Do you think that is a good thing?
"We must dismantle our culture of dependency"
- Thread starter Brendan Burgess
- Start date
We so need remarks like that, probably the most helpful comment I have read in months. My heart goes out to you as your life is obviously a well paid bed of roses.
Re post #415: That is very scary when written down in B/W. It just goes to show where so much of the countries money goes. But so far we have no realistic answers bar changing the rules from the ground up. No wonder some people are fairly smug on the comments regarding the unemployed.
"Employment: 20 hrs x €9.15/hr = €183/wk = €9,516/yr
FIS: (€834 - €183) x 60% = €391/wk = €20,332/yr
Rent Allowance: €1,200/mo = €14,400/yr
Child Benefit: €560/mo = €6,720/yr
Plus medical card"
Total: €50,968/yr.
"Employment: 20 hrs x €9.15/hr = €183/wk = €9,516/yr
FIS: (€834 - €183) x 60% = €391/wk = €20,332/yr
Rent Allowance: €1,200/mo = €14,400/yr
Child Benefit: €560/mo = €6,720/yr
Plus medical card"
Total: €50,968/yr.
I don’t think smug is the right word. Concerned maybe a better one.
As we move more and more of our national income towards welfare and income transfer (call it re-balancing or wealth redistribution or socialism or communism or whatever “ism” you like) and we tax working harder more and more we run the risk of not only incentivising people to stay on welfare but of encouraging people to just up and leave.
I work with a guy whose son works for a major US Multinational in Seattle. He earns $350,000 a year. If he moved back to Ireland he would pay 50% more taxes on his income.
At the moment he pays $110,000 (€97,500) leaving him with a net income of $240,000 (€212,500).
If he moves back to Ireland he’ll pay $169,000 (€149,638) including property tax, leaving him with $181,000 (€160,000)
So moving back to Ireland with his wife and young baby will see his after tax income drop by a thousand Euro a week and he’d be in a country with a much higher cost of living.
How do attract wealth generating individuals like him (back) to this country?
I sincerely hope that I didn't come across as smug, that was not my intention and "changing" the rules alone won't help. In cases like the one you mentioned, moving to an area where there is a better chance of work, less need for a second car, may also have to be considered, or changing careers, if a previous career is in decline or not paying as it used to.
You have said it yourself:
"because at this stage for them it seems they are in a revolving hell of no future."
So the choice is to stay static, or move. There are no easy choices and I think that a lot of people in that situation are going to have to come to that conclusion too.
I cycle to work every day. I don't have a second car. Why are my suggestions not valid?
Not meaning you were smug. I already sold up and made a move but things still not much better. Chances of selling house would be slim to none at this stage. Used to work all my life and it get's you down realising you will never work at a real position again. Probably at a difficult age
Last edited:
All I can tell you is that here in Switzerland you are expected to use a bicycle if the job is within 10km of your home and if you can't afford one the community welfare officer will provide you with a second hand one, usually bought from the police sale.
TheBigShort
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,789
Well, for someone who keeps accusing me of misinterpretation lets get some things straight (and there is quite a bit that needs straightening here).
1)Read the title again, there is no question there, it is a definite statement of intent.
2)I never said welfare dependency does not exist. I have conceded it does, my fictional character Johnny is testament to that.
My argument is that the cost of this dependency is so miniscule in the round, that I contend that any attempt to dismantle it via welfare cuts, will ultimately drive more people into poverty and in fact cost taxpayers even more.
My question to you is; how many of those people in receipt of welfare and using your own defintion below, do you classify as welfare dependent?
For the purposes of debate, I will accept this definition for now, but I will contend that it is in fact incomplete.
If they choose to work, they will only lose these benefits if the value of the earned income exceeds certain thresholds. On the other hand if the value of the earned income does not exceed certain thresholds, then the benefits remain.
I took this example from you, I hope you are ok with that
- You ommitted the €30 a week (€40 for an adult couple) rent that is still payable by the tenant in receipt of welfare. Thats a €2,080 deduction payable from the wage above. Also, the €1,200 rent supplement is only payable in Dublin. There are other, reduced limits for each county. I think its safe to say, that a family with 4 children, to live with any sort of dignity, would have to pay €1,200 a month in Dublin. So it should be noted that this money never really becomes available to the tenant. It simply transfers from Social Protection to the landlord through the tenant.
Anyway, using your definition above. The worker has CHOSEN to work for the offer of €183/20 hrs. So what is clear, is that the person is prepared to work, yes/no? So your definition which states "encourages people to stay on benefits rather than work", does not apply here. It is clear, that even though the wage is so low, that the worker prefers to work .
In this instance the system has not evolved from a support system to a dependency system.
I have to dispute these figures. You derive at a €50,000+ figure for a part-time worker with 4 children!
But to suit your own arguement you then discount the child benefit for an individual with 4 children on €69,000.
Where are you calculating €8,560 standard rate from? I would calculate as follows
Standard rate €33,500 @ 20% = 6,700
Marginal rate €35,500 @ 40% = 14,200
PRSI @ 4% = 2,760
USC 1st €12,012 @ 1% = 120
Rest €56,998 @ 3% = 1709.64
Total deductions = €25,489.64
Less tax credits (JA) = €3,300
Take home = €46,810.36 or €900.19 a week.
Add the €6,720 child benefit (which was blatantly ommitted from this example to reduce income, but added to the p/t worker to boost welfare payments!!) and the total im getting is €53,530.36 or €1,029.43 per week disposable income less €276.92 (€1,200 a month rent or mortgage) = €752.51 disposable income
This compares with €534 disposable income for the part time worker.
...and when I get some time I will respond to the rest of your post that contains more inaccuracies. It would help if in the meantime we could agree figures.
You might get on to a minister on that one. Save a fortune on greenhouse gases. Lovely idea though, we did it in Ireland decades back...looking back to see the future.
TheBigShort
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,789
Thanks for posting these unemployment figures. As you can see in the year 2000, unemployment reached a low of 3.70% in 2000. From there it moved between 4-5% until 2008.
Many economists define "full employment" as 4%, to allow for contractors in between jobs, illness, injuries, people with mild disabilities such as aspergers, mild autism etc who find it difficult to compete socially and at interviews, and our buddies, the alleged cult of welfare dependents (who, for a myriad of reasons, and with the best will in the world, and with every training program under the sun, most employers wouldn't touch with a barge pole anyway).
Is it then reasonable to suggest that from the period 2000 to 2008, using the figures you provided, that there was no culture of welfare dependency (outside the 0.5-1%)?
From 2008 to 2012, unemployment rose, peaking at 15%. Can you explain what happened here? Did welfare dependency become trendy? Did welfare become so generous as to tempt the thousands out of the workplace to the unemployment lines?
Can you recall the chorus of employers calling for their workers not leave for a life of welfare dependency and to come back to their posts?
Or can you recall the desperate employers whose lifes work and effort was descimated by our unregulated banking system and so-called free market capitalist economy?
Or the employees in Clerys, HMV and elsewhere who were cut short by our very well educated, very well paid, legal and finance sectors who connived to dump their redundancy payments on the taxpayer of a bankrupt country?
Regarding the report in the Independent you wrote:
Taking these in turn:
1) school leavers or college gradutes looking for work for the first time at a time of some 13-14% unemployment?
I think (and stand to correction) that PRSI is paid on all levels of income, including those part-time jobs that so many students take up both during and after third level.
2) immigrants arriving to ireland from other EU countries but with no track record of working here.
If immigrants are arriving to Ireland and not finding employment this is proof if there ever was that welfare payments are so generous here that people are happy to relocate to a different country to not work!
3) are engaged in full-time care of elderly or disabled person
I genuinely don't begrudge a penny that carers receive, my only gripe is with tosser Johnny, who is taking money from the same pot.
However, of those that provide care, how many of those have provided care from the age they left school to their own age of retirement, especially when it comes to the care of the elderly - you would assume that someone who is caring for the elderly had plenty time before that to work and assuming logically that the elderly person dies first, would have plenty time after that to go into the work place.
4) actively seeking employment and participating in social welfare programs to upskill or retrain
Surely you are having a laugh! To have never in a month of Sundays worked a day in your life and be classed as "actively seeking employment" is a bit much to fathom! My wife is actively trying to run her 3rd marathon, she's not going to complete this any other way except getting out there and doing something about it!
5) actively seeking employment but because of a previous criminal record or drug or alcohol addiction are genuinely finding it difficult to receive offers of employment
Yes, criminal records can hurt, however not all jobs depend on them, especially at the lower end. Alcohol / drug addition are very difficult for people to overcome for sure and like carers it would be great of Johnny left "his" money in the pot for them
6) members of the Traveller community who have traditionally faced discrimination when it comes to employment.
I don't have number here to be fair so yes, this could account for a portion. Travellers definitely have a more difficult time getting work, no two ways about that.
7) scratching their This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language?
Well, now we're getting somewhere. According to the Independent article:
"The revelations follow on from reports two weeks ago that one in three people offered a place on the State's back-to-work scheme failed to show up for interview...."
After thinking about it I would start from the bottom of your list and work up from there.
Just on Johhny the tosser. Be honest with me here....if the government gave you 188 euro back in taxes and asked you to instead drop round to Johnny's place and give him the 188 euro yourself would you?
Taking these in turn:
1) school leavers or college gradutes looking for work for the first time at a time of some 13-14% unemployment?
I think (and stand to correction) that PRSI is paid on all levels of income, including those part-time jobs that so many students take up both during and after third level.
2) immigrants arriving to ireland from other EU countries but with no track record of working here.
If immigrants are arriving to Ireland and not finding employment this is proof if there ever was that welfare payments are so generous here that people are happy to relocate to a different country to not work!
3) are engaged in full-time care of elderly or disabled person
I genuinely don't begrudge a penny that carers receive, my only gripe is with tosser Johnny, who is taking money from the same pot.
However, of those that provide care, how many of those have provided care from the age they left school to their own age of retirement, especially when it comes to the care of the elderly - you would assume that someone who is caring for the elderly had plenty time before that to work and assuming logically that the elderly person dies first, would have plenty time after that to go into the work place.
4) actively seeking employment and participating in social welfare programs to upskill or retrain
Surely you are having a laugh! To have never in a month of Sundays worked a day in your life and be classed as "actively seeking employment" is a bit much to fathom! My wife is actively trying to run her 3rd marathon, she's not going to complete this any other way except getting out there and doing something about it!
5) actively seeking employment but because of a previous criminal record or drug or alcohol addiction are genuinely finding it difficult to receive offers of employment
Yes, criminal records can hurt, however not all jobs depend on them, especially at the lower end. Alcohol / drug addition are very difficult for people to overcome for sure and like carers it would be great of Johnny left "his" money in the pot for them
6) members of the Traveller community who have traditionally faced discrimination when it comes to employment.
I don't have number here to be fair so yes, this could account for a portion. Travellers definitely have a more difficult time getting work, no two ways about that.
7) scratching their This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language?
Well, now we're getting somewhere. According to the Independent article:
"The revelations follow on from reports two weeks ago that one in three people offered a place on the State's back-to-work scheme failed to show up for interview...."
After thinking about it I would start from the bottom of your list and work up from there.
Just on Johhny the tosser. Be honest with me here....if the government gave you 188 euro back in taxes and asked you to instead drop round to Johnny's place and give him the 188 euro yourself would you?
Wow. 22 pages and still hasn't been moved to LOS...Is that a record?
I am not reading 22 pages but is everyone not really in agreement? A small amount of people screw everyone else and don't have any intention of ever working. There is a welfare trap because it does sometimes pay not to take a job. Not everyone who make this choice is a waster. They are simply doing what is best for their family. Would we not all do the same? If the State wants to change this, then encourage people to take jobs.
The spongers aren't all the people choosing not to work. Middle class and rich families still take their bloody child benefit every month. They still take their pension relief, their health insurance relief, their mortgage interest relief, they CGT relief, their public transport relief, their tax credits, their tax allowances, their medical expenses relief etc etc etc. Why not scrap everything??
Also the title of the thread should be changed. Not everyone dependent on welfare is there because of a culture of dependency or because they want to. Yes there are some people who are but it is insulting to many people.
I am not reading 22 pages but is everyone not really in agreement? A small amount of people screw everyone else and don't have any intention of ever working. There is a welfare trap because it does sometimes pay not to take a job. Not everyone who make this choice is a waster. They are simply doing what is best for their family. Would we not all do the same? If the State wants to change this, then encourage people to take jobs.
The spongers aren't all the people choosing not to work. Middle class and rich families still take their bloody child benefit every month. They still take their pension relief, their health insurance relief, their mortgage interest relief, they CGT relief, their public transport relief, their tax credits, their tax allowances, their medical expenses relief etc etc etc. Why not scrap everything??
Also the title of the thread should be changed. Not everyone dependent on welfare is there because of a culture of dependency or because they want to. Yes there are some people who are but it is insulting to many people.
The economy was flying. Wages and jobs could be had that paid much more than welfare rates bringing some people no doubt off welfare and into the workforce.
Firstly I find this post quite inconsiderate to the many thousands of hard working people who lost their jobs during the period
People simply lost their jobs and no other option but to seek welfare and that's what a safety net should be. Not somewhere where people languish as a lifestyle choice according to Labour's Joan Burton of all people. I mean if she of all people is saying it then it must be true.
Interesting questions. By all means start another thread and I will happily contribute.
Good post Sunny, many interesting thoughts there.
Yes, with so many people in this country receiving money from the state it's no wonder we're borrowed up to the hilt. Perhaps a new thread though?
Clearly.
You still don't understand it.
And you still don't understand it.
And you still don't understand it.
Here, you are nearly there, but not quite.
Employment: 20 hrs x €9.15/hr = €183/wk = €9,516/yr - This is the income from work.
FIS: (€834 - €183) x 60% = €391/wk = €20,332/yr - This is the FIS income support.
Rent Allowance: €1,200/mo = €14,400/yr - This is housing support.
Child Benefit : €560/mo = €6,720yr - this is self expanatory.
Plus medical card"
It was an error, of course I can see the spittle on the screen now. In that case, it changes from 50k net to 44k net and 65k net a person needs to earn without the supports - the substantive point remains.
As for your calculations regarding tax, I'll trust this site thanks.
No, because it's a universal payment, which is the point that I tried to make, badly I admit.
And we are back to you not understanding the issue.
They are not unemployed, they are not fit for work, they are not available for work and they are not seeking work, what part of that do you have difficulty with and I have to say - what a disgusting view you have of some people on welfare.
No, because again, you don't understand it - you are reading it, you are quoting it - but you still just don't get it.
Wow. Lol. Pointless really.
You're fine, seriously don't take up your time, we're fine. Lol.
I have to add here that I am pretty shocked that you don't even understand the difference between unemployment and illness or disability welfare payments and really believe that your 4% "full" employment includes these, if you can't understand that basic point and still insist on basing your figures on that - then work away.
Last edited:
TheBigShort
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,789
I know, those pesky kids generating child benefit payments and those old age pensioners, get them back to work!!
Im not really sure what your point is here. Are you suggesting that child benefit and old age pensioners fall under your definition of a dependency culture? Really??
Are you suggesting that those that participate in the range of incentives that support working and unemployed people, as mentioned by the Minister, fall under your definition too?
I couldn't find anything mentioned or identified or defined anything to do with your dependency culture in the report, could you?
And you still don't understand it.
I know, and if you are not sure, despite being told again and again, then don't put what you think I am suggesting - my posts have been clear - just not to you.
And you still don't understand it.
We'll leave it there. There's just no point.