"We must dismantle our culture of dependency"

[TheBigShort]

His circumstances are not "coupled" with a lack of opportunity, the factory job and the FAS course are opportunities, his circumstances are as a direct result of his failure to take up those opportunities.

If he is told the consequences of turning them down - then he is creating his own circumstances.

I mean look at your description of Johnny again:

"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."

And look at what Johnny does when he is presented with an opportunity for a job:

"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."

And when presented with a FAS course - according to you - he is more like to choose a life of crime.

Clearly we don't share the same view of what exactly an opportunity looks like - but to me, these are opportunities.

Johnny is the problem, not the lack of opportunities, which he was warned that should he not take, will lead to a reduction in his welfare payment.

If Johnny doesn't care and he has no interest in taking up the opportunities then he knows the consequences - his welfare will be cut.

If Johnny turns to crime then it is not because he had no opportunities or choices - he did.

And if you can't see that, then I'll bid you goodnight.

Thanks.

No you are right, everyone always has a choice.
But the factory job or the FAS course are subjective opportunities - that is, to you, me and most, it provides an opportunity to escape welfare dependency and provide financial independence.
To Johnny, who doesnt care, the €188 dole, is preferential to life as a factory worker or FAS trainee.
So, an option is to cut his welfare, to 'motivate' him to take that factory job.
But instead, not understanding Johnnys circumstances, outlook on life and background, johnny sticks the fingers up and (possibly) chooses a life a crime. Whether he chooses crime or not is a mute point. What matters for this thread is, by cutting his dole, has the State in anyway "dismantled the culture of welfare dependency"?
The answer is no, because of increased crime levels, additional resources are required for gardai, courts and prison services, which far outweigh the clawback on Johnnys cut welfare payment.
In turn, taxes rise, enterprise is affected negatively, and more people sign on.
Alternatively, johnny accepts his welfare cut and carries on as before or, as I said, invests in a new suit in order to commence a new career, contributing to society in a positive manner ( but only if someone actually employees him).
The point is ultimately, the clawback on welfare cuts on the likes of Johnny would be miniscule relative to the extra costs of attributable to anti-social behaviour.

 

[Gerard123]

You might want to read the earlier part about a job offer first.

I did! The question proceeding asked what to do about Johnny. Perhaps read the post where the specific question was asked and then see my post.

If Johnny refuses job, won't take help and turns to crime then I see little alternative to prison, sooner or later. To take him out of normal society, avoid harm and also the need for society to have clear rules and send a message - society will help but there are consequences also from your own decisions and actions. There may be well costs of prison being higher on an individual basis for Johnny vs welfare payments but if it stops 10 other Johnnys taking that route then money well spent to avoid even bigger problems.

 

[Jim2007]

he answer is no, because of increased crime levels, additional resources are required for gardai, courts and prison services, which far outweigh the clawback on Johnnys cut welfare payment.

This is an unacceptable proposition in any democracy. We cannot have people flaunting the law and holding the country to ransom. Regardless of the costs we must pay them, if Johnny chooses to break the law regardless of his motives he must face the full force of the laws. There is no price on our democracy!

 

[Gerry Canning]

From the threads I think the agreement is that (loafers)(tossers)(malingerers) should all be hit.

The only real disagreement seems to be on levelling out what can be construed as gainful work V Dole and how we balance that.
I really don,t think that in the scheme of things we do too badly.
Its always easier to say, Stop this, Kill that etc.
Improvement needed but I know from my area , a fair few chanchers have been docked (their?) dole.
Naturallly you don,t hear them yowling , but you can still see other chancers stealing from you , so report them.

 

[ppmeath]

No you are right, everyone always has a choice.
But the factory job or the FAS course are subjective opportunities - that is, to you, me and most, it provides an opportunity to escape welfare dependency and provide financial independence.

No, they are not. What you are basically saying is that the opportunities presented (and accepted) by the majority aren't acceptable to Johnny and if the majority view these as opportunities, to lift them out of social welfare dependency - then so should Johnny.

To Johnny, who doesnt care, the €188 dole, is preferential to life as a factory worker or FAS trainee.

So he prefers to live on the dole rather than take the opportunities.

So, an option is to cut his welfare, to 'motivate' him to take that factory job.

No, the option open to Johnny is to take the opportunities or take the cut in welfare. The lure of earning more money by working should be the motivation to Johnny.

But instead, not understanding Johnnys circumstances, outlook on life and background, johnny sticks the fingers up and (possibly) chooses a life a crime. Whether he chooses crime or not is a mute point. What matters for this thread is, by cutting his dole, has the State in anyway "dismantled the culture of welfare dependency"?

There is no instead. Johnny is on the dole and dependent on Social Welfare, the solution is to offer Johnny a job or a training course to try and lift Johnny away from a life of SW dependency - Johnny's "circumstances" are what they are and they can only be bettered and improved with either a job or training for a job. These things are available to people like Johnny, because of their circumstances.

Cutting his dole is the last resort and will onl;y be considered because of Johnny's refusal to take up all the opportunities presented to him - it is not used as a way to "dismantle the culture of welfare dependency" - the jobs and the training courses are there to do try and do that.

And if him turning to crime is a mute point:

In turn, taxes rise, enterprise is affected negatively, and more people sign on.
Alternatively, johnny accepts his welfare cut and carries on as before or, as I said, invests in a new suit in order to commence a new career, contributing to society in a positive manner ( but only if someone actually employees him).
The point is ultimately, the clawback on welfare cuts on the likes of Johnny would be miniscule relative to the extra costs of attributable to anti-social behaviour.

Then why do you keep bringing it up by using this as a reason not to cut his welfare?

 

[Purple]

I find it strange that this thread is now about a hypothetical scenario in which a fictional character may or may not engage.
I don't accept that anyone should be paid an income by the state and supported because otherwise they would become a criminal. That's blackmail. The fact that it may be cheaper isn't the point; we are a society, not just an economy.
Back on topic; It is not socially desirable that people should be trapped in welfare dependency. The objective of the system should be to raise people up, not keep them down. When staying on welfare is a viable option many people will take that option.
I know people who say "why should I work for €320 a week when I can get €188 a week and stay at home". Those people are parasites as they don't see they have an ethical duty to not live off their neighbours. The argument that we should keep paying them because otherwise they'll steal from the rest of us is cowardly and irresponsible.

 

[ppmeath]

I know people who say "why should I work for €320 a week when I can get €188 a week and stay at home

I have never understood that logic and if you expand on it these same people then decry the "pitiful" amount of Social Welfare that the "have" to try and live on.

 

[gar32]

I am sure the Johnny type is not reading this tread but out with friends trying to have some fun while drinking can's. Maybe trying to get a few bob together to buy 10 yokes and sell them on so he can have a night out or buy some hash & stay in watching some TV. When you grow up with nothing and you know no better it's hard to have to will to go out and get a job. Yes he know a few lads that did it. They got out of poverty and made enough to buy a car and a house. I grow up in Dublin city center in the 80's. Times where different for sure but most people I was in school with left before they where 14 years old. If you are not educated and you live in a place where not working is normal then people normallly go with the flow. It's better to try make sure the kids of today have an education and a will to do something other then survive the week so you can have a night out or 2 at the weekend.

 

[TheBigShort]

I did! The question proceeding asked what to do about Johnny. Perhaps read the post where the specific question was asked and then see my post.

If Johnny refuses job, won't take help and turns to crime then I see little alternative to prison, sooner or later. To take him out of normal society, avoid harm and also the need for society to have clear rules and send a message .

Why not just leave him with his dole, without cutting it? He is not involved in crime and other than the €188 a week, it doesn't cost the State very much.
Coupled with that, he does not lead a very desirable lifestyle, does he?
I mean, I don't think the country is in any danger of losing all our hard-working (including those actively looking for work) smart, intelligent people, to a lifestyle of This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language-scratcher anytime soon? Do you?

So let's stop pretending that because the State welfare bill is high, that is has anything to do with 'culture of welfare dependency' and that it has to be dismantled.

It is disingenuous not to factor in that the economy is recovering from the worst recession ever, brought about not by public spending or high wages, but by unregulated private (financial) sector speculation on a massive scale.
And yet, through NAMA and the financial services sector we continue to play footsie with speculators and bankers. There is more than enough scope to increase taxes on the financial sector without unduly hampering business that could be used for capital investment and creating thousands of real jobs.
So much so, that I hear banks are charging large deposit holders interest on their deposits now! Not only in Ireland but, Germany, Japan, Switzerland too.
Those charges should be taxed at 100%

 

[ppmeath]

Why not just leave him with his dole, without cutting it? He is not involved in crime and other than the €188 a week, it doesn't cost the State very much.

You want a young and healthy young man to be allowed to remain on the dole, drinking 10 cans a day, puffing his head off and eat crap to be allowed to continue with that existence?

It's not the €188, it's when Johnny gets ill because of the lifestyle he lived, which was funded by the state and he has to use the medical card that he already has, to avail of the health service that he will need because of his lifestyle - that needs to be paid for.

It's not the €188, it's when Johnny wants to move out, he'll need somewhere to live and that needs to be paid for.

It's not the €188, it's when Johnny meets a girl and they have children and they need a bigger place and a medical card each and back to school allowance and all the other allowances, that needs to be paid for.

It's not the €188.

Johnny is not Peter Pan.

So let's stop pretending that because the State welfare bill is high, that is has anything to do with 'culture of welfare dependency' and that it has to be dismantled.

We have a culture of dependency and a sense of entitlement. We need to stop pretending that we don't.

 

[TheBigShort]

You want a young and healthy young man to be allowed to remain on the dole, drinking 10 cans a day, puffing his head off and eat crap to be allowed to continue with that existence?

No, that is not what I said. What I am saying is that cutting his welfare will not motivate him into getting a job (or motivate an employer to employ him ) anymore him than it will push him into criminality.

We do not have a culture of dependency in a broad sense. For sure, some socially and economically deprived areas do have, but in the main there is no such culture.

A person with a family, who works full-time, but because their pay is so low relative to the cost of living can receive a welfare payment, FIS.
This is not welfare dependency, this is a subsidy to the employer who wont pay a decent wage.

 

[ppmeath]

No, that is not what I said. What I am saying is that cutting his welfare will not motivate him into getting a job (or motivate an employer to employ him ) anymore him than it will push him into criminality.

We seem to be going around in circles. But that is exactly what you are saying. Also, you seem to have ignored the part where I showed you, that contrary to your claim that it "won't cost the state much", it absolutely will.

I have to be honest, but your stance appears to be, keep people down and trapped on SW. If they don't want to work - just keep paying them the very same amount of money that someone who has worked for 20 years is entitled to.

We do not have a culture of dependency in a broad sense. For sure, some socially and economically deprived areas do have, but in the main there is no such culture.

We absolutely do, and if you read this mornings Indo you will see the extent of that culture exposed by a certain anti homeless campaigner.

A person with a family, who works full-time, but because their pay is so low relative to the cost of living can receive a welfare payment, FIS.
This is not welfare dependency, this is a subsidy to the employer who wont pay a decent wage.

But we're not talking about this family, in this case the system is doing exactly what it is designed to do, it is supporting people who are trying to stay off welfare. This isn't a subsidy to the employer, we have a minimum wage law in this country.

As I said, we seem to be going around in circles and now you're bringing in another example, which only shows that the state is supporting families, not the culture of dependency that actually exists.

 

[TheBigShort]

This topic "We must dismantle our culture of welfare dependency", followed with a (misinterpretated) report that 77% of households were funding the other 23%. Implying that the 23% households were part of culture generally dependent on welfare.

My argument is that this is a bogus assertion.
Firstly, most people in receipt of welfare would prefer their own financial independence over welfare dependence any day of the week. This is evident in the falling unemployment figure. Before someone can take a job, there needs to be a job offer.
During the boom, unemployment reached 4%, considered by a lot of economists as 'full employment' rate.
So there is evidence there, that financial independence is the prevailing culture in our society.

Secondly, the only solution I have seen proposed to this alleged welfare culture is to cut welfare. This will do nothing but drive thousands of families (most of whom are already actively seeking a way out of welfare) further into poverty. In such circumstances, the small portion of welfare recipients who cant be bothered to work, or look for work, may seek to find other ways to boost their own incomes. Unfortunately it wont be at a FAS course or some minimum wage job.
This in turn will require extra security costs for business, extra gardai, extra courts and prison services.

 

[ppmeath]

Firstly, most people in receipt of welfare would prefer their own financial independence over welfare dependence any day of the week. This is evident in the falling unemployment figure. Before someone can take a job, there needs to be a job offer.
During the boom, unemployment reached 4%, considered by a lot of economists as 'full employment' rate.
So there is evidence there, that financial independence is the prevailing culture in our society.

Absolutely agree but where we disagree, in my opinion, is when you then say:

Secondly, the only solution I have seen proposed to this alleged welfare culture is to cut welfare. This will do nothing but drive thousands of families (most of whom are already actively seeking a way out of welfare) further into poverty. In such circumstances, the small portion of welfare recipients who cant be bothered to work, or look for work, may seek to find other ways to boost their own incomes. Unfortunately it wont be at a FAS course or some minimum wage job.

I disagree - the solutions being proposed are to get people working or into training. The solutions already in place, that you have referred to are government supports, such as FIS, to enable families to come off welfare dependency.

The threat of cuts in welfare payments are a consequence of the refusal of a "minority" of people (because you agreed that most people would prefer their own financial independence over welfare dependence) to accept offers of jobs and training course because, unlike the majoiryt, they would prefer to stay on the dole, rather then take a job or a training course.

I disagree then, when you say that this is an automatic consequence:

This in turn will require extra security costs for business, extra gardai, extra courts and prison services.

They are the consequences of welfare cuts imposed on a minority of people for refusing to take the opportunities presented to them.

 

[TheBigShort]

We seem to be going around in circles. But that is exactly what you are saying. Also, you seem to have ignored the part where I showed you, that contrary to your claim that it "won't cost the state much", it absolutely will.

I have to be honest, but your stance appears to be, keep people down and trapped on SW. If they don't want to work - just keep paying them the very same amount of money that someone who has worked for 20 years is entitled to.



We absolutely do, and if you read this mornings Indo you will see the extent of that culture exposed by a certain anti homeless campaigner.




But we're not talking about this family, in this case the system is doing exactly what it is designed to do, it is supporting people who are trying to stay off welfare. This isn't a subsidy to the employer, we have a minimum wage law in this country.

As I said, we seem to be going around in circles and now you're bringing in another example, which only shows that the state is supporting families, not the culture of dependency that actually exists.

You are assuming he will become ill and be reliant on a medical card at huge cost to the State. Alternatively, given his lifestyle, he will probably be dead before he is sixty, with a sudden heart attack?

As for my stance, it is completely opposite to keeping people down and trapped on welfare. A common point in this topic is that those on welfare are part of culture and that the only solution is to cut welfare. This will act as some motivating force! It will not.

The anti-homeless campainer is involved in a campaign to provide secure of tenure for residents. Her refusal, quite rightly, was based on the fact that accommodation offered by HAP is not secure, and can be withdrawn by a landlord, after 12 months putting the individual back to square one. You may have noticed that she had a school going daughter. So not only is secure accommodation an issue, but school placement is another.
How many times should a person have to move home? How many schools should a child attend?

 

[Jim2007]

Why not just leave him with his dole, without cutting it? He is not involved in crime and other than the €188 a week, it doesn't cost the State very much.

Why should someone expect the support of the community without putting something back??? I can tell you if one is on welfare benefits here (Switzerland) one will have a fully working day a head of them every working day - going to the shops for people who can't go themselves, doing gardening task for old people, digging the
latrines for local events, working in animal shelters etc...

There is more than enough scope to increase taxes on the financial sector without unduly hampering business that could be used for capital investment and creating thousands of real jobs.

No there is not! Take a look at the current T1 ratios and you will find that the are just about acceptable and the new requirements under Basel III/IV means that they will need to build up considerable retrained profits or further government financing if they are to continue to remain solvent.

So much so, that I hear banks are charging large deposit holders interest on their deposits now! Not only in Ireland but, Germany, Japan, Switzerland too.
Those charges should be taxed at 100%

The whole point of such charges is to discourage deposits because the banks are not able to generate a return on such deposits, not to make a profit out of the charges.

Your whole idea that we should happily allow people to live of the community without making a contribution is unacceptable.

 

[TheBigShort]

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.

 

[ppmeath]

You are assuming he will become ill and be reliant on a medical card at huge cost to the State. Alternatively, given his lifestyle, he will probably be dead before he is sixty, with a sudden heart attack?

Really?

As for my stance, it is completely opposite to keeping people down and trapped on welfare. A common point in this topic is that those on welfare are part of culture and that the only solution is to cut welfare. This will act as some motivating force! It will not.

Just Johnny so and others like him?

The anti-homeless campainer is involved in a campaign to provide secure of tenure for residents. Her refusal, quite rightly, was based on the fact that accommodation offered by HAP is not secure, and can be withdrawn by a landlord, after 12 months putting the individual back to square one. You may have noticed that she had a school going daughter. So not only is secure accommodation an issue, but school placement is another.
How many times should a person have to move home? How many schools should a child attend?

Indeed, wanting a "house for life" provided by the state in your exact chosen location is not an example of our culture of dependency, definitely not.

 

[TheBigShort]

Why should someone expect the support of the community without putting something back??? I can tell you if one is on welfare benefits here (Switzerland) one will have a fully working day a head of them every working day - going to the shops for people who can't go themselves, doing gardening task for old people, digging the
latrines for local events, working in animal shelters etc...



No there is not! Take a look at the current T1 ratios and you will find that the are just about acceptable and the new requirements under Basel III/IV means that they will need to build up considerable retrained profits or further government financing if they are to continue to remain solvent.




The whole point of such charges is to discourage deposits because the banks are not able to generate a return on such deposits, not to make a profit out of the charges.

Your whole idea that we should happily allow people to live of the community without making a contribution is unacceptable.

Jim, you are right. Nobody should expect supports from the State where they are capable of providing for themselves. My point is that of all the welfare recipients out there, it is only a tiny minority (This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language scratchers) who flaunt the system so blatantly. Most welfare recipients are in genuine need, they are actively looking for work, and given the opportunity to provide financial independence for themselves over welfare dependency they would glady take it.
Those This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language scratchers, in my view, would more likely choose a criminal lifestyle first, rather than a FAS course or minimum wage job, if you cut their welfare.
In other words, its cheaper to provide a house, welfare, 52" TV, than it is to employ extra gardai, courts and prison services.
The way some people go on here, its as if they are jealous of their lifestyles. That they would rather live in a council estate, with wild horses, and bonfires, joyriding, at the weekend than where they live now.

 

[ppmeath]

Again in the other part of your post, you are agreeing with almost everyone.

However, this is your solution:

In other words, its cheaper to provide a house, welfare, 52" TV, than it is to employ extra gardai, courts and prison services.
The way some people go on here, its as if they are jealous of their lifestyles. That they would rather live in a council estate, with wild horses, and bonfires, joyriding, at the weekend than where they live now.

Can you not see the gaping flaw in your logic - you want to reward those who sit around doing nothing with a house, welfare and a 52" TV, you are saying that this will keep them out of crime.

Nobody is jealous of them, we don't want their lifestyles - why should we pay for it?