T McGibney
Registered User
- Messages
- 6,946
It's common knowledge, and has been so to varying degrees for decades.
Just Google "Irish GDP 26%".
Or school yourself on the basics of the Irish economy.
What authority has allowed you to declare this? Why should i accept your word without evidence to back it up?
Nobody here is unable to distinguish between the two, despite your disgivings about the intellect of people who hold different views to you. They are discussing how our welfare system traps the people who want to work in welfare because they are better off not working.Please tell me, that after all this, you are able to distinguish between a waster like 'johnny' and the vast majority of welfare recipients who are actively looking for work, who are participating in training courses and trying to upskill?
I am from a deprived area on one side of the city and I now work in one on the other side of the city. I work with people from deprived areas. I don't sit in the leafy suburbs ruminating in middle-class guilt, rather I engage in the real world unfettered by ideology.Please dont tell me that just because a person comes from a certain area, like Ballyfermot, that you think they are automatically some kind of sponger (although you did identify areas with known social and economic deprivation, comparing them to more affluent areas)?
I don't think anyone else here shares your views... we must all be wrong.This topic is wholly bogus, littered with inept posters who havent a clue about economics or social provisions. Clueless as to impact in cutting the income of those trying to better themselves, clueless as to the lack of opportunity afforded to young people. And worst of all, they see an inane headline like 77% of households support the other 23% and jump all over it, moralising and pontificating.
Apples and oranges. If you want to start a threat about corporate taxation and NAMA then do so but don't drag this one off topic. I will probably agree with much of what you say.The biggest welfare handout in this country is to corporate multi nationals who pay no tax, to property developers bailed out by tax payers, to vulture funds buying on the cheap from NAMA from money borrowed at 0%.
Your posts are littered with false dichotomies but on a small point, working people (by which I presume people who are not rich) are no more or less good than rich people.And its because of this that more and more good ordinary working people will invariably need a welfare payment as they lose jobs or their wages cant pay rent or mortgage any longer.
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.
It's common knowledge, and has been so to varying degrees for decades.
Just Google "Irish GDP 26%".
Or school yourself on the basics of the Irish economy.
Why do you keep answering posts with facts that are irrelevant in the overall context of the discussion and getting bogged down with semantics about your interpretation of the discussion rather than what they are actually saying?Yes, and the read the NESC report and you will see that Ireland has by far, the highest level of home care help in Europe which is a major factor the 23%.
To reduce that figure we will need to provide adequate retirement homes with appropriate nursing staff to look after our elderly, like they do in Europe.
But judging by the way people consider high earners as over-taxed, I doubt think anyone is going to want to pay for that.
Nobody here is unable to distinguish between the two, despite your disgivings about the intellect of people who hold different views to you. They are discussing how our welfare system traps the people who want to work in welfare because they are better off not working.
I am from a deprived area on one side of the city and I now work in one on the other side of the city. I work with people from deprived areas. I don't sit in the leafy suburbs ruminating in middle-class guilt, rather I engage in the real world unfettered by ideology.
I don't think anyone else here shares your views... we must all be wrong.
Apples and oranges. If you want to start a threat about corporate taxation and NAMA then do so but don't drag this one off topic. I will probably agree with much of what you say.
Your posts are littered with false dichotomies but on a small point, working people (by which I presume people who are not rich) are no more or less good than rich people.
Why do you keep answering posts with facts that are irrelevant in the overall context of the discussion and getting bogged down with semantics about your interpretation of the discussion rather than what they are actually saying?
Your neighbour is caring for her relation at home. That’s both socially desirable and financially the cheapest option for the State. Nobody is suggesting that it is desirable for your neighbour to be forced to work.Im asking do you consider a person (in a jobless household) who is caring full-time for an elderly person(s) and in receipt of a carers allowance to be part of the culture of welfare dependency? If yes, what alternative would you propose to dismantle this dependency, considering the gut of this topic is about the cost of welfare to the taxpayer.
Are you still trying to evade the fact that Switzerland spends more on social welfare than we do?
Which system is preferential to you. Irelands or Switzerlands? I prefer Switzerlands, but that would mean paying more tax.
Your neighbour is caring for her relation at home. That’s both socially desirable and financially the cheapest option for the State. Nobody is suggesting that it is desirable for your neighbour to be forced to work.
Johnny, or other wasters like him, are also not really relevant to the discussion as they will never work and short of press-ganging him into the Navy or some such thing there’s little to be done with him other than to try to educate his children so that his despicable world view and ethical standards are not perpetuated into the next generation.
This discussion, at least the discussion everyone else is having, is about how, or whether, our welfare system mitigates against those who want to work or at least would be willing to work. If someone is financially better off on welfare, or nearly financially better off on welfare, than working then they will probably not work. That is the poverty trap and that’s what keeps many people out of the workforce.
I prefer the Swiss or German or Dutch models (Wikipedia is your friend if you want more details) as they taper off benefits the longer people are out of work. Living off your neighbour should not be a viable lifestyle choice, mainly because it is socially damaging as your decision greatly increases the chance that your children will be trapped in that cycle. The financial cost is secondary.
I would think that the same groups are included in the statistics for other countries therefore the main question is valid; how do reduce the culture of welfare dependency in Ireland?Fair enough, you are talking about welfare traps that make it less desirable to go to work rather than lose the benefits. It would have been helpful from the start had the opening poster, who published an article in the Irish Independent, didnt lump all jobless households into the same bracket. Here is a reminder of what he said;
"Why do we have 23% 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."
Lets not pretend that the author has bothered to consider that a number of these households (by far the largest number in Europe) involves home care help.
Lets not pretend that the author bothered to consider that a number of these jobless households may have non-nationals living in them and that it is not only Irish people who refuse work.
Lets not pretend that the author bothered to consider that a large proportion of these households have people actively looking for work and/or are engaged in retraing and upskilling.
Lets not pretend that the author never bothered to consider the % level of low paid workers in this State is one of the highest, if not the highest, in Europe, and as such never even considered as a possible solution that wages should rise.
And lets not pretend that the author made any effort to find out what level of the 23% of jobless households could actually be classified as being caught in the welfare trap.
Speak for yourself, let others decide on whether I misinterpreted their views or no t.
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.
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?
I would think that the same groups are included in the statistics for other countries therefore the main question is valid; how do reduce the culture of welfare dependency in Ireland?
When you say people are actively looking for work do you mean actively looking for work which pays more than they get on welfare?
The main question posted by the author was "why do we have 23% jobless households?".
I have already pointed out that for one reason, we have the highest level of home care help.
And to answer your second question, of course people look for work that pays more than their welfare. But that doesn't mean they will refuse a job offer that pays less. Most people want to work.
After about 12 pages you did. And all of the information is in the report, if you read it, where these groups are included in the figures and they are still classed as "jobless", that does not change.
But there are those who don't want to work, and there are those who won't take a job for less then their benefits and these are the people who are in a "culture of welfare dependency" and you were provided with the definition from me in an earlier post.
The question is why we have twice the "jobless" homes as the average. Their totals would also comprise of carers, disabled etc.
Jobs or lack of them is not the only reason why this is the case, the tax system, how the family is made up, education level, health etc.
You seem to have a real bee in your bonnet about the OP, you are offended that he dared to question this fact, which is the usual left knee jerk reaction to anyone who dares to question the very real culture that exists in this country, in fact, not content with attacking people who dare to question it - you then defend it.
Perhaps on foot of information since gleaned Brendan should consider correcting the misinformation contained in his article in the Sunday Indo , I'm sure the Indo would be amenable , in the interests of veracity , to publishing such a correction.
The majority of our debt is due to spending more on welfare, public pay and services than we take in in taxation, not due to a badly regulated financial sector (badly regulated by state employees).It is disingenuous not to factor in that the economy is recovering from the worst recession ever, brought about not by public spending or high wages, but by unregulated private (financial) sector speculation on a massive scale.
Do you subscribe to "From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs"? If so them that's communism. If not then your point above is nonsense.A person with a family, who works full-time, but because their pay is so low relative to the cost of living can receive a welfare payment, FIS.
This is not welfare dependency, this is a subsidy to the employer who wont pay a decent wage.
See above; do you believe people should be paid according to their economic or social value to their employer or according to their needs? There was a time married men were paid more than single men in the state and protected sectors. Do you think one person should be paid vastly more than another for doing the same job at the same level of skill and productivity simply because they have higher outgoings?FIS is a welfare payment, payable to a person who is employed a minimum of 19 hours a week and has a family. But because the wage is so low they receive this payment.
FIS acts as a subsidy to employers who dont pay a decent wage.
I live in a rented house. If my landlord sells I'm out on my ear. I'd like the law changed so that both the landlord and the tenant must see out the term of the lease and that 3 to 5 year terms were standard but under no circumstances should my landlord be forced to house me if I don't keep up my side of the deal or somehow undertake to house me for life.As is explained in the article, housing provided through HAP leaves the tenant vunerable in the case where the property owner chooses to sell.
... is that the sort of thing you are proposing?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?