Too proud to draw the dole

Larry Wildman · 16-11-2014 09:30AM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't know why that myth keeps doing the rounds among people. Self-employed people are entitled to the same social welfare assistance as anyone else when they become unemployed -

Self-employed and unemployment

That's not what that says...

corsav6 · 16-11-2014 09:31AM

Packrat wrote: »

I lost my business of 16 years. in 2011. I couldn't draw anything then. I wouldn't have anyway, instead I moved within Ireland and found work. I've been laid off for the fourth winter a few weeks ago (My new occupation is seasonal) I've found other work, usually within a week on each occasion.
This year, for the first time since I was 18, (40 now) I'm taking till after Christmas off.
I have a young baby who is in hospital and want to spend the time with his mother and obviously take care of him.

I won't be signing on.

So maybe I'm too proud to draw dole, or maybe because despite having paid hundreds of thousands of euros of tax over the years, I couldn't get anything when I badly needed it for food and fuel to get out looking for work.

I will however be deducting a percentage from future taxes paid to this fcuking banana state who take better care of some bogus asylum seeker than of its own self employed.

So maybe they can stick it up their holes now, I'll be taking care of my family myself.

Enjoy your Christmas with your family, you honestly sound like you deserve it.

Annasopra · 16-11-2014 10:05AM

realistic anorak wrote: »

Remember in the celtic tiger days when people were too proud to draw their own stamps even for a week or two ?

No

bur · 16-11-2014 10:43AM

too stupid more like.

Santa Cruz · 16-11-2014 10:43AM

Chucken wrote: »

I fly to New York every week to buy new decking.

I change my wooden flooring every week. It works out cheaper in the long run

Rubberchikken · 16-11-2014 10:46AM

where is the shame in signing on if it's necessary. no matter how many jobs are out there even today, there is no guarantee of getting something immediately and a person needs to eat.

good luck to Little Packrat btw

NewYork1979 · 16-11-2014 10:47AM

petrolcan wrote: »

Just so you know, I was right there with you until you mentioned asylum seeker.

Why? Is it not a valid point? Or can he not say it because the very minute anyone says "asylum seeker", "non-national" they are considered racist?

I presume the guy is self employed so therefore he fills out his own tax returns on a yearly basis, he can then reduce his tax as he likes.

Saipanne · 16-11-2014 10:48AM

Packrat wrote: »

I lost my business of 16 years. in 2011. I couldn't draw anything then. I wouldn't have anyway, instead I moved within Ireland and found work. I've been laid off for the fourth winter a few weeks ago (My new occupation is seasonal) I've found other work, usually within a week on each occasion.
This year, for the first time since I was 18, (40 now) I'm taking till after Christmas off.
I have a young baby who is in hospital and want to spend the time with his mother and obviously take care of him.

I won't be signing on.

So maybe I'm too proud to draw dole, or maybe because despite having paid hundreds of thousands of euros of tax over the years, I couldn't get anything when I badly needed it for food and fuel to get out looking for work.

I will however be deducting a percentage from future taxes paid to this fcuking banana state who take better care of some bogus asylum seeker than of its own self employed.

So maybe they can stick it up their holes now, I'll be taking care of my family myself.

Bloody foreigners, etc.

Minderbinder · 16-11-2014 12:10PM

It gets easier every week.

DarkyHughes · 16-11-2014 01:34PM

Remember the Celtic tiger days when beautiful women just walked over to you & just started having casual sex with you in public?

guest2014 · 16-11-2014 01:43PM

Packrat wrote: »

I lost my business of 16 years. in 2011. I couldn't draw anything then. I wouldn't have anyway, instead I moved within Ireland and found work. I've been laid off for the fourth winter a few weeks ago (My new occupation is seasonal) I've found other work, usually within a week on each occasion.
This year, for the first time since I was 18, (40 now) I'm taking till after Christmas off.
I have a young baby who is in hospital and want to spend the time with his mother and obviously take care of him.

I won't be signing on.

So maybe I'm too proud to draw dole, or maybe because despite having paid hundreds of thousands of euros of tax over the years, I couldn't get anything when I badly needed it for food and fuel to get out looking for work.

I will however be deducting a percentage from future taxes paid to this fcuking banana state who take better care of some bogus asylum seeker than of its own self employed.

So maybe they can stick it up their holes now, I'll be taking care of my family myself.

yeah sure all the asylum seekers I know drive 2014 Ferrari's. :rolleyes:

MJ23 · 16-11-2014 01:46PM

"Pride only hurts, it never helps"

mfceiling · 16-11-2014 02:02PM

DarkyHughes wrote: »

Remember the Celtic tiger days when beautiful women just walked over to you & just started having casual sex with you in public?

Still happening to me darky

*high five*

cajonlardo · 16-11-2014 02:03PM

Packrat wrote: »

I lost my business of 16 years. in 2011. I couldn't draw anything then. I wouldn't have anyway, instead I moved within Ireland and found work. I've been laid off for the fourth winter a few weeks ago (My new occupation is seasonal) I've found other work, usually within a week on each occasion.
This year, for the first time since I was 18, (40 now) I'm taking till after Christmas off.
I have a young baby who is in hospital and want to spend the time with his mother and obviously take care of him.

I won't be signing on.

So maybe I'm too proud to draw dole, or maybe because despite having paid hundreds of thousands of euros of tax over the years, I couldn't get anything when I badly needed it for food and fuel to get out looking for work.

I will however be deducting a percentage from future taxes paid to this fcuking banana state who take better care of some bogus asylum seeker than of its own self employed.

So maybe they can stick it up their holes now, I'll be taking care of my family myself.

Salt001 wrote: »

Well buddy you wouldn't get anything anyway because you were self-employed despite having paid all through the years for employees and yourself etc.

Squeedily Spooch wrote: »

It really sucks that sole traders and small business owners can't get social welfare if they need it, what happens if you didn't always own your own business and worked for someone else but never claimed the dole? Do you lose it once you go into business for yourself?

I was self employed several times and also owned 2 small businesses over the years.

I did go broke twice, once fully self employed and once while employing other people.

Here is what happened as best I can remember.

1. Went to dole and was informed I was not eligible and to see the Welfare Officer in the Health Service.

2. Had to satisfy Health Officer I was genuinely out of work, seeking work and had no money in the banks, credit union etc and that I had genuinely ceased trading. Bit humbling and uncomfortable when you are a proud person and used to standing on your own feet. Fair enough when you think about it. Otherwise I could be out working and drawing welfare.

3. Health service paid me very slightly less than the Dole rates.

4. about a month later I was back working in the very first mickey Mouse job I could get.

Later on when I was again self employed I opted to pay an "S" class stamp and as far as I remember this covered self employed for Social Insurance but thankfully I never had to find out.

Lots of things wrong in this state, always have been. But my family was not left hungry when I was out of work. To say you get nothing if you were self employed is a mistake - you won't get a lot but it will enough to keep the wolf from the door.

folbotcar · 16-11-2014 02:03PM

When I quit a job to move onto something else I didn't sign on initially. I decided to eventually and when I did someone in the social welfare office rang me and basically gave out to me for not signing on straight away. He pointed out that I had being paying PRSI for many years and that it was an entitlement. He was right the 'I' means insurance. That's what insurance is for. I never heard of anyone too proud to claim on health or car insurance? Of course it's different when the benefit runs out and you have to apply for the dole or assistance. But even then if you are too bloody proud to apply for it while letting your family struggle then you're an idiot. The government is never too proud to tax you when you are working.

I am now self employed and the government is very happy to tax me even when my earnings are below the normal PAYE tax threshold, not to mention having to pay PRSI which gives me no extra benefit at all.

So I would have no qualms about claiming any social welfare payment. Like most people me and my wife over the years we have been paying a lot of money to keep many spongers on the dole, the public service in their fat salaries and gold plated pensions and to keep this country's services and infrastructure in a useable condition. If I need help at some point I will feel quite entitled to claim a little of it back to help me and my family get back on our feet.

That's why we pay taxes. As for packrat he gave himself away:

I will however be deducting a percentage from future taxes paid to this fcuking banana state who take better care of some bogus asylum seeker than of its own self employed.

I wouldn't want to draw attention to myself either by applying for social welfare if I was holding back tax. Pride has nothing to do with it.

Packrat · 16-11-2014 02:08PM

Jeez I'm getting some flak over the 'bogus asylum seeker' comment.

So let's have a look at that shall we:

Firstly note I used the term "bogus" This is important because despite what all the people call in me a big bad waaaaycist:rolleyes: (look up the definition tbh) think, I have no problem with genuine victims of war or persecution being granted asylum here. It's the many many bogus ones I was referring to.
Secondly, a bogus asylum seeker gets food, a roof and some money each week until after the several appeals (at our expense) their application is finally refused, and guess what, they aren't expected to pay any of it back, no, they are asked to leave, which many don't do.
I was entitled to none of the above back in 2011 despite having paid taxes for decades. This is unfair in my opinion. Anybody think not?
Thirdly, this thread is not about me or my situation then or now, so all of this is off topic.

What's fcuking laughable is the people jumping to be offended on behalf of criminals who seek to defraud our state, completely ignoring the whole rest of the post or indeed the thread.

I could have inserted "serial dole fraudsters" and the same people would have jumped on that.

They are pathetic little cretins who will never take responsibility for themselves or in all likelihood even ever support themselves. Newsflash - I won't support you or the fraudsters you jump to defend anymore either. Actually their responses demonstrate my point about what a fcuking banana republic this is.

Saipanne · 16-11-2014 02:18PM

Packrat wrote: »

Jeez I'm getting some flak over the 'bogus asylum seeker' comment.

So let's have a look at that shall we:

Firstly note I used the term "bogus" This is important because despite what all the people call in me a big bad waaaaycist:rolleyes: (look up the definition tbh) think, I have no problem with genuine victims of war or persecution being granted asylum here. It's the many many bogus ones I was referring to.
Secondly, a bogus asylum seeker gets food, a roof and some money each week until after the several appeals (at our expense) their application is finally refused, and guess what, they aren't expected to pay any of it back, no, they are asked to leave, which many don't do.
I was entitled to none of the above back in 2011 despite having paid taxes for decades. This is unfair in my opinion. Anybody think not?
Thirdly, this thread is not about me or my situation then or now, so all of this is off topic.

What's fcuking laughable is the people jumping to be offended on behalf of criminals who seek to defraud our state, completely ignoring the whole rest of the post or indeed the thread.

I could have inserted "serial dole fraudsters" and the same people would have jumped on that.

They are pathetic little cretins who will never take responsibility for themselves or in all likelihood even ever support themselves. Newsflash - I won't support you or the fraudsters you jump to defend anymore either. Actually their responses demonstrate my point about what a fcuking banana republic this is.

Lol.

Edit: I retract the lol. You're obviously going through a tough time now. But you need to chill out with those nasty comments.

PizzamanIRL · 16-11-2014 02:19PM

Sometimes pride makes people look like gob****es. The taboo of the dole needs to be gone. You lose your job? Get the dole. That's what it's for. Stop trying to be a strong independent black woman.

Tasden · 16-11-2014 02:22PM

Packrat wrote: »

No. No they are not. You misunderstand. Even Joan Burton doesn't try to claim that they do.

Try reading your link again.

They're not entitled to JB, but if they satisfy a means test they may be entitled to JSA.

The means test is different for self employed people because those without a business of their own obviously don't have the same potential to earn than those with a business.

If you don't satisfy a means test for JA that's different to not getting the payment purely because you're self employed. Its because you're over the threshold. Perhaps as a result of being self employed, but that's not why you're not eligible.

It is ridiculous that the prsi based payment is not available to self employed in the first place though.

Packrat · 16-11-2014 02:32PM

Saipanne wrote: »

Lol.

Run along and play with your balls, the adults are talking.

Saipanne · 16-11-2014 02:37PM

Packrat wrote: »

Run along and play with your balls, the adults are talking.

Charming.

Like I said, I sympathize with your situation.

All the best.

suicide_circus · 16-11-2014 02:38PM

Remember: having a problem with fraudulent asylum claims makes you a nasty fascist.

Packrat · 16-11-2014 02:50PM

Tasden wrote: »

They're not entitled to JB, but if they satisfy a means test they may be entitled to JSA.

The means test is different for self employed people because those without a business of their own obviously don't have the same potential to earn than those with a business.

If you don't satisfy a means test for JA that's different to not getting the payment purely because you're self employed. Its because you're over the threshold. Perhaps as a result of being self employed, but that's not why you're not eligible.

It is ridiculous that the prsi based payment is not available to self employed in the first place though.

First, (and I'm kinda arguing against myself here), there is a higher rate of prsi which self employed could pay in order to qualify for jsb. AFAIK (open to correction) it was introduced after the crash though.
Second, yes, technically we could qualify for JSA, but in the case of many closed businesses, the owner owns some assets (in my case tools and equipment) which are taken into account. Also, in many business collapses, there isn't the money to get last year's accounts audited. This is another requirement. It's a case of 'in theory versus the real world', and the jobsworths behind the welfare counter don't live in the real world.

Tasden · 16-11-2014 03:06PM

Packrat wrote: »

First, (and I'm kinda arguing against myself here), there is a higher rate of prsi which self employed could pay in order to qualify for jsb. AFAIK (open to correction) it was introduced after the crash though.
Second, yes, technically we could qualify for JSA, but in the case of many closed businesses, the owner owns some assets (in my case tools and equipment) which are taken into account. Also, in many business collapses, there isn't the money to get last year's accounts audited. This is another requirement. It's a case of 'in theory versus the real world', and the jobsworths behind the welfare counter don't live in the real world.

That's not the same as not being entitled to anything just because you were self employed.

You just have to satisfy a means test. Same way everybody else does. There are disadvantages to any process of means assessment tbh and there will always be people who fall through the cracks. But that's not the same thing as self employed people not being entitled to anything. Like you say, its because you have assets or you cant provide proof of your income. Not saying that's fair either but to say that people who are self employed just aren't entitled is misleading.

Sure with opfp you may be asked to prove you have made efforts to seek maintenance from the absent parent, some parents can't do this because they've no address or contact details for the parent so couldn't if they wanted

Or a person looking for a council house who genuinely has nowhere to live can't apply because they're technically a homeowner

Anomalies exist and its not fair, and they should try to come up with a more inclusive or fair system though

Packrat · 16-11-2014 03:18PM

Tasden wrote: »

That's not the same as not being entitled to anything just because you were self employed.

You just have to satisfy a means test. Same way everybody else does. There are disadvantages to any process of means assessment tbh and there will always be people who fall through the cracks. But that's not the same thing as self employed people not being entitled to anything. Like you say, its because you have assets or you cant provide proof of your income. Not saying that's fair either but to say that people who are self employed just aren't entitled is misleading.

Sure with opfp you may be asked to prove you have made efforts to seek maintenance from the absent parent, some parents can't do this because they've no address or contact details for the parent so couldn't if they wanted

Or a person looking for a council house who genuinely has nowhere to live can't apply because they're technically a homeowner

Anomalies exist and its not fair, and they should try to come up with a more inclusive or fair system though

Ok. If you want to be pedantic about it, I should have included the word 'effectively'. Effectively is what matters though, not the theory.
A self employed IT contractor who rents his home and doesn't have much savings would have little difficulty, but most business failures don't look like that. There are usually lots of untied ends, small or large un - realisable assets etc.

Tasden · 16-11-2014 03:24PM

Packrat wrote: »

Ok. If you want to be pedantic about it, I should have included the word 'effectively'. Effectively is what matters though, not the theory.
A self employed IT contractor who rents his home and doesn't have much savings would have little difficulty, but most business failures don't look like that. There are usually lots of untied ends, small or large un - realisable assets etc.

I'm not being pedantic in the slightest.

Just because you personally wouldn't qualify for a payment doesn't mean self employed people as a whole aren't entitled to any financial assistance.

indigo twist · 16-11-2014 04:22PM

Last time I was between jobs, I claimed JSB from the day I finished in my previous job. I started my new job maybe 2/3 weeks later, but it was still an extra €500 or so, I wasn't going to say no, even though I'd already been offered a job by the time I got my first (and only) payment. I've worked and paid taxes since I was old enough to do so. I wasn't going to leave myself short for rent and bills out of some misguided sense of pride.

LookingFor · 16-11-2014 04:28PM

Packrat wrote: »

I lost my business of 16 years. in 2011. I couldn't draw anything then. I wouldn't have anyway, instead I moved within Ireland and found work. I've been laid off for the fourth winter a few weeks ago (My new occupation is seasonal) I've found other work, usually within a week on each occasion.
This year, for the first time since I was 18, (40 now) I'm taking till after Christmas off.
I have a young baby who is in hospital and want to spend the time with his mother and obviously take care of him.

I won't be signing on.

So maybe I'm too proud to draw dole, or maybe because despite having paid hundreds of thousands of euros of tax over the years, I couldn't get anything when I badly needed it for food and fuel to get out looking for work.

I will however be deducting a percentage from future taxes paid to this fcuking banana state who take better care of some bogus asylum seeker than of its own self employed.

So maybe they can stick it up their holes now, I'll be taking care of my family myself.

Yep.

I remember when I was starting a business. Zero help, at all, in terms of low income support or the like. I was practically laughed out of the office. I went 18 months with little income, and no options for support. Any time PRSI benefits came up (dental, opticians, whatever), as soon as I said I was self-employed it would turn into a 'Oh...'.

It's little wonder that some entrepreneurs, when latterly successful, decide to take their money elsewhere.

NotCominBack · 16-11-2014 05:15PM

Amazing, no matter how a thread starts out on boards it usually ends in the same way

Fr D Maugire · 16-11-2014 05:48PM

Funny I find myself in this position at the moment. Job is seasonal so down to 2/3 days a week. Everyone is talking to me about claiming my stamps but I am choosing not to do so and it is like I have to justify myself. Why am I not claiming? I have done so before on occasion.

There may be a small bit of pride involved but it is mostly because I don't think I need to be claiming. Single, no kids, no mortgage, no repayments of any type. Have a small bit of money saved so not on the breadline or anything so not living from week to week. Not making much a week but enough to pay any bills, just.

I guess I view social welfare as a facility for people who are struggling to make it week to week to just get by, not someone who was able to take a few weeks holiday. I just believe if you don't need to be claiming social, then you shouldn't regardless of whether you are entitled to or not.

I am sure someone will jump in saying this is just showing off but really I know too many people who claim social just to top up their income even though they don't really need to do so. One work colleague voluntarily chose to go to part-time hours and is now claiming social even though they are financially fine.

Worst thing is apparently it is somehow better for me if I claim my stamps because it keeps them right or something. Sounds like a system that actually encourages people to claim social.

Nothing wrong with claiming social but as always people abuse it.

Too proud to draw the dole

Comments