Middle class people deciding to go on the dole ?

BarryD2 · 27-01-2020 5:46pm

Leg End Reject wrote: »

The problem is that you need to never work. You still owe the outstanding mortgage even if you quit work, you only qualify for help with the interest when you're in arrears, you don't qualify for social welfare if you voluntarily leave work etc. It's very hard to leave the rat race once you're in it.

Yeah, Hotel California situation - you get locked in by choice and circumstance.

machaseh wrote: »

You could yes, respectable trades such as stealing copper wires or breaking into homes and taking their belongings are generally cash based !

Hmm.. plenty of regular cash based income out there - take hairdressing/ barbering for an example, but many more, local bookies etc.

My local post master (since deceased) used to comment on certain lads coming in to collect their payments. They'd pull up in a van with their work boots on, enroute to some site or another.. all cash of course.

AulWan · 27-01-2020 7:26pm

I know plenty of middle class earners who may not have given up their jobs to go on the dole, per se, but they did give up jobs volunarilty to stay at home with the kids on the back of the fact that their partner or spouse could claim Working Family Payment to supplement a good portion of the lost income.

Where does that fall, in the scheme of things?

It's working the system, but no one seems to question it or batt an eyelid at someone who does this after voluntarily giving up a job.

(edit to add) I have no objection to working families receiving assistance through WFP. But I think it should only be payable to those whose working hours were cut by their employer or who have been made redundant / lost their job through no fault of their own.

I don't think it should just be an option to just give up work and then claim WFP instead.

starbaby2003 · 27-01-2020 7:29pm

AulWan wrote: »

I know plenty of middle class earners who may not have given up their jobs to go on the dole,per se, but they did give up jobs volunarilty to stay at home with the kids on the back of the fact that their partner or spouse could claim Working Family Payment to supplement the lost income.

Where does that fall, in the scheme of things?

It's working the system, but no one seems to question it or batt an eyelid at someone who does this after voluntarily giving up a job.

Middle class families would not be entitled to FIS.

AulWan · 27-01-2020 8:04pm

starbaby2003 wrote: »

Middle class families would not be entitled to FIS.

Depends what you consider "middle class". Personally I hate speaking in terms of "class".

As far as I'm concerned, there is working and non-working. .

hurler32 · 27-01-2020 8:07pm

KiKi III wrote: »

Again, you must be actually trying to get the figures wrong. The entire traveller population in Ireland is approximately 30k.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.rte.ie/amp/911844/

But don’t let facts get in the way of your arguments.

Census numbers for travellers are completely understated as many wont fill in forms and collectors have given up trying to enforce completion of census forms, yet another travellers wont comply with. At best 50% of travellers completed form so 60,000 minimum travellers is a more accurate figure. Its even mentioned in one recent survey in Limerick that less than half of the travellers in East Limerick completed census forms and thats a traveller themselves report.

https://www.limerickpost.ie/2019/10/09/only-three-travellers-over-the-age-of-65-in-east-limerick/

starbaby2003 · 27-01-2020 8:16pm

AulWan wrote: »

Depends what you consider "middle class". Personally I hate speaking in terms of "class".

As far as I'm concerned, there is working and non-working. .

Attached are the limits. They are not high at all. You made the comment about ‘middle class’. You are now saying you don’t like using class definitions because it doesn’t back up your comment. So what you perhaps should have said is people on low incomes give up work as the cost of working and paying full time child care when children are young is too much.

AulWan · 27-01-2020 8:24pm

starbaby2003 wrote: »

Attached are the limits. They are not high at all. You made the comment about ‘middle class’. You are now saying you don’t like using class definitions because it doesn’t back up your comment. So what you perhaps should have said is people on low incomes give up work as the cost of working and paying full time child care when children are young is too much.

I am fully aware of the limits I used to work in Social Welfare. The limits are generous enough, as they are net takehome figures after deductions.

And No, I don't use class definitions because I think it gives people notions about themselves.

You're earning bracket doesn't make you any better then anyone else.

starbaby2003 · 27-01-2020 8:28pm

AulWan wrote: »

I am fully aware of the limits I used to work in Social Welfare. The limits are generous enough, as they are net takehome figures after deductions.

And No, I don't use class definitions because I think it gives people notions about themselves.

You're earning bracket doesn't make you any better then anyone else.

I’m aware they are net, I read it. They are still low family incomes.
You used middle class in your comment?
This third comment is referred to as a straw man argument and doesn’t warrant a response.

AulWan · 27-01-2020 8:34pm

starbaby2003 wrote: »

I’m aware they are net, I read it. They are still low family incomes.
You used middle class in your comment?
This third comment is referred to as a straw man argument and doesn’t warrant a response.

I used the term because it is part of the thread.

Anyway, how about addressing the actual point I made about those who voluntarily giving up jobs to claim Working Family Payment?

Instead of making stupid arguments about about class boundaries.

starbaby2003 · 27-01-2020 8:35pm

AulWan wrote: »

I used the term because it is part of the thread.

Anyway, how about addressing the actual point I made about those who voluntarily giving up jobs to claim Working Family Payment?

Instead of making stupid arguments about about class boundaries.

I did address it when I said, low income earners give up work because the cost of childcare is too high.

AulWan · 27-01-2020 8:54pm

starbaby2003 wrote: »

I did address it when I said, low income earners give up work because the cost of childcare is too high.

€723 per week is a very decent take home wage for a family with one earner. And if a second income, even a part time one, was being earned on top of that it would put the family into your "middle class" bracket.

My question was do you think its right that a family like this can just decide to forgo that second income, give up the job and immediately claim a benefit instead, (one that they can potentially claim until their youngest child is 23 years old), with no questions asked?

You're also assuming that the reason some give up work is because of the cost of childcare is too high. Some give up because they simply want to be SAHP.

Padre_Pio · 27-01-2020 9:02pm

starbaby2003 wrote: »

I did address it when I said, low income earners give up work because the cost of childcare is too high.

This squeezed middle is only a passing phase.

Theres maybe 5 or 6 years where you've high outgoings, young kids, new house and you're early in career.

After the kids are in primary, you've furnished the house and settled into a routine and realised you're not single anymore, you're fine.

starbaby2003 · 27-01-2020 9:10pm

AulWan wrote: »

€723 per week is a very decent take home wage for a family with one earner. And if a second income, even a part time one, was being earned on top of that it would put the family into your "middle class" bracket.

My question was do you think its right that a family like this can just decide to forgo that second income, give up the job and immediately claim a benefit instead, (one that they can potentially claim until their youngest child is 23 years old), with no questions asked?

You're also assuming that the reason some give up work is because of the cost of childcare is too high. Some give up because they simply want to be SAHP.

So we will go with four kids then as you are not entitled to anything for up to 3. 834-723 =111@60%. If someone is giving up work and all the benefits of it for €66 a week then yes I have no problem with that. So we are clear on my stance, I think people who gave up work to care for their families should be entitled to government help up to a limit.

starbaby2003 · 27-01-2020 9:17pm

Padre_Pio wrote: »

This squeezed middle is only a passing phase.

Theres maybe 5 or 6 years where you've high outgoings, young kids, new house and you're early in career.

After the kids are in primary, you've furnished the house and settled into a routine and realised you're not single anymore, you're fine.

Exactly- so if the government provide targeted help that’s a good thing.

LirW · 27-01-2020 9:18pm

AulWan wrote: »

€723 per week is a very decent take home wage for a family with one earner. And if a second income, even a part time one, was being earned on top of that it would put the family into your "middle class" bracket.

My question was do you think its right that a family like this can just decide to forgo that second income, give up the job and immediately claim a benefit instead, (one that they can potentially claim until their youngest child is 23 years old), with no questions asked?

You're also assuming that the reason some give up work is because of the cost of childcare is too high. Some give up because they simply want to be SAHP.

Honestly I think this is more a case of "don't hate the player, hate the game".
As you've been working for SW you're probably aware that the payment is reassessed every year and if the spouse has a different social welfare claim like BTEA, JSA or carers, the payment is amended or cut entirely instantly.
So the need is constantly assessed. Also I appreciate that some want to stay at home but let's address the big elephant in the room that childcare is. The rates are extremely volatile and currently they go up because the running costs creches have are high. If the the spouse with the lower income is on a near minimum wage job and they live close to an Urban area, then having one SAHP makes a lot of sense until they start ECCE or Primary.
As it stands having children is pretty unattractive for an increasing number of young people and cost is a big factor. The population ages rapidly and is facing a pension crisis soon. In some countries this is already a big problem.

I have to say I don't give a sh1t if a couple gets 45 quid a week (roughly 2300 pa) when they aren't paid a fortune if it helps to read their kids in a decent environment.
I'm also aware that this is a very common thing people do in areas with low job-density. Full-time childcare is hard or next to impossible to come by, available work is often paid measly (but hey, someone's gotta do it) with high staff turnover and professional rural wages are also significantly lower.

Now I know people go on about "have the children you can afford" but birthrates in Europe are declining with an increasing number of the educated population choosing not to have children. Then again if there aren't enough taxpayers down the line, this will lead to more liberal immigration laws, also something many aren't happy about.

Your complaint addresses a pretty complex problem and honestly, as long as the WFP exists, people won't feel bad claiming it because this is what it's there for.

AulWan · 27-01-2020 9:25pm

starbaby2003 wrote: »

So we will go with four kids then as you are not entitled to anything for up to 3.

Misleading - a family can claim WFP from the time their first child is born.

You're missing the point.

I'd probably agree with you if there was a time limit put on WFP, (e.g. up to the youngest child turning age 7 as with certain other payment) but there is no limit. WFP is paid until the youngest child is 18, or 23 if in full time education.

So, technically, a couple with three children could literally decide that one of them can jack in the job, and then stick in a claim for WFP, which will last until their youngest is 23, and no one seems to have any issue with this kind of subsidising.

LirW · 27-01-2020 9:48pm

AulWan wrote: »

Misleading - a family can claim WFP from the time their first child is born.

You're missing the point.

I'd probably agree with you if there was a time limit put on WFP, (e.g. up to the youngest child turning age 7 as with certain other payment) but there is no limit. WFP is paid until the youngest child is 18, or 23 if in full time education.

So, technically, a couple with three children could literally decide that one of them can jack in the job, and then stick in a claim for WFP, which will last until their youngest is 23, and no one seems to have any issue with this kind of subsidising.

No, I really don't because I think this country has far bigger problems than that. I don't hate on parents that are still hard working but don't earn great and have a more traditional understanding of family. If a couple gets 250 a month for raising their kids while still paying taxes as a family unit I don't see the big deal, this is not something that allows a lavish lifestyle but it's merely a subsidy.
These aren't people with a sponger mentality, some simply want to make ends meet and I find it's great that we're not in the US where there's no support and people work themselves into a burnout to put food on the table.

Also it's pretty unlikely that the working spouse will stay on the same wage for the next 23 years. Most working folk aspire to have a comfortable pay and decent working conditions, something that's not a given in low-wage fields.

MrAbyss · 27-01-2020 9:53pm

road_high wrote: »

No most middle class people have a thing called “self respect”

Can you explain how being a total slave to commuting, giving a bank maybe a third of your lifetime wages, spending 40 hours a week of your life (at least) in the same building just to get all this constitutes self respect?

Shiny chains is all they have between them and their true reality.

AulWan · 27-01-2020 10:07pm

LirW wrote: »

No, I really don't because I think this country has far bigger problems than that. I don't hate on parents that are still hard working but don't earn great and have a more traditional understanding of family. If a couple gets 250 a month for raising their kids while still paying taxes as a family unit I don't see the big deal, this is not something that allows a lavish lifestyle but it's merely a subsidy.
These aren't people with a sponger mentality, some simply want to make ends meet and I find it's great that we're not in the US where there's no support and people work themselves into a burnout to put food on the table.

Also it's pretty unlikely that the working spouse will stay on the same wage for the next 23 years. Most working folk aspire to have a comfortable pay and decent working conditions, something that's not a given in low-wage fields.

We'll have to agree to disagree, then, because as far as I am concerned being a stay at home parent is a luxury, not an entitlement, and if someone wishes to voluntarily opt out of the workforce to take care of children, then they should do so at their own expense. (Carer's and disabled excepted.) Parents in this country are well looked after, with Child Benefit, Free GPs for kids, ECCE scheme, now subsidised childcare. At minimum, WFP should be time limited.

Always Tired · 27-01-2020 10:14pm

AulWan wrote: »

Depends what you consider "middle class". Personally I hate speaking in terms of "class".

As far as I'm concerned, there is working and non-working. .

The thread is about middle class people though it's literally in the title.

And it's not, as kiki seems to think, about the unemployment rate. Kiki you proved my point exactly, as you lost complete sight of what I said because you couldnt wait to shout the word scrounger.

The point is, you don't get handed everything on a plate if you decide to go on the dole. Only people who are comfortably in work for for ages think that, because they have to cling to this idea that it's the dole moles who are keeping them tied to their hated job and not their own choices (including who they vote for).

In fact you cant just decide to go on the dole, if you quit voluntarily theyll keep it off you for 9 weeks

I've been on jobpath now twice, despite having a degree and experience in several fields. But I don't have a car and live in a rural town. Jobpath havent referred me to a single employer, because there arent any hiring near here and the bus routes are so awkward and unreliable you cant even use them to get to the bigger towns, they dont run early enough or late enough (and cost a bomb too). Considering how useless the scheme has been for me I wonder how on earth they can help some of the other people I see they have as clients, many near retirement age, some who can't use computers.

There are definitely large parts of the country where unemployment is still a huge issue. Most of the people my age from this town are only employed because they emigrated. Between that and schemes the government has fiddled the numbers greatly. But there's little point trying to tell dole bashers anything like that, they'll believe whatever suits their agenda.

But what they won't do, is quit their job and go on the dole. Because again, they know it isn't a better life. They just want someone to give out about and the unemployed are an easy target for cowards.

LirW · 27-01-2020 10:42pm

AulWan wrote: »

We'll have to agree to disagree, then, because as far as I am concerned being a stay at home parent is a luxury, not an entitlement, and if someone wishes to voluntarily opt out of the workforce to take care of children, then they should do so at their own expense. (Carer's and disabled excepted.) Parents in this country are well looked after, with Child Benefit, Free GPs for kids, ECCE scheme, now subsidised childcare. At minimum, WFP should be time limited.

The way I see it is whatever works for a family with pretty high childcare costs in the first years of their lives, goes. And cost is certainly a factor in most decisions, especially when the individual job prospects don't pay well and they can't afford pension contribution.

Also the WFP isn't solely used by single income families but open to families where both don't earn a fortune.
Where I live, many mothers are in local employment with part time hours or zero-hour contracts because their jobs rarely hire full-time (very common in retail or childcare).

puppieperson1 · 27-01-2020 11:43pm

Snobbery is what stops the middle class slaves from looking at the rat race they are a big part of. They commute for hours hardly see their kids who are being raised by low paid nice people in creches who have no job satisfaction because they are low paid. they see the kids for 30 mins each evening while they wolf down the dinner scanning their phones.

On saturdays & sundays they do the domestic chores shopping ( lidl & aldi car parks are packed on weekends ) laundry house cleaning and try to walk the kids and the dogs and then end up at home eating a pizza watching graham norton or tubs and guzzling a bottle of prosecco. Then they prepare to do it all again. Their personal lives are non existent as they are exhausted and though they have a few quid to buy a few labelled items on line they are just like tyres on a car worn to threads. Fear is what stops them grasping the nettle and saying no more i want a life - fear & snobbery.
If you consume less, you need less there is soo much out there and the life is very rich when you have time to live it, its not all about money but people dont realise that till they are dying. I attended a funeral today a man of 60 dead, tomorrow my best friend age 44 years is getting chemotherapy all hard working slaves stressed to the nines for the American corporations who are just raping Ireland and disgarding the slaves as they fall. MADNESS the guys on the dole are way ahead of the slaves. IMO........

AulWan · 27-01-2020 11:53pm

LirW wrote: »

The way I see it is whatever works for a family with pretty high childcare costs in the first years of their lives, goes. And cost is certainly a factor in most decisions, especially when the individual job prospects don't pay well and they can't afford pension contribution.

Also the WFP isn't solely used by single income families but open to families where both don't earn a fortune.
Where I live, many mothers are in local employment with part time hours or zero-hour contracts because their jobs rarely hire full-time (very common in retail or childcare).

That is not the same scenario as someone voluntarily giving up a job because they know their partner can claim WFP which is what I was talking about. It happens a lot more then you think. I still think it should only be paid where the loss of hours /work is involuntary, and also be time limited in some way, possibly linked to younger children only - not paid until they are age 23!

enricoh · 27-01-2020 11:55pm

Food for thought puppie, I agree with a lot of it!

But once you have the 300k mortgage and couple of kids in creche n a couple of cars u need plenty of dough coming in.

tdf7187 · 28-01-2020 9:10am

€203 a week..yeah you can really live in the lap of luxury on that. I'm going to buy a Bentley and go on the dole.

Grumpypants · 28-01-2020 9:28am

Big Gerry wrote: »

We hear alot about the "squeezed middle" who get nothing off the government and have to pay for everything.

I wonder are there any middle class people who just packed in their jobs and went on the dole because they didn't think it was worth commuting 4 hours a day to pay off a 30 year mortgage and paying massive child care bills when they could just go on the dole and get a free house free medical card and have more disposable income than if they were working.

The mistake you make is that if you have a mortgage and go on the dole you get no help with your accommodation.

If you don't own a house you will get €1200+ a month extra. If you own your house you get nothing and have to pay the mortgage so the dole is unsustainable.

I ended up on the dole during the crash. It was amazing. People used to ask me, what do you do all day? As if your job defines you.

I always said "everything i want to". I don't have to grind out a job i hate, i have time to read, to write, to learn new skills.

I went back to college studied media law, print journalism, radio production, event management. I started two new businesses. One business was successful and led to my new job, I've been in that job for 8 years now.

It was one of my favourite times. I look back on it fondly. Everyone should do it.

marieholmfan · 28-01-2020 9:34am

AulWan wrote: »

We'll have to agree to disagree, then, because as far as I am concerned being a stay at home parent is a luxury, not an entitlement, and if someone wishes to voluntarily opt out of the workforce to take care of children, then they should do so at their own expense. (Carer's and disabled excepted.) Parents in this country are well looked after, with Child Benefit, Free GPs for kids, ECCE scheme, now subsidised childcare. At minimum, WFP should be time limited.

A woman's right to stay at home is in our constitution . It's a right.

Your attitude indicates PROFOUND incompetence on your part in your alleged previous role as an assistant Secretary in the department of social welfare.

AulWan · 28-01-2020 10:19am

marieholmfan wrote: »

A woman's right to stay at home is in our constitution . It's a right.

Your attitude indicates PROFOUND incompetence on your part in your alleged previous role as an assistant Secretary in the department of social welfare.

Firstly, it is not a woman's right to stay at home in our constitution. A common mistake.

Article 41.2 states:

1. In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.

2. The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.

To say we "endeavour" to do something does not bestow any guarantee. To endeavour means "we will do our best". It does not enshrine any absolute right for mothers to stay at home.

Secondly, I have never claimed to be an Assistant Secretary in any Department! I worked in Social Welfare in a general admin grade.

Get your facts right.

mariaalice · 28-01-2020 10:37am

Everyone is doing it wrong.

On the dole, they need to be some sort of alternative lifestyle hippy type living in a nice bit of rural Ireland, life will have purpose and meaning and your children will not feel any disadvantage works best if in a previous life you had third-level education and a decent job.

Living the middle-class dream, one partner needs a job in health care, allied health care, HSE civil service, teachig, ect anywhere where there are endless possibilities to work part-time, job share, term time, career breaks or work compressed hours i.e 3 x 12-hour shifts. The other partner needs to have a well paid corporate job with all the bells and whistles top rate paid for health insurance good pension and the like. It makes life so much easier when both are not working full time and one can work around their job and prioritised home life, lots of time to take the children to rugby, GAA, the scouts, the music lessons, make sure they are doing well in school, having enough money to get a cleaner and have decent holidays.

There are lots of people who live like that are perfectly content with it.

BarryD2 · 28-01-2020 10:38am

puppieperson1 wrote: »

Snobbery is what stops the middle class slaves from looking at the rat race they are a big part of. They commute for hours hardly see their kids who are being raised by low paid nice people in creches who have no job satisfaction because they are low paid. they see the kids for 30 mins each evening while they wolf down the dinner scanning their phones.

On saturdays & sundays they do the domestic chores shopping ( lidl & aldi car parks are packed on weekends ) laundry house cleaning and try to walk the kids and the dogs and then end up at home eating a pizza watching graham norton or tubs and guzzling a bottle of prosecco. Then they prepare to do it all again. Their personal lives are non existent as they are exhausted and though they have a few quid to buy a few labelled items on line they are just like tyres on a car worn to threads. Fear is what stops them grasping the nettle and saying no more i want a life - fear & snobbery.
If you consume less, you need less there is soo much out there and the life is very rich when you have time to live it, its not all about money but people dont realise that till they are dying. I attended a funeral today a man of 60 dead, tomorrow my best friend age 44 years is getting chemotherapy all hard working slaves stressed to the nines for the American corporations who are just raping Ireland and disgarding the slaves as they fall. MADNESS the guys on the dole are way ahead of the slaves. IMO........

You do realise I hope that this is your duty as an able citizen to the state you're born into. You have a duty to work, pay taxes and help run society for the benefit of all.

machaseh · 28-01-2020 12:46pm

BarryD2 wrote: »

You do realise I hope that this is your duty as an able citizen to the state you're born into. You have a duty to work, pay taxes and help run society for the benefit of all.

At the end of the day everybody has free will. If you dont want to work you dont have to work. I dont know how the dole works here in Ireland but if you are on the dole in my country you have obligatory job applications, obligatory community work (such as cleaning parks and the like) and when you get a job offer you HAVE to accept it, otherwise you lose your benefits. You cant just easily stay on the dole forever if you don't want to work.

I see sheep · 28-01-2020 2:00pm

BarryD2 wrote: »

You have a duty to work.

Says who?

johnmcdnl · 28-01-2020 2:15pm

Even if I was breaking even or slightly worse off today working Vs being on the dole, by continuing to work and upskilling I'm improving my future earning potential. Somewhere down the line I'll get a promotion or move to a new job of the back of my years of work experience.
Good luck trying to get that new better job if I've been sitting on the dole for the last few years.

Yes for some they mightn't ever manage to get that better job but your 100% never going to improve your personal circumstances by sitting around on the dole when you could be out working and generally trying to improve yourself.

Middle class people deciding to go on the dole ?

Comments