet I'll see no personal benefit from that - ever..

Anyone that argues that a system like that is the right way to have it must be a politician.

That's incorrect, you'd not qualify for JSB depending on your PRSI status, but you'd be means assessed for JSA

darkpagandeath · 15-05-2014 12:53AM

twowheelsonly wrote: »

Absolutely 100% it should be scaled according to the taxes that you've paid previously. Originally that is what PRSI (Stamps) was intended for.

Through my work today I met an immigrant that is living here 9 years, lives in a 3 bedroom house with 2 other immigrants (RA), drives a car, has no family, has a medical card, bank cards, €190 in his wallet - and he was due to get paid today on top of that - and he has never ever worked a day in this country.

My point relating to that is that if I was self employed and had no work I'd get squat. If I was laid off tomorrow I'd get basic rate of dole and probably have to fight to have any chance of a medical card. I'm working now and would never have €190 left over from my last payday when the next one comes around so I dread to think what It'd be like if I wasn't working. Pretty much like the OP I've paid well in excess of half a million in taxes yet I'll see no personal benefit from that - ever..

Anyone that argues that a system like that is the right way to have it must be a politician.

So you don't drive on the roads ? Or use the health service or any other services your tax goes to ?

padd b1975 · 15-05-2014 12:56AM

Hoster wrote: »

Any other countries who have successfully implemented this strategy?

Someone mentioned the French system a few posts up, not sure it's entirely identical though.

Stheno · 15-05-2014 12:58AM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

So you don't drive on the roads ? Or use the health service or any other services your tax goes to ?

Motor tax in relation to your first point, plus tax on petrol?

Second point, a few of people I know are high earners, and would rarely if ever use the public health system, they pay to go private. Most PRSI benefits like glasses and dental care have been cut to the max.

The people I know have private health and dental insurance, and pay fairly high motor tax on their cars.

RayM · 15-05-2014 01:06AM

D1stant wrote: »

This is not a dole-bashing thread or certainly not intended to be. I am asking a legit question on how to structure payments based on previous tax contributions. Some other countries have implemented a system like this - and they do have pros and cons. Please don't oversimplify

Sooner or later, every After Hours thread with the word 'Dole' in the title becomes a dole-bashing thread. The whole purpose of the dole is to enable people to exist when they have no other income. And despite the anecdotes about the unemployed living lives of privilege, it is merely an existence.

Yes, the dole is a pittance, and that's probably quite a culture shock to a high earner when they lose their job. And people probably feel quite embittered about the fact that they get the same as someone who has never worked. But at least the formerly highly-paid worker is far more likely to find another job a lot more quickly than the long-term unemployed person who doesn't have the same level of qualifications and employment history. So it's not all bad. You at least have that advantage over them.

KyussBishop · 15-05-2014 01:07AM

It's really just a tired moral argument this, which makes no sense - and it seems to be based on the myth that there are a disproportionate amount of dole-scroungers (because otherwise, why bother limiting payments in this manner?).

There isn't any proof, that dole frauds are anything more than a tiny-tiny minority of dole recipients, so that pretty much demolishes any moral argument in favour of silly proposals like this.

WilyCoyote · 15-05-2014 01:07AM

I know that in England years ago you had what was called "related earnings". How much you earned in your job was taken into account for a certain period of time .......... and you got paid accordingly.

Stheno · 15-05-2014 01:11AM

RayM wrote: »

Sooner or later, every After Hours thread with the word 'Dole' in the title becomes a dole-bashing thread. The whole purpose of the dole is to enable people to exist when they have no other income. And despite the anecdotes about the unemployed living lives of privilege, it is merely an existence.

Yes, the dole is a pittance, and that's probably quite a culture shock to a high earner when they lose their job. And people probably feel quite embittered about the fact that they get the same as someone who has never worked. But at least the formerly highly-paid worker is far more likely to find another job a lot more quickly than the long-term unemployed person who doesn't have the same level of qualifications and employment history. So it's not all bad.

Our rates of dole/social support are very high.

I remember being on the dole in 2003 for a month or so, it was €134 per week.

Now it's €188 per week.

That's a rise of 29% in a period including one of the worst recessions we have had full stop

I don't know one single working person who has achieved that level of payrise in that time

Spunge · 15-05-2014 01:12AM

I believe the dole was +200e before the recession and they reduced it to 188e per week somewhere around 2008

Manach · 15-05-2014 01:13AM

No comment on main point,but just to thank the OP for contributing so much money to the common-weal.

D1stant · 15-05-2014 01:15AM

KyussBishop wrote: »

It's really just a tired moral argument this, which makes no sense - and it seems to be based on the myth that there are a disproportionate amount of dole-scroungers (because otherwise, why bother limiting payments in this manner?).

There isn't any proof, that dole frauds are anything more than a tiny-tiny minority of dole recipients, so that pretty much demolishes any moral argument in favour of silly proposals like this.

Logic Fail. This has zero to do with Dole fraud or scroungers

hfallada · 15-05-2014 01:17AM

Stheno wrote: »

Should he return, grab your laptop/tablet and give him the following link.

http://www.colly.tv/irelands-income-tax-distribution-chart/

Well he asked me what I would know and I said well I study business and economics. So I think I know a thing or too about taxation in Ireland. The socialist and communist parties lie much more than any other party in Ireland. The talk about the evil rich paying no tax. Even revenue close pretty much every loophole they can when they discover it.

darkpagandeath · 15-05-2014 01:19AM

hfallada wrote: »

Well he asked me what I would know and I said well I study business and economics. So I think I know a thing or too about taxation in Ireland. The socialist and communist parties lie much more than any other party in Ireland. The talk about the evil rich paying no tax. Even revenue close pretty much every loophole they can when they discover it.

So all the Shell companies have been kicked out ?

Stheno · 15-05-2014 01:20AM

KyussBishop wrote: »

It's really just a tired moral argument this, which makes no sense - and it seems to be based on the myth that there are a disproportionate amount of dole-scroungers (because otherwise, why bother limiting payments in this manner?).

There isn't any proof, that dole frauds are anything more than a tiny-tiny minority of dole recipients, so that pretty much demolishes any moral argument in favour of silly proposals like this.

Well take our rate of unemployment now and consider that at the height of the boom we had five percent unemployment, now we've about 13% unemployment, take out that five percent, which most economic textbooks consider full employment and you've eight percent rather than 13% of the working population who are willing to work.

I've always wondered why that 5% exists tbh.

Spunge wrote: »

I believe the dole was +200e before the recession and they reduced it to 188e per week somewhere around 2008

It went over 200 in 2009 well past the boom see http://www.publicpolicy.ie/wp-content/uploads/Survey-of-Irish-Benefit-System-2012.pdf

Table 3.1 shows how the weekly rates of Jobseeker’s
Allowance and Jobseeker’s
Benefit have changed over time, from 2005
-
2011.
Table 3
.1
: Maximum Rates of Jobseeker’s Allowance and Jobseeker’s Benefit
(2005-2011)

2005: 148.80

2006 165.80

2007 185.80
2008 197.80

2009 204.30

2010 196.00

2011 188.00
-

RayM · 15-05-2014 01:20AM

Stheno wrote: »

Our rates of dole/social support are very high.

I remember being on the dole in 2003 for a month or so, it was €134 per week.

Now it's €188 per week.

That's a rise of 29% in a period including one of the worst recessions we have had full stop

I don't know one single working person who has achieved that level of payrise in that time

Relative to cost of living, they are far from high. The minimum wage in 2003 was €6.35. It's now €8.65. That's a rise of well over 30 per cent.

D1stant · 15-05-2014 01:22AM

RayM wrote: »

Sooner or later, every After Hours thread with the word 'Dole' in the title becomes a dole-bashing thread. The whole purpose of the dole is to enable people to exist when they have no other income. And despite the anecdotes about the unemployed living lives of privilege, it is merely an existence.

Yes, the dole is a pittance, and that's probably quite a culture shock to a high earner when they lose their job. And people probably feel quite embittered about the fact that they get the same as someone who has never worked. But at least the formerly highly-paid worker is far more likely to find another job a lot more quickly than the long-term unemployed person who doesn't have the same level of qualifications and employment history. So it's not all bad. You at least have that advantage over them.

Fair enough. But you are not answering the central question

Let say I did 25 years in that job and was late 50s when I lost it. Chances of employment would be much much lower. I think there should be a fairer system for people who have contributed to the exchequer. Im against flat rates of all kinds childrens allowance, water charges etc etc

Everything should be means tested - but that should swing both ways. High earners should not get flat state benefits, but should not get flat SW for a period after losing their job

Stheno · 15-05-2014 01:22AM

RayM wrote: »

Relative to cost of living, they are far from high. The minimum wage in 2003 was €6.35. It's now €8.65. That's a rise of well over 30 per cent.

I'd consider that quite good then as it's matching rises in social welfare so should encourage people to take up work.

However loss of supplementary allowances probably stops people taking up those roles.

RayM · 15-05-2014 01:38AM

D1stant wrote: »

Fair enough. But you are not answering the central question

Let say I did 25 years in that job and was late 50s when I lost it. Chances of employment would be much much lower. I think there should be a fairer system for people who have contributed to the exchequer. Im against flat rates of all kinds childrens allowance, water charges etc etc

Everything should be means tested - but that should swing both ways. High earners should not get flat state benefits, but should not get flat SW for a period after losing their job

If I was to agree that people who paid more taxes should receive a higher rate of social welfare payment, I'd have to concede that people who drive big expensive cars (and therefore pay far more VRT and motor tax) should be given priority on the roads. Perhaps smokers should receive higher social welfare payments too - throughout their lifetime, the average smoker has contributed a significant amount of extra tax to the state. They're also less likely to require an old-age pension for very long...

Should the Dole be proportional to how much tax you have paid?

Comments