"We must dismantle our culture of dependency"

[T McGibney]

What authority has allowed you to declare this? Why should i accept your word without evidence to back it up?

It's common knowledge, and has been so to varying degrees for decades.

Just Google "Irish GDP 26%".

Or school yourself on the basics of the Irish economy.

 

[Purple]

Please tell me, that after all this, you are able to distinguish between a waster like 'johnny' and the vast majority of welfare recipients who are actively looking for work, who are participating in training courses and trying to upskill?

Nobody here is unable to distinguish between the two, despite your disgivings about the intellect of people who hold different views to you. They are discussing how our welfare system traps the people who want to work in welfare because they are better off not working.

Please dont tell me that just because a person comes from a certain area, like Ballyfermot, that you think they are automatically some kind of sponger (although you did identify areas with known social and economic deprivation, comparing them to more affluent areas)?

I am from a deprived area on one side of the city and I now work in one on the other side of the city. I work with people from deprived areas. I don't sit in the leafy suburbs ruminating in middle-class guilt, rather I engage in the real world unfettered by ideology.

This topic is wholly bogus, littered with inept posters who havent a clue about economics or social provisions. Clueless as to impact in cutting the income of those trying to better themselves, clueless as to the lack of opportunity afforded to young people. And worst of all, they see an inane headline like 77% of households support the other 23% and jump all over it, moralising and pontificating.

I don't think anyone else here shares your views... we must all be wrong.

The biggest welfare handout in this country is to corporate multi nationals who pay no tax, to property developers bailed out by tax payers, to vulture funds buying on the cheap from NAMA from money borrowed at 0%.

Apples and oranges. If you want to start a threat about corporate taxation and NAMA then do so but don't drag this one off topic. I will probably agree with much of what you say.

And its because of this that more and more good ordinary working people will invariably need a welfare payment as they lose jobs or their wages cant pay rent or mortgage any longer.

Your posts are littered with false dichotomies but on a small point, working people (by which I presume people who are not rich) are no more or less good than rich people.

 

[TheBigShort]

Read the 200 or so posts since and see how the discussion has evolved. Read the fist post and not just the headline. The discussion is about how our welfare culture trap people on welfare by making it financially disadvantageous to work. That's how we end up with 23% of people living in households which mainly depend on welfare rather than the EU or OECD average.

Yes, and the read the NESC report and you will see that Ireland has by far, the highest level of home care help in Europe which is a major factor the 23%.
To reduce that figure we will need to provide adequate retirement homes with appropriate nursing staff to look after our elderly, like they do in Europe.
But judging by the way people consider high earners as over-taxed, I doubt think anyone is going to want to pay for that.

 

[TheBigShort]

It's common knowledge, and has been so to varying degrees for decades.

Just Google "Irish GDP 26%".

Or school yourself on the basics of the Irish economy.

Are you still trying to evade the fact that Switzerland spends more on social welfare than we do?
Which system is preferential to you. Irelands or Switzerlands? I prefer Switzerlands, but that would mean paying more tax.

 

[Purple]

Yes, and the read the NESC report and you will see that Ireland has by far, the highest level of home care help in Europe which is a major factor the 23%.
To reduce that figure we will need to provide adequate retirement homes with appropriate nursing staff to look after our elderly, like they do in Europe.
But judging by the way people consider high earners as over-taxed, I doubt think anyone is going to want to pay for that.

Why do you keep answering posts with facts that are irrelevant in the overall context of the discussion and getting bogged down with semantics about your interpretation of the discussion rather than what they are actually saying?

 

[TheBigShort]

Nobody here is unable to distinguish between the two, despite your disgivings about the intellect of people who hold different views to you. They are discussing how our welfare system traps the people who want to work in welfare because they are better off not working.
I am from a deprived area on one side of the city and I now work in one on the other side of the city. I work with people from deprived areas. I don't sit in the leafy suburbs ruminating in middle-class guilt, rather I engage in the real world unfettered by ideology.



I don't think anyone else here shares your views... we must all be wrong.

Apples and oranges. If you want to start a threat about corporate taxation and NAMA then do so but don't drag this one off topic. I will probably agree with much of what you say.

Your posts are littered with false dichotomies but on a small point, working people (by which I presume people who are not rich) are no more or less good than rich people.

 

[TheBigShort]

Why do you keep answering posts with facts that are irrelevant in the overall context of the discussion and getting bogged down with semantics about your interpretation of the discussion rather than what they are actually saying?

Im asking do you consider a person (in a jobless household) who is caring full-time for an elderly person(s) and in receipt of a carers allowance to be part of the culture of welfare dependency? If yes, what alternative would you propose to dismantle this dependency, considering the gut of this topic is about the cost of welfare to the taxpayer.

 

[Purple]

Im asking do you consider a person (in a jobless household) who is caring full-time for an elderly person(s) and in receipt of a carers allowance to be part of the culture of welfare dependency? If yes, what alternative would you propose to dismantle this dependency, considering the gut of this topic is about the cost of welfare to the taxpayer.

Your neighbour is caring for her relation at home. That’s both socially desirable and financially the cheapest option for the State. Nobody is suggesting that it is desirable for your neighbour to be forced to work.

Johnny, or other wasters like him, are also not really relevant to the discussion as they will never work and short of press-ganging him into the Navy or some such thing there’s little to be done with him other than to try to educate his children so that his despicable world view and ethical standards are not perpetuated into the next generation.


This discussion, at least the discussion everyone else is having, is about how, or whether, our welfare system mitigates against those who want to work or at least would be willing to work. If someone is financially better off on welfare, or nearly financially better off on welfare, than working then they will probably not work. That is the poverty trap and that’s what keeps many people out of the workforce.


I prefer the Swiss or German or Dutch models (Wikipedia is your friend if you want more details) as they taper off benefits the longer people are out of work. Living off your neighbour should not be a viable lifestyle choice, mainly because it is socially damaging as your decision greatly increases the chance that your children will be trapped in that cycle. The financial cost is secondary.

 

[T McGibney]

Are you still trying to evade the fact that Switzerland spends more on social welfare than we do?
Which system is preferential to you. Irelands or Switzerlands? I prefer Switzerlands, but that would mean paying more tax.

I have no representation in relation to social welfare spending. Hence I cannot have made any evasion in this regard.

I've simply pointed out that your use of %GDP-based comparisons doesn't aid your case.

End of.

 

[TheBigShort]

Your neighbour is caring for her relation at home. That’s both socially desirable and financially the cheapest option for the State. Nobody is suggesting that it is desirable for your neighbour to be forced to work.

Johnny, or other wasters like him, are also not really relevant to the discussion as they will never work and short of press-ganging him into the Navy or some such thing there’s little to be done with him other than to try to educate his children so that his despicable world view and ethical standards are not perpetuated into the next generation.


This discussion, at least the discussion everyone else is having, is about how, or whether, our welfare system mitigates against those who want to work or at least would be willing to work. If someone is financially better off on welfare, or nearly financially better off on welfare, than working then they will probably not work. That is the poverty trap and that’s what keeps many people out of the workforce.


I prefer the Swiss or German or Dutch models (Wikipedia is your friend if you want more details) as they taper off benefits the longer people are out of work. Living off your neighbour should not be a viable lifestyle choice, mainly because it is socially damaging as your decision greatly increases the chance that your children will be trapped in that cycle. The financial cost is secondary.

Fair enough, you are talking about welfare traps that make it less desirable to go to work rather than lose the benefits. It would have been helpful from the start had the opening poster, who published an article in the Irish Independent, didnt lump all jobless households into the same bracket. Here is a reminder of what he said;

"Why do we have 23% jobless families when our convenience stores, our restaurants and our hospitals are staffed by non nationals? Why are the unemployed Irish not bothering with these jobs? Is it because compared to other EU countries the gap between social welfare and benefits and low paid jobs is very low. It just does not pay for someone with children to work in a low paid job in Ireland."

Lets not pretend that the author has bothered to consider that a number of these households (by far the largest number in Europe) involves home care help.

Lets not pretend that the author bothered to consider that a number of these jobless households may have non-nationals living in them and that it is not only Irish people who refuse work.

Lets not pretend that the author bothered to consider that a large proportion of these households have people actively looking for work and/or are engaged in retraing and upskilling.

Lets not pretend that the author never bothered to consider the % level of low paid workers in this State is one of the highest, if not the highest, in Europe, and as such never even considered as a possible solution that wages should rise.

And lets not pretend that the author made any effort to find out what level of the 23% of jobless households could actually be classified as being caught in the welfare trap.

Instead his answer was to cut welfare of those who are well able to work, which my reading accounts for practically all those receiving unemployment benefit.

 

[Purple]

Fair enough, you are talking about welfare traps that make it less desirable to go to work rather than lose the benefits. It would have been helpful from the start had the opening poster, who published an article in the Irish Independent, didnt lump all jobless households into the same bracket. Here is a reminder of what he said;

"Why do we have 23% jobless families when our convenience stores, our restaurants and our hospitals are staffed by non nationals? Why are the unemployed Irish not bothering with these jobs? Is it because compared to other EU countries the gap between social welfare and benefits and low paid jobs is very low. It just does not pay for someone with children to work in a low paid job in Ireland."

Lets not pretend that the author has bothered to consider that a number of these households (by far the largest number in Europe) involves home care help.

Lets not pretend that the author bothered to consider that a number of these jobless households may have non-nationals living in them and that it is not only Irish people who refuse work.

Lets not pretend that the author bothered to consider that a large proportion of these households have people actively looking for work and/or are engaged in retraing and upskilling.

Lets not pretend that the author never bothered to consider the % level of low paid workers in this State is one of the highest, if not the highest, in Europe, and as such never even considered as a possible solution that wages should rise.

And lets not pretend that the author made any effort to find out what level of the 23% of jobless households could actually be classified as being caught in the welfare trap.

I would think that the same groups are included in the statistics for other countries therefore the main question is valid; how do reduce the culture of welfare dependency in Ireland?

When you say people are actively looking for work do you mean actively looking for work which pays more than they get on welfare?

 

[ppmeath]

Speak for yourself, let others decide on whether I misinterpreted their views or no t.

I am.

Was I wrong when it was implied that Switzerland had a better way of dealing with welfare (which on the face of it, I agree) only to challenge that poster that it they pay more into their system?

Was I wrong to challenge the notion that high earners pay too much tax, relative to other earners? When I could point out that they only pay 41% in the euro over €33,000 the exact same as everyone earning over that amount?

Was I wrong to dismiss the self indulgent and contrived post about 10 guys in a bar, and how the poor guys leech of the rich guy for free beer? Such arrogance.

Your entire approach to this discussion is wrong, because you made a set of assumptions, because you misinterpreted the OP, as you were of the opinion that the report did not state that there in this country we had 23% of "jobless" homes. So we can assume that you are withdrawing your objection to the report and the figures - because you were wrong.

Was I wrong to challenge (I think yours) post about the homeless campaigner who wanted security of tenure? Btw the way the "house for life" quote is easily taken out of context. It is wholly desirable that everyone would like to have a home for life, nothing wrong in wanting that - it would be wrong if it were demanded, which I dont believe was the case.

And here again is a prime example of where you are attacking me for something that I did not say, you didn't take it out of context, you put your own spin on it. This campaigner didn't want "security of tenure" - she wants a house for life. A house for life is exactly what it states, of course because you have to manipulate what people say, clearly you're doing the same thing here, to suit your agenda.

You might not agree with my views, but you it is not up to you to decide for others.

You are entitled to your views and your opinions - not to your own set of made up facts and figures and you are not entitled to manipulate and misrepresent what I say, others can and have decided for themselves, which is why they are probably not engaging with you, whereas I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt.

With respect, that is politician speak. I would like to see some specifics. Because there is already a host of social welfare programs designed to specifically target johnny and others who are long term unemployed or recovering from drug addiction or getting out of a life of crime.
But for some reason, these people still find it hard to get a job (cant think why, can you?) so the problem still persists, so what would you do that is not already being done?

You have seen my solutions and you have seen my opinions, if you don't agree with then fine, provide your own and discuss.

 

[TheBigShort]

I would think that the same groups are included in the statistics for other countries therefore the main question is valid; how do reduce the culture of welfare dependency in Ireland?

When you say people are actively looking for work do you mean actively looking for work which pays more than they get on welfare?

The main question posted by the author was "why do we have 23% jobless households?".
I have already pointed out that for one reason, we have the highest level of home care help.
The author, and others on this site, have concluded that it is because of a culture of welfare dependency. I would argue that it has to do with low wage. And to answer your second question, of course people look for work that pays more than their welfare. But that doesn't mean they will refuse a job offer that pays less. Most people want to work.
But I want to know, out of the 23% jobless households, what proportion of those are choosing welfare over offers of employment? My view, is that it would be a low proportion as I believe most people feel better when they are working. And as for the proportion who do choose welfare over a job, its not because they are culturally inclined to do so, but because the pay is so poor. Lets face it, if you are construction engineer used to pay of €70,000+, are you really going to work in the local coffee shop? Even if you did decide to offer your services in the coffee shop, there is a good chance the employer would not hire you as you would be deemed unsuitable for the job in hand.

 

[Gerry Canning]

{culture of dependency}
from the threads most agree that the Welfare State to those who need it = good.
The amount paid in Welfare as a % of a countries wealth has increased in all western countries by a large amount over the decades.
I would not see , nor do I think it should decrease.
Maybe the {culture} has more to do with lack of good opportunity rather than any {dependency} .

It appears to me that those in the (lower) classes seem to remain in the (lower) classes and the insulated (upper) classes just do not get the link between the link between opportunity/dependancy.

Does this mean we actively resource much more funds into (lower) areas, ie more tax?

 

[ppmeath]

The main question posted by the author was "why do we have 23% jobless households?".
I have already pointed out that for one reason, we have the highest level of home care help.

After about 12 pages you did. And all of the information is in the report, if you read it, where these groups are included in the figures and they are still classed as "jobless", that does not change.

And to answer your second question, of course people look for work that pays more than their welfare. But that doesn't mean they will refuse a job offer that pays less. Most people want to work.

But there are those who don't want to work, and there are those who won't take a job for less then their benefits and these are the people who are in a "culture of welfare dependency" and you were provided with the definition from me in an earlier post.

The question is why we have twice the "jobless" homes as the average. Their totals would also comprise of carers, disabled etc.

Jobs or lack of them is not the only reason why this is the case, the tax system, how the family is made up, education level, health etc.

You seem to have a real bee in your bonnet about the OP, you are offended that he dared to question this fact, which is the usual left knee jerk reaction to anyone who dares to question the very real culture that exists in this country, in fact, not content with attacking people who dare to question it - you then defend it.

 

[TheBigShort]

After about 12 pages you did. And all of the information is in the report, if you read it, where these groups are included in the figures and they are still classed as "jobless", that does not change.



But there are those who don't want to work, and there are those who won't take a job for less then their benefits and these are the people who are in a "culture of welfare dependency" and you were provided with the definition from me in an earlier post.

The question is why we have twice the "jobless" homes as the average. Their totals would also comprise of carers, disabled etc.

Jobs or lack of them is not the only reason why this is the case, the tax system, how the family is made up, education level, health etc.

You seem to have a real bee in your bonnet about the OP, you are offended that he dared to question this fact, which is the usual left knee jerk reaction to anyone who dares to question the very real culture that exists in this country, in fact, not content with attacking people who dare to question it - you then defend it.

You need to go to the other related topic which is titled "23% of households are jobless", or something to that effect. In there, around p3 or p4, brendan burgess admits that the report was wrong to conclude, or be interpreted that 23% of households are jobless, when in fact the correct stat is 23% of 0-59yr olds live in jobless households. I mean, think about, 1 in 4 households have nobody working? Even a casual observation of your community would put that notion to bed.
Perhaps I did take some time to mention the rate of home care help, but I was busy before that trying to detach any notion of increasing car premiums to welfare dependency.
I have read that article again about the homeless campaigner and this is what is says
"She said she wanted the next property she and daughter lived in 'to be for life'"
If that is a demand then that is a sense of entitlement. If it is just expressing a common held view amongst most people wishing to settle down and get on with their lives, free from the thought of possible eviction, then I see nothing wrong with it. As is explained in the article, housing provided through HAP leaves the tenant vunerable in the case where the property owner chooses to sell.

 

[TheBigShort]

Perhaps on foot of information since gleaned Brendan should consider correcting the misinformation contained in his article in the Sunday Indo , I'm sure the Indo would be amenable , in the interests of veracity , to publishing such a correction.

What do you think ppmeath? A good idea?

 

[Purple]

It is disingenuous not to factor in that the economy is recovering from the worst recession ever, brought about not by public spending or high wages, but by unregulated private (financial) sector speculation on a massive scale.

The majority of our debt is due to spending more on welfare, public pay and services than we take in in taxation, not due to a badly regulated financial sector (badly regulated by state employees).

A person with a family, who works full-time, but because their pay is so low relative to the cost of living can receive a welfare payment, FIS.
This is not welfare dependency, this is a subsidy to the employer who wont pay a decent wage.

Do you subscribe to "From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs"? If so them that's communism. If not then your point above is nonsense.

FIS is a welfare payment, payable to a person who is employed a minimum of 19 hours a week and has a family. But because the wage is so low they receive this payment.
FIS acts as a subsidy to employers who dont pay a decent wage.

See above; do you believe people should be paid according to their economic or social value to their employer or according to their needs? There was a time married men were paid more than single men in the state and protected sectors. Do you think one person should be paid vastly more than another for doing the same job at the same level of skill and productivity simply because they have higher outgoings?
"Hey Boss, I'm having another kid. Can I have a pay rise?"
"Hey Boss, I'm moving house and getting a bigger mortgage. Can I have a pay rise?"
"Hey Boss, I've developed quite the drug habit. Can I have a pay rise?"
"Hey Boss, My mother in law is unwell and my wife is giving work to look after her. Can I have a pay rise?"
"Hey Boss, my landlord is putting up my rent because the state is buying up all the houses in the private rental sector to give to people who don't work and that's pushing up rents. Can I have a pay rise?"
"Hey Boss, my friends all earn more than me and I feel left behind. Can I have a pay rise?"
"Hey Boss, I've 4 kids and so need a bigger house than Gerry here beside me. We both do the same job but he's no kids and lives with his mother. Can you cut his wages and give me more please?"

... is that the sort of thing you are proposing?

 

[Purple]

As is explained in the article, housing provided through HAP leaves the tenant vunerable in the case where the property owner chooses to sell.

I live in a rented house. If my landlord sells I'm out on my ear. I'd like the law changed so that both the landlord and the tenant must see out the term of the lease and that 3 to 5 year terms were standard but under no circumstances should my landlord be forced to house me if I don't keep up my side of the deal or somehow undertake to house me for life.

 

[TheBigShort]

... is that the sort of thing you are proposing?

No.