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

David Norris - Social welfare shouldn't be spent on alcohol

Options
1…1112131416

Comments

  • Options
    #452
    fin12
    Registered Users Posts: 10,934 ✭✭✭✭fin12


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    With what do you pay the allotment? Where do you live while growing your food? And how do you survive until the following years harvest? Also Ireland isn't part of Schengen, we need passports to travel and money to pay the costs of travel. Again, it is impossible to not pay tax.

    Nope, their respective families got it while they were teenagers when it became cheap enough to do so. My posts are written, I shouldn't need to repeat them.

    This is how you can live without money:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3236005/Rachel-Newby-Liam-Culbertson-live-cash-free-diving-dumpsters-food-building-home-scraps.html


  • Options
    #453
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    I edited my post earlier - pay for the allotment with barter. You could survive off charity, just like people would if Social Welfare were cut to the bone as you desire.

    True, I missed that we are not in Schengen - odd, had always assumed we were - yet paying for a passport is a once off payment for a service, it is not a tax, and you can try to get the (fairly small) sum as charity; obviously again, all of this is facetious and wholly impractical, but possible, in the same manner as going with electricity in modern Ireland is 'possible'.

    If your parents had electricity in their teenage years, they grew up with electricity...
    To pay for an allotment through barter or otherwise would imply paying tax on that exchange.

    Fair enough the once off payment for the passport isn't a tax but I would have to pay tax to move countries. Once again it is not possible to avoid tax.

    I would say an 18/17 year old is grown up...


  • Options
    #454
    esforum
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,420 ✭✭✭esforum


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Sensible conditions. Not conditions demanded by extremists and those who would build a nanny state.




    It's everything to do with the topic - which you'd acknowledge if you were capable of arguing against it. People like you want to police the spending of people you "don't agree with". Policing the spending of people doesn't make them more responsible; it makes them less responsible. Policing the spending of people is the policy of nanny state interfering busybodies or political extremists. Don't be one of those.




    If dropping the rest of the alphabet makes things simpler for you, then you carry on. But I'm not going to join in for your benefit. It's the same argument as above. Only extremists or busybodies would want to police the spending of other people. You want to police the spending of other people. Therefore you are either an extremist or an interfering busybody - or perhaps both.




    If you're not doing this on health grounds, then you're doing it to be illiberal.

    Stop being illiberal. Seriously. Don't shilly-shally, and don't make excuses. Just stop trying to regulate the behaviour of other people.

    I had a rather large reply, got logged out. ;(

    You sound like teenage anarchist who hasnt really thought their opinions out properly. You really do and looking upon me as an extremist, well that just suggests an extremely sheltered life. Im not bothered anymore and Im actually pretty busy

    Now Im off to chop peoples heads off for having a different religion, then its the jews for their religion and finally Im going to finish all these white sheet hats in the corner.....


  • Options
    #455
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    To pay for an allotment through barter or otherwise would imply paying tax on that exchange.

    Fair enough the once off payment for the passport isn't a tax but I would have to pay tax to move countries. Once again it is not possible to avoid tax.

    I would say an 18/17 year old is grown up...
    As far as I can tell, there isn't any tax due on a rental payment for a non-profit allotment - and there isn't a tax on moving countries.

    Even if you do find some meagre/small amount of tax you can't avoid - which you haven't managed to do yet - none of that hinders your ability to 'choose', by leaving either.


    Do you think going without electricity in Ireland is a practical choice if you want to participate in modern society - or just an "it's technically possible, forget about practical" 'choice'? (just like the above)

    If it's so practical, why don't more people go without it? Do you think for instance, that dole recipients should be allowed spend their money on electricity, if going without is so practical?


  • Options
    #456
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    As far as I can tell, there isn't any tax due on a rental payment for a non-profit allotment - and there isn't a tax on moving countries.

    Even if you do find some meagre/small amount of tax you can't avoid - which you haven't managed to do yet - none of that hinders your ability to 'choose', by leaving either.


    Do you think going without electricity in Ireland is a practical choice if you want to participate in modern society - or just an "it's technically possible, forget about practical" 'choice'? (just like the above)

    If it's so practical, why don't more people go without it? Do you think for instance, that dole recipients should be allowed spend their money on electricity, if going without is so practical?
    All income the allotment owners receive will be subject to taxation, also unless you plan to swim to your chosen country you will be paying tax on your travel.

    Going without electricity is not a practical choice, I never said it was but it is an optional service rendered by a private company. Taxation is not and that's the root of the problem.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #457
    SeanW
    Registered Users Posts: 8,784 ✭✭✭SeanW


    fin12 wrote: »
    Ya I'm really dissapointed in him as well, because I always used to like David Norris, I even voted for him in the Presidency campaign, I meet him and he was really nice. He can't be for equality, he seems be be a hypocrite now after all his speeches about equality during the referendum.
    That's the thing about the modern Left - it is perfectly consistent for them to be all about "equality" - but only for them or their group.


  • Options
    #458
    AskMyChocolate
    Registered Users Posts: 2,312 ✭✭✭AskMyChocolate


    melissak wrote: »
    He needs to be controversial to appear relevant now nobody is oppressing him because he is gay. I was hoping with the marriage referendum that this one trick pony would be put out to pasture but sadly the old nag has more nagging to do. He irritates the chap out of me with his elitist attention seeking blather and his creepy voice. And to be talking about people getting money for doing nothing is pretty rich, pontificating and congratulating himself on his own superiority all day is Not exactly overexerting himself. Batch, Insufferable, condescending little man

    If you're Melvyn Issak, I'd like to declare my undying love for you. If you're Melissa K., I'd like to both declare my undying love for you and ask you if you're married.

    Money being spent on drink,when it could far more wisely be invested in a Joycean interpretation of Wilde's "Salome", in any number of struggling,inventive little theatres.

    Obnoxious, classist little cnut.


  • Options
    #459
    _Brian
    Registered Users Posts: 18,518 ✭✭✭✭_Brian


    Have to say I can't Stanton Norris, pompous little prick of a man.

    But, I see plenty of guys of the dole in drinking and gambling. It's a problem that they have this much left of their payment to afford this when so many people working and paying taxes can't afford this.

    I think people are entitled to be supported when they are out of work and trying to get themselves back on track. But I like many others have a problem with the serial unemployed who make their profession into extracting the maximum from the state.

    Invited yes in the poll, but I am surprised to see the Yes winning.


  • Options
    #460
    Hurtbuthealing
    Closed Accounts Posts: 103 ✭✭Hurtbuthealing


    Roger_007 wrote: »
    David Norris says he doesn't want his "tax dollars" to be spent on drink!

    http://www.thejournal.ie/david-norris-welfare-drink-2496750-Dec2015/?utm_source=email

    He seems to forget that it's our tax dollars which pay him.

    And you seem to forget that he WORKS for his pay.
    His argument is that the purpose of Social Welfare is NOT to provide those who wont work with money for booze, I totally agree with him.


  • Options
    #461
    gctest50
    Registered Users Posts: 9,605 ✭✭✭gctest50


    .

    Need another referendum : Abolish the Senate

    The Constitution states that senators have no final say over new laws passed in the Oireachtas, but they do have the power to delay legislation by up to 90 days.

    The last time the Seanad used these powers was in 1964.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #462
    melissak
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,873 ✭✭✭melissak


    darkpagandeath wrote: »
    How do heroin addicts get job seekers ? They don't they get disability.

    I would say they get disability Esp if on methadone. No offence to them but they are generally not very employable


  • Options
    #463
    melissak
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,873 ✭✭✭melissak


    Hurtbuthealing wrote: »
    And you seem to forget that he WORKS for his pay.
    His argument is that the purpose of Social Welfare is NOT to provide those who wont work with money for booze, I totally agree with him.

    How does he work? What useful purpose does he serve?


  • Options
    #464
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    melissak wrote: »
    How does he work? What useful purpose does he serve?
    His work is so vital that the country nearly abolished his position altogether


  • Options
    #465
    c_man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,436 ✭✭✭c_man


    melissak wrote: »
    How does he work? What useful purpose does he serve?

    Hey, going around like an eejit every Blooms Day ain't easy.


  • Options
    #466
    KomradeBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,981 ✭✭✭KomradeBishop


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    All income the allotment owners receive will be subject to taxation, also unless you plan to swim to your chosen country you will be paying tax on your travel.

    Going without electricity is not a practical choice, I never said it was but it is an optional service rendered by a private company. Taxation is not and that's the root of the problem.
    That's not true - passenger transport outside of the state is not subject to tax. Non-profit allotments are not subject to tax.

    If going without electricity is not a practical choice, then it's pretty disingenuous to present it as a true 'choice' at all - if it's not practical to live without it, it's not truly optional... - it's not a 'choice' in any manner more than a pedantic/nitpicking/facetious sense.


    This is what 'choice' and 'freedom' mean, when espoused by free-market/neoliberal fetishists, in the context of essential industries: It's a variant of "People have the freedom to choose i.e. take or leave whatever private monopolists/oligopolists/cartels offer, or to 'not avail of their services' (i.e. to 'go fúck themselves', seeing as avoiding services isn't practical in many circumstances)".

    The fetishisation of 'freedom' and 'choice', and lying about what constitutes a real practical choice, is just used to defend any/all morally questionable actions by an industry, as being morally acceptable, because "people have an (illusory) 'choice'" - when it's just not true in many cases.


  • Options
    #467
    melissak
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,873 ✭✭✭melissak


    Neoliberal fetishists is one of the best phrases I have heard in a while. Thank you.
    KomradeBishop wrote: »
    That's not true - passenger transport outside of the state is not subject to tax. Non-profit allotments are not subject to tax.

    If going without electricity is not a practical choice, then it's pretty disingenuous to present it as a true 'choice' at all - if it's not practical to live without it, it's not truly optional... - it's not a 'choice' in any manner more than a pedantic/nitpicking/facetious sense.


    This is what 'choice' and 'freedom' mean, when espoused by free-market/neoliberal fetishists, in the context of essential industries: It's a variant of "People have the freedom to choose i.e. take or leave whatever private monopolists/oligopolists/cartels offer, or to 'not avail of their services' (i.e. to 'go fúck themselves', seeing as avoiding services isn't practical in many circumstances)".

    The fetishisation of 'freedom' and 'choice', and lying about what constitutes a real practical choice, is just used to defend any/all morally questionable actions by an industry, as being morally acceptable, because "people have an (illusory) 'choice'" - when it's just not true in many cases.


  • Options
    #468
    Huntergonzo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,160 ✭✭✭Huntergonzo


    Man alive I had a rough day at work today after drinking all my welfare money over the weekend, I don't care what that gob****e Norris thinks, working with a hangover ain't easy!


  • Options
    #469
    Hurtbuthealing
    Closed Accounts Posts: 103 ✭✭Hurtbuthealing


    suicide_circus wrote: »
    His work is so vital that the country nearly abolished his position altogether

    Eh, NO.


  • Options
    #470
    esforum
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,420 ✭✭✭esforum


    melissak wrote: »
    I would say they get disability Esp if on methadone. No offence to them but they are generally not very employable

    Why would using methadone mean your disabled? Being on anti depressents has a bigger effect on your ability to function in society than a very sweet tasting medicine that has no physically debilitating effects. Diabetics work, people with heart disease work.

    Being addicted to a substance is not a disability nor does taking medication make you disabled or unable to work.

    By your rational alcoholics and smokers could claim to be disabled.

    Your employability has no bearing on being disabled, in fact if a company refused you because your disabled they could be sued.


  • Options
    #471
    melissak
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,873 ✭✭✭melissak


    I don't know, just thought if they were on methadone they w
    would be registered in the system as an addiction and on a program to get off it. Long-term heroin addicts aren't likely to get a job, who would employ them?
    esforum wrote: »
    Why would using methadone mean your disabled? Being on anti depressents has a bigger effect on your ability to function in society than a very sweet tasting medicine that has no physically debilitating effects. Diabetics work, people with heart disease work.

    Being addicted to a substance is not a disability nor does taking medication make you disabled or unable to work.

    By your rational alcoholics and smokers could claim to be disabled.

    Your employability has no bearing on being disabled, in fact if a company refused you because your disabled they could be sued.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #472
    AngryHippie
    Registered Users Posts: 2,625 ✭✭✭AngryHippie


    I don't disagree with him.....in principle.


  • Options
    #473
    fin12
    Registered Users Posts: 10,934 ✭✭✭✭fin12


    esforum wrote: »
    Why would using methadone mean your disabled? Being on anti depressents has a bigger effect on your ability to function in society than a very sweet tasting medicine that has no physically debilitating effects. Diabetics work, people with heart disease work.

    Being addicted to a substance is not a disability nor does taking medication make you disabled or unable to work.

    By your rational alcoholics and smokers could claim to be disabled.

    Your employability has no bearing on being disabled, in fact if a company refused you because your disabled they could be sued.

    Alcoholics would be on disability allowance.


  • Options
    #474
    marmurr1916
    Registered Users Posts: 2,091 ✭✭✭marmurr1916


    Flatzie_poo wrote: »
    I don't think he wants all welfare recipients not to drink, he wants them unable to binge drink.

    But granted he very badly worded it, like here;

    I presume Norris practices what he preaches and doesn't buy anything but the basic essentials of life with his publicly funded salary/pension.

    Or does he think that being a senator reliant for his income on taxpayers makes him better than being a jobseeker reliant for his income on taxpayers?


  • Options
    #475
    marmurr1916
    Registered Users Posts: 2,091 ✭✭✭marmurr1916


    Hurtbuthealing wrote: »
    And you seem to forget that he WORKS for his pay.

    Talking shíte in the Senate is work? :confused: :eek: :P :rolleyes:
    Hurtbuthealing wrote: »
    His argument is that the purpose of Social Welfare is NOT to provide those who wont work with money for booze, I totally agree with him.

    Money provided by taxpayers for people on Social Welfare can be spent whatever way they please.

    Just as money provided by taxpayers for people in the Senate can be spent whatever way they please.

    If Norris was doing something useful and productive for his taxpayer-funded salary he might get away without being called a hypocritical moron.

    But since he's a bloody useless overpaid windbag, he doesn't.


  • Options
    #476
    Mario95
    Registered Users Posts: 131 ✭✭Mario95


    marmurr1916 wrote: »
    I presume Norris practices what he preaches and doesn't buy anything but the basic essentials of life with his publicly funded salary/pension.

    Or does he think that being a senator reliant for his income on taxpayers makes him better than being a jobseeker reliant for his income on taxpayers?

    He is at least contributing something to the society, doing some work. As you can see from the poll, about half of the population agrees with him. He is representing the 50% of taxpayers who support his idea(s), its his job as a politician.

    How do the jobseekers contribute to the society? Why should the taxpayers pay for their alcohol?


  • Options
    #477
    fin12
    Registered Users Posts: 10,934 ✭✭✭✭fin12


    http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/865k-in-taxpayers-money-for-cheap-army-mess-drink-371316.html

    865k tax payers money for subsisted bars for defense forces. I dont get why people in full time employment need subsidized bars or why politicians get expenses, their salaries are big enough.....


  • Options
    #478
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Mario95 wrote: »
    He is at least contributing something to the society, doing some work. As you can see from the poll, about half of the population agrees with him. He is representing the 50% of taxpayers who support his idea(s), its his job as a politician.

    How do the jobseekers contribute to the society? Why should the taxpayers pay for their alcohol?

    So do you think Norris has been value for money?


  • Options
    #479
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    esforum wrote: »
    I had a rather large reply, got logged out. ;(

    You sound like teenage anarchist who hasnt really thought their opinions out properly. You really do and looking upon me as an extremist, well that just suggests an extremely sheltered life. Im not bothered anymore and Im actually pretty busy

    Now Im off to chop peoples heads off for having a different religion, then its the jews for their religion and finally Im going to finish all these white sheet hats in the corner.....

    Stop being OTT, it just looks immature.

    You want the Government to waste its resources monitoring and controlling how people spend their money. It's none of your business how other people spend their money. It's none of my business how they spend their money. It's none of the Government's business how they spend their money.

    Your view is the position of an illiberal extremist, not a moderate.

    If you don't want to be regarded as being on the political fringes, try espousing rational and sensible policy stances.


  • Options
    #480
    AskMyChocolate
    Registered Users Posts: 2,312 ✭✭✭AskMyChocolate


    Azalea wrote: »
    Wouldn't begrudge anyone who is job-searching having a few cans/couple of pints of a Friday or Saturday night. It's crappy enough being in their situation, nothing wrong with a treat/heading out with their friends.

    There speaks the simple kindness, humanity, and generosity of a man/woman who has seen (been in?) the trap, and wouldn't wish it on any human being.

    Fair play chief.

    Nice to see something in this thread that would restore your faith in the Irish people.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #481
    kjl
    Registered Users Posts: 3,127 ✭✭✭kjl


    marmurr1916 wrote: »
    I presume Norris practices what he preaches and doesn't buy anything but the basic essentials of life with his publicly funded salary/pension.

    Or does he think that being a senator reliant for his income on taxpayers makes him better than being a jobseeker reliant for his income on taxpayers?

    I really hate comments like this. Norris works, he gets up everyday and goes to his job. He doesn't wake up at 12, have a **** and then get pissed.

    He pays his taxes and contributes to society. If the people on the dole can afford to spend most of their money on drink, then why should I, who works hard everyday and pays my way, give them any more money than they need.


Advertisement