# "We must dismantle our culture of dependency"



## Brendan Burgess

Here is an article I had in the Sunday Independent yesterday: 

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/c...antle-our-culture-of-dependency-34963409.html

*We need to dismantle our culture of dependency*
*In Ireland 77pc of working households are funding the other 23pc - that's twice the average of other EU countries*

The Irish economy is growing rapidly. There will be real growth of around 5pc this year. Food, pharmaceutical and IT exports are booming. We are getting massive corporation tax payments from US multinationals. Our demographics are very favourable - we have relatively fewer dependant older people than other EU countries have. Unemployment has fallen to a little below the average EU levels. The Government can borrow money at 0.4pc.


So why are you struggling so hard? Why do you feel so insecure about your future and the future of your children?

You put the head down at college and got a good degree. You did some years of poorly paid training afterwards. You made the financial sacrifices, you worked hard at your career and now you have a decent salary. You should be comfortably off, but you are not. You are paying relatively high income tax, PRSI and USC, not to mention Local Property Tax and water charges. If you have a non-tracker mortgage, you are paying interest rates which are twice what they are in the rest of the Eurozone. You have always paid for your own health insurance, but it has become increasingly expensive, while at the same time, the tax relief has been greatly reduced. You have never had a motor insurance claim, but this year your premium is 35pc higher than last year. You thought you had a good pension, but it turns out that there is a big hole in the pension fund.

And it's probably going to be worse for your children. They are in their late 20s and there is no sign of them flying the nest any time soon, as they simply can't afford it. You made financial sacrifices to get them a good education, and now they have reasonable jobs, but they can't afford to rent anywhere decent, and it's very difficult for them to save up the deposit to buy a house.

It shouldn't be like this. People who have studied and worked hard who now have decent jobs should be able to enjoy the fruits of their labour. They should be looking forward to good pensions on retirement and they should be able to pay for private health care without being made to feel guilty about it. If they choose to do so, they should be in a position to help their kids get on the housing ladder.

So what has gone wrong? Why is there such an imbalance in Irish society and what, if anything, can be done about it?

There is one outstanding statistic about Irish society which is very rarely reported.

Despite having average levels of unemployment, we have the highest percentage of jobless families in the original EU-15 countries, which includes Greece, Spain and Portugal. But it's not just a little more than average, it's twice the average. The average is 11pc but in Ireland, it's 23pc. The next closest to us is the UK at 13pc.

So whereas in other EU countries, 89pc of households work and fund the 11pc who don't work, in Ireland, 77pc of working households are funding the other 23pc who don't work.

Why do we have 23pc 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.

But this generous social welfare system is not good for the recipients. They have become dependent on the state for their income, their housing and their health services. And the state is not good at providing these things. It would be much better for everyone if social welfare rates and benefits were cut back to the average rates in other EU countries. People would be encouraged to work and provide for themselves rather than become dependent on the state for everything for the whole of their lives.

Social housing is a very good example of how the system is so dysfunctional and doesn't really help anyone. Because of the high level of jobless families, there is a huge demand for social housing, at a level which the state can't provide. But there is competition between social housing and private housing. For example, there is a campaign underway to get NAMA and the Government to build 3,000 social housing units on the Glass Bottle site in Ringsend. But it would be much better if 3,000 private housing units were built there for people who are working and prepared to rent or buy their accommodation with their own money.

If you are from Ringsend and you have a job, you have almost no chance of being able to afford to buy or rent anywhere close to your family home. You will probably buy or rent in Tallaght or Naas. But if you are unemployed and entitled to social housing, you will refuse a house in Tallaght or Naas, and only accept a house close to where you were born.

If we want to create a fairer society and a better society for everyone, we need to dismantle our dependency culture. Cutting welfare and benefits for those who are well able to work, would benefit everyone in the long run.

Brendan Burgess is founder of the consumer forum askaboutmoney.com. His views are his own.


----------



## Purple

I watched the Film Suffragette yesterday. It really highlights how poor people struggled and how utterly appalling the treatment of women was in the so-called developed world.

My mother’s family was heavily involved in the Irish Suffragette movement and the struggle for independence. They were also involved in setting up the Trade Union movement here.


They worked, and in some cases they died, for freedom and self determination and for the rights for working people which are now enshrined in our legislation. They and many people like them worked hard all their lives. They never asked for or wanted a hand out or for anyone else to pay them to do nothing. As my great aunt put it when she was in her  90’s (and I’m paraphrasing), they spent their lives fighting to ensure rich people didn’t live off the work of poor people, how could they support those who didn’t want to work living off working people as it amounts to the same thing.

They fought for equality of opportunity. They would be appalled by how things have turned out. The irony that many people who consider themselves Republican and the Party which brands itself as Republican are betraying the founders of this country would not be lost on them. We all have a duty as citizens to work as hard as we can and contribute to society. If you choose to not work because you can have the same lifestyle on benefits then you are betraying those who came before you and those you are living off. Morally it is no different to deciding to live off the proceeds of crime.


Our dependency culture is not just the result of our welfare rates, although that’s a very large part of it, but rather it is the result of the lack of ethical standards and social responsibility by those who choose to adopt a parasitical lifestyle. They are betraying their fellow citizens and those who fought and died for their freedom from oppression.


----------



## Gerard123

Superb article.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Purple said:


> Our dependency culture is not just the result of our welfare rates, although that’s a very large part of it, but rather it is the result of the lack of ethical standards and social responsibility by those who choose to adopt a parasitical lifestyle.



Hi Purple 

I am not so sure about a lack of ethical standards. 

Frankly, if I faced the following choice: 

Don't work: Get social housing in Dublin city, medical card , no Local Property Tax, and a decent weekly cash income 
or 
Work for €25,000 a year: Rent a house miles away, no medical card, pay LPT, and pay for the long commute to work

I wouldn't be worried about the ethics or social responsibility. 

We have designed a system where it makes no sense for people to work.  We can't describe them as having a lack of ethical standards for not working. 

Brendan


----------



## Purple

Brendan Burgess said:


> We have designed a system where it makes no sense for people to work.  We can't describe them as having a lack of ethical standards for not working.
> 
> 
> Brendan


 I disagree. I can decide to sell drugs or engage in insurance fraud and make more money than I would working. That higher income wouldn’t excuse my actions. I see no difference when it comes to taking hand-out’s from your neighbours when you are in a position to fend for yourself, even if those hand-out’s amount to more than you could earn.


----------



## Purple

Duke of Marmalade said:


> _Purple_ are you trolling?  You see no difference between drug dealing and availing of SW benefits that have been approved by Dail Eireann?!


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.


----------



## PGF2016

Culture of dependency or culture of entitlement?


----------



## Delboy

Don't forget that a lot of those on Welfare will also be doing a bit of work on the side, enhancing their income and giving a better lifestyle than their neighbour who has a low paid job.

And factor into this also the power our Welfare State gives to Politicians. They literally have the power to buy votes through canvassing for constituents who are seeking Disability status, Welfare payments, Social housing etc. Either through actually getting results or being deemed to have gotten the result, they hold power over so many people. 
So in campaigning against the high Welfare dependency rates, your are actually also fighting the political system in this country.


----------



## Purple

Very true Delboy


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

_Purple_ we are slipping into the realms of theology here.  I agree that SW fraud is on a par with insurance fraud, and would require at least a Rosary in confession.  Making oneself unavailable for work coz SW pays better mightn't even be a sin - 3 Hail Marys at most.  But to compare these misdemeanours with drug peddling is borderline trolling IMHO.


----------



## Purple

Duke of Marmalade said:


> _Purple_ we are slipping into the realms of theology here.  I agree that SW fraud is on a par with insurance fraud, and would require at least a Rosary in confession.  Making oneself unavailable for work coz SW pays better mightn't even be a sin - 3 Hail Marys at most.  But to compare these misdemeanours with drug peddling is borderline trolling IMHO.


Stealing a Euro isn't the same as stealing a million Euro but it's all stealing.


----------



## odyssey06

Maybe it's the equivalent of running a shebeen or selling some moonshine...

Either way, if we have people not working who could be, that's less money for police, hospitals, medicines, schools... Next time we hear someone complaining about lack of same in certain areas, remember that. We have too many benefits here dependent on not having a job.


----------



## Purple

In summary our welfare system allows people to start families and live economically independently of their broader family whereas in other European countries their welfare system does not. In other words our welfare system allows the choice to live independently and raise a family without ever working to be economically viable.


----------



## TheBigShort

I'm not sure where in the NESC report does it state that there is 23% jobless families? All I can see is a 23% VLWI which can include low paid work.
The report also identifies that 56% of adults in VLWI employment live with children compared to an EU average of 30% (page 8). This suggests to me that childcare facilities, costs and supports are superior to the supports available in Ireland which act as a barrier to entry into the workforce.
The most alarming stat is (page 7, fig 3.3) the high level of households with 'home duties' and with 'ill/disabilities' compared to the rest of the EU. Surely, these factors act as major impediments to returning to full employment?

The article, as published in the Independent, also indicates a basic misunderstanding of the concept of 'household'.
The article states _''Why do we have 23pc 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_?"

I'm not sure where in the NESC report a distinction is made between Irish workers and non-national workers? Don't foreign national workers make up households too? Don't foreign nationals who reside permanently here also have children, with childcare costs?


----------



## TheBigShort

Protocol said:


> Paying OPFP encourages lone parenthood and leads to more people in VLWI households. Mothers and children suffer as a result.



This is a wild assumption. OPFP no more encourages lone parenthood than living in a VLWI household that causes mothers and children to suffer discourages it.
The implied notion here is that a lot of single women cannot distinguish between the benefits and pitfalls of a life on welfare dependency and a life of financial independence.
That is ridiculous.

The reality is, is that too high of a proportion of employment opportunities in this country are too low paid.

The article in Irish Independent admits "_It just does not pay for someone with children to work in a low paid job in Ireland_." Yet unfortunately goes on to propose a resolution to this problem of cutting welfare benefits. I fail to see how cutting welfare benefits will make childcare anymore affordable for low paid work? It will not.
I would propose however, that rather target the one parent or child benefit, that childcare employers are offered subsidy in some form. For instance, if the childcare provider keeps costs below a set amount, then the state can subside the employer. Thereby, making childcare more affordable and facilitating the return to employment.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> The implied notion here is that a lot of single women cannot distinguish between the benefits and pitfalls of a life on welfare dependency and a life of financial independence.
> 
> That is ridiculous.



Welfare can provide a life of financial independence. That is ridiculous.





TheBigShort said:


> The reality is, is that too high of a proportion of employment opportunities in this country are too low paid.



The reality is that too high a proportion of employment seekers in this country are too low skilled. Pay is linked to economic value. If you have no skills you have little economic value. If you want to be paid more become skilled (note: skilled and educated are not the same thing but education is a good starting point).




TheBigShort said:


> The article in Irish Independent admits "_It just does not pay for someone with children to work in a low paid job in Ireland_." Yet unfortunately goes on to propose a resolution to this problem of cutting welfare benefits. I fail to see how cutting welfare benefits will make childcare anymore affordable for low paid work? It will not.
> 
> I would propose however, that rather target the one parent or child benefit, that childcare employers are offered subsidy in some form. For instance, if the childcare provider keeps costs below a set amount, then the state can subside the employer. Thereby, making childcare more affordable and facilitating the return to employment.


 So the people who pay for everything (the top 30% of earners) should pay even more? That hardly seems fair when the they are paying 52% on earnings over €42,800 and 23% VAT on what’s left when they spend it, a total of 63% tax on earnings by the time you spend it. Are you suggesting that people should work more than 3 days a week for free (i.e. for the tax man)?


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Welfare can provide a life of financial independence. That is ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The reality is that too high a proportion of employment seekers in this country are too low skilled. Pay is liked to economic value. If you have no skills you have little economic value. If you want to be paid more become skilled (note: skilled and educated are not the same thing but education is a good starting point).
> 
> 
> So the people who pay for everything (the top 30% of earners) should pay even more? That hardly seems fair when the they are paying 52% on earnings over €42,800 and 23% VAT on what’s left when they spend it, a total of 63% tax on earnings by the time you spend it. Are you suggesting that people should work more than 3 days a week for free (i.e. for the tax man)?



Its the same old defunct analysis that is regurgitated time and time again. The original article takes a stat (23% VLWI) and calls it something else (jobless households, which peaked at 16% in 2012), then it tries to imply that the NESC report is refering  to Irish unemployed as opposed to all nationalities.
Then out trots the 'people who pay for everything', mantra. The implied assumption that educated and skilled workers do not rely on welfare, pay everything, and only unskilled uneducated are costing the taxpayer.
There are, and were, plenty of educated and skilled workers on welfare at the height of the crash. Plenty of skilled and educated workers working in banking and finance, on large salaries, whose ineptitude was the equivalent of the entire McDonalds, Supermacs, Burger King etc giving all their customers a serious dose of food posioning at the exact same time.

Nobody pays a rate of tax on any level of income that is higher than anyone elses. The first €20,000 is tax free (for everyone), then next tranche is at 20% (for everyone) and then its 41% (for everyone).
Comparing the tax liability of someone who has an income of €80,000 to someone on €20,000 is like comparing a bike race between two cyclists, only not accounting for the point that one cyclists has no wheels on the bike.

So, open your mind to alternatives, dont be so formulated in spouting the same guff that has no basis in reality.


----------



## odyssey06

TheBigShort said:


> Then out trots the 'people who pay for everything', mantra. The implied assumption that educated and skilled workers do not rely on welfare, pay everything, and only unskilled uneducated are costing the taxpayer.



Who are the people who pay for everything? It's certainly not someone on welfare. It would be great if we could get more of them off welfare, to help shoulder the burden. That's not going to happen with the level of benefits being given out now to people who aren't working, which creates the culture of dependency - I haven't heard anything in this thread to contradict the central point.
But, is the answer reducing the benefits or somehow maintaining them or dispersing them amongst the general workforce?
In the long run I think a straight reduction would work as it would get people into the workforce, who over time have opportunities they would never have caught in a poverty trap.
In the short term, and to make things politically palatable, I think we need to look at making the benefits (eg medical card) conditional on working, rather than as now, on not working. There will be costs to this, but this is balanced against the savings to this as instead of relying on the taxpayer to 100% fund things, there will be a mix between taxpayer and employer.


----------



## Gordon Gekko

The "problem" is that social welfare provides a standard of living that some people aspire to. Instead of being what it should be, i.e. a support to keep vulnerable people housed and fed at the most basic level, it allows people to live comfortably. That is wrong.


----------



## gar32

John was a Painter and got let go. He is unmarried with 3 kids and had a mortgage before he became unemployed.  He would get €188 a week not working. His Partner also gets €188 as she does not work. Children allowance at €105 a week child benefit. Thats €481 a week tax free.  €25 k a year. 2 Painting nixers a month say at €300 each on average.  Thats around 32K a year. 

http://www.payscale.com/research/IE/Job=Painter/Hourly_Rate   Max a painter makes in full time work is €40k before tax.

John is not going to work 40hrs a week for a little more the a few hours a month.

How can Ireland chance this without putting the children in a poverty trap? 

Back to work allowance ?

Drop €188 by €1 a month until a job is found?

Retrain using Fas for a job that companies need?

Pay working people better so people want to work?

Minimum income for all in the country any work is extra  earnings?

With a 5 year turn around in the Dail they don't have the will to think 10 years from now. it will take forward planing and thinking that I feel is beyond the system we have. 

Out of the box thing any body ???


----------



## Fella

If you can't beat them join them , i had radio on this morning and there was a politician talking about increasing old age pension by 25€ a week over next few years , nothing's getting decreased anytime soon.


----------



## odyssey06

A UK style benefits cap?
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/benefits/the-benefit-cap/the-benefit-cap-what-you-need-to-know/


----------



## gar32

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.


----------



## TheBigShort

odyssey06 said:


> Who are the people who pay for everything? It's certainly not someone on welfare. It would be great if we could get more of them off welfare, to help shoulder the burden. That's not going to happen with the level of benefits being given out now to people who aren't working, which creates the culture of dependency - I haven't heard anything in this thread to contradict the central point.
> But, is the answer reducing the benefits or somehow maintaining them or dispersing them amongst the general workforce?
> In the long run I think a straight reduction would work as it would get people into the workforce, who over time have opportunities they would never have caught in a poverty trap.
> In the short term, and to make things politically palatable, I think we need to look at making the benefits (eg medical card) conditional on working, rather than as now, on not working. There will be costs to this, but this is balanced against the savings to this as instead of relying on the taxpayer to 100% fund things, there will be a mix between taxpayer and employer.



Welfare rates were either kept the same or cut under the last administration. The same rates apply, at best, as at the time of the 'boom' when we apparently had full employment.
If welfare rates are so high as to disincentive participation in the workforce, then how was full employment ever achieved?


----------



## gar32

Borrowed money and now with 200+ Billion to pay back everyone has to pay. 23% of people in Ireland are on the living wage or lower. €11.50 per hr.

Full employment  was never reached. it was 4% at best


----------



## TheBigShort

"_You put the head down at college and got a good degree. You did some years of poorly paid training afterwards. You made the financial sacrifices, you worked hard at your career and now you have a decent salary. You should be comfortably off, but you are not_."

But here is the rub. If you happened to become unemployed for a time, in receipt of welfare benefits,  and I offered you a job to shine my shoes for minimum wage, would you accept it?
If you wouldn't, then you are part of the problem and no different than anyone else.


----------



## TheBigShort

"_You are paying relatively high income tax, PRSI and USC, not to mention Local Property Tax and water charges. If you have a non-tracker mortgage, you are paying interest rates which are twice what they are in the rest of the Eurozone. You have always paid for your own health insurance, but it has become increasingly expensive, while at the same time, the tax relief has been greatly reduced. You have never had a motor insurance claim, but this year your premium is 35pc higher than last year."_

Most of these charges also apply jobless households - property tax and water charges for instance.
Car insurance and health insurance have nothing to do with jobless households! To blame increasing insurance premiums on jobless households is farcical. Car insurance premiums are increasing because of our overpaid educated and skilled workers in the financial sector have made a complete cock-up of managing investment funds to the point that a jobless household with a car is now bailing them out through premium hikes!


----------



## thedaddyman

I can look at 2 specific examples of people I know who would both love to return to work and get off Social Welfare but can't.
One is a single mother with 2 kids. She can't afford to take a job that would match her social welfare or even exceed it by a couple of grand because she would incur significant childcare costs. The state does not effectively facilitate and support such people trying to return to work.
The 2nd person I know is caring for an elderly sick relative, again, she would love to return to work and will in the future but right now it frankly is not an option and the cost to the state of her returning to work (cost of putting relative into a nursing home, if one could even be found) would far outweigh the cost of her social welfare payments. Again, there is a lack of proper support for people in her circumstances

I have absolutely no doubt there are people out there on the doss drawing social welfare who can't be bothered to go look for a job but there is a danger when you look at statistics that you ignore the reasoning behind those statistics and the true human stories.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Its the same old defunct analysis that is regurgitated time and time again. The original article takes a stat (23% VLWI) and calls it something else (jobless households, which peaked at 16% in 2012), then it tries to imply that the NESC report is refering  to Irish unemployed as opposed to all nationalities.



You aren’t making any sense there. That or you are introducing a straw man argument so you can dismantle it.




TheBigShort said:


> Then out trots the 'people who pay for everything', mantra. The implied assumption that educated and skilled workers do not rely on welfare, pay everything, and only unskilled uneducated are costing the taxpayer.



You are the only one implying an assumption. The top 30% of tax payers are net contributors to the exchequer. The 70 to 80% group are only slightly on the plus side. The top 20% are the real net contributors. The other 70% are net recipients. Of course there are exceptions but it’s statistically sound. That has nothing to do with education and only a little to do with skills. It has a lot to do with hard work, intelligence, luck and family/scocial background. None of which changes the statistical facts.




TheBigShort said:


> There are, and were, plenty of educated and skilled workers on welfare at the height of the crash. Plenty of skilled and educated workers working in banking and finance, on large salaries, whose ineptitude was the equivalent of the entire McDonalds, Supermacs, Burger King etc giving all their customers a serious dose of food posioning at the exact same time.


 They may well have been well paid and highly educaed but I have to disagree with your assertion that they were skilled. The older I get the less of a connection I see between education and skill.




TheBigShort said:


> Nobody pays a rate of tax on any level of income that is higher than anyone elses. The first €20,000 is tax free (for everyone), then next tranche is at 20% (for everyone) and then its 41% (for everyone).


 So what?



TheBigShort said:


> Comparing the tax liability of someone who has an income of €80,000 to someone on €20,000 is like comparing a bike race between two cyclists, only not accounting for the point that one cyclists has no wheels on the bike.


 No it’s not. That’s another nonsensical metaphor from you. The discretionary income of a single earner family with 3 kids paying a mortgage in Dublin won’t be far off a family on welfare with three kids living in Dublin where the state (i.e. the family earning €80,000) is paying for their house. Add medical cards, back to school allowances, family income supplement, 3rd level grants for the kids, etc etc etc and the gap continues to close.




TheBigShort said:


> So, open your mind to alternatives, dont be so formulated in spouting the same guff that has no basis in reality.


 Ok; mind opened, so what alternatives do you suggest (and please base them in reality and not some whimsy derived from a morally and economically bankrupt socialist ideology?


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> You aren’t making any sense there. That or you are introducing a straw man argument so you can dismantle it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the only one implying an assumption. The top 30% of tax payers are net contributors to the exchequer. The 70 to 80% group are only slightly on the plus side. The top 20% are the real net contributors. The other 70% are net recipients. Of course there are exceptions but it’s statistically sound. That has nothing to do with education and only a little to do with skills. It has a lot to do with hard work, intelligence, luck and family/scocial background. None of which changes the statistical facts.
> 
> 
> They may well have been well paid and highly educaed but I have to disagree with your assertion that they were skilled. The older I get the less of a connection I see between education and skill.
> 
> 
> So what?
> 
> No it’s not. That’s another nonsensical metaphor from you. The discretionary income of a single earner family with 3 kids paying a mortgage in Dublin won’t be far off a family on welfare with three kids living in Dublin where the state (i.e. the family earning €80,000) is paying for their house. Add medical cards, back to school allowances, family income supplement, 3rd level grants for the kids, etc etc etc and the gap continues to close.
> 
> 
> Ok; mind opened, so what alternatives do you suggest (and please base them in reality and not some whimsy derived from a morally and economically bankrupt socialist ideology?



It would help if you read the article in the Irish Independent and how it barely relates to its source, the NESC report on jobless households. Then you would be able to engage more meaningfully.

For instance, the Indo article points to increasing car insurance premiums as evidence that the welfare state is too heavy a burden. Without considering that a jobless household with a car will also pay that insurance premium.

And the Indo article admits that it doesn't pay to work a low paid job if the worker is going to end up paying childcare costs. The answer? Cut welfare payments!
Somehow cutting welfare payments will make the cost of childcare cheaper if you work a load paid job!!

Btw, Family Income Supplement is only payable to people who are at work. A minimum of 19 hours a week. Medical cards are also supplied to working people. In some instances, reasonably paid people, but in some instances the medical attention required (like a disabled child) are too much to bear.
 These people are not part of the NESC report on jobless households, so why bring it up?


----------



## Delboy

gar32 said:


> Full employment  was never reached. it was 4% at best


And thats not counting the army of people deemed to be disabled and so not counted int he unemployment stats


----------



## Gerard123

Lots of different thoughts above.  Easy to get side tracked.  Sticking to the main theme.

IMO one of the main issues is that the welfare system does not differentiate between people. This has to change.

Example - OAP, irrespective of income, unless very high incomes, get medical card. Something like 2 million medical cards in Ireland - outrageous and a scandal.
Everyone gets child allowance, irrespective of income.
Unemployed benefits - someone who has worked most of their life and contributed handsomely in taxes pretty much gets the same as someone who never worked a minute.

I do not agree that welfare rates should be arbitrarily cut for everyone but there needs to be better differentiation.  Some people genuinely need considerable help and are financially distressed, let the welfare system help them.  Its the universal nature of the welfare system that is the main problem.

(Not meaning to be insensitive, apols if it sounds like it) I have a real issue with single mums getting significant entitlements as an automatic right.  My sister was a single mum, kept her job on, paid childcare and really struggled.  We as a family helped out, babysitting, practical pressies, etc.  She had worked out that she would be better off not working but she did not want to go down that route.  If someone wants to be a mum that's fantastic, well done, but it is their responsibility to plan and organise, and the dads of course.  The State can help, but the State should not be seen as the go to for all, or significantly all, financial assistance. It is the automatic nature, the expectation, the sense of entitlement that bugs me.  I am very happy to see lone parents being helped if they need it.  But what about the partner, the daddy, his responsibility, etc. 

I like the idea of scaling back rates based on time and circumstances (e.g. job seekers allowance gets scaled back as time continues).

I don't want a return to Dickens era poverty, but in my opinion welfare should not be  there to enable people to live a life as if one was working. For example, I don't believe that welfare rates should (normally) allow recipients the excess funds to buy a car.  Holidays, a basic human right?  Yes if you work for it, no if you cant pay for it and taxpayer pays for it.

I am reminded of the phrase, the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other peoples money to spend.  Exact same philology applied to welfare, and I think we are at or close to a tipping point.  Ordinary workers are getting fleeced, taxes, charges, mortgages, etc.  Private pensions raided, peoples own money! Obscene behaviour.

In addition, much more robust procedures need to be put in place to allow proper checking, vetting and appropriate follow up on welfare recipients.  IMO if you are in receipt of welfare then the State has a right and duty to be allowed have a level of sensible on-going monitoring.  Surprise visits, calls for interviews, etc.  Not unreasonably done of course but done all the same.  If you don't agree to this then no benefits, simple as that. 

Yet if you work.............. small farmers who receive grants - that info is published.  Company directors, even small family owned businesses, their accounts and remuneration is public knowledge.  Don't we as tax payers have a right to also know where our money is going?   I would love to see a simple breakdown of welfare and where the money goes.

Of course there is the politics of it all, the petty narrow minded nature of the political situation in Ireland is shocking and makes change virtually impossible.  It will take brave politicians.  And an electorate to look beyond the latest sensational and selective headlines.

In conclusion, I strongly agree with the theme of the forum, our culture of dependency must be dismantled.  Welfare systems that were brought in after the war have been allowed to run amok, unchecked, and ordinary working people are paying excessive taxes and charges to enable this to continue.  It has to stop. And replaced with something that is made for the 21st century and fit for purpose.


----------



## Purple

I agree with all of that Gerard, with the possible exception of lone parents. I do have a problem with the number of people claiming lone parents allowance when they are in fact in long term relationships with the father of the children.
I know a guy who bought a house and then rented it to his partner. She claimed lone parents allowance, rent allowance etc. and yes, I did report them.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> It would help if you read the article in the Irish Independent and how it barely relates to its source, the NESC report on jobless households. Then you would be able to engage more meaningfully.


 It would help if you made fewer assumption about what other people have read.




TheBigShort said:


> For instance, the Indo article points to increasing car insurance premiums as evidence that the welfare state is too heavy a burden.


 No it doesn’t. It merely cites insurance costs as a drain on the income of working people.




TheBigShort said:


> And the Indo article admits that it doesn't pay to work a low paid job if the worker is going to end up paying childcare costs. The answer? Cut welfare payments!
> 
> Somehow cutting welfare payments will make the cost of childcare cheaper if you work a load paid job!!


 No, it makes your net income higher for low paid jobs, even taking childcare costs into account. You’ll never move to a high paid job if you don’t take the lower paid one to start with. If you are working for minimum wage for more than a few years then you have no ambition or no ability.




TheBigShort said:


> Btw, Family Income Supplement is only payable to people who are at work. A minimum of 19 hours a week. Medical cards are also supplied to working people. In some instances, reasonably paid people, but in some instances the medical attention required (like a disabled child) are too much to bear.
> 
> These people are not part of the NESC report on jobless households, so why bring it up?



If one person in the household works part time it is payable. The discussion is about households which are under employed, not unemployed.

We all know what the criteria are for Medical cards. What’s your point?


The crux of the matter is that some people believe that society has a duty to support people who choose not to support themselves. I do not agree with that proposition.

Some people also believe that people should be paid a wage in excess of the economic or social value of their work, rather it should be based on some notion of what they need to “live on”.  That in effect means “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”. I do not consider quality of outcome to be desirable, preferring instead a society based on equality of opportunity, and I’m not a Marxist, so I also disagree with such notions.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> No it doesn’t. It merely cites insurance costs as a drain on the income of working people.



Is it beyond your thinking to assume that an unemployed person also has a car? Is it beyond your thinking that an unemployed person can use their savings from previous employment to pay car insurance?

Car insurance, and an increase in the premium, is a drain on all people who have a car, whether they are working or not. People who are working are not supporting non-working people in terms of their car insurance. It is a farce to imply it, but implied it is in the article written in the Irish Independent on jobless households.

Not only that, your own comment above would suggest you have the blinkers on this morning "_insurance costs as a drain on the income of working people_". Oblivious to the fact that unemployed people have to deal with insurance and its costs also.



Purple said:


> No, it makes your net income higher for low paid jobs, even taking childcare costs into account. You’ll never move to a high paid job if you don’t take the lower paid one to start with. If you are working for minimum wage for more than a few years then you have no ambition or no ability.



That contradicts what the Indo article says, which states that it doesn't pay to take a low paid job if you have to shell out for childcare. Hence adding to the jobless households figure. Whereas you are stating that a low paid job, coupled with welfare provides too much sufficiency, acting as a barrier to advance careers and pay for fear of losing the welfare payment.

So for low paid jobs with welfare, are they too cushy? Or not worth taking?




Purple said:


> The crux of the matter is that some people believe that society has a duty to support people who choose not to support themselves. I do not agree with that proposition.



I don't disagree with you, but I suspect they are a relatively insignificant minority. When this economy had the capacity to reach full employment, it did. This suggests that most people on welfare would rather earn a living than be reliant on the state. To cut their welfare benefits on the wrong assumption that 'they believe that society has a duty to support' them, is more of the same old nonsense.
The evidence is there, if there a jobs available, people will work them.



Purple said:


> Some people also believe that people should be paid a wage in excess of the economic or social value of their work, rather it should be based on some notion of what they need to “live on”.  That in effect means “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”. I do not consider quality of outcome to be desirable, preferring instead a society based on equality of opportunity, and I’m not a Marxist, so I also disagree with such notions.



Yeh, it'll be great craic with you determining what the economic or social value of persons job is. For the craic, what is the economic and social value of the following;

a worker at a fast-food restaurant
a childcare worker
an investment fund manager


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> Comparing the tax liability of someone who has an income of €80,000 to someone on €20,000 is like comparing a bike race between two cyclists, only not accounting for the point that one cyclists has no wheels on the bike.




Nice metaphor. I quite prefer the one where two people are on a tandem bike and the one at the front is doing all the peddling and the one at the back is free-wheeling


----------



## Gerry Canning

Gordon Gekko said:


> The "problem" is that social welfare provides a standard of living that some people aspire to. Instead of being what it should be, i.e. a support to keep vulnerable people housed and fed at the most basic level, it allows people to live comfortably. That is wrong.



I know there are those who aspire to only (dole) type payments , but the majority require more to have a {comfortable} lifestyle.
The (Dole) does not give a comfortable lifestyle .
I suggest that those that think it does, really try it for a year and then comment.
It is not atall easy surviving on the (dole) ie been there and its far from comfortable.

There does appear to be too many who get (dole) + nixers.
Report them and soon nuff they will get fewer and fewer.
Maybe there arn,t so many nixer merchants as we think , its just that those we see, irk the life out of us?


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> Nice metaphor. I quite prefer the one where two people are on a tandem bike and the one at the front is doing all the peddling and the one at the back is free-wheeling




Thankfully, the vast, vast majority of people do their upmost to avoid being reliant on welfare. Those that are in receipt, would mostly like to get out of it by earing more income. This was evident during the boom when the economy reached the capacity of full employment.　


Or course, there will always be a lazy, even criminal element of society that will always play the victim of hardship, and sponge of the state. But from my experience they generally come really deprived areas of the country with all sorts of barriers.

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.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Is it beyond your thinking to assume that an unemployed person also has a car? Is it beyond your thinking that an unemployed person can use their savings from previous employment to pay car insurance?
> 
> 
> Car insurance, and an increase in the premium, is a drain on all people who have a car, whether they are working or not. People who are working are not supporting non-working people in terms of their car insurance. It is a farce to imply it, but implied it is in the article written in the Irish Independent on jobless households.
> 
> 
> Not only that, your own comment above would suggest you have the blinkers on this morning "_insurance costs as a drain on the income of working people_". Oblivious to the fact that unemployed people have to deal with insurance and its costs also.



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.






TheBigShort said:


> That contradicts what the Indo article says, which states that it doesn't pay to take a low paid job if you have to shell out for childcare. Hence adding to the jobless households figure. Whereas you are stating that a low paid job, coupled with welfare provides too much sufficiency, acting as a barrier to advance careers and pay for fear of losing the welfare payment.
> 
> 
> So for low paid jobs with welfare, are they too cushy? Or not worth taking?


 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.




TheBigShort said:


> I don't disagree with you, but I suspect they are a relatively insignificant minority. When this economy had the capacity to reach full employment, it did. This suggests that most people on welfare would rather earn a living than be reliant on the state. To cut their welfare benefits on the wrong assumption that 'they believe that society has a duty to support' them, is more of the same old nonsense.
> 
> The evidence is there, if there a jobs available, people will work them.


 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.






TheBigShort said:


> Yeh, it'll be great craic with you determining what the economic or social value of persons job is. For the craic, what is the economic and social value of the following;
> 
> 
> a worker at a fast-food restaurant
> 
> a childcare worker
> 
> an investment fund manager



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.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Thankfully, the vast, vast majority of people do their upmost to avoid being reliant on welfare. Those that are in receipt, would mostly like to get out of it by earing more income. This was evident during the boom when the economy reached the capacity of full employment.


 You have been shown that the full employment argument is nonsense. Please shop repeating it. While most people do indeed try to avoid being on welfare that's yet another strawman argument. We are not talking about that, we are talking about the minority who are on welfare and the dependency culture which keeps so many of them there.




TheBigShort said:


> Or course, there will always be a lazy, even criminal element of society that will always play the victim of hardship, and sponge of the state. But from my experience they generally come really deprived areas of the country with all sorts of barriers.


 Can we base things on something more than your experience please?



TheBigShort said:


> 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.


That's a harsh view of things. Most people have a sense of social responsibility and don't want to free-load off their neighbours.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> 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.




Purple said:


> 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?




Purple said:


> 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?





Purple said:


> 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

Gerard123 said:


> 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

gar32 said:


> 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

shweeney said:


> 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

TheBigShort said:


> 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

Firefly said:


> 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

TheBigShort said:


> 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

Firefly said:


> 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

Firefly said:


> 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

Purple said:


> 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

TheBigShort said:


> 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.






TheBigShort said:


> 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.









TheBigShort said:


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


 you are welcome.


TheBigShort said:


> 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

TheBigShort said:


> 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

Purple said:


> 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

Sunny said:


> 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

TheBigShort said:


> 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

TheBigShort said:


> 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.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> 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.


Speaking as someone who has worked for minimum wage, is a tradesman and an employer, and who has done management courses I disagree with you. I hire based on attitude and intellect. You can train skill but never attitude. If I hire someone and they work well for the time they are there then that's fine by me. If they want to stay and train and learn then all the better.

Anyway, the excellent people in the dole office wouldn't line me up with a job which was so unsuitable.


----------



## odyssey06

TheBigShort said:


> I dont need someone who is already looking elsewhere before they begin ...
> PS - you can learn about this in any decent business management and Labour economics course.



Employees in the dynamic world of 2016 should always be looking for their next job. 
Maybe those decent courses should update their curriculum.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/work-in...always-be-looking-for-a-new-job/#49414a1c32ac

Employers are always looking out for cheaper or better employees, employees should always be on the lookout for better opportunities or better paying employers.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Speaking as someone who has worked for minimum wage, is a tradesman and an employer, and who has done management courses I disagree with you. I hire based on attitude and intellect. You can train skill but never attitude. If I hire someone and they work well for the time they are there then that's fine by me. If they want to stay and train and learn then all the better.
> 
> Anyway, the excellent people in the dole office wouldn't line me up with a job which was so unsuitable.



So you disagree with me, which is fine. But, as someone who you accuse of knowing very little about economics, would you agree that there are studies and theories pertaining to the economics of job suitability?
Certainly, by your own comment, it appear that the nice people in the dole office have done some research in that regard.
And if the dole office wouldnt line you up with such an unsuitable job, then as of now, (in this hypothetical scenario) you are still unemployed and freeloading on the back of hard working taxpayers.


----------



## Purple

odyssey06 said:


> Employers are always looking out for cheaper or better employees, employees should always be on the lookout for better opportunities or better paying employers.


Employers look for value, not necessary low pay rates. Paying more to the better or faster employee makes sense financially.


----------



## orka

TheBigShort said:


> And if the dole office wouldnt line you up with such an unsuitable job, then as of now, (in this hypothetical scenario) you are still unemployed and freeloading on the back of hard working taxpayers.


No. He is actively looking for a job and hasn't turned down any opportunity. As a former hard working taxpayer, many people feel he should actually be entitled to a much higher welfare payment while in the gap until his next job. This is surely what social welfare is for after all.


----------



## Purple

Sunny said:


> 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 agree, there should be no universal payments. All children's allowance is is the state taking your money and then giving it back to you less there very high handling charge.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Not going to work is not fraudulent


Pretending to be available for work, as defined by Welfare, while not actually being willing to follow the rules is fraudulent.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> 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.



I agree. If the arguement against welfare is the disincentive to work, then a counter to that would be to provide welfare equal to the value of your last paid job. This would reduce incrementally the longer someone was unemployed, thus providing the motivation to return to work at some point. 
Also any notion to not bother working at all would be diminished. Clearly there would have to be some stringent guidelines, but the principle of it should apply.


----------



## odyssey06

Purple said:


> Employers look for value, not necessary low pay rates. Paying more to the better or faster employee makes sense financially.



I think that distinction between value and low pay/costs is lost on many employers alas! And not just employers.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> So you disagree with me, which is fine. But, as someone who you accuse of knowing very little about economics, would you agree that there are studies and theories pertaining to the economics of job suitability?


 There are indeed. Some of them are even worth the paper they are written on. I don't give any credence to reports by the Trade Union propaganda office; the Nevin Research Institute, just as I don't take Fox News seriously. 



TheBigShort said:


> Certainly, by your own comment, it appear that the nice people in the dole office have done some research in that regard.


 I don't get your point here.


TheBigShort said:


> And if the dole office wouldnt line you up with such an unsuitable job, then as of now, (in this hypothetical scenario) you are still unemployed and freeloading on the back of hard working taxpayers.


if someone is really seeking work and is willing to take whatever job is on offer then they are not freeloading.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> I agree. If the arguement against welfare is the disincentive to work, then a counter to that would be to provide welfare equal to the value of your last paid job. This would reduce incrementally the longer someone was unemployed, thus providing the motivation to return to work at some point.
> Also any notion to not bother working at all would be diminished. Clearly there would have to be some stringent guidelines, but the principle of it should apply.


Excellent, we are getting somewhere!


----------



## Purple

odyssey06 said:


> I think that distinction between value and low pay/costs is lost on many employers alas! And not just employers.


I agree. There are bad employers and bad employees. Both cause problems.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Pretending to be available for work, as defined by Welfare, while not actually being willing to follow the rules is fraudulent.



I never said it wasnt. Did it ever occur to you that people who go to such lengths are not really of value to employers?
I mean, if someone presented themselves to you for a job and acted in such a manner as


Purple said:


> Excellent, we are getting somewhere!



Perhaps, there is no evidence that im aware of, that such a scheme would reduce the cost of the welfare budget. Which I understand is your agenda.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Pretending to be available for work, as defined by Welfare, while not actually being willing to follow the rules is fraudulent.



I never said it wasnt. Did it ever occur to you that people who go to such lengths are not really of value to employers?
I mean, if someone presented themselves to you for a job and acted in such a manner as to clearly show that they are not interested in the job, would you employ them?


Purple said:


> Excellent, we are getting somewhere!



Perhaps, there is no evidence that im aware of, that such a scheme would reduce the cost of the welfare budget. Which I understand is your agenda.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> Did it ever occur to you that people who go to such lengths are not really of value to employers?



I think if the dole was reduced significantly enough they'd learn pretty quick!


----------



## odyssey06

TheBigShort said:


> 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).



But this suggests that there is more than a tiny minority who *would *defraud the system if they could, rather than pull than own weight. 
Therefore, it is perfectly legitimate for the system to be constructed in such a way as to push people into work, whereas at the moment, it is pulling people away from it.


----------



## Gerry Canning

odyssey06.
System is not pulling people away from work,
If that were so ,surely more and more would (opt) for unemployment.
I accept there is a very small cohort who get caught by the system and a few who seem happy to wallow in the system.
firefly .
{they,d learn pretty quick!}
Learn that they are banjaxed etc ? From what I know the (dole) is the minimum that keeps body and soul together.
Your comments are at best too harsh,
Try living on the dole amount for a while , apart from the money issue its so so disheartening for the VAST majority of those on it.
It is neither their choice or wish.

From the ongoing threads there is little argument over (dole) per se , just to catch the nixers/leg lifters and lazy gits .
I think we can all agree on this.


----------



## Firefly

Gerry Canning said:


> firefly .
> {they,d learn pretty quick!}
> Learn that they are banjaxed etc ? From what I know the (dole) is the minimum that keeps body and soul together.
> Your comments are at best too harsh,
> Try living on the dole amount for a while , apart from the money issue its so so disheartening for the VAST majority of those on it.
> It is neither their choice or wish.



I think you need to read my earlier post - those who lose their jobs should receive higher dole payments - they are going to be back looking for work as soon as possible to keep their "body and soul together" - these are the VAST majority you mention (I'm not sure I would use VAST but anyways).  I'm referring to those who choose not to work...they should receive a lot less.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> I think if the dole was reduced significantly enough they'd learn pretty quick!



Perhaps, or perhaps they would resort to crime, shop lifting, drug dealing, mugging, burglaries...Such behaviour would cost business extra in terms of security costs. The taxpayer would require to pay more for extra Garda, courts services, prison services. Our towns and cities would be less attractive to visit, hitting retail trade and tourism.
In some regard, there is a lot to be said for providing those (tiny minority of welfare recipients) with a free house, TV, and enough to buy booze and fags, so they can scratch their This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language all day and not bother anyone else.


----------



## odyssey06

Gerry Canning said:


> odyssey06.
> System is not pulling people away from work,
> If that were so ,surely more and more would (opt) for unemployment.



Of course it is, our unemployment rate is at least double what it should be!
Do you accept that there are jobs out there that currently unemployed Irish people will not take because they are in a better position financially if they do not work (not just considering dole, but also housing and medical card aspects)?

We have people coming here from halfway across the world who are working, people whose first language isn't english in some cases.
When we have perfectly capable people sitting idle at home all day because they can get more on benefits than working. The system has pulled them home out of the workforce when it should be pushing them into the workforce. It's not good for them in the long run (dependency culture) and not good for us as taxpayers to be 100% funding this lifestyle when it would make more sense to get that down to 50% or 30% and get them working.
The cohort of incapable people (those who genuinely are disabled from working, or those who no employer would want) is far smaller than the actual unemployment figures.

This is actually a very positive view of most unemployed people, not as scroungers, but as capable human beings who can be making a contribution.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> Perhaps, or perhaps they would resort to crime, shop lifting, drug dealing, mugging, burglaries...Such behaviour would cost business extra in terms of security costs. The taxpayer would require to pay more for extra Garda, courts services, prison services. Our towns and cities would be less attractive to visit, hitting retail trade and tourism.



We have plenty of those crimes already. The money saved on giving these people less dole could be diverted to the services you have mentioned.



TheBigShort said:


> In some regard, there is a lot to be said for providing those (tiny minority of welfare recipients) with a free house, TV, and enough to buy booze and fags, so they can scratch their This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language all day and not bother anyone else.



Next time you see a report of a 90 year old sleeping on a trolley in A&E be sure to remind yourself that it's okay that the scrounger around the corner gets better services from the state.


----------



## Gerry Canning

odyssey,
I don,t think its that simple,
If you live in Cork ,is it reasonable to have you move to Dublin for a job that means less than the dole ? Maybe that means wages are too low ?
A lot of those coming to us are coming from places were they are largely forced to move and anything is an improvement.I do not think they are a very good example of were we should be at ?
Firefly .
I agree that (leglifters ) should get a lot less.Though I am taken with THe Big Shorts comments.

It ain,t simple !


----------



## odyssey06

TheBigShort said:


> Perhaps, or perhaps they would resort to crime, shop lifting, drug dealing, mugging, burglaries...Such behaviour would cost business extra in terms of security costs. The taxpayer would require to pay more for extra Garda, courts services, prison services. Our towns and cities would be less attractive to visit, hitting retail trade and tourism.
> In some regard, there is a lot to be said for providing those (tiny minority of welfare recipients) with a free house, TV, and enough to buy booze and fags, so they can scratch their This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language all day and not bother anyone else.



Maybe the best place for this tiny minority is prison then, if they are so incapable of fending for themselves and likely to resort to crime at the slightest provocation? 
We don't seem to be dealing with them too well at the moment as it is 'out in society', likely they are the same cohort that buys drugs, dumps waste anywhere and everywhere, doesn't pay their bills...
Ask any business in Dublin 1 about its security costs, and impact of a certain 'underclass' on retail trade and tourism.

ps by tiny minority here I am not talking about everyone on the dole, or people on the dole caught in poverty trap - see my other comments for the distinction


----------



## odyssey06

Gerry Canning said:


> odyssey,
> I don,t think its that simple,
> If you live in Cork ,is it reasonable to have you move to Dublin for a job that means less than the dole ? Maybe that means wages are too low ?



That seems to suggest that the non-Irish are only working in places where unemployment was zero or next to zero for Irish citizens?
But there are non-Irish working all around the country.
But there are unemployed Irish citizens already in Dublin.
So sometimes it is that simple - and sometimes it isn't. Of course there are going to be some mis-matches, but at the moment, the primary factor is not geographic availability, its the financial equation.

So we need to change the financial equation. What can the Irish government do in a globalized world as an an EU state realistically do?
1. Increase minimum wage to get wages higher. Downside, a lot of the jobs will disappear as no longer economically viable, our competitiveness is hurt especially in relation to tourism.
2. Reduce benefits. Possible downsides of this discussed elsewhere in the thread. I don't think straight reductions would be politically feasible, but a benefits cap could be.
3. Maintain some benefits into work, or provide matching or topup payment to the minimum wage to a 'living' wage.
4. Provide a citizens payment to all citizens regardless of income level or work status.
5. Do nothing. Accept the current high levels of welfare expenditure and unemployment levels.
6. Insert brainstorm here...

I'm voting for (3), at the moment, though I would not object to (2) if done as a Uk style benefits cap.
I think (1) and (4) are options for some countries e.g. Switzerland, Norway but not Ireland.
If I thought (5) was the right answer, I wouldn't be on this thread.


----------



## Delboy

If the small minority were gainfully employed, they'd have less time available to engage in petty crime.

Also, through the inability of some to get a job and us having to import labour as mentioned above, there is a knock on impact across Society that we are all feeling. Increased accommodation costs (house prices,rent), accommodation shortages, school place shortages, increased demand on Health services and a whole other range of Welfare/Public Services etc etc


----------



## Firefly

Delboy said:


> If the small minority were gainfully employed, they'd have less time available to engage in petty crime.



Indeed - Idle hands and all that.


----------



## Purple

Delboy said:


> If the small minority were gainfully employed, they'd have less time available to engage in petty crime.


 ah come on, you can't say that the cohort we are talking about are all engaging in crime (other than welfare fraud).


----------



## TheBigShort

odyssey06 said:


> But this suggests that there is more than a tiny minority who *would *defraud the system if they could, rather than pull than own weight.
> Therefore, it is perfectly legitimate for the system to be constructed in such a way as to push people into work, whereas at the moment, it is pulling people away from it.



Of course more would defraud the system if the could. But that is not exclusive to welfare recipients...jeez, how much income tax would be defrauded if citizens knew that could get away without paying it?


Firefly said:


> We have plenty of those crimes already. The money saved on giving these people less dole could be diverted to the services you have mentioned.
> 
> 
> 
> Next time you see a report of a 90 year old sleeping on a trolley in A&E be sure to remind yourself that it's okay that the scrounger around the corner gets better services from the state.



I never said it was ok, my point was that it was probably better and cheaper for the taxpayer in the long run, to provide this welfare, than it would be to reduce it. 
Maybe im a pessimist, but I don't believe cutting welfare will 'push' people into work. We cut the welfare for U25's and as far as I know we still have a high disportionate number of young people unemployed.


----------



## Delboy

Purple said:


> ah come on, you can't say that the cohort we are talking about are all engaging in crime (other than welfare fraud).


Of course not, thats why I said 'small minority' !!!


----------



## TheBigShort

odyssey06 said:


> Maybe the best place for this tiny minority is prison then, if they are so incapable of fending for themselves and likely to resort to crime at the slightest provocation?
> We don't seem to be dealing with them too well at the moment as it is 'out in society', likely they are the same cohort that buys drugs, dumps waste anywhere and everywhere, doesn't pay their bills...
> Ask any business in Dublin 1 about its security costs, and impact of a certain 'underclass' on retail trade and tourism.
> 
> ps by tiny minority here I am not talking about everyone on the dole, or people on the dole caught in poverty trap - see my other comments for the distinction



How much would it cost to imprison people for an indefinite duration? How many prison officers, prisons, gardai, courts would have to be built in addition to the creaking public services already there.
Aside from the international revulsion to imprisoning people for 'not working', the idea is absurd and would cost more tax€€€ than what is already being spent.
BTw, criminality is prevelant across all sectors of society, its they way its dealt with is the problem.
This year hundreds of people will be brought before courts for not paying the TV licence at huge cost to the taxpayer.
Whereas white collar crime barely registers, this despite recent convictions in the banking sector for €7bn+ deception which contributed massively to thousands joining the dole que and welfare system, to which we are now discussing.
If we want to reduce tax bills and provide decent public services to those who genuinely need it, then we need a system that is uncorrupted and works for the interests of the citizen. It will be quicker, and more cost effective in the long run, to start at the top of society.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> ....my point was that it was probably better and cheaper for the taxpayer in the long run, to provide this welfare, than it would be to reduce it.



I disagree about it being better in the long run. In the long run, I would imagine children from such parents are more likely to continue lead a similar life and perpetuate the cycle.


----------



## Delboy

TheBigShort said:


> How much would it cost to imprison people for an indefinite duration? How many prison officers, prisons, gardai, courts would have to be built in addition to the creaking public services already there.


People who commit crime, especially those who do it habitually, should be locked up. We have a large (and expensive field) up in North Dublin sitting idle that was meant to be a prison.
Build it and they will come. Perhaps even privatise the running of it to get the costs down

To use cost as a reason not to lock up criminals is a whole new level of Liberalism! Keep this up and you'll have a regular Opinion piece in the Irish Times fairly soon


----------



## odyssey06

TheBigShort said:


> Aside from the international revulsion to imprisoning people for 'not working', the idea is absurd and would cost more tax€€€ than what is already being spent.



We're not imprisoning them for not working. We're imprisoning them for repeat offences. I'm fed up reading about someone with 92 previous convictions!
Hard to rack up that number unless you're on the dole or a former politician.
By not locking them up, we're displacing huge costs - that should be borne by the state - onto the rest of society in the form of burglar alarms, security staff, insurance premiums...
To be honest, I think the tiny minority who are criminally disposed are already at it, and you'll probably find that the same small number are responsible for a disproportionate number of crimes.
I don't really believe the argument that if we reduced welfare payments by 25% tomorrow, that we'd see a crime surge from currently law-abiding people. It takes more than that.
But, if I did believe it, my response would be more prisons and more police, because if they are that intractable a bunch, society really cannot deal with them 'in the open'.
And regardless of the level of welfare payments, if someone is a persistent repeat offender, they shouldn't be on the streets full stop.
If we divert 10% of welfare budget to justice budget, I think we as a society would be much better off overall. It would get people working who should be working, and people who should be in jail into jail.


----------



## TheBigShort

Delboy said:


> People who commit crime, especially those who do it habitually, should be locked up. We have a large (and expensive field) up in North Dublin sitting idle that was meant to be a prison.
> Build it and they will come. Perhaps even privatise the running of it to get the costs down
> 
> To use cost as a reason not to lock up criminals is a whole new level of Liberalism! Keep this up and you'll have a regular Opinion piece in the Irish Times fairly soon



What is the crime? You completely miss the point!
The point was made that cutting welfare would push This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language scratchers into going out looking for a job. My view is that it is more likely to push (This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language scratchers) into criminal activity. So you end up with a bigger public service budget and increased tax than if give them their welfare.


----------



## TheBigShort

odyssey06 said:


> We're not imprisoning them for not working. We're imprisoning them for repeat offences. I'm fed up reading about someone with 92 previous convictions!
> Hard to rack up that number unless you're on the dole or a former politician.
> By not locking them up, we're displacing huge costs - that should be borne by the state - onto the rest of society in the form of burglar alarms, security staff, insurance premiums...
> To be honest, I think the tiny minority who are criminally disposed are already at it, and you'll probably find that the same small number are responsible for a disproportionate number of crimes.
> I don't really believe the argument that if we reduced welfare payments by 25% tomorrow, that we'd see a crime surge from currently law-abiding people. It takes more than that.
> But, if I did believe it, my response would be more prisons and more police, because if they are that intractable a bunch, society really cannot deal with them 'in the open'.
> And regardless of the level of welfare payments, if someone is a persistent repeat offender, they shouldn't be on the streets full stop.
> If we divert 10% of welfare budget to justice budget, I think we as a society would be much better off overall. It would get people working who should be working, and people who should be in jail into jail.



"A crime surge by law abiding people"!? Thats an oxymoron if ever I heard one.
Cutting welfare will increase the numbers of offenders. Instead of solving the problem, you make it worse.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> I disagree about it being better in the long run. In the long run, I would imagine children from such parents are more likely to continue lead a similar life and perpetuate the cycle.



Whereas imprisoning people has smashed the cycle of poverty and led their children to lead law-abiding, career progressing lives?


----------



## Delboy

TheBigShort said:


> What is the crime? You completely miss the point!
> The point was made that cutting welfare would push This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language scratchers into going out looking for a job. My view is that it is more likely to push (This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language scratchers) into criminal activity. So you end up with a bigger public service budget and increased tax than if give them their welfare.


I missed no point. I'm talking about people committing crimes, as are you.
If they do that, lock them up.

So what if it increases the PS budget. Over the long term it'll work out cheaper if applied correctly i.e. no revolving doors/endless suspended sentences.


----------



## Gervan

odyssey06 said:


> 6. Insert brainstorm here...


Since unemployed people, by and large, want still to contribute to society, could we set up that the dole is conditional on some system of community work. People would have a reason to get up and go out to "work", instead of sitting around in their pjs feeling worthless. 
There could be a basic payment, seeing as not everyone would be capable of such effort, and top ups for hours "contributed" which would cover any travel costs etc, and be something to put on a cv, rather than having to put "sitting on couch for the past year".


----------



## odyssey06

TheBigShort said:


> "A crime surge by law abiding people"!? Thats an oxymoron if ever I heard one.
> Cutting welfare will increase the numbers of offenders. Instead of solving the problem, you make it worse.



I think it takes more than a cut in benefits to turn otherwise law-abiding citizens into criminals. We're not talking about cutting benefits to Les Miserables levels, where the alternative is stealing a loaf of bread or starving.

I think we have such a cohort in society, full stop, we have a problem. The only question is whether to try to control them in open society, or whether to remove them from society when they repeatedly transgress.

My take is that the best place for such individuals, if they exist, is prison. They aren't contributing anything positive to wider society as it is, and are likely contributing a whole lot of anti-social behaviour. In that cohort, there are also likely the repeat offenders in terms of clogging up A&E wards because of drink and drugs... and it's a whole lot easier to control access to those substances in prison than in a free society.


----------



## TheBigShort

Delboy said:


> I missed no point. I'm talking about people committing crimes, as are you.
> If they do that, lock them up.
> 
> So what if it increases the PS budget. Over the long term it'll work out cheaper if applied correctly i.e. no revolving doors/endless suspended sentences.



You are missing the point.
Johnny is a tosser, failed at school, never worked a day, has no social skills, is from a broken home.  Johnny smokes rollie tobacco, drinks 10 cans of Tuborg a day, eats fozen processed food and plays Xbox most of the day. He doesn't care, he collects his €188 a week off the taxpayer and gives two fingers.
But he hasnt committed a crime.
The Social call him up and say that they have a job interview for him as a factory worker. He turns up for the interview but is clearly so uninterested that the employer refuses to give him the job.
So what do we do about Johnny?
We can take his welfare off him, or even cut it? And its possible that Johnny turns over a new leaf, invests in a new suit, and sets off trying to build himself a career. 
Or, Johnny can decide rather than smoking rollies, he could sell some, make a few quid on the black market. Not only that, he sees an opportunity to sell other 'gear'. Its easy work and easy money, johnny doesnt care.
In the meantime, the State, having saved €5,000-€10,000 in welfare payments, pays that in Garda overtime to catch Johnny and his mates dealing. When they do catch Johnny, the States forks out €2,000 in free legal aid. When convicted, the State pays a further €10,000 for the week in prison. Johnny gets out and starts dealing again.

Of course, not everyone will act this way upon their welfare being cut, some people, perhaps graduates for example, might emigrate, reducing the talent pool in the country.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> Whereas imprisoning people has smashed the cycle of poverty and led their children to lead law-abiding, career progressing lives?



I didn't say anything about imprisoning people, but since you brought it up, committing a crime is a personal choice for which there should be repercussions dealt with through the courts based on the crime committed. 

My point is that by making going to work the only option for most people *, children of those who would have stayed at home would probably be more inclined to work when they are older. 

* excluding those mentally / physically impaired

Anyone who has lost their job should get higher dole payments on a sliding curve as they are more likely to go back to work.


----------



## TheBigShort

Se


Firefly said:


> I didn't say anything about imprisoning peopworking t since you brought it up, committing a crime is a personal choice for which there should be repercussions dealt with through the courts based on the crime committed.
> 
> My point is that by making going to work the only option for most people *, children of those who would have stayed at home would probably be more inclined to work when they are older.
> 
> * excluding those mentally / physically impaired
> 
> Anyone who has lost their job should get higher dole payments on a sliding curve as they are more likely to go back to work.



See my description of Johnny the waster above. Would you employ him? His parents were hard working when they left school, but a recession hit in the '80s and there was no work. Johnny s dad got depressed and turned to alcohol. Used to beat his wife up and Johnny too. Eventually he committed suicide himself leaving Johnny (14) and three sisters to be brought up by their mum. She couldnt go to work as she couldnt afford the childcare (what little of it back then) so she struggled on welfare but could never really motivate her kids, traumatised from all the beatings she got. There was no social services to help her as taxpayers were moaning about welfare payments to lone parents.

So what do we do about Johnny?


----------



## Gerard123

Give him opportunity to get job, some training, level of support payments in interim period to help with additional costs, etc. There are social services now. 

If he refuses all help and turns to crime what option is there to jailing? 

Not everyone who had tough up bringing turned into Johnny. Thankfully.


----------



## TheBigShort

Gerard123 said:


> Give him opportunity to get job, some training, level of support payments in interim period to help with additional costs, etc. There are social services now.
> 
> If he refuses all help and turns to crime what option is there to jailing?
> 
> Not everyone who had tough up bringing turned into Johnny. Thankfully.



You might want to read the earlier part about a job offer first.


----------



## Protocol

TheBigShort said:


> Johnny is a tosser, failed at school, never worked a day, has no social skills, is from a broken home.  Johnny smokes rollie tobacco, drinks 10 cans of Tuborg a day, eats fozen processed food and plays Xbox most of the day. He doesn't care, he collects his €188 a week off the taxpayer and gives two fingers.
> But he hasnt committed a crime.
> The Social call him up and say that they have a job interview for him as a factory worker. He turns up for the interview but is clearly so uninterested that the employer refuses to give him the job.
> So what do we do about Johnny?



We don't cut his welfare, but we should remove JSA from him, as he doesn't look for work.

So he moves off the unemployment list, and gets SWA instead.

Otherwise, the Live Register will overestimate the true amount of unemployed.


----------



## TheBigShort

Protocol said:


> We don't cut his welfare, but we should remove JSA from him, as he doesn't look for work.
> 
> So he moves off the unemployment list, and gets SWA instead.
> 
> Otherwise, the Live Register will overestimate the true amount of unemployed.



So how much will the taxpayer be better off? I mean, if we do what you propose then how much closer will we be towards dismantling the culture of welfare dependency? That is, after all, what this topic is about.


----------



## ppmeath

TheBigShort said:


> You are missing the point.
> Johnny is a tosser, failed at school, never worked a day, has no social skills, is from a broken home.  Johnny smokes rollie tobacco, drinks 10 cans of Tuborg a day, eats fozen processed food and plays Xbox most of the day. He doesn't care, he collects his €188 a week off the taxpayer and gives two fingers.
> But he hasnt committed a crime.
> *The Social call him up and say that they have a job interview for him as a factory worker. He turns up for the interview but is clearly so uninterested that the employer refuses to give him the job.
> So what do we do about Johnny?
> We can take his welfare off him, or even cut it? And its possible that Johnny turns over a new leaf, invests in a new suit, and sets off trying to build himself a career.
> Or, Johnny can decide rather than smoking rollies, he could sell some, make a few quid on the black market. Not only that, he sees an opportunity to sell other 'gear'. Its easy work and easy money, johnny doesnt care.*
> In the meantime, the State, having saved €5,000-€10,000 in welfare payments, pays that in Garda overtime to catch Johnny and his mates dealing. When they do catch Johnny, the States forks out €2,000 in free legal aid. When convicted, the State pays a further €10,000 for the week in prison. Johnny gets out and starts dealing again.
> 
> Of course, not everyone will act this way upon their welfare being cut, some people, perhaps graduates for example, might emigrate, reducing the talent pool in the country.



One condition of the dole is that you must be "genuinely" available for and seeking work. If Johnny is not then he knows that his dole will be cut - so that is Johnny's choice - not the "choice" that you are making for him.

If you think that a cut in the dole is going to entice Johnny into making a few quid illegally, then I can tell you that there is a high chance that Johnny is already doing this while in receipt of his full dole -  so he won't care about a cut in his dole anyway.

Johnny's choice is not work or crime, his choice his work, make a genuine effort to seek work, make a genuine effort at interviews or alternatively get educated - or suffer a reduction in his dole payment.

There is plenty of opportunity out there for Johnny - if he wants it - if he doesn't and he "chooses" crime then he chooses the consequences for that choice. That is what prison is, it is not a consequence of being unemployed, it is a consequence of being found guilty of criminal offences.

My view on Johnny is the complete opposite to yours - if Johnny repeatedly turns down jobs or deliberately sabotages interviews - then he is deliberately sabotaging his own opportunities to progress off social welfare. 

There will always be "Johnnies", but for every "Johnny", there are 100 Tommy's who did take the opportunities offered to them.

Johnny is going away no matter what, Johnny is always going to be a burden on the state - and no factory job or no dole is going to change that.


----------



## TheBigShort

You have altered the facts as presented. You have made a (prejudiced) assumption that he is probably involved in crime anyway. Johnny is not involved in crime. 
I have the view that cutting his welfare is more likely to push this type of individual into crime.
But more revealing in your comment is the part about the  100 Tommys who do take the opportunites. These people are genuinely looking for work and take it when presented yet, this topic is about damning these people as 'welfare dependents', when they fall on some hard times. 
Because if this topic is really just about squeezing the Johnnys then, the return to exchequer in doing so would be close to negligible as to not be worth talking about.

So what is it? Is this topic about 1 out 100 This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language scratchers, or about the 100 tommys too?


----------



## odyssey06

TheBigShort said:


> You have altered the facts as presented...
> So what is it? Is this topic about 1 out 100 This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language scratchers, or about the 100 tommys too?



Tommy isn't a fact. He's a hypothetical persona.
This topic is about the significant percentage - 16% to 25% that Brendan kicked this thread off with. That percentage contains the 'This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language scratchers' and the potential hard workers. We know that both types are in that percentage, *nobody *in the universe knows for sure what the split is between them, and there is no way in advance to establish what it is. It could be 1:99, 10:90, 50:50, or anything in between.
So it doesn't seem unreasonable to discuss carrot and stick approaches for *both *types i.e. we must consider the consequences and reactions of both to the proposed changes discussed.


----------



## odyssey06

TheBigShort said:


> These people are genuinely looking for work and take it when presented yet, this topic is about damning these people as 'welfare dependents', when they fall on some hard times.



You have not been reading the same thread I have been reading. The whole idea of this topic has been how to uplift people out of welfare dependency and back into the world of work where they have the possibility of bettering their position from year to year, and making a contribution with their talents, energy and putting their shoulder to the wheel when it comes to that.

It is the current system that damns them a life of welfare dependency on the state, locking them into a poverty trap for life from which it gets progressively harder to escape from. The longer someone is out of work, the harder it will be for them to return, or to be in demand by employers.

Please find me a single comment from me where I damn these people?
(By these people I mean the genuine cases, not the cases you think will turn to crime - we all seem to think they are past rescue, and the only difference is in how to manage them)


----------



## TheBigShort

Perhaps 'damning' is too harsh, and certainly not everyone holds the same views, but the 2nd comment in this thread had this to say,



Purple said:


> ... We all have a duty as citizens to work as hard as we can and contribute to society. If you choose to not work because you can have the same lifestyle on benefits then you are betraying those who came before you and those you are living off. Morally it is no different to deciding to live off the proceeds of crime.
> 
> 
> Our dependency culture is not just the result of our welfare rates, although that’s a very large part of it, but rather it is the result of the lack of ethical standards and social responsibility by those who choose to adopt a parasitical lifestyle. They are betraying their fellow citizens and those who fought and died for their freedom from oppression.



Kind of sets a tone early on.


----------



## odyssey06

TheBigShort said:


> Perhaps 'damning' is too harsh, and certainly not everyone holds the same views, but the 2nd comment in this thread had this to say... Kind of sets a tone early on.



And comment #4, from the original poster, challenged that 'tone' immediately. There are four broad tones I detect on this topic ... yours and gerryc at one side of the debate, neutral\interested observer (from the OP), that of the likes of firefly and myself, and the tone expressed in the comment you highlight.

ps no criticism is implied by naming (I'm not shaming!), and no disrespect intended to the other posters in the thread, just naming those who have nailed their colours to the mast so to speak


----------



## TheBigShort

odyssey06 said:


> And comment #4, from the original poster, challenged that 'tone' immediately. There are four broad tones I detect on this topic ... yours and gerryc at one side of the debate, neutral\observant (from the OP), that of the likes of firely and myself, and the tone expressed in the comment you highlight.
> ps no criticism is implied by naming (I'm not shaming!), and no disrespect intended to the other posters in the thread, just naming those who have nailed their colours to the mast so to speak



Perhaps we can move on to further the discussion. Perhaps 'welfare dependency' can be defined in some way? Perhaps ' a culture of welfare dependency' can be defined too?
My view of that would be something on the lines of,
"A significantly large proportion of welfare recipients who  repeatedly and/or purposely choose to avoid opportunities to that would provide financial independence".

My view is that the vast majority of welfare recipients would choose financial independence first over welfare dependency. But as such, their current economic and social circumstances, by virtue of low pay job, part time hours, high rent, disability, lone parent, lack of skills etc...puts them in a situation that makes it almost impossible to get by in this economy without welfare assistance.
I dont believe their is a culture of welfare dependency in broad terms but I would accept that in some socially deprived areas it does exist.
The broad answer is not to cut welfare, but to increase it for those who have employment history.


----------



## Delboy

TheBigShort said:


> The broad answer is not to cut welfare, but to increase it for those who have employment history.


So an increased Welfare bill overall...who pays?


----------



## ppmeath

TheBigShort said:


> You have altered the facts as presented. You have made a (prejudiced) assumption that he is probably involved in crime anyway. Johnny is not involved in crime



I did not alter any facts. 

Let me refer you back to the post that I responded to:



TheBigShort said:


> Johnny is a tosser, failed at school, never worked a day, has no social skills, is from a broken home. Johnny smokes rollie tobacco, drinks 10 cans of Tuborg a day, eats fozen processed food and plays Xbox most of the day. He doesn't care, he collects his €188 a week off the taxpayer and gives two fingers...........



There are no facts here. You have made a whole lot of assumptions about Johnny, including the assumption that Johnny is not involved in any crime - while at the same time assuming that he will sabotage any attempt made to employ him by the social.

You then seem to ask if we should take his welfare off him or cut it and then you make the assumption that he has two choices and two choices only when in fact, the offer of work was also a choice and Johnny decided that he didn't like that  - his two choices according to you are turn over a new leaf or  he can choose to turn to crime - you made that assumption - you then expanded on that assumption by laying out what you claim are the costs of Johnny's choice.

Your view of Johnny is that he is so reluctant to work and better himself and so reluctant to come off welfare, that if presented with the choice of taking a job in a factory and making more money - or taking the cut and turning to crime  - that he would turn to crime. 

My view is that there are less Johnny's and more Tommy's, in other words, I believe that if many people were presented with the correct support to return to education or to work, then they would. 

They wouldn't sabotage the attempts by the state to provide that support and risk a cut in their income and then turn to crime - I don't believe that for one second.

As I said, your Johnny, as you presented him, is heading to jail one way or the other.


----------



## TheBigShort

The original post stated that he hadnt committed a crime. Not as an assumption, but as a statement fact. That is the scenario as presented.
What would you do with Johnnys welfare?
If you were an employer, would you give him a job?


----------



## ppmeath

Let me refer again to your post:



TheBigShort said:


> Johnny is a tosser, failed at school, never worked a day, has no social skills, is from a broken home. Johnny smokes rollie tobacco, drinks 10 cans of Tuborg a day, eats fozen processed food and plays Xbox most of the day. He doesn't care, he collects his €188 a week off the taxpayer and gives two fingers.
> *But he hasnt committed a crime.*



Not at that point no.



TheBigShort said:


> So what do we do about Johnny?
> We can take his welfare off him, or even cut it? And its possible that Johnny turns over a new leaf, invests in a new suit, and sets off trying to build himself a career.
> *Or, Johnny can decide rather than smoking rollies, he could sell some, make a few quid on the black market. Not only that, he sees an opportunity to sell other 'gear'. Its easy work and easy money, johnny doesnt care*.



But if Johnny makes this choice above - then he most certainly has committed a crime. You believe that because he sabotaged an opportunity to earn more money, legally, in the full knowledge that what he was doing would result in a cut in his welfare, and on that payment being cut - that this will push him into crime. 

You then laid out the costs of those crimes:



TheBigShort said:


> In the meantime, the State, having saved €5,000-€10,000 in welfare payments, pays that in Garda overtime to catch Johnny and his mates dealing. When they do catch Johnny, the States forks out €2,000 in free legal aid. When convicted, the State pays a further €10,000 for the week in prison. Johnny gets out and starts dealing again.



You are asking if I would cut his welfare - well I would prefer to invest in Johnny, see him on a training course, or perhaps try and get him a starting position in a factory or something....

But if all those attempts failed then Johnny is the problem, because you can't help someone who chooses not to work and in making that choice, is choosing to live on welfare - which is not easy to do.

If Johnny can't live with a cut in welfare and has to turn to crime to subsidise it, then in all probability he couldn't  live on the full rate, and was subsidising it anyway - a job might interfere with that and a job will never pay the going rates for dealing drugs.

As a matter of interest (sorry if you answered already), would you give him a job, what would your solution be?


----------



## Gordon Gekko

This thread jumped the proverbial shark a long time ago and should be closed down.


----------



## TheBigShort

ppmeath said:


> Let me refer again to your post:
> 
> 
> 
> Not at that point no.
> 
> 
> 
> But if Johnny makes this choice above - then he most certainly has committed a crime. You believe that because he sabotaged an opportunity to earn more money, legally, in the full knowledge that what he was doing would result in a cut in his welfare, and on that payment being cut - that this will push him into crime.
> 
> You then laid out the costs of those crimes:
> 
> 
> 
> You are asking if I would cut his welfare - well I would prefer to invest in Johnny, see him on a training course, or perhaps try and get him a starting position in a factory or something....
> 
> But if all those attempts failed then Johnny is the problem, because you can't help someone who chooses not to work and in making that choice, is choosing to live on welfare - which is not easy to do.
> 
> If Johnny can't live with a cut in welfare and has to turn to crime to subsidise it, then in all probability he couldn't  live on the full rate, and was subsidising it anyway - a job might interfere with that and a job will never pay the going rates for dealing drugs.
> 
> As a matter of interest (sorry if you answered already), would you give him a job, what would your solution be?



Ok, you cant follow the point. If Johnny _makes _the choice to sell illegal tobacco that _would _be a crime - future conditional tense.

The fact that as of now (present tense) he hasnt committed a crime. This is definite. Whether he goes on to live a life of crime is not known.
My view, if his welfare is cut, coupled with his lack of opportunity, means, in my opinion, that he _is more likely to _choose a life crime, over a FAS training course. This of course is not definite, but in my view, given Johnnys circumstances, more probable.

If you still dont get it, then you are right and im wrong and you will move on from here.
Thanks.


----------



## ppmeath

TheBigShort said:


> My view, if his welfare is cut, coupled with his lack of opportunity, means, in my opinion, that he _is more likely to _choose a life crime, over a FAS training course. This of course is not definite, but in my view, given Johnnys circumstances, more probable.



 His circumstances are not "coupled" with a lack of opportunity, the factory job and the FAS course are opportunities, his circumstances are as a direct result of his failure to take up those opportunities.

If he is told  the consequences of turning them down - then he is creating his own circumstances.

I mean look at your description of Johnny again:

_"Johnny is a tosser, failed at school, never worked a day, has no social skills, is from a broken home. Johnny smokes rollie tobacco, drinks 10 cans of Tuborg a day, eats fozen processed food and plays Xbox most of the day. *He doesn't care, he collects his €188 a week* off the taxpayer and gives two fingers."_

And look at what Johnny does when he is presented with an opportunity for a job:

_"The Social call him up and say that they have a job interview for him as a factory worker. He turns up for the interview *but is clearly so uninterested *that the employer refuses to give him the job."_

And when presented with a FAS course - according to you - he is more like to choose a life of crime. 

Clearly we don't share the same view of what exactly an opportunity looks like - but to me, these are opportunities.

Johnny is the problem, not the lack of opportunities, which he was warned that should he not take, will lead to a reduction in his welfare payment.

If Johnny doesn't care and he has no interest in taking up the opportunities then he knows the consequences - his welfare will be cut.

If Johnny turns to crime then it is not because he had no opportunities or choices - he did.

And if you can't see that, then I'll bid you goodnight.

Thanks.


----------



## TheBigShort

ppmeath said:


> His circumstances are not "coupled" with a lack of opportunity, the factory job and the FAS course are opportunities, his circumstances are as a direct result of his failure to take up those opportunities.
> 
> If he is told  the consequences of turning them down - then he is creating his own circumstances.
> 
> I mean look at your description of Johnny again:
> 
> _"Johnny is a tosser, failed at school, never worked a day, has no social skills, is from a broken home. Johnny smokes rollie tobacco, drinks 10 cans of Tuborg a day, eats fozen processed food and plays Xbox most of the day. *He doesn't care, he collects his €188 a week* off the taxpayer and gives two fingers."_
> 
> And look at what Johnny does when he is presented with an opportunity for a job:
> 
> _"The Social call him up and say that they have a job interview for him as a factory worker. He turns up for the interview *but is clearly so uninterested *that the employer refuses to give him the job."_
> 
> And when presented with a FAS course - according to you - he is more like to choose a life of crime.
> 
> Clearly we don't share the same view of what exactly an opportunity looks like - but to me, these are opportunities.
> 
> Johnny is the problem, not the lack of opportunities, which he was warned that should he not take, will lead to a reduction in his welfare payment.
> 
> If Johnny doesn't care and he has no interest in taking up the opportunities then he knows the consequences - his welfare will be cut.
> 
> If Johnny turns to crime then it is not because he had no opportunities or choices - he did.
> 
> And if you can't see that, then I'll bid you goodnight.
> 
> Thanks.



No you are right, everyone always has a choice. 
But the factory job or the FAS course are subjective opportunities - that is, to you, me and most, it provides an opportunity to escape welfare dependency and provide financial independence.
To Johnny, who doesnt care, the €188 dole, is preferential to life as a factory worker or FAS trainee. 
So, an option is to cut his welfare, to 'motivate' him to take that factory job. 
But instead, not understanding Johnnys circumstances, outlook on life and background, johnny sticks the fingers up and (possibly) chooses a life a crime. Whether he chooses crime or not is a mute point. What matters for this thread is, by cutting his dole, has the State in anyway "dismantled the culture of welfare dependency"?
The answer is no, because of increased crime levels, additional resources are required for gardai, courts and prison services, which far outweigh the clawback on Johnnys cut welfare payment. 
In turn, taxes rise, enterprise is affected negatively, and more people sign on.
Alternatively, johnny accepts his welfare cut and carries on as before or, as I said, invests in a new suit in order to commence a new career, contributing to society in a positive manner ( but only if someone actually employees him).
The point is ultimately, the clawback on welfare cuts on the likes of Johnny would be miniscule relative to the extra costs of attributable to anti-social behaviour.


----------



## Gerard123

TheBigShort said:


> You might want to read the earlier part about a job offer first.



I did!  The question proceeding asked what to do about Johnny.  Perhaps read the post where the specific question was asked and then see my post. 

If Johnny refuses job, won't take help and turns to crime then I see little alternative to prison, sooner or later.  To take him out of normal society, avoid harm and also the need for society to have clear rules and send a message - society will help but there are consequences also from your own decisions and actions.  There may be well costs of prison being higher on an individual basis for Johnny vs welfare payments but if it stops 10 other Johnnys taking that route then money well spent to avoid even bigger problems.


----------



## Jim2007

TheBigShort said:


> he answer is no, because of increased crime levels, additional resources are required for gardai, courts and prison services, which far outweigh the clawback on Johnnys cut welfare payment.



This is an unacceptable proposition in any democracy.  We cannot have people flaunting the law and holding the country to ransom.  Regardless of the costs we must pay them, if Johnny chooses to break the law regardless of his motives he must face the full force of the laws.  There is no price on our democracy!


----------



## Gerry Canning

From the threads I think the agreement is that  (loafers)(tossers)(malingerers) should all be hit.

The only real disagreement seems to be on levelling out what can be construed  as gainful work V Dole and how we balance that.
I really don,t think that in the scheme of things we do too badly.
Its always easier to say, Stop this, Kill that etc.
Improvement needed but I know from my area , a fair few chanchers have been docked (their?) dole.
Naturallly you don,t hear them yowling , but you can still see other chancers stealing from you , so report them.


----------



## ppmeath

TheBigShort said:


> No you are right, everyone always has a choice.
> *But the factory job or the FAS course are subjective opportunities* - that is, to you, me and most, it provides an opportunity to escape welfare dependency and provide financial independence.



No, they are not. What you are basically saying is that the opportunities presented (and accepted) by the majority aren't acceptable to Johnny and if the majority view these as opportunities, to lift them out of social welfare dependency - then so should Johnny. 



TheBigShort said:


> To Johnny, who doesnt care, the €188 dole, is preferential to life as a factory worker or FAS trainee.



So he prefers to live on the dole rather than take the opportunities.



TheBigShort said:


> So, an option is to cut his welfare, to 'motivate' him to take that factory job.



No, the option open to Johnny is to take the opportunities or take the cut in welfare. The lure of earning more money by working should be the motivation to Johnny. 



TheBigShort said:


> But instead, not understanding Johnnys circumstances, outlook on life and background, johnny sticks the fingers up and (possibly) chooses a life a crime. Whether he chooses crime or not is a mute point*. *What matters for this thread is, by cutting his dole, has the State in anyway "dismantled the culture of welfare dependency"?



There is no instead. Johnny is on the dole and dependent on Social Welfare, the solution is to offer Johnny a job or a training course to try and lift Johnny away from a life of SW dependency - Johnny's "circumstances" are what they are and they can only be *bettered and improved *with either a job or training for a job. These things are available to people like Johnny, because of their circumstances. 

Cutting his dole is the last resort and will onl;y be considered because of Johnny's refusal to take up all the opportunities presented to him - it is not used as a way to  "dismantle the culture of welfare dependency" -  the jobs and the training courses are there to do try and do that.

And if him turning to crime is a mute point:



TheBigShort said:


> In turn, taxes rise, enterprise is affected negatively, and more people sign on.
> Alternatively, johnny accepts his welfare cut and carries on as before or, as I said, invests in a new suit in order to commence a new career, contributing to society in a positive manner ( but only if someone actually employees him).
> *The point is ultimately, the clawback on welfare cuts on the likes of Johnny would be miniscule relative to the extra costs of attributable to anti-social behaviour.*



Then why do you keep bringing it up by using this as a reason not to cut his welfare?


----------



## Purple

I find it strange that this thread is now about a hypothetical scenario in which a fictional character may or may not engage.
I don't accept that anyone should be paid an income by the state and supported because otherwise they would become a criminal. That's blackmail. The fact that it may be cheaper isn't the point; we are a society, not just an economy. 
Back on topic; It is not socially desirable that people should be trapped in welfare dependency. The objective of the system should be to raise people up, not keep them down. When staying on welfare is a viable option many people will take that option. 
I know people who say "why should I work for €320 a week when I can get €188 a week and stay at home". Those people are parasites as they don't see they have an ethical duty to not live off their neighbours. The argument that we should keep paying them because otherwise they'll steal from the rest of us is cowardly and irresponsible.


----------



## ppmeath

Purple said:


> I know people who say "why should I work for €320 a week when I can get €188 a week and stay at home



I have never understood that logic and if you expand on it these same people then decry the "pitiful" amount of Social Welfare that the "have" to try and live on.


----------



## gar32

I am sure the Johnny type is not reading this tread but out with friends trying to have some fun while drinking can's. Maybe trying to get a few bob together to buy 10 yokes and sell them on so he can have a night out or buy some hash & stay in watching some TV. When you grow up with nothing and you know no better it's hard to have to will to go out and get a job. Yes he know a few lads that did it. They got out of poverty and made enough to buy a car and a house. I grow up in Dublin city center in the 80's. Times where different for sure but most people I was in school with left before they where 14 years old. If you are not educated and you live in a place where not working is normal then people normallly go with the flow. It's better to try make sure the kids of today have an education and a will to do something other then survive the week so you can have a night out or 2 at the weekend.


----------



## TheBigShort

Gerard123 said:


> I did!  The question proceeding asked what to do about Johnny.  Perhaps read the post where the specific question was asked and then see my post.
> 
> If Johnny refuses job, won't take help and turns to crime then I see little alternative to prison, sooner or later.  To take him out of normal society, avoid harm and also the need for society to have clear rules and send a message .



Why not just leave him with his dole, without cutting it? He is not involved in crime and other than the €188 a week, it doesn't cost the State very much.
Coupled with that, he does not lead a very desirable lifestyle, does he? 
I mean, I don't think the country is in any danger of losing all our hard-working (including those actively looking for work) smart, intelligent people, to a lifestyle of This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language-scratcher anytime soon? Do you?

So let's stop pretending that because the State welfare bill is high, that is has anything to do with 'culture of welfare dependency' and that it has to be dismantled.

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.
And yet, through NAMA and the financial services sector we continue to play footsie with speculators and bankers. There is more than enough scope to increase taxes on the financial sector without unduly hampering business that could be used for capital investment and creating thousands of real jobs.
So much so, that I hear banks are charging large deposit holders interest on their deposits now! Not only in Ireland but, Germany, Japan, Switzerland too.
Those charges should be taxed at 100%


----------



## ppmeath

TheBigShort said:


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



You want a young and healthy young man to be allowed to remain on the dole, drinking 10 cans a day, puffing his head off and eat crap to be allowed to continue with that existence?

It's not the €188, it's when Johnny gets ill because of the lifestyle he lived, which was funded by the state and he has to use the medical card that he already has, to avail of the health service that he will need because of his lifestyle -  that needs to be paid for.

It's not the €188, it's when Johnny wants to move out, he'll need somewhere to live and that needs to be paid for.

It's not the €188, it's when Johnny meets a girl and they have children and they need a bigger place and a medical card each and back to school allowance and all the other allowances, that needs to be paid for.

It's not the €188.

Johnny is not Peter Pan.



TheBigShort said:


> So let's stop pretending that because the State welfare bill is high, that is has anything to do with 'culture of welfare dependency' and that it has to be dismantled.



We have a culture of dependency and a sense of entitlement. We need to stop pretending that we don't.


----------



## TheBigShort

ppmeath said:


> You want a young and healthy young man to be allowed to remain on the dole, drinking 10 cans a day, puffing his head off and eat crap to be allowed to continue with that existence?



No, that is not what I said. What I am saying is that cutting his welfare will not motivate him into getting a job (or motivate an employer to employ him ) anymore him than it will push him into criminality.

We do not have a culture of dependency in a broad sense. For sure, some socially and economically deprived areas do have, but in the main there is no such culture.

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.


----------



## ppmeath

TheBigShort said:


> No, that is not what I said. What I am saying is that cutting his welfare will not motivate him into getting a job (or motivate an employer to employ him ) anymore him than it will push him into criminality.



We seem to be going around in circles. But that is exactly what you are saying. Also, you seem to have ignored the part where I showed you, that contrary to your claim that it "won't cost the state much", it absolutely will.

I have to be honest, but your stance appears to be, keep people down and trapped on SW. If they don't want to work - just keep paying them the very same amount of money that someone who has worked for 20 years is entitled to.



TheBigShort said:


> We do not have a culture of dependency in a broad sense. For sure, some socially and economically deprived areas do have, but in the main there is no such culture.



We absolutely do, and if you read this mornings Indo you will see the extent of that culture exposed by a certain anti homeless campaigner.




TheBigShort said:


> 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.



But we're not talking about this family, in this case the system is doing exactly what it is designed to do, it is supporting people who are trying to stay off welfare. This isn't a subsidy to the employer, we have a minimum wage law in this country.

As I said, we seem to be going around in circles and now you're bringing in another example, which only shows that the state is supporting families, not the culture of dependency that actually exists.


----------



## TheBigShort

This topic "We must dismantle our culture of welfare dependency", followed with a (misinterpretated) report that 77% of households were funding the other 23%. Implying that the 23% households were part of culture generally dependent on welfare.

My argument is that this is a bogus assertion. 
Firstly, most people in receipt of welfare would prefer their own financial independence over welfare dependence any day of the week. This is evident in the falling unemployment figure. Before someone can take a job, there needs to be a job offer.
During the boom, unemployment reached 4%, considered by a lot of economists as '_full employment' _rate.
So there is evidence there, that financial independence is the prevailing culture in our society.

Secondly, the only solution I have seen proposed to this alleged welfare culture is to cut welfare. This will do nothing but drive thousands of families (most of whom are already actively seeking a way out of welfare) further into poverty. In such circumstances, the small portion of welfare recipients who cant be bothered to work, or look for work, may seek to find other ways to boost their own incomes. Unfortunately it wont be at a FAS course or some minimum wage job.
This in turn will require extra security costs for business, extra gardai, extra courts and prison services.


----------



## ppmeath

TheBigShort said:


> Firstly, most people in receipt of welfare would prefer their own financial independence over welfare dependence any day of the week. This is evident in the falling unemployment figure. Before someone can take a job, there needs to be a job offer.
> During the boom, unemployment reached 4%, considered by a lot of economists as '_full employment' _rate.
> So there is evidence there, that financial independence is the prevailing culture in our society.



Absolutely agree but where we disagree, in my opinion, is when you then say:



TheBigShort said:


> Secondly, *the only solution I have seen proposed to this alleged welfare culture* is to cut welfare. This will do nothing but drive thousands of families (most of whom are already actively seeking a way out of welfare) further into poverty. In such circumstances, the small portion of welfare recipients who cant be bothered to work, or look for work, may seek to find other ways to boost their own incomes. Unfortunately it wont be at a FAS course or some minimum wage job.



I disagree - the solutions being proposed are to get people working or into training. The solutions already in place, that you have referred to are government supports, such as FIS, to enable families to come off welfare dependency.

The threat of cuts in welfare payments are a consequence of the refusal of a "minority" of people (because you agreed that most people would prefer their own financial independence over welfare dependence) to accept offers of jobs and training course because, unlike the majoiryt, they would prefer to stay on the dole, rather then take a job or a training course.

I disagree then, when you say that this is an automatic consequence:



TheBigShort said:


> This in turn will require extra security costs for business, extra gardai, extra courts and prison services.



They are the consequences of welfare cuts imposed on a minority of people for refusing to take the opportunities presented to them.


----------



## TheBigShort

ppmeath said:


> We seem to be going around in circles. But that is exactly what you are saying. Also, you seem to have ignored the part where I showed you, that contrary to your claim that it "won't cost the state much", it absolutely will.
> 
> I have to be honest, but your stance appears to be, keep people down and trapped on SW. If they don't want to work - just keep paying them the very same amount of money that someone who has worked for 20 years is entitled to.
> 
> 
> 
> We absolutely do, and if you read this mornings Indo you will see the extent of that culture exposed by a certain anti homeless campaigner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But we're not talking about this family, in this case the system is doing exactly what it is designed to do, it is supporting people who are trying to stay off welfare. This isn't a subsidy to the employer, we have a minimum wage law in this country.
> 
> As I said, we seem to be going around in circles and now you're bringing in another example, which only shows that the state is supporting families, not the culture of dependency that actually exists.



You are assuming he will become ill and be reliant on a medical card at huge cost to the State. Alternatively, given his lifestyle, he will probably be dead before he is sixty, with a sudden heart attack?

As for my stance, it is completely opposite to keeping people down and trapped on welfare. A common point in this topic is that those on welfare are part of culture and that the only solution is to cut welfare. This will act as some motivating force! It will not.

The anti-homeless campainer is involved in a campaign to provide secure of tenure for residents. Her refusal, quite rightly, was based on the fact that accommodation offered by HAP is not secure, and can be withdrawn by a landlord, after 12 months putting the individual back to square one. You may have noticed that she had a school going daughter. So not only is secure accommodation an issue, but school placement is another.
How many times should a person have to move home? How many schools should a child attend?


----------



## Jim2007

TheBigShort said:


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



Why should someone expect the support of the community without putting something back???  I can tell you if one is on welfare benefits here (Switzerland) one will have a fully working day a head of them every working day - going to the shops for people who can't go themselves, doing gardening task for old people, digging the 
latrines for local events, working in animal shelters etc...



TheBigShort said:


> There is more than enough scope to increase taxes on the financial sector without unduly hampering business that could be used for capital investment and creating thousands of real jobs.



No there is not!  Take a look at the current T1 ratios and you will find that the are just about acceptable and the new requirements under Basel III/IV means that they will need to build up considerable retrained profits or further government financing if they are to continue to remain solvent.




TheBigShort said:


> So much so, that I hear banks are charging large deposit holders interest on their deposits now! Not only in Ireland but, Germany, Japan, Switzerland too.
> Those charges should be taxed at 100%



The whole point of such charges is to discourage deposits because the banks are not able to generate a return on such deposits, not to make a profit out of the charges.

Your whole idea that we should happily allow people to live of the community without making a contribution is unacceptable.


----------



## TheBigShort

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.


----------



## ppmeath

TheBigShort said:


> You are assuming he will become ill and be reliant on a medical card at huge cost to the State. Alternatively, given his lifestyle, he will probably be dead before he is sixty, with a sudden heart attack?



Really?



TheBigShort said:


> As for my stance, *it is completely opposite to keeping people down and trapped on welfare. *A common point in this topic is that those on welfare are part of culture and that the only solution is to cut welfare. This will act as some motivating force! It will not.



Just Johnny so and others like him? 



TheBigShort said:


> The anti-homeless campainer is involved in a campaign to provide secure of tenure for residents. Her refusal, quite rightly, was based on the fact that accommodation offered by HAP is not secure, and can be withdrawn by a landlord, after 12 months putting the individual back to square one. You may have noticed that she had a school going daughter. So not only is secure accommodation an issue, but school placement is another.
> How many times should a person have to move home? How many schools should a child attend?



Indeed, wanting a "house for life" provided by the state in your exact chosen location is not an example of our culture of dependency, definitely not.


----------



## TheBigShort

Jim2007 said:


> Why should someone expect the support of the community without putting something back???  I can tell you if one is on welfare benefits here (Switzerland) one will have a fully working day a head of them every working day - going to the shops for people who can't go themselves, doing gardening task for old people, digging the
> latrines for local events, working in animal shelters etc...
> 
> 
> 
> No there is not!  Take a look at the current T1 ratios and you will find that the are just about acceptable and the new requirements under Basel III/IV means that they will need to build up considerable retrained profits or further government financing if they are to continue to remain solvent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The whole point of such charges is to discourage deposits because the banks are not able to generate a return on such deposits, not to make a profit out of the charges.
> 
> Your whole idea that we should happily allow people to live of the community without making a contribution is unacceptable.



Jim, you are right. Nobody should expect supports from the State where they are capable of providing for themselves. My point is that of all the welfare recipients out there, it is only a tiny minority (This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language scratchers) who flaunt the system so blatantly. Most welfare recipients are in genuine need, they are actively looking for work, and given the opportunity to provide financial independence for themselves over welfare dependency they would glady take it.
Those This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language scratchers, in my view, would more likely choose a criminal lifestyle first, rather than a FAS course or minimum wage job, if you cut their welfare.
In other words, its cheaper to provide a house, welfare, 52" TV, than it is to employ extra gardai, courts and prison services.
The way some people go on here, its as if they are jealous of their lifestyles. That they would rather live in a council estate, with wild horses, and bonfires, joyriding, at the weekend than where they live now.


----------



## ppmeath

Again in the other part of your post, you are agreeing with almost everyone. 

However, this is your solution:



TheBigShort said:


> In other words, its cheaper to provide a house, welfare, 52" TV, than it is to employ extra gardai, courts and prison services.
> The way some people go on here, its as if they are jealous of their lifestyles. That they would rather live in a council estate, with wild horses, and bonfires, joyriding, at the weekend than where they live now.



Can you not see the gaping flaw in your logic - you want to reward those who sit around doing nothing with a house, welfare and a 52" TV, you are saying that this will keep them out of crime.

Nobody is jealous of them, we don't want their lifestyles - why should we pay for it?


----------



## Jim2007

TheBigShort said:


> This will act as some motivating force! It will not.



Why should we actually care what they do? Seriously, if someone has been given benefits while seeking work, training opportunities, welfare payments in exchange for community service etc... and instead they decide to try and sponge of the community, why should we be bothered about their decision???? 



TheBigShort said:


> The anti-homeless campainer is involved in a campaign to provide secure of tenure for residents. Her refusal, quite rightly, was based on the fact that accommodation offered by HAP is not secure, and can be withdrawn by a landlord, after 12 months putting the individual back to square one.



Temporary accommodation should be exactly that, it is there to help one get over a difficult situation not as an alternative to addressing one's situation.  Now such accommodation might be needed for a few weeks to a few years and that is OK because it often takes time to work through a situation.



TheBigShort said:


> You may have noticed that she had a school going daughter. So not only is secure accommodation an issue, but school placement is another.
> How many times should a person have to move home? How many schools should a child attend?



So how is this any different to any other family living in rented accommodation, struggling with mortgage payments, facing the prospects of repossession???

Quite frankly your since of entitlement is staggering!


----------



## TheBigShort

ppmeath said:


> Again in the other part of your post, you are agreeing with almost everyone.
> 
> However, this is your solution:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you not see the gaping flaw in your logic - you want to reward those who sit around doing nothing with a house, welfare and a 52" TV, you are saying that this will keep them out of crime.
> 
> Nobody is jealous of them, we don't want their lifestyles - why should we pay for it?



You have low expectations if somehow a 52" TV is considered a 'reward'. But I have offered my solution, or rather preferred option to welfare cuts, but I dont see alternatives being proposed other than cutting welfare. 
I have argued why I think that is a bad idea, perhaps others will show how it would be a good idea?


----------



## Jim2007

TheBigShort said:


> In other words, its cheaper to provide a house, welfare, 52" TV, than it is to employ extra gardai, courts and prison services.



We don't want to live in a community where we must pay people not to be criminals, where community projects go undone because taxes have to be diverted to this lark.  It cuts the heart out of the community.



TheBigShort said:


> The way some people go on here, its as if they are jealous of their lifestyles.



And I would say it is a since of indignation that some people expect the community to finance their lifestyle without making an contribution to society.


----------



## TheBigShort

Jim2007. There is a small chohort of people in this State that live off a culture of welfare dependency. They will not work, have no interest in working. 
If you take away their welfare, they will find other means (other than working) to finance their lifestyles. So even though the State will save on welfare payments (what this thread is about) expect your taxes to rise anyway due to the costs of hiring more gardai, more court and prison servies. Expect your house insurance to rise due to burglaries. Expect business costs to rise for added security etc...etc..

This is nothing compared to the 23% implied at the start of this thread. Most of whom are actively seeking to work, train, etc in order to better themselves.

For sure, some play the system and exploit it, but in the round the cost is miniscule compared to the costs offered by proposals here.


----------



## TheBigShort

Jim2007 said:


> We don't want to live in a community where we must pay people not to be criminals, where community projects go undone because taxes have to be diverted to this lark.  It cuts the heart out of the community.
> 
> 
> 
> And I would say it is a since of indignation that some people expect the community to finance their lifestyle without making an contribution to society.



So what do you propose?


----------



## ppmeath

TheBigShort said:


> You have low expectations if somehow a 52" TV is considered a 'reward'. But I have offered my solution, or rather preferred option to welfare cuts, but I dont see alternatives being proposed other than cutting welfare.
> I have argued why I think that is a bad idea, perhaps others will show how it would be a good idea?



Sorry, let me please clarify what I said because you seem to have a habit of responding to things that I didn't say.

You stated:

"In other words, its cheaper to provide a house, welfare, 52" TV, than it is to employ extra gardai, courts and prison services."

to which I responded:

"You want to reward those who sit around doing nothing with a house, welfare and a 52" TV, you are saying that this will keep them out of crime

If you think that my "expectations" are low, when I view a house, welfare and a 52 " TV as "rewards", then by the same token I would have to say that your "expectations" and your sense of entitlement is off the chart.

I think we've gone around this enough times. Have a nice afternoon.


----------



## Jim2007

TheBigShort said:


> You have low expectations if somehow a 52" TV is considered a 'reward'. But I have offered my solution, or rather preferred option to welfare cuts, but I dont see alternatives being proposed other than cutting welfare.
> I have argued why I think that is a bad idea, perhaps others will show how it would be a good idea?



Well I can tell you what we do here:

Once off unemployment benefits, which is usually 400 working days, you have zero entitlements.  Once you have consumed all your resources, including flogging the 52" TV on eBay you can apply to the community welfare officer who will decide what you need to have in order to live in that community as there are no automatic entitlements.  If you are a young person who can't move back to live with parents, then you will be allocated a place in a dorm or if it is family a set of rooms to replace your rented accommodation.  If say your daughter's class is going on a school field trip then the community will pay for this, you'll get food vouchers, cloths vouchers etc... but very little cash.  In return you will be expected to work for the community and to pay them back once you have recovered your situation.  A member of the community, usually a neighbour will be appointed to supervise you during the period.  Their job is to make representations to the community on your behalf when you need something - like for instance your car needs to be repaired, that is assuming the community has agreed that you need a car in the first place.

Going on social support is something very few people do over here and when they do the are highly motivated to get off it ASAP.  Very often the solution is to move to somewhere else and find a job.  In the case of unskilled workers that often turns out to be a farm labour or maintenance work in the mountains.


----------



## TheBigShort

Can you tell where 'here' is?


----------



## Jim2007

TheBigShort said:


> So what do you propose?



If someone does not what to be part of the community that is fine, it's their choice.  If those people then decide to be come criminals they should expect to fee the full force of the law and if that means we have to pay a bit more, then fine, it is more healthy for the community as  a whole in the long run.


----------



## Jim2007

TheBigShort said:


> Can you tell where 'here' is?



Check my profile - Switzerland.


----------



## TheBigShort

Im a bit puzzled I have to say. How much does it cost the Swiss taxpayer to supply a 'set of rooms' to a family, along with my food and clothes vouchers, on a weekly basis.
My daughter takes piano lessons currently at €40 a pop, would that be covered also?
What would happen if your community decided you dont need a car, or that they wont pay for repairs? What do you do then?

Some aspects sound reasonable but I dont see how it would end 'welfare dependency' if it was a case that someone wasnt bothered to work.
For those who are actively seeking work (like the vast majority of welfare dependants here) then it sounds like they would be provided with their social needs, which no doubt cost a bit. So I dont really get the point.

A lot of people are on social supports here but they are motivated to get off it. Its easy to say, go get a job, but in order to work, there has to be a job offer.

Id like to know the cost of the Swiss welfare schemes, including clothes and food vouchours, relative to Irish welfare payments.


----------



## TheBigShort

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/poverty_fight-over-benefits-and-living-on-little-money/37977838

Sounds like headache in Switzerland. Due to variance in approach by each canton, trying to measure welfare assistance is not easy.

For instance, in this article, the lady lives in a 2 bed flat with $1,120 a month. I don't know if she gets food and clothing vouchers on top of that, or car repairs too?

Strangely, one of contributors to the article reckons Switzerlands welfare system contrbutes to a 'free loader' system and 'puts too much strain on the taxpayer'.

And there was me thinking you had a proposal that dismantled such a welfare culture!


----------



## TheBigShort

ppmeath said:


> Sorry, let me please clarify what I said because you seem to have a habit of responding to things that I didn't say.
> 
> You stated:
> 
> "In other words, its cheaper to provide a house, welfare, 52" TV, than it is to employ extra gardai, courts and prison services."
> 
> to which I responded:
> 
> "You want to reward those who sit around doing nothing with a house, welfare and a 52" TV, you are saying that this will keep them out of crime
> 
> If you think that my "expectations" are low, when I view a house, welfare and a 52 " TV as "rewards", then by the same token I would have to say that your "expectations" and your sense of entitlement is off the chart.
> 
> I think we've gone around this enough times. Have a nice afternoon.



I dont want to reward anyone for not contributing when they have the ability to do so. But in the real world, for a multitude of variable reasons, some people choose that lifestyle.
In the absence of any concrete proposal to get them change their ways, and cutting their welfare is a dumb costly proposal for reasons I have outlined, then paying their welfare is the best of a bad lot.

This, taking into account that the vast majority of welfare recipients would choose financial independence over welfare dependency, puts lie to the title of this thread and its underlying intentions.


----------



## TheBigShort

Jim2007 said:


> Check my profile - Switzerland.



[broken link removed]

Switzerland - 26% of gdp on welfare
Ireland - 14%


----------



## ppmeath

Jim2007 said:


> Well I can tell you what we do here:
> 
> Once off unemployment benefits, which is usually 400 working days, you have zero entitlements.  Once you have consumed all your resources, including flogging the 52" TV on eBay you can apply to the community welfare officer who will decide what you need to have in order to live in that community as there are no automatic entitlements.  If you are a young person who can't move back to live with parents, then you will be allocated a place in a dorm or if it is family a set of rooms to replace your rented accommodation.  If say your daughter's class is going on a school field trip then the community will pay for this, you'll get food vouchers, cloths vouchers etc... but very little cash.  In return you will be expected to work for the community and to pay them back once you have recovered your situation.  A member of the community, usually a neighbour will be appointed to supervise you during the period.  Their job is to make representations to the community on your behalf when you need something - like for instance your car needs to be repaired, that is assuming the community has agreed that you need a car in the first place.
> 
> *Going on social support is something very few people do over here and when they do the are highly motivated to get off it ASAP*.  Very often the solution is to move to somewhere else and find a job.  In the case of unskilled workers that often turns out to be a farm labour or maintenance work in the mountains.




Which is the type of system that we want here. Prior to the welfare cuts to under 26 years olds, I could never quite grasp the logic of handing an 18 year old €188 per week. Absolutely crazy and the best thing that could be done was cutting that.

Although I still think that €100 euro per week is way too much to give to someone who has never worked, who still lives at home and when you think that his parent received €140 a month, one would imagine that one way to tackle this would be to extend what is "child" benefit to a "lazy teenager" benefit, payable to the parent for a defined period, stopping if the teen hasn't either found a job or gone to college, and replacing it with a training or college payment if they have.

Incentive for the teen to earn or learn and an incentive for the parent to guide the teen to take up something, rather then sitting at home and doing nothing.


----------



## TheBigShort

ppmeath said:


> Which is the type of system that we want here. Prior to the welfare cuts to under 26 years olds, I could never quite grasp the logic of handing an 18 year old €188 per week. Absolutely crazy and the best thing that could be done was cutting that.
> 
> Although I still think that €100 euro per week is way too much to give to someone who has never worked, who still lives at home and when you think that his parent received €140 a month, one would imagine that one way to tackle this would be to extend what is "child" benefit to a "lazy teenager" benefit, payable to the parent for a defined period, stopping if the teen hasn't either found a job or gone to college, and replacing it with a training or college payment if they have.
> 
> Incentive for the teen to earn or learn and an incentive for the parent to guide the teen to take up something, rather then sitting at home and doing nothing.



Except child benefit stops at the age of 18, so the parent isnt in receipt of the €140 anymore. Perhaps it is this misunderstanding of how the welfare system works that has people believing in the headline tripe.
Also, my understanding is that participation rates of school leavers to third level education or equivalent are quite high in this country. Which backs up my view that most people are prepared and willing to do something for themselves. Which undermines the deliberately misinformed and disingenuous title of this topic.


----------



## ppmeath

TheBigShort said:


> Except child benefit stops at the age of 18, so the parent isnt in receipt of the €140 anymore. Perhaps it is this misunderstanding of how the welfare system works that has people believing in the headline tripe.



You really should try to read what I wrote, clearly you misunderstood, I said that when you consider that the parent received €140 per month up to the time the "child" reached 18, and on doing so the "adult" who is still living at home used to be entitled to (means tested of course) €188 a week, now reduced to €100 - the point still stands.

The parent's income has reduced by €140 and the "lazy teen" is being handed €100 a week - for nothing. 



TheBigShort said:


> Also, my understanding is that participation rates of school leavers to third level education or equivalent are quite high in this country. Which backs up my view that most people are prepared and willing to do something for themselves.



http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/some-99-of-dublin-6-students-go-on-to-third-level-1.1901885

"Provisional figures from the [broken link removed] (HEA) show that only 15 per cent of young people from Dublin 17 – covering [broken link removed] and[broken link removed] – go on to third level.

And only 16 per cent of those in Dublin 10 – encompassing [broken link removed] and[broken link removed] – do likewise.

This compares to 99 per cent of school leavers in Dublin 6, an area that includes Ranelagh and Rathmines, and 84 per cent in Dublin 4."


----------



## TheBigShort

ppmeath said:


> You really should try to read what I wrote, clearly you misunderstood, I said that when you consider that the parent received €140 per month up to the time the "child" reached 18, and on doing so the "adult" who is still living at home used to be entitled to (means tested of course) €188 a week, now reduced to €100 - the point still stands.
> 
> The parent's income has reduced by €140 and the "lazy teen" is being handed €100 a week - for nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/some-99-of-dublin-6-students-go-on-to-third-level-1.1901885
> 
> "Provisional figures from the [broken link removed] (HEA) show that only 15 per cent of young people from Dublin 17 – covering [broken link removed] and[broken link removed] – go on to third level.
> 
> And only 16 per cent of those in Dublin 10 – encompassing [broken link removed] and[broken link removed] – do likewise.
> 
> This compares to 99 per cent of school leavers in Dublin 6, an area that includes Ranelagh and Rathmines, and 84 per cent in Dublin 4."



Apologies, my mistake re, child benefit. 
Im not really sure what your point is in identifying certains areas of Dublin and third level participation rates in those areas?


----------



## ppmeath

*sigh*.



TheBigShort said:


> Also, my understanding is that participation rates of school leavers to third level education or equivalent are quite high in this country. Which backs up my view that most people are prepared and willing to do something for themselves. Which undermines the deliberately misinformed and disingenuous title of this topic.



That is the point.


----------



## TheBigShort

ppmeath said:


> *sigh*.
> 
> 
> 
> That is the point.



So some parts of Dublin are high, some parts are not so high, for third level education.

My point was that it was my understanding that school leaver participation in third level education _or equivalent _( FAS courses and apprenticeships or employment) was high in this country (not in randomly selected areas).

So again....what point are you trying to make?


----------



## Dagny Juel

Interesting debate. The only way to address the current situation is to cut income tax and thus incentivise work and to cut benefits. I completely agree that there is a culture of entitlement in Ireland. In the US, someone who has done well for themselves is generally respected and it is something that is viewed by the society as commendable - the american self-made man. However, in Ireland if someone has done well, they are automatically viewed as morally suspect and it is perceived as a negative but someone who is struggling deserves everyone's respect because they got 'screwed' by the system. People are generally very resilient and resourceful, look at stories of how people survived wars and other disasters. However, teach them that they are entitled to everything from the State without any effort on their part and suddenly they become completely unable to survive independently. 

Every time there is a new budget announced, I'm always raging when I hear comments along the lines of 'they hit the poor hardest while rich haven't been affected etc.' referring to welfare cuts. People don't seem to realise that there is a massive difference between reducing income tax and thus taking away less money that people have earned themselves and reducing free handouts. I always think of this anecdote, which I think is spot on in terms of the current situation in Ireland: 

_Ten guys went to a pub to have a couple of pints. Their bill was €100. They were debating how to split it, so that it was as fair as possible. After some discussion they decided to approach it in the same manner that income taxation is calculated. Four of the poorest men did not pay anything. The fifth guy paid €1, the sixth €3, the seventh €7, the eight €12, the ninth €18 and the last, richest guy paid €59. 

They were coming to the pub on a regular basis and each time their bill was €100, which they always settled in the same manner based on the above formula. One day the barman said that given that they have been such great regular customers, he will give them a €20 discount on their bill. At first they were delighted but then they struggled to figure out how to split the discount. They decided that it was only fair that the four poorest men continue to pay nothing - but what should they do with the remaining amount? Initially they wanted to split the discount equally among the six paying men - it worked out as a €3.33 discount per person. But this would mean that the fifth and the sixth guys would actually make a profit! So the barman suggested that he applies the discount more proportionately. The fifth guy paid nothing, the sixth guy paid €2, the seventh paid €5, the eighth €10, the ninth €14 and the tenth one paid €49. 

They settled the bill and left the pub. However, some of them quickly started to do maths in their head. Hang on - said the sixth guy - how come I only got €1 out of that €20 while the tenth guy got €10?! That's true - shouted the fifth guy - I only got €1 as well! It is unfair that the tenth guy got ten times more! Why did he get €10 and I only got €2 - said the seventh - the rich are only getting richer and are taking everything from the poor! Wait a second - the first four exclaimed - We did not get anything! This system is based on taking advantage of the poorest! And they all started to give out to the tenth guy. 

Next time they all went drinking the tenth guy did not turn up. It wasn't until it came to paying that they realised that they did not have enough to cover even half of their bill..._


----------



## TheBigShort

Dagny Juel said:


> Interesting debate. The only way to address the current situation is to cut income tax and thus incentivise work and to cut benefits. I completely agree that there is a culture of entitlement in Ireland. In the US, someone who has done well for themselves is generally respected and it is something that is viewed by the society as commendable - the american self-made man. However, in Ireland if someone has done well, they are automatically viewed as morally suspect and it is perceived as a negative but someone who is struggling deserves everyone's respect because they got 'screwed' by the system. People are generally very resilient and resourceful, look at stories of how people survived wars and other disasters. However, teach them that they are entitled to everything from the State without any effort on their part and suddenly they become completely unable to survive independently.
> 
> Every time there is a new budget announced, I'm always raging when I hear comments along the lines of 'they hit the poor hardest while rich haven't been affected etc.' referring to welfare cuts. People don't seem to realise that there is a massive difference between reducing income tax and thus taking away less money that people have earned themselves and reducing free handouts. I always think of this anecdote, which I think is spot on in terms of the current situation in Ireland:
> 
> _Ten guys went to a pub to have a couple of pints. Their bill was €100. They were debating how to split it, so that it was as fair as possible. After some discussion they decided to approach it in the same manner that income taxation is calculated. Four of the poorest men did not pay anything. The fifth guy paid €1, the sixth €3, the seventh €7, the eight €12, the ninth €18 and the last, richest guy paid €59.
> 
> They were coming to the pub on a regular basis and each time their bill was €100, which they always settled in the same manner based on the above formula. One day the barman said that given that they have been such great regular customers, he will give them a €20 discount on their bill. At first they were delighted but then they struggled to figure out how to split the discount. They decided that it was only fair that the four poorest men continue to pay nothing - but what should they do with the remaining amount? Initially they wanted to split the discount equally among the six paying men - it worked out as a €3.33 discount per person. But this would mean that the fifth and the sixth guys would actually make a profit! So the barman suggested that he applies the discount more proportionately. The fifth guy paid nothing, the sixth guy paid €2, the seventh paid €5, the eighth €10, the ninth €14 and the tenth one paid €49.
> 
> They settled the bill and left the pub. However, some of them quickly started to do maths in their head. Hang on - said the sixth guy - how come I only got €1 out of that €20 while the tenth guy got €10?! That's true - shouted the fifth guy - I only got €1 as well! It is unfair that the tenth guy got ten times more! Why did he get €10 and I only got €2 - said the seventh - the rich are only getting richer and are taking everything from the poor! Wait a second - the first four exclaimed - We did not get anything! This system is based on taking advantage of the poorest! And they all started to give out to the tenth guy.
> 
> Next time they all went drinking the tenth guy did not turn up. It wasn't until it came to paying that they realised that they did not have enough to cover even half of their bill..._



Load of nonsense from start to finish.

The emphasis here is 'look how much the rich guy pays in tax compared to the poorest guys'...but without comparing the earnings between each.

Because here, nobody pays income tax on their first €20,000, regardless of how much you earn. 
So 3 guys walk into a bar and discuss how much tax they pay. The guy on €100,000 salary says he pays 52%, the guy on €60,000 says he pays 30% and the guy on €20,000 says he pays 0%. The rich guy thinks, this is not fair, im pay so this guys kids can go to school. The middle guy thinks, this is not fair, im paying so he can see a GP if he needs one. The poor guy thinks, if its so bad for you guys, take a PAY CUT!

You see, nobody actually pays anymore tax than anybody else at a given rate of pay. The rich guy and the middle guy do not pay any tax on the first €20,000 of their incomes, exactly the same for the poor guy. And as the poor guy doesnt earn anymore then his liability will be 0% - exactly the same for the other two on their first €20,000.
But as the other two earn more, the government starts to impose a tax of 20%. Between the middle guy and the rich guy they both pay exactly 20% on the next income bracket. The poorest guy is discounted as he no longer earns an income.
Then they both start paying 41% after the next threshold, and, amazingly, the amount of tax each pay is exactly the same, 41%.

Where differences kick in is with different levels of income and if you ignore the tax thresholds as if they didnt exist. And in order to protray a statistical bias in favour of wealthy people paying too much tax,  you have to ignore the different thresholds.

But if you think you are carrying to heavy a tax burden, rather than cutting taxes, why not take a pay cut? That way you can reduce your tax liability whilst making yourself more competitive. A win-win.


----------



## Jim2007

TheBigShort said:


> [broken link removed]
> 
> Switzerland - 26% of gdp on welfare
> Ireland - 14%



Well I don't know what point you are trying to make... but those figures are from 2001!  And there have been considerable reforms in the mean time and the 2014 figures  are:

Switzerland - 19%
Ireland - 21%

Also, it is worth keeping in mind:
- Welfare is not a federal cost, it is a Kanton (County) cost and so in low income Kantons the cost could be much higher and vice verse 
- Since we do not have a public healthcare system one of the biggest welfare costs is the payment of annual healthcare insurance for low income families.


----------



## Dagny Juel

TheBigShort said:


> Load of nonsense from start to finish.
> 
> The emphasis here is 'look how much the rich guy pays in tax compared to the poorest guys'...but without comparing the earnings between each.
> 
> Because here, nobody pays income tax on their first €20,000, regardless of how much you earn.
> So 3 guys walk into a bar and discuss how much tax they pay. The guy on €100,000 salary says he pays 52%, the guy on €60,000 says he pays 30% and the guy on €20,000 says he pays 0%. The rich guy thinks, this is not fair, im pay so this guys kids can go to school. The middle guy thinks, this is not fair, im paying so he can see a GP if he needs one. The poor guy thinks, if its so bad for you guys, take a PAY CUT!
> 
> You see, nobody actually pays anymore tax than anybody else at a given rate of pay. The rich guy and the middle guy do not pay any tax on the first €20,000 of their incomes, exactly the same for the poor guy. And as the poor guy doesnt earn anymore then his liability will be 0% - exactly the same for the other two on their first €20,000.
> But as the other two earn more, the government starts to impose a tax of 20%. Between the middle guy and the rich guy they both pay exactly 20% on the next income bracket. The poorest guy is discounted as he no longer earns an income.
> Then they both start paying 41% after the next threshold, and, amazingly, the amount of tax each pay is exactly the same, 41%.
> 
> Where differences kick in is with different levels of income and if you ignore the tax thresholds as if they didnt exist. And in order to protray a statistical bias in favour of wealthy people paying too much tax,  you have to ignore the different thresholds.
> 
> But if you think you are carrying to heavy a tax burden, rather than cutting taxes, why not take a pay cut? That way you can reduce your tax liability whilst making yourself more competitive. A win-win.



What you wrote a is complete nonsense. First of all, you are completely wrong that the first €20k is tax free, no idea how you came up with this! Do you mean tax credits? Tax credits for a single person are €1,650, so you would not pay any income tax if you were earning €8,250. 

Anyway, the point is that people who earn more money generally are capable, most likely well educated and might have made a lot of sacrifices to get to where they are. Why should they be punished for this by having more than half of their income taken away so that it can be given to someone who perhaps does not even work? The highest earning 6% pay 43% of all income and USC taxes while 38% of income earners pay no tax. 


Your suggestion that they just take a pay cut is ludicrous! Socialism is built on this very idea - everyone should be the same and earn the same average amount. Except that if everyone thought that, you would end up in the scenario from my anecdote - the rich guy did not come to the pub (or decided to take a pay cut and was no longer rich) and suddenly there is not enough to pay the bill. Great thinking, let's just all stop striving to better ourselves, let's let go of any ambition and drive, let's kill any sense of entrepreneurship, so that we don't pay higher taxes. Where will we end up as a society?


----------



## TheBigShort

http://www.revenue.ie/en/tax/it/leaflets/it1.html#section3

I dont mean to be disrespectful but you trotting out the same old nonsense that the top 6% of earners pay 43% blah, blah, blah,....so what?
What do the top 10% of earners pay?
What about the top 50% of earners?
What about the top 99% of earners? I bet they contribute close to 100% of the tax, which is more than DOUBLE what the top 6% pay.

So I dont get why you, and others, place such emphasis on the top earners.
Going back to your pub, what if the richest guy paid 50% tax and the other nine paid the other 50% between.
But what if the combined income of the 9 was €180,000 and the income of the richest guy was €300,000? But because of tax avoidence schemes accessible to those with €120,000 to 'invest', he only pays tax on €180,000
Do you think that that would be fair?

Until you tell us how much the top 6% actually earn, it cannot be determined if they pay too much or not.

I never said that everyone should be paid the same. Its just annoying to hear about someone on €120,000 complaining about paying 41% in the euro when someone on €40,000 has to do so aswell.
The figures are deliberately skewed to ignore the different thresholds so as to give the impression that a wealthy person is unduly burdened with tax, whilst a minimum wage worker is somehow getting off scott free.

Ive nothing against anyone earning as much as they can, but I am against them whinging about it or that they carry the tax burden for the rest of us.
If they are unhappy about how much tax they pay, they can reduce it by lowering their pay
.

A lot of people who are well educated made no more sacrifices than anyone else. A lot of people gave up the chance for an education in order to go work to put food on the table for their families.


----------



## TheBigShort

Jim2007 said:


> Well I don't know what point you are trying to make... but those figures are from 2001!  And there have been considerable reforms in the mean time and the 2014 figures  are:
> 
> Switzerland - 19%
> Ireland - 21%
> 
> Also, it is worth keeping in mind:
> - Welfare is not a federal cost, it is a Kanton (County) cost and so in low income Kantons the cost could be much higher and vice verse
> - Since we do not have a public healthcare system one of the biggest welfare costs is the payment of annual healthcare insurance for low income families.



Apologies for the out of date figures. But the point is Switzerland, it federal government and its cantons pay a larger proportion of its GDP on welfare benefits than Ireland does. Just because its in the form of vouchers instead of cash does not mean that taxpayers arent forking out.

And as pointed out in an earlier link, it doesnt stop some Swiss alleging that it creates a system of 'free loaders' , and weighs too heavy on the taxpayer - where have we heard that before?


----------



## ppmeath

TheBigShort said:


> So some parts of Dublin are high, some parts are not so high, for third level education.
> 
> My point was that it was my understanding that school leaver participation in third level education _or equivalent _( FAS courses and apprenticeships or employment) was high in this country (*not in randomly selected areas*).
> 
> So again....what point are you trying to make?



They are not random areas, they are unemployment blackspots, deprived areas. 

Have a look at the map of Ireland, but for Dublin it provides a breakdown, area by area.

_"After Dublin 17 and Dublin 10, the areas with the lowest rate of progression to third level among 17-19 years old are Dublin 1 (28 per cent), Dublin 22 (31 per cent), Dublin 2 (31 per cent), Dublin 8 (33 per cent), Dublin 11 (28 per cent) and Dublin 24 (29 per cent)."_

Tally these figures through unemployment figures, long term unemployed, low paying jobs, alcoholism, premature death, drug addiction - smoking... The list is endless. 


_
_


----------



## ppmeath

TheBigShort said:


> The emphasis here is 'look how much the rich guy pays in tax compared to the poorest guys'...but without comparing the earnings between each.



The emphasis there was on who pays the bill - you really didn't understand it at all. You should read it again.


----------



## TheBigShort

ppmeath said:


> They are not random areas, they are unemployment blackspots, deprived areas.
> 
> Have a look at the map of Ireland, but for Dublin it provides a breakdown, area by area.
> 
> _"After Dublin 17 and Dublin 10, the areas with the lowest rate of progression to third level among 17-19 years old are Dublin 1 (28 per cent), Dublin 22 (31 per cent), Dublin 2 (31 per cent), Dublin 8 (33 per cent), Dublin 11 (28 per cent) and Dublin 24 (29 per cent)."_
> 
> Tally these figures through unemployment figures, long term unemployed, low paying jobs, alcoholism, premature death, drug addiction - smoking... The list is endless.



I will have to improvise here.

Your point is that in these deprived areas there is a culture of welfare dependency? And that it is this culture of welfare dependency that needs to be dismantled? 
And you have a proposal to dismantle this welfare dependency that will encourage employment and training and upskilling. That in turn will, if not obliterate, but assist in making in-roads to banish, the dependency on welfare and its associated consequences such as long term unemployment, low paying jobs, alcoholism, premature death, drug taking etc? 
Is this what you are trying to say? If so, im all ears.


----------



## TheBigShort

ppmeath said:


> The emphasis there was on who pays the bill - you really didn't understand it at all. You should read it again.



Its quite simple really, a worker on low pay with a family cannot afford the rent or the electricity. The state tops up his wage with FIS to help him and his family get by. But as his wage is so low, he pays no tax. That is so unfair on high income earners who pay so much tax. So, instead the low pay worker now has to pay his share of tax. But that reduces his income further and now he cant afford the rent or pay the electricity, so the state tops him up further, but that increases taxes on the high earners. That is so unfair on high income earners who pay so much tax. So, instead taxes are increased on the low paid worker, but that reduces his income....oh dear.

His employer, in the meantime, getting away with paying him a crap wage, heads off on a nice sun holiday with proceeds of his labour.


----------



## ppmeath

Dagny Juel said:


> What you wrote a is complete nonsense. First of all, you are completely wrong that the first €20k is tax free, no idea how you came up with this! Do you mean tax credits? Tax credits for a single person are €1,650, so you would not pay any income tax if you were earning €8,250.
> 
> *Anyway, the point is that people who earn more money generally are capable, most likely well educated and might have made a lot of sacrifices to get to where they are. Why should they be punished for this by having more than half of their income taken away so that it can be given to someone who perhaps does not even work? The highest earning 6% pay 43% of all income and USC taxes while 38% of income earners pay no tax. *
> 
> 
> Your suggestion that they just take a pay cut is ludicrous! Socialism is built on this very idea - everyone should be the same and earn the same average amount. Except that if everyone thought that, you would end up in the scenario from my anecdote - the rich guy did not come to the pub (or decided to take a pay cut and was no longer rich) and suddenly there is not enough to pay the bill. Great thinking, let's just all stop striving to better ourselves, let's let go of any ambition and drive, let's kill any sense of entrepreneurship, so that we don't pay higher taxes. Where will we end up as a society?



Because someone has to pay for Johnny and we have to pay for him, because if we don't he will turn to crime and we will have to pay more. The best solution, according to some, is to just let him be, buy him a big TV and he'll be grand. 

Simple.


----------



## TheBigShort

ppmeath said:


> Because someone has to pay for Johnny and we have to pay for him, because if we don't he will turn to crime and we will have to pay more. The best solution, according to some, is to just let him be, buy him a big TV and he'll be grand.
> 
> Simple.



I never said that was a solution. What I said was that cutting his welfare will most probably cost the state more in the provision of other public services.
That it would be cheaper in the long run to let him live as is, rather than cut his welfare and in the absence of concrete proposals to do otherwise.

Other proposals, they are pretty thin on the ground around here.


----------



## Jim2007

TheBigShort said:


> Until you tell us how much the top 6% actually earn, it cannot be determined if they pay too much or not.



Irish effective tax rates are perhaps a bit higher that than average, so nothing to get excited about.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

_Dagny_ I broadly buy into your parable.  But it is a tad simplistic. I happen to know the 10 people you are talking about.  Here is a rough pen picture.

Person 1 never had anything going for her, not her fault, simply unemployable.
P2 is also unemployable but if he hadn't spent his schooldays in the bookies he would have a reasonable career now.
P3 made the most of his modest capabilities and is holding down a lowly paid job.
P4 could also get a lowly paid job but says "why bother? sure the pints are free anyway"
P5 had moderate talent,  left school early and puts in a 35 hour week for low to mid salary.
P6 was similar to P5 but decided to forego income and train for a qualification so as a result he is actually P5's boss.
P7 is like P5 but he works all the hours god gave him and so earns somewhat more than P5
P8 is in a cushy public service job with no pension worries
P9 is a captain of industry who names his own salary
P10 was lucky to be good at golf

So what is a fair divvy up of the bill?

BTW if in your comment the tenth guy took a pay cut then, assuming a closed economy, the others would all benefit and there would be the same available kitty to pay the bill.

Also a single person with no tax reliefs would need to earn over €625,000 to pay 50% tax.


----------



## T McGibney

TheBigShort said:


> But the point is Switzerland, it federal government and its cantons pay a larger proportion of its GDP on welfare benefits than Ireland does.



GDP-based stats are useless in the case of Ireland whose GDP is distorted by measurement criteria and massively inflated by foreign multinational transfer pricing. Irish GDP recently rose by 26% in a single year without much discernible improvement in our economy.


----------



## Jim2007

TheBigShort said:


> Apologies for the out of date figures. But the point is Switzerland, it federal government and its cantons pay a larger proportion of its GDP on welfare benefits than Ireland does. Just because its in the form of vouchers instead of cash does not mean that taxpayers arent forking out.



Well as I have already pointed out Swiss welfare payments include health insurance premiums which can run at anything from say €3,000 to €10,000 pa.  And of course unlike Irish taxpayers, Swiss taxpayers voted for this, just like we will vote on a proposal to increase state pensions by 10% next month.

On the one had you are complaining that someone needs to pay for Johnny and at the same time your complaining about Switzerland making generous payments to genuine cases, it is not about the money alone with us, it's about people putting something back into the community that supports them.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> But what if the combined income of the 9 was €180,000 and the income of the richest guy was €300,000? But because of tax avoidence schemes accessible to those with €120,000 to 'invest', he only pays tax on €180,000





TheBigShort said:


> Its just annoying to hear about someone on €120,000 complaining about paying 41% in the euro when someone on €40,000 has to do so aswell.





TheBigShort said:


> If they are unhappy about how much tax they pay, they can reduce it by lowering their pay





TheBigShort said:


> His employer, in the meantime, getting away with paying him a crap wage, heads off on a nice sun holiday with proceeds of his labour.


I'm seeing a trend here. Do you resent people on higher incomes and do you think employers exploit their employees as a matter of course?

The vast majority of people who have high incomes in Ireland have them because they work hard and shoulder more responsibilities and stress then people on low incomes. In the vast majority of cases they sacrifice time with family and friends and work longer and harder than people on lower incomes, at least that's my opinion and since your whole premise on this thread is based on your opinion about the vast majority of people on welfare opinions seem to be just as valid as facts.
See the flip side of a culture of dependency is a culture that punishes hard work and sacrifice and vilifies those people who create jobs and employ people. Employers provide a social good but they, along with landlords are seen as immoral exploiters of "the poor". It is ironic that the middle-class urbanite socialists who hold these views probably don't know any of the exploited poor and certainly don't employ any of them but simply resent the employers who are probably not as well heeled and are a bit crass for their tastes but earn more.


----------



## Purple

Jim2007 said:


> Well as I have already pointed out Swiss welfare payments include health insurance premiums which can run at anything from say €3,000 to €10,000 pa.  And of course unlike Irish taxpayers, Swiss taxpayers voted for this, just like we will vote on a proposal to increase state pensions by 10% next month.
> 
> On the one had you are complaining that someone needs to pay for Johnny and at the same time your complaining about Switzerland making generous payments to genuine cases, it is not about the money alone with us, it's about people putting something back into the community that supports them.


Exactly; it's not about what is spent but spending it in the most socially just way, i.e. rewarding people who are gainful members of society and encouraging others to act likewise.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> Johnny is a tosser



Well, we certainly agree on something!




TheBigShort said:


> So what do we do about Johnny?



To be fair, I think the first question that should be answered is "What's _Johnny _going to do about Johnny?" Does he wake up, smell the coffee like the rest of society and do the best with the hand he's been dealt with (like so many who come from tough upbringings) and build a better life for himself within the bounds of our legal system?

You have asked lots of questions over the past few days, and that's fine, it's good to get the opinions of those with whom you are having a discussion. If I am not mistaken, every question you have asked someone, they have answered. Therefore, I do think it is now time that you clarified your position in the interests of fairness.

So, if you would be so kind....

"What do we do about Johnny?"


----------



## TheBigShort

Jim2007 said:


> Irish effective tax rates are perhaps a bit higher that than average, so nothing to get excited about.



Thats a complete dodge of the question.


----------



## TheBigShort

T McGibney said:


> GDP-based stats are useless in the case of Ireland whose GDP is distorted by measurement criteria and massively inflated by foreign multinational transfer pricing. Irish GDP recently rose by 26% in a single year without much discernible improvement in our economy.



Well there is plenty of people on here complaing about the amount of our taxes being spent on welfare payments. 
Perhaps you can ask them how they figured that out?


----------



## TheBigShort

Jim2007 said:


> Well as I have already pointed out Swiss welfare payments include health insurance premiums which can run at anything from say €3,000 to €10,000 pa.  And of course unlike Irish taxpayers, Swiss taxpayers voted for this, just like we will vote on a proposal to increase state pensions by 10% next month.
> 
> On the one had you are complaining that someone needs to pay for Johnny and at the same time your complaining about Switzerland making generous payments to genuine cases, it is not about the money alone with us, it's about people putting something back into the community that supports them.



Im not complaining about the Swiss welfare payments!! Where did I complain about? It seems an infinitely more generous system than Irelands, and by what you have mentioned would appear to be getting even more generous!
You were one coming on and telling us how tough the Swiss system dealt more effectively with welfare claims than Ireland. I simply pointed out that it is not short on criticism with accusations of encouraging 'freeloaders'. 
So perhaps you can answer this, should Ireland adopt the Swiss approach to welfare, which costs a great deal more than Irelands approach?


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Exactly; it's not about what is spent but spending it in the most socially just way, i.e. rewarding people who are gainful members of society and encouraging others to act likewise.



Thats BS Purple. This whole topic is about the 77% who, allegedly, fund the 23%. If you believe what you are saying then you think the 23% of households are NOT gainful members of society. You believe the 23% are not actively seeking work, are not upskilling in college courses, FAS courses, apprenticeships, back to work schemes, etc...etc..
These people in receipt of welfare, the vast majority of them, would jump at the chance to be financially independent. But we are coming out of the worst recession ever and your attitude is to kick them when they are down.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> I'm seeing a trend here. Do you resent people on higher incomes and do you think employers exploit their employees as a matter of course?



If you read my posts then you will have read the part where I state that I have nothing against anyone who wants to earn as much as they want.
What I am against is shoe-shine posters who argue that the rich are taxed too much whilst simultaneously, warfare recipients cost too much.
This is patent nonsense. Most welfare recipients, where able, are engaged in finding work. Where possible they are engaged in all sorts of courses and schemes to upskill and retrain. Many of whom even took part in JobsBridge (50,000 I estimate) where they worked for free. This was a subsidy from taxpayers to employers. Unfortunately, even wealthy employers couldn't help taking advantage of free labour, and in turn, taxpayers money, and had to abuse the system to such extent that it is nows scrapped.


----------



## T McGibney

> GDP-based stats are useless in the case of Ireland whose GDP is distorted by measurement criteria and massively inflated by foreign multinational transfer pricing. Irish GDP recently rose by 26% in a single year without much discernible improvement in our economy.





TheBigShort said:


> Well there is plenty of people on here complaing about the amount of our taxes being spent on welfare payments.
> Perhaps you can ask them how they figured that out?



No, my complaint was with your bogus stats. The fact that you're unable to defend them without resort to generalised whataboutery speaks volumes.


----------



## TheBigShort

T McGibney said:


> No, my complaint was with your bogus stats. The fact that you're unable to defend them without resort to generalised whataboutery speaks volumes.



What are you talking about? If I was to post stats based on official figures you would shoot them down. So I will leave it to you and others to show where we have a 'culture of welfare dependency' and how and why it should be dismantled.
One poster already came on alluding to the Swiss welfare system. As it transpires it has its own critics not dissimilar to critics on here.
But the Swiss welfare also provides for more health and pension provisions that we could only dream about in Ireland  - but it comes at a cost, which I would doubt we would be willing to pay.
But for someone to attack the Irish welfare because of the cost and in turn endorse a more expensive one, you have to laugh.


----------



## ppmeath

TheBigShort said:


> I never said that was a solution. What I said was that cutting his welfare will most probably cost the state more in the provision of other public services.
> That it would be cheaper in the long run to let him live as is, rather than cut his welfare and in the absence of concrete proposals to do otherwise.
> 
> Other proposals, they are pretty thin on the ground around here.



The proposals of work and training have been dismissed by you.


So what is your solution?


----------



## T McGibney

TheBigShort said:


> If I was to post stats based on official figures you would shoot them down.



If you continue to post stats based on bogus GDP comparisions, I will most certainly shoot them down.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Thats BS Purple. This whole topic is about the 77% who, allegedly, fund the 23%. If you believe what you are saying then you think the 23% of households are NOT gainful members of society. You believe the 23% are not actively seeking work, are not upskilling in college courses, FAS courses, apprenticeships, back to work schemes, etc...etc..
> These people in receipt of welfare, the vast majority of them, would jump at the chance to be financially independent. But we are coming out of the worst recession ever and your attitude is to kick them when they are down.


No the whole topic is explicitly not about the 23% being funded by the 77% and nobody is complaining about the amount of money we spend on welfare. The topic is about how our welfare system encourages a culture of dependency, not that everyone on welfare has fallen victim to that culture. 
I have no problem with the amount we spend on welfare. I have a huge problem with people on long term benefits getting the same as people on short term benefits. I have a huge problem with someone who works and contributes for 25 years getting the same as someone who never worked a day in their live.
I know people who don't work because they are as well off on welfare. Your solution to that is to force employers to pay them more than they are worth, in essence the skilled employees, already paying a marginal tax rate of over 50%, get less money than they are worth so that the unskilled employee can get more than they are worth. I don't think that's socially just. 
I think the solution is to change the angle of the graph on welfare payments so that people get more at the start and less the longer they are unemployed. That will encourage them to up-skill and seek work because they will not be better off on welfare in the longer run and so it is not an economically valid lifestyle choice.  I think that is socially just.

I really mean no offense but it seems to me that you are attributing ideological positions to posters and that is colouring your perception of what they are saying.
I have no problem with social engineering (taxing tobacco, VRT based on carbon emissions, water charges based on usage, plastic bag taxes etc.) and so I believe out welfare system should steer people towards work and our taxation system should steer people towards working harder/smarter/better. 
In the long run that gives the best outcomes for society in general.


----------



## TheBigShort

ppmeath said:


> The proposals of work and training have been dismissed by you.
> 
> 
> So what is your solution?



Where did I ever dismiss proposals to work and training? If we are talking about our man 'johnny', then surely you picked up that he wad reflective of the tiny minority of welfare recipients?
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? 
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)?

Please tell me that you now know and understand that the majority of welfare recipients are not part of any culture of welfare dependency?
Please tell me that you understand that many welfare recipients (particularly at the height of the crash) were graduates who, in ordinary times, would have sourced employment a lot quicker? 
Please tell me that you are aware that many of our welfare recipients, educated as they were (and coming from more affluent areas), decided to emigrate due to the lack of opportunity here?

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.
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%.

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.

But our 'Johnny', on €188 a week, its all his fault. 
Wake up!


----------



## TheBigShort

T McGibney said:


> If you continue to post stats based on bogus GDP comparisions, I will most certainly shoot them down.



When did I post bogus stats? But if you know they are bogus, then presumably you have correct stats? Otherwise how do you know what you are talking about?

So if you dont mind, please post the 'true' %gdp spent by Switzerland and Ireland on welfare benefits.


----------



## ppmeath

Your solutions?

@TheBigShort


----------



## T McGibney

TheBigShort said:


> When did I post bogus stats? But if you know they are bogus, then presumably you have correct stats? Otherwise how do you know what you are talking about?
> 
> So if you dont mind, please post the 'true' %gdp spent by Switzerland and Ireland on welfare benefits.



You quoted stats based on %GDP. I've explained to you that %GDP-based stat comparisons are misleading in Ireland's case, because of the particular factors that wildly distort Irish GDP. This is common knowledge. I'm surprised you're not aware of it.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> No the whole topic is explicitly not about the 23% being funded by the 77% and nobody is complaining about the amount of money we spend on welfare.



Please go to page 1, first post.


----------



## TheBigShort

T McGibney said:


> You quoted stats based on GDP. I've explained to you that GDP-based stat comparisons are misleading in Ireland's case. This is common knowledge. I'm surprised you're not aware of it.



So where are the 'non-misleading' stats? You must have them? Right?


----------



## T McGibney

TheBigShort said:


> So where are the 'non-misleading' stats? You must have them? Right?


Why would I have them? They probably don't exist. Look instead at %GNP comparative stats and you'll probably get your answer.


----------



## ppmeath

TheBigShort said:


> Please go to page 1, first post.



You'll have to be more specific I'm afraid, there are a few posts there, but there don't appear to be any clear solutions, so maybe you could oblige?


----------



## TheBigShort

T McGibney said:


> Why would I have them? They probably don't exist. Look instead at %GNP comparative stats and you'll probably get your answer.



So how can you claim my stats are bogus, if you dont have the correct figures?


----------



## T McGibney

TheBigShort said:


> So how can you claim my stats are bogus, if you dont have the correct figures?


Because %GDP-based stats relating to Ireland are inherently bogus, for the reasons I've given you.


----------



## TheBigShort

ppmeath said:


> You'll have to be more specific I'm afraid, there are a few posts there, but there don't appear to be any clear solutions, so maybe you could oblige?



That was a response to Purple who decided after 10pages of the topic that it was not about what the opening poster stated it was about.
As for solutions, you are short on any. My purpose here is to dismantle the baseless and clueless attacks on welfare recipients.
Those who support the notion that there is a culture of welfare dependency need to show where it exists, and how to dismantle it, without making things worse.


----------



## TheBigShort

T McGibney said:


> Because %GDP-based stats relating to Ireland are inherently bogus, for the reasons I've given you.



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


----------



## ppmeath

gar32 said:


> John was a Painter and got let go. He is unmarried with 3 kids and had a mortgage before he became unemployed.  He would get €188 a week not working. His Partner also gets €188 as she does not work. Children allowance at €105 a week child benefit. Thats €481 a week tax free.  €25 k a year. 2 Painting nixers a month say at €300 each on average.  Thats around 32K a year.
> 
> http://www.payscale.com/research/IE/Job=Painter/Hourly_Rate   Max a painter makes in full time work is €40k before tax.
> 
> *John is not going to work 40hrs a week for a little more the a few hours a month.*
> 
> How can Ireland chance this without putting the children in a poverty trap?
> 
> Back to work allowance ?
> 
> Drop €188 by €1 a month until a job is found?
> 
> Retrain using Fas for a job that companies need?
> 
> Pay working people better so people want to work?
> 
> Minimum income for all in the country any work is extra  earnings?
> 
> With a 5 year turn around in the Dail they don't have the will to think 10 years from now. it will take forward planing and thinking that I feel is beyond the system we have.
> 
> Out of the box thing any body ???



But he won't be doing it for a few quid more.

If John went back to work and earned 769 per week (40k), then this is approx 32k net or 615 per week.

John is now eligible for FIS to make up 60% of the difference between €713 - so approximately 60 Euro, leaving them with 675 per week net.

With FIS eligibility comes other payments, such as Back to school allowances, medical card and he has no childcare costs as his wife is at home.

675 net is approximately 45k a year.
Plus the 105 per week Child benefit.


----------



## TheBigShort

ppmeath said:


> Your solutions?
> 
> @TheBigShort



Solutions to what?
The topic is about dismantling the 'culture of welfare dependency' based on a (misinterpretated) report that said 77% of households are funding the other 23%.

My neighbour, who is a nurse, gave up her job to look after her elderly parents. She is dependent on a carers allowance. If she didnt have that she would have to go back to work and the State would have to foot the bill in an elderly home as her wages wouldn't come close to affording.
If this is the culture of welfare dependency that you want to dismantle then you can go and jump!
If on the other hand, its only the likes of our Johnny that you want to target, then go for it - but be warned, the amount of money you will clawback will be miniscule compared to what you may need to spend in the provision of other social services.


----------



## ppmeath

Solutions to dismantle the "culture of welfare dependency".




TheBigShort said:


> My neighbour, who is a nurse, gave up her job to look after her elderly parents. She is dependent on a carers allowance. If she didnt have that she would have to go back to work and the State would have to foot the bill in an elderly home as her wages wouldn't come close to affording.




That is carers allowance, the nurse is working in the home caring for her elderly parent's. 



TheBigShort said:


> If on the other hand, its only the likes of our Johnny that you want to target, then go for it - but be warned, the amount of money you will clawback will be miniscule compared to what you may need to spend in the provision of other social services.



But you objected to targetting him did you not - you want to leave him at it?

You spent a lot of time discussing Johnny, so what is your solution. 

And our new guest John, what about if John turned down the 40k job?


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> As I'm a new user ....




Hi,

I take you at your word, however your opinions, language and debating style very much resemble a contributor to who used to frequent these parts and went by the monikers Complainer and RainyDay. Interestingly there is a poster on Boards who goes by RainyDay and SerialComplaint too with the same opinions / style! Thankfully though you are obviously not the same person as you have replied to both myself and Purple numerous times!!

In any case, you have been asked by myself and ppmeath what your solution is regarding the general theme of the thread by ppmeath and about Johnny by myself (seeing as you asked this question yourself). We and everyone else have all provided ours.

It's very easy to stand at the sidelines and criticise other people but until you offer your own solution, how can anyone really take what you say seriously?

And please, no more answering questions with questions...that's not how adults debate!

Just for kicks, this is starting to remind me of this ole chestnut;  http://www.askaboutmoney.com/thread...lic-service-reform.154119/page-3#post-1226457 and http://www.askaboutmoney.com/thread...lic-service-reform.154119/page-3#post-1226825

So, one more time; What should we do about Johnny?

Firefly.


----------



## TheBigShort

ppmeath said:


> Solutions to dismantle the "culture of welfare dependency".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is carers allowance, the nurse is working in the home caring for her elderly parent's.
> 
> 
> 
> But you objected to targetting him did you not - you want to leave him at it?
> 
> You spent a lot of time discussing Johnny, so what is your solution.
> 
> And our new guest John, what about if John turned down the 40k job?



The carers allowance makes up some of 23% being 'funded' by the other 77%. This was posted under the title of this topic. Are you telling me that this welfare benefit is not included in the agenda here to dismantle welfare 'dependency'?

If so, you are going to have to clarify what is and what is not included - and duly revise those (misinterpreted) figures.

You can target Johnny all you want, but be warned, the clawback on welfare will be miniscule relative to other social provisions you will have to pay for.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> If on the other hand, its only the likes of our Johnny that you want to target, then go for it - but be warned, the amount of money you will clawback will be miniscule compared to what you may need to spend in the provision of other social services.



You have made this argument a few times now, essentially that Johnny may turn to crime if his dole is cut. Why do you have such a low opinion of those who are on social welfare?


----------



## ppmeath

TheBigShort said:


> The carers allowance makes up some of 23% being 'funded' by the other 77%. This was posted under the title of this topic. Are you telling me that this welfare benefit is not included in the agenda here to dismantle welfare 'dependency'?
> 
> If so, you are going to have to clarify what is and what is not included - and duly revise those (misinterpreted) figures.
> 
> You can target Johnny all you want, but be warned, the clawback on welfare will be miniscule relative to other social provisions you will have to pay for.



You provide the revised figures, as you are the one disputing them. I'm not saying anything about the carer's allowance. because I do not consider the nurse to be welfare dependent, I consider this nurse to be caring for her parent's and of course, that saves the state - but I would also imagine that her parents do not want to leave their home and their daughter, first and foremost, is taking their needs into consideration, before any savings she is making for the state.

You have been asked to provide a solution for Johnny, because yes, Johnny will be a target if he refuses all offers of work and/or training - you have been asked what we should do about Johnny, so I am all ears.

Edit to add - There will be no savings on Johnny, because if Johnny turns to crime rather then take up all offers of work and/or training - then it is my opinion, that this is where he is headed anyway.

Any costs to the state are as a result of his decision to turn to crime - if he does, then he must accept the consequences.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> My neighbour, who is a nurse, gave up her job to look after her elderly parents. She is dependent on a carers allowance. If she didnt have that she would have to go back to work and the State would have to foot the bill in an elderly home as her wages wouldn't come close to affording.



It's sad that your neighbour cannot return to work or would be worse off in doing so.... on numerous levels - professional carers would arguably do a better job and your neighbour wouldn't have such a gap on their CV. Don't you think Johnny has to take some of the blame here though? For example, take the next 50 euro the government must borrow to run the country....where should this go; to either the carers who can look after the elderly, the hospital who has 90 year old ladies on trolleys in A&E or.....to Johnny so he can buy the latest World of Warcraft for his X-box?

What should we do about Johnny?


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> You have made this argument a few times now, essentially that Johnny may turn to crime if his dole is cut. Why do you have such a low opinion of those who are on social welfare?



I dont have a low opinion of those on social welfare. I have a high opinion of anyone who tries their best one way or another. If it should happen that those people fall on hard times, lose their job, minding elderly or disabled persons. 

People who post reports claiming 77% of households fund the other 23% under a banner that says 'dismantle our culture of welfare dependency' are the ones who have no respect for welfare recipients. Those that cheer lead behind them have no respect for workers who have lost their jobs, for carers who save the state a fortune.

As for Johnny, he is a tosser, but there is always one. But I wouldn't support dismantling vital welfare provisions for the vast majority on foot of the (in)actions of the few.


----------



## ppmeath

Firefly said:


> It's sad that your neighbour cannot return to work or would be worse off in doing so.... on numerous levels - professional carers would arguably do a better job and your neighbour wouldn't have such a gap on their CV. Don't you think Johnny has to take some of the blame here though? *For example, take the next 50 euro the government must borrow to run the country....where should this go; to either the carers who can look after the elderly, the hospital who has 90 year old ladies on trolleys in A&E or.....to Johnny so he can buy the latest World of Warcraft for his X-box?*
> 
> What should we do about Johnny?



I was going to make the very same point.


----------



## ppmeath

TheBigShort said:


> I dont have a low opinion of those on social welfare. I have a high opinion of anyone who tries their best one way or another. If it should happen that those people fall on hard times, lose their job, minding elderly or disabled persons.
> 
> People who post reports claiming 77% of households fund the other 23% under a banner that says 'dismantle our culture of welfare dependency' are the ones who have no respect for welfare recipients. Those that cheer lead behind them have no respect for workers who have lost their jobs, for carers who save the state a fortune.
> 
> As for Johnny, he is a tosser, but there is always one. But I wouldn't support dismantling vital welfare provisions for the vast majority on foot of the (in)actions of the few.



There is not one poster who would disagree with you, but I do think that you jumped to conclusions that simply were not there, and you are adding in disabled people and those who have genuinely fallen on hard times, as if they were targeted - when in fact, I did not see one poster (maybe I missed posts) making any argument or even mentioning such people.

These people aren't welfare dependent, they are victims of circumstance and we absolutely should provide a secure safety net.

By the same token there is a demographic that exists who abuse the system and it's not a small cost because it's not just 188 a week as I explained to you in an earlier post.

It is a cost across the board and if our limited resources are going there, then as firefly highlighted,  they are not going to people who are genuinely in need of supports.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> I dont have a low opinion of those on social welfare. I have a high opinion of anyone who tries their best one way or another. If it should happen that those people fall on hard times, lose their job, minding elderly or disabled persons.
> .....
> Those that cheer lead behind them have no respect for workers who have lost their jobs, for carers who save the state a fortune.



I don't think anyone has said otherwise. Those that lose their jobs should receive higher dole than those who have never worked. Carers deserve all the welfare they receive. In fact, if it wasn't for Johnny and his ilk there would be a lot more funds available for the elderly - it comes from the same pot!





TheBigShort said:


> As for Johnny, he is a tosser, but there is always one. But I wouldn't support dismantling vital welfare provisions for the vast majority on foot of the (in)actions of the few.



We've established you think he's a tosser, but (somewhat expectantly) you still haven't answered the question you have asked others....


What do we do about Johnny?


----------



## TheBigShort

ppmeath said:


> There is not one poster who would disagree with you, but I do think that you jumped to conclusions that simply were not there, and you are adding in disabled people and those who have genuinely fallen on hard times, as if they were targeted - when in fact, I did not see one poster (maybe I missed posts) making any argument or even mentioning such people.
> 
> These people aren't welfare dependent, they are victims of circumstance and we absolutely should provide a secure safety net.
> 
> By the same token there is a demographic that exists who abuse the system and it's not a small cost because it's not just 188 a week as I explained to you in an earlier post.
> 
> It is a cost across the board and if our limited resources are going there, then as firefly highlighted,  they are not going to people who are genuinely in need of supports.



F


ppmeath said:


> There is not one poster who would disagree with you, but I do think that you jumped to conclusions that simply were not there, and you are adding in disabled people and those who have genuinely fallen on hard times, as if they were targeted - when in fact, I did not see one poster (maybe I missed posts) making any argument or even mentioning such people.
> 
> These people aren't welfare dependent, they are victims of circumstance and we absolutely should provide a secure safety net.
> 
> By the same token there is a demographic that exists who abuse the system and it's not a small cost because it's not just 188 a week as I explained to you in an earlier post.
> 
> It is a cost across the board and if our limited resources are going there, then as firefly highlighted,  they are not going to people who are genuinely in need of supports.



Well we are going to have to define what is 'welfare dependent' and what is not. Because in my book a person or household whose only source of income is social welfare, is welfare dependent.
This is in line with the report headline at the start of this topic, that apparently identified (incorrectly) that 23% of households were jobless. This would include a household where elderly people are being cared for (unpaid) full-time.

I would suggest re-reading the opening posts in this topic that fell behind the topic title. The tone of which are about welfare fraud and nixers, and in no way considered the genuine plight of thousands of families in this country.

Nevertheless, I am now assuming that the jobless household report is discredited? I also assume that the focus of 'welfare dependency' is on our friend Johnny how to deal with him?

Btw, Firefly, it was me that posted that question first "what do we do about Johnny"?  I got no answer either.

I dont know what we do about Johnny. But what I would do is provide unemployment benefit to workers equal to their last wage, subject to limits. This would reduce incrementally encouraging a return to work when available.
This might, just might, motivate someone like Johnny to consider employment in the future.
If it doesn't, then I still would not take his welfare away. My view, expressed plenty of times already, is that an individual like johnny would choose cheap and easy money before he had to go to work. As such dismantling his welfare would most likely push him into cheap and easy crime rather than into work. As such, it may cost the taxpayer more in the provision of social services than it would in the clawback of welfare from Johnny. I would also estimate that Johnny is a tiny minority. For sure, there are community blackspots with high unemployment, but even within those communities, most welfare recipients would jump at the chance of financial independence.


The people who build their lives around welfare are the small minority of recipients. So for instance, if the initial report read 3%-4% of jobless households have a culture of welfare dependency, then perhaps we could have a more meaningful discussion.
But even within those households their are social difficulties that are not always the fault of the recipient.
For instance, the Traveller community has a traditionally high rate of welfare dependency. But they have also faced a tradition of discrimination that makes it hard to get employment.
People with poor social skills, or with conditions such as downs syndrome, aspergers or autism may also find difficulties in gaining employment. Its easy to say 'go get a job', but in order to take a job there needs to be a job offer.
All these people make up the collective 'welfare dependency' that some people want to dismantle.
But when you dig deep into circumstances of welfare dependency, it is far from straightforward.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> Hi,
> 
> I take you at your word, however your opinions, language and debating style very much resemble a contributor to who used to frequent these parts and went by the monikers Complainer and RainyDay. Interestingly there is a poster on Boards who goes by RainyDay and SerialComplaint too with the same opinions / style! Thankfully though you are obviously not the same person as you have replied to both myself and Purple numerous times!!
> 
> In any case, you have been asked by myself and ppmeath what your solution is regarding the general theme of the thread by ppmeath and about Johnny by myself (seeing as you asked this question yourself). We and everyone else have all provided ours.
> 
> It's very easy to stand at the sidelines and criticise other people but until you offer your own solution, how can anyone really take what you say seriously?
> 
> And please, no more answering questions with questions...that's not how adults debate!
> 
> Just for kicks, this is starting to remind me of this ole chestnut;  http://www.askaboutmoney.com/thread...lic-service-reform.154119/page-3#post-1226457 and http://www.askaboutmoney.com/thread...lic-service-reform.154119/page-3#post-1226825
> 
> So, one more time; What should we do about Johnny?
> 
> Firefly.



I dont know who any of those people are and I clicked on one of your links and its weird how you monitor people. You should get out more.


----------



## ppmeath

TheBigShort said:


> Well we are going to have to define what is 'welfare dependent' and what is not. Because in my book a person or household whose only source of income is social welfare, is welfare dependent.



Which is actually not what it is at all to me, maybe if I knew that your interpretation was actually different, then we could have avoided the misunderstandings.



TheBigShort said:


> This is in line with the report headline at the start of this topic, that apparently identified (incorrectly) that 23% of households were jobless. This would include a household where elderly people are being cared for (unpaid) full-time.



But your interpretation of welfare dependency is not the same as mine.



TheBigShort said:


> I would suggest re-reading the opening posts in this topic that fell behind the topic title. The tone of which are about welfare fraud and nixers, and in no way considered the genuine plight of thousands of families in this country.



Why, what am I looking for specifically? If you look up the definition of welfare dependency it may clarify the issue for you.



TheBigShort said:


> I dont know what we do about Johnny. But what I would do is provide unemployment benefit to workers equal to their last wage, subject to limits. This would reduce incrementally encouraging a return to work when available.
> This might, just might, motivate someone like Johnny to consider employment in the future.



As in Germany, for example. Where they do this for 9 months, and then reduce it to a "living wage" - so as not to encourage "welfare dependency".



TheBigShort said:


> People with poor social skills, or with conditions such as downs syndrome, aspergers or autism may also find difficulties in gaining employment. Its easy to say 'go get a job', but in order to take a job there needs to be a job offer.



These people are disabled, they would not be classed as on the dole or welfare dependent - I would suggest you look it up.



TheBigShort said:


> All these people make up the collective 'welfare dependency' that some people want to dismantle.



Not at all, that is where you jumped to the conclusions that you did. That you believe they make up the "collective 'welfare dependency', is because your interpretation of the subject is not the same as mine.

Edit -  to accept posters interpretation of subject.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> I dont know who any of those people are and I clicked on one of your links and its weird how you monitor people. You should get out more.



I don't monitor people at all, just quite observant so I am. Mammy always said I had a great pair of eyes. My social life is quite healthy too and thanks for the advice but isn't it sad you had to get personal?


----------



## TheBigShort

ppmeath said:


> Which is actually not what it is at all to me, maybe if I knew that your interpretation was actually different, then we could have avoided the misunderstandings.
> 
> 
> 
> But your interpretation of welfare dependency is not the same as mine.
> 
> 
> 
> Why, what am I looking for specifically? If you look up the definition of welfare dependency it may clarify the issue for you.
> 
> 
> 
> As in Germany, for example. Where they do this for 9 months, and then reduce it to a "living wage" - so as not to encourage "welfare dependency".
> 
> 
> 
> These people are disabled, they would not be classed as on the dole or welfare dependent - I would suggest you look it up.
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all, that is where you jumped to the conclusions that you did. That you believe they make up the "collective 'welfare dependency', is because your interpretation of the subject is not the same as mine.



Different to what? You haven't offered a definition of welfare dependency. And still havent. I did say already  we are going to have to agree a definition of 'welfare dependency' otherwise we are going to be discussing different things.
But you still wont provide one??

Not all mentally of phyiscally people are automatically discounted for employment figures. Many are in receipt of a disabled allowance on top of their working wage. You shouldn't automatically presume that a disabled person is unemployable. 
Ive worked with people in wheelchairs, and diagnosed with autism and aspergers. I also know two workers with downs syndrome working long term in a supermarket. All of these people will be entitled to claim unemployment benefit should they ever lose their jobs as all of them contribute social insurance payments from their wages.
It might not be convenient for your agenda but its this discriminatory attitude that tells me posters here havent a clue about welfare provisions when they talk about dismantling them. Its just not fair on the high earners who pay all the tax is it?

I take my views from the NESC report that was used to highlight (incorrectly) that 77% of households fund 23%. In that report you will find reference to jobless households due to illness/injury which also includes more severe examples of the conditions I mentioned above, and in such cases are not included in the unemployment figures


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> I don't monitor people at all, just quite observant so I am. Mammy always said I had a great pair of eyes. My social life is quite healthy too and thanks for the advice but isn't it sad you had to get personal?



I apologise for getting personal. It was just a quip, but nonetheless uncalled for.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> I dont know what we do about Johnny.



Then why ask the rest of us?





TheBigShort said:


> But what I would do is provide unemployment benefit to workers equal to their last wage, subject to limits. This would reduce incrementally encouraging a return to work when available.
> This might, just might, motivate someone like Johnny to consider employment in the future.



Agreed.



TheBigShort said:


> If it doesn't, then I still would not take his welfare away. My view, expressed plenty of times already, is that an individual like johnny would choose cheap and easy money before he had to go to work. _As such dismantling his welfare would most likely push him into cheap and easy crime rather than into work_.



Really? Johnny and those like him would most likely chose crime over work? You state this as a fact...anything to back this up?



TheBigShort said:


> As such, it may cost the taxpayer more in the provision of social services than it would in the clawback of welfare from
> Johnny.



That's not an argument for keeping those who commit crime on the streets surely? What about the fella who beats up an 80 year old man for his wallet...it would be cheaper to keep him out of jail too wouldn't it?





TheBigShort said:


> The people who build their lives around welfare are the small minority of recipients.



I would love to agree with you and hope you are right. But can you provide anything to back up this fact?






TheBigShort said:


> People with poor social skills,



Social skills can be acquired. Sure, you mightn't  be the salesman of the year, but there are plenty of jobs / roles out there where you don't need to interact with the general public and make a living.



TheBigShort said:


> or with conditions such as downs syndrome, aspergers or autism may also find difficulties in gaining employment. Its easy to say 'go get a job'



My heart goes out to people and their families who suffer from disabilities such as these and that's why we should have a welfare system. Nobody in their right mind would tell someone with a disability like this to "go get a job"

But again, where should the next 50 euro the government spends go - on the people and families aforementioned or to Johnny?


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> Then why ask the rest of us?



Because the rest of you want to dismantle his dependency on welfare.
I never said what Johnny does or gets is right. My question is what do you do about it. So far, the only real response was to cut or take his welfare. For most people this threat could work. But most people are trying to get another job, upskill or retrain.
I would be wary of doing it to JohnnJohnnyy considering his outlook and attitude.




Really? Johnny and those like him would most likely chose crime over work? You state this as a fact...anything to back this up?

Again, you need to read carefully. I would suggest that Johnny and those like him would be more inclined to choose crime over work than say, someone who is prepared to upskill, attend interviews, retrain etc...its just an assumption. I never said he would turn to crime.



That's not an argument for keeping those who commit crime on the streets surely? What about the fella who beats up an 80 year old man for his wallet...it would be cheaper to keep him out of jail too wouldn't it?

You are jumping the gun. If he does commit crime, send him to prison. Im just mindful of one thing that _might _ turn him to crime I.e. taking away his cheap and easy lifestyle.











Social skills can be acquired. Sure, you mightn't  be the salesman of the year, but there are plenty of jobs / roles out there where you don't need to interact with the general public and make a living.



My heart goes out to people and their families who suffer from disabilities such as these and that's why we should have a welfare system. Nobody in their right mind would tell someone with a disability like this to "go get a job"

But again, where should the next 50 euro the government spends go - on the people and families aforementioned or to Johnny?[/QUOTE]


----------



## ppmeath

TheBigShort said:


> Different to what? You haven't offered a definition of welfare dependency. And still havent. I did say already we are going to have to agree a definition of 'welfare dependency' otherwise we are going to be discussing different things.
> But you still wont provide one??



Firstly you never asked, and secondly you only said this after I mentioned that this is where the confusion lay.

My definition would be this:

_*"Definition of Dependency Culture. *This refers to a system of social welfare that encourages people to stay on benefits rather than work.

It suggests the tax and benefit system is designed to give little incentive for getting off benefits and into work.

A dependency culture may arise out of a desire to reduce relative poverty, through means tested benefits and a progressive tax system. For example, if a person is out of work with several children, they may be entitled to:
_

_Unemployment benefit_
_Housing Benefit_
_Means tested child tax credits_
_Free prescriptions e.t.c_
_If they chose to work, they may lose these benefits and also pay more income tax and national insurance. Their net take home pay may be little different to that income received whilst not working.

A dependency culture also suggests that people make efforts to maximise welfare benefit income."_



TheBigShort said:


> Not all mentally of phyiscally people are automatically discounted for employment figures. Many are in receipt of a disabled allowance on top of their working wage. You shouldn't automatically presume that a disabled person is unemployable.



Sorry, I am not presuming anything, would you please read what I wrote and here it is again:

"These people are disabled, they would not be classed as on the dole or welfare dependent"

If they are working and in receipt of a disability then they are not welfare dependent under any definition.



TheBigShort said:


> Ive worked with people in wheelchairs, and diagnosed with autism and aspergers. I also know two workers with downs syndrome working long term in a supermarket. All of these people will be entitled to claim unemployment benefit should they ever lose their jobs as all of them contribute social insurance payments from their wages.



I would really suggest that you just read what I wrote - not what you think I wrote. And you should withdraw this remark:



TheBigShort said:


> It might not be convenient for your agenda* but its this discriminatory attitude *that tells me posters here havent a clue about welfare provisions when they talk about dismantling them. Its just not fair on the high earners who pay all the tax is it?



Because it is not true.



TheBigShort said:


> I take my views from the NESC report that was used to highlight (incorrectly) that 77% of households fund 23%. In that report you will find reference to jobless households due to illness/injury which also includes more severe examples of the conditions I mentioned above, and in such cases are not included in the unemployment figures



If the figures are incorrect, then provide the correct ones.


----------



## ppmeath

TheBigShort said:


> Because the rest of you want to dismantle his dependency on welfare.
> I never said what Johnny does or gets is right. My question is what do you do about it. So far, the only real response was to cut or take his welfare. *For most people this threat could work*. But most people are trying to get another job, upskill or retrain.
> *I would be wary of doing it to JohnnJohnnyy considering his outlook and attitude.*



 So what is your solution - if Johnny will not work and will not train then what is your solution - forget about any other solutions - what is your solution with Johnny?



TheBigShort said:


> Really? Johnny and those like him would most likely chose crime over work? You state this as a fact...anything to back this up?




You have stated it repeatedly:

_"But instead, not understanding Johnnys circumstances, outlook on life and background, johnny sticks the fingers up and (possibly) chooses a life a crime."

"the small portion of welfare recipients who cant be bothered to work, or look for work, may seek to find other ways to boost their own incomes"

"Those This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language scratchers, in my view, would more likely choose a criminal lifestyle first, rather than a FAS course or minimum wage job, if you cut their welfare."

"So even though the State will save on welfare payments (what this thread is about) expect your taxes to rise anyway due to the costs of hiring more gardai, more court and prison servies. Expect your house insurance to rise due to burglaries. Expect business costs to rise for added security etc...etc.."_


----------



## ppmeath

TheBigShort said:


> Nevertheless, *I am now assuming that the jobless household report is discredited?* I also assume that the focus of 'welfare dependency' is on our friend Johnny how to deal with him?



No, your assumption is incorrect.

Edit - could you point out where the report headline states this:

"This is in line with the report headline at the start of this topic,* that apparently identified (incorrectly) that 23% of households were jobless."

*


----------



## TheBigShort

ppmeath said:


> Firstly you never asked, and secondly you only said this after I mentioned that this is where the confusion lay.
> 
> My definition would be this:
> 
> _*"Definition of Dependency Culture. *This refers to a system of social welfare that encourages people to stay on benefits rather than work.
> 
> It suggests the tax and benefit system is designed to give little incentive for getting off benefits and into work.
> 
> A dependency culture may arise _





ppmeath said:


> Firstly you never asked, and secondly you only said this after I mentioned that this is where the confusion lay.
> 
> My definition would be this:
> 
> _*"Definition of Dependency Culture. *This refers to a system of social welfare that encourages people to stay on benefits rather than work.
> 
> It suggests the tax and benefit system is designed to give little incentive for getting off benefits and into work.
> 
> A dependency culture may arise out of a desire to reduce relative poverty, through means tested benefits and a progressive tax system. For example, if a person is out of work with several children, they may be entitled to:
> _
> 
> _Unemployment benefit_
> _Housing Benefit_
> _Means tested child tax credits_
> _Free prescriptions e.t.c_
> _If they chose to work, they may lose these benefits and also pay more income tax and national insurance. Their net take home pay may be little different to that income received whilst not working.
> 
> A dependency culture also suggests that people make efforts to maximise welfare benefit income."_
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I am not presuming anything, would you please read what I wrote and here it is again:
> "
> "These people are disabled, they would not be classed as on the dole or welfare dependent"
> 
> If they are working and in receipt of a disability then they are not welfare dependent under any definition.
> 
> 
> 
> I would really suggest that you just read what I wrote - not what you think I wrote. And you should withdraw this remark:
> 
> 
> 
> Because it is not true.
> 
> 
> 
> If the figures are incorrect, then provide the correct ones.



I asked you to define 'welfare dependency' not 'a culture of dependency'. I did this because you discounted a home carer in receipt of welfare as being welfare dependent. I asked you to define what is to be considered as welfare dependent.
I did this because the NESC report allegedly (according to the opening poster) identified that 77% of households funded the other 23%. A breakdown of those 23% households,  identified households without a job and where ill or injured people were being cared for (to my memory, Ireland is by far reliant on home help more than any other EU country).
So for the purposes of this discussion which states "we must dismantle our culture of dependency" and then uses the 23% figure, which includes home care help, you are now telling me that home care help is not included?!?!

Therefore I think its only fair that you define what welfare provisions are included for the discussion on dependency and its subsequent dismantling. 

And once you have done that, you might propose how you go about dismantling the dependency culture without it costing the taxpayer even more!


----------



## TheBigShort

This is for ppmeath



Brendan Burgess said:


> Here is an article I had in the Sunday Independent yesterday:
> 
> http://www.independent.ie/opinion/c...antle-our-culture-of-dependency-34963409.html
> 
> *We need to dismantle our culture of dependency*
> *In Ireland 77pc of working households are funding the other 23pc - that's twice the average of other EU countries*
> 
> The Irish economy is growing rapidly. There will be real growth of around 5pc this year. Food, pharmaceutical and IT exports are booming. We are getting massive corporation tax payments from US multinationals. Our demographics are very favourable - we have relatively fewer dependant older people than other EU countries have. Unemployment has fallen to a little below the average EU levels. The Government can borrow money at 0.4pc.
> 
> 
> So why are you struggling so hard? Why do you feel so insecure about your future and the future of your children?
> 
> You put the head down at college and got a good degree. You did some years of poorly paid training afterwards. You made the financial sacrifices, you worked hard at your career and now you have a decent salary. You should be comfortably off, but you are not. You are paying relatively high income tax, PRSI and USC, not to mention Local Property Tax and water charges. If you have a non-tracker mortgage, you are paying interest rates which are twice what they are in the rest of the Eurozone. You have always paid for your own health insurance, but it has become increasingly expensive, while at the same time, the tax relief has been greatly reduced. You have never had a motor insurance claim, but this year your premium is 35pc higher than last year. You thought you had a good pension, but it turns out that there is a big hole in the pension fund.
> 
> And it's probably going to be worse for your children. They are in their late 20s and there is no sign of them flying the nest any time soon, as they simply can't afford it. You made financial sacrifices to get them a good education, and now they have reasonable jobs, but they can't afford to rent anywhere decent, and it's very difficult for them to save up the deposit to buy a house.
> 
> It shouldn't be like this. People who have studied and worked hard who now have decent jobs should be able to enjoy the fruits of their labour. They should be looking forward to good pensions on retirement and they should be able to pay for private health care without being made to feel guilty about it. If they choose to do so, they should be in a position to help their kids get on the housing ladder.
> 
> So what has gone wrong? Why is there such an imbalance in Irish society and what, if anything, can be done about it?
> 
> There is one outstanding statistic about Irish society which is very rarely reported.
> 
> Despite having average levels of unemployment, we have the highest percentage of jobless families in the original EU-15 countries, which includes Greece, Spain and Portugal. But it's not just a little more than average, it's twice the average. The average is 11pc but in Ireland, it's 23pc. The next closest to us is the UK at 13pc.
> 
> So whereas in other EU countries, 89pc of households work and fund the 11pc who don't work, in Ireland, 77pc of working households are funding the other 23pc who don't work.
> 
> Why do we have 23pc 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.
> 
> But this generous social welfare system is not good for the recipients. They have become dependent on the state for their income, their housing and their health services. And the state is not good at providing these things. It would be much better for everyone if social welfare rates and benefits were cut back to the average rates in other EU countries. People would be encouraged to work and provide for themselves rather than become dependent on the state for everything for the whole of their lives.
> 
> Social housing is a very good example of how the system is so dysfunctional and doesn't really help anyone. Because of the high level of jobless families, there is a huge demand for social housing, at a level which the state can't provide. But there is competition between social housing and private housing. For example, there is a campaign underway to get NAMA and the Government to build 3,000 social housing units on the Glass Bottle site in Ringsend. But it would be much better if 3,000 private housing units were built there for people who are working and prepared to rent or buy their accommodation with their own money.
> 
> If you are from Ringsend and you have a job, you have almost no chance of being able to afford to buy or rent anywhere close to your family home. You will probably buy or rent in Tallaght or Naas. But if you are unemployed and entitled to social housing, you will refuse a house in Tallaght or Naas, and only accept a house close to where you were born.
> 
> If we want to create a fairer society and a better society for everyone, we need to dismantle our dependency culture. Cutting welfare and benefits for those who are well able to work, would benefit everyone in the long run.
> 
> Brendan Burgess is founder of the consumer forum askaboutmoney.com. His views are his own.


----------



## ppmeath

TheBigShort said:


> I asked you to define 'welfare dependency' not 'a culture of dependency'.



But the topic is about the "culture of welfare dependency" - if that does not suit your agenda, then that is your issue, I won't be changing the topic, or my interpretation of it. 



TheBigShort said:


> I did this because you discounted a home carer in receipt of welfare as being welfare dependent. I asked you to define what is to be considered as welfare dependent.



Because I do not believe that the carer comes in under the definition. 



TheBigShort said:


> I did this because the NESC report allegedly (according to the opening poster) identified that 77% of households funded the other 23%.



Not that they are jobless so? 



TheBigShort said:


> I asked you to define what is to be considered as welfare dependent.





TheBigShort said:


> *So for the purposes of this discussion which states "we must dismantle our culture of dependency" *and then uses the 23% figure, which includes home care help, you are now telling me that home care help is not included?!?!



They are two different things, there is welfare dependence and this discussion refers to "our culture of dependency". And again, would you please cease misrepresenting what I had stated. I did not say that home care help was excluded, I said that I do not think that the example you used fit the discussion. 



TheBigShort said:


> Therefore I think its only fair that you define what welfare provisions are included for the discussion on dependency and its subsequent dismantling.



Please refer back to my interpretation of "the culture of welfare dependency". 



TheBigShort said:


> And once you have done that, you might propose how you go about dismantling the dependency culture without it costing the taxpayer even more!



When you tell me what we will do with Johnny.


----------



## ppmeath

TheBigShort said:


> This is for ppmeath



I asked you to highlight:

"This is in line with the report headline at the start of this topic,* that apparently identified (incorrectly) that 23% of households were jobless."
*
Where in the report headline does it say this, please highlight it.


----------



## TheBigShort

ppmeath said:


> But the topic is about the "culture of welfare dependency" - if that does not suit your agenda, then that is your issue, I won't be changing the topic, or my interpretation of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because I do not believe that the carer comes in under the definition.
> 
> 
> 
> Not that they are jobless so?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are two different things, there is welfare dependence and this discussion refers to "our culture of dependency". And again, would you please cease misrepresenting what I had stated. I did not say that home care help was excluded, I said that I do not think that the example you used fit the discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> Please refer back to my interpretation of "the culture of welfare dependency".
> 
> 
> 
> When you tell me what we will do with Johnny.



Please refer back to my interpretation of 'welfare dependency'

I believe the carer, in receipt of welfare, does come under the definition.

The 23% figure relates to jobless households. The opening poster claimed the other 77% were funding them.

Please refer back to my previous answers about what we will do with Johnny.


----------



## ppmeath

TheBigShort said:


> Please refer back to my interpretation of 'welfare dependency'



Which is not the topic we are discussing.



TheBigShort said:


> I believe the carer, in receipt of welfare, does come under the definition.



I never said that she was not welfare dependent - what I said - again, is:

"That is carers allowance, the nurse is working in the home caring for her elderly parent's. "

I said this after you said:
"If this is the culture of welfare dependency that you want to dismantle then you can go and jump!"
"The topic is about dismantling the* 'culture of welfare dependency'* based on a (misinterpretated) report that said 77% of households are funding the other 23%.".

The carer maybe "welfare dependent" - but she is not part of the "culture of welfare dependency " that is the topic we are discussing - I hope that is clear enough for you? Again please refer to the interpretation.



TheBigShort said:


> The 23% figure relates to jobless households. The opening poster claimed the other 77% were funding them.



Who is funding them if not the working households?



TheBigShort said:


> Please refer back to my previous answers about what we will do with Johnny.



What answers? You haven't given any, except to say keep paying him, leave him off because if you don't then he'll turn to crime and that will cost us more.

You won't answer it either.  You have confused the subject matter and blamed people for attacking the disabled and carers - when this is not true at all. You have refused to provide your own solution, and ignored the solutions in place - solutions by the way that are included in the report.

I don't mind discussing and engaging with people, but you have repeatedly attacked every poster here (that I can see) when they provided their views, you have attacked them and me for things I never said, suggested or even indicated.

You have been rude and personal with posters and despite my best attempts - I have to give up - because you don't want to have a discussion, because your "agenda" (which you shared in an earlier post), is set in stone.


----------



## TheBigShort

ppmeath said:


> What answers? You haven't given any, except to say keep paying him, leave him off because if you don't then he'll turn to crime and that will cost us more.



I didn't say he would turn to crime, I said someone like may turn to crime. I also said that unemployed workers should receive welfare equivalent to their last wage subject to limits. This may encourage someone like Johnny to eventually participate in the workforce.
You might not like my answer but at least its an answer, something to which you have avoided so far.
So rather than me argue the case against this so-called dependency culture, why doesnt someone, you perhaps, explain what it is and how you would dismantle it. And while you are at it, specifically, what would you do with Johnny?


----------



## ppmeath

TheBigShort said:


> I didn't say he would turn to crime, I said someone like may turn to crime.



And he may not, he may take the offers of training and/or work. Or he may not and cut the 10 cans down to 5 when his dole is cut. 



TheBigShort said:


> I also said that unemployed workers should receive welfare equivalent to their last wage subject to limits. This may encourage someone like Johnny to eventually participate in the workforce.



How would this work if you can't get him into work in the first place? That is the problem.



TheBigShort said:


> You might not like my answer but at least its an answer, something to which you have avoided so far.



You have been provided with my answer time and time again - either Johnny "earns" or he "learns" if not - then his dole will be cut.

To be eligible for the dole you must be available and genuinely seeking work - if Johnny is neither then he loses this entitlement - is that clear enough for you?



TheBigShort said:


> So rather than me argue the case against this so-called dependency culture, why doesn't someone, you perhaps, explain what it is and how you would dismantle it.



You seem unable to grasp the difference between welfare dependency and "dependency culture" which I clearly explained to you in an earlier post. 



TheBigShort said:


> And while you are at it, specifically, what would you do with Johnny?



See above and note that it is the same answer you were given before and if you don't like it then that is your problem.


----------



## TheBigShort

ppmeath said:


> Which is not the topic we are discussing.
> 
> 
> 
> I never said that she was not welfare dependent - what I said - again, is:
> 
> "That is carers allowance, the nurse is working in the home caring for her elderly parent's. "
> 
> I said this after you said:
> "If this is the culture of welfare dependency that you want to dismantle then you can go and jump!"
> "The topic is about dismantling the* 'culture of welfare dependency'* based on a (misinterpretated) report that said 77% of households are funding the other 23%.".
> 
> The carer maybe "welfare dependent" - but she is not part of the "culture of welfare dependency " that is the topic we are discussing - I hope that is clear enough for you? Again please refer to the interpretation.
> 
> 
> 
> Who is funding them if not the working households?
> 
> 
> 
> What answers? You haven't given any, except to say keep paying him, leave him off because if you don't then he'll turn to crime and that will cost us more.
> 
> You won't answer it either.  You have confused the subject matter and blamed people for attacking the disabled and carers - when this is not true at all. You have refused to provide your own solution, and ignored the solutions in place - solutions by the way that are included in the report.
> 
> I don't mind discussing and engaging with people, but you have repeatedly attacked every poster here (that I can see) when they provided their views, you have attacked them and me for things I never said, suggested or even indicated.
> 
> You have been rude and personal with posters and despite my best attempts - I have to give up - because you don't want to have a discussion, because your "agenda" (which you shared in an earlier post), is set in stone.
> 
> Have a good evening.



I have answered questions and in the one instance I was rude, I apologised publicly to the poster. It was an sarcastic quip not intended to cause offence, nevertheless it uncalled for and I apologised.
I have not attacked posters here, I have attacked their views, some of which are offensive to me. The notion for instance that a low paid worker in receipt of welfare because their wages are so low is somehow beholden to a wealthy person who pays so much tax. 
You have not answered any of my questions other than with obfucations about precise definitions. You ignore the barefaced fact that this topic of 'welfare dependency' is based on a misinterpretated report from the NESC and when I invited you to re-read the opening posts, you asked for 'specifics'
So dont put on that you cant have a reasonable discussion with me. You can if you want to but you are deliberately evasive and obfuscating the issues raised.


----------



## ppmeath

TheBigShort said:


> I have attacked their views



No, you haven't you have attacked your wrong interpretation of their views, including mine, I never said that disabled people or carers were part of the "culture of dependency", I never suggested cutting their welfare or payments to "dismantle the culture" which is what the topic is about.

You claimed I did and you attacked views that I do not have.



TheBigShort said:


> The notion for instance that a low paid worker in receipt of welfare because their wages are so low is somehow beholden to a wealthy person who pays so much tax.



Says who? Only you. Not one poster said or implied that - that I can see. 



TheBigShort said:


> You have not answered any of my questions other than with obfucations about precise definitions.



I answered all of them - you never answered mine, especially about Johnny and you still haven't.



TheBigShort said:


> You ignore the barefaced fact that this topic of 'welfare dependency' is based on a misinterpretated report from the NESC and when I invited you to re-read the opening posts, you asked for 'specifics'



The barefaced fact is that this topic is entitled "we-must-dismantle-our-culture-of-dependency" not "welfare dependency and it is not based on a misinterpreted report, that is what your posts are based on.

If you want to disagree with the figures, then provide your own. 



TheBigShort said:


> So dont put on that you cant have a reasonable discussion with me. You can if you want to but you are deliberately evasive and obfuscating the issues raised.



Absolutely not. I was clear with what I would do with Johnny, I was clear in my interpretation of  the "*'culture of welfare dependency".
*
You can't have a discussion with someone who insists that the topic is about something else entirely, you can't have a discussion with someone who claims that you said or meant something, that you didn't and even now you still will not accept my answers or even reply to them.


----------



## TheBigShort

ppmeath said:


> You have been provided with my answer time and time again - either Johnny "earns" or he "learns" if not - then his dole will be cut.
> 
> To be eligible for the dole you must be available and genuinely seeking work - if Johnny is neither then he loses this entitlement - is that clear enough for you?
> 
> You seem unable to grasp the difference between welfare dependency and "dependency culture" which I clearly explained to you in an earlier



I know exactly the difference. But tell me, what has a report that was incorrectly interpreted that 23% of households were jobless and being funded by the other 77% got to do with "dependency culture"?

I have repeatedly referred to this report in my comments yet not one poster has acknowledged that the opening post is bogus.
The report found that 23% of 0-59 yr olds lived in jobless households. It did not find that 23% of households were jobless. Furthermore, when the figures were broken down, there were a number of contributory factors such as, caring for elderly or disabled included.

So all in all, the "dependency culture" is a lot smaller than was made out by the opening poster.

So in order to dismantle it. Id like to know how big it is.


----------



## ppmeath

TheBigShort said:


> I know exactly the difference. But tell me, what has a report that was incorrectly interpreted that 23% of households were jobless and being funded by the other 77% got to do with "dependency culture"?



That is the title of the thread and there is a "culture of dependency" in this country and the question is in the first post:

_"Despite having average levels of unemployment, we have the highest percentage of jobless families in the original EU-15 countries, which includes Greece, Spain and Portugal. But it's not just a little more than average, it's twice the average. The average is 11pc but in Ireland, it's 23pc. The next closest to us is the UK at 13pc."_



TheBigShort said:


> I have repeatedly referred to this report in my comments yet not one poster has acknowledged that the opening post is bogus.



Because maybe they don't share your opinion?



TheBigShort said:


> The report found that 23% of 0-59 yr olds lived in jobless households. It did not find that 23% of households were jobless.



Yes it did on page 9:

_"Using the low work-intensity definition, Ireland has a high level of household joblessness compared to other European countries, with nearly one-quarter *(23 per cent) of households in Ireland described as jobless* (in 2010)." 




TheBigShort said:



			Furthermore, when the figures were broken down, there were a number of contributory factors such as, caring for elderly or disabled included.
		
Click to expand...

_
But the households still fall under the "jobless" definition. The report is very in-depth and does go into the reasons for this.



TheBigShort said:


> So all in all, the "dependency culture" is a lot smaller than was made out by the opening poster.



Where did he say that it was the entire 23%? Maybe I missed it?

Edit to add - here is what the OP said:

_"If we want to create a fairer society and a better society for everyone, we need to dismantle our dependency culture. *Cutting welfare and benefits for those who are well able to work,* would benefit everyone in the long run."_


----------



## ppmeath

TheBigShort said:


> So all in all, the "dependency culture" is a lot smaller than was made out by the opening poster.
> 
> So in order to dismantle it. Id like to know how big it is.



He didn't say it was 23%. He didn't put any figure on it as far as I can see. 

How you start to dismantle it, no matter how big it is - is to target Johnny, when he is young and fit and clearly able to work and if you cannot solve a problem "like Johnny" and if you can't see that he is the correct target - not the disabled, not the carers - who were never mentioned by the OP or me, then you won't be able to dismantle it - because if you leave Johnny alone out of fear as to what he "may" or "may not" do, then you enable the culture to exist, you nurture it.


----------



## TheBigShort

ppmeath said:


> No, you haven't you have attacked your wrong interpretation of their views, including mine,



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

Was I wrong to point out that rising car insurance had nothing to do with a dependency culture?

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.

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.

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


----------



## TheBigShort

ppmeath said:


> He didn't say it was 23%. He didn't put any figure on it as far as I can see.
> 
> How you start to dismantle it, no matter how big it is - is to target Johnny, when he is young and fit and clearly able to work and if you cannot solve a problem "like Johnny" and if you can't see that he is the correct target - not the disabled, not the carers - who were never mentioned by the OP or me, then you won't be able to dismantle it - because if you leave Johnny alone out of fear as to what he "may" or "may not" do, then you enable the culture to exist, you nurture it.



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?


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Please go to page 1, first post.


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.


----------



## T McGibney

TheBigShort said:


> 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

TheBigShort said:


> 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.


TheBigShort said:


> 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. 





TheBigShort said:


> 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.



TheBigShort said:


> 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.



TheBigShort said:


> 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

Purple said:


> 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

T McGibney said:


> 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

TheBigShort said:


> 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

Purple said:


> 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

Purple said:


> 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

TheBigShort said:


> 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

TheBigShort said:


> 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

Purple said:


> 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

TheBigShort said:


> 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

TheBigShort said:


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



I am. 




TheBigShort said:


> 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.



TheBigShort said:


> 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.



TheBigShort said:


> 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. 



TheBigShort said:


> 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

Purple said:


> 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

TheBigShort said:


> 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.



TheBigShort said:


> 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

ppmeath said:


> 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

Deiseblue said:


> 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

TheBigShort said:


> 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).



TheBigShort said:


> 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.



TheBigShort said:


> 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

TheBigShort said:


> 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

Purple said:


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



No.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> 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.



So you and the homeless lady would like the law changed so as to provide security of tenure? The details as to what that involves to be discussed, but the principle is there. You, like the homeless lady, want security of tenure.
Again, the context of the quote "a house for life" from the article was not determined. If it was a demand, then I would agree with you. But if it was an expression of a commonly held aspiration, then I see nothing wrong with it.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> No.


So what are you proposing?

You repeatedly assert that employers are under paying their employees and the state is subsidising that under payment. Can you explain what you mean?

That's two questions. Please answer both of them. 



Purple said:


> 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.


 Can you answer this as well please?


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> So you and the homeless lady would like the law changed so as to provide security of tenure? The details as to what that involves to be discussed, but the principle is there. You, like the homeless lady, want security of tenure.
> Again, the context of the quote "a house for life" from the article was not determined. If it was a demand, then I would agree with you. But if it was an expression of a commonly held aspiration, then I see nothing wrong with it.


Excellent, we agree on something; people do not have the right to housing.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> So what are you proposing?
> 
> You repeatedly assert that employers are under paying their employees and the state is subsidising that under payment. Can you explain what you mean?
> 
> That's two questions. Please answer both of them.
> 
> Can you answer this as well please?



Yes I would subscribe to that, but it is not communism. Not from what I understand communism to be anyway.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Yes I would subscribe to that, but it is not communism. Not from what I understand communism to be anyway.


Well it is according to Communists.
See here. 
Or maybe you are just a Marxist? 
Socialism is, according to Marx, a lower stage of communism so maybe it's just that socialist stage of communism.
From my limited understanding of these things it was meant to be applied after the workers utopia had been achieved and people didn't need to work but rather chose to do so as it had become a pleasurable activity.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Yes I would subscribe to that, but it is not communism. Not from what I understand communism to be anyway.


 Can you answer my other questions please?


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Well it is according to Communists.
> See here.
> Or maybe you are just a Marxist?
> Socialism is, according to Marx, a lower stage of communism so maybe it's just that socialist stage of communism.
> From my limited understanding of these things it was meant to be applied after the workers utopia had been achieved and people didn't need to work but rather chose to do so as it had become a pleasurable activity.



Well, you can call me a marxist or communist all you want, I dont get the point? 
That is a slogan adopted by communists to which I would agree with, wouldnt you?
Tiocfaidh ár lá is an Irish republican slogan, but if the Wicklow hurling team adopt it in relation to their pursuit of an all-ireland, does it make them supporters of the IRA?
Anyway, you asked me about that first slogan, I answered. 
So in good turn, do you subscribe to that slogan? And if not why not?


----------



## ppmeath

TheBigShort said:


> 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 don't need to go anywhere, because this topic is entitled "We must dismantle our culture of dependency" and you should thank the contributors in the other thread, for going into the very details that they did - but it doesn't change this topic.



TheBigShort said:


> 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.



Yes, you took a lot of time - maybe if you just concentrated on the topic, instead of continually dragging it off, then you might have spent your time and energy on productive discussion.



TheBigShort said:


> 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'"_



Which is exactly what I said, I never mentioned "security of tenure" because that is a different issue. 



TheBigShort said:


> If that is a demand then that is a sense of entitlement.



Yes it is a demand, because she has turned down two housing opportunities, because they do not fit what she wants. She wants a particular property, in  particular area and she wants it for life - that isn't the problem though, the problem is that she wants the state to provide it.




TheBigShort said:


> 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.



She is demanding from the State, what most people are working hard to provide for themselves, by themselves. They share that view, but they don't demand that the state provide it - indeed, were it only the case that we could all go to the state with a wish list.

You are defending a culture of entitlement and a welfare dependency culture, like the populist parties who use these people as fodder to progress their own careers.


----------



## ppmeath

TheBigShort said:


> So you and the homeless lady would like the law changed so as to provide security of tenure? The details as to what that involves to be discussed, but the principle is there. You, like the homeless lady, want security of tenure.
> Again, the context of the quote "a house for life" from the article was not determined. If it was a demand, then I would agree with you. But if it was an expression of a commonly held aspiration, then I see nothing wrong with it.



A "house for life" is not the same as "security of tenure" - the lady you are discussing is not "homeless", she has no home, but she isn't on the street, she is in a hotel.

She was offered two options of properties, she turned them down, rather her and her daughter stay in completely unsuitable accommodation, then take somewhere, to ease the pressure - because there are people in all likelihood, whose living conditions are a lot worse then this lady's and a hotel room would be a step up - but sure let's not look at the bigger picture eh?

She wants a home for the rest of her life, after she receives whatever degree from TCD, and maybe after securing good employment and earning 50k or more, while in her home for life, therefore depriving someone else of being given a hand up.

Honest to god............


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Well, you can call me a marxist or communist all you want, I dont get the point?
> 
> That is a slogan adopted by communists to which I would agree with, wouldnt you?


 No, I wouldn’t. It’s socially unjust and undesirable. It damages society and inflicts poverty and suffering on people. For proof just look at every communist country ever. Look at Communist countries because the phrase is inherently communist.




TheBigShort said:


> Tiocfaidh ár lá is an Irish republican slogan, but if the Wicklow hurling team adopt it in relation to their pursuit of an all-ireland, does it make them supporters of the IRA?
> 
> Anyway, you asked me about that first slogan, I answered.
> 
> So in good turn, do you subscribe to that slogan? And if not why not?


 Why do you keep deflecting like this? “Our day will come” can mean anything depending on the context. It is completely different to a slogan which encapsulates a ideological dogma.


----------



## Purple

Purple said:


> You repeatedly assert that employers are under paying their employees and the state is subsidising that under payment. Can you explain what you mean?
> 
> That's two questions. Please answer both of them.





Purple said:


> Can you answer my other questions please?



Can you answer these question please?
You are dodging the hard questions which ask you to clarify your position and deflecting by asking spurious questions of other posters.


----------



## TheBigShort

ppmeath said:


> I don't need to go anywhere, because this topic is entitled "We must dismantle our culture of dependency" and you should thank the contributors in the other thread, for going into the very details that they did - but it doesn't change this topic.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you took a lot of time - maybe if you just concentrated on the topic, instead of continually dragging it off, then you might have spent your time and energy on productive discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> Which is exactly what I said, I never mentioned "security of tenure" because that is a different issue.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is a demand, because she has turned down two housing opportunities, because they do not fit what she wants. She wants a particular property, in  particular area and she wants it for life - that isn't the problem though, the problem is that she wants the state to provide it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She is demanding from the State, what most people are working hard to provide for themselves, by themselves. They share that view, but they don't demand that the state provide it - indeed, were it only the case that we could all go to the state with a wish list.
> 
> You are defending a culture of entitlement and a welfare dependency culture, like the populist parties who use these people as fodder to progress their own careers.



She turned down two properties because they were being provided through the HAP system, which in turn, left her vunerable to being evicted after 12 months at the whim of the landlord. This does not provide for a stable environment, especially where children are concerned. And as a campaigner, highlighting the plight of homeless people, it would be folly to accept accommodation under such conditions while simultaneously campaigning against a system that facilitates evictions after only 12 months at the whim of the landlord.

Read the article again, she makes no such demand. She is quoted as saying "to be for life", nothing else. It is the reporter that claims she was talking about her next home. She could have been talking about Graham Dwyers prison sentence for all we know. We dont know, because the reporter didnt print the full quote. Given the overall tone of the article, I wonder why?

I appreciate you dont want to face up to the fact that the OP has dismissed the initial detail of the NESC report, but at least he has admitted to being wrong and is even considering a request from another poster to contact the Indo.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> No, I wouldn’t. It’s socially unjust and undesirable. It damages society and inflicts poverty and suffering on people. For proof just look at every communist country ever. Look at Communist countries because the phrase is inherently communist.[\QUOTE]
> 
> Its just a slogan, and has a lot of merit to it. Communist countries would have collapsed with or without the slogan.


----------



## ppmeath

TheBigShort said:


> *She turned down two properties* because they were being provided through the HAP system, *which in turn, left her vunerable to being evicted after 12 months at the whim of the landlord*.



She turned down two properties. Full.stop.

She was left no more vulnerable to eviction then any other private sector worker out there. 



TheBigShort said:


> This does not provide for a stable environment, especially where children are concerned.



So the 100's of 1000's of children whose parent's rent privately are not in a stable environment? Really?



TheBigShort said:


> And as a campaigner, highlighting the plight of homeless people, it would be folly to accept accommodation under such conditions while simultaneously campaigning against a system that facilitates evictions after only 12 months at the whim of the landlord.



Lol, anti homeless campaigner offered solution but won't accept "solution" lest she be brought down to the level of private renters - is that it?




TheBigShort said:


> Read the article again, she makes no such demand. She is quoted as saying "to be for life", nothing else. It is the reporter that claims she was talking about her next home. She could have been talking about Graham Dwyers prison sentence for all we know. We dont know, because the reporter didnt print the full quote. Given the overall tone of the article, I wonder why?



Ah I see.



TheBigShort said:


> I appreciate you dont want to face up to the fact that the OP has dismissed the initial detail of the NESC report, but at least he has admitted to being wrong and is even considering a request from another poster to contact the Indo.



Did he change the title of this thread or did he change the question that he posed?


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Its just a slogan, and has a lot of merit to it. Communist countries would have collapsed with or without the slogan.


Communist countries would not have been communist without it. It encapsulates what is means to be communist. If you think it has a lot of merit then you think that communism has a lot of merit. You are perfectly entitled to believe that of course; it's a free country and will remain so unless communists take power. 

Now, will you answer my other questions?


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> So what are you proposing?
> 
> You repeatedly assert that employers are under paying their employees and the state is subsidising that under payment. Can you explain what you mean?
> 
> That's two questions. Please answer both of them.
> 
> Can you answer this as well please?



1. What am I proposing? With regard to what exactly?

2. A worker with a family may qualify for Family Income Supplement if the income for the whole family falls below a certain threshold, roughly €12 per hour. The state will top up the difference (up to 60%) in the wage and the designated threshold. So for a family with one child the threshold is €512. The employer pays €450, knowing that the employee can claim benefit of 60% of the difference between the wage and threshold, a further €36 in this instance. A saving of €36 in wages for the employer at the expense of the taxpayer.

Now, I ve answered your questions (whether you agree or not is mute) you answer mine.
Is it reasonable to expect an unemployed civil engineer to take up a job in a coffee shop if it becomes available? Is it reasonable to expect a coffee shop employer to hire an over qualified unsuitable professional? 
If the answer is 'unreasonable', is the engineer part of the culture of welfare dependency?


----------



## Gerry Canning

Socialism, Communism , Capitalism = Humbug !

1. Socialism , nice handy way of
a. Overthrowing autocratic regimes
b. funny how its the socialists , who raise ticket touting by elites ? underpaid deckhands on boats ? and other inequities ?
B1. funny how its socialists who foul up countries ? eg Venezuala.

2. Communism , a nice handy way of
a. saying I am right and if you disagree , off with your head , or was that La Republique?
A1.Funny how communist Cuba , starved of (capitalistic) funds have a good health care. 

3. Capitalism , nice handy way of 
a. funny how they pretend its a free market, then slapping mortgage,bond debt etc onto Mr Citizen.
b. funny how capitalism seems to have lifted a lot of boats?

In short isms ain,t helpful.


----------



## T McGibney

Gerry Canning said:


> 3. Capitalism , nice handy way of
> a. funny how they pretend its a free market, then slapping mortgage,bond debt etc onto Mr Citizen.



That's corporatism, Gerry. Not capitalism. 



Gerry Canning said:


> b. funny how capitalism seems to have lifted a lot of boats?


Not funny. Just true.


----------



## Gerry Canning

Still all are ism,s , its how we use our biases to interpret them.
It seems a little communism, a little socialism, a little capitalism and your corporatism mixed properly would give us utopianism !


----------



## T McGibney

Gerry Canning said:


> It seems a little communism, a little socialism, a little capitalism and your corporatism mixed properly would give us utopianism !



If only...


----------



## ppmeath

TheBigShort said:


> 2. A worker with a family may qualify for Family Income Supplement if the income for the whole family falls below a certain threshold, roughly €12 per hour. The state will top up the difference (up to 60%) in the wage and the designated threshold. So for a family with one child the threshold is €512. The employer pays €450, knowing that the employee can claim benefit of 60% of the difference between the wage and threshold, a further €36 in this instance. A saving of €36 in wages for the employer at the expense of the taxpayer.



You still refuse to discuss the topic and again you are dragging it off into another attack at employers.


----------



## Delboy

TheBigShort said:


> Read the article again, she makes no such demand. She is quoted as saying "to be for life", nothing else. It is the reporter that claims she was talking about her next home. She could have been talking about Graham Dwyers prison sentence for all we know. We dont know, because the reporter didnt print the full quote. Given the overall tone of the article, I wonder why?


I genuinely don't know why so many normally level headed and knowledgeable posters on this site are still biting here. Pointless


----------



## Deiseblue

Gerry Canning said:


> Still all are ism,s , its how we use our biases to interpret them.
> It seems a little communism, a little socialism, a little capitalism and your corporatism mixed properly would give us utopianism !



Or Fine Gael , it could be their mission statement as conceived
by Leo after his recent Damascene conversion


----------



## TheBigShort

ppmeath said:


> She turned down two properties. Full.stop.
> 
> She was left no more vulnerable to eviction then any other private sector worker out there.
> 
> 
> 
> So the 100's of 1000's of children whose parent's rent privately are not in a stable environment? Really?
> 
> 
> 
> Lol, anti homeless campaigner offered solution but won't accept "solution" lest she be brought down to the level of private renters - is that it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah I see.
> 
> 
> 
> Did he change the title of this thread or did he change the question that he posed?



A private tenant is entitled to security of tenure for three years and six months after the first six months of tenancy. 
Personally I think that sucks also. But if no-one takes a stand on these issues, if we all just roll over and accept what our masters say....oh wait, someody is taking a stand.
Fair play to her, dont you think? Or should she just accept whatever is offered, shut up, and pray she doesnt has to move again in 12 months?


----------



## ppmeath

TheBigShort said:


> private tenant is entitled to security of tenure for three years and six months after the first six months of tenancy.



A person in receipt of HAP is a private tenant. 

[broken link removed]

_"Under HAP the tenant sources the private rental accommodation and enters a tenancy with the private landlord. Like the Rental Accommodation Scheme, under HAP you will not be a local authority tenant, but a private tenant. Your landlord must be tax compliant – that is, the landlord’s tax affairs must be in order and the landlord must be able to supply a current tax clearance certificate to the local authority. The local authority pays the rent, through the HAP payment, directly to the landlord. The HAP recipient pays their rent contribution to the local authority through the An Post Household Budget Scheme, Bill Pay card, or, where their social welfare payment is paid into their bank, by direct debit from their bank. Information leaflets on HAP are available on www.environ.ie."_



TheBigShort said:


> Personally I think that sucks also. But if no-one takes a stand on these issues, if we all just roll over and accept what our masters say....oh wait, someody is taking a stand.



Really, but hey it's good enough for private tenants - not for certain others. And she could have taken a stand from one of the properties (AKA "solutions") that she was offered. 



TheBigShort said:


> air play to her, dont you think? Or should she just accept whatever is offered, shut up, and pray she doesnt has to move again in 12 months?



No, I don't support anyone who nurtures a culture of dependency.


----------



## ppmeath

TheBigShort said:


> Or should she just accept whatever is offered, shut up, and pray she doesnt has to move again in 12 months?



indeed.

_"The briefing document states Ms Fleming was offered a two-bedroom apartment in the upmarket Dublin suburb of Mount Prospect Avenue in Clontarf"_

http://www.daft.ie/dublin/apartments-for-rent/clontarf/48-belgrove-clontarf-dublin-1671897/

€1,550 a month.


----------



## TheBigShort

ppmeath said:


> A person in receipt of HAP is a private tenant.
> 
> [broken link removed]
> 
> _"Under HAP the tenant sources the private rental accommodation and enters a tenancy with the private landlord. Like the Rental Accommodation Scheme, under HAP you will not be a local authority tenant, but a private tenant. Your landlord must be tax compliant – that is, the landlord’s tax affairs must be in order and the landlord must be able to supply a current tax clearance certificate to the local authority. The local authority pays the rent, through the HAP payment, directly to the landlord. The HAP recipient pays their rent contribution to the local authority through the An Post Household Budget Scheme, Bill Pay card, or, where their social welfare payment is paid into their bank, by direct debit from their bank. Information leaflets on HAP are available on www.environ.ie."_
> 
> 
> 
> Really, but hey it's good enough for private tenants - not for certain others. And she could have taken a stand from one of the properties (AKA "solutions") that she was offered.
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't support anyone who nurtures a culture of dependency.



Fair enough  I will concede that one. We found one welfare dependent.


----------



## TheBigShort

As it was my example of Johnny, that illustrated that some people milk the system or take advantage, my overall point is that those who choose to depend on welfare are a tiny minority relative to those who would opt out of it in a second.
The press keep reporting about the number of extra homeless each month but the only interviews you see are with those with suspect claims.


----------



## ppmeath

Delboy said:


> I genuinely don't know why so many normally level headed and knowledgeable posters on this site are still biting here. Pointless


 
Not that I am assuming you are referring to me lol, but I will tell you why I am biting (if you're interested of course), I would say that I am part of a growing number of people who are fed up to the back teeth of listening to this BS and spin that has infested Irish life and society.

This entitlement culture is being fed by people like the poster here. Even if you read Erica's interviews (and I don't blame Erica for her stance), you will see that she "ignores" people who she claims are trolling her - she doesn't want to listen because she is being used and manipulated by certain political parties, to further their own prospects.  

They are like a disease and they are feeding into people's psyche that the world owes them, that they should "hang on in there", go to the media and expose their "plight", when in fact they have been offered support after support and yet still want more.

Many people are renting, many are managing to work on less then what they could "get" off the state, these people commute, they can organise childcare, they manage without constantly whining and running to the media every 5 minutes.


----------



## ppmeath

TheBigShort said:


> Fair enough I will concede that one. We found one welfare dependent.



After you defended her and we only know that she is one such person, because of the media attention that she exposed herself to. This isn't about targeting Erica, this is about educating her and making her understand that the supports she has been offered are exactly that - supports, a house for life is far more then support.



TheBigShort said:


> As it was my example of Johnny, that illustrated that some people milk the system or take advantage, my overall point is that those who choose to depend on welfare are a tiny minority relative to those who would opt out of it in a second.
> The press keep reporting about the number of extra homeless each month but the only interviews you see are with those with suspect claims.



But the topic is this culture of dependency and the homelessness crisis, while appalling, is one of the symptoms of the housing market and this sense of entitlement.

I don't know how any person could live in the conditions as described with a child and then turn down such a property. It is alien to me.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> 1. What am I proposing? With regard to what exactly?


  When you say that “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.” Are you proposing that the employer should pay the employee based on their needs rather than the value of their labour? If not what are you proposing, i.e. how do you come to the conclusion that FIS is a subsidy to the employer rather than a subsidy to the employee? Using your logic the employees wage would rise and fall depending on their personal circumstances. Using your logic the employee should have to work for nothing if they win the lottery or come into a large inheritance. I don’t that would be fair either.



TheBigShort said:


> 2. A worker with a family may qualify for Family Income Supplement if the income for the whole family falls below a certain threshold, roughly €12 per hour. The state will top up the difference (up to 60%) in the wage and the designated threshold. So for a family with one child the threshold is €512. The employer pays €450, knowing that the employee can claim benefit of 60% of the difference between the wage and threshold, a further €36 in this instance. A saving of €36 in wages for the employer at the expense of the taxpayer.


 You previously posted that you don't think people should be paid more for the same job depending on their circumstances (despite agreeing with communist doctrine on the subject). How then can you ascribe to the employer the responsibility of ensuring that the above family has a sustainable income ?




TheBigShort said:


> Now, I ve answered your questions (whether you agree or not is mute) you answer mine.
> 
> Is it reasonable to expect an unemployed civil engineer to take up a job in a coffee shop if it becomes available? Is it reasonable to expect a coffee shop employer to hire an over qualified unsuitable professional?
> 
> If the answer is 'unreasonable', is the engineer part of the culture of welfare dependency?


Of course it is not unreasonable. What would be unreasonable would be a engineer thinking any job was beneath them due to their qualification while living off the charity of their fellow citizens. Every person who can work has a moral duty to work (Edit; That should be they have a moral responsibility to contribute to society). Obviously carers are already working as carers etc.
If the coffee shop owner doesn't want to give them a job that's their business. The engineer needs to find someone who will.


----------



## TheBigShort

A qp
W
,


Purple said:


> When you say that “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.” Are you proposing that the employer should pay the employee based on their needs rather than the value of their labour? If not what are you proposing, i.e. how do you come to the conclusion that FIS is a subsidy to the employer rather than a subsidy to the employee? Using your logic the employees wage would rise and fall depending on their personal circumstances. Using your logic the employee should have to work for nothing if they win the lottery or come into a large inheritance. I don’t that would be fair either.
> 
> You previously posted that you don't think people should be paid more for the same job depending on their circumstances (despite agreeing with communist doctrine on the subject). How then can you ascribe to the employer the responsibility of ensuring that the above family has a sustainable income ?
> 
> 
> Of course it is not unreasonable. What would be unreasonable would be a engineer thinking any job was beneath them due to their qualification while living off the charity of their fellow citizens. Every person who can work has a moral duty to work (Edit; That should be they have a moral responsibility to contribute to society). Obviously carers are already working as carers etc.
> If the coffee shop owner doesn't want to give them a job that's their business. The engineer needs to find someone who will.



Yes, but if the coffee shop owner refuses to employ him, even though he is more than capable and willing,  is the employer not contributing to the culture of welfare dependency?


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> A qp
> W
> ,
> 
> 
> Yes, but if the coffee shop owner refuses to employ him, even though he is more than capable and willing,  is the employer not contributing to the culture of welfare dependency?


Can you answer my other questions first please, you know, the ones which challenge your views?


----------



## TheBigShort

ppmeath said:


> After you defended her and we only know that she is one such person, because of the media attention that she exposed herself to. This isn't about targeting Erica, this is about educating her and making her understand that the supports she has been offered are exactly that - supports, a house for life is far more then support.
> 
> 
> 
> But the topic is this culture of dependency and the homelessness crisis, while appalling, is one of the symptoms of the housing market and this sense of entitlement.
> 
> I don't know how any person could live in the conditions as described with a child and then turn down such a property. It is alien to me.



Well accepting at face value the circumstances as presented I would agree with you. But now what? As far as I know if you turn down two offers of accommodation you revert back to the back of the que.


----------



## ppmeath

TheBigShort said:


> Well accepting at face value the circumstances as presented I would agree with you. But now what? As far as I know if you turn down two offers of accommodation you revert back to the back of the que.



In other words take a "benefit" away from her, in this case her place on the queue?


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> When you say that “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.” Are you proposing that the employer should pay the employee based on their needs rather than the value of their labour? If not what are you proposing, i.e. how do you come to the conclusion that FIS is a subsidy to the employer rather than a subsidy to the employee? Using your logic the employees wage would rise and fall depending on their personal circumstances. Using your logic the employee should have to work for nothing if they win the lottery or come into a large inheritance. I don’t that would be fair either.
> 
> You previously posted that you don't think people should be paid more for the same job depending on their circumstances (despite agreeing with communist doctrine on the subject). How then can you ascribe to the employer the responsibility of ensuring that the above family has a sustainable income



But you guys want to dismantle this culture of dependency!! Here we have an instance where a person working full time does not even get a wage deemed necessary to provide financial independence for him and his family!!! 
So little is his pay that the state intervenes to top up his wage to support him and his family. All because the employer has calculated the value of his labour to be a certain amount, which is a load of bs, to be honest. 
The prevailing view here would be to cut this welfare payment as its too generous (laughable) rather than face up to the huge proportion of low paid workers in this state. 
If you want to dismantle the welfare dependency, then you have to accept that wages need to increase. Unless of course you support another round of austerity, which by any reasonable measure has failed. Not just in Ireland but across Europe.


----------



## TheBigShort

ppmeath said:


> In other words take a "benefit" away from her, in this case her place on the queue?



Presumably she continues to live in the hotel? Which I suspect will cost more per month than the apartment.


----------



## orka

TheBigShort said:


> my overall point is that those who choose to depend on welfare are a tiny minority relative to those who would opt out of it in a second.


This is just your opinion though - repeating it doesn't make it so.  You haven't offered any convincing arguments why anyone should believe your opinion on this.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> I didn't say he would turn to crime, I said someone like may turn to crime.



In post 214 you said (emphasis mine)

As such dismantling his welfare would most likely push him into cheap and easy crime rather than into work.





TheBigShort said:


> 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 would be delighted to pay more taxes for better services. However, I am reminded of the boom years when we were flush with cash. We had benchmarking and threw money at the HSE but we still had people waiting on trolleys, so from where I am sitting services did not improve much at all despite additional funding.




TheBigShort said:


> 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.





TheBigShort said:


> 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.




To be fair, you keep bringing carers into this argurment. No-one would begreduge carers their income. Yes they are welfare dependent, but they are not culturally dependent on welfare. I only wish carers could have "normal" lives and there would be state services to provide the care instead. However, buying Xbox games for Johnny is hampering that




TheBigShort said:


> 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.



The minimum wage is the benchmark for most on welfare. Increasing this would make it more attractive to work rather than stay on benefits. We have the highest minimum wage in Europe. Out of interest what rate do you think it should be?




TheBigShort said:


> 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?



Not directed at me, but for what it's worth, I would happily work in a coffee shop rather than be on the dole.




TheBigShort said:


> 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.




It certainly wouldn't stop me trying! Who knows, if I got rejected enough I might set up my own pop-up coffee shop


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Of course it is not unreasonable. What would be unreasonable would be a engineer thinking any job was beneath them due to their qualification while living off the charity of their fellow citizens. Every person who can work has a moral duty to work (Edit; That should be they have a moral responsibility to contribute to society). Obviously carers are already working as carers etc.
> If the coffee shop owner doesn't want to give them a job that's their business. The engineer needs to find someone who will.



I dont agree with this view. I believe someone who has trained and worked to a position to obtain a high salary is entitled, yes entitled, to a reasonable period (say 3 months) to find suitable employment to which his is trained for. Having skilled engineers working in coffee shops does not make for a capitalising economy.


----------



## ppmeath

TheBigShort said:


> But you guys want to dismantle this culture of dependency!!


Yes we do.



TheBigShort said:


> Here we have an instance where a person working full time does not even get a wage deemed necessary to provide financial independence for him and his family!!!



But he's not part of it - go back to the first post and read it again:

_"They have become dependent on the state for their income, their housing and their health services. And the state is not good at providing these things. It would be much better for everyone if social welfare rates and benefits were cut back to the average rates in other EU countries. People would be encouraged to work and provide for themselves rather than *become dependent on the state for everything for the whole of their lives."*_



TheBigShort said:


> The prevailing view here would be to cut this welfare payment as its too generous (laughable) rather than face up to the huge proportion of low paid workers in this state.



No, that is your prevailing view based on your inability to distinguish between dependent on a welfare "support", and the "culture of welfare dependency".



TheBigShort said:


> If you want to dismantle the welfare dependency, then you have to accept that wages need to increase. Unless of course you support another round of austerity, which by any reasonable measure has failed. Not just in Ireland but across Europe.



You refuse to accept that you have misinterpreted what we are discussing and the solution (about time) you offer, to simply "increase" wages.


----------



## ppmeath

TheBigShort said:


> I dont agree with this view. I believe someone who has trained and worked to a position to obtain a high salary is entitled, yes entitled, to a reasonable period (say 3 months) to find suitable employment to which his is trained for. Having skilled engineers working in coffee shops does not make for a capitalising economy.



Fine, and after that? If there isn't suitable employment - what then?


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> I dont agree with this view. I believe someone who has trained and worked to a position to obtain a high salary is entitled, yes entitled, to a reasonable period (say 3 months) to find suitable employment to which his is trained for. Having skilled engineers working in coffee shops does not make for a capitalising economy.


I agree with you but that's not what you asked. If they can't get a job in their field then they should take whatever job they can. That's why a tapering off of benefits over time is a good idea.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort, can you answer these questions please?;



Purple said:


> When you say that “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.” Are you proposing that the employer should pay the employee based on their needs rather than the value of their labour? If not what are you proposing, i.e. how do you come to the conclusion that FIS is a subsidy to the employer rather than a subsidy to the employee? Using your logic the employees wage would rise and fall depending on their personal circumstances. Using your logic the employee should have to work for nothing if they win the lottery or come into a large inheritance. I don’t that would be fair either.





Purple said:


> You previously posted that you don't think people should be paid more for the same job depending on their circumstances (despite agreeing with communist doctrine on the subject). How then can you ascribe to the employer the responsibility of ensuring that the above family has a sustainable income ?


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> But you guys want to dismantle this culture of dependency!! Here we have an instance where a person working full time does not even get a wage deemed necessary to provide financial independence for him and his family!!!
> So little is his pay that the state intervenes to top up his wage to support him and his family. All because the employer has calculated the value of his labour to be a certain amount, which is a load of bs, to be honest.
> The prevailing view here would be to cut this welfare payment as its too generous (laughable) rather than face up to the huge proportion of low paid workers in this state.
> If you want to dismantle the welfare dependency, then you have to accept that wages need to increase. Unless of course you support another round of austerity, which by any reasonable measure has failed. Not just in Ireland but across Europe.


Again; how should their wage be calculated if not on market value and/or the value of their labour?
If his income doesn't cover his costs he has loads of choices. He can;
1) Work overtime
2) Try for a better paid job where he is working
3) Get a second job
4) Reduce his costs
5) Do all of the above
6) Do any of the above while training/ ups-killing in order to make his labour more valuable

Your solution presumes that people can't better themselves. I find that morally objectionable.


----------



## ppmeath

And I just want to expand on this:

_"If you want to dismantle the welfare dependency, *then you have to accept that wages need to increase*. Unless of course you support another round of austerity, which by any reasonable measure has failed. Not just in Ireland but across Europe."
_
This is more populist nonsense, without any attempt to even try to understand the possible consequences of simply "increasing wages".

The backbone of this country is not the MNC's - it's the small and medium business's who employ about one million people in this country.

If you "increase" wages then you run the risk of forcing these companies to either reduce the working hours of some people - forcing these workers onto FIS. Or you risk forcing them to let people go because they simply cannot sustain the wage increases, so you force them on the dole.

And you stifle growth because the employer may not expand and/or employ new staff due to the fear of ever increasing wages. 

And/or they push they increases onto the consumers, swallowing up any benefit of the increases that they may have felt.


----------



## TheBigShort

ppmeath said:


> Yes we do.
> 
> 
> 
> But he's not part of it - go back to the first post and read it again:
> 
> _"They have become dependent on the state for their income, their housing and their health services. And the state is not good at providing these things. It would be much better for everyone if social welfare rates and benefits were cut back to the average rates in other EU countries. People would be encouraged to work and provide for themselves rather than *become dependent on the state for everything for the whole of their lives."*_
> 
> 
> 
> No, that is your prevailing view based on your inability to distinguish between dependent on a welfare "support", then the "culture of welfare dependency".
> 
> 
> 
> You refuse to accept that you have misinterpreted what we are discussing and the solution (about time) you offer, to simply "increase" wages.



And you refuse to say what proportion of people in receipt of welfare are part of this culture of dependency.

And you refuse to acknowledge that this topic was started, using (false) data that 23% of households were jobless. The implication being that if not all, but a significant large proportion of these households are welfare dependent. Otherwise what was the purpose of using the NESC report, if only to imply that these jobless households are a drain on the taxpayer.
I have expressed my view that I  believe most welfare recipients would jump at the chance of financial independence. I based that on the time when unemployment reached 4% in this country. That is, if there are jobs, people will work them. I also base it on the 50,000 or jobs bridge applicants. 
You have ruled out home carers, people in receipt of FIS, people actively seeking work, people with disabilities, people who are upskilling or training as  welfare dependents. So who is left?
All you have presented is the woman in the hotel and the fictional character Johnny (actually I presented that).
I have agreed that some people milk the system, will take advantage, but in the round, the figures are tiny relative to the costs that will be needed in other social provisions when you drive people further into poverty with your dismantling plans.
I exposed the €660m control savings reported by Social Protection as nothing more than an estimate of what would be defrauded if they didnt carry out their checks. The actual figure of €68million in savings is made up of fraudulent payments and overpayments made in error. With overpayments retrieved being the bulk of savings.
You accused me of labelling you with discriminatory views, yet the tone of posts stating that welfare dependents are 'like a disease' would be at home in a Nazi fanzine.
So enough of your garbage, lets have some figures.
How many welfare recipients do you class as welfare dependents?
What do you base this on?
How much is it costing the state?
What do you propose to do about it?


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> So enough of your garbage, lets have some figures.
> How many welfare recipients do you class as welfare dependents?
> What do you base this on?
> How much is it costing the state?
> What do you propose to do about it?


Right back at ya!


----------



## TheBigShort

ppmeath said:


> And I just want to expand on this:
> 
> _"If you want to dismantle the welfare dependency, *then you have to accept that wages need to increase*. Unless of course you support another round of austerity, which by any reasonable measure has failed. Not just in Ireland but across Europe."
> _
> This is more populist nonsense, without any attempt to even try to understand the possible consequences of simply "increasing wages".
> 
> The backbone of this country is not the MNC's - it's the small and medium business's who employ about one million people in this country.
> 
> If you "increase" wages then you run the risk of forcing these companies to either reduce the working hours of some people - forcing these workers onto FIS. Or you risk forcing them to let people go because they simply cannot sustain the wage increases, so you force them on the dole.
> 
> And you stifle growth because the employer may not expand and/or employ new staff due to the fear of ever increasing wages.
> 
> And/or they push they increases onto the consumers, swallowing up any benefit of the increases that they may have felt.



The minimum wage increased by some 5.7% last January. The vast majority of minimum wage workers are employed in small and medium-sized enterprises. ISME, IBEC et al, said it would put jobs at risk. 
Since then unemployment figures have fallen. There is also a provision in the Minimum wage Act that allows a business to opt out of paying if they cant afford it, through application to the Labour Court.
The total number of businesses that applied for this opt out? ZERO! Not one!
You seem incapable of recognising the positive impact an increase in wages can have on the economy and employment. After 7/8 years of austerity, time to try something else. But you right wing monetarists will do anything but hand leverage to labour in the form of wage increases. Thats why we have QE, asset buying bubbles, negative interest rates, and off the wall GDP figures.
Ive been in the workforce for 20 yrs and the mantra was always 'moderate wage increases' to prevent stoking inflation. Yet we live in an economy in danger of deflation (welfare cuts would add to that) and central banks trying to stoke inflation. 
Wage increases stoke inflation, so go figure.


----------



## ppmeath

TheBigShort said:


> And you refuse to say what proportion of people in receipt of welfare are part of this culture of dependency.



?? I didn't, and I don't care if it is 1% or 10% - it needs to be dismantled. 



TheBigShort said:


> And you refuse to acknowledge that this topic was started, using (false) data that 23% of households were jobless.



No, because the points raised in the posts are the same. 



TheBigShort said:


> The implication being that if not all, but a significant large proportion of these households are welfare dependent. Otherwise what was the purpose of using the NESC report, if only to imply that these jobless households are a drain on the taxpayer.



No, that is your interpretation. 



TheBigShort said:


> I have expressed my view that I believe most welfare recipients would jump at the chance of financial independence. I based that on the time when unemployment reached 4% in this country. That is, if there are jobs, people will work them. I also base it on the 50,000 or jobs bridge applicants.



So are you saying that 19% is the figure? 



TheBigShort said:


> You have ruled out home carers, people in receipt of FIS, people actively seeking work, people with disabilities, people who are upskilling or training as welfare dependents. So who is left?



Exactly. That is the question that was asked - again - go back to the first page:

"If we want to create a fairer society and a better society for everyone, we need to dismantle our dependency culture. Cutting welfare and benefits *for those who are well able to work*, would benefit everyone in the long run."



TheBigShort said:


> All you have presented is the woman in the hotel and the fictional character Johnny (actually I presented that).



You certainly did and you were provided with my solution for Johnny and you provided your own solution with the lady in the hotel - punish her by putting her back to the end of the queue leaving her and her daughter in the hotel.



TheBigShort said:


> I have agreed that some people milk the system, will take advantage, but in the round, the figures are tiny relative to the costs that will be needed in other social provisions when you drive people further into poverty with your dismantling plans.



Figures and stats please - when you can say how many, then I'm all ears - and my "dismantling" plan is directed at these people and if you agree with this, then you agree with the plan. 



TheBigShort said:


> I exposed the €660m control savings reported by Social Protection as nothing more than an estimate of what would be defrauded if they didnt carry out their checks.



Nothing to do with the topic. 



TheBigShort said:


> You accused me of labelling you with discriminatory views, yet the tone of posts *stating that welfare dependents are 'like a disease*' would be at home in a Nazi fanzine.



Now you are blatantly lying, because this is what I said:

_"This entitlement culture is being fed by people like the poster here. "............ "(That's you by the way)

They are like a disease and they are feeding into people's psyche that the world owes them, that they should "hang on in there", go to the media and expose their "plight", when in fact they have been offered support after support and yet still want more."_

And people like you, so you need to stop blatantly lying about what I wrote. Thanks.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Right back at ya!



Why is it you answer for ppmeath and he answers for you?
Go back and read my post, figures already given.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Again; how should their wage be calculated if not on market value and/or the value of their labour?
> If his income doesn't cover his costs he has loads of choices. He can;
> 1) Work overtime
> 2) Try for a better paid job where he is working
> 3) Get a second job
> 4) Reduce his costs
> 5) Do all of the above
> 6) Do any of the above while training/ ups-killing in order to make his labour more valuable
> 
> Your solution presumes that people can't better themselves. I find that morally objectionable.





1) no overtime available
2) no jobs on offer
3) he works 40 hrs as it is and has a young family - try it sometime
4) he buys smuggled diesel on the cheap on your advice to reduce costs
6) he is a qualified computer engineer with a masters degree in law also.

Now go away with this nonsense


----------



## ppmeath

TheBigShort said:


> The minimum wage increased by some 5.7% last January. The vast majority of minimum wage workers are employed in small and medium-sized enterprises. ISME, IBEC et al, said it would put jobs at risk.



No, they said it might and they also said it could prevent the creation of 60,000 jobs.




TheBigShort said:


> Since then unemployment figures have fallen. There is also a provision in the Minimum wage Act that allows a business to opt out of paying if they cant afford it, through application to the Labour Court.



No, I guess when you go bust there's no point making the application is there?



TheBigShort said:


> You seem incapable of recognising the positive impact an increase in wages can have on the economy and employment.



And you are incapable of recognising or even acknowledging the negative impact it can have on business's, employees, the state and the consumer.

On one hand you want to fight the culture and get people back to work - while forcing more wage increases onto employers?



TheBigShort said:


> After 7/8 years of austerity, time to try something else



Like the increase in the minimum wage and increasing wages in 3/4's of the private sector?

http://www.independent.ie/business/...or-pay-rises-for-three-quarters-31483801.html



TheBigShort said:


> But you right wing monetarists will do anything but hand leverage to labour in the form of wage increases. Thats why we have QE, asset buying bubbles, negative interest rates, and off the wall GDP figures.



Like the 3/4's of business's above?



TheBigShort said:


> Ive been in the workforce for 20 yrs and the mantra was always 'moderate wage increases' to prevent stoking inflation.



Like the moderate increases already given yes?


----------



## ppmeath

TheBigShort said:


> So enough of your garbage, lets have some figures.
> How many welfare recipients do you class as welfare dependents?
> What do you base this on?
> How much is it costing the state?
> What do you propose to do about it?




Get your own figures and when you provide them, maybe I'll discuss it.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> 1) no overtime available


OK



TheBigShort said:


> 2) no jobs on offer


OK



TheBigShort said:


> 3) he works 40 hrs as it is and has a young family - try it sometime


 I have 4 children and have never worked less than 45 hours a week. I usually work over 50.



TheBigShort said:


> 4) he buys smuggled diesel on the cheap on your advice to reduce costs


 Don’t be silly.



TheBigShort said:


> 6) he is a qualified computer engineer with a masters degree in law also.


 And he’s on minimum wage? Again, don’t be silly.




TheBigShort said:


> Now go away with this nonsense


 Right back at ya.

Now, once again, can you answer my questions above?


----------



## TheBigShort

ppmeath said:


> ?? I didn't, and I don't care if it is 1% or 10% - it needs to be dismantled.
> 
> 
> 
> No, because the points raised in the posts are the same.
> 
> 
> 
> No, that is your interpretation.
> 
> 
> 
> So are you saying that 19% is the figure?
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. That is the question that was asked - again - go back to the first page:
> 
> "If we want to create a fairer society and a better society for everyone, we need to dismantle our dependency culture. Cutting welfare and benefits *for those who are well able to work*, would benefit everyone in the long run."
> 
> 
> 
> You certainly did and you were provided with my solution for Johnny and you provided your own solution with the lady in the hotel - punish her by putting her back to the end of the queue leaving her and her daughter in the hotel.
> 
> 
> 
> Figures and stats please - when you can say how many, then I'm all ears - and my "dismantling" plan is directed at these people and if you agree with this, then you agree with the plan.
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing to do with the topic.
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are blatantly lying, because this is what I said:
> 
> _"This entitlement culture is being fed by people like the poster here. "............ "(That's you by the way)
> 
> They are like a disease and they are feeding into people's psyche that the world owes them, that they should "hang on in there", go to the media and expose their "plight", when in fact they have been offered support after support and yet still want more."_
> 
> And people like you, so you need to stop blatantly lying about what I wrote. Thanks.



You are some chancer

1. You should care if its 1% or 10%, because if you are going to drive people further into poverty, I want to know how much this is going to cost.
2. A fairly logical interpretation to associate the title of a topic with the subject matter supplied.
3. What are you talking about 19%?? I said when the economy had jobs for whoever wanted one, unemployment fell to 4%. If you take out of that contractors who are in between jobs and those genuinely injured or ill, then the welfare 'dependents' that you are after will come in around 1 to 1.5%.

4. You have no figures, eff all facts, and mindset that thinks of others like a disease, be it me or someone else, but stop trying to deny it.


----------



## ppmeath

TheBigShort said:


> 1) no overtime available
> 2) no jobs on offer
> 3) he works 40 hrs as it is and has a young family - try it sometime
> 4) he buys smuggled diesel on the cheap on your advice to reduce costs
> 6) he is a qualified computer engineer with a masters degree in law also.
> 
> Now go away with this nonsense




Lol, this is what he produces and this is what he demands:

_"How many welfare recipients do you class as welfare dependents?
What do you base this on?
How much is it costing the state?
What do you propose to do about it?"_

@Purple is talking nonsense and I am talking garbage. lol.


----------



## TheBigShort

[QUOTE="Purple, post: 1483855, member:

And he’s on minimum wage? Again, don’t be silly?[/QUOTE]

Sorry, you are right, thats silly. He is qualified engineer working in a coffee shop.


----------



## TheBigShort

ppmeath said:


> No, they said it might and they also said it could prevent the creation of 60,000
> ?



They would say that, as you would. But unemployment fell, didnt it?


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Sorry, you are right, thats silly. He is qualified engineer working in a coffee shop.


There is a major shortage of engineers. Why is he working in a coffee shop?


----------



## Purple

Can everyone step back and take a few deep breaths here please?
This is just a discussion on the internet.


----------



## ppmeath

Lol, point taken @Purple. A few minutes breather is not a bad idea.


----------



## TheBigShort

Some figures guys, you are running on empty.

2004/5 unemployment fell to 4%. A strong indicator that people will work when there are jobs
50,000 applicants for job bridge scheme. All minimum wage increases from 2000 correlate with an increase in employment
One minimum wage decrease correlates with an increase in unemployment.
€68m the total in welfare clawbacks for 2015, most of which were for accidental overpayments on the Department's side.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Can everyone step back and take a few deep breaths here please?
> This is just a discussion on the internet.


Agreed!


----------



## T McGibney

Once expressions like 





> You are some chancer


 and 





> You have no figures, eff all facts, and mindset that thinks of others like a disease


 begin to manifest in a thread, it's time for it to end for good.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> 2004/5 unemployment fell to 4%. A strong indicator that people will work when there are jobs


 No, it’s a strong indicator that in a bubble economy with rampant wage inflation people are better off working than on welfare. Therefore when people are not better off working they remain on welfare even if jobs are available. This creates a welfare trap; a culture of welfare dependency.



TheBigShort said:


> 50,000 applicants for job bridge scheme.


 Yep, great scheme but badly policed by the state.



TheBigShort said:


> All minimum wage increases from 2000 correlate with an increase in employment


 What’s your point?



TheBigShort said:


> One minimum wage decrease correlates with an increase in unemployment.


 What’s your point?



TheBigShort said:


> €68m the total in welfare clawbacks for 2015, most of which were for accidental overpayments on the Department's side.


 Yes, we all agree that the Department of Social Protection is rubbish at reducing welfare fraud.


Now, again, will you answer my questions about how you think wages should be calculated if not on the value of labour?

It is key to all of this as it would allow the rest of us to understand your world view because at the moment there are so many holes in your logic that it comes across to me as completely incoherent.


----------



## TheBigShort

T McGibney said:


> Once expressions like  and  begin to manifest in a thread, it's time for it to end for good.



In fairness, I wasnt the one who brought up the 'like a disease'. Either ppmeath was referring to welfare dependents or he was referring to me, but either way that was the provocation.
But you are right, it has descended into farce.


----------



## ppmeath

TheBigShort said:


> 2004/5 unemployment fell to 4%. A strong indicator that people will work when there are jobs



Agreed, this is classed a full employment. Here's the thing though, and it is a point that I don't see in a lot of places. In that year wages were absolutely huge and this would encourage people to come off welfare - no doubt about it. But these wages were part of the problem, not the solution. 

A lot of people also taken off the dole were put into CE schemes or other activation schemes and of course when things came crashing down - then these were not renewed, so while there was 4% employment, when you dig deeper into the figures it tells us a lot more.



TheBigShort said:


> 50,000 applicants for job bridge scheme. All minimum wage increases from 2000 correlate with an increase in employment



I don't see the connection? Genuinely don't.



TheBigShort said:


> One minimum wage decrease correlates with an increase in unemployment.



And here - I don't see the connection. 

These are the questions you need to answer and you haven't answered them.

_"How many welfare recipients do you class as welfare dependents?
What do you base this on?
How much is it costing the state?
What do you propose to do about it?"_


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> No, it’s a strong indicator that in a bubble economy with rampant wage inflation people are better off working than on welfare. Therefore when people are not better off working they remain on welfare even if jobs are available. This creates a welfare trap; a culture of welfare dependency.
> 
> Yep, great scheme but badly policed by the state.
> 
> What’s your point?
> 
> What’s your point?
> 
> Yes, we all agree that the Department of Social Protection is rubbish at reducing welfare fraud.
> 
> 
> Now, again, will you answer my questions about how you think wages should be calculated if not on the value of labour?
> 
> It is key to all of this as it would allow the rest of us to understand your world view because at the moment there are so many holes in your logic that it comes across to me as completely incoherent.



How do you know the Department's of Social Protection is rubbish at reducing fraud if you wont tell us how many welfare dependency recipients there are.
You see, you are not so shy in blaming others when you want, or when the answers dont fall your way.
Farce.


----------



## ppmeath

TheBigShort said:


> In fairness, I wasnt the one who brought up the 'like a disease'. Either ppmeath was referring to welfare dependents or he was referring to me, but either way that was the provocation.
> But you are right, it has descended into farce.



My post was very clear, I was referring to you and people like you, taken out of context it may seem bad, but when taken into context the full meaning of it is also very clear - I did not say that welfare dependants were a disease and you should withdraw the remark -because now you have said it twice.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> How do you know the Department's of Social Protection is rubbish at reducing fraud if you wont tell us how many welfare dependency recipients there are.
> You see, you are not so shy in blaming others when you want, or when the answers dont fall your way.
> Farce.



Now, again, will you answer my questions about how you think wages should be calculated if not on the value of labour?

It is key to all of this as it would allow the rest of us to understand your world view because at the moment there are so many holes in your logic that it comes across to me as completely incoherent.
Then I'll answer you.


----------



## Purple

ppmeath said:


> My post was very clear, I was referring to you and people like you, taken out of context it may seem bad, but when taken into context the full meaning of it is also very clear - I did not say that welfare dependants were a disease and you should withdraw the remark -because now you have said it twice.


Yea, but probably not the right thing to say. You should withdraw the remark.


----------



## ppmeath

Sorry Purple, but I stand by the post:

"This entitlement culture is being fed by people like the poster here. Even if you read Erica's interviews (and I don't blame Erica for her stance), you will see that she "ignores" people who she claims are trolling her - she doesn't want to listen because she is being used and manipulated by certain political parties, to further their own prospects. 

They are like a disease and they are feeding into people's psyche that the world owes them, that they should "hang on in there", go to the media and expose their "plight", when in fact they have been offered support after support and yet still want more."


----------



## Purple

OK, so you didn't refer to people on welfare or other posters as being like a disease. You said that populist parties which encourage people not to be self reliant were like a disease. That's fair enough and in no way offensive to anyone engaged in this debate.


----------



## TheBigShort

ppmeath said:


> Agreed, this is classed a full employment. Here's the thing though, and it is a point that I don't see in a lot of places. In that year wages were absolutely huge and this would encourage people to come off welfare - no doubt about it. But these wages were part of the problem, not the solution.
> 
> A lot of people also taken off the dole were put into CE schemes or other activation schemes and of course when things came crashing down - then these were not renewed, so while there was 4% employment, when you dig deeper into the figures it tells us a lot more.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see the connection? Genuinely don't.
> 
> 
> 
> And here - I don't see the connection.
> 
> These are the questions you need to answer and you haven't answered them.
> 
> _"How many welfare recipients do you class as welfare dependents?
> What do you base this on?
> How much is it costing the state?
> What do you propose to do about it?"_



1. I disagree. It was not wages that collapsed the economy, it was a massive credit bubble. Loans to people that were way out of synch with their wages.

2. You argued against my proposal to increase wages. I merely pointed out that increases in the Minimum wage have always correlated with an increase in employment. The one decrease, correlates with an increase in unemployment. 
So the argument that increasing the minimum wage could cost jobs is very dubious. The reverse is actually what has happened.

3. 0.5 to 1% welfare dependency
     Employment participation when jobs are       available.
   €100 to €120million
   Increase wages.

Now your turn


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> OK, so you didn't refer to people on welfare or other posters as being like a disease. You said that populist parties which encourage people not to be self reliant were like a disease. *That's fair enough and in no way offensive to anyone engaged in this debate*.



Speak for yourself. Stop trying to dig him out, its pathetic.


----------



## TheBigShort

ppmeath said:


> My post was very clear, I was referring to you and people like you, taken out of context it may seem bad, but when taken into context the full meaning of it is also very clear - I did not say that welfare dependants were a disease and you should withdraw the remark -because now you have said it twice.



You have referred to me as a disease. If not, who are you talking about?


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Speak for yourself. Stop trying to dig him out, its pathetic.


He said that political parties who encouraged a culture of welfare dependence were a disease. 

Now, again, will you answer my questions about how you think wages should be calculated if not on the value of labour?

It is key to all of this as it would allow the rest of us to understand your world view because at the moment there are so many holes in your logic that it comes across to me as completely incoherent.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> 1. I disagree. It was not wages that collapsed the economy, it was a massive credit bubble. Loans to people that were way out of synch with their wages.


 In that you are incorrect and there is a mountain of data to back it up. Take a look at this from the Journal.ie (hardly a right wing site) for a good summary.



TheBigShort said:


> 2. You argued against my proposal to increase wages. I merely pointed out that increases in the Minimum wage have always correlated with an increase in employment. The one decrease, correlates with an increase in unemployment.
> So the argument that increasing the minimum wage could cost jobs is very dubious. The reverse is actually what has happened.


 You are seeing a link where there is none. Your logic is similar to how people used to think disease was spread by "bad vapors".

Now, again, will you answer my questions about how you think wages should be calculated if not on the value of labour?

It is key to all of this as it would allow the rest of us to understand your world view because at the moment there are so many holes in your logic that it comes across to me as completely incoherent.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> He said that political parties who encouraged a culture of welfare dependence were a disease.
> 
> Now, again, will you answer my questions about how you think wages should be calculated if not on the value of labour?
> 
> It is key to all of this as it would allow the rest of us to understand your world view because at the moment there are so many holes in your logic that it comes across to me as completely incoherent.



I think wages should be calculated on the value of labour.
Where are you going with this? You've made some whoppers already what with communist slogans, engineers working in coffee shops and so forth. Mind how you go now.


----------



## ppmeath

TheBigShort said:


> 1. I disagree. It was not wages that collapsed the economy, it was a massive credit bubble. Loans to people that were way out of synch with their wages.
> 
> 2. You argued against my proposal to increase wages. I merely pointed out that increases in the Minimum wage have always correlated with an increase in employment. The one decrease, correlates with an increase in unemployment.
> So the argument that increasing the minimum wage could cost jobs is very dubious. The reverse is actually what has happened.
> 
> 3. 0.5 to 1% welfare dependency
> Employment participation when jobs are       available.
> €100 to €120million
> Increase wages.
> 
> Now your turn



1. I did not say that they did, I said they were part of the problem.
2. Because your are wrong.
3. Are you saying that when there was 4% unemployment that 3% - 3.5% of them had a culture of welfare dependency?
Are you basing it on job availability - how many jobs are available now? Can you give a breakdown of how you came to this figure?
4. To what?


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> I think wages should be calculated on the value of labour.
> 
> Where are you going with this? You've made some whoppers already what with communist slogans, engineers working in coffee shops and so forth. Mind how you go now.



You are the one who agrees with communist slogans, is hypothesizing about engineers working in coffee shops and so forth.


But thanks for clarifying your position. As you think that wages should be calculated on the value of labour how is a welfare payment to an employee whose wages do not provide sufficient income to support his family a subsidy by the state to the employer?

I have no problem with such a payment. I support the idea of a social safety net. I just fail to understand how the state topping up the income of someone who cannot fully support themselves is a subsidy to their employer.


----------



## TheBigShort

ppmeath said:


> 1. I did not say that they did, I said they were part of the problem.
> 2. Because your are wrong.
> 3. Are you saying that when there was 4% unemployment that 3% - 3.5% of them had a culture of welfare dependency?
> Are you basing it on job availability - how many jobs are available now? Can you give a breakdown of how you came to this figure?
> 4. To what?



Im saying 0.5 to 1% (max) welfare receipients are welfare dependent.
We can discuss my figures when you eventually produce your own based on the questions asked.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Im saying 0.5 to 1% (max) welfare receipients are welfare dependent.


Can you provide your source for that figure please?


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Can you provide your source for that figure please?



We can discuss my figures when you have produced your own. We are going around in the circles so time to stump up the details. 23% of jobless households was a bogus figure intended to imply that most welfare recipients are lazy and choose a lifestyle of welfare.
My argument is that the real figure is closer to 0.5% to 1% of welfare recipients choose a dependency lifestyle.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> My argument is that the real figure is closer to 0.5% to 1% of welfare recipients choose a dependency lifestyle.




I would really like to see this assertion backed up.

If we look across the water, and I certainly do *not* agree with the title before you say anything (emphasis mine)
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/268681/4m-scrounging-families-in-Britain

_The statistics also revealed the number of households where no one has ever worked has increased by 18,000 over the past year to 370,000.

A total of 3.88million homes with at least one working-age adult do not include anyone with a job. Despite a slight drop of 38,000 over the past year, the shocking figure represents one in five of households with at least one member of working-age.

Critics seized on the statistics as fresh evidence of the culture of benefits dependency that was allowed to spiral out of control under the previous Labour government._​
_The figures confirmed that the number of households where no one has ever worked doubled under Labour.

_​So, from the above figures, of the 3.88 million homes where there is at least one working-age adult but nobody is working, 9.5% of those families (370,000) are those where nobody has ever worked. They can't all be carers surely?

Can you back up your figures please?


----------



## Firefly

.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> .



With respect, its been difficult enough to come to this point without factoring in all the variable that apply to the British welfare system too.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> With respect, its been difficult enough to come to this point without factoring in all the variable that apply to the British welfare system too.



I'm just showing what the figures look like for our nearest neighbour with whom we have a lot in common with. Over there it seems 9.5% of those who are unemployed have never worked. Take away those who are physically and mentally impaired and the carers, you are probably looking at a figure of about 5% which is 5 to 10 times bigger than your figure. So, again, can you please back up your figure?


----------



## ppmeath

TheBigShort said:


> Im saying 0.5 to 1% (max) welfare receipients are welfare dependent.
> We can discuss my figures when you eventually produce your own based on the questions asked.



Back it up.


----------



## TheBigShort

ppmeath said:


> Back it up.



Just put up some figures of your own. Then ill back my figures up, then you back your figures up.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> I'm just showing what the figures look like for our nearest neighbour with whom we have a lot in common with. Over there it seems 9.5% of those who are unemployed have never worked. Take away those who are physically and mentally impaired and the carers, you are probably looking at a figure of about 5% which is 5 to 10 times bigger than your figure. So, again, can you please back up your figure?



Im not interested in what happens in Britain. I mean, why produce figures for Britain now? Why dont you produce Irish figures?


----------



## orka

http://www.independent.ie/irish-new...e-has-never-worked-a-single-day-29278033.html


> The statistics, broken down by age and by region, show, for the first time, the extent of people who have been totally reliant on Jobseeker's Benefit to survive throughout their adult life, without making any contribution whatsoever by way of PRSI payments.
> ...
> As these figures reveal, 43,375 people, or one in seven of those in receipt of the €188-a-week Jobseeker's Benefit, have never made any contribution to the PRSI system, in other words, they have never been in employment.
> 
> Of those, one in three, or 13,222, are aged 35 or older, which makes them far more likely to have children, which Mr Keaveney said is an intolerable situation. "Based on the figures, there is a strong possibility of children growing up with parents who have never contributed to the State."



1 in 7 is about 14%.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> Im not interested in what happens in Britain. I mean, why produce figures for Britain now? Why dont you produce Irish figures?


Orka beat me to it. Would you be so kind as to provide back up to your figures now or is this going to be another "What do we do about Johnny" rigmarole?


----------



## TheBigShort

orka said:


> http://www.independent.ie/irish-new...e-has-never-worked-a-single-day-29278033.html
> 
> 
> 1 in 7 is about 14%.



Just because they have never worked doesn't mean that they are not actively seeking work, actively engaged in training or upskilling, working in the volunteer sector, providing home care help or managing a disabled child or recovering from illness or injury.
If you have followed this topic you will realise that the figures required are for those actively avoiding work to maintain their benefits.


----------



## orka

You're just playing games now. How can you explain that many people getting to age 35 having never worked?  Sure, there might be some doing home care but not many. What are the others upskilling from?  If you go 1/2 years without a job to your liking, you accept that your ambitions are too high and go for a lower level job.  

No way we have that many people actively seeking work, upskilling like crazy, volunteering from dawn to dusk but somehow just unlucky in not finding the right role.  That is delusional.


----------



## RichInSpirit

Farmers depend on Eu payments. The government and civil service depend upon tax payers to pay their wages.
Unemployed people spend nearly 100% of their income from the dole. That's at least 23% (VAT) of the dole back into the state coffers straight away.
I think nobody in this society should be judging people on the dole.


----------



## TheBigShort

orka said:


> You're just playing games now. How can you explain that many people getting to age 35 having never worked?  Sure, there might be some doing home care but not many. What are the others upskilling from?  If you go 1/2 years without a job to your liking, you accept that your ambitions are too high and go for a lower level job.
> 
> No way we have that many people actively seeking work, upskilling like crazy, volunteering from dawn to dusk but somehow just unlucky in not finding the right role.  That is delusional.



Some people have had more unfortunate upbringings concerning criminal convictions or recovering from drug or alcohol abuse. Again, it does not mean they are deliberately avoiding work for welfare benefits no more than employers tend not to offer such individuals work in the first instance.
Nevertheless, here is media article debunking data from department of social protection. By no means definitive but if you are using media articles, then so will I. 

http://notesonthefront.typepad.com/...the-government-believes-it-can-save-600m.html


----------



## orka

RichInSpirit said:


> Unemployed people spend nearly 100% of their income from the dole. That's at least 23% (VAT) of the dole back into the state coffers straight away.


Except that most of life's actual necessities (food, fuel, housing) are at a low/no VAT rate.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> Some people have had more unfortunate upbringings concerning criminal convictions or recovering from drug or alcohol abuse. Again, it does not mean they are deliberately avoiding work for welfare benefits no more than employers tend not to offer such individuals work in the first instance.
> Nevertheless, here is media article debunking data from department of social protection. By no means definitive but if you are using media articles, then so will I.
> 
> http://notesonthefront.typepad.com/...the-government-believes-it-can-save-600m.html


Michael Taft? That's priceless that is!!!!


----------



## orka

TheBigShort said:


> Nevertheless, here is media article debunking data from department of social protection. By no means definitive but if you are using media articles, then so will I.
> 
> http://notesonthefront.typepad.com/...the-government-believes-it-can-save-600m.html


Do you know the definition of data?  I'll give you an example - actual objective figures of, say, the number of people on the live register who have never made any PRSI contributions in their life (actual counting) - that's an example of data.  A minister quoting estimated hypothetical fraud savings = not data.  Debunking an estimate or opinion is not the same as debunking data.

[You could probably do with a definition of media too...]


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> Michael Taft? That's priceless that is!!!!



I was trying to dumb it down to level with an article from the Irish Independent, but it was the best I could do.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> I was trying to dumb it down to level with an article from the Irish Independent, but it was the best I could do.


I think the Info is a rag at the best of times, but putting it on a par with Michael Taft is an insult to journalists everywhere. Anyway enough diversions...how about backing up your figures?


----------



## TheBigShort

orka said:


> Do you know the definition of data?  I'll give you an example - actual objective figures of, say, the number of people on the live register who have never made any PRSI contributions in their life (actual counting) - that's an example of data.  A minister quoting estimated hypothetical fraud savings = not data.  Debunking an estimate or opinion is not the same as debunking data.
> 
> [You could probably do with a definition of media too...]



The actual fraud figure provided from Social Protection figures was €26million. Is that 'data' enough for you?


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> I think the Info is a rag at the best of times, but putting it on a par with Michael Taft is an insult to journalists everywhere. Anyway enough diversions...how about backing up your figures?



How about you posting some figures?...from within Irish territoral waters this time.


----------



## orka

TheBigShort said:


> The actual fraud figure provided from Social Protection figures was €26million. Is that 'data' enough for you?


Sure - but what's that got to do with this thread?  Sitting at home scratching one's This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language is not currently hunted down as fraud and wouldn't be in that number (would probably be things like claiming for dead people, people who have left the country, single parents actually co-habiting etc.)


----------



## orka

TheBigShort said:


> How about you posting some figures?...from within Irish territoral waters this time.


What's wrong with the numbers in the Indo report?  You might look down your nose at the Indo but the underlying data came via Joan Burton from the department of Social Protection.  Doesn't get much better than that surely?


----------



## TheBigShort

https://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/media/committees/pac/correspondence/2014-meeting12415/[PAC-R-1362]-Correspondence-3C.2---Dept-of-Social-Protection-Anti-Fraud-Strategy.pdf

Some official data for you to mull over.


----------



## TheBigShort

orka said:


> What's wrong with the numbers in the Indo report?  You might look down your nose at the Indo but the underlying data came via Joan Burton from the department of Social Protection.  Doesn't get much better than that surely?



Theres no more wrong with the figures in the Indo than there is with the figures in the link I provided to you, which are based on data from department of social protection.
Tell me you didn't look down your nose at that, did you?


----------



## orka

TheBigShort said:


> https://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/media/committees/pac/correspondence/2014-meeting12415/[PAC-R-1362]-Correspondence-3C.2---Dept-of-Social-Protection-Anti-Fraud-Strategy.pdf
> 
> Some official data for you to mull over.


Did you even read it yourself?  A quick 2 minute skim will tell you it's got nothing to do with what's being discussed in this thread.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> How about you posting some figures?...from within Irish territoral waters this time.


See my post at 8:35pm


----------



## TheBigShort

orka said:


> Sure - but what's that got to do with this thread?  Sitting at home scratching one's This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language is not currently hunted down as fraud and wouldn't be in that number (would probably be things like claiming for dead people, people who have left the country, single parents actually co-habiting etc.)



Where did you come out of anyway? Where has ppmeath and Purple disappeared to?
You have decided that these people are at home scratching their This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language (with no proof, just an inherent bias), but if you were to follow comments from Purple et al you would be left in no doubt that scratching your This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language and claiming is considered fraud in their books.
So perhaps talk to them about what is and isnt fraud.


----------



## TheBigShort

orka said:


> Did you even read it yourself?  A quick 2 minute skim will tell you it's got nothing to do with what's being discussed in this thread.



Its not definitive for sure, but if you only give it a 2 min skim then you are dodging the issue.
Btw I dont even remember you being part of this discussion, so dont tell what the issue is.
Unless you can come up with something better than an indo article that takes no consideration of the multitude of reasons why people arent at work, as opposed to the typical snob attitude that because someone is on long term welfare that that automatically means, in your words, scratching their This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language.


----------



## orka

TheBigShort said:


> Where did you come out of anyway? Where has ppmeath and Purple disappeared to?





TheBigShort said:


> Btw I dont even remember you being part of this discussion, so dont tell what the issue is.


You're a funny guy BS.  I would imagine ppmeath and Purple are off living their lives - dinner, family, mad stuff like that.  We work in relays to keep the conspiracy going.



TheBigShort said:


> So perhaps talk to them about what is and isnt fraud.


Some people may consider it fraud but it not currently chased up as fraud so it's not included in any of your fraud stats, data or reports.


TheBigShort said:


> Its not definitive for sure, but if you only give it a 2 min skim then you are dodging the issue.


I'm a fast reader.  It's clear early on that the report is about fraud as currently chased up - nothing to do with activation measures.


----------



## orka

TheBigShort said:


> the typical snob attitude that because someone is on long term welfare that that automatically means, in your words, scratching their This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language.



Ladies and Gentlemen (drum roll please)...

The prize for the first mention of This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language-scratching in this thread goes to:

TheBigShort!



TheBigShort said:


> In some regard, there is a lot to be said for providing those (tiny minority of welfare recipients) with a free house, TV, and enough to buy booze and fags, *so they can scratch their This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language all day *and not bother anyone else.


----------



## TheBigShort

Ok so lets take your Indo report as the definitive for the moment, and lets take your view that This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language scratching is not fraudulent ( but if purple comes back on here then you have to explain that to him/her).

The report is dated May 2013, and you have unilaterally decided that there is a serious bout of This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language scratching going on. The report states that it would _appear_ to vindicate the Ministers view that some people have chosen a lifestyle of welfare. But it doesn't confirm that the Ministers view is vindicated, let alone the Minister herself confirming her view. Let me say here now, that I do not doubt that it is the case, that some choose welfare dependency as a lifestyle, but I would seriously doubt it to be at the levels that are suggested here. And in my defence, Colm Keaveney who obtained the ,'astonishingly, disturbing' figures stated they required an investigation. If you have the results of that investigation that would be handy?
But in the absence of those results, we can work with the figures from your article.

Some 43,500 people never contributed to PRSI, indicating that they never worked.
How many of these people are;

1) school leavers or college gradutes looking for work for the first time at a time of some 13-14% unemployment?
2) immigrants arriving to ireland from other EU countries but with no track record of working here
3) are engaged in full-time care of elderly or disabled person
4) actively seeking employment and participating in social welfare programs to upskill or retrain
5) actively seeking employment but because of a previous criminal record or drug or alcohol addiction are genuinely finding it difficult to receive offers of employment
6) in receipt of a disability allowance that hinders, but does not prevent them from taking employment? For instance, most office blocks are wheelchair friendly these days, but how wheelchair workers do you know of. I know of only two.
6) members of the Traveller community who have traditionally faced discrimination when it comes to employment.
7) scratching their This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language?

The results of the investigation would surely give us a better picture.

Certainly by time people have reached 35, that number drops dramatically to 13,222 and as mentioned this would include people with kids so add to the list

8) lone parents, typically women, left to raise a child without a reliable partner.

So once you can identify the number of This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language scratchers as distinct the number of people with no PRSI, then come back and we will discuss further.


----------



## TheBigShort

orka said:


> Ladies and Gentlemen (drum roll please)...
> 
> The prize for the first mention of This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language-scratching in this thread goes to:
> 
> TheBigShort!



My response above


----------



## Purple

Can we get back to what this thread is about please?

It’s about a welfare system which creates a culture of dependency. Yes, the fraudsters and criminals are in that group but so is someone who would work but is better off on welfare and so chooses not to work.

Unemployment benefit is paid on the basis that the recipient is available and willing to work. If they are disabled or a full time carer then they are not part of that group. If they choose not to take a job which is offered to them then they are not willing to work and so in breach of the moral contract they have with their fellow citizens whose money they are living off. That’s what this is about; people who could work but don’t because it doesn’t pay for them to do so; that’s a culture of welfare dependency.


We have a number of options. We could;

1)  Leave things as they are and just live with it. I’m not a fan of this option as it traps people in intergenerational poverty.

2)  Reduce welfare across the board, making any employment better than none financially. I’m not a fan of this option either as it will lead to increased hardship and suffering.

3)  Change the unemployment benefit system to one which pays more to short term unemployed people than long term unemployed people. I like this idea.

4)  Means test all long term unemployment payments. I like this option as well. People need to stop thinking that they have an entitlement to live off their neighbours.

5)  Force employers to pay people more and so make employment more financially attractive. I’m not a fan of this either. It’s just a tax in another form so if you want businesses to pay for it just tax them more and be honest about it.

6)   Accept that many people who choose to live off their neighbours because their neighbours are giving them a better standard of living than they can provide for themselves are a lost cause and do everything possible to ensure that their children grow up free from such a morally bankrupt parasitic mind set. This can only really be done through the education system and in fairness to those involved the education system does quite a good job here.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort, I know you missed me but I'm working odd hours at the moment and I'm busiest in the evenings. You can relax though, I'm still around.

You still haven't answered my question about why you think FIS is a subsidy to employers if you think wages should be set by the market. Did you have a chance to think about it overnight?


----------



## T McGibney

Pat Hickey is finally released from jail in Rio. Gets his phone back, looks at it and asks: "Is this AAM thread *still* running?"


----------



## Deiseblue

According to the latest figures from the CSO there are now over 2 million people in paid labour in the State  - the highest figure since 2008.

Tellingly the long term unemployment rate has fallen over the past year from 5.5 % to 4.4% which suggests that as jobs are created the long term unemployed are willing to take them .

Is it possible that the Government's target of creating full employment can be achieved by 2020 based on an unemployment rate of 6 % ? ( a figure apparently based on the largest number of jobs the economy can support at any time after allowing for workers who are between jobs but still an active part of the work force & those that are unable to work ).

Reasons for cautious optimism I would have thought & with decreasing numbers on the dole & accompanying increases in tax revenue not only should it be possible to maintain social welfare payments to the hard pressed it may indeed be possible to increase same - Leo will be pleased !


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> TheBigShort, I know you missed me but I'm working odd hours at the moment and I'm busiest in the evenings. You can relax though, I'm still around.
> 
> You still haven't answered my question about why you think FIS is a subsidy to employers if you think wages should be set by the market. Did you have a chance to think about it overnight?



I have already explained how an employer can offer a worker with a family a rate of pay below the value of the workers labour, full in the knowledge that the worker can replenish the deficit in the wage by claiming FIS. 
But im gone way past discussing viewpoints without anyone producing anything of substance by way of data.
The title of this topic is about a culture of welfare dependency and that it should be dismantled. I concede that some people choose a lifestyle of welfare dependency but I dispute strongly the attempts to use headline grabbing figures to force an agenda on an issue, while not to dismiss it,  is not even close to being as bad as its being made out to be.
The first attempt was to suggest that 23% of households were jobless and being funded by the other 77%. Even the author of that article has admitted that his facts were wrong.
Another poster has put up (another) irish independent article with "disturbing" figures about PRSI contributions (or absence of) for welfare recipients. Automatically, the assumption is made that ALL these people (14%) are choosing a welfare lifestyle without for one nano-second giving thought to the possible reasons behind these figures.
I have posted some data, and will post a lot more, that will provide, if not definitive, reasonable and strong indicators that the level of people choosing a lifestyle of welfare dependency is between 0.5% to 1% of the number of welfare recipients. The cost of which is less than 0.5% of the total welfare budget.
I challenge others, including you , to provide your own data in relation to this issue and  how much it will cost the taxpayer to dismantle it. Bearing in my mind, it is my contention that attempts to dismantle it by way of cutting welfare will drive people further into poverty and possibly end up costing more than is saved by way of providing other social services.


----------



## Gerard123

I was following this post but gave up.  All too much!


----------



## TheBigShort

http://www.tasc.ie/news/2016/06/17/flexibility-is-being-imposed-on-more-and-more-work/

Somewhat off topic but not totally unrelated. A report detailing the difficulties imposed on employees in their workplaces. The hospitality sector comes under scrutiny, amongst others, in terms of imposed working hours that make childcare difficult to arrange. A sector that relies heavily on women.
Also the lack of training and promotion opportunities is evident. It has been argued here that people should just 'better' themselves, but this report shows that it is certainly not always welfare payments that prevent a return to work, but the practical terms and conditions of employment that can be an obstacle also.
The report goes someway to highlighting the 'do more for less' approach of employers, which in effect is trying to negotiate down the value of labour.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> I have posted some data, and will post a lot more, that will provide, if not definitive, reasonable and strong indicators that the level of people choosing a lifestyle of welfare dependency is between 0.5% to 1% of the number of welfare recipients. The cost of which is less than 0.5% of the total welfare budget.


 If you can that would be great but don't do it on my account. So far there's no hard data on the specifics from anyone so no pressure. In the context of the overall discussion that doesn't matter as we are discussing the issue in general terms.


----------



## Delboy

Deiseblue said:


> According to the latest figures from the CSO there are now over 2 million people in paid labour in the State  - the highest figure since 2008.
> 
> Tellingly the long term unemployment rate has fallen over the past year from 5.5 % to 4.4% which suggests that as jobs are created the long term unemployed are willing to take them .
> 
> Is it possible that the Government's target of creating full employment can be achieved by 2020 based on an unemployment rate of 6 % ? ( a figure apparently based on the largest number of jobs the economy can support at any time after allowing for workers who are between jobs but still an active part of the work force & those that are unable to work ).
> 
> Reasons for cautious optimism I would have thought & with decreasing numbers on the dole & accompanying increases in tax revenue not only should it be possible to maintain social welfare payments to the hard pressed it may indeed be possible to increase same - Leo will be pleased !


A. How many of the new jobs being created are going to Migrants?
B. Any sign of the figures for those on Disability (they exploded during the crash) coming down as jobs become more plentiful and the 'bad backs' miraculously improve?

If A is a high number and B is a low number then, in the context of this thread, we still have a large welfare dependency problem in this country.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> If you can that would be great but don't do it on my account. So far there's no hard data on the specifics from anyone so no pressure. In the context of the overall discussion that doesn't matter as we are discussing the issue in





Purple said:


> Can you provide your source for that figure please?





Purple said:


> In that you are incorrect and there is a mountain of data to back it up. Take a look at this from the Journal.ie
> 
> .



On the one hand you qoute a ,'mountain of data' and request me to source my claims. But when I request the same of you, you dilute the topic to a 'general discussion'!


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> I have already explained how an employer can offer a worker with a family a rate of pay below the value of the workers labour, full in the knowledge that the worker can replenish the deficit in the wage by claiming FIS.


 Ok, it's clear now that you really don't understand how wages are set in an open market. The employee will take the best job his skills and experience will allow in the market (note that both the employer and the employee are workers as they both work so I use the term employee for clarity). The Employer will hire whomever he or she thinks ads the most value to their business relative to the wage they must pay them in order to get them. The employer cares not a whit what the family circumstances are of the employee when deciding what level of pay they are willing to offer.  




TheBigShort said:


> But im gone way past discussing viewpoints without anyone producing anything of substance by way of data.


 That's a pity. It's just a discussion between strangers on the inter-web that nobody else cares about. See it in that context and relax a bit. I'm sure we'd all get on great over a few pints.



TheBigShort said:


> The title of this topic is about a culture of welfare dependency and that it should be dismantled. I concede that some people choose a lifestyle of welfare dependency but I dispute strongly the attempts to use headline grabbing figures to force an agenda on an issue, while not to dismiss it, is not even close to being as bad as its being made out to be.


The discussion has evolved and it never claimed that all 23% were scroungers or even that 23% were welfare. It said that 23% of people lived in households where most or all of their income came from welfare.


----------



## TheBigShort

Delboy said:


> A. How many of the new jobs being created are going to Migrants?
> B. Any sign of the figures for those on Disability (they exploded during the crash) coming down as jobs become more plentiful and the 'bad backs' miraculously improve?
> 
> If A is a high number and B is a low number then, in the context of this thread, we still have a large welfare dependency problem in this country.



You have already been told that the disability allowance is means tested. So during the boom, many people with disabilities had financial independence of their own. As people lose jobs, they need assistance to pay for the physio on those bad backs.
Not hard to figure out really.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Ok, it's clear now that you really don't understand how wages are set in an open market. The employee will take the best job his skills and experience will allow in the market (note that both the employer and the employee are workers as they both work so I use the term employee for clarity). The Employer will hire whomever he or she thinks ads the most value to their business relative to the wage they must pay them in order to get them. The employer cares not a whit what the family circumstances are of the employee when deciding what level of pay they are willing to offer.



Well you obviously dont know how FIS works. In order for the employee to avail of it his employer must sign a declaration to the dept of social protection confirming his agreed weekly wage. And if employers know that the employee can top up via the taxpayer, dont you think they (some) will avail of that? Dont you recall the scrapping of Job bridge due to employers who were more than capable of paying a full-time wage availing of cheap labour via the taxpayer?

And you really need to get past those supply and demand charts for determining wages. They dont apply much at all.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> That's a pity. It's just a discussion between strangers on the inter-web that nobody else cares about. See it in that context and relax a bit. I'm sure we'd all get on great over a few pints.



This is probably your most significant contribution to this discussion. And I dont mean that in a disparaging way, its helps to keep that in mind.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> On the one hand you qoute a ,'mountain of data' and request me to source my claims. But when I request the same of you, you dilute the topic to a 'general discussion'!


I gave you a link. Did you read it?
The cost of the banking sector bail out was €60 billion. A staggering amount. The total National Debt is over €180 Billion. The extra two thirds are from borrowing money for day to day expenditure; the opposite of austerity.


TheBigShort said:


> Well you obviously dont know how FIS works. In order for the employee to avail of it his employer must sign a declaration to the dept of social protection confirming his agreed weekly wage. And if employers know that the employee can top up via the taxpayer, dont you think they (some) will avail of that? Dont you recall the scrapping of Job bridge due to employers who were more than capable of paying a full-time wage availing of cheap labour via the taxpayer?
> 
> And you really need to get past those supply and demand charts for determining wages. They dont apply much at all.


Do you think you might be guilty of some double standards here (and I’m sure we all are to some extent), in that you assume employers will take advantage of something which will at best make a very small impact on their bottom line. You then take exception to people even asking if a welfare system which can financially mitigate against people taking up employment does in fact mitigate against people taking up employment?


Nobody here is suggesting that everyone on welfare is on unemployment benefit.

Nobody here is suggesting that everyone on unemployment benefit is a scrounger.

What people are suggesting is that a system which provides a stable long term income for people who don’t work and in many cases leaves them with a higher net income than they would get when working does not encourage people to work.  

You agree that a system which pays more at the start and less as people remain unemployed would be better than what we have not. That in itself is an acknowledgement of the problem.


I have no problem with what we spend on welfare. I just want that money to reach the right people and I want it to be used to better society in the medium to long term and not just to sustain and treat a symptom of a broader problem.

If we want to create a really equal society then it has to be based on real equality of opportunity. That can only be done by educating people, changing mind sets, and equipping them to grasp the opportunities that life provides. There are people who are disengaged from society at large. That may be 1% or 5% or 20%. It doesn’t matter what the percentage is; it is unjust and immoral for us to leave them, and particularly their children, behind.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> What people are suggesting is that a system which provides a stable long term income for people who don’t work and in many cases leaves them with a higher net income than they would get when working does not encourage people to work.



And I dont agree, in general,  with that sentiment. There are many people who, if they lost their jobs in the morning, would be financially better off on welfare, yet they continue to choose to work. And in terms of discouraging people going to work and instead choosing a welfare lifestyle I estimate the number of those people to be in the region of 0.5% - 1% of all welfare recipients, circa 8,000-10,000 people. So in other words, other than a tiny percentage of people on welfare, the system does NOT ENCOURAGE WELFARE DEPENDENCY! So stop saying it does, unless you have something to back it up with.

But you are correct, these people if caught in a welfare trap or willingly choosing a welfare lifestyle should not be left behind or should be assisted out of that lifestyle.
I dont have an answer to that other than to spend more on social services, training, education etc.I certainly don't advocate dismantling welfare provisions.

The only proposal I have heard from the pro-'dismantle' side is to cut benefits. This is usually accompanied with a headline grabbing stat that 23% of jobless households are being funded by 77%. Or that 43,500 people have never paid PRSI. Why? Why when discussing welfare dependency, does every welfare recipient need to be included as part of the problem?
23% of jobless households are not living a lifestyle of welfare dependency, so why were included at the beginning of the topic?
There is no evidence to suggest that never having contributed PRSI means you are welfare dependent. But yet that headline is used in this discussion. Why?

Why cant those in favour of dismantling welfare dependency actually produce some evidence based data that can tell us how many people we are talking about, what they propose to do about it, and how much would it save the taxpayer?


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Do you think you might be guilty of some double standards here (and I’m sure we all are to some extent), in that you assume employers will take advantage of something which will at best make a very small impact on their bottom line.
> .





There are plenty of employers who are surviving week to week earning a low wage/profit for themselves. Some will be tempted, yes. Less will succumb to the temptation, but happen it does.
And you seem to ignore my point about the employers who could well afford to pay a wage, but chose instead free labour from job bridge at the cost to the taxpayer.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> There are plenty of employers who are surviving week to week earning a low wage/profit for themselves. Some will be tempted, yes. Less will succumb to the temptation, but happen it does.


 So it creates a culture of exploitation but only a minority succumb to it. Is that what you are saying? 


TheBigShort said:


> And you seem to ignore my point about the employers who could well afford to pay a wage, but chose instead free labour from job bridge at the cost to the taxpayer.


 I like the idea of Job Bridge but it was certainly exploited. Wages are never determined by what an employer can afford to pay. They are set by the amount the employer has to pay in order to get person to do the job and keep them happy. The same goes for someone buying a car or a house; they buy it for the lowest price they can.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> So it creates a culture of exploitation but only a minority succumb to it. Is that what you are saying?
> I like the idea of Job Bridge but it was certainly exploited. Wages are never determined by what an employer can afford to pay. They are set by the amount the employer has to pay in order to get person to do the job and keep them happy. The same goes for someone buying a car or a house; they buy it for the lowest price they can.



Yes, a tiny minority, something similar to the tiny minority that succumb to the temptation of a lifestyle of welfare dependency.

Wages are set by the amount the employer is willing to pay and by the amount an employee is prepared to accept. 

Have you any information to support the notion that there is a culture of welfare dependency and that this culture is the cause of high taxes on earnings, USC, PRSI etc, as alleged by the opening poster in his article in the Irish Independent?


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Yes, a tiny minority, something similar to the tiny minority that succumb to the temptation of a lifestyle of welfare dependency.


So why did you bring it up? 



TheBigShort said:


> Wages are set by the amount the employer is willing to pay and by the amount an employee is prepared to accept.


 Exactly. 



TheBigShort said:


> Have you any information to support the notion that there is a culture of welfare dependency and that this culture is the cause of high taxes on earnings, USC, PRSI etc, as alleged by the opening poster in his article in the Irish Independent?


The opening poster pointed out that our proportion of people living households where people were under employed was by far the highest in Europe. No matter what figures you use that is the case. 
Given that Irish people are no more of less likely to work than people anywhere else, and that our economy and social structures are roughly in line with European norms, it is reasonable to suggest that the reason for such a high number is to do with our welfare system and it's relation to potential earned income.
If there are 50% or 100% or 25% more people for whom welfare is their primary income that income has to come from general taxation, ergo without such a burden taxes could be lower (or spent elsewhere).

In my experience working over the last 25 years most problems and inefficiency is due to structures and processes being badly designed and/or badly implemented. If the structures are correct the outcome is almost always also correct. Therefore this discussion is not a judgement on people but simply questioning if our systems and processes are designed to give the most socially desirable outcome.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> The opening poster pointed out that our proportion of people living households where people were under employed was by far the highest in Europe. No matter what figures you use that is the case.



Under a title banner that says "We must dismantle our culture of welfare dependency"??



Purple said:


> it is reasonable to suggest that the reason for such a high number is to do with our welfare system and it's relation to potential earned income.



Of course it is reasonable to suggest, .but the title of this topic is not a suggestion, it is quite definite in what needs to be done.



Purple said:


> Therefore this discussion is not a judgement on people but *simply questioning if our systems and processes are designed to give the most socially desirable outcome*.



Well I have no problem with questioning, suggesting, discussing, inquiring.
But again, go back to the title of the topic. There is no suggestion or questioning, it is a definite statement.
Not only is it a definite statement, it is based on inaccurate, misinterpreted material that even the author has admitted was wrong.

As for 'socially desirable outcomes', I have been consistent in stating that cutting welfare will drive people further into poverty. I have been consistent in stating that such measures would only end up costing the taxpayer even more through the provision of other social services.

I have yet to see one idea or one suggestion that would effectively end "the culture of welfare dependency". I have seen no data (other than inaccurate, misinterpreted) to show how many people it concerns, their circumstances, the cost savings, and the approach to be taken (other than cut benefits).

The title is a lazy slur on Irish working people, many of whom who over the last decade have faced intolerance hurdles through job losses, pay cuts, emigration, house repossessions, property taxes on negative equity homes, high rates of suicide, depression, increased taxes  on average incomes, USC, increasing insurance premiums, higher VAT, increased child poverty, highest rate of low paid jobs, water charges, cuts in carer allowances, cuts in child benefits...and whatever you would like to add yourself.
Admittedly, some of things are beginning to reverse, and that is very welcome.

But now, before any more progress can be made, some people are at the ready to attack those at the bottom of the social ladder. I will call them out on their agenda and their bogus, lazy, 'analysis' whenever, wherever.


----------



## PGF2016

TheBigShort said:


> As for 'socially desirable outcomes', I have been consistent in stating that cutting welfare will drive people further into poverty. I have been consistent in stating that such measures would only end up costing the taxpayer even more through the provision of other social services.



You may have been consistent in stating that but that doesn't make it a fact. It's still an opinion. 

Cutting welfare may well drive some people further into poverty but it might also encourage some to get up off their backsides and start taking the initiative to provide for themselves.


----------



## TheBigShort

PGF2016 said:


> You may have been consistent in stating that but that doesn't make it a fact. It's still an opinion.
> 
> Cutting welfare may well drive some people further into poverty but it might also encourage some to get up off their backsides and start taking the initiative to provide for themselves.



See my first post from page 1 and work from there.


----------



## orka

TheBigShort said:


> But now, before any more progress can be made, some people are at the ready to attack those at the bottom of the social ladder. I will call them out on their agenda and their bogus, lazy, 'analysis' whenever, wherever.


And I expect you will be as successful as you have been here.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Under a title banner that says "We must dismantle our culture of welfare dependency"??
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it is reasonable to suggest, .but the title of this topic is not a suggestion, it is quite definite in what needs to be done.
> 
> 
> 
> Well I have no problem with questioning, suggesting, discussing, inquiring.
> 
> But again, go back to the title of the topic. There is no suggestion or questioning, it is a definite statement.
> 
> Not only is it a definite statement, it is based on inaccurate, misinterpreted material that even the author has admitted was wrong.



I appreciate that you are angry about the title of the thread but you shouldn’t let it colour every post made on the subject.

Thread titles, as well as the titles of Newspaper articles and even the titles of motions of debates are often designed to promote debate.





TheBigShort said:


> As for 'socially desirable outcomes', I have been consistent in stating that cutting welfare will drive people further into poverty. I have been consistent in stating that such measures would only end up costing the taxpayer even more through the provision of other social services.
> 
> 
> I have yet to see one idea or one suggestion that would effectively end "the culture of welfare dependency". I have seen no data (other than inaccurate, misinterpreted) to show how many people it concerns, their circumstances, the cost savings, and the approach to be taken (other than cut benefits).


 With respect, that’s your opinion. All other people are doing is offering their opinions.




TheBigShort said:


> The title is a lazy slur on Irish working people, many of whom who over the last decade have faced intolerance hurdles through job losses, pay cuts, emigration, house repossessions, property taxes on negative equity homes, high rates of suicide, depression, increased taxes  on average incomes, USC, increasing insurance premiums, higher VAT, increased child poverty, highest rate of low paid jobs, water charges, cuts in carer allowances, cuts in child benefits...and whatever you would like to add yourself.
> 
> Admittedly, some of things are beginning to reverse, and that is very welcome.


Speaking as an Irish working person who has been hit with many of the above and more I don’t take offense at the title.




TheBigShort said:


> But now, before any more progress can be made, some people are at the ready to attack those at the bottom of the social ladder. I will call them out on their agenda and their bogus, lazy, 'analysis' whenever, wherever.


 I don’t see anyone attacking people at the bottom of the social ladder. I see people questioning if our welfare system encourages people to stay at the bottom of the social ladder and offering the fact that we have so many people there when compared to other countries as evidence to support that supposition.

It is very unfair to say that those who agree with that theory are attacking anyone or that their ideas are bogus or lazy.


Most of the people I work with are from what can be described as deprived areas, those that are from Ireland anyway, and they, without exception, agree with Brendan’s view on these matters. They don’t have data to back it up, just their neighbours and family members we have decided not to work because work doesn’t pay.


----------



## TheBigShort

Brendan Burgess said:


> Why do we have 23pc 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.





Brendan Burgess said:


> But this generous social welfare system is not good for the recipients. They have become dependent on the state for their income, their housing and their health services



So which part of the above quotes from Brendans opening post does not identify 23% of jobless homes as;

1) not bothering to take jobs in restaurants, convenience stores, hospitals
2) all being Irish
3) being dependent on welfare

Where in Brendans article does he distinguish between those choosing a welfare lifestyle and those

1) actively seeking employment?
2) actively training and upskilling?
3) engaged as full-time carers for sick or elderly relatives (and the cost savings) with that?
Etc...etc...

Brendan had the grace to admit his interpretation of the report was wrong. That is enough for me.


----------



## TheBigShort

orka said:


> And I expect you will be as successful as you have been here



Didn't I give you some homework to do?


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> So which part of the above quotes from Brendans opening post does not identify 23% of jobless homes as;
> 
> 1) not bothering to take jobs in restaurants, convenience stores, hospitals
> 2) all being Irish
> 3) being dependent on welfare
> 
> Where in Brendans article does he distinguish between those choosing a welfare lifestyle and those
> 
> 1) actively seeking employment?
> 2) actively training and upskilling?
> 3) engaged as full-time carers for sick or elderly relatives (and the cost savings) with that?
> Etc...etc...
> 
> Brendan had the grace to admit his interpretation of the report was wrong. That is enough for me.


I take it that post is directed as me.
If so I'll have to let Brendan speak for himself but I don't see his comments as applying to every unemployed person. A certain amount of rationality is required to avoid a literal view of everything and to see things in a moderate context.

I have covered the evolution of the discussion in recent posts, as well as suggesting that you take the evolution of the thread into account and let go of your anger at the first post.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Didn't I give you some homework to do?


That's not nice. It is patronising and antagonistic. Can we keep it civil please?


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> I don't see his comments as applying to every unemployed person.



Yes, fair enough. So I have offered an estimate that his comments actually refer to between 0.5%-1% of welfare recipients.
I have offered data to back that up, if not definitively, but to provide reasonable indicators that this is the case. 
And I contend that cutting their welfare ( brendans conclusion, supported by others) will more likely drive them further into poverty costing the taxpayer more in the long run via the provision of other social services.

Thats where im at with the 'evolution' of this discussion. Unless you have something to add to that, or to counter that, I will bow out here and leave you and others to discuss the other aspects of the discussion.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> That's not nice. It is patronising and antagonistic. Can we keep it civil please?



And this isnt?



orka said:


> And I expect you will be as successful as you have been here.


----------



## newtothis

Forgive me for coming very late to this discussion, but I’ve only just seen it. The OP starts promisingly enough, with an excellent description of the plight of the “squeezed middle”: those that play by the rules, do what they can to work hard and get ahead and yet somehow still struggle.

And who is to blame for this? those with power? those with influence? those who set the agenda? Er, no, apparently the cause of the problem is with those at the bottom of society: they have it too easy!

It never ceases to amaze me how easy it is for people to be misdirected as to the cause of their problems, whether it be to immigrants (Trump in the US) or social welfare recipients (here). If only there were fewer of the former, or welfare rates were cut, everything would be fine.

Of course, the billionaire class promoting this notion never get a mention. I note that this appeared in the Sunday Independent: I wonder what the tax rate of the person controlling it is? Or why it’s OK for billions of tax payer’s funds to be pumped into a dysfunctional banking industry and yet for anything more productive or socially useful funding is suddenly in very short supply.

A few things I’d say in response:

-  If you think social welfare is too generous, try living on it for a few weeks and see how you get on

-  If you’re looking for the source of the problem, look to those with power and influence and in who’s interest they act: it may come as a shock, but it’s not for those in the squeezed middle

-  If you want to change anything, look to change those in power and influence, but they won’t want to give up either easily

-  Their job in maintaining the status quo is made immeasurably easier by using their influence in getting people to buy into an agenda that says economic and social problems are caused by those who are at the bottom rather than the top of society.


----------



## Easeler

Brendan is right and its something that should be discussed more, why in the year 2016 can't they be a job for everyone. we should not be discussing those who want to work or not want to work. Everyone should be physically examined and given suitable employment if its only out cleaning the streets so be it.  Money for nothing should not be an option.


----------



## TheBigShort

galwaypat said:


> Brendan is right and its something that should be discussed more, why in the year 2016 can't they be a job for everyone. we should not be discussing those who want to work or not want to work. Everyone should be physically examined and given suitable employment if its only out cleaning the streets so be it.  Money for nothing should not be an option.



Just a few last questions if I may before I bow out for good.

1) who will carry out the physical checks?
2) if its a public agency, how much will this cost the taxpayer?
3) if privately run (for profit, presumably) how much will it cost? Will an unemployed person need to fork out?
4) when you say 'suitable' employment, would that mean a qualified nurse gets a job as a  nurse?  Who will pay the wages, if for instance there are no vacancies advertised in the locality? Wouldnt an employer be annoyed if they were forced to take on extra staff they couldnt afford? Unless of course the nurse gets placed in a state-run medical centre set up specifically to employ unemployed medical staff? Sounds expensive
5) Alternatively, the nurse is given a job cleaning streets. Wouldnt this make all those college fees and dedicated yesrs of study seem worthless? Who will pay the nurse to clean the streets? Is there a shortage of street cleaners? Wont current street cleaners feel their jobs and incomes are threatened if all these street cleaners get pulled from the unemployment lines?

I promise, this is my last interaction on this topic.


----------



## Leper

TheBigShort said:


> Just a few last questions if I may before I bow out for good.



HI TheBigShort - I don't agree with much of what you say here (and there is some that I do agree with), but don't get turned off the forum.  You are entitled to your views just the same as everybody else. Stay around.


----------



## Deiseblue

Leper said:


> HI TheBigShort - I don't agree with much of what you say here (and there is some that I do agree with), but don't get turned off the forum.  You are entitled to your views just the same as everybody else. Stay around.



Absolutely Leper , TheBigShort  do hang around - some great contributions to this topic.


----------



## Firefly

Leper said:


> HI TheBigShort - I don't agree with much of what you say here (and there is some that I do agree with), but don't get turned off the forum.  You are entitled to your views just the same as everybody else. Stay around.



+1

Debates are healthy and this thread topic is emotive by nature however we got to 414 posts and it remained quite civil which is good.


----------



## ppmeath

TheBigShort said:


> Im saying 0.5 to 1% (max) welfare receipients are welfare dependent.
> We can discuss my figures when you eventually produce your own based on the questions asked.



The question was how to dismantle our culture of dependency. You don't believe that it exists.

The "figures" you provided are meaningless if you don't believe it exists. Then you claim that 0.5% to 1% (max) of those "on welfare" are "welfare dependent" - which is not the question that was asked.

You "base" those figures here:

_"I have expressed my view that I believe most welfare recipients would jump at the chance of financial independence. I based that on the time when unemployment reached 4% in this country. "
_
On "unemployment" figures:
_
[broken link removed]

"The seasonally adjusted number of persons unemployed was 169,100, unchanged when compared to the June 2016 figure or a decrease of 29,800 when compared to July 2015. "_

Which does not show that we have over 2 million people in this country in receipt of some form of a welfare payment. The Welfare bill is 20 billion.

https://www.welfare.ie/en/pressoffice/Pages/pr110713.aspx

If you read that document you will see a range of incentives that are designed to support both working people and unemployed people.

In recent times employers and the state have also come together with plans to try and get people back to work, or retrain into new areas of employment.

But the question still remains.

Read the definition again:


_*"Definition of Dependency Culture. *This refers to a *system of social welfare that encourages people to stay on benefits rather than work.*

*It suggests the tax and benefit system is designed to give little incentive for getting off benefits and into work.*

A dependency culture may arise out of a desire to reduce relative poverty, through means tested benefits and a progressive tax system. For example, if a person is out of work with several children, they may be entitled to:
_

Unemployment benefit
Housing Benefit
Means tested child tax credits
Free prescriptions e.t.c
_*If they chose to work*, they may lose these benefits and also pay more income tax and national insurance. Their net take home pay may be little different to that income received whilst not working."
_
I took this example from another site (I hope the OP is ok with this), it is a married couple with 4 children with one working part time.
_
"Employment: 20 hrs x €9.15/hr = €183/wk = €9,516/yr
FIS: (€834 - €183) x 60% = €391/wk = €20,332/yr
Rent Allowance: €1,200/mo = €14,400/yr
Child Benefit: €560/mo = €6,720/yr
Plus medical card"

Total: €50,968/yr. 
_
The part derived from "work" is less then 10k, the rest are supports. To get this income a person would need to be earning 69k a year (I have not included Child benefit because that is a universal payment).

The person earning 69k pays:

PAYE - Standard Rate €8,560.00
PAYE - Top Rate €12,880.00
Total Tax Bourne   €21,440.00
Tax Credits   €3,300.00
PRSI €3,000.00
Universal Social Charge €3,541.9

The question is whether or not the family on the supports are staying as they are, because "it doesn't pay to work".

The question is has the "system" evolved from a "support" system, to a "culture of welfare dependency".

The question is how we can get this family off Social Welfare, when they are receiving the equivalent of almost 70k with the supports.

Your solution is simply to increase wages - putting this on the employer:
_
"Social welfare expenditure in 2012 was financed by the Exchequer (57.4%) and the Social Insurance Fund (42.6%). The Social Insurance Fund was* financed through Pay-Related Social Insurance contributions from employers (73.8%)*,* employees (21.8%)*, and the self-employed (4.6%)."
_
I can't find a more up to date breakdown.

There is a knock on effect of that on the employer and on the consumer and on competitiveness.

Another solution is to "leave Johnny as he is", because he's "not costing us a lot and he'll turn to crime costing us more in the long run".

But Johnny is the No.1 target, there are training courses designed with Johnny in mind and apart from your solution to leave him be - you still have not answered what to do with him?

I say again, that if Johnny turns down all offers of training and work - that his welfare should be cut. What do you propose?


Btw: Of course you should stay in the debate, an open mind is a healthy one! 


_
_


----------



## SDMXTWO

In the country (west) where I live an awful lot of people can not afford to run two cars, let alone meet the criteria for borrowing for a new one that goes from A to B. Someone has to stay at home and mind the kids etc while the other gets piecemeal hours just to keep bills paid and food on the table. What are they to do, because at this stage for them it seems they are in a revolving hell of no future. They all cannot go to live in Dublin and the options are pretty thin around here. Dependancy on welfare is their only day to day income. I understand where you are coming from Brendan, (_we need to dismantle our dependency culture. Cutting welfare and benefits for those who are well able to work, would benefit everyone in the long run_) but we need some jobs that pay to live. Plenty people are well able to work but many just can not afford to get there.

Think about it, you are out of work, lucky enough to find a job, now add up the cost of borrowing for a car, tax, insurance, NCT, parts & service etc. Not easy, especially when the pay is not great. Something went terribly wrong in our society and it has spread like a cancer.


----------



## PGF2016

Cycle? Car pool? Move closer to work?


----------



## Purple

SDMXTWO said:


> In the country (west) where I live an awful lot of people can not afford to run two cars, let alone meet the criteria for borrowing for a new one that goes from A to B. Someone has to stay at home and mind the kids etc while the other gets piecemeal hours just to keep bills paid and food on the table. What are they to do, because at this stage for them it seems they are in a revolving hell of no future. They all cannot go to live in Dublin and the options are pretty thin around here. Dependancy on welfare is their only day to day income. I understand where you are coming from Brendan, (_we need to dismantle our dependency culture. Cutting welfare and benefits for those who are well able to work, would benefit everyone in the long run_) but we need some jobs that pay to live. Plenty people are well able to work but many just can not afford to get there.
> 
> Think about it, you are out of work, lucky enough to find a job, now add up the cost of borrowing for a car, tax, insurance, NCT, parts & service etc. Not easy, especially when the pay is not great. Something went terribly wrong in our society and it has spread like a cancer.


Excatly and that's what this discussion is about.
I'm a fan of the quote attributed to Lincoln; "_you cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they can and should do for themselves.". _It was almost certainly said by William Boetcker as one of his 10 "You cannot's"
How do we make it pay to work?


----------



## Deiseblue

It's probably little consolation SDMXTWO but despite the rather admonitory thread title it would appear that the trend of social welfare payments is going to be upwards under the current Government.

It is looking likely that the OAP will be increased & the lone parent allowance cut will be fully restored.

The pressure to increase both the JSA & JB particularly for the under 26's will surely gather steam as well.


----------



## thedaddyman

Purple said:


> How do we make it pay to work?



Start with some basics and build for the future and accept this will not happen overnight


We fundamentally need a lesson in this country on financial management. too many people in Ireland don't know how to manage their money day to day. We saw this after the Celtic Tiger and there are plenty of examples on here of people who lived way beyond their means. Financial management should be made a core part of the secondary school curriculum so in the long term, people understand money and debt.
We need to drive down the cost of rent (and not simply increase rent allowance) and to do that we need to increase the supply to the rental market. Too many landlords are part time or reluctant landlords. They should be made to properly set themselves up as a business but then taxed as a business on profits, not simply their entire rent taxed as income.
We need to tackle the issue of stealth taxes. For example I know next week when my kids go back to school that we will be asked for another €100 to fill the gap in the school budget. We need to be prepared to properly fund things.
We need to be ruthless on the black economy and stamp it out. In the long term, it costs us all
We need to be ruthless on "cute hoors" who seem to infect every segment of our society.
We need to fundamentally gut waste in the state sector, why on earth do the Gardaí need a band? why does RTE need an orchestra?  do we really need an army reserve?
We need to tackle the cost of child care so that parents who want to work, can work. That's not a case of simply more subsidies but work with the industry to drive costs down
We need to reform insurance to drive cost down and stamp out the compensation culture
We need to tackle the cost of sickness benefit, not just unemployment benefit. The state should take care of you if you genuinely cannot work but I see too many people on long term sickness and I know they are able to go to pub and bookies
We need to be prepared to pay more in taxes to fund all of this on the basis that a rising tide will lift all boats
we need to fundamentally support the SME sector and the self employed to make it worth people while to set up their own business and make it grow. I know there are no photo-ops for politicians because someone sets out on their own but the 1000 job factories are few and far.


----------



## Purple

Deiseblue said:


> It's probably little consolation SDMXTWO but despite the rather admonitory thread title it would appear that the trend of social welfare payments is going to be upwards under the current Government.
> 
> It is looking likely that the OAP will be increased & the lone parent allowance cut will be fully restored.
> 
> The pressure to increase both the JSA & JB particularly for the under 26's will surely gather steam as well.


Do you think that is a good thing?


----------



## SDMXTWO

PGF2016 said:


> Cycle? Car pool? Move closer to work?


We so need remarks like that, probably the most helpful comment I have read in months. My heart goes out to you as your life is obviously a well paid bed of roses.


----------



## SDMXTWO

Re post #415: That is very scary when written down in B/W. It just goes to show where so much of the countries money goes. But so far we have no realistic answers bar changing the rules from the ground up. No wonder some people are fairly smug on the comments regarding the unemployed. 

_"Employment: 20 hrs x €9.15/hr = €183/wk = €9,516/yr
FIS: (€834 - €183) x 60% = €391/wk = €20,332/yr
Rent Allowance: €1,200/mo = €14,400/yr
Child Benefit: €560/mo = €6,720/yr
Plus medical card"

Total: €50,968/yr. _


----------



## Purple

SDMXTWO said:


> Re post #415: That is very scary when written down in B/W. It just goes to show where so much of the countries money goes. But so far we have no realistic answers bar changing the rules from the ground up. No wonder some people are fairly smug on the comments regarding the unemployed.
> 
> _"Employment: 20 hrs x €9.15/hr = €183/wk = €9,516/yr
> FIS: (€834 - €183) x 60% = €391/wk = €20,332/yr
> Rent Allowance: €1,200/mo = €14,400/yr
> Child Benefit: €560/mo = €6,720/yr
> Plus medical card"
> 
> Total: €50,968/yr. _


I don’t think smug is the right word. Concerned maybe a better one.

As we move more and more of our national income towards welfare and income transfer (call it re-balancing or wealth redistribution or socialism or communism or whatever “ism” you like) and we tax working harder more and more we run the risk of not only incentivising people to stay on welfare but of encouraging people to just up and leave.

I work with a guy whose son works for a major US Multinational in Seattle. He earns $350,000 a year. If he moved back to Ireland he would pay 50% more taxes on his income.


At the moment he pays $110,000 (€97,500) leaving him with a net income of $240,000 (€212,500).

If he moves back to Ireland he’ll pay $169,000 (€149,638) including property tax, leaving him with $181,000 (€160,000)


So moving back to Ireland with his wife and young baby will see his after tax income drop by a thousand Euro a week and he’d be in a country with a much higher cost of living.

How do attract wealth generating individuals like him (back) to this country?


----------



## ppmeath

SDMXTWO said:


> Re post #415: That is very scary when written down in B/W. It just goes to show where so much of the countries money goes. But so far we have no realistic answers bar changing the rules from the ground up. No wonder some people are fairly smug on the comments regarding the unemployed.
> 
> _"Employment: 20 hrs x €9.15/hr = €183/wk = €9,516/yr
> FIS: (€834 - €183) x 60% = €391/wk = €20,332/yr
> Rent Allowance: €1,200/mo = €14,400/yr
> Child Benefit: €560/mo = €6,720/yr
> Plus medical card"
> 
> Total: €50,968/yr. _



I sincerely hope that I didn't come across as smug, that was not my intention and "changing" the rules alone won't help. In cases like the one you mentioned, moving to an area where there is a better chance of work, less need for a second car, may also have to be considered, or changing careers, if a previous career is in decline or not paying as it used to.

You have said it yourself:

"because at this stage for them it seems they are in a revolving hell of no future."

So the choice is to stay static, or move. There are no easy choices and I think that a lot of people in that situation are going to have to come to that conclusion too.


----------



## PGF2016

SDMXTWO said:


> We so need remarks like that, probably the most helpful comment I have read in months. My heart goes out to you as your life is obviously a well paid bed of roses.



I cycle to work every day. I don't have a second car. Why are my suggestions not valid?


----------



## SDMXTWO

ppmeath said:


> I sincerely hope that I didn't come across as smug, that was not my intention and "changing" the rules alone won't help. In cases like the one you mentioned, moving to an area where there is a better chance of work, less need for a second car, may also have to be considered, or changing careers, if a previous career is in decline or not paying as it used to.
> 
> You have said it yourself:
> 
> "because at this stage for them it seems they are in a revolving hell of no future."
> 
> So the choice is to stay static, or move. There are no easy choices and I think that a lot of people in that situation are going to have to come to that conclusion too.



Not meaning you were smug. I already sold up and made a move but things still not much better. Chances of selling house would be slim to none at this stage. Used to work all my life and it get's you down realising you will never work at a real position again. Probably at a difficult age


----------



## Jim2007

SDMXTWO said:


> Think about it, you are out of work, lucky enough to find a job, now add up the cost of borrowing for a car, tax, insurance, NCT, parts & service etc. Not easy, especially when the pay is not great. Something went terribly wrong in our society and it has spread like a cancer.



All I can tell you is that here in Switzerland you are expected to use a bicycle if the job is within 10km of your home and if you can't afford one the community welfare officer will provide you with a second hand one, usually bought from the police sale.


----------



## TheBigShort

ppmeath said:


> The question was how to dismantle our culture of dependency. You don't believe that it exists.



Well, for someone who keeps accusing me of misinterpretation lets get some things straight (and there is quite a bit that needs straightening here).

1)Read the title again, there is no question there, it is a definite statement of intent.

2)I never said welfare dependency does not exist. I have conceded it does, my fictional character Johnny is testament to that.

My argument is that the cost of this dependency is so miniscule in the round, that I contend that any attempt to dismantle it via welfare cuts, will ultimately drive more people into poverty and in fact cost taxpayers even more.
My question to you is; how many of those people in receipt of welfare and using your own defintion below,  do you classify as welfare dependent?



ppmeath said:


> *Definition of Dependency Culture. *This refers to a *system of social welfare that encourages people to stay on benefits rather than work.*
> 
> *It suggests the tax and benefit system is designed to give little incentive for getting off benefits and into work.*



For the purposes of debate, I will accept this definition for now, but I will contend that it is in fact incomplete.



ppmeath said:


> _A dependency culture may arise out of a desire to reduce relative poverty, through means tested benefits and a progressive tax system. For example, if a person is out of work with several children, they may be entitled to:
> _
> 
> Unemployment benefit
> Housing Benefit
> Means tested child tax credits
> Free prescriptions e.t.c
> _*If they chose to work*, they may lose these benefits and also pay more income tax and national insurance. Their net take home pay may be little different to that income received whilst not working."_



If they choose to work, they will only lose these benefits if the value of the earned income exceeds certain thresholds. On the other hand if the value of the earned income does not exceed certain thresholds, then the benefits remain.
I took this example from you, I hope you are ok with that


ppmeath said:


> it is a married couple with 4 children with one working part time.
> _
> "Employment: 20 hrs x €9.15/hr = €183/wk = €9,516/yr
> FIS: (€834 - €183) x 60% = €391/wk = €20,332/yr
> Rent Allowance: €1,200/mo = €14,400/yr
> Child Benefit : €560/mo = €6,720yr
> Plus medical card"_



- _You ommitted the €30 a week (€40 for an adult couple) rent that is still payable by the tenant in receipt of welfare. Thats a €2,080 deduction payable from the wage above. Also, the €1,200 rent supplement  is only payable in Dublin. There are other, reduced limits for each county. I think its safe to say, that a family with 4 children, to live with any sort of dignity, would have to pay €1,200 a month in Dublin. So it should be noted that this money never really becomes available to the tenant. It simply transfers from Social Protection to the landlord through the tenant._

Anyway, using your definition above. The worker has CHOSEN to work for the offer of €183/20 hrs. So what is clear, is that the person is prepared to work, yes/no?   So your definition which states "encourages people to stay on benefits _rather_ than work", does not apply here. It is clear, that even though the wage is so low, that the worker _prefers __to work ._
In this instance the system has not evolved from a support system to a dependency system.



ppmeath said:


> To get this income a person would need to be earning 69k a year (I have not included Child benefit because that is a universal payment).
> 
> The person earning 69k pays:
> 
> PAYE - Standard Rate €8,560.00
> PAYE - Top Rate €12,880.00
> Total Tax Bourne €21,440.00
> Tax Credits €3,300.00
> PRSI €3,000.00
> Universal Social Charge €3,541.9



I have to dispute these figures. You derive at a €50,000+ figure for a part-time worker _with 4 children!_
But  to suit your own arguement you then discount the child benefit for an individual with 4 children on €69,000.
Where are you calculating €8,560 standard rate from? I would calculate as follows

Standard rate €33,500 @ 20% = 6,700
Marginal rate €35,500 @ 40% = 14,200
PRSI @ 4%                                  = 2,760
USC  1st €12,012 @ 1%            = 120
          Rest €56,998 @ 3%         = 1709.64

Total deductions = €25,489.64
Less tax credits (JA) = €3,300
Take home = €46,810.36 or €900.19 a week.
Add the €6,720 child benefit (which was blatantly ommitted from this example to reduce income, but added to the p/t worker to boost welfare payments!!) and the total im getting is €53,530.36 or €1,029.43 per week disposable income less €276.92 (€1,200 a month rent or mortgage) = €752.51 disposable income
This compares with €534 disposable income for the part time worker.

...and when I get some time I will respond to the rest of your post that contains more inaccuracies. It would help if in the meantime we could agree figures.


----------



## SDMXTWO

Jim2007 said:


> All I can tell you is that here in Switzerland you are expected to use a bicycle if the job is within 10km of your home and if you can't afford one the community welfare officer will provide you with a second hand one, usually bought from the police sale.


You might get on to a minister on that one. Save a fortune on greenhouse gases. Lovely idea though, we did it in Ireland decades back...looking back to see the future.


----------



## TheBigShort

ppmeath said:


> On "unemployment" figures:
> _
> [broken link removed]
> 
> "The seasonally adjusted number of persons unemployed was 169,100, unchanged when compared to the June 2016 figure or a decrease of 29,800 when compared to July 2015. "_



Thanks for posting these unemployment figures. As you can see in the year 2000, unemployment reached a low of 3.70% in 2000. From there it moved between 4-5% until 2008.
Many economists define "full employment" as 4%, to allow for contractors in between jobs, illness, injuries, people with mild disabilities such as aspergers, mild autism etc who find it difficult to compete socially and  at interviews, and our buddies, the alleged cult of welfare dependents (who, for a myriad of reasons, and with the best will in the world, and with every training program under the sun, most employers wouldn't touch with a barge pole anyway).
Is it then reasonable to suggest that from the period 2000 to 2008, using the figures you provided, that there was no culture of welfare dependency (outside the 0.5-1%)?

From 2008 to 2012, unemployment rose, peaking at 15%. Can you explain what happened here? Did welfare dependency become trendy? Did welfare become so generous as to tempt the thousands out of the workplace to the unemployment lines?
Can you recall the chorus of employers calling for their workers not leave for a life of welfare dependency and to come back to their posts?

Or can you recall the desperate employers whose lifes work and effort was descimated by our unregulated banking system and so-called free market capitalist economy?

Or the employees in Clerys, HMV and elsewhere who were cut short by our very well educated, very well paid, legal and finance sectors who connived to dump their redundancy payments on the taxpayer of a bankrupt country?


----------



## Firefly

Regarding the report in the Independent you wrote:



TheBigShort said:


> ...
> 
> Some 43,500 people never contributed to PRSI, indicating that they never worked.
> How many of these people are;
> 
> 1) school leavers or college gradutes looking for work for the first time at a time of some 13-14% unemployment?
> 2) immigrants arriving to ireland from other EU countries but with no track record of working here
> 3) are engaged in full-time care of elderly or disabled person
> 4) actively seeking employment and participating in social welfare programs to upskill or retrain
> 5) actively seeking employment but because of a previous criminal record or drug or alcohol addiction are genuinely finding it difficult to receive offers of employment
> 6) in receipt of a disability allowance that hinders, but does not prevent them from taking employment? For instance, most office blocks are wheelchair friendly these days, but how wheelchair workers do you know of. I know of only two.
> 6) members of the Traveller community who have traditionally faced discrimination when it comes to employment.
> 7) scratching their This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language?
> ...




Taking these in turn:

_1) school leavers or college gradutes looking for work for the first time at a time of some 13-14% unemployment?_
I think (and stand to correction) that PRSI is paid on all levels of income, including those part-time jobs that so many students take up both during and after third level. 

_2) immigrants arriving to ireland from other EU countries but with no track record of working here. _
If immigrants are arriving to Ireland and not finding employment this is proof if there ever was that welfare payments are so generous here that people are happy to relocate to a different country to not work!

_3) are engaged in full-time care of elderly or disabled person_
I genuinely don't begrudge a penny that carers receive, my only gripe is with tosser Johnny, who is taking money from the same pot. 
However, of those that provide care, how many of those have provided care from the age they left school to their own age of retirement, especially when it comes to the care of the elderly - you would assume that someone who is caring for the elderly had plenty time before that to work and assuming logically that the elderly person dies first, would have plenty time after that to go into the work place.

_4) actively seeking employment and participating in social welfare programs to upskill or retrain_
Surely you are having a laugh! To have never in a month of Sundays worked a day in your life and be classed as "actively seeking employment" is a bit much to fathom! My wife is actively trying to run her 3rd marathon, she's not going to complete this any other way except getting out there and doing something about it!
_
5) actively seeking employment but because of a previous criminal record or drug or alcohol addiction are genuinely finding it difficult to receive offers of employment_
Yes, criminal records can hurt, however not all jobs depend on them, especially at the lower end. Alcohol / drug addition are very difficult for people to overcome for sure and like carers it would be great of Johnny left "his" money in the pot for them

_6) members of the Traveller community who have traditionally faced discrimination when it comes to employment._
I don't have number here to be fair so yes, this could account for a portion. Travellers definitely have a more difficult time getting work, no two ways about that.

_7) scratching their This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language?_

Well, now we're getting somewhere. According to the Independent article:

_"The revelations follow on from reports two weeks ago that one in three people offered a place on the State's back-to-work scheme failed to show up for interview...."_

After thinking about it I would start from the bottom of your list and work up from there. 

Just on Johhny the tosser. Be honest with me here....if the government gave you 188 euro back in taxes and asked you to instead drop round to Johnny's place and give him the 188 euro yourself would you?


----------



## Sunny

Wow. 22 pages and still hasn't been moved to LOS...Is that a record? 

I am not reading 22 pages but is everyone not really in agreement? A small amount of people screw everyone else and don't have any intention of ever working. There is a welfare trap because it does sometimes pay not to take a job. Not everyone who make this choice is a waster. They are simply doing what is best for their family. Would we not all do the same? If the State wants to change this, then encourage people to take jobs. 

The spongers aren't all the people choosing not to work. Middle class and rich families still take their bloody child benefit every month. They still take their pension relief, their health insurance relief, their mortgage interest relief, they CGT relief, their public transport relief, their tax credits, their tax allowances, their medical expenses relief etc etc etc. Why not scrap everything?? 

Also the title of the thread should be changed. Not everyone dependent on welfare is there because of a culture of dependency or because they want to. Yes there are some people who are but it is insulting to many people.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> Thanks for posting these unemployment figures. As you can see in the year 2000, unemployment reached a low of 3.70% in 2000. From there it moved between 4-5% until 2008.



The economy was flying. Wages and jobs could be had that paid much more than welfare rates bringing some people no doubt off welfare and into the workforce. 



TheBigShort said:


> From 2008 to 2012, unemployment rose, peaking at 15%. Can you explain what happened here? Did welfare dependency become trendy? Did welfare become so generous as to tempt the thousands out of the workplace to the unemployment lines?
> Can you recall the chorus of employers calling for their workers not leave for a life of welfare dependency and to come back to their posts?



Firstly I find this post quite inconsiderate to the many thousands of hard working people who lost their jobs during the period

People simply lost their jobs and no other option but to seek welfare and that's what a safety net should be. Not somewhere where people languish as a lifestyle choice according to Labour's Joan Burton of all people. I mean if she of all people is saying it then it must be true.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> Or can you recall the desperate employers whose lifes work and effort was descimated by our unregulated banking system and so-called free market capitalist economy?
> 
> Or the employees in Clerys, HMV and elsewhere who were cut short by our very well educated, very well paid, legal and finance sectors who connived to dump their redundancy payments on the taxpayer of a bankrupt country?



Interesting questions. By all means start another thread and I will happily contribute.


----------



## Firefly

Sunny said:


> Wow. 22 pages and still hasn't been moved to LOS...Is that a record?
> 
> I am not reading 22 pages but is everyone not really in agreement? A small amount of people screw everyone else and don't have any intention of ever working. There is a welfare trap because it does sometimes pay not to take a job. Not everyone who make this choice is a waster. They are simply doing what is best for their family. Would we not all do the same? If the State wants to change this, then encourage people to take jobs.
> 
> The spongers aren't all the people choosing not to work. Middle class and rich families still take their bloody child benefit every month. They still take their pension relief, their health insurance relief, their mortgage interest relief, they CGT relief, their public transport relief, their tax credits, their tax allowances, their medical expenses relief etc etc etc. Why not scrap everything??
> 
> Also the title of the thread should be changed. Not everyone dependent on welfare is there because of a culture of dependency or because they want to. Yes there are some people who are but it is insulting to many people.



Good post Sunny, many interesting thoughts there. 

Yes, with so many people in this country receiving money from the state it's no wonder we're borrowed up to the hilt. Perhaps a new thread though?


----------



## Leper

How do we make it pay to work?

Jail those defrauding the system both employers and employees and for a long time.


----------



## ppmeath

TheBigShort said:


> Well, for someone who keeps accusing me of misinterpretation lets get some things straight (and there is quite a bit that needs straightening here).



Clearly.



TheBigShort said:


> 2)I never said welfare dependency does not exist. I have conceded it does, my fictional character Johnny is testament to that.



You still don't understand it.



TheBigShort said:


> My argument is that the cost of this dependency is so miniscule in the round, that I contend that any attempt to dismantle it via welfare cuts, will ultimately drive more people into poverty and in fact cost taxpayers even more.
> My question to you is; how many of those people in receipt of welfare and using your own defintion below, do you classify as welfare dependent?



And you still don't understand it.



TheBigShort said:


> For the purposes of debate, I will accept this definition for now, but I will contend that it is in fact incomplete.



And you still don't understand it.



TheBigShort said:


> If they choose to work, they will only lose these benefits if the value of the earned income exceeds certain thresholds. On the other hand if the value of the earned income does not exceed certain thresholds, then the benefits remain.
> I took this example from you, I hope you are ok with that



Here, you are nearly there, but not quite.



TheBigShort said:


> I have to dispute these figures. You derive at a €50,000+ figure for a part-time worker _with 4 children!_
> But to suit your own arguement you then discount the child benefit for an individual with 4 children on €69,000.
> Where are you calculating €8,560 standard rate from? I would calculate as follows



_Employment: 20 hrs x €9.15/hr = €183/wk = €9,516/yr -  This is the income from work.
FIS: (€834 - €183) x 60% = €391/wk = €20,332/yr  -  This is the FIS income support.
Rent Allowance: €1,200/mo = €14,400/yr - This is housing  support. 
Child Benefit : €560/mo = €6,720yr - this is self expanatory.
Plus medical card"
_
It was an error, of course I can see the spittle on the screen now. In that case, it changes from 50k net to 44k net and 65k net a person needs to earn without the supports - the substantive point remains.

As for your calculations regarding tax, I'll trust this site thanks.






TheBigShort said:


> Add the €6,720 child benefit (which was blatantly ommitted from this example to reduce income, but added to the p/t worker to boost welfare payments!!)



No, because it's a universal payment, which is the point that I tried to make, badly I admit.




TheBigShort said:


> Thanks for posting these unemployment figures. As you can see in the year 2000, unemployment reached a low of 3.70% in 2000. From there it moved between 4-5% until 2008.



And we are back to you not understanding the issue.



TheBigShort said:


> Many economists define "full employment" as 4%, to allow for contractors in between jobs, illness, injuries, people with mild disabilities such as aspergers, mild autism etc who find it difficult to compete socially and at interviews, and our buddies, the alleged cult of welfare dependents (who, for a myriad of reasons, and with the best will in the world, and with every training program under the sun, *most employers wouldn't touch with a barge pole anyway*).



They are not unemployed, they are not fit for work, they are not available for work and they are not seeking work, what part of that do you have difficulty with and I have to say - what a disgusting view you have of some people on welfare.



TheBigShort said:


> Is it then reasonable to suggest that from the period 2000 to 2008, using the figures you provided, that there was no culture of welfare dependency (outside the 0.5-1%)?



No, because again, you don't understand it - you are reading it, you are quoting it - but you still just don't get it.



TheBigShort said:


> From 2008 to 2012, unemployment rose, peaking at 15%. Can you explain what happened here? Did welfare dependency become trendy? Did welfare become so generous as to tempt the thousands out of the workplace to the unemployment lines?
> Can you recall the chorus of employers calling for their workers not leave for a life of welfare dependency and to come back to their posts?



Wow. Lol. Pointless really.



TheBigShort said:


> ...and when I get some time I will respond to the rest of your post that contains more inaccuracies. It would help if in the meantime we could agree figures.



You're fine, seriously don't take up your time, we're fine. Lol.

I have to add here that I am pretty shocked that you don't even understand the difference between unemployment and illness or disability welfare payments and really believe that your 4% "full" employment includes these, if you can't understand that basic point and still insist on basing your figures on that - then work away.


----------



## TheBigShort

ppmeath said:


> Which does not show that we have over 2 million people in this country in receipt of some form of a welfare payment. The Welfare bill is 20 billion.
> 
> https://www.welfare.ie/en/pressoffice/Pages/pr110713.aspx
> 
> If you read that document you will see a range of incentives that are designed to support both working people and unemployed peopl



I know, those pesky kids generating child benefit payments and those old age pensioners, get them back to work!!

Im not really sure what your point is here. Are you suggesting that child benefit and old age pensioners fall under your definition of a dependency culture? Really?? 
Are you suggesting that those that participate in the range of incentives that support working and unemployed people, as mentioned by the Minister, fall under your definition too?
I couldn't find anything mentioned or identified or defined anything to do with your dependency culture in the report, could you?


----------



## ppmeath

TheBigShort said:


> I know, those pesky kids generating child benefit payments and those old age pensioners, get them back to work!!



And you still don't understand it.



TheBigShort said:


> *Im not really sure what your point is here.* Are you suggesting that child benefit and old age pensioners fall under your definition of a dependency culture? Really??



 I know, and if you are not sure, despite being told again and again, then don't put what you think I am suggesting - my posts have been clear - just not to you. 




TheBigShort said:


> Are you suggesting that those that participate in the range of incentives that support working and unemployed people, as mentioned by the Minister, fall under your definition too?



And you still don't understand it. 

We'll leave it there. There's just no point.


----------



## TheBigShort

ppmeath said:


> *Another solution is to "leave Johnny as he is", because he's "not costing us a lot and he'll turn to crime costing us more in the long run".*
> 
> But Johnny is the No.1 target, there are training courses designed with Johnny in mind and apart from your solution to leave him be - you still have not answered what to do with him?
> 
> I say again, that if Johnny turns down all offers of training and work - that his welfare should be cut. What do you propose?



I never said leaving Johnny as is, is the solution. I said cutting his welfare was NOT the solution. I openly admitted that I dont have the solution for Johnny, suffice to say, to increase spending on education and social programs for him. If he turns them down, then I admit, I do not know what to do. But this is where my estimate of 0.5-1% of welfare recipients comes in. The Johnnys of the world are a drain. But I would contend, that the savings gained from cutting Johnnys welfare would be miniscule to the costs added through the provision of other social services.
Its not that hard to understand.

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


----------



## TheBigShort

ppmeath said:


> *It was an error,* o





ppmeath said:


> which is *the point that I tried to make, badly I admit.*





ppmeath said:


> *my posts have been clear* - just not to you.



Look, dont get too upset.
Nothing said here between us is going to change my view, nor your view.
I appreciate the effort you have made in actually sourcing data and information, which is relief from the gospel according to 'The Irish Independent'.

Btw, my comment re: barge pole. I know a lot of kids, young men and women, from disadvantaged areas and broken homes. Most of them are very decent but one way or another get themselves into trouble.
Their attitudes become more and more hardened as they get older, as after each training program and jobs program they get let go into the big bad world to fend for themselves. Its their they face the difficulties in competing for work against educated kids with solid backgrounds. And its there, through rejection, the contempt for the system, and employers, and life in general develops - hence the barge pole statement, their view not mine.
Not all it has to be said, some do great things for themselves.
But the cycle of poverty continues, and like I said, I dont have the answer. I have a great respect for Irish people, workers and employers. I think irish people in the main have a great work ethic and attitude to self sufficieny.
I despise the corrupt elites, who lie at the top of every sector of society, in sporting organizations, in charity, financial, legal, property, state-sponsored bodies, in the media, in the churches, who leech off the back of the fantastic efforts of real entrepreneurs, with real ideas, and who brought this country to its knees. These are the bastards that we need to root from the system.

As such I would argue strongly against cutting welfare.


----------



## orka

Between 2011 and mid-2015, the Dept of Social Protection cut benefits of 14,279 welfare recipients who refused to engage with various training and employment schemes.  In that time, the total of JSA and JSB recipients averaged around 340K (peaked at 380K).  So that's 4%-4.5% of JSA/JSB recipients who, as a last resort, had their benefits cut.  That's the percentage left after repeated attempts to get them to engage (the department does not disclose how many they started with who were not engaging but responded to efforts to get them to engage).



> The reduced payment rate was introduced as a last resort following a period of “non-engagement” by a welfare recipient in an employment action plan or for refusing an “appropriate” offer of training by the Department of Social Protection or Fás.
> 
> However, it has been used in a large number of cases from April 2011 to July 2015. The total number is 14,279.


http://www.irishtimes.com/news/poli...elfare-payments-to-more-than-14-000-1.2305775
https://www.welfare.ie/en/Pages/Annual-SWS-Statistical-Information-Report-2015.aspx


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> I work with a guy whose son works for a major US Multinational in Seattle. He earns $350,000 a year. If he moved back to Ireland he would pay 50% more taxes on his income.
> 
> 
> At the moment he pays $110,000 (€97,500) leaving him with a net income of $240,000 (€212,500).
> 
> If he moves back to Ireland he’ll pay $169,000 (€149,638) including property tax, leaving him with $181,000 (€160,000)



With respect Purple, the US applies a (35% I think) corporate tax rate on company profits. And its applied, no messing. This would surely facilitate a reduced employee tax rate.
In this country we have a 12.5% corporation tax rate, with, in some instances an effective rate of 4%. 
This puts pressure to extract taxes from elsewhere, unfortunately, workers are hit hardest.


----------



## TheBigShort

orka said:


> Between 2011 and mid-2015, the Dept of Social Protection cut benefits of 14,279 welfare recipients who refused to engage with various training and employment schemes.  In that time, the total of JSA and JSB recipients averaged around 340K (peaked at 380K).  So that's 4%-4.5% of JSA/JSB recipients who, as a last resort, had their benefits cut.  That's the percentage left after repeated attempts to get them to engage (the department does not disclose how many they started with who were not engaging but responded to efforts to get them to engage).
> 
> 
> http://www.irishtimes.com/news/poli...elfare-payments-to-more-than-14-000-1.2305775
> https://www.welfare.ie/en/Pages/Annual-SWS-Statistical-Information-Report-2015.aspx



Fair play to you Orka. And I apologize for any remark I made at you that came across as antagonistic or belittling in any way.

These are enlightening figures, in more ways than one.

Firstly, and unfortunately I disagree with your methodology for calculating your 4-4.5% figure.

You have taken the _total _figure of some 14,000 people over the period 2011 to 2015 and applied it to the _average _figure of 340k over the same period.
A more accurate calculation would be to take the _average _number of people who had their benefit cut over that period over the _average _number of unemployed.

That is, over the period 2012 to 2015, on average some 3,500 a year (14,000/4) had their benefits cut from an average of 340k on JSA.
That equates to 1.2% on average have their benefits cut. So my estimate of 1% max. was wrong.
And whilst I expect you to disagree with my calculation, and to standby your own calculation of 4-4.5% at least we know its not 14% as you previously suggested. And certainly there is not 23% jobless households living a culture of welfare dependency.

But the most enlightening thing about these figures, and I dont know whether to laugh or cry at this, is that the one thing...the one bloody thing, that posters have been calling out to do to those who refuse jobs, training etc, that is to cut their benefits, is ALREADY BEING DONE SINCE 2011!!!!!!


----------



## TheBigShort

Folks, Orka I think has cracked it, see below.
Since 2011 the Department of Social Protection has reduced the unemployment benefit of some 14,000 unemployed by €44 (sometimes only €19.60 if on JSA).

By my calculations (dont trust me, check your own), that is €44 x 3,500(avr per year) x 52 x 5yrs, tops =
(Drum roll Orka)

€40,040,000 savings over 5yrs, or €8,000,000 a year.
This equates to about a €4 a year saving for all the workers out there.
Or 0.04% of the Department of Social Protection budget.



orka said:


> Between 2011 and mid-2015, the Dept of Social Protection cut benefits of 14,279 welfare recipients who refused to engage with various training and employment schemes.  In that time, the total of JSA and JSB recipients averaged around 340K (peaked at 380K).  So that's 4%-4.5% of JSA/JSB recipients who, as a last resort, had their benefits cut.  That's the percentage left after repeated attempts to get them to engage (the department does not disclose how many they started with who were not engaging but responded to efforts to get them to engage).
> 
> 
> http://www.irishtimes.com/news/poli...elfare-payments-to-more-than-14-000-1.2305775
> https://www.welfare.ie/en/Pages/Annual-SWS-Statistical-Information-Report-2015.aspx





Brendan Burgess said:


> http://www.independent.ie/opinion/c...antle-our-culture-of-dependency-34963409.html





Purple said:


> Our dependency culture is not just the result of our welfare rates, although that’s a very large part of it, but rather it is the result of the lack of ethical standards and social responsibility by those who choose to adopt a parasitical lifestyle.





odyssey06 said:


> Either way, if we have people not working who could be, that's less money for police, hospitals, medicines, schools.





ppmeath said:


> I say again, that if Johnny turns down all offers of training and work - that his welfare should be cut.


----------



## orka

TheBigShort said:


> You have taken the _total _figure of some 14,000 people over the period 2011 to 2015 and applied it to the _average _figure of 340k over the same period.
> A more accurate calculation would be to take the _average _number of people who had their benefit cut over that period over the _average _number of unemployed.


No, that is incorrect.  Average to average would only be correct if the same people were included in each year’s number (e.g. Johnny was counted in 2012, 2013, 2014 & 2015).  But they are not – it’s 14,279 distinct people.  We can say they are discovered at the rate of 1% a year but the % ‘offender’ is additive, not repetitive.

E.g. if in the first year the DSP did this they found 3,500 out of 350,000 – that’s 1% offenders.  The next year, they find another 1% (3,500 new people) – so the total is up to 2%.  Et cetera – to where they were last August – 14,279 distinct people found so far.  They can’t target every single person in one year (it’s probably quite resource intense) – so this is only what they have found so far and it’s an ongoing process.  If Johnny hasn't been targeted for non-engagement yet, should he not be considered part of the problem?


----------



## odyssey06

My quote was: "If we have people not working who could be, that's less money for police, hospitals, medicines, schools."

I didn't say that the main savings were to be made in reduced benefits. I clearly said the main savings would be in getting these people back to work.
There are savings to be had in reducing benefits where appropriate, and in defensive measures to prevent social welfare fraud.

I would not dismiss an initiative because it reduces the budget by only "0.04%". 5-10 such initiatives in a year, year on year, is not be sneezed at. The cumulative effects of such incremental improvements can be impressive.


----------



## TheBigShort

odyssey06 said:


> My quote was: "If we have people not working who could be, that's less money for police, hospitals, medicines, schools."
> 
> I didn't say that the main savings were to be made in reduced benefits. I clearly said the main savings would be in getting these people back to work.
> There are savings to be had in reducing benefits where appropriate, and in defensive measures to prevent social welfare fraud.
> 
> I would not dismiss an initiative because it reduces the budget by only "0.04%". 5-10 such initiatives in a year, year on year, is not be sneezed at. The cumulative effects of such incremental improvements can be impressive.



You are right, I wouldn't dismiss it either. So apologises for including your quote above.


----------



## PGF2016

SDMXTWO said:


> You might get on to a minister on that one. Save a fortune on greenhouse gases. Lovely idea though, we did it in Ireland decades back...looking back to see the future.



Ridiculous post. I suggested cycling to work as it's something I do myself. I don't see why it was scoffed at. Now a sarcastic response from a similar post. 

If cycling is a viable option (distance to work is less than 10k and you don't have to transport tools) then it's better for physical health, mental health, financial health and the environment. 

In most parts of the world there isn't the choice to rely on welfare because you can't afford a second car. The sense of entitlement in Ireland is comical.

The culture of dependency will remain as long as mindsets like yours are entertained.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> I know a lot of kids, young men and women, from disadvantaged areas and broken homes. Most of them are very decent but one way or another get themselves into trouble.
> 
> Their attitudes become more and more hardened as they get older, as after each training program and jobs program they get let go into the big bad world to fend for themselves. Its their they face the difficulties in competing for work against educated kids with solid backgrounds. And its there, through rejection, the contempt for the system, and employers, and life in general develops - hence the barge pole statement, their view not mine.
> 
> Not all it has to be said, some do great things for themselves.



Good point. I agree completely. That is my experience as well and it's hard to understand that mind-set and how deeply it colours a persons perception of the world until you see it first hand. 

I regard poverty (or relative poverty; the areas/people you are talking about here) as a symptom of a social problem. As with many symptoms it exacerbates the problem but it is not the root cause. The root cause is the mind-set you outlined above. That can only be changed through education and the that will take generations. Changes to welfare etc are only nudges in a direction, not a solution. They are important nudges through.




TheBigShort said:


> But the cycle of poverty continues, and like I said, I dont have the answer. I have a great respect for Irish people, workers and employers. I think irish people in the main have a great work ethic and attitude to self sufficieny.
> 
> I despise the corrupt elites, who lie at the top of every sector of society, in sporting organizations, in charity, financial, legal, property, state-sponsored bodies, in the media, in the churches, who leech off the back of the fantastic efforts of real entrepreneurs, with real ideas, and who brought this country to its knees. These are the bastards that we need to root from the system.


 I agree here again about corrupt elites (not about the Irish work ethic) but I include the elites at the top of the Unions, particularly the Public Sector Unions, who sat at the table like the pigs at the meal at the end of Orwell’s Animal Farm, and screwed billions in totally unsustainable wage increases out of the people of Ireland. I'd also include Doctors and Nurses and all the other vested interest groups in the Healthcare Industry which stymie real reform and engage in petty blackmail of sick people in order to get more money. They may well be worse than their counterparts in the Legal Industry. All that notwithstanding it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t construct a system which makes work pay.  




TheBigShort said:


> With respect Purple, the US applies a (35% I think) corporate tax rate on company profits. And its applied, no messing. This would surely facilitate a reduced employee tax rate.


 It certainly does not apply “no messing”. I worked on a project with a US company which was looking to set up here with IDA support. The State of Missouri gave more tax breaks, grants, supports and write-off’s than we could dream of. Small to medium private companies, the ones which employ the majority of people in this country, make small profits and so what the corporation tax rate is doesn’t really matter. 
The fact that struggling companies used to get some of the redundancy payments back as a result of the Employers Social Insurance they paid but now they get nothing, increasing wages, increasing rates and charges and a severe lack of skilled labour because our schools are rubbish at teaching sciences so we end up with too many marketing consultants and not enough scientists and engineers.

In my sector the movement of control for Apprenticeships from the Department of Trade and Industry (as it was) to the Department of Education resulted in utter collapse of the engineering trades until now there are no apprenticeships available which actually train people to be useful or skilled in the sector. We are 20 to 30 years behind Germany and Easter Europe in that area and increasingly falling behind the UK which has invested massively in that area and is designing their training around industry needs, not around a bunch of teachers and academics who design training based what they want to teach.  

Should everyone, employees, employers and businesses all pay their taxes? Absolutely. Multinationals included.




TheBigShort said:


> In this country we have a 12.5% corporation tax rate, with, in some instances an effective rate of 4%.
> 
> This puts pressure to extract taxes from elsewhere, unfortunately, workers are hit hardest.



We have the most “progressive” income tax rate in Europe and, along with Israel, the most “progressive” in the developed world. That means that despite a very uneven pre-tax/welfare income distribution we have a very even distribution after tax/welfare. We have high sales taxes and very high income taxes on moderate to high earnings. The burden actually falls on those high earners, especially if they don’t have children.


Again, lots of people work; carers, volunteers and others outside the employment market. We are talking about unemployed and employed people here (employed people including business owners, self employed and sold-traders), not workers.


----------



## Ceist Beag

Sunny said:


> Wow. 22 pages and still hasn't been moved to LOS...Is that a record?
> 
> I am not reading 22 pages but is everyone not really in agreement? A small amount of people screw everyone else and don't have any intention of ever working.


At the risk of getting this wrong, my summarising of where we're at after 23 pages is as follows Sunny. I think most are in agreement on this point but the discussion is mainly around how many fall into the category (somewhere between 0.5% upwards but nowhere near the 23% who are unemployed). Probably about 20 of the 23 pages are focussed on this number!


Sunny said:


> There is a welfare trap because it does sometimes pay not to take a job. Not everyone who make this choice is a waster. They are simply doing what is best for their family. Would we not all do the same? If the State wants to change this, then encourage people to take jobs.


Again most are in agreement here but a small few believe that those who make this choice are committing fraud, not simply doing what is best for their family.


Sunny said:


> Not everyone dependent on welfare is there because of a culture of dependency or because they want to. Yes there are some people who are but it is insulting to many people.



+1


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort, You quoted my post in which I said _“Our dependency culture is not just the result of our welfare rates, although that’s a very large part of it, but rather it is the result of the lack of ethical standards and social responsibility by those who choose to adopt a parasitical lifestyle.”_ You seemed critical of that comment. Can you clarify why?


My view is that same lack of ethical standards and social responsibility is seen when teachers do grinds and don’t pay tax on their earnings, when plumbers and electricians and solicitors work for cash and don’t pay tax on those earnings. When GP’s skim a proportion of their cash receipts and don’t pay tax on those earnings. When companies construct complex systems to evade, or in many cases avoid, paying tax. When Medical Consultants and others in the Healthcare Industry sign public contracts but don’t fulfil them while at the same time using the resourced provided by the state to run or support their private business.


----------



## Purple

Ceist Beag said:


> Again most are in agreement here but a small few believe that those who make this choice are committing fraud, not simply doing what is best for their family.


 Committing fraud can be what is best for their family financially. That's what we need to change.

If you say you are available for work but are in fact not available for work you are committing welfare fraud.
If you say that you haven't modified your car engine when you buy car insurance but in fact you have modified your car engine then you are committing insurance fraud.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> TheBigShort, You quoted my post in which I said _“Our dependency culture is not just the result of our welfare rates, although that’s a very large part of it, but rather it is the result of the lack of ethical standards and social responsibility by those who choose to adopt a parasitical lifestyle.”_ You seemed critical of that comment. Can you clarify why?
> 
> 
> My view is that same lack of ethical standards and social responsibility is seen when teachers do grinds and don’t pay tax on their earnings, when plumbers and electricians and solicitors work for cash and don’t pay tax on those earnings. When GP’s skim a proportion of their cash receipts and don’t pay tax on those earnings. When companies construct complex systems to evade, or in many cases avoid, paying tax. When Medical Consultants and others in the Healthcare Industry sign public contracts but don’t fulfil them while at the same time using the resourced provided by the state to run or support their private business.



You have identified a broad range of sectors/professionals/trades/trade unions etc that evade their social responsibilities by skimming of the top, under the table etc...etc...
And I assume you associate these people under the banner 'parasitical lifestyle'?
I presume these people could be classed under the banner of 'entitlement culture' too?
That is, the feel entitled to pocket income and not to declare it. The bonus culture is another parasitical lifestyle too. I know one hotel general manager who was up front with. At a board meeting, wage increases for hotel staff, waiters, barpersons, accommodation, cooks, etc was discussed. It was agreed that a 2.5% wage increase (in 2014) across the board would be manageable. But the general manager was left in no uncertain terms that the closer he kept wage increases to 0% that the bigger the bonus he would receive at the end of the year.

All in all, this discussion never really touched on any of these things and instead its primary focus was on welfare 'dependency'.
Thankfully to Orka and ppmeath, they have posted detail of the extent that strongly indicates that the cost to the state of those who choose a lifestyle of welfare dependency is miniscule in the round, in terms of the extra burden it inflicts on the hard pressed taxpayer.
We would have been better to focus on the cost of those who do work, but skim the system as you have outlined. The higher you go in the professional classes the bigger the pot there is to be found. 
Instead the prevailing attitude amongst you and others is that it is the 'culture of welfare dependency', that is, those who choose not to work, are to blame for 40% tax, USC, PRSI etc, etc. 
It is a cost, but it is miniscule relative to the scams being pulled elsewhere.


----------



## odyssey06

Purple said:


> Committing fraud can be what is best for their family financially. That's what we need to change.
> If you say you are available for work but are in fact not available for work you are committing welfare fraud.
> If you say that you haven't modified your car engine when you buy car insurance but in fact you have modified your car engine then you are committing insurance fraud.



 To elaborate on this, maybe there are not lazy but are responding selfishly to the incentives presented. Regardless, they are a burden on the rest of society and it's entirely legitimate for society to stigmatize such behaviour.


----------



## TheBigShort

odyssey06 said:


> To elaborate on this, maybe there are not lazy but are responding selfishly to the incentives presented. Regardless, they are a burden on the rest of society and it's entirely legitimate for society to stigmatize such behaviour.



But this topic started on the 'jobless households', now it appears to be moving to people who actually work.

What sector of society is the topic related to?


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> You have identified a broad range of sectors/professionals/trades/trade unions etc that evade their social responsibilities by skimming of the top, under the table etc...etc...
> 
> And I assume you associate these people under the banner 'parasitical lifestyle'?
> 
> I presume these people could be classed under the banner of 'entitlement culture' too?
> 
> That is, the feel entitled to pocket income and not to declare it.



Social welfare fraud, tax evasion, insurance fraud; it’s all the same thing.




TheBigShort said:


> All in all, this discussion never really touched on any of these things and instead its primary focus was on welfare 'dependency'.
> 
> Thankfully to Orka and ppmeath, they have posted detail of the extent that strongly indicates that the cost to the state of those who choose a lifestyle of welfare dependency is miniscule in the round, in terms of the extra burden it inflicts on the hard pressed taxpayer.



You keep talking about provable welfare fraud. That’s not what the thread is about. Is it about a system which discourages work, which makes staying on welfare the best economic option.




TheBigShort said:


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


 Probably, but that’s a topic for another thread. I find your use of terms like “workers” and “professional classes” etc to be archaic. The is a republic; we don’t have classes. I don’t think people working in any particular industry are any more or less honest than any other. Doctors are no more honest than plasterers and certainly no less prone to tax evasion. The same goes for solicitors and barristers versus teachers or builders. 




TheBigShort said:


> Instead the prevailing attitude amongst you and others is that it is the 'culture of welfare dependency', that is, those who choose not to work, are to blame for 40% tax, USC, PRSI etc, etc.


 Absolutely not. The massive levels of pay increases on the public sector over the boom years, the dishonesty and incompetence of the banking sector, the utter incompetence of the Department of Finance, the Financial Regulator, the Central Bank and various governments and the cowardice of those few who did know better and a cultural hostility to those who earn a high income, based on begrudgery and a fundamental lack of understanding of how wealth is created; Those are the reasons our country is dysfunctional in so many ways.


I have no objection to the state taking everything I earn every Thursday and Friday. I do abject to them treating my hard earned money with such contempt by wasting so much of it through incompetence and general mismanagement.

We have a young and reasonably well educated population (I’d say we are on the plus side of average) and a well developed and open economy. We should have world class public services. We don’t have them not because they are badly funded but because the state and the state sector are just no good at running things.


----------



## Purple

odyssey06 said:


> To elaborate on this, maybe there are not lazy but are responding selfishly to the incentives presented. Regardless, they are a burden on the rest of society and it's entirely legitimate for society to stigmatize such behaviour.


Yes, that's a better way of describing them but no, they should not be stigmatized. If we construct a system which encourages socially damaging behavior and people then behave in a socially damaging way then the fault lies with us for constructing that system.


----------



## Ceist Beag

Purple said:


> Committing fraud can be what is best for their family financially. That's what we need to change.
> 
> If you say you are available for work but are in fact not available for work you are committing welfare fraud.
> If you say that you haven't modified your car engine when you buy car insurance but in fact you have modified your car engine then you are committing insurance fraud.


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


----------



## Purple

Ceist Beag said:


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


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


----------



## Ceist Beag

Purple said:


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


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


----------



## TheBigShort

Ceist Beag said:


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



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


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


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


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


----------



## Purple

Ceist Beag said:


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


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


----------



## Ceist Beag

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


----------



## newtothis

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

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

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


----------



## Purple

Ceist Beag said:


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


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


----------



## Purple

newtothis said:


> I think people need to step back from considering various hypothetical scenarios to justify themselves sitting in judgement of others (which is what this all about, right?) and get a reality check on what it's actually like to be on benefits, and especially on the reality of unemployment.
> 
> Asking whether someone highly qualified in X would take a low-paying position in industry Y is in my view a nonsense. If you speak with people who have lost jobs, the reality is they start off looking for something similar: if the reality is they can’t get anything, they start widening their search, both in terms of location and/or industry. They may well end up either retraining and/or taking literally anything they can get. That’s the reality, and I think it is completely reasonable just as it is unreasonable to expect someone to take the first position that may be available on day one.
> 
> If this is the path chosen, they can and do get support from the DSP. If they don’t engage, they can and do get payments cut. Why are people expecting anything else? Do they wish to punish the unemployed for being unemployed? How will that help anyone?


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


----------



## orka

TheBigShort said:


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


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


----------



## ppmeath

TheBigShort said:


> Look, dont get too upset.



I'm not. 



TheBigShort said:


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



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



TheBigShort said:


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



Why thank you.



TheBigShort said:


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



You did.

Post 175:

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




TheBigShort said:


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



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



TheBigShort said:


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



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



TheBigShort said:


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




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



TheBigShort said:


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



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

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

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

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


----------



## ppmeath

orka said:


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




I most certainly haven't orka.


----------



## TheBigShort

orka said:


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



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

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


----------



## orka

TheBigShort said:


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


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


TheBigShort said:


> My apologies, I should have said that €40m _was _the _cost_ to the state until the state made _savings _by reducing the benefits.


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


----------



## ppmeath

TheBigShort said:


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




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



TheBigShort said:


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



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

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



TheBigShort said:


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



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



TheBigShort said:


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



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



TheBigShort said:


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



Says who - you?


----------



## TheBigShort

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

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

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



TheBigShort said:


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





TheBigShort said:


> If Johnny _makes _the choice to sell illegal tobacco that _would _be a crime - future conditional tense.
> 
> The fact that as of now (present tense) he hasnt committed a crime.



Anyway, moving on,



ppmeath said:


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



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



TheBigShort said:


> I dont know what we do about Johnny






ppmeath said:


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



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



ppmeath said:


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



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



ppmeath said:


> If this person was offered 30k to work 40 hours a week - and if he loses the benefits above - which he will, then he wont' take the job.
> 
> So we need to look at him, we need to look at how the system is designed, we need to figure out where the issue is.



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

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## TheBigShort

orka said:


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



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


----------



## Sunny

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


----------



## ppmeath

TheBigShort said:


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



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




TheBigShort said:


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



I made it here:

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

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



TheBigShort said:


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



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



TheBigShort said:


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



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



TheBigShort said:


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





TheBigShort said:


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



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

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

_


TheBigShort said:



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

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



TheBigShort said:


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



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


----------



## TheBigShort

TheBigShort said:


> Ok, not for the first time do I have to take some time out from the main topic to highlight some grammatical issues.
> The comment above is written as a question. That leaves the reader the option to answer the question posed. Depending on that answer, opens the possibility of discussion and debate with the intent on finding a solution or some common ground. In essence, it is not a definite statement or opinion.
> 
> On the other hand a sentence like this "We must dismantle our culture of welfare dependency", is a definite statement. There are no questions asked here, it is clear that the poster believes;
> 1) there is a culture of welfare dependency and that
> 2) it must be dismantled.
> 
> Here are so other examples where your grammer has come into question
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, moving on,
> 
> 
> 
> Liar, liar, pants on fire! This is on page 11.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great, so we are definitely not talking about the unemployment rate. We are not talking about the €188 either. And we are not talking about pensioners, kids, the sick and the injured. And we are not talking about carers.
> Well, my apologies. Because when you posted that link from Social Protection that highlighted the 2million people in receipt of welfare, I was pretty sure you did that to make a point related to the discussion. But clearly not, my bad (although you might one day explain why you did do it - on second thoughts, better not)
> 
> 
> 
> You have actually made a point there, well done. But...im thinking of all the other smokers and drinkers, the ones that work and whose lifestyles will, like Johnny, lead to a drain on the health service. Just as well we tax the crap out of smokers and drinkers (which Johnny pays back out of the 188 that we give him - but we are not talking about the 188 are we?).
> And as for his kids, its possible they will follow in his footsteps, multiplying. But that will be all relative to kids following the footsteps of their daddies and mammies from solid, well educated backgrounds, also multiplying, and in the end there will still only be less than 1% of welfare recipients choosing the dependency lifestyle. The other 99% will be trying to get work, trying to retrain, trying to upskill, all dependent on the opportunities available.
> 
> 
> 
> Well the issue might be on your view that he 'wont take the job'. Which im saying to you is wrong.
> 
> First, 40hrs at €9.15 ph, with 4 kids will still entitle him for FIS.
> €834 - €360= €474@60% = 284+360= €644.
> This increases his disposable income, why on earth would he not take the work? The system in the example you have provided, encourages him to take more work.
> 
> So for Gods sake, if you are going to provide definitions and examples, would you please provide some that support your position!!
> 
> Secondly, this income will go nowhere to meeting his rent of €1,200, so his rent supplement will still be paid. And you have already been shown that the rent supplement, subject to limits in each county, will only equal the value of the rent being charged. So if the landord reduces the rent to €900, his rent supplement reduces to €900.
> 
> As his earned income is only €360, he will still qualify for a medical card, having 4 children.
> 
> It is clear now you dont even understand the system that you want dismantled.



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


----------



## ppmeath

TheBigShort said:


> Hands up! I made an err. The rent supplement is generally not payable to an individual in full-time work. And alas, ppmeath raises a fair point.
> There is an anomaly in the welfare system where someone in receipt of rent supplement may consider not to take a job for fear of losing the rent supplement.



It's not an anomaly it is how the system is designed and it is the very essence of what we have been trying to discuss.



TheBigShort said:


> I do not concede that it is so prevalent so as to dramatically affect the tax deductions from paye, prsi, usc, etc.



If a married man (or woman) with 4 kids is in receipt of this from the state:

_"Employment: 20 hrs x €9.15/hr = €183/wk = €9,516/yr
FIS: (€834 - €183) x 60% = €391/wk = €20,332/yr
Rent Allowance: €1,200/mo = €14,400/yr
Child Benefit: €560/mo = €6,720/yr
Plus medical card"

Total: €50,968/yr. _

And we remove the CB - bringing it to 46k NET.

Then 40k Gross salary on offer is 32k net (Using the link I gave you earlier), 615 per week, then they will be still entitled to 60% of the difference between 615 and  €834, so about 115 a week on top of the 615 - 730.

However they lose 323 per week in rent allowance, then they have the added cost of working, travel, lunches etc.

They had 846 a week (44k net), and now they have the 730 minus the 323 and they have to pay for their own rent

(I am open to correction on the calculations).



TheBigShort said:


> I do not concede that it is so prevalent so as to dramatically affect the tax deductions from paye, prsi, usc, etc.



I would profoundly disagree and at this point I have to add, that 40k is not an insignificant salary and many, many families manage with rent and mortgages - not easily but they certainly do.


----------



## orka

TheBigShort said:


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


14,279 people had their benefits cut due to non-engagement.  That's about 5% of those on JSA.  I would expect at least half of those targeted by the DSP to engage rather than lose benefits so the pre-investigation % not really engaging of their own accord is probably at least 10%.  Allowing further for the DSP not having got around to everyone, I think 10% to 15% non-engagers on JSA is a reasonable number.


----------



## TheBigShort

orka said:


> 14,279 people had their benefits cut due to non-engagement.  That's about 5% of those on JSA.  I would expect at least half of those targeted by the DSP to engage rather than lose benefits so the pre-investigation % not really engaging of their own accord is probably at least 10%.  Allowing further for the DSP not having got around to everyone, I think 10% to 15% non-engagers on JSA is a reasonable number.



Those figures dont make sense. How can someone not engage with DSP before "DSP not having got around to everyone"? How can you class someone as a non-engager before they have had a chance to engage?

Your avr detection rate of 1% per year makes more sense. With unemployment figures falling the numbers of non-engagers will decrease, but the detection will remain at 1% of these figures.


----------



## orka

TheBigShort said:


> Those figures dont make sense.


They make perfect sense.


TheBigShort said:


> How can someone not engage with DSP before "DSP not having got around to everyone"? How can you class someone as a non-engager before they have had a chance to engage?


Johnny is supposed to engage all on his own without a push from the DSP (you might note my phrase "the pre-investigation % not really engaging of their own accord" - no mention of 'with the DSP').  And yet he doesn't - regardless of whether the DSP has got around to him yet.


TheBigShort said:


> Your avr detection rate of 1% per year makes more sense. With unemployment figures falling the numbers of non-engagers will decrease, but the detection will remain at 1% of these figures.


The 1% pa is additive until someone engages and has their reduction reversed.  So 1% became 2% became 3% etc.  The annual rate will slow down as the DSP gets around to everyone but it is still additive.  I have found nothing to suggest or support the view that someone so non-engaging as to allow their benefits to be cut will suddenly engage afterwards - but if you have figures for how many reductions are reversed, that would probably knock a couple of % off the 10%-15% number.  But as things stand, I'm happy with my number.


TheBigShort said:


> With unemployment figures falling the numbers of non-engagers will decrease, but the detection will remain at 1% of these figures.


You don't know this - it's just your opinion again.  The number of non-engagers could very well stay the same (if Johnny doesn't engage for a job when threatened with loss of benefits, what's going to make him engage ever - if he's happy not working when there's high unemployment, why would he be happy working just because unemployment is dropping?) which will actually increase the non-engagers as a % of the JSA population. 

As a side note, I've grown quite fond of Johnny...


----------



## ppmeath

orka said:


> As a side note, I've grown quite fond of Johnny...



Laughed out loud at that - thanks!!


----------



## TheBigShort

ppmeath said:


> It's not an anomaly it is how the system is designed and it is the very essence of what we have been trying to discuss.
> 
> 
> 
> If a married man (or woman) with 4 kids is in receipt of this from the state:
> 
> _"Employment: 20 hrs x €9.15/hr = €183/wk = €9,516/yr
> FIS: (€834 - €183) x 60% = €391/wk = €20,332/yr
> Rent Allowance: €1,200/mo = €14,400/yr
> Child Benefit: €560/mo = €6,720/yr
> Plus medical card"
> 
> Total: €50,968/yr. _
> 
> And we remove the CB - bringing it to 46k NET.
> 
> Then 40k Gross salary on offer is 32k net (Using the link I gave you earlier), 615 per week, then they will be still entitled to 60% of the difference between 615 and  €834, so about 115 a week on top of the 615 - 730.
> 
> However they lose 323 per week in rent allowance, then they have the added cost of working, travel, lunches etc.
> 
> They had 846 a week (44k net), and now they have the 730 minus the 323 and they have to pay for their own rent
> 
> (I am open to correction on the calculations).
> 
> 
> 
> I would profoundly disagree and at this point I have to add, that 40k is not an insignificant salary and many, many families manage with rent and mortgages - not easily but they certainly do.



Yes but as I pointed out to you the actual available cash in hand, disposable income, is some €534 (income for 20hrs + FIS + CB - €40 rent contribution, for a couple) a week. And for a family with 4 kids, bills, insurance, food, clothes etc it is liveable but certainly closer to the tight end of things rather than any sort of luxury.
You have identified a very precise set of circumstances for this design flaw to emerge. One of the criteria for qualifying for rent supplement is that the tenants had been occupying and paying for private rental accommodation for 6/12 months prior to being eligible.
So it is reasonable to assume? that in your example we are not talking about people who are parasites, loafers, or deliberately exploiting the system (as has been levied by some other posters here). We are talking about people who in ordinary circumstances were, and did, pay their own way, and their social insurance, until personal circumstances took a turn for worse (ie loss of employment).
The hope of course is a return to normal circumstances (paying their own way) but in the interim a p/t 20hr week minimum wage job is to hand. This on the one hand, whilst costing the taxpayer, is on the other hand playing its part in the functioning of the economy by fulflling a role for the employer who a required a minimum wage worker for 20hrs a week.
The design flaw materialises when the same employer now requires the employee to work 40hrs due to improved trade and economic conditions all round, but he refuses for fear of losing rent supplement. To make matters worse, the employer hires a second family man of 4 kids who is in receipt of rent supplement ( also a former pay his own way guy who lost his job in the recession), to work the other 20hrs. This is crushing the rest of the workers in taxes and social insurances.
So the proposed solution here is to cut welfare benefits. In this situation, it would be useful if you could identify where/how the cuts are to be made. As it would be necessary to know, if for instance the FIS thresholds were to be reduced, how this would impact on families not in receipt of rent supplement for instance. Or if your chosen cuts would actually provide the desired incentive. Perhaps as an idea FIS could require a person to work 28 hrs rather than the 19+?
This would surely push workers to work more hours. Except of course, if those extra hours are actually available. From your example above the employer would be under pressure to provide 16 extra hours a week. This would affect his wage bill detrimentally if the hours weren't available, and I know you are against increasing wage bills. Alternatively, the option to let one worker go and offer the job full-time to the other worker is an option. But neither one wants the 40 hrs for fear of losing rent supplement, but the employer cant pay 56 hrs in wages either.

So while I appreciate and acknowledge that after 24 pages or so, you have provided a very precise set of circumstances that shows up a design flaw, I would be interested in how your proposal of welfare cuts would actually be applied.
Bearing in mind, it is my contention, that in general such cuts will do nothing more than drive people further into poverty.

Btw, I will be opening a topic on the case for increasing wages as an alternative to welfare cuts.


----------



## TheBigShort

ppmeath said:


> Laughed out loud at that - thanks!!





orka said:


> They make perfect sense.
> Johnny is supposed to engage all on his own without a push from the DSP (you might note my phrase "the pre-investigation % not really engaging of their own accord" - no mention of 'with the DSP').  And yet he doesn't - regardless of whether the DSP has got around to him yet.
> The 1% pa is additive until someone engages and has their reduction reversed.  So 1% became 2% became 3% etc.  The annual rate will slow down as the DSP gets around to everyone but it is still additive.  I have found nothing to suggest or support the view that someone so non-engaging as to allow their benefits to be cut will suddenly engage afterwards - but if you have figures for how many reductions are reversed, that would probably knock a couple of % off the 10%-15% number.  But as things stand, I'm happy with my number.
> You don't know this - it's just your opinion again.  The number of non-engagers could very well stay the same (if Johnny doesn't engage for a job when threatened with loss of benefits, what's going to make him engage ever - *if he's happy not working when there's high unemployment, why would he be happy working just because unemployment is dropping?) *which will actually increase the non-engagers as a % of the JSA population.
> 
> As a side note, I've grown quite fond of Johnny...



Thats a very good point, in Johnnys case anyway. But it doesnt explain the proposition that cutting welfare will motivate and incentives welfare recipients to engage or to go out to work does it?
 I mean if cutting welfare is supposed to push people into getting a job, then presumably of the 14,000 or so who had their benefits cut, most will have come crawling back to the department looking to engage, or actually just got a job and are now no longer accountable in these figures?
If 14,000 had their welfare cut, and after 5yrs, none of them engaged with the system or went and got a job then what does that say about the effectiveness of cutting welfare?


----------



## TheBigShort

http://www.thejournal.ie/rent-supplement-2-2850665-Jun2016/

Just an article from the Journal at the government press launch to increase the rates of rent supplement earlier this year.
It costs €267 million a year to fund , with 56,000 on rent allowance and 11,000 on HAP. 
So on average, the yearly payment per recipient is €267,000,000 / 67,000 recipients =  €3,986 per year, or €76.76 a week.

So the _typical _amount provided is a way less than the example provided with rent supplement as low as €180 a month for a single adult in Co Cavan.

No doubt it is still a lot of money. But in our discussion, we are only concerned with the portion of that amount that is being provided to people who refuse to take up employment of 30hrs or more for fear of losing the rent supplement. As distinct to the worker who can only get p/t work.
Another interesting aspect of all this is that the money ultimately goes to the landlords. So the increase will surely entice more property lettings? Perhaps easing rental costs? Perhaps generating construction activity? Perhaps creating jobs? Perhaps reducing the dole queues further?

Seems plausible to me rather than the nonsense going on in central banks with QE, to buy stocks and bonds to try generate a wealth effect, that will eventually "trickle-down" to the rest of society.
Dont they realise by now that economies built on expanding credit and loading debt on citizens creates a wealth effect that "trickles-up"?


----------



## ppmeath

TheBigShort said:


> Yes but as I pointed out to you the actual available cash in hand, disposable income, is some €534 (income for 20hrs + FIS + CB - €40 rent contribution, for a couple) a week. And for a family with 4 kids, bills, insurance, food, clothes etc it is liveable but certainly closer to the tight end of things rather than any sort of luxury.



The income is as follows:
_
"Employment: 20 hrs x €9.15/hr = €183/wk =* €9,516*/yr
FIS: (€834 - €183) x 60% = €391/wk = *€20,332*/yr
Rent Allowance: €1,200/mo = €14,400/yr
Child Benefit: €560/mo = *€6,720/*yr
_
703. From this they paid 40 a week so* disposable *income is 663.

The 40k job is 32k net or 615,  then they will be still entitled to 60% of the difference between 615 and €834, so about 115 a week on top of the 615 = 730 and on top of that the CB is 129 per week so they now have 859.

They do not have their rent allowance of 1,400 or 323 per week - they have to pay at least this plus the 40 from the 859 - 363 so now they have - 859 <323> <40> = 496

They had 663 - now they have 496. 



TheBigShort said:


> In turn, with a disposable income of €644 a week and 4 kids to feed and clothe it is likely that this willing worker, and his family, faced with paying €1,200 rent out of their disposable income will have their net disposable income reduced to €367 a week from €584.



You misunderstood - they received 1,400 rent allowance - they paid the 40 a week on top of this. 



TheBigShort said:


> You have identified a very precise set of circumstances for this design flaw to emerge



No I haven't. I have informed you of a very real and existing situation. 



TheBigShort said:


> One of the criteria for qualifying for rent supplement is that the tenants had been occupying and paying for private rental accommodation for 6/12 months prior to being eligible.



Yes. 



TheBigShort said:


> So it is reasonable to assume? that in your example we are not talking about people who are parasites, loafers, or deliberately exploiting the system (as has been levied by some other posters here). We are talking about people who in ordinary circumstances were, and did, pay their own way, and their social insurance, until personal circumstances took a turn for worse (ie loss of employment)



Never, not once, did I refer to any person on any kind of welfare being a parasite. In fact, if you care to scroll back, you will see that you are the one who has been disrespectful to people on welfare.

I have posted the definition of the "culture of dependency" at least twice, but because your purpose here wasn't to discuss this issue at all, you still don't understand it and your reference to a prime example - is now a "flaw". 



TheBigShort said:


> The hope of course is a return to normal circumstances (paying their own way) but in the interim a p/t 20hr week minimum wage job is to hand. This on the one hand, whilst costing the taxpayer, is on the other hand playing its part in the functioning of the economy by fulflling a role for the employer who a required a minimum wage worker for 20hrs a week.



They can't because just to keep still then need to earn almost 70k. because they have 50k net (or 44k exc CB) working 19 hours a week,  and that is what the equivalent gross earnings are for someone working 40 hours a week and keep in mind that if you earn over 75k you are classed as in the top 10% of earners in this country. 

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/soci...0-per-cent-of-all-income-in-ireland-1.2105100
_"The Tasc report also shows that two-thirds of tax cases had gross household incomes of less than €35,000. Conversely, about 200,000 of the tax cases reported to Revenue – *the top 10 per cent – had incomes of more than €75,000*. Two-thirds of these cases were dual-income couples."_

We are not including the benefit of a medical card for 2 adults and 4 children.



TheBigShort said:


> The design flaw materialises when the same employer now requires the employee to work 40hrs due to improved trade and economic conditions all round, *but he refuses for fear of losing rent supplement*. To make matters worse, the employer hires a second family man of 4 kids who is in receipt of rent supplement ( also a former pay his own way guy who lost his job in the recession), to work the other 20hrs. This is crushing the rest of the workers in taxes and social insurances.



And this is the "culture of welfare dependency" please, please, refer back to the definition.  Many, many, many, many families can manage on much, much,much less. 




TheBigShort said:


> So the proposed solution here is to cut welfare benefits. In this situation, it would be useful if you could identify where/how the cuts are to be made. As it would be necessary to know, if for instance the FIS thresholds were to be reduced, how this would impact on families not in receipt of rent supplement for instance. Or if your chosen cuts would actually provide the desired incentive. Perhaps as an idea FIS could require a person to work 28 hrs rather than the 19+?



No.No.No.No. And I would ask that you cease misrepresenting what I said. I did not make any such proposal. In this situation that is the very essence of the question that was posed and now that you can see that there clearly exists a "culture of dependency" - you might realise that when the OP said "We must dismantle" it - now you see the dilemma. 

You have confused issues, you have put Johnny with this person and his situation together - when they are different, you don't understand that if we didn't have Johnny (and his offspring) then we could target those who really can get back to work - in a more precise manner.



TheBigShort said:


> This would surely push workers to work more hours. Except of course, if those extra hours are actually available. From your example above the employer would be under pressure to provide 16 extra hours a week. This would affect his wage bill detrimentally if the hours weren't available, and I know you are against increasing wage bills. Alternatively, the option to let one worker go and offer the job full-time to the other worker is an option. But neither one wants the 40 hrs for fear of losing rent supplement, but the employer cant pay 56 hrs in wages either.



This  is yet another distraction from the issue.  You have misunderstood the problem, you have misrepresented the solution and made a lot of assumptions - yet again. 



TheBigShort said:


> So while I appreciate and acknowledge that after 24 pages or so, you have provided a very precise set of circumstances that shows up a design flaw, I would be interested in *how your proposal of welfare cuts *would actually be applied.
> Bearing in mind, it is my contention, that in general such cuts will do nothing more than drive people further into poverty.



It is not a design flaw - it is the essence of what we are discussing (well, trying to). And again, you completely misunderstand the issue. 

I did not make any such proposals and you really need to read posts and stop misrepresenting what I am saying, you have repeatedly done this. 

If you are talking about Johnny - then surely you can see that this is different? Or can you?


----------



## ppmeath

TheBigShort said:


> But in our discussion, we are only concerned with the portion of that amount that is being provided to people who refuse to take up employment of 30hrs or more for fear of losing the rent supplement. As distinct to the worker who can only get p/t work.



No. That isn't "our" discussion. Not at all.


----------



## TheBigShort

ppmeath said:


> No. That isn't "our" discussion. Not at all.



Seriously it isnt? Jeez...I thought I had it, I really did. First you provide a definition;

*Definition of Dependency Culture. *This refers to a*system of social welfare that encourages people to stay on benefits rather than work.*

*It suggests the tax and benefit system is designed to give little incentive for getting off benefits and into work.
*
Then you provide an example of a welfare recipient to demonstrate the definition. 

Only I notice that your example actually contains a person who _is_ at work instead of a person who is encouraged to -
*stay on benefits rather than work.*

But then you move goalposts and offer him another 20hrs a week work, and here I acknowledge the anomaly...sorry, design flaw...sorry, _the essence!, _of what we are discussing.


And in order to try prove _the essence _you have had to convolute the most extreme example; family of 4, living in Dublin, with only one earner, working p/t on minimum wage, to demonstrate _the essence _of what it is you are trying to say.
When in fact, ive edited my comment above, to show that the typical rent supplement payment per week is less than €77 per recipient. 
And the galling thing is, is that this payment is only available to people in private rented accommodation, who hitherto losing their jobs, paid their own way in our society, they paid their social insurance, and when times get hard they need a dig out. 

Whatever _the essence _is, it stinks.


----------



## TheBigShort

ppmeath said:


> And this is the "culture of welfare dependency" please, please, refer back to the definition. Many, many, many, many families can manage on much, much,much less.



I
acknowledged many, many times that some people choose a lifestyle of welfare dependency over financial independence. I have acknowledge the _essence _of what you are talking about (that the system facilitat es that, in some circumstances) . But I contend they are the very thin end of the wedge. Now try move on...

1) how much does it cost the taxpayer?
2) how much does it impact the taxes we pay?
3) how do you intend to dismantle this culture?

I contend, that the savings to be found will only drive people further into poverty. I contend that the costs to our society in driving people further into poverty will cost more than the savings made in any attempt to dismantle the system.
I agree that reform of the system is required, but in _essence, _this amounts to some tinkering, adjusting, revising etc. which is always required, not dismantling.

It would probably be a good idea if you just got on and answered the questions above. Rather than, accusing me of misrepresenting you (whilst simultaneously misrepresenting me - I never said you labelled welfare recipients as parasites, I said others did), and flapping about "_the essence" _when its actually straightforward, why dont you tell us how to solve your problems with the system?

And while you are doing that, perhaps if anyone else is bothering to follow this they can explain, in their own words what it is your are trying to say. Because you are spending more time trying to tell me that "I just dont get it", than you are actually in answering any of my questions.

So why dont you pretend you are no longer discussing with me, and instead carry on as if you are discussing with all the other posters who clearly understand you.


----------



## orka

TheBigShort said:


> If 14,000 had their welfare cut, and after 5yrs, none of them engaged with the system or went and got a job then what does that say about the effectiveness of cutting welfare?


It's the threat of cutting welfare that should be most effective.  The 14,279 are those who absolutely refused despite repeated efforts to get them to engage - there will be many others who did engage under threat of a cut in benefits.

Additionally, while we are not going to let anyone starve, at least we are saving some money on the 14,279.

So - engagement of those who don't want their benefits cut and saving money on those who don't engage - seems worthwhile to me.


----------



## TheBigShort

orka said:


> 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?


----------



## Gerry Canning

Since any semblance of a Welfare State Started
1. We have had a noisy ,normally well-heeled , cohort of those who whilst saying {we must not let people starve }and {people need work} {plenty of work out there} {these people have it too good}who ensure by their yowling that any dependency is well curtailed.
2. Most of us (sense) fairness, and are not adverse to quietly reporting blatant chancers.
3. Quite a few of us have @ some stage had to rely on Welfare , and for those who have, its not a great place to remain in, nor in the scheme of things do that many become dependent.
4.From experience, the Department is quite adept at not permitting a lazy dependency develop.
5.Most Papers do not have Reporters , just headline seekers , so maybe we need a (culture of checks on what papers say )


----------



## orka

TheBigShort said:


> But your figures still dont factor in those who did decide to _re-engage after _having their welfare cut.


It sounds reasonable that there would be some re-engagement after benefit cuts (and I'm sure there's bound to be some) but what is strange is that the DSP doesn't seem to produce statistics and/or brag about it.  You'd think if an initiative was successful the DSP would want to let everyone know what a great job they are doing.  I've looked and can't find any info - so unless you have any numbers, the only thing we know for sure is that 14,279 people had their benefits cut.


TheBigShort said:


> Im sure you have some ideas, good ones too, lets hear them?


None that haven't been mentioned already in this thread.  I've popped in and out of this thread with numbers/short comments when something looked really off but in general, this type of discussion (long posts, going around in circles) isn't my sort of thing.


----------



## TheBigShort

orka said:


> It sounds reasonable that there would be some re-engagement after benefit cuts (and I'm sure there's bound to be some) but what is strange is that the DSP doesn't seem to produce statistics and/or brag about it.  You'd think if an initiative was successful the DSP would want to let everyone know what a great job they are doing.  I've looked and can't find any info - so unless you have any numbers, the only thing we know for sure is that 14,279 people had their benefits cut.
> None that haven't been mentioned already in this thread.  I've popped in and out of this thread with numbers/short comments when something looked really off but in general, this type of discussion (long posts, going around in circles) isn't my sort of thing.



I dont really get your point about the successful initiative?

Could you at least post one good idea from this thread? I havent see any.


----------



## Purple

God bless yisser energy lads.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> God bless yisser energy lads.



Ah, Purple, great to see you are still sticking around. There I was thinking you had bailed out, it all getting too much for you.
But looking at your profile, 10yr+ a member and 6,500+ posts, clearly you are here for the long haul when it suits?


----------



## orka

TheBigShort said:


> I dont really get your point about the successful initiative?


If 3,500 have their benefits cut and 2,000 of them repent the follow year and engage, I would expect the DSP to consider this a success and make a big deal about it.  I can't find any stats on how successful or otherwise cutting benefits has been at getting people back on full benefits - so I have my doubts that it has actually been successful (beyond the actual cutting of benefits - which the DSP does publish stats about).  If people stay on cut benefits, the numbers keep increasing year on year - as my calcs assumed.


TheBigShort said:


> Could you at least post one good idea from this thread? I havent see any.


You mean apart from your own? 

I like the idea of a well-implemented benefits cap.  It should never be the case that a family on long-term benefits has easier/better decisions than a working family on issues like where to live (both type of property and location - close to where they grew up etc.), how many children to have, whether they can afford to go to the doctor etc.

[As an aside Deiseblue, what is there to 'like' about BS's post?  It's 2 questions...  Or is it just general cheerleading?  Nothing wrong with the post, I'm just curious - particularly as I'm not a big 'liker' myself]

P.S. 500th post in this thread...


----------



## TheBigShort

orka said:


> If 3,500 have their benefits cut and 2,000 of them repent the follow year and engage, I would expect the DSP to consider this a success and make a big deal about it. I can't find any stats on how successful or otherwise cutting benefits has been at getting people back on full benefits - so I have my doubts that it has actually been successful (beyond the actual cutting of benefits - which the DSP does publish stats about). If people stay on cut benefits, the numbers keep increasing year on year - as my calcs assumed.



Or perhaps making a big deal of how those on welfare have 'repented' or come crawling back, may not be the most politically astute thing to do?



orka said:


> If people stay on cut benefits, the numbers keep increasing year on year - as my calcs assumed.



Or actually get a job, or emigrate?



orka said:


> You mean apart from your own?



Well, considering im against the notion of dismantling the apparent 'welfare culture',  im not really sure what ideas I would be expected to dismantle it.
On the other hand, I have mentioned that a welfare sum equivalent to the last earned wage could be considered. Reducing incrementally down to a basic rate the longer someone remains unemployed. But I would imagine that would cost more tax €€€€€'s and given the premise of this topic (workers overburdened with tax), the chances of that being implemented any time soon would be zilch!


----------



## orka

TheBigShort said:


> Or perhaps making a big deal of how those on welfare have 'repented' or come crawling back, may not be the most politically astute thing to do?


Really?  I would expect it to be a popular message with most of the electorate - 'we targeted those who refused to engage and we have succeeded in getting some/many to engage'.  Why would politicians not want to give that message?


----------



## Deiseblue

No problem Okra , not really rocket science - I thought both queries were apt .
Hence the like although I should say that my views on this discussion would broadly be in line with BS's


----------



## TheBigShort

orka said:


> Really?  I would expect it to be a popular message with most of the electorate - 'we targeted those who refused to engage and we have succeeded in getting some/many to engage'.  Why would politicians not want to give that message?



Because as I pointed out before, the reasons for not engaging in the first instance are varied. For instance, which politician would be proud to say that the department reduced the payment of a single mother living in Sligo, with no car, because she wouldn't attend an interview in Galway?
Or which politician would be proud to say we reduced the welfare on some of those considering emigration as an option for their futures?
Or a 55 yr old fork lift driver (unemployed for 1st time in his life in 2013) refused to do an ECDL course?
Political suicide in my opinion.


----------



## orka

TheBigShort said:


> Because as I pointed out before, the reasons for not engaging in the first instance are varied. For instance, which politician would be proud to say that the department reduced the payment of a single mother living in Sligo, with no car, because she wouldn't attend an interview in Galway?
> Or which politician would be proud to say we reduced the welfare on some of those considering emigration as an option for their futures?
> Or a 55 yr old fork lift driver (unemployed for 1st time in his life in 2013) refused to do an ECDL course?
> Political suicide in my opinion.


But that's information the DSP does already give us - they tell us they reduced benefits for 14,279 people.  I'm querying why they don't give us updates on the follow-on - how many are still on reduced benefits, how many have left the country, how many have engaged etc.

The strategy has been on the go since 2011 with annual updates provided by the DSP.  Politicians aren't proud/not proud as far as I can see nor has there been political suicide - the numbers are just the numbers.


----------



## TheBigShort

orka said:


> I'm querying why they don't give us updates on the follow-on - how many are still on reduced benefits, how many have left the country, how many have engaged etc.



I don't know. You would have to contact the Dept for that. 
The point being however, that just because they dont publish such information doesnt mean to say that it does not occur. Like I said, the reasons for non engagement are varied, its inconceivable to me that the 14,000+ figure is a static figure, only to be added onto each year with further detections of non engagement,  and not reduced for a number of reasons such as obtaining employment.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> For instance, which politician would be proud to say that the department reduced the payment of a single mother living in Sligo, with no car, because she wouldn't attend an interview in Galway?


 Would that happen though?



TheBigShort said:


> Or a 55 yr old fork lift driver (unemployed for 1st time in his life in 2013) refused to do an ECDL course?
> Political suicide in my opinion.


 if you are 55 and the only skill you have acquired in 35 years is the ability to drive a fork lift truck then you should be ashamed of yourself and gladly take an ECDL course rather than live off your neighbours for the next 30 or 40 years.


----------



## Gerry Canning

Re Dagny Juel,s posts.

In US its commendable to be {The self made man} .That is the same here , the difference is that we largely protect by our system those caught in poor situations. Those of us who have been on dole over the years remain appreciative , the dole meant we didn,t fall too far and it enabled us to pick up without too much hassle. Most of (dole) type recipients have moved into gainful /tax paying/ society affirming work.
From my reading of USA their (self-made men) seem to have an inordinate wealth and if you fall between the cracks in USA , you are banjaxed !
It also appears than in USA ,as in Ireland , Joe Citizen is effectively on the hook for massive mortgage debt , is that not a culture of dependency by the (entrepreneurs)!

Socialism built on {they just take a pay cut}.That's not a sensible comment.
The US seem to think that we in Europe are all Socialists , maybe we are , but I really think most fair minded thinking people would prefer the (albeit) flawed systems in Europe to the US one , or indeed the so called socialism of places like Venezuala.


----------



## Purple

Gerry, given that a welfare system should help people while at the same time encouraging and enabling upward mobility I prefer ours as we have more/better upward mobility here than they have in the USA.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> For instance, which politician would be proud to say that the department reduced the payment of a single mother living in Sligo, with no car, because she wouldn't attend an interview in Galway?



What's wrong with Sligo?


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Would that happen though?



It was implied by Orka that it would or should. She couldn't understand how the DSP would not make a big deal out of successfully getting people whose welfare was cut to re-engage with the DSP.
In my view, no government department could make such claims without the approval of the Minister in charge.



Purple said:


> if you are 55 and the only skill you have acquired in 35 years is the ability to drive a fork lift truck then you should be ashamed of yourself and gladly take an ECDL course rather than live off your neighbours for the next 30 or 40 years.



Where did I say that it was the only skill obtained by the fork lift driver? And having contributed social insurance and made pension contributions for 35 years, there is little chance that the driver will be living off his/her neighbours?
Fork lift drivers are a vital, indespensable part of any functioning economy and nothing to be ashamed of.
Snobbery coming to the fore again.


----------



## orka

TheBigShort said:


> It was implied by Orka that it would or should.


Wow. Another prize for you for making stuff up.  Where did I imply this?


TheBigShort said:


> She couldn't understand how the DSP would not make a big deal out of successfully getting people whose welfare was cut to re-engage with the DSP.


Not true.  I don't think there are large numbers of people re-engaging ~ so the DSP can't make the claim so they don't publish any stats.  I think the number of people on cut benefits gets bigger each year - you don't seem to share this view but you have nothing to back this view up.  The only official data we have is that 14,279 people had their benefits cut.


TheBigShort said:


> In my view, no government department could make such claims without the approval of the Minister in charge.


Information on numbers of people coming off reduced benefits is not a 'claim' - it's just data.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> It was implied by Orka that it would or should.


No, I don't think so.



TheBigShort said:


> Where did I say that it was the only skill obtained by the fork lift driver? And having contributed social insurance and made pension contributions for 35 years, there is little chance that the driver will be living off his/her neighbours?


 You said he was a forklift driver. That suggested to me that was his main marketable skill. If he'a also a particle physicist then you should have let us know and, more importantly, he should have let the DSP know.  Social insurance payments over 35 years for someone on the pay of a forklift driver wouldn't cover their welfare payments for more than a few years. If, after 35 years, the peak of their professional prowess was to be able to drive a forklift, then it's reasonable to assume that they were unskilled for most of that time.



TheBigShort said:


> Fork lift drivers are a vital, indespensable part of any functioning economy and nothing to be ashamed of.
> Snobbery coming to the fore again.


 You see there's your problem right there; you keep assigning motive to other peoples posts based on your preconceptions.
I had a forklift licence for years. We have 6 guys in work who hold them at the moment. They do other things as well though because just being able to drive a forklift is of no real value to any business. If that's all you can do you are just one step above unskilled. After 35 years in the workforce you would have to be an utter mutton head if that's the only skill, or even the main skill, you have.
By chance are you referring to a warehouse operative or technician who, along with being able to drive a forklift would have to know how to interact with an MRP system such as SAP, maintain records and stock control, understand quality procedures and processes and be an intrinsic part of an integrated logistics and/or manufacturing process?
If so it is you who are, though ignorance and passive snobbery rather than overt and conscious snobbery, undervaluing the skills of an employee because you consider his job to be manual and therefore requiring a lower intellect. This is a common problem with the "middle class" urbanite socialist who subconsciously think of the "working classes" as intellectually inferior and so in need of the protection of the intellectually superior "middle classes", a bit like the concept of the white man's burden. Therefore if this does apply to you then you are in good company. Of course I could be completely wrong and you aren't from an educated middle class non-manual working background.


----------



## TheBigShort

orka said:


> Wow. Another prize for you for making stuff up.  Where did I imply this?



Forgive me, for misinterpreting this quote from you.



orka said:


> Really? I would expect it to be a popular message with most of the electorate - 'we targeted those who refused to engage and we have succeeded in getting some/many to engage'. Why would politicians not want to give that message?





[/QUOTE] Not true. * I don't think there are large numbers of people re-engaging ~ so the DSP can't make the claim so they don't publish any stats*.  I think the number of people on cut benefits gets bigger each year - you don't seem to share this view but you have nothing to back this view up.  The only official data we have is that 14,279 people had their benefits cut.
Information on numbers of people coming off reduced benefits is not a 'claim' - it's just data.[/QUOTE]

Just because you dont think that people are not re-engaging then it doesnt mean it doesnt occur either.
There is plenty of data showing levels of emigration from the country and levels of unemployment falling.
Neither of us have, or have not the data we specifically require. To me, other data such as increasing employment figures, emigration stats over the said period, make it in conceivable to me that this would not include some of 14,000+ figure that you identified.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> You said he was a forklift driver. That suggested to me that was his main marketable skill. If he'a also a particle physicist then you should have let us know and, more importantly, he should have let the DSP know



I did say a forklift driver, that is correct. But for expedient purposes I didnt provide a full bio.
But he was also a former League of Ireland player (his first love) and is currently engaged in a voluntary capacity with the Irish womens soccer team. He is also actively involved in coaching kids at his local soccer club.
His wife runs a small florists and he frequently helps out at busy times of the year. He is not computer literate, and has no inkling in that regard. Hence his refusal of the ECDL course. But as you can see he has more skills (perhaps more that im unaware of).



Purple said:


> You see there's your problem right there; you keep assigning motive to other peoples posts based on your preconceptions.



I apologise for my snobbery remark. Its just I never said his only skill was fork lift driver. But even if it was, there is nothing to be ashamed of.



Purple said:


> After 35 years in the workforce you would have to be an utter mutton head if that's the only skill, or even the main skill, you have.



I retract my apology.




Purple said:


> If so it is you who are, though ignorance and passive snobbery rather than overt and conscious snobbery, undervaluing the skills of an employee because you consider his job to be manual and therefore requiring a lower intellect.



I value all the manual jobs on par with any other.
You can have all the great ideas, from all the great scientists and entrepreneurs, but that is what they will remain, just ideas, without the input of all the workers elsewhere.

And for someone who doesn't like the archaic language of class identity, you are pretty loose with the terminology yourself.


----------



## orka

TheBigShort said:


> Forgive me, for misinterpreting this quote from you.


Sigh...  The sequence of posts was:





orka said:


> If 3,500 have their benefits cut and 2,000 of them repent the follow year and engage, I would expect the DSP to consider this a success and make a big deal about it.  I can't find any stats on how successful or otherwise cutting benefits has been at getting people back on full benefits - so I have my doubts that it has actually been successful (beyond the actual cutting of benefits - which the DSP does publish stats about)





TheBigShort said:


> Or perhaps making a big deal of how those on welfare have 'repented' or come crawling back, may not be the most politically astute thing to do?





orka said:


> Really?  I would expect it to be a popular message with most of the electorate - 'we targeted those who refused to engage and we have succeeded in getting some/many to engage'.  Why would politicians not want to give that message?


So, to summarise:

orka: IF (note the big IF!!) the strategy (getting people to re-engage) worked – the DSP would want to publish stats.

BigShort: That would not be a politically astute thing to do. [You at least seem to understand here that we are talking about the re-engagement part]

orka: Why not?  Good message that the strategy worked and people engaged.


You seem to take this last point as supporting nonsensical engagement efforts.  My comment is independent of any comment about to whom or how engagement efforts should happen.  It doesn’t say we should do it all costs – just that it’s good if it works and people re-engage (after their benefits are cut).  It’s (again) about the re-engagement part of the process not the cutting benefits part (which is what your Sligo single mother and fork-lift driver examples were about).


And this is the point where I realise that I’m engaging in a pointless debate mired in deliberate obfuscation (or maybe just poor comprehension skills) so I’ll leave y’all at it.


----------



## TheBigShort

orka said:


> Sigh...  The sequence of posts was:So, to summarise:
> 
> orka: IF (note the big IF!!) the strategy (getting people to re-engage) worked – the DSP would want to publish stats.
> 
> BigShort: That would not be a politically astute thing to do. [You at least seem to understand here that we are talking about the re-engagement part]
> 
> orka: Why not?  Good message that the strategy worked and people engaged.
> 
> 
> You seem to take this last point as supporting nonsensical engagement efforts.  My comment is independent of any comment about to whom or how engagement efforts should happen.  It doesn’t say we should do it all costs – just that it’s good if it works and people re-engage (after their benefits are cut).  It’s (again) about the re-engagement part of the process not the cutting benefits part (which is what your Sligo single mother and fork-lift driver examples were about).
> 
> 
> And this is the point where I realise that I’m engaging in a pointless debate mired in deliberate obfuscation (or maybe just poor comprehension skills) so I’ll leave y’all at it.



Except the 'good message' that you mention, could, even if only for political purposes, could be interpreted as a bad messge.

Govt Minister: The policy of cutting welfare has in fact been a successful tool to nudging some of those, who refused to engage with the Dept at all, into actual engagement, and subsequently restoring their welfare rates.

(All good spin)

Opposition: Minister, does the figure of those whose welfare was cut include a single mother living in Sligo, asked to attend an interview in Galway, with no real means of transport or childcare provision? Does it include a 55yr old man, who for the first time in his life, finds himself unemployed and is asked to attend a course that holds no value to him?
Are these the type of people who you class as 'non-engagement'? Are you for real? These are real people, with real qualities, who contribute to society, and dont need the big, bad, department bullying them by way of cuts to their welfare.

(All bad spin)

And the media loves headlines....


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> I did say a forklift driver, that is correct. But for expedient purposes I didnt provide a full bio.
> 
> But he was also a former League of Ireland player (his first love) and is currently engaged in a voluntary capacity with the Irish womens soccer team. He is also actively involved in coaching kids at his local soccer club.
> 
> His wife runs a small florists and he frequently helps out at busy times of the year. He is not computer literate, and has no inkling in that regard. Hence his refusal of the ECDL course. But as you can see he has more skills (perhaps more that im unaware of).


 I specified marketable skills. His community activities are of no consequence from an employment perspective. He may be good at baking with his kids or grandkids and be brilliant at doing great voices when he reads stories to them but that’s not much use on a CV.

If he is a forklift driver and he does not have basic computer skills he is severely limiting his job prospects and the DSP is absolutely correct to try to get him to do an ECDL course. Most stores people are the first or/and last step in the process, whatever the process may be within an organisation. If they cannot maintain quality and traceability then the organisation cannot function. Therefore a forklift driver who cannot input data can’t get a job in any modern organisation (Multinational, Logistics company, ISO Certified Manufacturing plant of any kind etc.). By refusing to learn what is a basic skill in a modern workplace he effectively opting out and he should not get welfare payments.




TheBigShort said:


> I apologise for my snobbery remark.


  Apology accepted.




TheBigShort said:


> Its just I never said his only skill was fork lift driver. But even if it was, there is nothing to be ashamed of.


 Eh yes, there is. Settling for mediocrity is not OK.




TheBigShort said:


> I retract my apology.


Too late, I already accepted it. 




TheBigShort said:


> I value all the manual jobs on par with any other.


 I don’t, because I know about them.

A surgeon is a manual job. So is a butcher. I value the skills of a former more.

A carpenter is a manual job. So is marquetry and inlay. I value the latter more.

A general machine operator is a manual job. So is a Toolmaker. I value the latter more.

Using a brush to sweep the streets is a manual job. Using a brush to paint a portrait is also a manual job. I value the skill of the latter more. 



TheBigShort said:


> You can have all the great ideas, from all the great scientists and entrepreneurs, but that is what they will remain, just ideas, without the input of all the workers elsewhere.


 Scientists and entrepreneurs are workers; they work. Everyone who works is a worker. Some work in the paid economy, some work in the community or voluntary sectors. We are talking about employees and others who work in the paid economy. Please use language appropriate to the 21st, or even the 20th, century.




TheBigShort said:


> And for someone who doesn't like the archaic language of class identity, you are pretty loose with the terminology yourself.


 Only to point out how absurd and destructive it is.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Opposition: Minister, does the figure of those whose welfare was cut include a single mother living in Sligo, asked to attend an interview in Galway, with no real means of transport or childcare provision? Does it include a 55yr old man, who for the first time in his life, finds himself unemployed and is asked to attend a course that holds no value to him?
> Are these the type of people who you class as 'non-engagement'? Are you for real? These are real people, with real qualities, who contribute to society, and dont need the big, bad, department bullying them by way of cuts to their welfare.


 You seem to have a very low opinion of the people in the DSP. Are you suggesting that's the reason for this problem?


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> You seem to have a very low opinion of the people in the DSP. Are you suggesting that's the reason for this problem?



No, and 'this problem' is pure speculation at this point.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> No, and 'this problem' is pure speculation at this point.


Thanks for the clarification but why do you keep talking about scenarios which to be real would require seriously inept people in the DSP?


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> I specified marketable skills. His community activities are of no consequence from an employment perspective. He may be good at baking with his kids or grandkids and be brilliant at doing great voices when he reads stories to them but that’s not much use on a CV.



His coaching skills are marketable. All leadership positions (of any degree) will require evidence of team management. In order for him to be involved with the Irish soccer squad he will have obtained coaching badges recognisable in any UEFA affiliate country. If he were to live in England, he could perhaps command a fee, but in Ireland the structures around soccer are weak.
Furthermore, the man clearly shows a high level of dedication (thousands of soccer players, few make it to L o Ire standard), loyalty, working for same company for a long time, responbility, working with kids, ethics, trust etc. Comparable to a kid who just left college with a degree in Business & Management and who is still half stoned I know who I would place more value on as a prospective employee.



Purple said:


> If he is a forklift driver and he does not have basic computer skills he is severely limiting his job prospects



I never said he didnt have basic computer skills, I said he was not computer literate, that is, to define computer literacy; the ability to use computer and related technology efficiently, with a range of skills that covers elementary use to programming and advanced problem solving.
The beauty of todays technology, such as SAP, is that it allows even the most illiterate computer user to perform basic functions. And no doubt, any proper processing plan will ensure that the user is capable of performing the required functions. 



Purple said:


> A surgeon is a manual job. So is a butcher. I value the skills of a former more.



A butcher is a provider of food, like a farmer. A surgeon can also be categorized. For instance a knee surgeon or a brain surgeon.
Nevertheless, the market value of the surgeon is greater than the butcher or the farmer as the job is intrinsically more complex than butchering or farming.
But the economic and social value of the farmer and the butcher is infinitely far greater than the surgeon.
That is to say, the probability of the human race going to conflict or extinction without surgeons is, at best minimal. 
On the other hand, without the millions of butchers and farmers providing food we could be in a right state. And if we have a shortage of food, I wouldnt fancy a hungry surgeon chopping at my bits.
So I would value the butcher (or food provider) more than the surgeon.
Ditto the carpenter and the street sweeper.




Purple said:


> Thanks for the clarification but why do you keep talking about scenarios which to be real would require seriously inept people in the DSP?



A bizarre comment of humongous distortions not worth responding to.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> A butcher is a provider of food, like a farmer. A surgeon can also be categorized. For instance a knee surgeon or a brain surgeon.Nevertheless, the market value of the surgeon is greater than the butcher or the farmer as the job is intrinsically more complex than butchering or farming.
> But the economic and social value of the farmer and the butcher is infinitely far greater than the surgeon.
> That is to say, the probability of the human race going to conflict or extinction without surgeons is, at best minimal.
> On the other hand, without the millions of butchers and farmers providing food we could be in a right state. And if we have a shortage of food, I wouldnt fancy a hungry surgeon chopping at my bits.
> So I would value the butcher (or food provider) more than the surgeon.
> Ditto the carpenter and the street sweeper.



If the population of cows fell to 1% of what it is now, a fillet steak would be more expensive than going to see a doctor and a butcher with a solid supply of beef could earn more than a surgeon. 

Basically, it's supply and demand.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> If the population of cows fell to 1% of what it is now, a fillet steak would be more expensive than going to see a doctor and a butcher with a solid supply of beef could earn more than a surgeon.
> 
> Basically, it's supply and demand.



No, its considerably more complex than basic supply and demand. 
For sure, if the cattle population fell to that level the price of beef would rise, but if the butcher also supplied alternative meats (many of them do!) then its likely his main trade would be pork or chicken or lamb etc..
Now, if you are suggesting that the supply of all meats fell to 1% then its likely the population would resort to other available food supplies, fish, fruit, bread, veg, nuts etc. 
True, the butchers that remained in existence could make a handsome profit from selling meat as it would be classed as a luxury good. The butcher may even make more money than the surgeon. But in this regard, whilst the butcher and surgeon could command high market prices for their produce/services, the economic and social value of the buthcher would be greatly diminished relative to the fisherman, green grocer, baker.


----------



## Firefly

Of course you are correct if there are alternatives available and I could have picked a better example as there are no real alternatives to surgery - you have extremely limited supply of surgeons for something that, for someone who needs it, a very high demand. Hence the high cost of labour. Whether you value a surgeon or a farmer higher on societal contributions is somewhat mute..since people first began trading and later with the development of currencies, the market has by and large set the price of things we pay for. Anyway, I'm straying way off topic. Back to Johnny!


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> since people first began trading and later with the development of currencies, the market has by and large set the price of things we pay for. Anyway, I'm straying way off topic. Back to Johnny!



Yes, but market value is different to economic value and/or social value. 
So going back to Johnny, my point about him, or if not specifically him, is that if you push people further into poverty, then you are more likely (not conclusively) to increase the chances of pushing a person into crime. 
If we define crime as stealing a loaf of bread, then a hungry person would carry the profile of potential criminal.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Yes, but market value is different to economic value and/or social value.
> So going back to Johnny, my point about him, or if not specifically him, is that if you push people further into poverty, then you are more likely (not conclusively) to increase the chances of pushing a person into crime.
> If we define crime as stealing a loaf of bread, then a hungry person would carry the profile of potential criminal.


Considering the title of this thread and the position you take, the above post is deeply ironic.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Considering the title of this thread and the position you take, the above post is deeply ironic.



In what sense?


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> In what sense?


I don't have the time or energy to spend 4 or 5 pages of a thread explaining the same thing over and over again to you so just think about it.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> I don't have the time or energy to spend 4 or 5 pages of a thread explaining the same thing over and over again to you so just think about it.



I have...and there is nothing to think about. More empty babble.

 Be it black and white stats pulled from newspaper headlines spouting alarmist nonsense or preconceived notions that those on welfare are parasites or low skilled workers are mutton heads with little intrinsic value to the economy, its all been bluster.

Considering the title of the topic, in 27 pages not one poster, in favour of the proposition, has provided any form of concrete proposal on how to implement the proposal.

That is ironic.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> I have...and there is nothing to think about. More empty babble.
> 
> Be it black and white stats pulled from newspaper headlines spouting alarmist nonsense or preconceived notions that those on welfare are parasites or low skilled workers are mutton heads with little intrinsic value to the economy, its all been bluster.
> 
> Considering the title of the topic, in 27 pages not one poster, in favour of the proposition, has provided any form of concrete proposal on how to implement the proposal.
> 
> That is ironic.


There you go again.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> There you go again.



Not one decent idea, not one original thought.


----------



## cremeegg

TheBigShort said:


> Not one decent idea, not one original thought.



Twenty years ago the US addressed the issue of welfare dependancy. Bill Clinton introduced the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act,  see here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Responsibility_and_Work_Opportunity_Act

Consideration of how this succeeded or failed might shed some light on the issue here.


----------



## Deiseblue

Would it be wise , at this juncture , to look at the reality of the situation ?

If the Government were to be approached at the current time with the proposition that we should dismantle our culture of dependency I would imagine that their response would be somewhat along the lines of - who is this " WE " Kemo Sabe ?

After all the Government have stated that when the unemployment rate falls to 6% we will effectively hit full employment & we are not a million miles away from that at 8.3 % currently ( in excess of 2 million people in the workforce , highest figure since 2008 )

They can also point to the fact the Dept. of Social Welfare are now far more proactive than any time in the past in dealing with fraud & ensuring that people seek work & attend appropriate courses & if they fail to comply then they suffer punitive consequences.

I can speak to this as after availing of voluntary redundancy in 2007 I signed on & was taken aback at the laissez faire attitude  - I simply attended one interview with my social welfare officer , never had to produce a CV , never had to attend a job interview , never had to produce evidence of seeking work .
I signed on once a month & after initially having to call to the local Post Office with ID to collect my payment I was then able to have my payment transferred to my Bank Account.
All has changed , my wife took voluntary redundancy last year & she had a number of meetings with her Welfare Officer  - she had to produce a CV , produce evidence that she was seeking work  ( she actually got a part time retail job at Christmas & a 6 month contract in a financial institution subsequently ) & was lucky enough initially to be placed on a hugely oversubscribed EDCL course .
When she was receiving benefits over a 9 month period there was no question but that she had to call to the Post Office to collect her payment.


Given the Apple billions situation & the rather precarious nature of the current Government it is I believe  politically inconceivable that this Government will reduce/limit social welfare payments/benefits  ( God , they are reducing my social welfare whilst attempting to return billions to Apple  - that's not going to play well ! ) .

With the mooted increase in the OAP & the restoration of cuts to the lone parent allowance can further increases in other areas be far away ?


----------



## Purple

I agree Deiseblue.
So, the answer to the OP is that we are already doing it, as evidenced in your post.
Joan Burton did a good job as Minister for Social Protection (I preferred the old name, the new one sounds too Orwellian to me).
Maybe only a Labour Minister could have said and done the things she did in this area.

If, as it seems, Welfare as a lifestyle choice is becoming a more difficult proposition then it will be good for society in the longer term.


----------



## Firefly

Good post Deise and I agree. A challenge for the government now will be to continue the good work that has been done in this era if/when the economy improves and not "take the eye off the ball". Regarding those who are longterm unemployed who have never worked, then I am also starting to see TheBigShorts view - they are probably not going to turn over a new leaf at this stage but replace their lost income from other sources. However, by continuing to make it more and more difficult for people to remain on the dole can only be a good thing for the next generation - if they see the hassle & hoops their parents have to jump through to get a few bob they might realise that they would be better off working

One question on the point below however:



Deiseblue said:


> I signed on once a month & after initially having to call to the local Post Office with ID to collect my payment I was then able to have my payment transferred to my Bank Account.



Is you name Johnny?


----------



## Deiseblue

Not according to the aforementioned ID Firefly !


----------



## Leper

I'm just wondering is there an end point to this debate.  Because whatever way we look at our culture of dependency, it is not going to go away.  So are we all just sucked into a vacuum that is going nowhere.  But, some good points have been raised along the way.  I wonder is there a case for:-
1. Dismantling nearly every Social Welfare Claim including Deserted Wives, Single Parent, Job Seekers Allowance etc and start from the beginning again.
2. Cease all 3rd Level Grants or give the grants to everybody attending 3rd Level and have them pay back what they got later.
3. Give everybody the Free Medical Card as the cost of administrating  the scheme is dearer than just handing a card to everybody.
4. Stop all home improvement grants without exception.
5. Do away with the Family Income Supplement.
6. Abolish all tax free allowances on any kind of loan including mortgage.
7. Cease funding secondary grants for books etc.
8. Cease all unemployment payments.

Then start again and test each individual claim. In line with our false claimers of which we have many, would it be sensible to start from scratch?


----------



## Purple

Leper said:


> Then start again and test each individual claim. In line with our false claimers of which we have many, would it be sensible to start from scratch?


You're just trying to start the whole discussion again from scratch! I for one don't have the energy for that.


----------



## TheBigShort

Deiseblue said:


> Would it be wise , at this juncture , to look at the reality of the situation ?





Deiseblue said:


> Given the Apple billions situation
> ...I believe politically inconceivable that this Government will reduce/limit social welfare payments/benefits





Purple said:


> So, the answer to the OP is that we are already doing it, as evidenced in your post.



This was also highlighted by Orka who identified that some 14,000 had their welfare cut for not engaging with the DSP



Purple said:


> If, as it seems, Welfare as a lifestyle choice is becoming a more difficult proposition then it will be good for society in the longer term.



Its good to see a somewhat more refreshing and more realistic approach and I welcome cremeeggs contribution which goes some considerable way to outline both sides of debate here.
As Deise highlighted, perhaps a focus on the resolution to any real or perceived issues could be discussed. I for one would be interested in looking at the lack of wage increases, particularly low pay, as the primary reason for any welfare dependency.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> I for one would be interested in looking at the lack of wage increases, particularly low pay, as the primary reason for any welfare dependency.


Ok, why do you think that is the case?


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Its good to see a somewhat more refreshing and more realistic approach and I welcome cremeeggs contribution which goes some considerable way to outline both sides of debate here.


 I agree. Rather than just arguing with anyone who thinks there is a problem and asking them for date to back up their views it might be better to go with what a Labour Party Minister for Social Welfare thought and highlight the proactive approach she took recently to start to deal with it.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> it might be better to go with what a Labour Party Minister for Social Welfare thought



Which was, from 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."*


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Ok, why do you think that is the case?



Using cremeggs contribution, which portrays both sides of this debate, im drawn to the comments of Professor Frances Piven

Frances Fox Piven said that the problem with AFDC (Aid for Dependent Families) was not a problem with the welfare system, but with low-wage work:

"_Logically, but not in the heated and vitriolic politics created by the attack on welfare, a concern with the relationship of welfare to dependency should have directed attention to the deteriorating conditions of the low-wage labor market. After all, if there were jobs that paid living wages, and if health care and child care were available, a great many women on AFDC would leap at the chance of a better income and a little social respect."_

The last sentence resonates, insofar that I have argued here many a time, that the vast majority of welfare recipients would prefer financial independence over welfare dependency.


----------



## Sunny

Firefly said:


> Of course you are correct if there are alternatives available and I could have picked a better example as there are no real alternatives to surgery - you have extremely limited supply of surgeons for something that, for someone who needs it, a very high demand. Hence the high cost of labour. Whether you value a surgeon or a farmer higher on societal contributions is somewhat mute..since people first began trading and later with the development of currencies, the market has by and large set the price of things we pay for. Anyway, I'm straying way off topic. Back to Johnny!



Ok, I stopped reading this about 22 pages ago but out of curiousty, who is Johnny?


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Using cremeggs contribution, which portrays both sides of this debate, im drawn to the comments of Professor Frances Piven
> 
> Frances Fox Piven said that the problem with AFDC (Aid for Dependent Families) was not a problem with the welfare system, but with low-wage work:
> 
> "_Logically, but not in the heated and vitriolic politics created by the attack on welfare, a concern with the relationship of welfare to dependency should have directed attention to the deteriorating conditions of the low-wage labor market. After all, if there were jobs that paid living wages, and if health care and child care were available, a great many women on AFDC would leap at the chance of a better income and a little social respect."_
> 
> The last sentence resonates, insofar that I have argued here many a time, that the vast majority of welfare recipients would prefer financial independence over welfare dependency.


In many ways I agree with the Professor. Thankfully in this country we provide free healthcare and subsidised childcare in many deprived areas as well as income supplements to working people who don't have marketable skills and so can only command a low wage. Employers pay social insurance which contributes strongly to these benefits which is a good think. Asking employers to pay far more than the economic value of a persons labour makes those unskilled people even less likely to ever get a job and so is a poverty trap in itself. Therefore the only way of maintaining that state subsidy on the income of low skilled members of the workforce it through taxation.
It would be great to see a more Scandinavian type income taxation system in Ireland but it would mean more indirect taxes and much higher direct taxes for low and medium income earners. I don't think that would fly with the Irish electorate. We'll just keep on resenting high earners and taxing the hell out of them.


----------



## Purple

Sunny said:


> Ok, I stopped reading this about 22 pages ago but out of curiousty, who is Johnny?


Trust me, you don't want to know.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> In many ways I agree with the Professor. Thankfully in this country we provide free healthcare and subsidised childcare in many deprived areas as well as income supplements to working people who don't have marketable skills and so can only command a low wage.



And may I ask, is this the culture of welfare dependency that needs to be dismantled? If so, how do you propose it should be done?



Purple said:


> Employers pay social insurance which contributes strongly to these benefits which is a good think



Agreed. I may be mistaken, but I think it was yourself that posted a ratio of some 75% to 25% of social insurance contributions made by employers.
But as low incomes rise, that ratio will begin to tighten.
Furthermore, as incomes rise, participation in the employment market will increase, reducing the overall cost of the social insurance fund (as people move from unemployment to employment).
And in the round, low paid workers tend to spend 100%, if not v close to it, of their income. If wages increase for low paid workers, this will be reflected in increased trade - good for business.



Purple said:


> Asking employers to pay far more than the economic value of a persons labour makes those unskilled people even less likely to ever get a job and so is a poverty trap in itself.



I think this statement is, with respect, too simplistic. First, I would distinguish between the market value and the economic value, and in real terms both factors contribute to determining the wage paid or due.
The market value of a person's labour will increase/reduce relative to the availability of that labour. The economic value may not alter. The street sweeper for example. There may be an abundance of workers willing to sweep the streets pushing downward pressure on the wage, but in reality we only need say, 500 street sweepers. But the economic value of what they do can be quantified in other ways. I would suggest there is a significant premium in trade for businesses in a town that is clean and tidy, rather than a town that is a dirty kip? It is questionable as to how much or how little such a premium is reflected in the street sweepers wage.



Purple said:


> Therefore the only way of maintaining that state subsidy on the income of low skilled members of the workforce it through taxation.



So what exactly is supposed to be dismantled?


----------



## Leper

Where's Purple? Should we send an ambulance? . . . or just food? . . . or oxygen?


----------



## Buddyboy

Just send johnny around to check on him - after all, he has nothing better to do.


----------



## Gerry Canning

now now children !


----------



## Purple

I'm wore out with this. That's all.


----------



## demoivre

I know a chap working part time earning €225 per week. His overall take home "income"is over €62,000 per year and every cent is legit !!!.


----------



## Leper

Purple said:


> I'm wore out with this. That's all.


" 

"Wore Out !" - No way = Beidh Purple ar ais arís . . . Tiocfaidh a Lá


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Ok, why do you think that is the case?




Just to add

http://m.rte.ie/news/business/2016/0907/814967-us-federal-reserve-be/

"_A lack of wage pressure has been a thorn in the Feds side as it seeks to raise interest rates.

Despite the US labour market nearing full employment, economists have yet to see that spark broad-based higher wages and in turn inflation"
_
It would appear I'm not alone in thinking that wage increases are overdue.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Ok, why do you think that is the case?



Oh, and this just in today from ECB

Draghi: We need higher wages.

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...b013613fffb49a#block-57d16664e4b013613fffb49a


----------



## Protocol

There are 300,000 people on the Live Register, Aug 2016.

There are 182,000 people unemployed, Aug 2016.

Yet Musgrave wholesale in Kildare are looking for staff in Poland.......................

http://www.independent.ie/irish-new...truggle-to-fill-warehouse-posts-35052346.html


Something is wrong.


----------



## Gerry Canning

Protocol.

Maybe things/wages are so bad in Poland that a move to another country for any wage is preferable to staying in Poland?
Maybe like Paddy in 50,s and 60,s the Poles can run with this. Like Paddy, in times past, it beats doing nothing.

I am more of the view (Draghi ;We need higher wages).

I worry that we are drifting into a circle of minimalistic wages for the plebs !


----------



## PGF2016

Gerry Canning said:


> I am more of the view (Draghi ;We need higher wages).



All well and good having higher wages in Ireland but if it makes us noncompetitive the jobs will move elsewhere (as is happening to my job).


----------



## Purple

Thankfully there are far fewer unskilled jobs around than there used to be. Those that are left are increasingly becoming more productive through the use of technology (cleaners use machines to clean floors, not scrubbing brushes, bar codes increase throughputs at tills etc. ).

The only sustainable way to increase your wages is to make your labour more valuable. The best way to do that is to become more skilled. Nobody should expect a pay increase this year for doing the same job the same way as they did last year, not while we have no inflation (unless you drive a bus).


Anyone who thinks pay increases are a good thing for us, with our small open economy, is nuts.

The USA has a massive internal market which acts as an engine for the world economy. Our internal market is tiny and consumes very little of what we produce.


----------



## Purple

PGF2016 said:


> All well and good having higher wages in Ireland but if it makes us noncompetitive the jobs will move elsewhere (as is happening to my job).


My sympathies on the job loss. That's probably how it came to Ireland in the first place though.
Your case is a timely dose of reality for the blinkered socialists posting here.


----------



## Gerry Canning

PGF & Purple,

I hear you , think we have to get to a debate on what is work/value etc .
(pay increases are a good thing = nuts) , unless the lower paid get nuff to buy stuff we are going nowhere !

The  USA has a massive internal market , but Europes is bigger and I would like to see all workers getting nuff to consume things.
You havn,t stated it , but I don,t think USA is a great community model ?


----------



## PGF2016

Gerry Canning said:


> I would like to see all workers getting nuff to consume things.



I don't see any lack of consumption in Ireland. I see over consumption or consumption of things that don't make us any happier (TVs, cars, gadgets etc.). 

That's my opinion though and I'm sure most would disagree.


----------



## Purple

Gerry Canning said:


> I hear you , think we have to get to a debate on what is work/value etc .


 Yep, agreed. The market sets the rate. That's the only fair way.


Gerry Canning said:


> (pay increases are a good thing = nuts) , unless the lower paid get nuff to buy stuff we are going nowhere !


 I don't understand your point.



Gerry Canning said:


> The  USA has a massive internal market , but Europes is bigger and I would like to see all workers getting nuff to consume things.


 We are talking about Ireland, not Europe.


Gerry Canning said:


> You havn,t stated it , but I don,t think USA is a great community model ?


 True but that's a different point.


----------



## Gerry Canning

Purple,
(I don,t understand your point)
Unless employees get nuff to spend on items above bare necessities like food etc and can reasonably look at things like home ownership/good renting ,we end up with a sour underclass and an insulated class and that's no good for anyone.

(we are talking about Irl not Europe)
Since we joined Eu 40 odd year ago , we are inexorably moving more and more to one market , quite like USA states.

(different point) true .


----------



## Purple

Gerry Canning said:


> Purple,
> (I don,t understand your point)
> Unless employees get nuff to spend on items above bare necessities like food etc and can reasonably look at things like home ownership/good renting ,we end up with a sour underclass and an insulated class and that's no good for anyone.


Do you think pay should be set on that basis or on the basis of the value the employee brings to the organisation?
The issue of a minimum standard of living is a social one and if we deem such a thing desirable it should be addressed by the state through the welfare system. It is unreasonable to force an employer to shoulder such a social responsibility directly. If employers are required to fund it then increase taxes but don't price low skilled employees out of the market.


----------



## Gerry Canning

It is  easy to use (employee value to organisation) as a full benchmark, though I readily accept (value to employer)must make up a large %.
I don,t want my opinion to be viewed as a black/white /either /or view.

Employers benefit from the social costs of infrastructure and in things like prsi they contribute. 
As an opinion ,
I worry about wages/reward being lowered to a minimalistic degree.
 I worry that unscrupulous employers take advantage of this. 
 I worry that some lazy gits take advantage of our welfare system.
 I worry mostly, that I see a drift to well paid V lowly paid staff, and that these lowly paid are left to endure their (place) in life !.


----------



## Purple

Gerry Canning said:


> It is  easy to use (employee value to organisation) as a full benchmark, though I readily accept (value to employer)must make up a large %.
> I don,t want my opinion to be viewed as a black/white /either /or view.
> 
> Employers benefit from the social costs of infrastructure and in things like prsi they contribute.
> As an opinion ,
> I worry about wages/reward being lowered to a minimalistic degree.
> I worry that unscrupulous employers take advantage of this.
> I worry that some lazy gits take advantage of our welfare system.
> I worry mostly, that I see a drift to well paid V lowly paid staff, and that these lowly paid are left to endure their (place) in life !.


I agree Gerry but social engineering is not a long term substitute for self development.
The state should help people to become more skilled.


----------



## TheBigShort

Im minded of my previous post on the 22nd Aug.



TheBigShort said:


> 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%.






Purple said:


> Nobody should expect a pay increase this year for doing the same job the same way as they did last year,



Does this principle apply to pay cuts also? If you do the same job the same way shouldn't this rule out a pay cut?



Purple said:


> Anyone who thinks pay increases are a good thing for us, with our small open economy, is nuts.



As has been pointed out to you earlier, some people, far more qualified than me, would disagree.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> 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%.


 They account for about 30% of our debt. The rest is the result of paying wages and welfare which the state can't afford so I'd be slow to go down that road if I was you.




TheBigShort said:


> Does this principle apply to pay cuts also? If you do the same job the same way shouldn't this rule out a pay cut?


 Yes in general, though when your employer (the state) is bankrupt and your wages are being paid with borrowings then things are a bit different.





TheBigShort said:


> As has been pointed out to you earlier, some people, far more qualified than me, would disagree.


Where was that (in the context of Ireland)?


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Yes in general, though when your employer (the state) is bankrupt and your wages are being paid with borrowings then things are a bit different.



What about in the instance where the employer (public or private) has returned to profitability ?
What if you are doing the same job the same way as last year and your employer has returned to profitability? Are things a bit different then also?


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Where was that (in the context of Ireland)?



Its in the context of general economic theory. Wages are inflationary. Central banks around the world are trying to stoke inflation. Their primary tool is QE which is failing. It is only creating greater divides between rich and poor. 
This is why property prices are rising in affluent areas of capital cities around the world, but elsewhere they are stagnant. This is why debt burdens are increasing not reducing as all money issued today is on the basis of a loan taken out rather than the value of productivity
The quickest and fairest way to stoke inflation into developed economies is through increased wages. This will stoke inflation, reduce debt burdens, increase consumption.
But it will also mean a massive transfer of capital to labour. Something that monetarists cannot countenance right now.



Purple said:


> They account for about 30% of our debt. The rest is the result of paying wages and welfare which the state can't afford so I'd be slow to go down that road if I was you.



Only 30%!! That makes it ok so - not.

Well I figure, some €64bn to bailout banks, €32bn for NAMA, plus the corporate tax avoidance schemes that are alleged at least €15bn (and counting). 
I make that closer to 50% of our national debt is in the form of social welfare benefits to keep bankrupt bankers in business and to facilitate the increase in share price for US multinationals.
Interestingly our reputable 'leprechaun' economics, as its widely known now, that posted an increase of 26% GDP means the state is in hoc to the EU for a further €380m a year funding. This equates to about 5,500 jobs in Apple, paying some €70,000 a year on average.
So in other words, the value of all those Apple jobs can be written off to EU funding.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> Well I figure, some €64bn to bailout banks, €32bn for NAMA



The 64bn to bailout the banks was the gross figure - a lot of this has been repaid. I think the net figure is about 40-45bn. What does the figure of 32bn for NAMA refer to?


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> The 64bn to bailout the banks was the gross figure - a lot of this has been repaid. I think the net figure is about 40-45bn. What does the figure of 32bn for NAMA refer to?





Firefly said:


> The 64bn to bailout the banks was the gross figure - a lot of this has been repaid. I think the net figure is about 40-45bn. What does the figure of 32bn for NAMA refer to?



Repaid by who?
The 32bn was the figure NAMA gave to the banks to offload bad developer loans of some 60bn odd. NAMA is on a promise to make a profit for the state and may well do so, but it remains to be seen.
Who repaid the bank debt, and to whom?


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> Repaid by who?



I should have rephrased that - "some has been repaid and the states ownership in the banks now means the net figure is about 40-45nb"


From the IT http://www.irishtimes.com/business/...-31-of-bailout-funds-by-end-of-2015-1.2585690

"[broken link removed] and [broken link removed] had repaid 31 per cent of the bailout funds that they received from the Ireland Strategic Investment Fund by the end of last year, according to figures published yesterday."

"....the two banks had returned €6.4 billion in receipts to the State agency"

"..The Isif figures estimate that, in total, the remaining stakes in AIB and Bank of Ireland are worth €13.5 billion."

So we have 6.4 + 13.5 = 19.9bn. Take this from 64bn and we have a net of about 40bn

Anyways, we are way off topic


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> Its in the context of general economic theory. Wages are inflationary. Central banks around the world are trying to stoke inflation. Their primary tool is QE which is failing. It is only creating greater divides between rich and poor.
> This is why property prices are rising in affluent areas of capital cities around the world, but elsewhere they are stagnant. This is why debt burdens are increasing not reducing as all money issued today is on the basis of a loan taken out rather than the value of productivity
> The quickest and fairest way to stoke inflation into developed economies is through increased wages. This will stoke inflation, reduce debt burdens, increase consumption.
> But it will also mean a massive transfer of capital to labour. Something that monetarists cannot countenance right now.



I would be happy to contribute to this if you wish to raise in another thread.


----------



## Purple

Firefly said:


> I would be happy to contribute to this if you wish to raise in another thread.


Same here but, no offense to thebigshort, we'd be discussing economics with a socialist which is like discussing evolution with a creationist.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Same here but, no offense to thebigshort, we'd be discussing economics with a socialist which is like discussing evolution with a creationist.



Ha! Not sure if seen this before, but im only picking up on that little dig. 

Thats funny, considering what went before in this topic, and more so since then in other topics.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Ha! Not sure if seen this before, but im only picking up on that little dig.
> 
> Thats funny, considering what went before in this topic, and more so since then in other topics.


Thanks. I knew you wouldn't take it the wrong way


----------

