You still refuse to discuss the topic and again you are dragging it off into another attack at employers.
2. A worker with a family may qualify for Family Income Supplement if the income for the whole family falls below a certain threshold, roughly €12 per hour. The state will top up the difference (up to 60%) in the wage and the designated threshold. So for a family with one child the threshold is €512. The employer pays €450, knowing that the employee can claim benefit of 60% of the difference between the wage and threshold, a further €36 in this instance. A saving of €36 in wages for the employer at the expense of the taxpayer.
I genuinely don't know why so many normally level headed and knowledgeable posters on this site are still biting here. PointlessRead the article again, she makes no such demand. She is quoted as saying "to be for life", nothing else. It is the reporter that claims she was talking about her next home. She could have been talking about Graham Dwyers prison sentence for all we know. We dont know, because the reporter didnt print the full quote. Given the overall tone of the article, I wonder why?
Still all are ism,s , its how we use our biases to interpret them.
It seems a little communism, a little socialism, a little capitalism and your corporatism mixed properly would give us utopianism !
She turned down two properties. Full.stop.
She was left no more vulnerable to eviction then any other private sector worker out there.
So the 100's of 1000's of children whose parent's rent privately are not in a stable environment? Really?
Lol, anti homeless campaigner offered solution but won't accept "solution" lest she be brought down to the level of private renters - is that it?
Ah I see.
Did he change the title of this thread or did he change the question that he posed?
private tenant is entitled to security of tenure for three years and six months after the first six months of tenancy.
Personally I think that sucks also. But if no-one takes a stand on these issues, if we all just roll over and accept what our masters say....oh wait, someody is taking a stand.
air play to her, dont you think? Or should she just accept whatever is offered, shut up, and pray she doesnt has to move again in 12 months?
Or should she just accept whatever is offered, shut up, and pray she doesnt has to move again in 12 months?
A person in receipt of HAP is a private tenant.
[broken link removed]
"Under HAP the tenant sources the private rental accommodation and enters a tenancy with the private landlord. Like the Rental Accommodation Scheme, under HAP you will not be a local authority tenant, but a private tenant. Your landlord must be tax compliant – that is, the landlord’s tax affairs must be in order and the landlord must be able to supply a current tax clearance certificate to the local authority. The local authority pays the rent, through the HAP payment, directly to the landlord. The HAP recipient pays their rent contribution to the local authority through the An Post Household Budget Scheme, Bill Pay card, or, where their social welfare payment is paid into their bank, by direct debit from their bank. Information leaflets on HAP are available on http://www.environ.ie/en/Publications/DevelopmentandHousing/Housing/FileDownLoad,40373,en.pdf (www.environ.ie)."
Really, but hey it's good enough for private tenants - not for certain others. And she could have taken a stand from one of the properties (AKA "solutions") that she was offered.
No, I don't support anyone who nurtures a culture of dependency.
I genuinely don't know why so many normally level headed and knowledgeable posters on this site are still biting here. Pointless
Fair enough I will concede that one. We found one welfare dependent.
As it was my example of Johnny, that illustrated that some people milk the system or take advantage, my overall point is that those who choose to depend on welfare are a tiny minority relative to those who would opt out of it in a second.
The press keep reporting about the number of extra homeless each month but the only interviews you see are with those with suspect claims.
When you say that “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.1. What am I proposing? With regard to what exactly?
You previously posted that you don't think people should be paid more for the same job depending on their circumstances (despite agreeing with communist doctrine on the subject). How then can you ascribe to the employer the responsibility of ensuring that the above family has a sustainable income ?2. A worker with a family may qualify for Family Income Supplement if the income for the whole family falls below a certain threshold, roughly €12 per hour. The state will top up the difference (up to 60%) in the wage and the designated threshold. So for a family with one child the threshold is €512. The employer pays €450, knowing that the employee can claim benefit of 60% of the difference between the wage and threshold, a further €36 in this instance. A saving of €36 in wages for the employer at the expense of the taxpayer.
Of course it is not unreasonable. What would be unreasonable would be a engineer thinking any job was beneath them due to their qualification while living off the charity of their fellow citizens. Every person who can work has a moral duty to work (Edit; That should be they have a moral responsibility to contribute to society). Obviously carers are already working as carers etc.Now, I ve answered your questions (whether you agree or not is mute) you answer mine.
Is it reasonable to expect an unemployed civil engineer to take up a job in a coffee shop if it becomes available? Is it reasonable to expect a coffee shop employer to hire an over qualified unsuitable professional?
If the answer is 'unreasonable', is the engineer part of the culture of welfare dependency?
When you say that “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.” Are you proposing that the employer should pay the employee based on their needs rather than the value of their labour? If not what are you proposing, i.e. how do you come to the conclusion that FIS is a subsidy to the employer rather than a subsidy to the employee? Using your logic the employees wage would rise and fall depending on their personal circumstances. Using your logic the employee should have to work for nothing if they win the lottery or come into a large inheritance. I don’t that would be fair either.
You previously posted that you don't think people should be paid more for the same job depending on their circumstances (despite agreeing with communist doctrine on the subject). How then can you ascribe to the employer the responsibility of ensuring that the above family has a sustainable income ?
Of course it is not unreasonable. What would be unreasonable would be a engineer thinking any job was beneath them due to their qualification while living off the charity of their fellow citizens. Every person who can work has a moral duty to work (Edit; That should be they have a moral responsibility to contribute to society). Obviously carers are already working as carers etc.
If the coffee shop owner doesn't want to give them a job that's their business. The engineer needs to find someone who will.
Can you answer my other questions first please, you know, the ones which challenge your views?A qp
W
,
Yes, but if the coffee shop owner refuses to employ him, even though he is more than capable and willing, is the employer not contributing to the culture of welfare dependency?
After you defended her and we only know that she is one such person, because of the media attention that she exposed herself to. This isn't about targeting Erica, this is about educating her and making her understand that the supports she has been offered are exactly that - supports, a house for life is far more then support.
But the topic is this culture of dependency and the homelessness crisis, while appalling, is one of the symptoms of the housing market and this sense of entitlement.
I don't know how any person could live in the conditions as described with a child and then turn down such a property. It is alien to me.
Well accepting at face value the circumstances as presented I would agree with you. But now what? As far as I know if you turn down two offers of accommodation you revert back to the back of the que.
When you say that “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.” Are you proposing that the employer should pay the employee based on their needs rather than the value of their labour? If not what are you proposing, i.e. how do you come to the conclusion that FIS is a subsidy to the employer rather than a subsidy to the employee? Using your logic the employees wage would rise and fall depending on their personal circumstances. Using your logic the employee should have to work for nothing if they win the lottery or come into a large inheritance. I don’t that would be fair either.
You previously posted that you don't think people should be paid more for the same job depending on their circumstances (despite agreeing with communist doctrine on the subject). How then can you ascribe to the employer the responsibility of ensuring that the above family has a sustainable income
In other words take a "benefit" away from her, in this case her place on the queue?
This is just your opinion though - repeating it doesn't make it so. You haven't offered any convincing arguments why anyone should believe your opinion on this.my overall point is that those who choose to depend on welfare are a tiny minority relative to those who would opt out of it in a second.
I didn't say he would turn to crime, I said someone like may turn to crime.
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.
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.
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.
The author, and others on this site, have concluded that it is because of a culture of welfare dependency. I would argue that it has to do with low wage.
Lets face it, if you are construction engineer used to pay of €70,000+, are you really going to work in the local coffee shop?
Even if you did decide to offer your services in the coffee shop, there is a good chance the employer would not hire you as you would be deemed unsuitable for the job in hand.
Of course it is not unreasonable. What would be unreasonable would be a engineer thinking any job was beneath them due to their qualification while living off the charity of their fellow citizens. Every person who can work has a moral duty to work (Edit; That should be they have a moral responsibility to contribute to society). Obviously carers are already working as carers etc.
If the coffee shop owner doesn't want to give them a job that's their business. The engineer needs to find someone who will.
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?