"We must dismantle our culture of dependency"

[orka]

But now, before any more progress can be made, some people are at the ready to attack those at the bottom of the social ladder. I will call them out on their agenda and their bogus, lazy, 'analysis' whenever, wherever.

And I expect you will be as successful as you have been here.

 

[Purple]

Under a title banner that says "We must dismantle our culture of welfare dependency"??



Of course it is reasonable to suggest, .but the title of this topic is not a suggestion, it is quite definite in what needs to be done.



Well I have no problem with questioning, suggesting, discussing, inquiring.

But again, go back to the title of the topic. There is no suggestion or questioning, it is a definite statement.

Not only is it a definite statement, it is based on inaccurate, misinterpreted material that even the author has admitted was wrong.

I appreciate that you are angry about the title of the thread but you shouldn’t let it colour every post made on the subject.

Thread titles, as well as the titles of Newspaper articles and even the titles of motions of debates are often designed to promote debate.

As for 'socially desirable outcomes', I have been consistent in stating that cutting welfare will drive people further into poverty. I have been consistent in stating that such measures would only end up costing the taxpayer even more through the provision of other social services.


I have yet to see one idea or one suggestion that would effectively end "the culture of welfare dependency". I have seen no data (other than inaccurate, misinterpreted) to show how many people it concerns, their circumstances, the cost savings, and the approach to be taken (other than cut benefits).

With respect, that’s your opinion. All other people are doing is offering their opinions.

The title is a lazy slur on Irish working people, many of whom who over the last decade have faced intolerance hurdles through job losses, pay cuts, emigration, house repossessions, property taxes on negative equity homes, high rates of suicide, depression, increased taxes on average incomes, USC, increasing insurance premiums, higher VAT, increased child poverty, highest rate of low paid jobs, water charges, cuts in carer allowances, cuts in child benefits...and whatever you would like to add yourself.

Admittedly, some of things are beginning to reverse, and that is very welcome.

Speaking as an Irish working person who has been hit with many of the above and more I don’t take offense at the title.

But now, before any more progress can be made, some people are at the ready to attack those at the bottom of the social ladder. I will call them out on their agenda and their bogus, lazy, 'analysis' whenever, wherever.

I don’t see anyone attacking people at the bottom of the social ladder. I see people questioning if our welfare system encourages people to stay at the bottom of the social ladder and offering the fact that we have so many people there when compared to other countries as evidence to support that supposition.

It is very unfair to say that those who agree with that theory are attacking anyone or that their ideas are bogus or lazy.


Most of the people I work with are from what can be described as deprived areas, those that are from Ireland anyway, and they, without exception, agree with Brendan’s view on these matters. They don’t have data to back it up, just their neighbours and family members we have decided not to work because work doesn’t pay.

 

[TheBigShort]

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

So which part of the above quotes from Brendans opening post does not identify 23% of jobless homes as;

1) not bothering to take jobs in restaurants, convenience stores, hospitals
2) all being Irish
3) being dependent on welfare

Where in Brendans article does he distinguish between those choosing a welfare lifestyle and those

1) actively seeking employment?
2) actively training and upskilling?
3) engaged as full-time carers for sick or elderly relatives (and the cost savings) with that?
Etc...etc...

Brendan had the grace to admit his interpretation of the report was wrong. That is enough for me.

 

[TheBigShort]

And I expect you will be as successful as you have been here

Didn't I give you some homework to do?

 

[Purple]

So which part of the above quotes from Brendans opening post does not identify 23% of jobless homes as;

1) not bothering to take jobs in restaurants, convenience stores, hospitals
2) all being Irish
3) being dependent on welfare

Where in Brendans article does he distinguish between those choosing a welfare lifestyle and those

1) actively seeking employment?
2) actively training and upskilling?
3) engaged as full-time carers for sick or elderly relatives (and the cost savings) with that?
Etc...etc...

Brendan had the grace to admit his interpretation of the report was wrong. That is enough for me.

I take it that post is directed as me.
If so I'll have to let Brendan speak for himself but I don't see his comments as applying to every unemployed person. A certain amount of rationality is required to avoid a literal view of everything and to see things in a moderate context.

I have covered the evolution of the discussion in recent posts, as well as suggesting that you take the evolution of the thread into account and let go of your anger at the first post.

 

[Purple]

Didn't I give you some homework to do?

That's not nice. It is patronising and antagonistic. Can we keep it civil please?

 

[TheBigShort]

I don't see his comments as applying to every unemployed person.

Yes, fair enough. So I have offered an estimate that his comments actually refer to between 0.5%-1% of welfare recipients.
I have offered data to back that up, if not definitively, but to provide reasonable indicators that this is the case.
And I contend that cutting their welfare ( brendans conclusion, supported by others) will more likely drive them further into poverty costing the taxpayer more in the long run via the provision of other social services.

Thats where im at with the 'evolution' of this discussion. Unless you have something to add to that, or to counter that, I will bow out here and leave you and others to discuss the other aspects of the discussion.

 

[TheBigShort]

That's not nice. It is patronising and antagonistic. Can we keep it civil please?

And this isnt?

And I expect you will be as successful as you have been here.

 

[newtothis]

Forgive me for coming very late to this discussion, but I’ve only just seen it. The OP starts promisingly enough, with an excellent description of the plight of the “squeezed middle”: those that play by the rules, do what they can to work hard and get ahead and yet somehow still struggle.

And who is to blame for this? those with power? those with influence? those who set the agenda? Er, no, apparently the cause of the problem is with those at the bottom of society: they have it too easy!

It never ceases to amaze me how easy it is for people to be misdirected as to the cause of their problems, whether it be to immigrants (Trump in the US) or social welfare recipients (here). If only there were fewer of the former, or welfare rates were cut, everything would be fine.

Of course, the billionaire class promoting this notion never get a mention. I note that this appeared in the Sunday Independent: I wonder what the tax rate of the person controlling it is? Or why it’s OK for billions of tax payer’s funds to be pumped into a dysfunctional banking industry and yet for anything more productive or socially useful funding is suddenly in very short supply.

A few things I’d say in response:

- If you think social welfare is too generous, try living on it for a few weeks and see how you get on

- If you’re looking for the source of the problem, look to those with power and influence and in who’s interest they act: it may come as a shock, but it’s not for those in the squeezed middle

- If you want to change anything, look to change those in power and influence, but they won’t want to give up either easily

- Their job in maintaining the status quo is made immeasurably easier by using their influence in getting people to buy into an agenda that says economic and social problems are caused by those who are at the bottom rather than the top of society.

 

[Easeler]

Brendan is right and its something that should be discussed more, why in the year 2016 can't they be a job for everyone. we should not be discussing those who want to work or not want to work. Everyone should be physically examined and given suitable employment if its only out cleaning the streets so be it. Money for nothing should not be an option.

 

[TheBigShort]

Brendan is right and its something that should be discussed more, why in the year 2016 can't they be a job for everyone. we should not be discussing those who want to work or not want to work. Everyone should be physically examined and given suitable employment if its only out cleaning the streets so be it. Money for nothing should not be an option.

Just a few last questions if I may before I bow out for good.

1) who will carry out the physical checks?
2) if its a public agency, how much will this cost the taxpayer?
3) if privately run (for profit, presumably) how much will it cost? Will an unemployed person need to fork out?
4) when you say 'suitable' employment, would that mean a qualified nurse gets a job as a nurse? Who will pay the wages, if for instance there are no vacancies advertised in the locality? Wouldnt an employer be annoyed if they were forced to take on extra staff they couldnt afford? Unless of course the nurse gets placed in a state-run medical centre set up specifically to employ unemployed medical staff? Sounds expensive
5) Alternatively, the nurse is given a job cleaning streets. Wouldnt this make all those college fees and dedicated yesrs of study seem worthless? Who will pay the nurse to clean the streets? Is there a shortage of street cleaners? Wont current street cleaners feel their jobs and incomes are threatened if all these street cleaners get pulled from the unemployment lines?

I promise, this is my last interaction on this topic.

 

[Leper]

Just a few last questions if I may before I bow out for good.

HI TheBigShort - I don't agree with much of what you say here (and there is some that I do agree with), but don't get turned off the forum. You are entitled to your views just the same as everybody else. Stay around.

 

[Deiseblue]

HI TheBigShort - I don't agree with much of what you say here (and there is some that I do agree with), but don't get turned off the forum. You are entitled to your views just the same as everybody else. Stay around.

Absolutely Leper , TheBigShort do hang around - some great contributions to this topic.

 

[Firefly]

HI TheBigShort - I don't agree with much of what you say here (and there is some that I do agree with), but don't get turned off the forum. You are entitled to your views just the same as everybody else. Stay around.

+1

Debates are healthy and this thread topic is emotive by nature however we got to 414 posts and it remained quite civil which is good.

 

[ppmeath]

Im saying 0.5 to 1% (max) welfare receipients are welfare dependent.
We can discuss my figures when you eventually produce your own based on the questions asked.

The question was how to dismantle our culture of dependency. You don't believe that it exists.

The "figures" you provided are meaningless if you don't believe it exists. Then you claim that 0.5% to 1% (max) of those "on welfare" are "welfare dependent" - which is not the question that was asked.

You "base" those figures here:

"I have expressed my view that I believe most welfare recipients would jump at the chance of financial independence. I based that on the time when unemployment reached 4% in this country. "

On "unemployment" figures:

[broken link removed]

"The seasonally adjusted number of persons unemployed was 169,100, unchanged when compared to the June 2016 figure or a decrease of 29,800 when compared to July 2015. "

Which does not show that we have over 2 million people in this country in receipt of some form of a welfare payment. The Welfare bill is 20 billion.

https://www.welfare.ie/en/pressoffice/Pages/pr110713.aspx

If you read that document you will see a range of incentives that are designed to support both working people and unemployed people.

In recent times employers and the state have also come together with plans to try and get people back to work, or retrain into new areas of employment.

But the question still remains.

Read the definition again:


"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."

I took this example from another site (I hope the OP is ok with this), it is a married couple with 4 children with one working part time.

"Employment: 20 hrs x €9.15/hr = €183/wk = €9,516/yr
FIS: (€834 - €183) x 60% = €391/wk = €20,332/yr
Rent Allowance: €1,200/mo = €14,400/yr
Child Benefit: €560/mo = €6,720/yr
Plus medical card"

Total: €50,968/yr.

The part derived from "work" is less then 10k, the rest are supports. To get this income a person would need to be earning 69k a year (I have not included Child benefit because that is a universal payment).

The person earning 69k pays:

PAYE - Standard Rate €8,560.00
PAYE - Top Rate €12,880.00
Total Tax Bourne €21,440.00
Tax Credits €3,300.00
PRSI €3,000.00
Universal Social Charge €3,541.9

The question is whether or not the family on the supports are staying as they are, because "it doesn't pay to work".

The question is has the "system" evolved from a "support" system, to a "culture of welfare dependency".

The question is how we can get this family off Social Welfare, when they are receiving the equivalent of almost 70k with the supports.

Your solution is simply to increase wages - putting this on the employer:

"Social welfare expenditure in 2012 was financed by the Exchequer (57.4%) and the Social Insurance Fund (42.6%). The Social Insurance Fund was financed through Pay-Related Social Insurance contributions from employers (73.8%), employees (21.8%), and the self-employed (4.6%)."

I can't find a more up to date breakdown.

There is a knock on effect of that on the employer and on the consumer and on competitiveness.

Another solution is to "leave Johnny as he is", because he's "not costing us a lot and he'll turn to crime costing us more in the long run".

But Johnny is the No.1 target, there are training courses designed with Johnny in mind and apart from your solution to leave him be - you still have not answered what to do with him?

I say again, that if Johnny turns down all offers of training and work - that his welfare should be cut. What do you propose?


Btw: Of course you should stay in the debate, an open mind is a healthy one!

 

[SDMXTWO]

In the country (west) where I live an awful lot of people can not afford to run two cars, let alone meet the criteria for borrowing for a new one that goes from A to B. Someone has to stay at home and mind the kids etc while the other gets piecemeal hours just to keep bills paid and food on the table. What are they to do, because at this stage for them it seems they are in a revolving hell of no future. They all cannot go to live in Dublin and the options are pretty thin around here. Dependancy on welfare is their only day to day income. I understand where you are coming from Brendan, (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) but we need some jobs that pay to live. Plenty people are well able to work but many just can not afford to get there.

Think about it, you are out of work, lucky enough to find a job, now add up the cost of borrowing for a car, tax, insurance, NCT, parts & service etc. Not easy, especially when the pay is not great. Something went terribly wrong in our society and it has spread like a cancer.

 

[PGF2016]

Cycle? Car pool? Move closer to work?

 

[Purple]

In the country (west) where I live an awful lot of people can not afford to run two cars, let alone meet the criteria for borrowing for a new one that goes from A to B. Someone has to stay at home and mind the kids etc while the other gets piecemeal hours just to keep bills paid and food on the table. What are they to do, because at this stage for them it seems they are in a revolving hell of no future. They all cannot go to live in Dublin and the options are pretty thin around here. Dependancy on welfare is their only day to day income. I understand where you are coming from Brendan, (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) but we need some jobs that pay to live. Plenty people are well able to work but many just can not afford to get there.

Think about it, you are out of work, lucky enough to find a job, now add up the cost of borrowing for a car, tax, insurance, NCT, parts & service etc. Not easy, especially when the pay is not great. Something went terribly wrong in our society and it has spread like a cancer.

Excatly and that's what this discussion is about.
I'm a fan of the quote attributed to Lincoln; "you cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they can and should do for themselves.". It was almost certainly said by William Boetcker as one of his 10 "You cannot's"
How do we make it pay to work?

 

[Deiseblue]

It's probably little consolation SDMXTWO but despite the rather admonitory thread title it would appear that the trend of social welfare payments is going to be upwards under the current Government.

It is looking likely that the OAP will be increased & the lone parent allowance cut will be fully restored.

The pressure to increase both the JSA & JB particularly for the under 26's will surely gather steam as well.

 

[thedaddyman]

How do we make it pay to work?

Start with some basics and build for the future and accept this will not happen overnight

• We fundamentally need a lesson in this country on financial management. too many people in Ireland don't know how to manage their money day to day. We saw this after the Celtic Tiger and there are plenty of examples on here of people who lived way beyond their means. Financial management should be made a core part of the secondary school curriculum so in the long term, people understand money and debt.
• We need to drive down the cost of rent (and not simply increase rent allowance) and to do that we need to increase the supply to the rental market. Too many landlords are part time or reluctant landlords. They should be made to properly set themselves up as a business but then taxed as a business on profits, not simply their entire rent taxed as income.
• We need to tackle the issue of stealth taxes. For example I know next week when my kids go back to school that we will be asked for another €100 to fill the gap in the school budget. We need to be prepared to properly fund things.
• We need to be ruthless on the black economy and stamp it out. In the long term, it costs us all
• We need to be ruthless on "cute hoors" who seem to infect every segment of our society.
• We need to fundamentally gut waste in the state sector, why on earth do the Gardaí need a band? why does RTE need an orchestra? do we really need an army reserve?
• We need to tackle the cost of child care so that parents who want to work, can work. That's not a case of simply more subsidies but work with the industry to drive costs down
• We need to reform insurance to drive cost down and stamp out the compensation culture
• We need to tackle the cost of sickness benefit, not just unemployment benefit. The state should take care of you if you genuinely cannot work but I see too many people on long term sickness and I know they are able to go to pub and bookies
• We need to be prepared to pay more in taxes to fund all of this on the basis that a rising tide will lift all boats
• we need to fundamentally support the SME sector and the self employed to make it worth people while to set up their own business and make it grow. I know there are no photo-ops for politicians because someone sets out on their own but the 1000 job factories are few and far.