A very interesting paper on lifetime income inequality

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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"?
 
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?
 
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.
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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.
 

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.
 
Gordon Gekko said:
You implied a "devil may care" attitude with the above.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Protocol said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
TheBigShort said:
They don't provide for a luxurious lifestyle.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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.
 

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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


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
Click to expand...

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;
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...



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!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register