TheBigShort
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,789
What authority has allowed you to declare this? Why should i accept your word without evidence to back it up?
Because %GDP-based stats relating to Ireland are inherently bogus, for the reasons I've given you.
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 ???
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 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.
As I'm a new user ....
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
The people who build their lives around welfare are the small minority of recipients.
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'