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.
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.
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 ?
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).If the small minority were gainfully employed, they'd have less time available to engage in petty crime.
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.
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.
Of course not, thats why I said 'small minority' !!!ah come on, you can't say that the cohort we are talking about are all engaging in crime (other than welfare fraud).
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
....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.
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.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.
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
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.
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.
I missed no point. I'm talking about people committing crimes, as are you.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.
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.6. Insert brainstorm here...
"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 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.
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?