"We must dismantle our culture of dependency"

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?

I never said leaving Johnny as is, is the solution. I said cutting his welfare was NOT the solution. I openly admitted that I dont have the solution for Johnny, suffice to say, to increase spending on education and social programs for him. If he turns them down, then I admit, I do not know what to do. But this is where my estimate of 0.5-1% of welfare recipients comes in. The Johnnys of the world are a drain. But I would contend, that the savings gained from cutting Johnnys welfare would be miniscule to the costs added through the provision of other social services.
Its not that hard to understand.

But I am genuinely confused about your position in all of this, you have provided a definition, some calculations, examples of working people receiving benefits, and an official report that emphasizes the extent of assistance available to those who are in need of it.
And nothing about a dependency culture?
 
It was an error, o

which is the point that I tried to make, badly I admit.

my posts have been clear - just not to you.

Look, dont get too upset.
Nothing said here between us is going to change my view, nor your view.
I appreciate the effort you have made in actually sourcing data and information, which is relief from the gospel according to 'The Irish Independent'.

Btw, my comment re: barge pole. I know a lot of kids, young men and women, from disadvantaged areas and broken homes. Most of them are very decent but one way or another get themselves into trouble.
Their attitudes become more and more hardened as they get older, as after each training program and jobs program they get let go into the big bad world to fend for themselves. Its their they face the difficulties in competing for work against educated kids with solid backgrounds. And its there, through rejection, the contempt for the system, and employers, and life in general develops - hence the barge pole statement, their view not mine.
Not all it has to be said, some do great things for themselves.
But the cycle of poverty continues, and like I said, I dont have the answer. I have a great respect for Irish people, workers and employers. I think irish people in the main have a great work ethic and attitude to self sufficieny.
I despise the corrupt elites, who lie at the top of every sector of society, in sporting organizations, in charity, financial, legal, property, state-sponsored bodies, in the media, in the churches, who leech off the back of the fantastic efforts of real entrepreneurs, with real ideas, and who brought this country to its knees. These are the bastards that we need to root from the system.

As such I would argue strongly against cutting welfare.
 
Between 2011 and mid-2015, the Dept of Social Protection cut benefits of 14,279 welfare recipients who refused to engage with various training and employment schemes. In that time, the total of JSA and JSB recipients averaged around 340K (peaked at 380K). So that's 4%-4.5% of JSA/JSB recipients who, as a last resort, had their benefits cut. That's the percentage left after repeated attempts to get them to engage (the department does not disclose how many they started with who were not engaging but responded to efforts to get them to engage).

The reduced payment rate was introduced as a last resort following a period of “non-engagement” by a welfare recipient in an employment action plan or for refusing an “appropriate” offer of training by the Department of Social Protection or Fás.

However, it has been used in a large number of cases from April 2011 to July 2015. The total number is 14,279.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/poli...elfare-payments-to-more-than-14-000-1.2305775
https://www.welfare.ie/en/Pages/Annual-SWS-Statistical-Information-Report-2015.aspx
 
I work with a guy whose son works for a major US Multinational in Seattle. He earns $350,000 a year. If he moved back to Ireland he would pay 50% more taxes on his income.


At the moment he pays $110,000 (€97,500) leaving him with a net income of $240,000 (€212,500).

If he moves back to Ireland he’ll pay $169,000 (€149,638) including property tax, leaving him with $181,000 (€160,000)

With respect Purple, the US applies a (35% I think) corporate tax rate on company profits. And its applied, no messing. This would surely facilitate a reduced employee tax rate.
In this country we have a 12.5% corporation tax rate, with, in some instances an effective rate of 4%.
This puts pressure to extract taxes from elsewhere, unfortunately, workers are hit hardest.
 
Between 2011 and mid-2015, the Dept of Social Protection cut benefits of 14,279 welfare recipients who refused to engage with various training and employment schemes. In that time, the total of JSA and JSB recipients averaged around 340K (peaked at 380K). So that's 4%-4.5% of JSA/JSB recipients who, as a last resort, had their benefits cut. That's the percentage left after repeated attempts to get them to engage (the department does not disclose how many they started with who were not engaging but responded to efforts to get them to engage).


http://www.irishtimes.com/news/poli...elfare-payments-to-more-than-14-000-1.2305775
https://www.welfare.ie/en/Pages/Annual-SWS-Statistical-Information-Report-2015.aspx

Fair play to you Orka. And I apologize for any remark I made at you that came across as antagonistic or belittling in any way.

These are enlightening figures, in more ways than one.

Firstly, and unfortunately I disagree with your methodology for calculating your 4-4.5% figure.

You have taken the total figure of some 14,000 people over the period 2011 to 2015 and applied it to the average figure of 340k over the same period.
A more accurate calculation would be to take the average number of people who had their benefit cut over that period over the average number of unemployed.

That is, over the period 2012 to 2015, on average some 3,500 a year (14,000/4) had their benefits cut from an average of 340k on JSA.
That equates to 1.2% on average have their benefits cut. So my estimate of 1% max. was wrong.
And whilst I expect you to disagree with my calculation, and to standby your own calculation of 4-4.5% at least we know its not 14% as you previously suggested. And certainly there is not 23% jobless households living a culture of welfare dependency.

But the most enlightening thing about these figures, and I dont know whether to laugh or cry at this, is that the one thing...the one bloody thing, that posters have been calling out to do to those who refuse jobs, training etc, that is to cut their benefits, is ALREADY BEING DONE SINCE 2011!!!!!!
 
Last edited:
Folks, Orka I think has cracked it, see below.
Since 2011 the Department of Social Protection has reduced the unemployment benefit of some 14,000 unemployed by €44 (sometimes only €19.60 if on JSA).

By my calculations (dont trust me, check your own), that is €44 x 3,500(avr per year) x 52 x 5yrs, tops =
(Drum roll Orka)

€40,040,000 savings over 5yrs, or €8,000,000 a year.
This equates to about a €4 a year saving for all the workers out there.
Or 0.04% of the Department of Social Protection budget.

Between 2011 and mid-2015, the Dept of Social Protection cut benefits of 14,279 welfare recipients who refused to engage with various training and employment schemes. In that time, the total of JSA and JSB recipients averaged around 340K (peaked at 380K). So that's 4%-4.5% of JSA/JSB recipients who, as a last resort, had their benefits cut. That's the percentage left after repeated attempts to get them to engage (the department does not disclose how many they started with who were not engaging but responded to efforts to get them to engage).


http://www.irishtimes.com/news/poli...elfare-payments-to-more-than-14-000-1.2305775
https://www.welfare.ie/en/Pages/Annual-SWS-Statistical-Information-Report-2015.aspx


Our dependency culture is not just the result of our welfare rates, although that’s a very large part of it, but rather it is the result of the lack of ethical standards and social responsibility by those who choose to adopt a parasitical lifestyle.

Either way, if we have people not working who could be, that's less money for police, hospitals, medicines, schools.

I say again, that if Johnny turns down all offers of training and work - that his welfare should be cut.
 
Last edited:
You have taken the total figure of some 14,000 people over the period 2011 to 2015 and applied it to the average figure of 340k over the same period.
A more accurate calculation would be to take the average number of people who had their benefit cut over that period over the average number of unemployed.
No, that is incorrect. Average to average would only be correct if the same people were included in each year’s number (e.g. Johnny was counted in 2012, 2013, 2014 & 2015). But they are not – it’s 14,279 distinct people. We can say they are discovered at the rate of 1% a year but the % ‘offender’ is additive, not repetitive.

E.g. if in the first year the DSP did this they found 3,500 out of 350,000 – that’s 1% offenders. The next year, they find another 1% (3,500 new people) – so the total is up to 2%. Et cetera – to where they were last August – 14,279 distinct people found so far. They can’t target every single person in one year (it’s probably quite resource intense) – so this is only what they have found so far and it’s an ongoing process. If Johnny hasn't been targeted for non-engagement yet, should he not be considered part of the problem?
 
My quote was: "If we have people not working who could be, that's less money for police, hospitals, medicines, schools."

I didn't say that the main savings were to be made in reduced benefits. I clearly said the main savings would be in getting these people back to work.
There are savings to be had in reducing benefits where appropriate, and in defensive measures to prevent social welfare fraud.

I would not dismiss an initiative because it reduces the budget by only "0.04%". 5-10 such initiatives in a year, year on year, is not be sneezed at. The cumulative effects of such incremental improvements can be impressive.
 
My quote was: "If we have people not working who could be, that's less money for police, hospitals, medicines, schools."

I didn't say that the main savings were to be made in reduced benefits. I clearly said the main savings would be in getting these people back to work.
There are savings to be had in reducing benefits where appropriate, and in defensive measures to prevent social welfare fraud.

I would not dismiss an initiative because it reduces the budget by only "0.04%". 5-10 such initiatives in a year, year on year, is not be sneezed at. The cumulative effects of such incremental improvements can be impressive.

You are right, I wouldn't dismiss it either. So apologises for including your quote above.
 
You might get on to a minister on that one. Save a fortune on greenhouse gases. Lovely idea though, we did it in Ireland decades back...looking back to see the future.

Ridiculous post. I suggested cycling to work as it's something I do myself. I don't see why it was scoffed at. Now a sarcastic response from a similar post.

If cycling is a viable option (distance to work is less than 10k and you don't have to transport tools) then it's better for physical health, mental health, financial health and the environment.

In most parts of the world there isn't the choice to rely on welfare because you can't afford a second car. The sense of entitlement in Ireland is comical.

The culture of dependency will remain as long as mindsets like yours are entertained.
 
I know a lot of kids, young men and women, from disadvantaged areas and broken homes. Most of them are very decent but one way or another get themselves into trouble.

Their attitudes become more and more hardened as they get older, as after each training program and jobs program they get let go into the big bad world to fend for themselves. Its their they face the difficulties in competing for work against educated kids with solid backgrounds. And its there, through rejection, the contempt for the system, and employers, and life in general develops - hence the barge pole statement, their view not mine.

Not all it has to be said, some do great things for themselves.

Good point. I agree completely. That is my experience as well and it's hard to understand that mind-set and how deeply it colours a persons perception of the world until you see it first hand.

I regard poverty (or relative poverty; the areas/people you are talking about here) as a symptom of a social problem. As with many symptoms it exacerbates the problem but it is not the root cause. The root cause is the mind-set you outlined above. That can only be changed through education and the that will take generations. Changes to welfare etc are only nudges in a direction, not a solution. They are important nudges through.


But the cycle of poverty continues, and like I said, I dont have the answer. I have a great respect for Irish people, workers and employers. I think irish people in the main have a great work ethic and attitude to self sufficieny.

I despise the corrupt elites, who lie at the top of every sector of society, in sporting organizations, in charity, financial, legal, property, state-sponsored bodies, in the media, in the churches, who leech off the back of the fantastic efforts of real entrepreneurs, with real ideas, and who brought this country to its knees. These are the bastards that we need to root from the system.
I agree here again about corrupt elites (not about the Irish work ethic) but I include the elites at the top of the Unions, particularly the Public Sector Unions, who sat at the table like the pigs at the meal at the end of Orwell’s Animal Farm, and screwed billions in totally unsustainable wage increases out of the people of Ireland. I'd also include Doctors and Nurses and all the other vested interest groups in the Healthcare Industry which stymie real reform and engage in petty blackmail of sick people in order to get more money. They may well be worse than their counterparts in the Legal Industry. All that notwithstanding it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t construct a system which makes work pay.


With respect Purple, the US applies a (35% I think) corporate tax rate on company profits. And its applied, no messing. This would surely facilitate a reduced employee tax rate.
It certainly does not apply “no messing”. I worked on a project with a US company which was looking to set up here with IDA support. The State of Missouri gave more tax breaks, grants, supports and write-off’s than we could dream of. Small to medium private companies, the ones which employ the majority of people in this country, make small profits and so what the corporation tax rate is doesn’t really matter.
The fact that struggling companies used to get some of the redundancy payments back as a result of the Employers Social Insurance they paid but now they get nothing, increasing wages, increasing rates and charges and a severe lack of skilled labour because our schools are rubbish at teaching sciences so we end up with too many marketing consultants and not enough scientists and engineers.

In my sector the movement of control for Apprenticeships from the Department of Trade and Industry (as it was) to the Department of Education resulted in utter collapse of the engineering trades until now there are no apprenticeships available which actually train people to be useful or skilled in the sector. We are 20 to 30 years behind Germany and Easter Europe in that area and increasingly falling behind the UK which has invested massively in that area and is designing their training around industry needs, not around a bunch of teachers and academics who design training based what they want to teach.

Should everyone, employees, employers and businesses all pay their taxes? Absolutely. Multinationals included.


In this country we have a 12.5% corporation tax rate, with, in some instances an effective rate of 4%.

This puts pressure to extract taxes from elsewhere, unfortunately, workers are hit hardest.

We have the most “progressive” income tax rate in Europe and, along with Israel, the most “progressive” in the developed world. That means that despite a very uneven pre-tax/welfare income distribution we have a very even distribution after tax/welfare. We have high sales taxes and very high income taxes on moderate to high earnings. The burden actually falls on those high earners, especially if they don’t have children.


Again, lots of people work; carers, volunteers and others outside the employment market. We are talking about unemployed and employed people here (employed people including business owners, self employed and sold-traders), not workers.
 
Wow. 22 pages and still hasn't been moved to LOS...Is that a record?

I am not reading 22 pages but is everyone not really in agreement? A small amount of people screw everyone else and don't have any intention of ever working.
At the risk of getting this wrong, my summarising of where we're at after 23 pages is as follows Sunny. I think most are in agreement on this point but the discussion is mainly around how many fall into the category (somewhere between 0.5% upwards but nowhere near the 23% who are unemployed). Probably about 20 of the 23 pages are focussed on this number!
There is a welfare trap because it does sometimes pay not to take a job. Not everyone who make this choice is a waster. They are simply doing what is best for their family. Would we not all do the same? If the State wants to change this, then encourage people to take jobs.
Again most are in agreement here but a small few believe that those who make this choice are committing fraud, not simply doing what is best for their family.
Not everyone dependent on welfare is there because of a culture of dependency or because they want to. Yes there are some people who are but it is insulting to many people.

+1
 
TheBigShort, You quoted my post in which I said “Our dependency culture is not just the result of our welfare rates, although that’s a very large part of it, but rather it is the result of the lack of ethical standards and social responsibility by those who choose to adopt a parasitical lifestyle.” You seemed critical of that comment. Can you clarify why?


My view is that same lack of ethical standards and social responsibility is seen when teachers do grinds and don’t pay tax on their earnings, when plumbers and electricians and solicitors work for cash and don’t pay tax on those earnings. When GP’s skim a proportion of their cash receipts and don’t pay tax on those earnings. When companies construct complex systems to evade, or in many cases avoid, paying tax. When Medical Consultants and others in the Healthcare Industry sign public contracts but don’t fulfil them while at the same time using the resourced provided by the state to run or support their private business.
 
Last edited:
Again most are in agreement here but a small few believe that those who make this choice are committing fraud, not simply doing what is best for their family.
Committing fraud can be what is best for their family financially. That's what we need to change.

If you say you are available for work but are in fact not available for work you are committing welfare fraud.
If you say that you haven't modified your car engine when you buy car insurance but in fact you have modified your car engine then you are committing insurance fraud.
 
TheBigShort, You quoted my post in which I said “Our dependency culture is not just the result of our welfare rates, although that’s a very large part of it, but rather it is the result of the lack of ethical standards and social responsibility by those who choose to adopt a parasitical lifestyle.” You seemed critical of that comment. Can you clarify why?


My view is that same lack of ethical standards and social responsibility is seen when teachers do grinds and don’t pay tax on their earnings, when plumbers and electricians and solicitors work for cash and don’t pay tax on those earnings. When GP’s skim a proportion of their cash receipts and don’t pay tax on those earnings. When companies construct complex systems to evade, or in many cases avoid, paying tax. When Medical Consultants and others in the Healthcare Industry sign public contracts but don’t fulfil them while at the same time using the resourced provided by the state to run or support their private business.

You have identified a broad range of sectors/professionals/trades/trade unions etc that evade their social responsibilities by skimming of the top, under the table etc...etc...
And I assume you associate these people under the banner 'parasitical lifestyle'?
I presume these people could be classed under the banner of 'entitlement culture' too?
That is, the feel entitled to pocket income and not to declare it. The bonus culture is another parasitical lifestyle too. I know one hotel general manager who was up front with. At a board meeting, wage increases for hotel staff, waiters, barpersons, accommodation, cooks, etc was discussed. It was agreed that a 2.5% wage increase (in 2014) across the board would be manageable. But the general manager was left in no uncertain terms that the closer he kept wage increases to 0% that the bigger the bonus he would receive at the end of the year.

All in all, this discussion never really touched on any of these things and instead its primary focus was on welfare 'dependency'.
Thankfully to Orka and ppmeath, they have posted detail of the extent that strongly indicates that the cost to the state of those who choose a lifestyle of welfare dependency is miniscule in the round, in terms of the extra burden it inflicts on the hard pressed taxpayer.
We would have been better to focus on the cost of those who do work, but skim the system as you have outlined. The higher you go in the professional classes the bigger the pot there is to be found.
Instead the prevailing attitude amongst you and others is that it is the 'culture of welfare dependency', that is, those who choose not to work, are to blame for 40% tax, USC, PRSI etc, etc.
It is a cost, but it is miniscule relative to the scams being pulled elsewhere.
 
Committing fraud can be what is best for their family financially. That's what we need to change.
If you say you are available for work but are in fact not available for work you are committing welfare fraud.
If you say that you haven't modified your car engine when you buy car insurance but in fact you have modified your car engine then you are committing insurance fraud.

To elaborate on this, maybe there are not lazy but are responding selfishly to the incentives presented. Regardless, they are a burden on the rest of society and it's entirely legitimate for society to stigmatize such behaviour.
 
To elaborate on this, maybe there are not lazy but are responding selfishly to the incentives presented. Regardless, they are a burden on the rest of society and it's entirely legitimate for society to stigmatize such behaviour.

But this topic started on the 'jobless households', now it appears to be moving to people who actually work.

What sector of society is the topic related to?
 
You have identified a broad range of sectors/professionals/trades/trade unions etc that evade their social responsibilities by skimming of the top, under the table etc...etc...

And I assume you associate these people under the banner 'parasitical lifestyle'?

I presume these people could be classed under the banner of 'entitlement culture' too?

That is, the feel entitled to pocket income and not to declare it.

Social welfare fraud, tax evasion, insurance fraud; it’s all the same thing.


All in all, this discussion never really touched on any of these things and instead its primary focus was on welfare 'dependency'.

Thankfully to Orka and ppmeath, they have posted detail of the extent that strongly indicates that the cost to the state of those who choose a lifestyle of welfare dependency is miniscule in the round, in terms of the extra burden it inflicts on the hard pressed taxpayer.

You keep talking about provable welfare fraud. That’s not what the thread is about. Is it about a system which discourages work, which makes staying on welfare the best economic option.


We would have been better to focus on the cost of those who do work, but skim the system as you have outlined. The higher you go in the professional classes the bigger the pot there is to be found.
Probably, but that’s a topic for another thread. I find your use of terms like “workers” and “professional classes” etc to be archaic. The is a republic; we don’t have classes. I don’t think people working in any particular industry are any more or less honest than any other. Doctors are no more honest than plasterers and certainly no less prone to tax evasion. The same goes for solicitors and barristers versus teachers or builders.


Instead the prevailing attitude amongst you and others is that it is the 'culture of welfare dependency', that is, those who choose not to work, are to blame for 40% tax, USC, PRSI etc, etc.
Absolutely not. The massive levels of pay increases on the public sector over the boom years, the dishonesty and incompetence of the banking sector, the utter incompetence of the Department of Finance, the Financial Regulator, the Central Bank and various governments and the cowardice of those few who did know better and a cultural hostility to those who earn a high income, based on begrudgery and a fundamental lack of understanding of how wealth is created; Those are the reasons our country is dysfunctional in so many ways.


I have no objection to the state taking everything I earn every Thursday and Friday. I do abject to them treating my hard earned money with such contempt by wasting so much of it through incompetence and general mismanagement.

We have a young and reasonably well educated population (I’d say we are on the plus side of average) and a well developed and open economy. We should have world class public services. We don’t have them not because they are badly funded but because the state and the state sector are just no good at running things.
 
Last edited:
To elaborate on this, maybe there are not lazy but are responding selfishly to the incentives presented. Regardless, they are a burden on the rest of society and it's entirely legitimate for society to stigmatize such behaviour.
Yes, that's a better way of describing them but no, they should not be stigmatized. If we construct a system which encourages socially damaging behavior and people then behave in a socially damaging way then the fault lies with us for constructing that system.
 
Committing fraud can be what is best for their family financially. That's what we need to change.

If you say you are available for work but are in fact not available for work you are committing welfare fraud.
If you say that you haven't modified your car engine when you buy car insurance but in fact you have modified your car engine then you are committing insurance fraud.
I'm not going to get into a long argument on this Purple but I don't think it is even close to as black and white as that. You can be available for work and still refuse certain jobs, that is certainly not welfare fraud. Likewise, you may be applying for work and continually get rejected. It's impossible to put all long term unemployed into one box on this point. I believe from skimming the 23 pages to date that this is where a lot of the discussion is centred around so I'm not going to rehash it all over again but I do not like the way you're phrasing this aspect of the topic, I think it is unfair and unjust.
 
Back
Top