Additionally, while we are not going to let anyone starve,
Well at least thats a positive.
But your figures still dont factor in those who did decide to
re-engage after having their welfare cut. You know the ones, the ones that thought that it wouldn't happen, or the ones who thought their reasons for not engaging were solid or the ones who were genuinely protesting against the requirements being foisted upon them ( for example, living in Sligo with two kids and no car, at mammy and daddys and being told to attend an interview in Galway, true story), only to return to the department to plead an alternative in order to re-establish the full welfare.
Your figures take no account of those who, after having their welfare cut, actually stuck it out for a while on the reduced benefit, until they got the job/training course/college course they actually wanted, rather than the ones Social Protection (although well intended) offered them.
Your figures take no account of those who did not bother to engage any longer due to their impending plans to emigrate, of which there was quite a bit.
Its no different to the people who are caught without car tax and insurance, paying income tax, TV licences, water charges etc... the threat of penalties is what provokes most of us to engage. Some will never engage, but some, once caught and penalised, will see no other option but to engage in the future.
The problem with your figures, and in general, with figures being produced here, is that they all appear to be laid out in black and white. That is, there was a stat that said,
In Ireland 77pc of working households are funding the other 23pc - that's twice the average of other EU countries
Whereas, when you study the actual report from which it came from, the stat was that 23% of 0-59yr olds, live in jobless households. A completely different thing. But it didnt stop the Irish Independent publishing it, fueling the speculation of a large and significantly costly welfare dependency culture.
Another media report was published that "appears to vindicate the Ministers view that some people choose a lifestyle of welfare dependency"
But an official report from Social Protection, had this from Minister, in relation to 2.2m receiving welfare benefits in 2012
'Commenting on the statistics, Minister Burton said:
"The crucial importance of the welfare system is reflected in these figures. The Department of Social Protection plays a role in virtually everyone's life at some stage, whether it is through Child Benefit, Jobseeker's payments, pensions or any of the many other income supports we provide.
"But the figures also demonstrate the emphasis I've placed since becoming Minister on transforming the Department from the passive benefits provider of old to one that is actively assisting people back to work, training and education. Our service does not stop at merely providing a jobseeker's payment to somebody who is out of work. We also provide the employment supports to help that person back into work, training or education. That is why we spent over €950 million last year on schemes such as Community Employment, Tús, JobBridge, and the Back to Work and Back to Education Allowances."'
A wholly different perspective from than media reports of "disturbing" figures, and there needs "to be an investigation", which do nothing but to fuel the speculation of welfare dependency further, oh, and of course sell newspapers.
And like ppmeaths examples, definitions and figures, where he concocts the most extreme examples of welfare payments, and how they compare to the typical working person who has to pay their own way
He completely ignores what is the typical welfare payment.
He wants a system that is fool-proof and universally beneficial to those in need without imposing undue tax burden on working people. Dont we all?
He cites a €1,200 rent supplement for private accommodation for a (working p/t) family of 4, alarming isnt it? But doesnt consider that without it that family face eviction from their home. How much will it cost then? Will the worker continue you his job after being evicted?
And of course their is always going to be incidences of fraud, exploitation, refusing accommodation, refusing work etc. But I contend to you that these are the thin end of the wedge and that the savings to be found in the €20bn annual budget, will be, not insignificant by themselves, but miniscule in the round.
Such as the €8,000,000 saving a year in cutting benefits (unless any of the factors above apply them it will be less)
So rather than go round in circles anymore, wouldnt it be just better if you outlined what needs to be done, that isnt being done already?
Then we can see how the system can encourage people into work rather than remain on benefits as alleged. Then we can see how people are taken out of poverty traps rather than driven further into them.
Im sure you have some ideas, good ones too, lets hear them?
