"We must dismantle our culture of dependency"

[Purple]

I do not like the way you're phrasing this aspect of the topic, I think it is unfair and unjust.

Why?
I feel a moral duty to support myself and not use state funds which could and should go to the weakest and most vulnerable in society (what a misused phrase). Therefore if there is a way, any way, I can legally support myself then I should do so. If I want a different job I should apply for it after I take the rubbish one but my number one priority is not to live off my neighbour.
If you are applying for work and not getting the jobs then you are not defrauding anyone. If you are offered a job which you don't want then tough; take it or stop claiming welfare.

 

[Ceist Beag]

If you are offered a job which you don't want then tough; take it or stop claiming welfare.

You've already said you believe the system is the issue here. Therefore I find it hard to see how you can blame the system on the one hand and yet call people who are complying with the system fraudsters. The system as it stands does not penalise people who turn down jobs (for very many reasons, many of which most of us could see as entirely reasonable ones based on the current system) so I cannot see how people who do so can be called fraudsters. I'm sure there are some who turn down jobs for very unreasonable reasons and who simply never intend to work but to call everyone who does so a fraudster is something I cannot agree with.

 

[TheBigShort]

I'm not going to get into a long argument on this Purple but I don't think it is even close to as black and white as that. You can be available for work and still refuse certain jobs, that is certainly not welfare fraud. Likewise, you may be applying for work and continually get rejected. It's impossible to put all long term unemployed into one box on this point. I believe from skimming the 23 pages to date that this is where a lot of the discussion is centred around so I'm not going to rehash it all over again but I do not like the way you're phrasing this aspect of the topic, I think it is unfair and unjust.

You are correct Ceist Beag, and without asking you the onerous task of skimming through 23 pages you make a valid point about refusing a job is not welfare fraud.
I posed the example to Purple of a construction engineer with 20yrs experience earning 70,000+, who becomes unemployed, should this person be expected to take a coffee shop job. Notwithstanding the unsuitability of the job from both the employee and employers perspective, it was Purples contention that this construction engineer had a moral duty to take the job.
Later, a similar example of a qualified computer programmer with a degree in law was given, and Purles view that such a person taking a minimum wage job was "silly".
Those in favour of the topic title have been moving the goalposts so much that you would need several football pitches to keep up with them.

 

[Purple]

You are correct Ceist Beag, and without asking you the onerous task of skimming through 23 pages you make a valid point about refusing a job is not welfare fraud.
I posed the example to Purple of a construction engineer with 20yrs experience earning 70,000+, who becomes unemployed, should this person be expected to take a coffee shop job. Notwithstanding the unsuitability of the job from both the employee and employers perspective, it was Purples contention that this construction engineer had a moral duty to take the job.
Later, a similar example of a qualified computer programmer with a degree in law was given, and Purles view that such a person taking a minimum wage job was "silly".
Those in favour of the topic title have been moving the goalposts so much that you would need several football pitches to keep up with them.

Please don't misrepresent what I said. Nobody has sunk to that level so far in this discussion. You know well what I said and what I meant.
You suggested that a computer engineer with a degree in law could only get such a job. I said that scenario was silly.

 

[Purple]

You've already said you believe the system is the issue here. Therefore I find it hard to see how you can blame the system on the one hand and yet call people who are complying with the system fraudsters. The system as it stands does not penalise people who turn down jobs (for very many reasons, many of which most of us could see as entirely reasonable ones based on the current system) so I cannot see how people who do so can be called fraudsters. I'm sure there are some who turn down jobs for very unreasonable reasons and who simply never intend to work but to call everyone who does so a fraudster is something I cannot agree with.

In order to qualify for unemployment benefits you must declare yourself available for work. If you do so but then do not take the work which is available then how are you being completely honest? Would you tell the person in the welfare office that you were offered the job but didn't want to take it or would you tell lies? If you tell lies then that's fraud.

 

[Ceist Beag]

Ah listen, I'm not going to keep this going Purple. However the people best placed to make the determination over whether fraud is being committed here are those offering the jobs. If they genuinely think that the applicant is lying then let them take it further. I don't think we can generalise here as to whether each and every applicant who turns down a job is telling lies. It's very possible many of them are up front and honest with the welfare officer about why they can't accept the job being offered.

 

[newtothis]

I think people need to step back from considering various hypothetical scenarios to justify themselves sitting in judgement of others (which is what this all about, right?) and get a reality check on what it's actually like to be on benefits, and especially on the reality of unemployment.

Asking whether someone highly qualified in X would take a low-paying position in industry Y is in my view a nonsense. If you speak with people who have lost jobs, the reality is they start off looking for something similar: if the reality is they can’t get anything, they start widening their search, both in terms of location and/or industry. They may well end up either retraining and/or taking literally anything they can get. That’s the reality, and I think it is completely reasonable just as it is unreasonable to expect someone to take the first position that may be available on day one.

If this is the path chosen, they can and do get support from the DSP. If they don’t engage, they can and do get payments cut. Why are people expecting anything else? Do they wish to punish the unemployed for being unemployed? How will that help anyone?

 

[Purple]

Ah listen, I'm not going to keep this going Purple. However the people best placed to make the determination over whether fraud is being committed here are those offering the jobs. If they genuinely think that the applicant is lying then let them take it further. I don't think we can generalise here as to whether each and every applicant who turns down a job is telling lies. It's very possible many of them are up front and honest with the welfare officer about why they can't accept the job being offered.

I'm just talking from the perspective of personal responsibility, not a legalistic one. If I don't get caught doing something wrong it doesn't mean I haven't done anything wrong.

 

[Purple]

I think people need to step back from considering various hypothetical scenarios to justify themselves sitting in judgement of others (which is what this all about, right?) and get a reality check on what it's actually like to be on benefits, and especially on the reality of unemployment.

Asking whether someone highly qualified in X would take a low-paying position in industry Y is in my view a nonsense. If you speak with people who have lost jobs, the reality is they start off looking for something similar: if the reality is they can’t get anything, they start widening their search, both in terms of location and/or industry. They may well end up either retraining and/or taking literally anything they can get. That’s the reality, and I think it is completely reasonable just as it is unreasonable to expect someone to take the first position that may be available on day one.

If this is the path chosen, they can and do get support from the DSP. If they don’t engage, they can and do get payments cut. Why are people expecting anything else? Do they wish to punish the unemployed for being unemployed? How will that help anyone?

I agree completely. If someone is training with a view to getting a job then they are not available for work at that time. That's perfectly ok.
If someone says "I'm a process engineer so I'm only going to take a job as a process engineer and I'm not going to be pro-active in looking for similar jobs or changing my skills to suit what the market needs", well, that's a different matter.
As you say, if they engage honestly and openly with the DSP and the DSP are happy with what they are doing then that's fine.

 

[orka]

Thankfully to Orka and ppmeath, they have posted detail of the extent that strongly indicates that the cost to the state of those who choose a lifestyle of welfare dependency is miniscule in the round, in terms of the extra burden it inflicts on the hard pressed taxpayer.

That's your interpretation which I don't think anyone has leapt to agree with. You haven't shown where you get this miniscule calculation from - your €40M above is a saving, not a cost.

 

[ppmeath]

Look, dont get too upset.

I'm not.

Nothing said here between us is going to change my view, nor your view.

Of course not, it's a discussion board, not a miracle one!!

I appreciate the effort you have made in actually sourcing data and information, which is relief from the gospel according to 'The Irish Independent'.

Why thank you.

I never said leaving Johnny as is, is the solution. I said cutting his welfare was NOT the solution.

You did.

Post 175:

"Why not just leave him with his dole, without cutting it? He is not involved in crime and other than the €188 a week, it doesn't cost the State very much."

I openly admitted that I dont have the solution for Johnny, suffice to say, to increase spending on education and social programs for him. If he turns them down, then I admit, I do not know what to do.

You didn't. But at least you are openly admitting it now - but I still don't understand why you wouldn't cut his dole, you seem to ahve a very poor view of Johnny, given the background you gave him, don't you even have a glimmer of hope for him, can you not see that the true cost to the state for Johnny won't always only be 188 a week - and I explained that to you.

But this is where my estimate of 0.5-1% of welfare recipients comes in.

Sorry - but the unemployment rate and the 188 is not the problem - I provided you with the details, they don't account for the issue we are discussing (And no nor do pensioners, kids, the sick and the injured - or carers either ok?).

But I would contend, that the savings gained from cutting Johnnys welfare would be miniscule to the costs added through the provision of other social services.
Its not that hard to understand.

It is that hard - for you. Because you are ignoring the other potential costs, you seem to think that you can say that he may turn to crime and that will be a cost, while completely ignoring that by the same token, given his lifestyle that he will be a drain on the health service, if he has children then he won't be able to support them, another drain on the state, if he needs a bigger house - another drain on the state - do you not understand that?

But I am genuinely confused about your position in all of this, you have provided a definition, some calculations, examples of working people receiving benefits, and an official report that emphasizes the extent of assistance available to those who are in need of it.
And nothing about a dependency culture?

Because if they really want to work - but cannot because the state is providing a better income while not working, or as is clear in the definition - they fear losing the benefits, then there is a problem.

The person in the example, is working 19 hours a week and has an income of 44k net, this is what they are used to, this is the bar that has been set and to take a job, regardless of their education or experience, they need this - just to break even - do you really not get it?

If this person was offered 30k to work 40 hours a week - and if he loses the benefits above - which he will, then he wont' take the job.

So we need to look at him, we need to look at how the system is designed, we need to figure out where the issue is.

 

[ppmeath]

That's your interpretation which I don't think anyone has leapt to agree with. You haven't shown where you get this miniscule calculation from - your €40M above is a saving, not a cost.

I most certainly haven't orka.

 

[TheBigShort]

That's your interpretation which I don't think anyone has leapt to agree with. You haven't shown where you get this miniscule calculation from - your €40M above is a saving, not a cost.

Are we really getting that desperate to try make a relevant point? My apologies, I should have said that €40m was the cost to the state until the state made savings by reducing the benefits.
I was being generous with those figures too. I applied €44 to the calculation for each of the 14,000, when €19.60 is applicable in some cases.

But you are correct, it is only my interpretation.
Seeing as you posted the information, perhaps you could provide your interpretation of what it all means relative to the discussion we are having?

 

[orka]

Are we really getting that desperate to try make a relevant point?

I'm not. But I (and probably ppmeath too) didn't appreciate the implication of your wording that I/we had somehow provided data that prove the cost was miniscule.

My apologies, I should have said that €40m was the cost to the state until the state made savings by reducing the benefits.

The cost to the state is the full cost of providing benefits, not just the saving - Johnny used to cost an unnecessary €188 per week, he still costs an unnecessary €144 per week.

 

[ppmeath]

All in all, this discussion never really touched on any of these things and instead its primary focus was on welfare 'dependency'.

Not to you it didn't, because from the start you never believed it existed.

Thankfully to Orka and ppmeath, they have posted detail of the extent that strongly indicates that the cost to the state of those who choose a lifestyle of welfare dependency is miniscule in the round, in terms of the extra burden it inflicts on the hard pressed taxpayer.

I didn't and again, as you have been asked before, please do not misrepresent what I say, my posts clearly indicated to the very real existence of a "culture of welfare dependency".

You are entitled to your opinion, but not to your own made up facts and certainly not on figures that I provided for an entirely different reason.

We would have been better to focus on the cost of those who do work, but skim the system as you have outlined. The higher you go in the professional classes the bigger the pot there is to be found.

No, the focus should be on where the person or the system is wrong - regardless of who they are.

You have identified a broad range of sectors/professionals/trades/trade unions etc that evade their social responsibilities by skimming of the top, under the table etc...etc...

What social responsibilities are they then? And whose exempt? Just curious?

It is a cost, but it is miniscule relative to the scams being pulled elsewhere.

Says who - you?

 

[TheBigShort]

Ok, not for the first time do I have to take some time out from the main topic to highlight some grammatical issues.
The comment above is written as a question. That leaves the reader the option to answer the question posed. Depending on that answer, opens the possibility of discussion and debate with the intent on finding a solution or some common ground. In essence, it is not a definite statement or opinion.

On the other hand a sentence like this "We must dismantle our culture of welfare dependency", is a definite statement. There are no questions asked here, it is clear that the poster believes;
1) there is a culture of welfare dependency and that
2) it must be dismantled.

Here are so other examples where your grammer has come into question

The original post stated that he hadnt committed a crime. Not as an assumption, but as a statement fact.

If Johnny makes the choice to sell illegal tobacco that would be a crime - future conditional tense.

The fact that as of now (present tense) he hasnt committed a crime.

Anyway, moving on,

You didn't. But at least you are openly admitting it now -

Liar, liar, pants on fire! This is on page 11.

I dont know what we do about Johnny

Sorry - but the unemployment rate and the 188 is not the problem - I provided you with the details, they don't account for the issue we are discussing (And no nor do pensioners, kids, the sick and the injured - or carers either ok?).

Great, so we are definitely not talking about the unemployment rate. We are not talking about the €188 either. And we are not talking about pensioners, kids, the sick and the injured. And we are not talking about carers.
Well, my apologies. Because when you posted that link from Social Protection that highlighted the 2million people in receipt of welfare, I was pretty sure you did that to make a point related to the discussion. But clearly not, my bad (although you might one day explain why you did do it - on second thoughts, better not)

It is that hard - for you. Because you are ignoring the other potential costs, you seem to think that you can say that he may turn to crime and that will be a cost, while completely ignoring that by the same token, given his lifestyle that he will be a drain on the health service, if he has children then he won't be able to support them, another drain on the state, if he needs a bigger house - another drain on the state - do you not understand that?

You have actually made a point there, well done. But...im thinking of all the other smokers and drinkers, the ones that work and whose lifestyles will, like Johnny, lead to a drain on the health service. Just as well we tax the crap out of smokers and drinkers (which Johnny pays back out of the 188 that we give him - but we are not talking about the 188 are we?).
And as for his kids, its possible they will follow in his footsteps, multiplying. But that will be all relative to kids following the footsteps of their daddies and mammies from solid, well educated backgrounds, also multiplying, and in the end there will still only be less than 1% of welfare recipients choosing the dependency lifestyle. The other 99% will be trying to get work, trying to retrain, trying to upskill, all dependent on the opportunities available.

If this person was offered 30k to work 40 hours a week - and if he loses the benefits above - which he will, then he wont' take the job.

So we need to look at him, we need to look at how the system is designed, we need to figure out where the issue is.

Well the issue might be on your view that he 'wont take the job'. Which im saying to you is wrong.

First, 40hrs at €9.15 ph, with 4 kids will still entitle him for FIS.
€834 - €360= €474@60% = 284+360= €644.
This increases his disposable income, why on earth would he not take the work? The system in the example you have provided, encourages him to take more work.

So for Gods sake, if you are going to provide definitions and examples, would you please provide some that support your position!!

Secondly, this income will go nowhere to meeting his rent of €1,200, so his rent supplement will still be paid. And you have already been shown that the rent supplement, subject to limits in each county, will only equal the value of the rent being charged. So if the landord reduces the rent to €900, his rent supplement reduces to €900.

As his earned income is only €360, he will still qualify for a medical card, having 4 children.

It is clear now you dont even understand the system that you want dismantled.

 

[TheBigShort]

I'm not. But I (and probably ppmeath too) didn't appreciate the implication of your wording that I/we had somehow provided data that prove the cost was miniscule.
The cost to the state is the full cost of providing benefits, not just the saving - Johnny used to cost an unnecessary €188 per week, he still costs an unnecessary €144 per week.

But the information you posted from the Irish Times, can you give us your interpretation of the information that you posted in relation to the topic being discussed.
It seemed pretty straightforward to me, and I gave my interpretation. But you dont seem to agree with it, so can you provide your interpretation to your information that you posted?

 

[Sunny]

Some excellent arguments on both sides. Still, the public sector get paid too much don't they?

 

[ppmeath]

Great, so we are definitely not talking about the unemployment rate. We are not talking about the €188 either. And we are not talking about pensioners, kids, the sick and the injured. And we are not talking about carers.
Well, my apologies. Because when you posted that link from Social Protection that highlighted the 2million people in receipt of welfare, I was pretty sure you did that to make a point related to the discussion. But clearly not, my bad (although you might one day explain why you did do it - on second thoughts, better not)

We were never discussing the unemployment rate. I had to explain that this doesn't account for all those who are on welfare - which is why I provided you with the link - so you could see that there are many more payments and many more people on welfare - then just the unemployed. I

You have actually made a point there, well done. But...im thinking of all the other smokers and drinkers, the ones that work and whose lifestyles will, like Johnny, lead to a drain on the health service. Just as well we tax the crap out of smokers and drinkers (which Johnny pays back out of the 188 that we give him - but we are not talking about the 188 are we?).

I made it here:

http://www.askaboutmoney.com/threads/we-must-dismantle-our-culture-of-dependency.200086/page-7

Only 347 posts ago. And Johnny pays no taxes on his earnings, because Johnny doesn't earn any money, because he doesn't work. And we were never talking about the 188, but you get my point now. Better late then never eh?

And as for his kids, its possible they will follow in his footsteps, multiplying. But that will be all relative to kids following the footsteps of their daddies and mammies from solid, well educated backgrounds, also multiplying, and in the end there will still only be less than 1% of welfare recipients choosing the dependency lifestyle. The other 99% will be trying to get work, trying to retrain, trying to upskill, all dependent on the opportunities available.

Yes, Johhny X 4 kids and it's possible they may follow in his footsteps - but sure the suckers will still be around to pay for it - brings a whole new meaning to "one born every minute" and I have to say, with great amusement - that you have exposed your inability to grasp the topic by this one paragraph. Well done.

Well the issue might be on your view that he 'wont take the job'. Which im saying to you is wrong.

Because you don't understand what we are discussing and again you expose this here:

First, 40hrs at €9.15 ph, with 4 kids will still entitle him for FIS.
€834 - €360= €474@60% = 284+360= €644.
This increases his disposable income, why on earth would he not take the work? The system in the example you have provided, encourages him to take more work.

Secondly, this income will go nowhere to meeting his rent of €1,200, so his rent supplement will still be paid. And you have already been shown that the rent supplement, subject to limits in each county, will only equal the value of the rent being charged. So if the landord reduces the rent to €900, his rent supplement reduces to €900.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/e...ementary_welfare_schemes/rent_supplement.html

"Employment and Rent Supplement
You will not qualify for Rent Supplement if you are in full-time employment (30 hours or more a week). (In the case of couples, if one of a couple is in full time employment, both are excluded from claiming Rent Supplement)."

As his earned income is only €360, he will still qualify for a medical card, having 4 children.

If he got a job for 100k a year, he would still be entitled to the medical card for 3 years.

It is clear now you dont even understand the system that you want dismantled.

It is crystal clear to me now, that you certainly don't.

 

[TheBigShort]

Ok, not for the first time do I have to take some time out from the main topic to highlight some grammatical issues.
The comment above is written as a question. That leaves the reader the option to answer the question posed. Depending on that answer, opens the possibility of discussion and debate with the intent on finding a solution or some common ground. In essence, it is not a definite statement or opinion.

On the other hand a sentence like this "We must dismantle our culture of welfare dependency", is a definite statement. There are no questions asked here, it is clear that the poster believes;
1) there is a culture of welfare dependency and that
2) it must be dismantled.

Here are so other examples where your grammer has come into question





Anyway, moving on,



Liar, liar, pants on fire! This is on page 11.






Great, so we are definitely not talking about the unemployment rate. We are not talking about the €188 either. And we are not talking about pensioners, kids, the sick and the injured. And we are not talking about carers.
Well, my apologies. Because when you posted that link from Social Protection that highlighted the 2million people in receipt of welfare, I was pretty sure you did that to make a point related to the discussion. But clearly not, my bad (although you might one day explain why you did do it - on second thoughts, better not)



You have actually made a point there, well done. But...im thinking of all the other smokers and drinkers, the ones that work and whose lifestyles will, like Johnny, lead to a drain on the health service. Just as well we tax the crap out of smokers and drinkers (which Johnny pays back out of the 188 that we give him - but we are not talking about the 188 are we?).
And as for his kids, its possible they will follow in his footsteps, multiplying. But that will be all relative to kids following the footsteps of their daddies and mammies from solid, well educated backgrounds, also multiplying, and in the end there will still only be less than 1% of welfare recipients choosing the dependency lifestyle. The other 99% will be trying to get work, trying to retrain, trying to upskill, all dependent on the opportunities available.



Well the issue might be on your view that he 'wont take the job'. Which im saying to you is wrong.

First, 40hrs at €9.15 ph, with 4 kids will still entitle him for FIS.
€834 - €360= €474@60% = 284+360= €644.
This increases his disposable income, why on earth would he not take the work? The system in the example you have provided, encourages him to take more work.

So for Gods sake, if you are going to provide definitions and examples, would you please provide some that support your position!!

Secondly, this income will go nowhere to meeting his rent of €1,200, so his rent supplement will still be paid. And you have already been shown that the rent supplement, subject to limits in each county, will only equal the value of the rent being charged. So if the landord reduces the rent to €900, his rent supplement reduces to €900.

As his earned income is only €360, he will still qualify for a medical card, having 4 children.

It is clear now you dont even understand the system that you want dismantled.

Hands up! I made an err. The rent supplement is generally not payable to an individual in full-time work. And alas, ppmeath raises a fair point.
There is an anomaly in the welfare system where someone in receipt of rent supplement may consider not to take a job for fear of losing the rent supplement. In turn, with a disposable income of €644 a week and 4 kids to feed and clothe it is likely that this willing worker, and his family, faced with paying €1,200 rent out of their disposable income will have their net disposable income reduced to €367 a week from €584.
I concede that there is an anomaly in the system.
I do not concede that it is so prevalent so as to dramatically affect the tax deductions from paye, prsi, usc, etc.
I concede that the system in this regard needs reform, but not the reform of welfare cuts.
The savings to be made in this regard, along with the savings identified by Orka are still very much the thin end of the wedge of why working families are being squeezed. But I accept that reform is needed, not dismantling.