# Why long term social welfare should be cut in the Budget



## Brendan Burgess

I did an "opinion piece" for the Pat Kenny Show on TV3 on Wednesday night in which I argued that Social Welfare was too generous in this country and it should be cut.

You can watch it [broken link removed].

It's hard to explain a complex issue on TV. This is what I would say if I had an uninterrupted half hour


·  Our welfare system is too generous

·  We have the highest proportion of people depending on social welfare in the EU – twice the average.

·  A single person in Dundalk gets €193 – a Single person in Newry gets £80 ( Exact figures to be checked)

·  A person on £30,000 in Newry pays twice the PRSI as someone in Dundalk

·  People who work should be better off than people who people who choose welfare as a lifestyle

·  A person who works all their lives gets the same pension as someone who has never worked

·  I propose a system where people’s PRSI goes into an account in their own name – their pension will depend on what they have in their pot when they retire

o  If you work all your life, you will have a bigger pension

o  You will always be better off working

o  Self-employed people who hide their income will get lower pensions – at the moment they pay less tax and PRSI but get the same pension

o  We would actually appreciate the true cost of providing the OAP – which is a lot more than the 4% PRSI we pay at the moment

·  The social welfare system is unsustainable anyway. The idea that our national finances are sorted is crazy

o  We have €200 bn of national debt

o  When interest rates rise, we will be in deep trouble

o  We have artificially high Corporation Tax receipts – when they fall we will be in deep trouble

o  When we next have an ordinary recession we will be in deep trouble

o  And we have lots of other risks such as Brexit and Trump.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

The Journal.ie was asked to to a FactCheck for the programme. Unfortunately, I did not see it until just as I was going into the studio, so didn't really get a chance to respond properly too it.

*FactFind: How does Ireland's jobseeker's benefit compare to the rest of the EU?*






It's based on a single person earning €30,000 who just lost their job.

I would like to see the comparative figures for a couple with three children on low earnings.   They would definitely pay the lowest tax in Europe while working. I could be wrong, but I would think that their long term welfare in Ireland is higher than it would be in the rest of the EU.

And of course, it would be worth comparing how much Irish workers and employers pay in PRSI. 

A single person without kids in Dunalk pays half the PRSI, yet gets paid twice the dole.

Under my proposals, someone who had been paying PRSI for years, would get more than €193 per week.

But someone who chooses welfare over work would be getting a lot less.


Brendan


----------



## odyssey06

I think you need to be clearer on the distinction between Job seekers benefit & Job seekers allowance... and what payments are made regardless of previous employment.

I think The Journal's fact check without bringing in the figures for both types across the EU is useless to be honest, actually I think it is worse than useless as it is incomplete. The topic of the discussion was Social Welfare, not Jobseekers Benefit, so I don't know why The Journal fact checked that one single aspect - in fact I find it suspicious.


----------



## galway_blow_in

i saw you on the pat kenny show brendan , is brid smith nice behind the scenes or is she always cross  

anyway , i think the biggest concern in the forthcoming budget is the increase of the old age pension , for several reasons this should not happen

1. pensioners have it very good and do not need it

2. its exactly the wrong message to be sending out when its clear as mud that there will be a huge pension crisis in the future , all of europe is ageing and the figures are terrifying

of course we all know it will be increased as raising the pension is the easiest thing a politician can do and were FG not to , willie o dea would spend all of his time on the subject as opposed to half his time right now , regina doherty has been doing the predictable ( shooting fish in a barrel ) courting of this demographics vote since she got her new post in the spring


----------



## TheBigShort

Brendan Burgess said:


> I propose a system where people’s PRSI goes into an account in their own name – their pension will depend on what they have in their pot when they retire



I would like to ask two questions if I may?

1. Under this scheme, if an individual, working constantly for 30yrs+, paying taxes and PRSI, paid off mortgage, put kids through college and built a nest egg of €10,000 savings, is made redundant.
Would they have to use up their own resources first (€10,000) or would they automatically be entitled to payment from their PRSI fund?

2. Would it not be just the simpler if JSB was increased by 15% and JSA reduced by 15%?


----------



## Brendan Burgess

1) They would be fully entitled to get their own money back.  They would not have to use the €10,000. 

This is your money and you can use it as you please, within limits.  So if you have been working for 10 years and want to take a year off, you could do so and draw from the fund. Again, you would be getting your own money not some form of state hand-out.

2) It would be even simpler to make no change at all.

But the idea is that people would get used to the idea that they should fend for themselves as much as possible, so an account system would really underline that.

The main problem is the disparity in incomes. If someone is low skilled, even if they work all their lives, 14.75% PRSI is not going to give them much.   So there probably would need to be some system for boosting the contribution of those on low incomes through the taxation system.

But the main thing is to give everyone an incentive to work by making people who work better off than those who don't.

Brendan


----------



## Protocol

Cutting JSA would be politically very difficult.

Why not just leave it alone, and let inflation slowly reduce its real value?


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Protocol said:


> Why not just leave it alone, and let inflation slowly reduce its real value?



I know that these things are difficult.  But we have to face up to the financial realities. We have €200 billion of debt and need to cut non-contributory social welfare and increase PRSI. 

Brendan


----------



## TheBigShort

Some contributions from another thread that discusses these issues



Sarenco said:


> I don't think somebody with meaningful savings should qualify for a (means tested) welfare benefit.





Gordon Gekko said:


> One can want to see the guy on €60k a year get €40k a year whilst he gets back on his feet and still want to see malingerers hammered and prevented from milking the system. Having said that, I'd want to see €60k man exhaust his savings before the State kicked in.





Gordon Gekko said:


> if a welfare recipient is eating takeaways or buying a coffee, he or she is being paid too much.





Sarenco said:


> Ok BS, here's a very simple proposal for debate - increase JSB by 15% and reduce JSA by 15%.





odyssey06 said:


> The 15% increase \ decrease would be a step in the right direction and in the current political climate I think the only way a reduction could be delivered is via a carrot and stick...





TheBigShort said:


> Under this scheme, if an individual, working constantly for 30yrs+, paying taxes and PRSI, paid off mortgage, put kids through college and built a nest egg of €10,000 savings, is made redundant.
> Would they have to use up their own resources first (€10,000) or would they automatically be entitled to payment from their PRSI fund?







Brendan Burgess said:


> They would be fully entitled to get their own money back. They would not have to use the €10,000.
> 
> This is your money and you can use it as you please, within limits. So if you have been working for 10 years and want to take a year off, you could do so and draw from the fund. Again, you would be getting your own money not some form of state hand-out.



I'll leave you to it.


----------



## orka

BS, in a shockingly unusual development, you are (deliberately?) misunderstanding what posters are saying. 

The rigorous means-testing (the no-more-coffees stage) would only apply after a point - usually time-based (as with JSB and other European earnings-based systems) but potentially after one’s PRSI pot runs out (BB’s proposal).  So you can have all the coffees you want and all the Madrid holidays you want and €1M in the bank while still receiving your initial, full non-means tested JSB-type benefit.

When you transition to the means-tested benefit (after a certain time or when your PRSI pot runs out), your actual NEED is assessed.  If you have savings, you don’t need your fellow citizens to pay for your food or your shelter.  And you don’t have a fundamental need for coffees and holidays so your fellow citizens should not pay for them.


----------



## Easeler

Why not put high vise vests on them and put them out picking rubbish cleaning our parks make them work for there few bob, and maybe give them bit extra.I do a bit of cycling and the rubbish on the side of our roads is a disgrace, a win win for everyone don't you think


----------



## TheBigShort

galwaypat said:


> Why not put high vise vests on them and put them out picking rubbish cleaning our parks make them work for there few bob, and maybe give them bit extra.I do a bit of cycling and the rubbish on the side of our roads is a disgrace, a win win for everyone don't you think



Or you could put them in banks, to sieve through the list of mortgage holders that have had their trackers removed from them, to hurry up the repayments. Some clearly need help. There are lots of things you can do with the unemployed. You just need to study their skillsets and see what suitable work is out there for them.


----------



## TheBigShort

orka said:


> BS, in a shockingly unusual development, you are (deliberately?) misunderstanding what posters are saying.
> 
> The rigorous means-testing (the no-more-coffees stage) would only apply after a point - usually time-based (as with JSB and other European earnings-based systems) but potentially after one’s PRSI pot runs out (BB’s proposal).  So you can have all the coffees you want and all the Madrid holidays you want and €1M in the bank while still receiving your initial, full non-means tested JSB-type benefit.
> 
> When you transition to the means-tested benefit (after a certain time or when your PRSI pot runs out), your actual NEED is assessed.  If you have savings, you don’t need your fellow citizens to pay for your food or your shelter.  And you don’t have a fundamental need for coffees and holidays so your fellow citizens should not pay for them.



And in a unsurprising development, you attack the man and not the ball. The point I'm making is that this subject crops up ad nauseoum on AAM. Posters have multiple views as to how our welfare system should operate. Very few agree a common approach.
BB proposal on the face of it, seems practical and doable. So why isn't it done? ( I can hear the clamour to blame the socialists, Paul Murphys et al, even though they are nowhere near power.)
Is it just political incompetence? Or are there other reasons? I would suggest it is most likely down to other reasons. One being, getting everyone, or most to agree to a common system.

In BB proposal, as you have interpreted, there would be a time limit to JSB, based on previous PRSI contributions. Once this runs out, you are means-tested.
What if two workers, same income, with same contributions are being means-tested and it transpires that one worker has savings of €10,000, lives in a terraced house, drives a small car, doesn't drink, doesn't smoke. The other worker, lives in a big house, still has €10,000 credit card debt, car loan, etc.
If you were the means test assessor, according to the above, the first worker would get €0 in welfare, as he has €10,000 to sustain him. The second worker will get full JSA because he has no means.
Is it fair? Why bother saving in the first place? Why should the state assist the debtor in paying down his debt, but pilfer the savings of the other worker?

Add to that the other proposals (in a separate thread) by other posters that savings should be utilised first before welfare is paid, despite having made contributions for years and years.
Other proposals suggest a +15% for JSB / -15% for JSA (which incidentally I raised no objection to)

And there are other proposals, right down to monitoring someone's coffee intake - I kid you not!

The point is, it is a complex issue, and I suspect that these threads are nothing more other than vent of anger against a perceived notion that there are swathes of people out there, living the life on welfare benefits sticking two fingers up at everyone else who goes to work. There isn't (accepting there are some, but they are thin end of wedge).

When employment opportunities arise, the figures show that people go out to work. If that work is low wage, then perhaps, for sure, they still need financial assistance, but they are going out to work nonetheless. At a minimum, contributing to the revenues of their employers business.
A thread posted by BB this week focused on a paper that observed (in) equality over a lifetime. The paper suggests that even those who are the poorest throughout their lives are, on average, at work a large % of the time.

The welfare 'culture' is over played on this site. The reality is it is hard to survive on low incomes in this society.
The system may not be fair, but it has nothing to do people simply trying to keep their heads above water.


----------



## gnf_ireland

TheBigShort said:


> In BB proposal, as you have interpreted, there would be a time limit to JSB, based on previous PRSI contributions. Once this runs out, you are means-tested.
> What if two workers, same income, with same contributions are being means-tested and it transpires that one worker has savings of €10,000, lives in a terraced house, drives a small car, doesn't drink, doesn't smoke. The other worker, lives in a big house, still has €10,000 credit card debt, car loan, etc.
> If you were the means test assessor, according to the above, the first worker would get €0 in welfare, as he has €10,000 to sustain him. The second worker will get full JSA because he has no means.
> Is it fair? Why bother saving in the first place? Why should the state assist the debtor in paying down his debt, but pilfer the savings of the other worker?



The person in the big house in this case - if they don't get welfare, what are they expected to live off? Thin air? The first person (in the smaller house) has savings so has something.

Remember here, this is after a period of time (lets say 12 months) and the person has not been able to get a job, or is not able to get a job. If they are living off welfare for the year, then chances are the big house is under pressure with mortgage repayments anyway

Maybe there is an option where people have non-liquid assets such as family houses, then a 'charge/loan' can be placed against them similar to the fair deal scheme ?

Similar to the pension issue - everyone knows an issue exists but its politically toxic and no one is willing to tackle it. Better put our heads in the sand and hope it goes away...


----------



## TheBigShort

gnf_ireland said:


> The person in the big house in this case - if they don't get welfare, what are they expected to live off? Thin air? The first person (in the smaller house) has savings so has something.
> 
> Remember here, this is after a period of time (lets say 12 months) and the person has not been able to get a job, or is not able to get a job. If they are living off welfare for the year, then chances are the big house is under pressure with mortgage repayments anyway
> 
> Maybe there is an option where people have non-liquid assets such as family houses, then a 'charge/loan' can be placed against them similar to the fair deal scheme ?
> 
> Similar to the pension issue - everyone knows an issue exists but its politically toxic and no one is willing to tackle it. Better put our heads in the sand and hope it goes away...




I agree, they can't be expected to live off thin air.  The 12 months period though is in dispute, the proposal was to take welfare from your PRSI contributions, if PRSI contributions are same for both workers, won't they use up their contributions at same time? Or can someone (the saver) opt to take less welfare, in order to extend the benefits? The debtor will surely require all of his welfare to pay down debt and keep roof over head. Once that's used up (3 months, 6 months?), he gets JSA. The (saver) will not want his savings touched, but if it transpires that his pot runs out, he has to fend for himself from his own savings, the (debtor) gets a dig out from the state to pay down his debt - is that fair?


----------



## gnf_ireland

TheBigShort said:


> The 12 months period though is in dispute, the proposal was to take welfare from your PRSI contributions, if PRSI contributions are same for both workers, won't they use up their contributions at same time? Or can someone (the saver) opt to take less welfare, in order to extend the benefits?


I think the draw down should be based on the person's wishes subject to restrictions such as x% of the pot per month and/or up to average wage etc...  Bigger questions would be whether all my contributions to date get transferred into the pot [I have 20 years contributions made...others will have more, others less]



TheBigShort said:


> The (saver) will not want his savings touched, but if it transpires that his pot runs out, he has to fend for himself from his own savings, the (debtor) gets a dig out from the state to pay down his debt - is that fair?


Same could be said about the Fair Deal scheme. Is there not a precedence here?


As I said in another thread, lots of people want increased spending but with other people's money


----------



## Sarenco

I agree with Brendan that our mean tested welfare benefits are (somewhat) overly generous but I don't think our other welfare benefits are particularly generous by international standards or by reference to our contribution rates.


----------



## TheBigShort

gnf_ireland said:


> I think the draw down should be based on the person's wishes subject to restrictions such as x% of the pot per month and/or up to average wage etc... Bigger questions would be whether all my contributions to date get transferred into the pot [I have 20 years contributions made...others will have more, others less]



I think BB proposal though is quite specific. You draw down only from what you have put in. So if you only have 2 yrs contributions and your contract expires, if there is a time lag between that and your next contract, you could find your pot being used up very quickly.

In the end, the questions you are raising points to the complexities inherent in the issue.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

TheBigShort said:


> I think BB proposal though is quite specific. You draw down only from what you have put in.



Hi Shortie 

I have outlined a principle.  That people should have a fund in their own name.  The more they put in, the more they take out. 

It wouldn't have to be on a euro for euro basis.  It could be that the payout from the fund would be limited to say €50,000 a year.  And on the other end, your maximum fund size might be €1m.  After the fund is that size, you would not contribute any further. 

If someone has worked for years and then gets sick, lose their job, or just wants to take a career break, it's easy enough - they have a big fund and they take a percentage of that fund based on their age.  

If someone has never worked in their life, they would not have a fund, so they would get a means tested welfare payment which would be funded by general taxation and would be much lower than someone who had worked all their life would get. 

The biggest problem I see is the issue of people who are in low paid work all their life. They lose their job or retire and their pension would be based on their fund and their age. With a 4% employee contribution and a 10.75% employer contribution, they would get very little as their fund would be very low.  I don't know the best solution to this.  It could be that the taxpayer doubles the contribution of the low paid. But low pay is often temporary, so that would be too generous to people who start off low and end up on high pay.  So maybe double the contribution but put it into a separate fund. If the fund doesn't reach a particular level by the time the person retires, then release that fund. This would mean that we would help people who are in low paid jobs all their lives. 

Maybe 90% goes to the pension fund and 10% to sickness.  So if you get sick and can't work for longer than 6 months, the sickness insurance pays out. 

But if I could convince people that the principle is worth adopting, then the scheme could be  debated and developed further. 

Brendan


----------



## Sophrosyne

I think you need to cover all of the payments made out of the Social Insurance Fund:

·  Jobseeker's Benefit

·  Illness Benefit

·  Maternity Benefit

·  Adoptive Benefit

·  Health and Safety Benefit

·  Invalidity Pension

·  Widow's, Widower's or Surviving Civil Partner's (Contributory) Pension

·  Guardian's Payment (Contributory)

·  State Pension (Contributory)

·  Treatment Benefit

·  Occupational Injuries Benefit

·  Carer's Benefit


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Hi Sop

Absolutely. The biggest cost is the OAP.  That must be linked to contributions as well. 

Brendan


----------



## TheBigShort

Brendan Burgess said:


> The biggest problem I see is the issue of people who are in low paid work all their life. They lose their job or retire and their pension would be based on their fund and their age. With a 4% employee contribution and a 10.75% employer contribution, they would get very little as their fund would be very low. _I don't know the best solution to this. It could be that the taxpayer doubles the contribution of the low paid_



Sorry Brendan, but I remain wholly unconvinced about your proposal. It reads like a private pension fund. 
In the quote above I am confused as who you think the 'taxpayer' would be in this situation. Would that be you? In adittion to your contributions, in your name?  

I think the following comment, in one post, highlights the complexities of the issue that I have not been able to do in 500 posts




Sophrosyne said:


> I think you need to cover all of the payments made out of the Social Insurance Fund:
> 
> ·  Jobseeker's Benefit
> 
> ·  Illness Benefit
> 
> ·  Maternity Benefit
> 
> ·  Adoptive Benefit
> 
> ·  Health and Safety Benefit
> 
> ·  Invalidity Pension
> 
> ·  Widow's, Widower's or Surviving Civil Partner's (Contributory) Pension
> 
> ·  Guardian's Payment (Contributory)
> 
> ·  State Pension (Contributory)
> 
> ·  Treatment Benefit
> 
> ·  Occupational Injuries Benefit
> 
> ·  Carer's Benefit




This is socialism at work, it is you, me, your colleague, your neighbour, your parents, your children, collectively standing together, contributing our collective earned wealth, to make sure there is a safety net for ALL!

In the private sector it is somewhat mirrored in the private insurance industry.


----------



## Gordon Gekko

Shortie,

I have no issue with my taxes being used to help out those who need assistance.

My issue is with wasters; people who milk the system or are too lazy to work.

Brendan met a chap on tv the other day who wants to be a librarian or work with books; he's in receipt of unemployment benefit but seems to be selective in the jobs he wants.  Get him behind a counter in McDonalds now!


----------



## TheBigShort

Gordon Gekko said:


> My issue is with wasters; people who milk the system or are too lazy to work.





Gordon Gekko said:


> Get him behind a counter in McDonalds now! How many more wasters are out there?



Why should McDonald's employ 'waster's? Why not put him on the counter where you work? Would you employ him?
The unemployment rate is what 6.5%?, it may be made up of 'wasters' as you so eloquently put it, but it is also made up of skilled, semi-skilled workers who are effectively in-between jobs (temporarily unemployed), as well as long-term unemployed etc.

Yes, there are people who could do better for themselves, buts it's the thin end of the wedge that you are beating yourself up on again.
As I said before there is no point in the unemployed architect applying for the vacancy at the local butcher's is there?

Under Brendans proposal, if I have already contributed to PRSI, I would be fully within my rights to take time off - perhaps to look for work in the area that I really want to, like a librarian?


----------



## Gordon Gekko

Shortie, I've seen it said before...you really need to Google "thin end of the wedge" because it's your own malapropism of sorts.

There is merit in an unemployed architect working in McDonald's if society has no need for anymore architects.

I would make working a fait accompli for the wasters by targetting them and cutting their benefits to zero.

And just for the record, I haven't worked behind a counter since I was a teenager.


----------



## TheBigShort

Gekko

The 'wedge' is the cost to the State for paying unemployment benefits.
Ideally, it would be wonderful if no one was ever unemployed, it wouldn't cost any of us a cent. But reality dictates this is a cost that needs to be borne by those at work.
The 'thin end' of that wedge is the unemployment benefits being paid to the 'wasters' and 'malingers' as you call them.
The rest is being paid to people genuinely looking for work.
If there is still a need for architects , then I do not take issue with the architect who doesn't apply for the job at McD's. Instead, it's fair game if the architect is actively seeking suitable work for his/her skills. 
If the architect is struggling financially it may be the case that s/he  decides to go work at McD's, _subject to McD's deciding _whether to offer any vacancy to the architect.
It is not for you, or the State, to decide who works where and when - that is a central command type economy veering to Soviet type socialism.

Can you relate to BB proposal at all? If yes, can I ask, if everyone who works and contributes to their own social fund, for their own use, at their own discretion (at retirement, or career break etc), then where will the taxes come from to support those who you agree should receive assistance?


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Hi Shortie

My proposal is that people should have an account and that their pension and other time when they are not working would be paid from that. 

Those with no account would get state assistance  but at much less than the current rates. 

Brendan


----------



## Protocol

I don't agree with forcing somebody who is ST unemployed to take any job at all.

They and their employer will end up worse off if forced to take an unsuitable job.

However, anybody over, say, 12 months, on JSB, JSA, then yes, they should take whatever job is available.


----------



## TheBigShort

Hi Brendan

I get what you are saying. An account, in which, the more you contribute, the more you get out. So if you earn twice my salary on average, you should have twice the pension?
That is fine. But those who do not have accounts, for example, someone who is a full-time home carer. How is their income provided? From which pot? And who contributes to this pot? Presumably the taxpayer? Is this in addition to their own contributory account? Or are contributions taken from your own account to support the home carer?


----------



## Protocol

Note that much of this debate is about the role, scope and scale of social insurance, versus the role of private insurance and private savings.


----------



## Tebbit

In this country it seems to me that you can live very well without working.   As a previous poster said you should never be as well off not working as you ate working but in this country people who never work expect and often get what someone else worked hard for.  This to me is wrong.   Why bother working if you can get it all free. JA is a safety net, I have used it myself previously but it was never meant to be a net you never leave.  It's not good for people to live like this and yet the state enables them by never cutting it off.   There should be a limit to how long you get it,   not something very short but perhaps up to 5 years so that you know you have to find work.


----------



## TheBigShort

According to tradingeconomics.com the long-term unemployment rate in Ireland is 3.6%. LT unemployment is 12 months without work. The trend is downward.

https://tradingeconomics.com/ireland/long-term-unemployment-rate

This indicates to me that as employment opportunities improve most people, even those LT unemployed, are seeking and taking up employment opportunities.
Furthermore, as the labour force is constantly changing, it is quite plausible to me anyway, that the rate of people 's 'who never worked' is a tiny fraction of that.

In which case, if JSA or JSB is cut on the basis that there is a welfare 'culture', you are simply cutting the financial assistance of those people who are actively seeking employment.


----------



## Gordon Gekko

TheBigShort said:


> Hi Brendan
> 
> I get what you are saying. An account, in which, the more you contribute, the more you get out. So if you earn twice my salary on average, you should have twice the pension?
> That is fine. But those who do not have accounts, for example, someone who is a full-time home carer. How is their income provided? From which pot? And who contributes to this pot? Presumably the taxpayer? Is this in addition to their own contributory account? Or are contributions taken from your own account to support the home carer?



I think that the answer is fairly obvious. Not all of (say) my contributions would be ring-fenced for me; a proportion would be retained centrally to assist people who deserve it.

I love how misguided bleeding heart socialists dismiss people's experiences as anecdotal. My friend used to work at the airport. It was a common occurence for women on social welfare to just abandon their buggies at the airport. a) They're on social welfare; how and why are they going on holiday?! b) They knew they'd just get another buggy on social welfare and happily said as much to the airport staff.

This kind of nonsense is happening across Ireland. What percentage of the circa €20b social welfare budget do you think is paid out to wasters and spoofers, BigShort?

How many thousand "single mothers" are "living alone" for strategic reasons when in reality their partner is there every other night?

I would happily see a poor unfortunate soul in a wheelchair paid €50k a year if we could hammer the spoofers and leeches.


----------



## TheBigShort

The very long-term unemployed rate (2yrs+) according to this EU fact sheet was 0.8% in 2005 when the country was at peak of employment.

(Google very long-term unemployed)

As the labour force is constantly changing, it is unlikely that the exact same people from one month to the next are very long-term unemployed.
So the people who never worked are again only a portion of that figure. So would it be beyond reason to assume that the people who never worked would be somewhere in the region of 1 in every 200 working age adults? Or in a 2m adult working age, about 20,000-30,000 people?
And if we drill into those figures is it possible that the reason they never worked is simply not just down to laziness? Other factors such as mental and physical condition?

In all when you drill it down, perhaps we are only talking about a cohort of 15,000 people who are lazy, criminal, etc.
If we cut their benefits by €100 then the State could save €100x15,000x52 weeks = €78m a year reducing the social protection budget from €19.1 bn to €19.02bn.


----------



## TheBigShort

Gordon Gekko said:


> This kind of nonsense is happening across Ireland. What percentage of the circa €20b social welfare budget do you think is paid out to wasters and spoofers, BigShort?



I don't know Gekko! If someone is defrauding the system they should pay the consequences for sure. 




Gordon Gekko said:


> How many thousand "single mothers" are living alone for strategic reasons?



You are again suggesting fraud. If fraud is all you want to stamp out, I have no issue there.
But the topic isn't about fraud. It is about cutting social welfare which will affect those who aren't defrauding the system too.


----------



## Gordon Gekko

TheBigShort said:


> I don't know Gekko! If someone is defrauding the system they should pay the consequences for sure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are again suggesting fraud. If fraud is all you want to stamp out, I have no issue there.
> But the topic isn't about fraud. It is about cutting social welfare which will affect those who aren't defrauding the system too.



A proverbial beggar who's picking and choosing in terms of potential jobs is a fraudster.


----------



## odyssey06

TheBigShort said:


> If we cut their benefits by €100 then the State could save €100x15,000x52 weeks = €78m a year reducing the social protection budget from €19.1 bn to €19.02bn.



One such initiative every year would cumulatively make a significant dent...


----------



## torblednam

Gordon Gekko said:


> A proverbial beggar who's picking and choosing in terms of potential jobs is a fraudster.



I think that's a tad much now Gordon. If a skilled worker finds themselves unexpectedly unemployed, are you saying they should apply immediately for  every unskilled job available rather than trying to get a skilled job in their chosen field.

Is that what you'd see yourself doing, if you found yourself jobless tomorrow? You wouldn't even spend the first few weeks focused on well paying and stimulating jobs in your area of experience and expertise? Honestly?


----------



## Gordon Gekko

torblednam said:


> I think that's a tad much now Gordon. If a skilled worker finds themselves unexpectedly unemployed, are you saying they should apply immediately for  every unskilled job available rather than trying to get a skilled job in their chosen field.
> 
> Is that what you'd see yourself doing, if you found yourself jobless tomorrow? You wouldn't even spend the first few weeks focused on well paying and stimulating jobs in your area of experience and expertise? Honestly?



I have savings so I could afford to do that.

But in any event, I'm talking about unrealistic aspirations. If an architect can't find work because there is no construction activity, then he/she should be compelled to work in an unrelated sector.


----------



## TheBigShort

odyssey06 said:


> One such initiative every year would cumulatively make a significant dent...


The initiatives are pretty thin on the ground as it is. It tends to start with big notions of cutting the welfare budget and diminishing into a tweak here and there.


----------



## torblednam

Gordon Gekko said:


> I have savings so I could afford to do that.
> 
> But in any event, I'm talking about unrealistic aspirations. If an architect can't find work because there is no construction activity, then he/she should be compelled to work in an unrelated sector.



Are you saying you're so wealthy that you wouldn't draw JSB if you were unemployed for a couple of months? 

I don't disagree in principle with the point about changing careers/industries if necessary, that's just common sense, but you've made what appear to be very strident statements and I'm trying to work them out to see if I agree with you (as I quite often do) or not.

You haven't really answered the question I posed you, you've sidestepped it by referencing your own savings.

So I'll try again. Do you think that from the moment a person becomes unemployed they should simply apply for and take whatever job they can get, so as to get off social welfare, rather than trying to find a job that is in the field they have trained and worked in? Do you see any drawbacks / costs to a labour market (and society) where everyone has that mindset?


----------



## TheBigShort

odyssey06 said:


> One such initiative every year would cumulatively make a significant dent...



The initiatives are pretty thin on the ground. They tend to begin with grand notions to slash welfare and end up with a tweak here and there.


----------



## TheBigShort

Gordon Gekko said:


> should be compelled to work in an unrelated sector.



How do you compel employers to hire staff that they may not want?
Are you implying that there are more job vacancies than applicants for work?
The last time anything close to that occurred we had large scale immigration, wage increases and a property boom.
We are a bit away from that at the moment I think.


----------



## mathepac

At least we seem to have moved on from "the dole" to a more person-centered discussion of "social welfare" payments or payments from the state to individuals and organisations.

Starting at the top, politicians, public and civil servants are overpaid and there are too many of them. Too many of them are double jobbing and are receiving two payments. Let these parasite choose which job they wish to do and pay them the rate for the job e.g. county registrars refer work to themselves wearing their other hats as the county sheriffs.

Once all of that, including the monster of a HSE which is going to kill us all eventually, is sorted, then and only then address the people at the bottom of the state payments ladder.  Maybe start with farmers, the single biggest sucker on the hind tit of subsisdies and grants from the EU and the state. For years they paid no tax and no PRSI yet they qualified magically to a full state pension, while Sean & Sheila PAYE worker were put through hoops to prove their qualification.


----------



## Protocol

One simple way to rebalance things would be to only pay the Xmas "bonus" to JSB recipients, and not to JSA people.

What we actually do is pay it to JSA, not JSB.


----------



## Monbretia

It's not that simple get a job in another area if you are well qualified in a different career as I found out.  Employers are not too inclined to just take a chance on someone who may turn out to be a great employee but if they want particular skills which might be as simple as able to operate a till they don't care if you know how to build or design a house if you don't have the experience they want.

At this stage you need to have done training courses and have qualifications to be all sorts of things that we did years ago straight out of school so unless you intend to retrain it is definitely not simple to just switch to another job.   Whether it is a good use of state money either to retrain an architect for example as a doctor's receptionist I don't know.   The doc is still not that likely to hire them as they know full well the architect will be gone as soon as they get a job in their area of expertise.

Only way to hop sideways like that I think is if you know someone that will give you a job when you don't have the relevant experience or qualifications.


----------



## Sophrosyne

The discussion is getting bogged down by the “I hate skivers” posts.

If people never worked, their payments would not be made out of the Social Insurance Fund.

So let’s put them aside to examine the merits or otherwise of Brendan’s proposal.

Just a few things…


Would the PRSI rate for employees, employers and the self-employed have to increase

How would this personalized scheme be introduced? Would it start with new entrants to the workforce after a certain date, let’s say January 1 2018?

Say, John enters the workforce on that date. He is in low paid employment for 15 years, then he goes to night school becomes better qualified gets a promotion or moves to a better paying job. Later on he or his wife takes a two year time out to care for a chronically ill child. The Carers Benefit, which is paid out of his or his her Social Insurance Fund, has reduced his or her pension pot. 
Could either increase their PRSI contributions to compensate for the years John was on low pay and the years that either he or his wife acted as a carer?

Would there be an option to take part of the OAP has as a lump sum?

What about tax relief? There is no relief for PRSI payments, but there is relief at the marginal rate for payments, including AVCs, made into a private pension scheme.

Would the Social Insurance Fund be ringfenced ad infinitum for the purpose of social insurance payments?

How would this scheme operate with other countries with which Ireland has DTAs or other agreements?


----------



## Gordon Gekko

torblednam said:


> Are you saying you're so wealthy that you wouldn't draw JSB if you were unemployed for a couple of months?
> 
> I don't disagree in principle with the point about changing careers/industries if necessary, that's just common sense, but you've made what appear to be very strident statements and I'm trying to work them out to see if I agree with you (as I quite often do) or not.
> 
> You haven't really answered the question I posed you, you've sidestepped it by referencing your own savings.
> 
> So I'll try again. Do you think that from the moment a person becomes unemployed they should simply apply for and take whatever job they can get, so as to get off social welfare, rather than trying to find a job that is in the field they have trained and worked in? Do you see any drawbacks / costs to a labour market (and society) where everyone has that mindset?



First off, I am not wealthy; far from it.

I do not believe that a social welfare recipient should be forced out of his/her sphere immediately.


----------



## torblednam

Gordon Gekko said:


> First off, I am not wealthy; far from it.
> 
> I do not believe that a social welfare recipient should be forced out of his/her sphere immediately.



Same here (on both counts)!


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Gordon Gekko said:


> A proverbial beggar who's picking and choosing in terms of potential jobs is a fraudster.



I can't agree with that at all Gordon.

If I had a choice of earning €20,000 a year in a job and €20,000 on social welfare, I would choose social welfare.  I don't see anything fraudulent in it. 

It's our fault for having such generous social welfare. 

If a woman living with the father of her children claims to be a single parent, that is fraud.  

Brendan


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Sophrosyne said:


> Would the PRSI rate for employees, employers and the self-employed have to increase



Hi Sop

Absolutely.  There is no way that 4% of a self-employed' salary pays for their pension. 

And this is one of the advantages. If they uppped the 4% to 10% tomorrow, there would be uproar. If they put it into a fund in that person's name, there would be some understanding of it.

Brendan


----------



## Gordon Gekko

Brendan Burgess said:


> I can't agree with that at all Gordon.
> 
> If I had a choice of earning €20,000 a year in a job and €20,000 on social welfare, I would choose social welfare.  I don't see anything fraudulent in it.
> 
> It's our fault for having such generous social welfare.
> 
> If a woman living with the father of her children claims to be a single parent, that is fraud.
> 
> Brendan



Hi Brendan,

We are in agreement.

That's why the system needs to be more robust.

Working should always be the more attractive argument. I note in today's Sindo that people on the housing list are turning down properties because they don't like the colour of the carpet.

Gordon


----------



## TheBigShort

Brendan Burgess said:


> If I had a choice of earning €20,000 a year in a job and €20,000 on social welfare, I would choose social welfare. I don't see anything fraudulent in it.



Brendan,

That is quite the revealing statement. It shows that you yourself are not immune to that behavior which you label as 'irresponsible'.
If your job paid only €20,000 and your welfare benefits would equal €20,000, then you yourself would choose the welfare option.

On the other hand, it is my view that given that above scenario, more people would still opt for the employment option rather than the welfare option. 
It is my view that most people have a sense of responsibility, a sense of dignity, and a sense of foresight that earning your own income provides.
Of course, there are those who choose to play the system, exploit it for what it is worth etc, but they are the tiny minority. Little did I think that, faced with the scenario of working or the welfare culture, that you yourself would opt for the welfare culture.


----------



## Sophrosyne

Brendan Burgess said:


> Absolutely. There is no way that 4% of a self-employed' salary pays for their pension.
> 
> And this is one of the advantages. If they uppped the 4% to 10% tomorrow, there would be uproar. If they put it into a fund in that person's name, there would be some understanding of it.



Therefore, a lot more money would flow into the Social Insurance Fund. That is why I asked:

Would the Social Insurance Fund be ringfenced ad infinitum for the purpose of social insurance payments?
To agree with this proposal, I think I would need a cast iron guarantee written into the legislation that the present or any future government could not use the Social Insurance Fund for any other purpose.


----------



## TheBigShort

The chart below shows that there are some 850,000+ 'taxpayer units' working for incomes of €20,000 or less. Many of whom no doubt receive supplementary income in the form of social welfare, but nonetheless, it shows how people in the main are prepared to work.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> How do you compel employers to hire staff that they may not want?
> Are you implying that there are more job vacancies than applicants for work?


We have a major skills shortage in my sector, mainly due to the effective dismantling of the engineering trades by the department of education in the late 90's and the inability of FAS to realise that the sector was changing utterly and what was good training in 1985 was completely useless in 1995. 
So, during the recession we took on out of work construction tradesmen (and yes, unfortunately they are all men). While construction trades are less skillful and require less technical knowledge a few of the guys did really well, particularly a couple of plumbers.
Intelligent skilled people are hard to find. Add in a work ethic and they are a very rare creature. If they have a technical background then within 3-4 years they can be retrained. It worked out quite well for all concerned.  



TheBigShort said:


> The chart below shows that there are some 850,000+ 'taxpayer units' working for incomes of €20,000 or less. Many of whom no doubt receive supplementary income in the form of social welfare, but nonetheless, it shows how people in the main are prepared to work.


 My daughter has a part time job teaching swimming. She's in that bracket. You do know that teenagers and college students with part time jobs, as well as part time workers from middle to high income households make up the vast bulk of that group, right?


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Intelligent skilled people are hard to find.



Absolutely, and if it's intelligent skilled people that the labour market is looking for, then there is going to be a lag in employment until they are found.
The notion being peddled earlier that those who are unemployed should just be compelled to work is nonsense.



Purple said:


> My daughter has a part time job teaching swimming. She's in that bracket. You do know that teenagers and college students with part time jobs, as well as part time workers from middle to high income households make up the vast bulk of that group, right?



Absolutely, reaffirming my point above that most people would rather be at work rather than choose the welfare 'culture'.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> The notion being peddled earlier that those who are unemployed should just be compelled to work is nonsense.


 Why? I'd like to see a system where for the first 2 years your benefits were linked to your income, and therefore what you paid in, and after that were lower than at present. Once that two year period was up then you either have to be in full time education or take whatever job your are offered. 



TheBigShort said:


> Absolutely, reaffirming my point above that most people would rather be at work rather than choose the welfare 'culture'.


 Nobody is disagreeing with that. The issue is how to deal with the minority who would rather not work and would rather be on welfare.


----------



## Delboy

TheBigShort said:


> The notion being peddled earlier that those who are unemployed should just be compelled to work is nonsense.


Why? Surely everyone should be expected to contribute something even if only for a short period of time before getting back on track.

From my observations, if people were compelled to work to some degree,I think the short and long term numbers on the dole would fall dramatically. I see lots of people claiming dole who also do a few days work on the side. The occasional 1 or 2 gets caught, receives a warning and signs off. 
A tough stance on the dole would clear the air


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> I'd like to see a system where for the first 2 years your benefits were linked to your income, and therefore what you paid in, and after that were lower than at present. Once that two year period was up then you either have to be in full time education or take whatever job your are offered.



Isn't that the case already? I know my brother gets letters from welfare for job interviews etc. Unbeknownst to me, he was working six weeks in the run up to Christmas last year and periodically when factory orders are up. But it is not permanent or full-time. He also had to upgrade or renew his fork lift licence. He hasn't worked since Easter however, the next time he is offered a job, if he turns it down, he will be means tested. He has no mortgage, kids have flown nest, wife is full-time employed. Having worked continuously for 30yrs he was made redundant. Any work he gets is intermittent and short-term. He is on full employment benefits at the moment, based on passed contributions. That will be cut soon if he doesn't take up next job offer. He will take it up as he would rather be working.



Purple said:


> Nobody is disagreeing with that. The issue is how to deal with the minority who would rather not work and would rather be on welfare.



That is fine. My point is that this minority, once dealt with (say cutting welfare by €100) , whilst saving the State a not insignificant sum of money, will in the overall scheme of things be simply tinkering around the edges.
In other words, the €19bn welfare bill will still be sitting there so that next year, the same issue arises again.


----------



## TheBigShort

Delboy said:


> Why? Surely everyone should be expected to contribute something even if only for a short period of time before getting back on track.
> 
> From my observations, if people were compelled to work to some degree,I think the short and long term numbers on the dole would fall dramatically. I see lots of people claiming dole who also do a few days work on the side. The occasional 1 or 2 gets caught, receives a warning and signs off.
> A tough stance on the dole would clear the air



To qualify for JSA you need to be unemployed for 4 out of 7 days in a week. It is perfectly fine to work 3 days and claim welfare, but only if your earnings from 3 days work are below a certain level.


----------



## Delboy

TheBigShort said:


> To qualify for JSA you need to be unemployed for 4 out of 7 days in a week. It is perfectly fine to work 3 days and claim welfare, but only if your earnings from 3 days work are below a certain level.


I'm well aware of that


----------



## TheBigShort

Delboy said:


> I'm well aware of that



Cool, so it's just people who are fraudulently claiming that you want to target for welfare cuts? I'd have no issue there.
That would be significantly different to cutting welfare on those who are not defrauding the system. My understanding is that this topic is about cutting long-term welfare benefits for those who don't work?
This would be distinct from those who are actively seeking but finding it difficult to get work, yes?


----------



## Purple

BS, for me it's not about saving money in the short term. It is about nudging people in the right direction in the medium to long term. A welfare trap is a breeding ground for unfulfilled lives, crime, depression and other social problems. Not to beat the same drum all the time but I'd like to see any money saved going into early education. Breaking the cycle of inter-generational unemployment will take generations. We need a long term plan and we need to stick to it. What we absolutely don't need is to enable people to opt out and live off their neighbours.


----------



## Delboy

I just heard Eamon Ryan of the Greens on Newstalk welcome the rumours of an increase in the dole in tomorrow's budget. He said that priority should also be given to restoring the dole to the top level for u-25's.
Roisin Shorthall of the Soc Dems  was in agreement on those points.

Thats the big ideas we need for the 21st century right there


----------



## Firefly

Delboy said:


> I just heard Eamon Ryan of the Greens on Newstalk welcome the rumours of an increase in the dole in tomorrow's budget. He said that priority should also be given to restoring the dole to the top level for u-25's.
> Roisin Shorthall of the Soc Dems  was in agreement on those points.
> 
> Thats the big ideas we need for the 21st century right there



I suspect the demands are coming from FF who are pulling the strings and are scared to death of SF (who would probably raise all welfare rates to the point of putting the country under).


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> BS, for me it's not about saving money in the short term. It is about nudging people in the right direction in the medium to long term. A welfare trap is a breeding ground for unfulfilled lives, crime, depression and other social problems. Not to beat the same drum all the time but I'd like to see any money saved going into early education. Breaking the cycle of inter-generational unemployment will take generations. We need a long term plan and we need to stick to it. What we absolutely don't need is to enable people to opt out and live off their neighbours.



I'm not disputing that there are anomalies in welfare system that create traps. And I don't take issue with what you say above with regard to breaking inter-generational poverty. I simply oppose the broad stroke generalisations aimed at people on welfare.
If people are 'opting-out' and living on welfare, that needs to be tackled. But not at the expense of those who have worked hard, who are educated, who do contribute, but for one reason or another, find themselves on the wrong side of luck. I would consider these people to be the lions share of social welfare recipients.


----------



## TheBigShort

Delboy said:


> I just heard Eamon Ryan of the Greens on Newstalk welcome the rumours of an increase in the dole in tomorrow's budget. He said that priority should also be given to restoring the dole to the top level for u-25's.
> Roisin Shorthall of the Soc Dems  was in agreement on those points.
> 
> Thats the big ideas we need for the 21st century right there



It might be of interest to observe, if there is any increase in social welfare, is there a corresponding increase in claimants?


----------



## jackswift

galwaypat said:


> Why not put high vise vests on them and put them out picking rubbish cleaning our parks make them work for there few bob, and maybe give them bit extra.I do a bit of cycling and the rubbish on the side of our roads is a disgrace, a win win for everyone don't you think


Better still try and educate the brain dead fools to stop dumping rubbish.


----------



## Firefly

So, far from doing the sensible thing and reducing the dole over the longer term, it looks like the dole is not only getting a hike, but so too the "Christmas Bonus" for being on the dole.

_"Congratulations, you've had a great year on the dole. To show our appreciation, please accept this bonus for all your hard work. Be sure to continue this work into 2018 and all going well we may be able to pay you even more money next year. Keep up the good work, your country needs you!". _

Talk about re-inforcing a welfare trap!!


----------



## galway_blow_in

Delboy said:


> I just heard Eamon Ryan of the Greens on Newstalk welcome the rumours of an increase in the dole in tomorrow's budget. He said that priority should also be given to restoring the dole to the top level for u-25's.
> Roisin Shorthall of the Soc Dems  was in agreement on those points.
> 
> Thats the big ideas we need for the 21st century right there



how is that worse than raising the OAP ?


----------



## Vanessa

Firefly said:


> So, far from doing the sensible thing and reducing the dole over the longer term, it looks like the dole is not only getting a hike, but so too the "Christmas Bonus" for being on the dole.
> 
> _"Congratulations, you've had a great year on the dole. To show our appreciation, please accept this bonus for all your hard work. Be sure to continue this work into 2018 and all going well we may be able to pay you even more money next year. Keep up the good work, your country needs you!". _
> 
> Talk about re-inforcing a welfare trap!!



And now we are going to give each of your grandparents 1000 euro for minding your kids.
Next year we will see can we extend it to other family members.


----------



## noproblem

No wonder there's people jumping out of lorries to come and stay here, soon be jumping out of planes. A great opportunity for parachute makers and who knows? They may even get a grant


----------



## RETIRED2017

galway_blow_in said:


> how is that worse than raising the OAP ?


You can add Leo/michael to your list for  Budget 2019
Carbon tax additional funding  for wefare/education and lowering the standard rate cut off point,I know where all this is going to end long term,


----------



## Firefly

Vanessa said:


> And now we are going to give each of your grandparents 1000 euro for minding your kids.
> Next year we will see can we extend it to other family members.



It's effectively a 20e a week increase in the OAP as it won't / can't be enforced.


----------

