I agree with the majority of the posters here. Without being inflamatory, why should people who had the 'keeping up with the Jones' mentality bought every newest gadget/new car every year etc..and are now in serious trouble, be looked more favourably upon than people who were prudent through the good times?
Its quite simple: If you paid PRSI while you worked, and you are no longer working, you should be entitled to €x benefits.
The same €x benefits as every other poor PRSI contributor, regardless of your situation, be it savings, spouses income etc..
Look at it this way:
Worker A (newly redundant):
20 years in a job earning €65k per year - paid x amount of tax on his salary over the years.
Worker B (newly redundant):
20 years in a job earning €30k per year - paid x amount of tax on his salary over the years.
The yield from worker A's income over the years will have contributed more to the coffers than worker B's however (in the case where there is no other benefits to be claimed) each will get the same weekly dole amount. Fair enough.
But if you apply this scenario to worker A's who spent to the hilt and worker B's who saved - or workers A's who saved and worker B's who spent to the hilt how do you justify who DESERVES more than the other? Surely we all deserve the same...??
Er...it makes senses in my head...hope I haven't complicated it the way its written!