"We must dismantle our culture of dependency"

[Firefly]

Perhaps, or perhaps they would resort to crime, shop lifting, drug dealing, mugging, burglaries...Such behaviour would cost business extra in terms of security costs. The taxpayer would require to pay more for extra Garda, courts services, prison services. Our towns and cities would be less attractive to visit, hitting retail trade and tourism.

We have plenty of those crimes already. The money saved on giving these people less dole could be diverted to the services you have mentioned.

In some regard, there is a lot to be said for providing those (tiny minority of welfare recipients) with a free house, TV, and enough to buy booze and fags, so they can scratch their This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language all day and not bother anyone else.

Next time you see a report of a 90 year old sleeping on a trolley in A&E be sure to remind yourself that it's okay that the scrounger around the corner gets better services from the state.

 

[Gerry Canning]

odyssey,
I don,t think its that simple,
If you live in Cork ,is it reasonable to have you move to Dublin for a job that means less than the dole ? Maybe that means wages are too low ?
A lot of those coming to us are coming from places were they are largely forced to move and anything is an improvement.I do not think they are a very good example of were we should be at ?
Firefly .
I agree that (leglifters ) should get a lot less.Though I am taken with THe Big Shorts comments.

It ain,t simple !

 

[odyssey06]

Perhaps, or perhaps they would resort to crime, shop lifting, drug dealing, mugging, burglaries...Such behaviour would cost business extra in terms of security costs. The taxpayer would require to pay more for extra Garda, courts services, prison services. Our towns and cities would be less attractive to visit, hitting retail trade and tourism.
In some regard, there is a lot to be said for providing those (tiny minority of welfare recipients) with a free house, TV, and enough to buy booze and fags, so they can scratch their This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language all day and not bother anyone else.

Maybe the best place for this tiny minority is prison then, if they are so incapable of fending for themselves and likely to resort to crime at the slightest provocation?
We don't seem to be dealing with them too well at the moment as it is 'out in society', likely they are the same cohort that buys drugs, dumps waste anywhere and everywhere, doesn't pay their bills...
Ask any business in Dublin 1 about its security costs, and impact of a certain 'underclass' on retail trade and tourism.

ps by tiny minority here I am not talking about everyone on the dole, or people on the dole caught in poverty trap - see my other comments for the distinction

 

[odyssey06]

odyssey,
I don,t think its that simple,
If you live in Cork ,is it reasonable to have you move to Dublin for a job that means less than the dole ? Maybe that means wages are too low ?

That seems to suggest that the non-Irish are only working in places where unemployment was zero or next to zero for Irish citizens?
But there are non-Irish working all around the country.
But there are unemployed Irish citizens already in Dublin.
So sometimes it is that simple - and sometimes it isn't. Of course there are going to be some mis-matches, but at the moment, the primary factor is not geographic availability, its the financial equation.

So we need to change the financial equation. What can the Irish government do in a globalized world as an an EU state realistically do?
1. Increase minimum wage to get wages higher. Downside, a lot of the jobs will disappear as no longer economically viable, our competitiveness is hurt especially in relation to tourism.
2. Reduce benefits. Possible downsides of this discussed elsewhere in the thread. I don't think straight reductions would be politically feasible, but a benefits cap could be.
3. Maintain some benefits into work, or provide matching or topup payment to the minimum wage to a 'living' wage.
4. Provide a citizens payment to all citizens regardless of income level or work status.
5. Do nothing. Accept the current high levels of welfare expenditure and unemployment levels.
6. Insert brainstorm here...

I'm voting for (3), at the moment, though I would not object to (2) if done as a Uk style benefits cap.
I think (1) and (4) are options for some countries e.g. Switzerland, Norway but not Ireland.
If I thought (5) was the right answer, I wouldn't be on this thread.

 

[Delboy]

If the small minority were gainfully employed, they'd have less time available to engage in petty crime.

Also, through the inability of some to get a job and us having to import labour as mentioned above, there is a knock on impact across Society that we are all feeling. Increased accommodation costs (house prices,rent), accommodation shortages, school place shortages, increased demand on Health services and a whole other range of Welfare/Public Services etc etc

 

[Firefly]

If the small minority were gainfully employed, they'd have less time available to engage in petty crime.

Indeed - Idle hands and all that.

 

[Purple]

If the small minority were gainfully employed, they'd have less time available to engage in petty crime.

ah come on, you can't say that the cohort we are talking about are all engaging in crime (other than welfare fraud).

 

[TheBigShort]

But this suggests that there is more than a tiny minority who would defraud the system if they could, rather than pull than own weight.
Therefore, it is perfectly legitimate for the system to be constructed in such a way as to push people into work, whereas at the moment, it is pulling people away from it.

Of course more would defraud the system if the could. But that is not exclusive to welfare recipients...jeez, how much income tax would be defrauded if citizens knew that could get away without paying it?

We have plenty of those crimes already. The money saved on giving these people less dole could be diverted to the services you have mentioned.



Next time you see a report of a 90 year old sleeping on a trolley in A&E be sure to remind yourself that it's okay that the scrounger around the corner gets better services from the state.

I never said it was ok, my point was that it was probably better and cheaper for the taxpayer in the long run, to provide this welfare, than it would be to reduce it.
Maybe im a pessimist, but I don't believe cutting welfare will 'push' people into work. We cut the welfare for U25's and as far as I know we still have a high disportionate number of young people unemployed.

 

[Delboy]

ah come on, you can't say that the cohort we are talking about are all engaging in crime (other than welfare fraud).

Of course not, thats why I said 'small minority' !!!

 

[TheBigShort]

Maybe the best place for this tiny minority is prison then, if they are so incapable of fending for themselves and likely to resort to crime at the slightest provocation?
We don't seem to be dealing with them too well at the moment as it is 'out in society', likely they are the same cohort that buys drugs, dumps waste anywhere and everywhere, doesn't pay their bills...
Ask any business in Dublin 1 about its security costs, and impact of a certain 'underclass' on retail trade and tourism.

ps by tiny minority here I am not talking about everyone on the dole, or people on the dole caught in poverty trap - see my other comments for the distinction

How much would it cost to imprison people for an indefinite duration? How many prison officers, prisons, gardai, courts would have to be built in addition to the creaking public services already there.
Aside from the international revulsion to imprisoning people for 'not working', the idea is absurd and would cost more tax€€€ than what is already being spent.
BTw, criminality is prevelant across all sectors of society, its they way its dealt with is the problem.
This year hundreds of people will be brought before courts for not paying the TV licence at huge cost to the taxpayer.
Whereas white collar crime barely registers, this despite recent convictions in the banking sector for €7bn+ deception which contributed massively to thousands joining the dole que and welfare system, to which we are now discussing.
If we want to reduce tax bills and provide decent public services to those who genuinely need it, then we need a system that is uncorrupted and works for the interests of the citizen. It will be quicker, and more cost effective in the long run, to start at the top of society.

 

[Firefly]

....my point was that it was probably better and cheaper for the taxpayer in the long run, to provide this welfare, than it would be to reduce it.

I disagree about it being better in the long run. In the long run, I would imagine children from such parents are more likely to continue lead a similar life and perpetuate the cycle.

 

[Delboy]

How much would it cost to imprison people for an indefinite duration? How many prison officers, prisons, gardai, courts would have to be built in addition to the creaking public services already there.

People who commit crime, especially those who do it habitually, should be locked up. We have a large (and expensive field) up in North Dublin sitting idle that was meant to be a prison.
Build it and they will come. Perhaps even privatise the running of it to get the costs down

To use cost as a reason not to lock up criminals is a whole new level of Liberalism! Keep this up and you'll have a regular Opinion piece in the Irish Times fairly soon

 

[odyssey06]

Aside from the international revulsion to imprisoning people for 'not working', the idea is absurd and would cost more tax€€€ than what is already being spent.

We're not imprisoning them for not working. We're imprisoning them for repeat offences. I'm fed up reading about someone with 92 previous convictions!
Hard to rack up that number unless you're on the dole or a former politician.
By not locking them up, we're displacing huge costs - that should be borne by the state - onto the rest of society in the form of burglar alarms, security staff, insurance premiums...
To be honest, I think the tiny minority who are criminally disposed are already at it, and you'll probably find that the same small number are responsible for a disproportionate number of crimes.
I don't really believe the argument that if we reduced welfare payments by 25% tomorrow, that we'd see a crime surge from currently law-abiding people. It takes more than that.
But, if I did believe it, my response would be more prisons and more police, because if they are that intractable a bunch, society really cannot deal with them 'in the open'.
And regardless of the level of welfare payments, if someone is a persistent repeat offender, they shouldn't be on the streets full stop.
If we divert 10% of welfare budget to justice budget, I think we as a society would be much better off overall. It would get people working who should be working, and people who should be in jail into jail.

 

[TheBigShort]

People who commit crime, especially those who do it habitually, should be locked up. We have a large (and expensive field) up in North Dublin sitting idle that was meant to be a prison.
Build it and they will come. Perhaps even privatise the running of it to get the costs down

To use cost as a reason not to lock up criminals is a whole new level of Liberalism! Keep this up and you'll have a regular Opinion piece in the Irish Times fairly soon

What is the crime? You completely miss the point!
The point was made that cutting welfare would push This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language scratchers into going out looking for a job. My view is that it is more likely to push (This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language scratchers) into criminal activity. So you end up with a bigger public service budget and increased tax than if give them their welfare.

 

[TheBigShort]

We're not imprisoning them for not working. We're imprisoning them for repeat offences. I'm fed up reading about someone with 92 previous convictions!
Hard to rack up that number unless you're on the dole or a former politician.
By not locking them up, we're displacing huge costs - that should be borne by the state - onto the rest of society in the form of burglar alarms, security staff, insurance premiums...
To be honest, I think the tiny minority who are criminally disposed are already at it, and you'll probably find that the same small number are responsible for a disproportionate number of crimes.
I don't really believe the argument that if we reduced welfare payments by 25% tomorrow, that we'd see a crime surge from currently law-abiding people. It takes more than that.
But, if I did believe it, my response would be more prisons and more police, because if they are that intractable a bunch, society really cannot deal with them 'in the open'.
And regardless of the level of welfare payments, if someone is a persistent repeat offender, they shouldn't be on the streets full stop.
If we divert 10% of welfare budget to justice budget, I think we as a society would be much better off overall. It would get people working who should be working, and people who should be in jail into jail.

"A crime surge by law abiding people"!? Thats an oxymoron if ever I heard one.
Cutting welfare will increase the numbers of offenders. Instead of solving the problem, you make it worse.

 

[TheBigShort]

I disagree about it being better in the long run. In the long run, I would imagine children from such parents are more likely to continue lead a similar life and perpetuate the cycle.

Whereas imprisoning people has smashed the cycle of poverty and led their children to lead law-abiding, career progressing lives?

 

[Delboy]

What is the crime? You completely miss the point!
The point was made that cutting welfare would push This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language scratchers into going out looking for a job. My view is that it is more likely to push (This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language scratchers) into criminal activity. So you end up with a bigger public service budget and increased tax than if give them their welfare.

I missed no point. I'm talking about people committing crimes, as are you.
If they do that, lock them up.

So what if it increases the PS budget. Over the long term it'll work out cheaper if applied correctly i.e. no revolving doors/endless suspended sentences.

 

[Gervan]

6. Insert brainstorm here...

Since unemployed people, by and large, want still to contribute to society, could we set up that the dole is conditional on some system of community work. People would have a reason to get up and go out to "work", instead of sitting around in their pjs feeling worthless.
There could be a basic payment, seeing as not everyone would be capable of such effort, and top ups for hours "contributed" which would cover any travel costs etc, and be something to put on a cv, rather than having to put "sitting on couch for the past year".

 

[odyssey06]

"A crime surge by law abiding people"!? Thats an oxymoron if ever I heard one.
Cutting welfare will increase the numbers of offenders. Instead of solving the problem, you make it worse.

I think it takes more than a cut in benefits to turn otherwise law-abiding citizens into criminals. We're not talking about cutting benefits to Les Miserables levels, where the alternative is stealing a loaf of bread or starving.

I think we have such a cohort in society, full stop, we have a problem. The only question is whether to try to control them in open society, or whether to remove them from society when they repeatedly transgress.

My take is that the best place for such individuals, if they exist, is prison. They aren't contributing anything positive to wider society as it is, and are likely contributing a whole lot of anti-social behaviour. In that cohort, there are also likely the repeat offenders in terms of clogging up A&E wards because of drink and drugs... and it's a whole lot easier to control access to those substances in prison than in a free society.

 

[TheBigShort]

I missed no point. I'm talking about people committing crimes, as are you.
If they do that, lock them up.

So what if it increases the PS budget. Over the long term it'll work out cheaper if applied correctly i.e. no revolving doors/endless suspended sentences.

You are missing the point.
Johnny is a tosser, failed at school, never worked a day, has no social skills, is from a broken home. Johnny smokes rollie tobacco, drinks 10 cans of Tuborg a day, eats fozen processed food and plays Xbox most of the day. He doesn't care, he collects his €188 a week off the taxpayer and gives two fingers.
But he hasnt committed a crime.
The Social call him up and say that they have a job interview for him as a factory worker. He turns up for the interview but is clearly so uninterested that the employer refuses to give him the job.
So what do we do about Johnny?
We can take his welfare off him, or even cut it? And its possible that Johnny turns over a new leaf, invests in a new suit, and sets off trying to build himself a career.
Or, Johnny can decide rather than smoking rollies, he could sell some, make a few quid on the black market. Not only that, he sees an opportunity to sell other 'gear'. Its easy work and easy money, johnny doesnt care.
In the meantime, the State, having saved €5,000-€10,000 in welfare payments, pays that in Garda overtime to catch Johnny and his mates dealing. When they do catch Johnny, the States forks out €2,000 in free legal aid. When convicted, the State pays a further €10,000 for the week in prison. Johnny gets out and starts dealing again.

Of course, not everyone will act this way upon their welfare being cut, some people, perhaps graduates for example, might emigrate, reducing the talent pool in the country.