"We must dismantle our culture of dependency"

[TheBigShort]

You’re a great one for the false dichotomies. To say that insurance is a drain on the income of working people does not mean or imply that it is not a drain on people who don’t work. The fact that the income of people who are not working is also a drain on people who are working is a separate point.

You are missing the point. My initial point was raised in another thread relating to an article in the irish independent about jobless households, my comments were moved here by the moderator.

In the Indo article, the burden of welfare on working people was raised, and a NESC report that indicated a jobless household rate of 23% in Ireland, double that of EU average. The article went on to highlight the burden of PAYE, USC, PRSI etc on working people
But it also went on to highlight the burden of car insurance on working people.

There is no linkage between increasing car insurance premiums and welfare recipients.

If welfare rates are higher than the economic value of someone’s labour then they are unemployable. It’s the ultimate poverty trap. The State should not do for people in the long run that which they can and should do for themselves. The solution is to force employers to subsidise their income (Marxism), cut long term Welfare rates or, the best option, increase their economic value through skills training and education.

So who is going to take the orders at McD's? If you increase the workers skills training and education, then presumably they will look for better paid work and a different job?

When we were in a boom where a shortage a labour meant vastly inflated wages for non skilled employment there was 4% unemployment (ignoring the vast number of people on disability). That’s hardly a good model upon which to base your argument.

Yes, because non-skilled workers are brilliant at coaxing employers into paying vastly inflated wages. Skilled and educated workers however, are not smart enough to figure out their own economic value relative to non-skilled workers........
"vastly inflated wages" for non-skilled workers??
Think about it, who occupied the minimum wage jobs then? Professors? Doctors? Engineers?

The market sets the rate. Not me or you. At least that’s how it happens in the real world. In the Protected Sectors the Unions hold a gun to the public’s head and gets what they want and the rest of us pay for that as well.

Anyway here’s how the market set’s the rate; you need 10 people to do job X and offer a pay rate of Y. You only get 6 people willing to do the job. You keep increasing Y until you get 10 suitably qualified and skilled people to do job X.

If you offer pay rate Y for your 10 job X’s and you get 500 applicants then you are offering above the market rate.

Therefore at the moment Nurses are underpaid and teachers are overpaid.

Ok, thanks for that incisive analysis of how the labour market works. I'll take it with me....wherever.
What would happen, in your model, if just 2 applicants applied for 1 minimum wage job? Would this imply, in your model, that the minimum wage is too high? Would you be in favour of abolishing the minimum wage and allowing the free market determine hourly rates?

 

[shweeney]

Example - OAP, irrespective of income, unless very high incomes, get medical card. Something like 2 million medical cards in Ireland - outrageous and a scandal.

counter argument there is that everyone should have a medical card and our health system should be effectively managed and funded so that everyone receives an adequate level of care, rather than the dysfunctional system we currently have. The medical card is only a valuable benefit because not everyone can get one.

 

[thedaddyman]

Max is still

• £500 a week if you're a couple - with or without dependent children

Not much of a push to get a job if you have that money.

Dropping money the more jobs you don't take would be better like in Germany.

There is a guy in Berlin on €36 a week as he did not take any of the many jobs he was offered.

In fairness, the last Govt made the first steps towards implimenting that, up to July 2015, 14000 people over the previous 4 years had had their benefits reduced for refusing to accept a job or training

 

[Gerard123]

counter argument there is that everyone should have a medical card and our health system should be effectively managed and funded so that everyone receives an adequate level of care, rather than the dysfunctional system we currently have. The medical card is only a valuable benefit because not everyone can get one.

Don't disagree with the sentiments re health services but that's a whole different discussion re the health service. I have a concern around the universality of medical cards or any welfare payments, people who can afford to pay should pay. Else who pays, the taxpayer, even more taxes? Serious structural reformed needed. Every local hospital in Ireland that the HSE seek to reform, leads to chaos, politics. The local hospitals, set up in an era when there were few cars and poor roads. Now its quicker for many people to get to major hospitals than it was 50 years ago to get to the local. And then what happens, areas such as the west that probably do need more resources can't get them, not enough ambulance and emergency cover to get to people who need help quickly. Why, because resources are being squandered elsewhere in an inefficient and dysfunctional system (agreed on that point).

I do not believe that there are 2 million people in Ireland who cannot pay to go to see the doctor or buy medicines if they're sick a few times a year. If seriously ill and high medical bills then by all means help, however the reality is that the resources are spread so thinly and across so many people that all of the resources are being used (misused) and those who perhaps have serious medical needs, the resources are not there to help.

Reality is we have a high personal tax regime and very few benefits for taxpayers. Other countries where there are high personal taxes, a whole range of services are included, health, garbage, etc.

 

[Firefly]

But here is the trick, the option of such a lifestyle is open to everyone. Just quit your job or business, take up an addiction or two, bring the kids out shop-lifting and before long you will lose your own home and be down Benefit St, with your own social house and 52" TV - because that is what welfare recipients aspire to.

As attractive as it sounds, thanks for the offer but I like to pull my own weight..

 

[TheBigShort]

As attractive as it sounds, thanks for the offer but I like to pull my own weight..

Who doesn't? And that is the point. Despite being in receipt of welfare payments, most people would rather be in a position to pull their own weight. But for a multitude of reasons, recent redundancy, injury, illness (mental & physical), changes in industry & technology, childcare costs, low pay, high competition, etc...etc...some people are in need of welfare simply to get by.

A tiny minority freeload, but in reality, if I was an employer, I wouldn't give them a job even if they did look for one.

 

[Firefly]

A tiny minority freeload, but in reality, if I was an employer, I wouldn't give them a job even if they did look for one.

I would say it's a lot more than that to be fair. Why else is the government cracking down on welfare fraud?

 

[Gerry Canning]

I would say it's a lot more than that to be fair. Why else is the government cracking down on welfare fraud?

Firefly, It is a very small minority ,if you have facts to show otherwise I would like to see them.
I tire of this perceived (large) fraud , I believe the Dept and various agencies show it is not so.
Of course Dept should crackdown on fraud , I suggest the reason they crackdown is to discourage it, and they are 100% correct.
The Big Short. With you on (wouldn,t give them a job) they are probably unemployable as gainful empolyees ?
Gerard 123.
I think we should (for what I am told we pay) have a right to medical care/cards for all.The Medical card argument just creates more shuffling ?

 

[TheBigShort]

I would say it's a lot more than that to be fair. Why else is the government cracking down on welfare fraud?

Its pretty tiny. That is, the freeloaders. Not going to work is not fraudulent. Going to work and not declaring that work is fraudulent.

There is a dramatic figure of some €660m of fraud control savings in Social Protection reports. But that figure is an estimate of what would be fraudulently claimed if Social Protection did not carry out its checks.
The real figures of fraud are a fraction of this, with % ranging between 0.00 and 2.5% of the various types of claims being identified as fraudulent and error (that is, claims where it was found that an overpayment was made).

welfare.ie/en/downloads/DSP_Fraud_Initiative_Progress_Report_to_end_Dec_%202012.pdf

As I'm a new user I'm not allowed to post a link yet, so you will have to edit the link above for your browser.

 

[willyfones]

The government has been relentless in pushing universal social welfare payments, through pension payments, child allowance, free medical cards, free medicine for over 70's, free public transport, Many paid regardless of means.

This builds a dependence on government and the bureaucratic system they have built up. It is an easy tool for politicians to increase each budget to help buy votes.

I would prefer to pay lower taxes then receive social welfare. (currently we get child allowance, and "free" GP visits for our child)


As for societies attitude in general towards the unemployed, I think we are far too generous in social welfare payments, there is little incentive to work. Generations of families are brought up living off everyone else with no desire to find a job. In the UK and US it is looked down upon not to look for work, here it seems perfectly acceptable. (I have no problem helping those genuine people who have fallen on hard times).

In regards Welfare payments, I would immediately clamp down on the abuse of lone parents allowance (live in boyfriends) and disability allowance.
Apparently in Ireland 88,000 people have become disabled in Ireland between 2006 - 2011.
Between 2002 - 2006 only 2,000.


Scamming the system is wrong. I dont' care how high and mighty anyone says otherwise.

 

[TheBigShort]

No, I see no difference between social welfare fraud (not really being available for work) and insurance fraud.
If you decide not to take a job because you are better off on welfare then you are pretending to be available for work, i.e. lying about being available for work. That's fraud in my book.
I pay higher insurance because people choose to make bogus insurance claims. I pay higher taxes because people choose not to work. The net result is the same.

Availing of SW benefits legally and truthfully is not the same thing as the above.

I'm just wondering, as a sort of experiment to expand the above.
If you were to unfortunately lose your job, or your business, tomorrow after say, 20yrs in the workforce earning an above average salary, in a trade or profession that you trained for.
But now you are dependent on €188 welfare payment. But I offer you a job, and that job was worth, say, €250 a week and it involved cleaning toilets, in a hotel nightclub and restaurant, for five nights a week. And that hotel was some 15km away from your home, but because of your current situation, you sold your car, so you are reliant on public transport, which costs you €25 a week. And the work is mostly at night. And lets say you had two kids, both pre-school age, going to childcare costing €240 a week. But your partner still works, ft on decent wage, that just covers the childcare, mortgage, groceries and bills, and her own car costs.

Would you take the job I just offered you, under those conditions? Or would you just be pretending to be available for work for welfare purposes?

 

[Gerry Canning]

willyfones,
In height of recession something like 250,000 more people were unemployed , these people to their credit, sought and found work.We in Ireland do not like freeloaders , except we in Ireland (unlikeUSA) give a shelter to those in need.
{many paid regardless of means} is simply not correct.
The Big Short.
I think I would not take your work and not for welfare purposes pretence but on the clear understanding that work should pay above dependency costs.
Statistically it has been shown that a lot of people work when financially it would be more viable not to work.
In other words MOST people want work not Welfare.

 

[Purple]

You are missing the point. My initial point was raised in another thread relating to an article in the irish independent about jobless households, my comments were moved here by the moderator.

In the Indo article, the burden of welfare on working people was raised, and a NESC report that indicated a jobless household rate of 23% in Ireland, double that of EU average. The article went on to highlight the burden of PAYE, USC, PRSI etc on working people
But it also went on to highlight the burden of car insurance on working people.

There is no linkage between increasing car insurance premiums and welfare recipients.

Let it go, nobody else is arguing that point, just the two of you.

So who is going to take the orders at McD's? If you increase the workers skills training and education, then presumably they will look for better paid work and a different job?

If there's fewer unskilled employees then they will have to be payed more as there will be less labour supply in the market.

Ok, thanks for that incisive analysis of how the labour market works. I'll take it with me....wherever.

you are welcome.

What would happen, in your model, if just 2 applicants applied for 1 minimum wage job? Would this imply, in your model, that the minimum wage is too high? Would you be in favour of abolishing the minimum wage and allowing the free market determine hourly rates?

There are two different questions there. Two people don't provide a meaningful statistical sample. I thought that would be self evident.
Is the minimum wage too high? I don't know, maybe it is since the welfare rates effectively provide a floor in the wage market.

 

[Purple]

I'm just wondering, as a sort of experiment to expand the above.
If you were to unfortunately lose your job, or your business, tomorrow after say, 20yrs in the workforce earning an above average salary, in a trade or profession that you trained for.
But now you are dependent on €188 welfare payment. But I offer you a job, and that job was worth, say, €250 a week and it involved cleaning toilets, in a hotel nightclub and restaurant, for five nights a week. And that hotel was some 15km away from your home, but because of your current situation, you sold your car, so you are reliant on public transport, which costs you €25 a week. And the work is mostly at night. And lets say you had two kids, both pre-school age, going to childcare costing €240 a week. But your partner still works, ft on decent wage, that just covers the childcare, mortgage, groceries and bills, and her own car costs.

Would you take the job I just offered you, under those conditions? Or would you just be pretending to be available for work for welfare purposes?

I'd take the job. There is dignity in work that cannot be bought or sold. It's also easier to get a better job when you already have a job.

 

[Sunny]

These conversations make me laugh. We must end the welfare state and the spongers. I am a higher tax rate employee. I don't want to pay for freeloaders anymore than the next person but as I sit here I can claim children allowance that is the biggest waste of money paid by the State as an universal payment and yet nobody ever mentions it. Easier to shout cut the dole I suppose sitting behind your desk.

 

[TheBigShort]

I'd take the job. There is dignity in work that cannot be bought or sold. It's also easier to get a better job when you already have a job.

Fair play to you, you are a real trooper. But from an employers perspective, and based on that answer, I would unfortunately have to withdraw my offer.
You see, you have already told me in your answer that you are in the hunt for a better job. And given your (assumed) experience and qualifications I dont know how long you will hang around for.
You see im trying to run a business, to do that I need people who I can rely upon to turn up for work. I need people who I can rely on to do a good job.
I dont need someone who is already looking elsewhere before they begin and I dont need someone who is more used to more challenging experienced work. In fact, if a qualified tradesperson or professional applied for this job I would suspect something was up with you.
In any case, the point being, that unemployment is not just about whether someone will take a job. Any experienced employer will tell you that suitability is a major factor in employing someone.
The job I described is typically unsuitable for an experienced professional and is unlikely to last very long, leaving the employer to start searching again.

PS - you can learn about this in any decent business management and Labour economics course.

 

[odyssey06]

These conversations make me laugh. We must end the welfare state and the spongers. I am a higher tax rate employee. I don't want to pay for freeloaders anymore than the next person but as I sit here I can claim children allowance that is the biggest waste of money paid by the State as an universal payment and yet nobody ever mentions it. Easier to shout cut the dole I suppose sitting behind your desk.

I think it's a bigger waste if the money is lost in administering means tests... I don't have confidence in our current systems which discriminate against PAYE workers. I'd rather see everyone get something than genuine cases miss out while the undeserving game the system and get everything.

I think there is something to be said in favour of universal benefits for things like child care, medical assistance... They can be seen as a positive thing as long as you don't lose them when you take a low paid job, that way they can actually help people out of welfare dependency and into work.
The challenge with universal medical assistance (which Britain's NHS and Canada faces) is that no system can cope with infinite (free) demand.

 

[Brendan Burgess]

Guys

This is a great discussion, but keep it civil .

No personal attacks - if you make them, your whole post will be deleted which is a shame as some of the posts are very long.

If you get attacked - don't respond in kind. Just deal with the point.

Brendan

 

[Firefly]

I'm just wondering, as a sort of experiment to expand the above.
If you were to unfortunately lose your job, or your business, tomorrow after say, 20yrs in the workforce earning an above average salary, in a trade or profession that you trained for.
But now you are dependent on €188 welfare payment.

Someone who has worked, as you mentioned, for 20 years earning above average salary should in my opinion receive far higher dole payments than the scrounger round the corner, for the simple reasons that (1) they have paid more tax and (2) they are far more likely to want to get back to work.

 

[Firefly]

Its pretty tiny. That is, the freeloaders. Not going to work is not fraudulent. Going to work and not declaring that work is fraudulent.

I've said this many times here in the past....those unfortunate enough to be either physically or mentally impaired (i.e. not "on the sick") should be very, very well looked after by the state - they should want for nothing and have the best of facilities & care. Those who are able but don't bother working should receive very little.