"We must dismantle our culture of dependency"

[TheBigShort]

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]

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."

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.

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:

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.

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]

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?

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]

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]

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

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

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]

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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".

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]

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]

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]

Please refer back to my interpretation of 'welfare dependency'

Which is not the topic we are discussing.

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.

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?

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]

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]

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.

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.

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?

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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."

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?

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)."

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

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.