# A very interesting paper on lifetime income inequality



## Brendan Burgess (2 Oct 2017)

Most studies measure income inequality at a point in time.  But a lot of inequality is between periods in one's life. For example, as a student or young worker you would be in the lower deciles of the earnings distribution but when you are more advanced in work, you are up towards the top, and will probably fall again as you get older. 

Barra Roantree gave a very interesting paper at the Dublin Economics Workshop and shows that inequality is a lot less when measured from a lifetime perspective 

[broken link removed]

"From a lifetime perspective…
Inequality is lower and the tax & benefit system does less to reduce it This is because quite a lot of inequality is transitory or age-related 
• People experience temporary periods of unemployment or low pay
• Given strong age-profile of earnings, snapshot inequality measures heavily influenced by people being at different stages of life 

… and much of what the system does is intrapersonal redistribution
• That is, between periods of life rather than across individuals
• Many net tax payers today, but net benefit recipients tomorrow
• We estimate around 60% of total redistribution is intrapersonal (relative
to either a lump-sum or proportional baseline)
• Nothing to do with ‘contributory’ benefits, which are very limited"

The standard measure of inequality is the Gini coefficient. In simple terms, if one person earned all the income and no one else earned anything, the coefficient would be 1. If everyone had the same income, the coefficient would be zero. 

This is the key slide 



In the UK, the Gini coefficient before tax and social welfare drops from around 0.49 to 0.28. 

Brendan


----------



## TheBigShort (2 Oct 2017)

An interesting paper indeed. Reflective of the variance of circumstances each of us encounter in our lives.
I note the following from the paper;

_Individuals’ circumstances vary a lot over time meaning distinguishing 
families as e.g. “working” and “non-working” not especially useful
• Unemployment experienced by large share of adults at some point_
• _*Even lifetime poorest are – on average – in work for large % of lives
*_
This last point would tend to support my view that the 'welfare lifestyle culture' of people who never bother to work are the thin end of the wedge when it comes to social welfare recipients.
The first point, acknowledging unemployment experienced by large share of adults at some point would indicate to me that blunt instrument policies of cutting welfare, moving people out of social housing etc would all be counterproductive in the greater scheme of things.


----------



## cremeegg (4 Oct 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> my view that the 'welfare lifestyle culture' of people who never bother to work are the *thin end of the wedge* when it comes to social welfare recipients.



An interesting phrase. I have always taken it to mean the start point for something larger. In this case people have seen how achievable a welfare lifestyle is, from a (small) number of people who pursue it, and now (many) others  have asked themselves, why don't I do that too.


----------



## TheBigShort (4 Oct 2017)

cremeegg said:


> An interesting phrase. I have always taken it to mean the start point for something larger. In this case people have seen how achievable a welfare lifestyle is, from a (small) number of people who pursue it, and now (many) others  have asked themselves, why don't I do that too.



The wedge refers to the social welfare bill. The thin end refers to those who never go to work.
The thick end refers to everyone else, who despite doing their best, trying to make a living, simply cannot afford to live in this society on low incomes. (See report above that identifies these people



TheBigShort said:


> Even lifetime poorest are – on average – in work for large % of lives



Cutting welfare to reduce taxes won't work. You will inadvertently push more people under the welfare thresholds, thus making the wedge bigger.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (4 Oct 2017)

TBS,

I'm not convinced that one cannot afford to live in this society on a low income; my sense is that a low income does not provide the lifestyle that the media has convinced everyone that they should have.

For example, someone on a low income (or on social welfare) shouldn't take an overseas holiday, shouldn't own a car, shouldn't set foot in a pub, shouldn't shop anywhere other than Pennys or Lidl, shouldn't buy takeaway coffee, shouldn't eat takeaways, and should never eat out.

The relative acceptability of a low or social welfare type income is a problem and a barrier. These should simply deliver the most basic subsistence standard of living.

This "living wage" stuff is horse manure being shovelled by the Paul Murphys and Sinn Fein/IRAs of this world to secure their mates' a standard of living that they do not deserve.


----------



## Purple (5 Oct 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> Cutting welfare to reduce taxes won't work. You will inadvertently push more people under the welfare thresholds, thus making the wedge bigger.


 How come, if you've reduced the threshold?


----------



## The Horseman (5 Oct 2017)

Gordon Gekko said:


> TBS,
> 
> I'm not convinced that one cannot afford to live in this society on a low income; my sense is that a low income does not provide the lifestyle that the media has convinced everyone that they should have.
> 
> ...




I have to agree with this. People have confused "need" with "want". A person may "needs" meat to survive but "wants" fillet steak. Until we differentiate between "need" and "want" the "living wage" will be set to high.


----------



## TheBigShort (5 Oct 2017)

Purple said:


> How come, if you've reduced the threshold?



If you reduce the threshold you just drive people further into poverty.


----------



## TheBigShort (5 Oct 2017)

Gordon Gekko said:


> For example, someone on a low income (or on social welfare) shouldn't take an overseas holiday, shouldn't own a car, shouldn't set foot in a pub, shouldn't shop anywhere other than Pennys or Lidl, shouldn't buy takeaway coffee, shouldn't eat takeaways, and should never eat out.



Why? And what should they do?
If I earn a low income, and Ryanair offer a €10 flight to London, why can't I take it?
Why can't I own a car? Or set foot in a pub?


----------



## TheBigShort (5 Oct 2017)

The Horseman said:


> I have to agree with this. People have confused "need" with "want". A person may "needs" meat to survive but "wants" fillet steak. Until we differentiate between "need" and "want" the "living wage" will be set to high.




It's frankly ridiculous to agree with Gekko comment. If I have been working for 30yrs and become redundant, and struggle to get a new job for a period, I'm not allowed a takeaway, or a coffee?
It's ridiculous thinking. What should be done, set up a Gestapo type welfare police state to monitor my welfare spend that I have been contributing for last 30yrs?
It's more hyperbolic nonsense.


----------



## The Horseman (5 Oct 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> It's frankly ridiculous to agree with Gekko comment. If I have been working for 30yrs and become redundant, and struggle to get a new job for a period, I'm not allowed a takeaway, or a coffee?
> It's ridiculous thinking. What should be done, set up a Gestapo type welfare police state to monitor my welfare spend that I have been contributing for last 30yrs?
> It's more hyperbolic nonsense.




I don't have an issue with somebody who has been contributing for 30 yrs getting a higher level of welfare payments and spending it as they see fit, I do however have an issue with increasing tax to fund a lifestyle for those who have never contributed. I am excluding those who are sick in this scenario. Those who are fit for and have always been fit for work but choose not to work should not be pandered to.

Social welfare benefits should  be linked to contributions made by the person, if you have contributed more than your neighbor then you benefits should be more than your neighbors.


----------



## TheBigShort (5 Oct 2017)

The Horseman said:


> I don't have an issue with somebody who has been contributing for 30 yrs getting a higher level of welfare payments and spending it as they see fit, I do however have an issue with increasing tax to fund a lifestyle for those who have never contributed. I am excluding those who are sick in this scenario. Those who are fit for and have always been fit for work but choose not to work should not be pandered to.
> 
> Social welfare benefits should  be linked to contributions made by the person, if you have contributed more than your neighbor then you benefits should be more than your neighbors.



Which is completely different to what Gekko said. So which is it? If I'm on welfare, can I have a coffee or not? Or a pint? Or even a car and a foreign holiday?


----------



## The Horseman (5 Oct 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> Which is completely different to what Gekko said. So which is it? If I'm on welfare, can I have a coffee or not? Or a pint? Or even a car and a foreign holiday?




The topic of this thread relates to those living in poverty and the need for a living wage. Yet again we want to give a blunt mechanism whereby everybody gets a living wage. This living wage calculated no doubt on what people want rather than need.

I will reiterate my point that I don't have an issue with those who have contributed get a return based on their contributions. I do however have an issue with those who don't contribute despite being able to.

And to answer your question, if you have contributed then yes have your coffee, pint etc, if you haven't then no you can't.


----------



## TheBigShort (5 Oct 2017)

The Horseman said:


> I will reiterate my point that I don't have an issue with those who have contributed get a return based on their contributions.



That is completely different to what Gekko said. He did not distinguish between those who have 'contributed' and those who have not. He applied, typically blunt thinking, to the topic. How you agreed with it, I don't know?



The Horseman said:


> I will reiterate my point that I don't have an issue with those who have contributed get a return based on their contributions



And by 'contribute' what does that mean? PAYE taxes, PRSI, USC? Or a combination of all or some? For how long should contributions be made?

The topic is about a paper study on lifetime inequality. One of the points made in the paper is;

_*Even lifetime poorest are – on average – in work for large % of lives.
*_
So who are we talking about when we talk about those 'who don't contribute'?
How many people are we actually talking about?


----------



## Protocol (5 Oct 2017)

To contribute means paying PRSI, in my opinion.

So JSB should be more generous, and JSA should be less generous.

The CSP should not be just 11 euro a week more than the NCSP.

We are talking about at least 100,000 people on LT means-tested benefits.


----------



## TheBigShort (5 Oct 2017)

Protocol said:


> To contribute means paying PRSI, in my opinion.
> 
> So JSB should be more generous, and JSA should be less generous.
> 
> ...



Fair enough, but what if I'm working in a job for €370 a week and , completely out of my control, government decides that there will be no PRSI contribution from the first €370 a week of _anybody's_ income. 
Six months later the company I work for closes down. I claim welfare, should I be allowed to buy a takeaway and coffee?


----------



## The Horseman (5 Oct 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> That is completely different to what Gekko said. He did not distinguish between those who have 'contributed' and those who have not. He applied, typically blunt thinking, to the topic. How you agreed with it, I don't know?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




The benefits should be based on all employment related taxes/charges. PAYE,PRSI,USC are all levied on wages so if you contribute for each then your benefit should reflect all contributions made. The contributions should have some grading structure. The longer you have been working the longer your benefit should last based on the contributions you have made. These contributions can be averaged over your working years.

The system should be more equitable for those who contribute as opposed to those who don't irrespective of how many people we are talking about the system is not fit for purpose. Times have moved on and the system needs to reflect those changes. To have a truly equitable and fit for purpose process people should be assessed on all benefits they receive.

Do you think it is fair that one person who has better themselves by going to college sacrificing to get qualifications with the idea of not relying on the State and who has paid all employment related taxes (Prsi,Paye, USC etc) well in excess of somebody  who either has not worked or has only worked intermittently on low wage work should be treated the same when it comes to State benefits.


----------



## TheBigShort (5 Oct 2017)

The Horseman said:


> The benefits should be based on all employment related taxes/charges. PAYE,PRSI,USC are all levied on wages so if you contribute for each then your benefit should reflect all contributions made. The contributions should have some grading



That's, fine. So what you are proposing is that if earn a high income, contributing high taxes etc, and you subsequently become unemployed, that your welfare benefits should reflect the level of tax you have contributed?
Is it ok that such a person, on welfare, takes a foreign holiday?



The Horseman said:


> Do you think it is fair that one person who has better themselves by going to college sacrificing to get qualifications with the idea of not relying on the State and who has paid all employment related taxes (Prsi,Paye, USC etc) well in excess of somebody who either has not worked or has only worked intermittently on low wage work should be treated the same when it comes to State benefits.



No I don't think it is fair insofar as someone who has never worked. I do think there is scope to recognise the contributions already made.
In terms of someone who just happens to be low paid, I would be hesitant to make any significant difference. After all, high earners need low earners to do the work that they are not willing to do themselves.


----------



## The Horseman (5 Oct 2017)

If you are on a lower social welfare rate because you did not contribute high levels of tax then you can spend your benefits as you see fit. However if the benefit bill is to remain at the same amount then those who have not contributed much to the various taxes (PRSI, PAYE, USC) you may not have the funds to go on holiday. The distribution of the benefits will favour those who have contributed as opposed to those who have not. This specifically refers to those who can work and excludes the sick and the elderly.

The problem exists and by changing the system in line with my suggestion above ensures a fairer distribution of contributions and it will eventually weed out those who choose not to work. If you use the average contributions made as your weighting factor then the standard of living the contributor had before needing social benefit will fall by a representative % for both high and low paid workers rather than disproportionately on the higher contributor.


----------



## TheBigShort (5 Oct 2017)

The Horseman said:


> If you are on a lower social welfare rate because you did not contribute high levels of tax then you can spend your benefits as you see fit. However if the benefit bill is to remain at the same amount then those who have not contributed much to the various taxes (PRSI, PAYE, USC) you may not have the funds to go on holiday. The distribution of the benefits will favour those who have contributed as opposed to those who have not. This specifically refers to those who can work and excludes the sick and the elderly.
> 
> The problem exists and by changing the system in line with my suggestion above ensures a fairer distribution of contributions and it will eventually weed out those who choose not to work. If you use the average contributions made as your weighting factor then the standard of living the contributor had before needing social benefit will fall by a representative % for both high and low paid workers rather than disproportionately on the higher contributor.



I understand the point you are making, but if I'm on minimum wage I currently don't pay very much PRSI, what would my welfare rate be if I was made redundant? Compared to say someone on €50,000 or €100,000?


----------



## Gordon Gekko (5 Oct 2017)

Shortie, people are free to spend their money as they see fit.

My point is that welfare and low incomes should not enable the recipient to enjoy anything other than a basic subsistence standard of living.

If they choose to spend €3.50 on coffee instead of protein, then so be it; however, they should not moan when their €188 runs out.


----------



## TheBigShort (5 Oct 2017)

Gordon Gekko said:


> My point is that welfare and low incomes should not enable the recipient to enjoy anything other than a basic subsistence standard of living.



I didn't think it did. Are you suggesting that €188 or minimum wage provides for a more prosperous lifestyle beyond that? What would does a take home pay of €500,€600, €700 pay for them? 



Gordon Gekko said:


> If they choose to spend €3.50 on coffee instead of protein, then so be it; however, they should not moan when their €188 runs out.



Yeah, I agree.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (5 Oct 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> I didn't think it did. Are you suggesting that €188 or minimum wage provides for a more prosperous lifestyle beyond that? What would does a take home pay of €500,€600, €700 pay for them?
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I agree.



No, what I'm suggesting is that the quantum should be dictated by what's required to "exist" rather than what's required to have a decent standard of living; the "living wage" stuff is nonsense. The rates should not be pitched at a level that allows for any luxuries; as for what that rate should be, I don't know; it's probably not a million miles for the right level now. Shopping in Lidl and Penneys can probably be done on a shoestring budget.


----------



## TheBigShort (5 Oct 2017)

Gordon Gekko said:


> No, what I'm suggesting is that the quantum should be dictated by what's required to "exist" rather than what's required to have a decent standard of living; the "living wage" stuff is nonsense. The rates should not be pitched at a level that allows for any luxuries; as for what that rate should be, I don't know; it's probably not a million miles for the right level now. Shopping in Lidl and Penneys can probably be done on a shoestring budget.



But you are ignoring so many realities. My brother is long-term unemployed. A factory worker, fork lift driver his entire life. In his late fifties. He didn't live to work and never had aspirations to be rich. His life is his family, coaching and volunteering at his local soccer club and playing guitar (spent 20yrs in a various bands gigging, earning/costing a few quid.
The 'career' was simply a means to earn income. Three years ago he endured a serious leg injury in an accident. After rehabilitation, the medics tell him he made full recovery - he walks with a slight limp.
During his rehabilitation, and his return to job seeking he has put on weight. In his late fifties, he can't compete with younger lads for factory work.
He has paid his mortgage, worked all his life and volunteered in his community.
How much should he get? Enough simply to "exist"?


----------



## Gordon Gekko (5 Oct 2017)

Callous and all as it might sound, yes , enough simply to exist.

Your brother is reaping what he sowed with his 'devil-may-care' attitude in early life. The smarter play is to work hard and look to build a nest-egg with a view to covering most eventualities.

But I'm sceptical of the veracity of your story; how do a having a limp and carrying a few extra pounds impact on one's ability to drive a fork-lift?


----------



## TheBigShort (5 Oct 2017)

Gordon Gekko said:


> Your brother is reaping what he sowed with his 'devil-may-care' attitude in early life. The smarter play is to work hard and look to build a nest-egg with a view to covering most eventualities.



What are talking about 'devil may care' attitude? What idiotic thinking is this?
He did work hard, factory work isn't exactly a cushy number? Ever worked an assembly line? Ever loaded/emptied a truck by hand?
He also worked hard at his music career. I'm sure in his teens/twenties he had ambitions of making it full-time. Doesn't always work out, but if you don't try...
When he settled down, married two kids, the gigging became additional income on top of his wage. Kids growing up he volunteered for local soccer club. Still helps out.



Gordon Gekko said:


> But I'm sceptical of the veracity of your story; how do a having a limp and carrying a few extra pounds impact on one's ability to drive a fork-lift?



It doesn't impact on his ability to drive a fork-lift. But when it comes to job interviews he is up against 20 somethings who, being clearly more athletic, are somehow being preferred to work. He is ready willing and able to work, just finding it difficult to get work.
As for his dole, kids are grown up and flown nest, mortgage is paid, after thirty - thirty five years of continuous work.
He was in Madrid earlier this year for a week's holiday. I'm meeting him next week for a few pints too. Personally I think he deserves it.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (5 Oct 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> He didn't live to work and never had aspirations to be rich. His life is his family, coaching and volunteering at his local soccer club and playing guitar (spent 20yrs in a various bands gigging, earning/costing a few quid. The 'career' was simply a means to earn income



You implied a "devil may care" attitude with the above.

And again you're insulting people ("idiotic thinking"?!)

Whatever game you're playing is starting to grow tiresome.


----------



## TheBigShort (5 Oct 2017)

Gordon Gekko said:


> You implied a "devil may care" attitude with the above.



I'm lost as to how you construed it to be 'devil may care'? The music industry is highly precarious. If it works out it can be lucrative. But for most it ends in (financial) failure. At best, it can provide supplementary income to other work. That is what my brother did. He earned a reasonable income through long shifts at the factory and gigging at weekends, paying off his mortgage, putting kids through college.
He had a bad accident, not related to any sort of  'devil may care' attitude. He is fortunate that it didn't happen when the mortgage was to be paid and kids were in college. 
I apologize if I insulted you, but yes, your thinking is callous (and insulting) and devoid of complex realities of people's lives.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (5 Oct 2017)

Shortie, the point is that one can't on the one hand take a shot at a tenuous career like music and then cry woe is me when it doesn't work out. The world is a tough place.


----------



## Sarenco (5 Oct 2017)

Our JSA rates are certainly a lot more generous than the equivalent rates in the UK:-
http://www.thejournal.ie/jobseekers-payments-northern-ireland-republic-comparison-3019455-Oct2016/

Are they overly generous? 

Personally, I think our JSA rates should be set somewhat above a bare subsistence level but certainly not at a level that would allow for anything resembling a luxurious lifestyle. 

In my opinion, JSA rates should be set at a level that allows the recipient to afford nutritious food, to have clothing appropriate to our climate, to travel to job interviews, etc.  In other words, enough to live a frugal but dignified lifestyle while seeking employment.  JSA should provide an adequate safety net - not a desirable lifestyle.

I certainly don't think JSA rates should be set at a level where recipients can afford to take overseas holidays or to eat out/order takeaways on a regular basis.

So, yes, I think our JSA rates probably are somewhat overly generous.

I would be interested to hear views as to whether JSA rates should "step down" over time.  Would that be practical or desirable?


----------



## Protocol (5 Oct 2017)

Big Short,

You asked about somebody on a low income, paying low or zero SI conts.

Yes, if they lose their job, their JSB should be much higher than JSA.

Short term JSB should be a lot higher than JSA.


----------



## TheBigShort (5 Oct 2017)

Gekko, the only people crying 'woe is me' is yourself and fellow travellers on this site that think they provide for everyone else. 
You don't.


----------



## Protocol (5 Oct 2017)

German system

UI = JSB = 60% of former net wage, single, 67% married.

JSA = 400 pm plus housing plus health insurance

UI = JSB lasts for 12 months.


----------



## TheBigShort (5 Oct 2017)

Sarenco said:


> Personally, I think our JSA rates should be set somewhat above a bare subsistence level but certainly not at a level that would allow for anything resembling a luxurious lifestyle.



They don't provide for a luxurious lifestyle. Dignified, perhaps, but not luxurious.
The reality is unemployment rate is falling. It is falling because there are more job offers.
In order to work, there needs to be a job offer. A job offer will, in most cases, only exist if the job and the prospective employ are suited. No point in an qualified architect filling the vacancy at the butcher's is there?


----------



## TheBigShort (5 Oct 2017)

Protocol said:


> German system
> 
> UI = JSB = 60% of former net wage, single, 67% married.
> 
> ...



I have no objection to this, I think it is a good idea. But you do realise it will cost additional in the welfare bill? 
Increasing the welfare budget won't gone down well around here unless you can show how you can offset the additional spend.


----------



## Sarenco (5 Oct 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> They don't provide for a luxurious lifestyle.



BS

In my opinion, JSA rates should not be set at a rate that allows for anything resembling a luxurious lifestyle.  I personally would associate overseas holidays with a luxurious lifestyle - I certainly wouldn't expect my neighbours to pay for my holidays.

If a job opportunity doesn't exist in an unemployed person's particular area of expertise then I don't see why society shouldn't expect that person to seek employment in another area.  There are plenty of unfilled positions across various sectors of our economy at present.

Mind you, if somebody can afford to eat out regularly, take overseas holidays, etc, on JSA then I can understand why they wouldn't be in any particular hurry to take up one of those positions.

What do you think of the idea that JSA rates should step down over time?


----------



## Gordon Gekko (5 Oct 2017)

Did you see Brendan's appearance on the Pat Kenny Show last night?

The fella on social welfare who wants a job as a librarian or book store clerk...he hasn't looked for a job in a fast food restaurant!

It's the unspoken truth...the majority of people on social welfare are there by choice and should be hammered.


----------



## TheBigShort (5 Oct 2017)

Sarenco said:


> In my opinion, JSA rates should not be set at a rate that allows for anything resembling a luxurious lifestyle. I personally would associate overseas holidays with a luxurious lifestyle - I certainly wouldn't expect my neighbours to pay for my holidays.



If you are referring to my brothers holiday in Madrid, it was primarily financed out of his own savings. If I could holiday in Madrid for a week on JSA or JSB we would all be there now. 



Sarenco said:


> There are plenty of unfilled positions across various sectors of our economy at present.



So why aren't they being filled? Because of luxurious lifestyles on the dole or because employers are now struggling to find suitable candidates.



Sarenco said:


> Mind you, if somebody can afford to eat out regularly, take overseas holidays, etc, on JSA then I can understand why they wouldn't be in any particular hurry to take up one of those positions.



Farcical. Why don't you quit your job then? Take up the luxury lifestyle on the dole, holidays abroad and fine dining. 



Sarenco said:


> What do you think of the idea that JSA rates should step down over time?



Doesn't that happen? I know my brother is obliged to attend interviews or lose his benefits.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (5 Oct 2017)

If your brother has savings and can afford to head off to Madrid, then in my view his social welfare benefits should be cut.

There are plenty of deserving cases (e.g. people who are actually disabled) who should be paid a "living wage".

Most people have no issue with deserving cases being helped; it's the malingerers who need to be hammered.


----------



## TheBigShort (5 Oct 2017)

Protocol said:


> German system
> 
> UI = JSB = 60% of former net wage, single, 67% married.
> 
> ...






The Horseman said:


> I don't have an issue with somebody who has been contributing for 30 yrs getting a higher level of welfare payments and spending it as they see fit





Gordon Gekko said:


> I'm suggesting is that the quantum should be dictated by what's required to "exist" rather than what's required to have a decent standard of living;





Sarenco said:


> Mind you, if somebody can afford to eat out regularly, take overseas holidays, etc, on JSA then I can understand why they wouldn't be in any particular hurry to take up one of those positions.





You guys need to decide to figure out what it is you want. On the one hand if you contribute through taxes you should get more on welfare than somebody who doesn't contribute.
On the other hand, if you were to get more, like the German style system, then you could holiday in Madrid, why would you go back to work? 
But if you have savings and holiday in Madrid, then you should have your welfare cut!


----------



## Sarenco (5 Oct 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> If you are referring to my brothers holiday in Madrid, it was primarily financed out of his own savings.


I wasn't actually but, since you've raised the issue, I don't think somebody with meaningful savings should qualify for a (means tested) welfare benefit.  


TheBigShort said:


> So why aren't they being filled? Because of luxurious lifestyles on the dole or because employers are now struggling to find suitable candidates.


In my opinion it is because, in a significant number of cases, JSA recipients calculate that they are economically better of not taking up those employment opportunities.


TheBigShort said:


> Why don't you quit your job then? Take up the luxury lifestyle on the dole, holidays abroad and fine dining..


I take pride in paying for my expenses out of my own resources.  I've no interest in living a lavish lifestyle as it happens.


TheBigShort said:


> Doesn't that happen?


Not that I'm aware of.  What I had in mind was that the JSA would automatically reduce by, say, 10% every six months until it hit a subsistence level.


----------



## Protocol (5 Oct 2017)

The German system is generous for 12 months. After that, the Hartz IV dole is under 100 pw.

We pay more to long-term unemployed than to short-term unemployed. Crazy.


----------



## Sarenco (5 Oct 2017)

Incidentally BS,, I think you may have misread Protocol's post - the German JSA rate is apparently only €400 per month - that's about half the Irish personal rate for JSA recipients over the age of 26.

Edit - crossed with Protocol's post.


----------



## TheBigShort (5 Oct 2017)

Gordon Gekko said:


> If your brother has savings and can afford to head off to Madrid, then in my view his social welfare benefits should be cut.



Even after working 30yrs+  paying taxes and PRSI? 
But if he had no savings, spending on drink, partying, flash clothes, tv's, gambling on horses etc...then he should have full welfare?

On the other hand, others here think that your welfare benefits should be related to your income of your last job? 
Which is it?


----------



## Gordon Gekko (5 Oct 2017)

The Swiss system is quite interesting...I think that circa 80% of your salary is paid out for a reasonable period in the event that you lose your job. From memory, there's a cap, but it's high (maybe €100k or €150k).


----------



## Gordon Gekko (5 Oct 2017)

Shortie, are you being difficult deliberately?

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


----------



## TheBigShort (5 Oct 2017)

Sarenco said:


> Incidentally BS,, I think you may have misread Protocol's post - the German JSA rate is apparently only €400 per month - that's about half the Irish personal rate for JSA recipients over the age of 26.



Perhaps, but seeing as there are so many varying views as to what unemployed people should be, or not be, entitled too, does it make any difference?


----------



## Sarenco (5 Oct 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> Perhaps, but seeing as there are so many varying views as to what unemployed people should be, or not be, entitled too, does it make any difference?


Of course it makes a difference!

I agree with Protocol that it is crazy that we pay more to the long-term unemployed than to the short term-unemployed.

I would have no difficulty if we moved to something akin to the German system.  In my opinion, our JSA is (somewhat) too generous and our JSB should be (somewhat) more generous.


----------



## TheBigShort (5 Oct 2017)

Sarenco said:


> Of course it makes a difference!
> 
> I agree with Protocol that it is crazy that we pay more to the long-term unemployed than to the short term-unemployed.
> 
> I would have no difficulty if we moved to something akin to the German system.  In my opinion, our JSA is (somewhat) too generous and our JSB should be (somewhat) more generous.



Neither would I.



Gordon Gekko said:


> The Swiss system is quite interesting...I think that circa 80% of your salary is paid out for a reasonable period in the event that you lose your job. From memory, there's a cap, but it's high (maybe €100k or €150k).



Apparently neither would Gekko.



Gordon Gekko said:


> Shortie, are you being difficult deliberately?
> 
> The two positions are mutually exclusive. One can want to see the guy on €60k a year get €40k a year whilst he gets back on his feet and still want to see malingerers hammered and prevented from milking the system. Having said that, I'd want to see €60k man exhaust his savings before the State kicked in.



So someone on €60k, has €5,000 in savings. uses that up, so I move onto a €40k welfare fund for next year. There are employment opportunities but they;



Sarenco said:


> calculate that they are economically better of not taking up those employment opportunities.



as they only pay say, €45k. So they take a holiday to Madrid, eating out on welfare payments, quite luxurious.


----------



## Sarenco (5 Oct 2017)

BS

Just so we're absolutely clear:-

I've absolutely no problem with somebody going on holidays if they pay for it out of their own resources;
I've absolutely no problem with enhanced JSB for people who have made the appropriate PRSI contributions;
I do have a problem with (means tested) welfare benefits being made available to recipients with meaningful savings (and I would certainly consider the cost of an overseas holiday to be meaningful); and
I do have a problem with JSA being set at a level that would allows recipients to take overseas holidays or that otherwise allows for anything that bears any resemblance of a luxurious lifestyle.
Hopefully that is now crystal clear.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (5 Oct 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> Neither would I.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Except a functioning system comes down on them like a ton of bricks when they turn down gainful emoloyment.


----------



## TheBigShort (5 Oct 2017)

Gordon Gekko said:


> Except a functioning system comes down on them like a ton of bricks when they turn down gainful emoloyment.



Yeah, and like my brother, he attends interviews, but loses out to the younger guy. And why not? If I was an employer, would I pick the 20/30 something with rent, mortgage, kids who is more likely to put in the long shift, the weekends etc or the 50 something yr old who is overweight with a limp and hasn't worked for a considerable period?
Is that the fault of the 50 something yr old? Should he have welfare cut, despite having worked 30+yrs or should he have a 60% welfare rate, affording him a trip to Madrid?

I'm not opposed to reform of the welfare system to facilitate greater amounts to those who have contributed more. But that costs money, and I suspect, when you do the numbers, nobody will be willing to pay for it.


----------



## Sarenco (5 Oct 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> I'm not opposed to reform of the welfare system to facilitate greater amounts to those who have contributed more. But that costs money, and I suspect, when you do the numbers, nobody will be willing to pay for it.


Not necessarily.

If we halved JSA (to bring it into line with German and UK rates) and means tested JSA more rigorously  that would free up a lot of funds to increase JSB significantly without requiring any net increases to PRSI contributions.

I'm not necessarily advocating that we go that far but we could change the balance between JSA and JSB without increasing the amount paid into the system.


----------



## TheBigShort (5 Oct 2017)

Sarenco said:


> Not necessarily.
> 
> If we halved JSA (to bring it into line with German and UK rates) and means tested JSA more rigorously  that would free up a lot of funds to increase JSB significantly without requiring any net increases to PRSI contributions.
> 
> I'm not necessarily advocating that we go that far but we could change the balance between JSA and JSB without increasing the amount paid into the system.



And I have no inherent objection to that. It boils down to the numbers and costs.
And it also requires reasoned discussion rather than nonsensical shouts earlier by another poster that welfare recipients shouldn't be able to eat a takeaway or buy a coffee!


----------



## TheBigShort (5 Oct 2017)

Sarenco said:


> BS
> 
> Just so we're absolutely clear:-
> 
> ...



That's all very good and again, no inherent objection to what you are saying.
But, once again on AAM, it's the practicalities of what is proposed that needs scrutiny.
Assuming that the current system is unfair, hence the need to reform, then based on that notion of unfairness, using your bullet points, how does the notion of unfairness sit when;

Two workers, earning €50k become unemployed after 20yrs employment. One has €5,000 in savings, the other €15,000 in credit card debt from drinking, gambling, golf trips, expensive holidays etc.

Under the German style system, each is entitled to 60% of income for 1st 12 months.
But would the worker who saved €5000 be expected to use up what they have worked hard to earn before they get their entitlement?
How much per week would they be obliged to use? Equal to 60% of weekly wage? What if he uses less, being prudent, how long before welfare entitlement kicks in? What if he uses more than 60%, e.g. places €5,000 on red at the casino? Loses, no worries, welfare will kick in?
Would the debt worker be obliged to pay down debt? Is it fair that the State pays down his debt, but requires prudent saver to use own resources?

The list goes on, I appreciate the sentiment surrounding welfare entitlements, but like most social policy, it is hugely complex and almost impossible to suit everyone.


----------



## Sarenco (6 Oct 2017)

BS

What I am suggesting is really not that complicated - simply rebalance the JSA and JSB rates so that JSA is (somewhat) less generous and JSB is (somewhat) more generous.

I don't have a strong view as to what should be the exact balance between the two or at what rate benefits should diminish over time.  I'm really just trying to establish the principle that the current balance is wrong.

If you don't accept that JSA is overly generous then we are at an impasse.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (6 Oct 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> And I have no inherent objection to that. It boils down to the numbers and costs. And it also requires reasoned discussion rather than nonsensical shouts earlier by another poster that welfare recipients shouldn't be able to eat a takeaway or buy a coffee!



But they shouldn't be able too; if a welfare recipient is eating takeaways or buying a coffee, he or she is being paid too much. And if a welfare recipient has savings and can head off to Madrid on a whim, his or her payments should definitely be cut. I'd argue that no payments should be made until those savings are exhausted. I'd even go further and pay social welfare in the form of vouchers which could only be spent on the bare essentials.

As for your brother's case, it's sad, but he is reaping what he sowed to an extent. It's amazing how someone can adopt a devil-may-care attitude to their career and then cry "woe is me" when it all blows up. Recklessness is a high risk strategy, but unfortunately it's made easier by an overly generous welfare system funded by people who haven't been reckless.


----------



## Protocol (6 Oct 2017)

Here'a another suggestion.

Abolish JSA, and replace it with an offer of work to all long-term unemployed.

20-30 hours per week, to allow time to search for jobs.

Instead of paying people to not work, offer them paid work.

If they don't want it, then they transfer to SWA, the anti-poverty payment.


----------



## Protocol (6 Oct 2017)

I don't really accept that 188 pw JSA is overly generous.

It is much higher than the UK, yes.

But note that the UK have a different mix of benefits: housing benefit, NHS, etc.

What I feel strongly about is not so much the level of JSA, but rather the duration.


----------



## TheBigShort (6 Oct 2017)

Sarenco said:


> I don't have a strong view as to what should be the exact balance between the two or at what rate benefits should diminish over time. I'm really just trying to establish the principle that the current balance is wrong.



In the absence of any specifics, I have no inherent objection to what you are saying. I'm merely pointing out, as you can see from other posters, that there is a wide variance of ideas and, to my mind, contradictory set of ideas being put forward. From German style welfare programs to monitoring the coffee habits of welfare recipients!  

Those who contribute more should get more out of the system - that is the mantra, again I have no issue there. But if someone who has contributed more then books a cheap flight to Madrid and funds a break from their own resources, then it's 'cut their welfare!" In other words, those that have contributed taxes are _not _to get more out of the system. They are to get the same, or even perhaps less than someone who hasnt contributed as much, or someone who has worked but squandered their own resources.

In the end, it's a complex business. I'll simply calling out the stupidity of thinking where a person who works 30yrs + working long shifts, supplementing that income at weekends, paying taxes, paid off mortgage, put two kids through college, is considered as someone with a 'devil may care' attitude and is reaping what he sowed! If you can't agree that that level of thinking is nonsense, then yes, we are at an impasse.


----------



## TheBigShort (6 Oct 2017)

Sarenco said:


> I don't have a strong view as to what should be the exact balance between the two or at what rate benefits should diminish over time. I'm really just trying to establish the principle that the current balance is wrong.



In the absence of any specifics, I have no inherent objection to what you are saying. I'm merely pointing out, as you can see from other posters, that there is a wide variance of ideas and, to my mind, contradictory set of ideas being put forward. From German style welfare programs to monitoring the coffee habits of welfare recipients!  
Those who contribute more should get more out of the system - that is the mantra, I have no issue there. But if someone who has contributed more then books a cheap flight to Madrid and funds a break from their own resources, then it's 'cut their welfare!" In other words, those that have contributed taxes are _not _to get more out of the system. They are to get the same, or even perhaps less than someone who hasnt contributed as much, or someone who has worked but squandered their own resources.
In the end, it's a complex business. I'll simply calling out the stupidity of thinking where a person who works 30yrs + working long shifts, supplementing that income at weekends, paying taxes, paid off mortgage, put two kids through college, is considered as someone with a 'devil may care' attitude and is 'reaping what he sowed!' If you can't agree that that level of thinking is nonsense, then yes, we are at an impasse.


----------



## Sarenco (6 Oct 2017)

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

In the current economic context, that should be broadly cost neutral from the State's perspective.


----------



## TheBigShort (6 Oct 2017)

Sarenco said:


> Ok BS, here's a very simple proposal for debate - increase JSB by 15% and reduce JSA by 15%.
> 
> In the current economic context, that should be broadly cost neutral from the State's perspective.



Yep, no problem there. Happy out! 

(Can they drink, coffee?)!


----------



## Sarenco (6 Oct 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> (Can they drink, coffee?)!



Sure but a 15% cut to JSA would equate to around 10 cups of coffee per week.


----------



## TheBigShort (6 Oct 2017)

Sarenco said:


> Sure but a 15% cut to JSA would equate to around 10 cups of coffee per week.



Or an extra 10 cups for JSB!

But back on track, if the 15% increase/decrease was implemented, do you think that would satisfy the rest of the punters on AAM? 
I don't, but perhaps I would be pleasantly surprised.


----------



## Sarenco (6 Oct 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> do you think that would satisfy the rest of the punters on AAM?


I've no idea - I don't pretend to know or represent the views of anybody else.


----------



## odyssey06 (6 Oct 2017)

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


----------



## Taxpert (15 Oct 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> Which is completely different to what Gekko said. So which is it? If I'm on welfare, can I have a coffee or not? Or a pint? Or even a car and a foreign holiday?




Of course you can.

But you can't simultaneously whinge about the fact that, for example, your children go to school hungry, ( or more accurately have social justice Ireland et al whinge on your behalf), while you spend your limited money on pints.


----------



## TheBigShort (15 Oct 2017)

Taxpert said:


> Of course you can.
> 
> But you can't simultaneously whinge about the fact that, for example, your children go to school hungry, ( or more accurately have social justice Ireland et al whinge on your behalf), while you spend your limited money on pints.



The only whinging is by those that say people on welfare shouldn't be allowed a pint or a cup of coffee.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (15 Oct 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> The only whinging is by those that say people on welfare shouldn't be allowed a pint or a cup of coffee.



Taxpert is spot on; if someone is having a pint or a cup of coffee, they either have enough money or they shouldn't be having such luxuries.


----------



## TheBigShort (15 Oct 2017)

Gordon Gekko said:


> Taxpert is spot on; if someone is having a pint or a cup of coffee, they either have enough money or they shouldn't be having such luxuries.



That is not what s/he said. S/he said of course it is fine to have such 'luxuries' as long as the person availing of them isn't complaining about their children being hungry. 
In other words, as long as the welfare recipient is not complaining, the Taxpert has absolutely no problem with them enjoying a pint or a coffee.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (15 Oct 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> That is not what s/he said. S/he said of course it is fine to have such 'luxuries' as long as the person availing of them isn't complaining about their children being hungry.
> In other words, as long as the welfare recipient is not complaining, the Taxpert has absolutely no problem with them enjoying a pint or a coffee.



Okay; so the welfare recipient should not receive anymore from the State.


----------



## Taxpert (15 Oct 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> That is not what s/he said. S/he said of course it is fine to have such 'luxuries' as long as the person availing of them isn't complaining about their children being hungry.
> In other words, as long as the welfare recipient is not complaining, the Taxpert has absolutely no problem with them enjoying a pint or a coffee.



Maybe I'm better positioned to say what I mean than you are?

My point is simple. People are entitled to spend their money as they wish. If that means fags, booze, sky sports, whatever, fine.

But if you spend your money on fags, and have no money left over to give your kids breakfast before they leave for school, that's YOUR responsibility. Not the governments, not "society's" - YOURS.

But social justice Ireland and their fellow travellers in the poverty industry will never accept that.


----------



## TheBigShort (15 Oct 2017)

Taxpert said:


> Maybe I'm better positioned to say what I mean than you are?
> 
> My point is simple. People are entitled to spend their money as they wish. If that means fags, booze, sky sports, whatever, fine.
> 
> ...



Yes, you said as much already, why repeat? I'm not really sure why you are engaging with me in this discussion? I have no issues with what you are saying. I was merely pointing out that other posters think that welfare recipients shouldn't be able to spend money as they see fit. Perhaps take the discussion up with them?


----------



## Taxpert (15 Oct 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> Yes, you said as much already, why repeat? I'm not really sure why you are engaging with me in this discussion? I have no issues with what you are saying. I was merely pointing out that other posters think that welfare recipients shouldn't be able to spend money as they see fit. Perhaps take the discussion up with them?



My apologies.

I should have raised this with the whingers.


----------



## TheBigShort (15 Oct 2017)

Taxpert said:


> I should have raised this with the whingers.



Do indeed, I will be happy to back up your view that people are entitled to spend their money as they wish.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (15 Oct 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> Do indeed, I will be happy to back up your view that people are entitled to spend their money as they wish.



It's not their money; it's ours.


----------



## Taxpert (16 Oct 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> Yes, you said as much already, why repeat? I'm not really sure why you are engaging with me in this discussion? I have no issues with what you are saying. I was merely pointing out that other posters think that welfare recipients shouldn't be able to spend money as they see fit. Perhaps take the discussion up with them?



Apologies - I should have directed my post elsewhere.


----------



## Taxpert (16 Oct 2017)

Gordon Gekko said:


> It's not their money; it's ours.



I don't agree. Once given to them it's theirs, not ours.

Whether they should be given it or not (or as much) is a different issue.

What bugs me most about this debate is when poverty industry spokespeople start talking about kids going to school hungry.

No child goes to school hungry because of lack of money. If they do go to school hungry either their parents have spent the money on something else (their choice) or alternatively the parents couldn't be ar$ed giving them breakfast. Again, their choice. Nothing to do with "society".


----------



## TheBigShort (16 Oct 2017)

Gordon Gekko said:


> It's not their money; it's ours.



So let me see if I can understand your view. 
If you work say, 30yrs+, paying taxes, contributing PRSI etc - it's "your money". But if you are unfortunate to then lose your job and avail of welfare, it then becomes _not _your money? Is that correct?


----------



## Purple (16 Oct 2017)

Taxpert said:


> I don't agree. Once given to them it's theirs, not ours.
> 
> Whether they should be given it or not (or as much) is a different issue.
> 
> ...


I agree with all of that.


----------



## TheBigShort (16 Oct 2017)

Taxpert said:


> I don't agree. Once given to them it's theirs, not ours.
> 
> Whether they should be given it or not (or as much) is a different issue.
> 
> ...



I agree, there is no obvious reason why any child should go to school hungry. But if a child is going to school hungry, then an intervention of some sort is required. 
If the child's parents are neglecting the child, it's not the child's fault. The 'poverty lobby', as you call them, are simply interested in the welfare of the child. This may be relayed in the form of calling for additional supports to child welfare officers, schools etc in an effort to intervene in child poverty.


----------



## Purple (16 Oct 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> The 'poverty lobby', as you call them, are simply interested in the welfare of the child.


 How do you know? They use a social issue, bad parenting, and misrepresent it as an economic issue; the child is going to school hungry because they are poor. That's a lie so therefore I have to take from that the poverty industry is more interested in getting more funding than actually helping the child who doesn't get breakfast.
Incidentally my teenage daughter often goes to school without breakfast because she won't get out of bed in the morning and because my ex-wife doesn't "do" cooking. Would an increase in child benefit fix that?



TheBigShort said:


> This may be relayed in the form of calling for additional supports to child welfare officers, schools etc in an effort to intervene in child poverty.


 Exactly; the issue isn't child  poverty, the issue is bad parenting. There is no causal link between income and not getting breakfast. There may be commonality but there is no causality.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (16 Oct 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> So let me see if I can understand your view.
> If you work say, 30yrs+, paying taxes, contributing PRSI etc - it's "your money". But if you are unfortunate to then lose your job and avail of welfare, it then becomes _not _your money? Is that correct?



Yes, correct. If I become beholden to society, unless ringfenced social insurance funds are introduced, it is not my money.


----------



## Purple (16 Oct 2017)

Gordon Gekko said:


> Yes, correct. If I become beholden to society, unless ringfenced social insurance funds are introduced, it is not my money.


It is when it is given to you. You can argue that it shouldn't be given or that it should be given differently but once it is given ownership is transfers with it.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (16 Oct 2017)

Purple said:


> It is when it is given to you. You can argue that it shouldn't be given or that it should be given differently but once it is given ownership is transfers with it.



From a legal perspective, yes.


----------



## TheBigShort (16 Oct 2017)

Gordon Gekko said:


> From a legal perspective, yes.



Yes, quite important to point that out actually. The law is quite important, unless you have plans to usurp it?



Gordon Gekko said:


> It's not their money; it's ours.



So when you say 'ours', who are you speaking of? 
From a legal perspective, all taxes due are the monies of the State, not the individual.


----------



## TheBigShort (16 Oct 2017)

Purple said:


> How do you know? They use a social issue, bad parenting, and misrepresent it as an economic issue; the child is going to school hungry because they are poor. That's a lie so therefore I have to take from that the poverty industry is more interested in getting more funding than actually helping the child who doesn't get breakfast.



I think the point would be that despite all the resources available, it is insufficient to deal with the issue of child poverty. That is reflected in instances where some children are still going to school hungry.



Purple said:


> Incidentally my teenage daughter often goes to school without breakfast because she won't get out of bed in the morning and because my ex-wife doesn't "do" cooking. Would an increase in child benefit fix that?



I often don't eat breakfast too. Not because of poverty, but because I'm not hungry. 
We are not talking about skipping breakfast, we are talking about a hunger derived from an overall bad diet, adversely affecting the child's potential at school.



Purple said:


> Exactly; the issue isn't child poverty, the issue is bad parenting. There is no causal link between income and not getting breakfast. There may be commonality but there is no causality.



It is child poverty, stemming from bad parenting. Whether that bad parenting is due to excessive drink or drugs problems or other neglect I don't know. 
If as a nation we are drinking more, taking more drugs, then I don't think it is unreasonable to expect more child neglect.
If a child is being neglected, intervention is required. If there aren't enough resources then expect calls for increased expenditure.


----------



## Purple (16 Oct 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> I think the point would be that despite all the resources available, it is insufficient to deal with the issue of child poverty. That is reflected in instances where some children are still going to school hungry.


 In my opinion the problem is not poverty so the solution is not the targeting of poverty. 



TheBigShort said:


> We are not talking about skipping breakfast, we are talking about a hunger derived from an overall bad diet, adversely affecting the child's potential at school.


 I agree. The solution is to either educate the patent so that they feed their children properly or to feed them in school. Either way giving the parent more money solves nothing as they already have enough to feed their children properly. Thereofre the problem is not financial. 



TheBigShort said:


> If a child is being neglected, intervention is required. If there aren't enough resources then expect calls for increased expenditure.


 I've no problem with more resources as long as we first ensure that the resources currently allocated are being spent in the right way.


----------



## PGF2016 (16 Oct 2017)

Purple said:


> The solution is to either educate the patent so that they feed their children properly or to feed them in school.


Take the money off the parent and give it to the school to fund the breakfast.


----------



## Delboy (16 Oct 2017)

There are some couples in this country who'd make great parents and unfortunately are unable to have kids of their own. It's nigh on impossible to adopt here anymore from what I understand and so I know people who have gone to Russia, China, Philippines to adopt. And yet there are kids being pushed around Dublin city centre by the 'walking dead' on a daily basis, kids regularly missing school or being abused at home. 
I'd rather see those kids removed either temporarily or permanently from their parents and fostered/adopted to caring/loving couples. But the solution seems to be more Social Workers, more welfare interventions etc.


----------



## TheBigShort (16 Oct 2017)

Purple said:


> The solution is to either educate the patent so that they feed their children properly or to feed them in school. Either way giving the parent more money solves nothing as they



I don't know of any charity or state agency that is involved with the protection of children that is advocating for more money for parents that neglect their children.




Purple said:


> I've no problem with more resources as long as we first ensure that the resources currently allocated are being spent in the right way.



I agree, and this is where we get into the complexities of the issues. Just as €5 increases in unemployment benefit resolve very little, so too would a €5 cut or more.


----------



## Purple (17 Oct 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> I don't know of any charity or state agency that is involved with the protection of children that is advocating for more money for parents that neglect their children.


Either do I. What point are you making?


----------



## TheBigShort (17 Oct 2017)

Purple said:


> Either do I. What point are you making?



That there is no 'poverty lobby' advocating increased monies to be given to parents who neglect their children, as implied here;



Purple said:


> Either way giving the parent more money solves nothing as they already have enough to feed their children properly





Taxpert said:


> if you spend your money on fags, and have no money left over to give your kids breakfast before they leave for school, that's YOUR responsibility. Not the governments, not "society's" - YOURS.
> 
> But social justice Ireland and their fellow travellers in the poverty industry will never accept that.


----------



## Purple (17 Oct 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> That there is no 'poverty lobby' advocating increased monies to be given to parents who neglect their children, as implied here;


I didn't suggest there was. I simply said that doing so achieved nothing. 

I think you are arguing against points that nobody is making.

The poverty industry wants more funding for their organisations. Maybe they act with the best of intentions but they are treating symptoms, not root causes. The best example of their ideologically driven thinking was apparent when Brendan was on the Pat Kenny show with the woman from Simon. Her response to his suggestions was to repeat over and over again "but we live in a social democracy", as if that actually meant something which was so clearly defined that a clear housing policy should flow from it.

What it did mean was that I added Simon to the VDP and Threshold as organisations I could not support due to their political ideology as that ideology overrides reason and logic.


----------



## TheBigShort (17 Oct 2017)

Purple said:


> I didn't suggest there was. I simply said that doing so achieved nothing.
> 
> I think you are arguing against points that nobody is making.



It was mentioned;



Purple said:


> Either way giving the parent more money solves nothing as they already have enough to feed their children properly.



I'm not sure who is advocating for giving the parent more money?

At this point, perhaps you should define who are the 'poverty lobby' as I am not familiar with them.


----------



## Purple (17 Oct 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> It was mentioned;


 It was indeed, but it wasn't advocated.



TheBigShort said:


> I'm not sure who is advocating for giving the parent more money?


 Either am I. Why do you keep bringing it up?



TheBigShort said:


> At this point, perhaps you should define who are the 'poverty lobby' as I am not familiar with them.


 Really? Use your imagination.


----------



## TheBigShort (17 Oct 2017)

Purple said:


> Either am I. Why do you keep bringing it up?



You stated



Purple said:


> Either way giving the parent more money solves nothing as they already have enough to feed their children properly.



Using my imagination, upon your request, I am trying to figure out who, where or when anyone advocated to give parents who neglect their children more money. 
I am only doing this because you seem to be suggesting that someone or something did advocate this in the comment above (otherwise why mention it)?.

On the other hand, you seem pretty clear that no-one has actually advocated giving parents who neglect their children more money, so I'm confused now about this 'poverty lobby'. 
If no-one is advocating giving extra money to parents who neglect their children, then how can they be labeled the 'poverty lobby'?


----------



## Purple (17 Oct 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> You stated
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't know what you are talking about. Maybe I'm stupid.


----------



## TheBigShort (17 Oct 2017)

Purple said:


> I don't know what you are talking about. Maybe I'm stupid.



I don't think you are stupid. I just think that you don't know what you are talking about.


----------



## Purple (17 Oct 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> I don't think you are stupid. I just think that you don't know what you are talking about.


The feeling is mutual!


----------

