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

Abolish the Dole

245678

Comments

  • #32
    dxhound2005
    Registered Users Posts: 20,441 ✭✭✭✭dxhound2005


    Maybe it is better that some people are given €107.70 a week to do nothing. Rather that letting them out into the world of work. Some of them are only cut out to be permanent mature students, and would ruin your house if they became a plumber.


  • #33
    lalababa
    Registered Users Posts: 1,726 ✭✭✭lalababa


    There are alot of people riding the SW system, because it is well worth riding! You don't have to work your ass off for an income or house! Alot of these people are also doing nixers/seasonal OR/AND full time jobs on the sly.
    Low paid Gen. Op etc. work is paying only E10 p.h. and alot of that work can be tough enough. So E400 p.w.(E366 net) to run a car , pay rent, medical ins. etc.
    Very tough to do in the cities. Kiss morgaging a house goodbye.

    On the dole E190(E190 net). Don't have to run car, most of rent paid,medical card, wait what 5-10 on the housing list? It is a NO BRAINER! Esp. if you have a family.
    SW have to actively hound people doing nixers or hiding income. Almost all low paid work/hospitality is done by Eastern Europens. Alot of Irish people wouldn't be seen dead in these jobs. Government have to encourage dolers to work these jobs (legally). How they do this I don't know?
    Maybe get all nixers investigated/drop dole benefits/incentivise working by making it easier to secure home/accomodation on low wages.
    Will any centrist gov. do this -no.


  • #34
    DontThankMe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 732 ✭✭✭DontThankMe


    dxhound2005 wrote: »
    There could be some of it going into your family. Would you like to see that cut?

    I've been on the dole myself but it was a choice if I'm being honest not a necessity. None of my family are currently on any social welfare payment but if they were and it was to get cut I wouldn't have a problem with it. I can't advocate cutting social welfare l and then say you can't cut a payment to a family member.


  • #35
    screamer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,130 ✭✭✭screamer


    DontThankMe wrote: »
    Try_harder wrote: »
    Where would you cut DontThankMe?

    Child benefit for a start if you have more than 3 kids (Just randomly picked 3) you should get less of a payment for the 4th child and so on. It should also be means tested so families with an income over 100k shouldn't get it buy maybe replace with a subsidised child care or something similar.
    Yep.. the people who contribute the most to keep the **** from hitting the fan should get the least back. Spare me. Sure let's drive all the high earners out of Ireland (other countries are offering huge wages and benefits), and watch it turn into a **** hole overnight.


  • #36
    jon1981
    Registered Users Posts: 4,359 ✭✭✭jon1981


    Try_harder wrote: »
    I was in San Fran and it was disgusting to see abject poverty and extreme wealth everywhere. People abandoned left to live on the streets and beg, is that a society we want?

    I travel there regularly with work, the locals are blind to it now. Most of the poor and homeless also have severe mental issues, again ignored.

    Though I guess San Fran is a bubble in itself, you need a minimum 100k salary just to afford a studio in that city.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Try_harder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,681 ✭✭✭Try_harder


    DontThankMe wrote: »
    Child benefit for a start if you have more than 3 kids (Just randomly picked 3) you should get less of a payment for the 4th child and so on. It should also be means tested so families with an income over 100k shouldn't get it buy maybe replace with a subsidised child care or something similar.

    How much saving would all this red tape actually generate?

    I presume you would include the crude exception that if a 4th or subsequent child was as a result of rape you would allow child benefit for that child?

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/rape-victims-child-benefits-women-dwp-universal-credit-work-pensions-support-a8421086.html


  • #38
    Try_harder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,681 ✭✭✭Try_harder


    jon1981 wrote: »
    I travel there regularly with work, the locals are blind to it now. Most of the poor and homeless also have severe mental issues, again ignored.

    It repulsed me, The American Dream? No thanks.

    Norway on the other hand was a very different affair


  • #39
    Ninthlife
    Registered Users Posts: 2,241 ✭✭✭Ninthlife


    wally1990 wrote: »
    CSO https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/lr/liveregisterjune2018/



    The number of long term claimants on the Live Register in June 2018 was 94,778.

    The number of male long term claimants decreased by 13,581 (-19.4%) in the year to June 2018, while females decreased by 6,846 (-15.1%), giving an overall annual decrease of 20,427 (-17.7%) in the number of long term claimants. See table 6 and figure 2.

    In June 2018, 58.4% (133,287) of all claimants on the Live Register were short term claimants.

    The comparable figure for June 2017 was 57.1% (153,521).

    The annual fall of 20,234 (-13.2%) in the number of short term claimants consisted of a decrease of 12,103 (-14.6%) in the number of male short term claimants and a decrease of 8,131 (-11.5%) in female short term claimants. See table 6.


    Lies, lies and damn statistics!

    Theres a large number of Jobseekers receipients who are taken off the live registrar by puttimg them on Tús Schemes. Beneficial to the local community but really just massaging and manipulating figures to make it seem as if there is a higher rate of employment then there actually is. The money is still coming out of the same social welfare budget


  • #40
    jon1981
    Registered Users Posts: 4,359 ✭✭✭jon1981


    Sure scrap maternity benefit while we're at it... pesky kids.

    /more sarcasm.

    Again the US is great
    Currently, the Family Medical Leave Act, gives women 12 weeks job-protected unpaid leave, but many workers don't qualify for that

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/05/17/paid-maternity-leave-elite-benefit-u-s/325075001/


  • #41
    Try_harder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,681 ✭✭✭Try_harder


    Ninthlife wrote: »
    Lies, lies and damn statistics!

    Theres a large number of Jobseekers receipients who are taken off the live registrar by puttimg them on Tús Schemes. Beneficial to the local community but really just massaging and manipulating figures to make it seem as if there is a higher rate of employment then there actually is

    Surely things like the Tus scheme should be supported? An income earned from work and the society benefits?


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    John from Carlow wrote: »
    I believe the Irish government should cut social welfare payments drastically and implement a food stamp program similar to the one currently running in the USA. This would allow the government to free up cash to reduce borrowing and reduce the tax burden on the middle classes. It sickens me that people like Margaret Cash have the money for Sky digital subscriptions, shopping trips to Newry and computers with internet connections to post their drivel on Facebook. It has got to the stage were these people genuinely believe they deserve a reasonable middle-ish class lifestyle at the expense of the state. This may seem harsh to some but it is only fair that people that don't work live in abject poverty and are subjected to all the ills that such a lifestyle predisposes them to. I feel genuine rage that I am paying for other people's way through life; it makes me feel genuinely ill. At the moment the only viable alternative is to move to the US, a country where hard work is rewarded and the likes of Margaret Cash are left were they belong - in the gutter.

    Abolish your drivel. What reactionary nonsense, let all those who have fallen between the cracks up sticks to a bastion of democracy. That brush is running dry...


  • #43
    DontThankMe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 732 ✭✭✭DontThankMe


    Try_harder wrote: »
    How much saving would all this red tape actually generate?

    I presume you would include the crude exception that if a 4th or subsequent child was as a result of rape you would allow child benefit for that child?

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/rape-victims-child-benefits-women-dwp-universal-credit-work-pensions-support-a8421086.html

    I don't have figures off the top of my head but I'm you'd get an estimate from figures off the CSO website.

    WOW that is some leap to make for a simple suggestion of cutting the payment for each subsequent child.

    So you're telling me the state and hard working tax payers should keep funding a woman that keeps popping out babies one after another where do we draw the line?

    The entitlement culture in this country is one of the main reasons we spend so much on welfare. Some people out there believe that the government should provide them with everything they need without having to work a day in their lives or contribute a single euro in PAYE, PRSI or USC


  • #44
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    I think it's time to look seriously at Universal Basic Income, I know that an experiment in Finland was done a couple of years ago and then suspended without explanation.
    The main reason for this is to allow people to take the low paid jobs and avoid the trap of losing benefits and ending up no better off or even worse off than staying at home on the scratcher.
    Also, it would remove the stigma of being "unemployed", even more so as we move into a world of ever increasing automation.
    Another thing to consider is "what is money?" It is a symbol of pure faith that is imposed by banks and supported by governments, it is based on nothing apart from sentiment and can be printed at will, but only if you're the one controlling the presses.


  • #45
    Ninthlife
    Registered Users Posts: 2,241 ✭✭✭Ninthlife


    Try_harder wrote: »
    Surely things like the Tus scheme should be supported? An income earned from work and the society benefits?

    Like i said benficial to the community and the participants and Ive no issue with the scheme.

    But it is an easy mechanism by government to manipulate unemployment figures


  • #46
    Try_harder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,681 ✭✭✭Try_harder


    DontThankMe wrote: »
    I don't have figures off the top of my head but I'm you'd get an estimate from figures off the CSO website.

    WOW that is some leap to make for a simple suggestion of cutting the payment for each subsequent child.

    So you're telling me the state and hard working tax payers should keep funding a woman that keeps popping out babies one after another where do we draw the line?

    The entitlement culture in this country is one of the main reasons we spend so much on welfare. Some people out there believe that the government should provide them with everything they need without having to work a day in their lives or contribute a single euro in PAYE, PRSI or USC

    Plenty of high earners are anything but Hard Working

    Work input =! Reward! Such a Tory expression.


  • #47
    dxhound2005
    Registered Users Posts: 20,441 ✭✭✭✭dxhound2005


    Try_harder wrote: »
    How much saving would all this red tape actually generate?

    I presume you would include the crude exception that if a 4th or subsequent child was as a result of rape you would allow child benefit for that child?

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/rape-victims-child-benefits-women-dwp-universal-credit-work-pensions-support-a8421086.html

    Much simpler would be to make it payable only for the third child and subsequent children. Nothing for the first two. This is what was in the Act which brought it in , in 1944. Before that nothing.


  • #48
    Try_harder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,681 ✭✭✭Try_harder


    Ninthlife wrote: »
    Like i said benficial to the community and the participants and Ive no issue with the scheme.

    But it is an easy mechanism by government to manipulate unemployment figures

    But if its beneficial why get so annoyed! You want to call them unemployed?


  • #49
    DontThankMe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 732 ✭✭✭DontThankMe


    Try_harder wrote: »
    Plenty of high earners are anything but Hard Working

    Work input =! Reward! Such a Tory expression.

    Yes but at least those "non-hard working" high earners are actually contributing money into the tax system.


  • #50
    Try_harder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,681 ✭✭✭Try_harder


    dxhound2005 wrote: »
    Much simpler would be to make it payable only for the third child and subsequent children. Nothing for the first two. This is what was in the Act which brought it in , in 1944. Before that nothing.

    Then the <3 kids families would feel hard done by!


  • #51
    Try_harder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,681 ✭✭✭Try_harder


    DontThankMe wrote: »
    Yes but at least those "non-hard working" high earners are actually contributing money into the tax system.

    So are the non-hardworking poor people! In fact a far greater % of their money feeds directly back into the local economy and exchequer!


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    Ninthlife
    Registered Users Posts: 2,241 ✭✭✭Ninthlife


    Try_harder wrote: »
    But if its beneficial why get so annoyed! You want to call them unemployed?


    I am anything but annoyed. What brought you to that conclusion?

    I didnt propose to call then unemployed either.

    My issue is the Government produces statistics which arent a reflection of reality


  • #53
    Try_harder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,681 ✭✭✭Try_harder


    Ninthlife wrote: »
    I am anything but annoyed. What brought you to that conclusion?

    I didnt propose to call then unemployed either.

    My issue is the Government produces statistics which arent a reflection of reality

    the reality is they are working so what way do you want them categorised?


  • #54
    DontThankMe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 732 ✭✭✭DontThankMe


    Try_harder wrote: »
    So are the non-hardworking poor people! In fact a far greater % of their money feeds directly back into the local economy and exchequer!

    I wasn't talking about hard working poor people I was talking about people on the dole that contribute nothing. There was over €13 billion paid in income tax to the exchequer last year.

    https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.rte.ie/amp/930884/

    Are trying to tell me people on the dole contribute more than this into the tax system?


  • #55
    jon1981
    Registered Users Posts: 4,359 ✭✭✭jon1981


    It's worrying that 8 people thus far agree with the OP...


  • #56
    Try_harder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,681 ✭✭✭Try_harder


    DontThankMe wrote: »
    I wasn't talking about hard working poor people I was talking about people on the dole that contribute nothing. There was over €11 billion paid in income tax to the exchequer last year.

    https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.rte.ie/amp/930884/

    Are trying to tell me people on the dole contribute more than this into the tax system?

    a greater % of their income goes straight back into the local economy


  • #57
    Try_harder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,681 ✭✭✭Try_harder


    jon1981 wrote: »
    It's worrying that 8 people thus far agree with the OP...

    8 is low for boards, if he used the word migrants it would be most thanked post of the day!


  • #58
    myshirt
    Registered Users Posts: 5,245 ✭✭✭myshirt


    Try_harder wrote: »
    a greater % of their income goes straight back into the local economy

    Correct. Drink and fags = Highly taxable goods, lest people forget.


  • #59
    Ninthlife
    Registered Users Posts: 2,241 ✭✭✭Ninthlife


    Try_harder wrote: »
    the reality is they are working so what way do you want them categorised?

    They should remain as figures on the live registrar. Yes they are working but they are paid from the same DSP budget as if they were still getting jobseekers


  • #60
    Try_harder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,681 ✭✭✭Try_harder


    myshirt wrote: »
    Correct. Drink and fags = Highly taxable goods, lest people forget.

    and those shops employ people! They dont buy them online!


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    DontThankMe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 732 ✭✭✭DontThankMe


    Try_harder wrote: »
    a greater % of their income goes straight back into the local economy

    Have you got any statistics to back up this statement? Because logic would dictate that people that are earning more money would automatically be contributing mote into the local economy because they would have more disposable income than those people that are on the dole.


Advertisement