"We must dismantle our culture of dependency"

TheBigShort said:
This will act as some motivating force! It will not.
Click to expand...

Why should we actually care what they do? Seriously, if someone has been given benefits while seeking work, training opportunities, welfare payments in exchange for community service etc... and instead they decide to try and sponge of the community, why should we be bothered about their decision????

TheBigShort said:
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 Her refusal, quite rightly, was based on the fact that accommodation offered by HAP is not secure, and can be withdrawn by a landlord, after 12 months putting the individual back to square one.
Click to expand...

Temporary accommodation should be exactly that, it is there to help one get over a difficult situation not as an alternative to addressing one's situation. Now such accommodation might be needed for a few weeks to a few years and that is OK because it often takes time to work through a situation.

TheBigShort said:
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?
Click to expand...

So how is this any different to any other family living in rented accommodation, struggling with mortgage payments, facing the prospects of repossession???

Quite frankly your since of entitlement is staggering!
 
ppmeath said:
Again in the other part of your post, you are agreeing with almost everyone.

However, this is your solution:



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?
Click to expand...

You have low expectations if somehow a 52" TV is considered a 'reward'. But I have offered my solution, or rather preferred option to welfare cuts, but I dont see alternatives being proposed other than cutting welfare.
I have argued why I think that is a bad idea, perhaps others will show how it would be a good idea?
 
TheBigShort said:
In other words, its cheaper to provide a house, welfare, 52" TV, than it is to employ extra gardai, courts and prison services.
Click to expand...

We don't want to live in a community where we must pay people not to be criminals, where community projects go undone because taxes have to be diverted to this lark. It cuts the heart out of the community.

TheBigShort said:
The way some people go on here, its as if they are jealous of their lifestyles.
Click to expand...

And I would say it is a since of indignation that some people expect the community to finance their lifestyle without making an contribution to society.
 
Jim2007. There is a small chohort of people in this State that live off a culture of welfare dependency. They will not work, have no interest in working.
If you take away their welfare, they will find other means (other than working) to finance their lifestyles. So even though the State will save on welfare payments (what this thread is about) expect your taxes to rise anyway due to the costs of hiring more gardai, more court and prison servies. Expect your house insurance to rise due to burglaries. Expect business costs to rise for added security etc...etc..

This is nothing compared to the 23% implied at the start of this thread. Most of whom are actively seeking to work, train, etc in order to better themselves.

For sure, some play the system and exploit it, but in the round the cost is miniscule compared to the costs offered by proposals here.
 
Jim2007 said:
We don't want to live in a community where we must pay people not to be criminals, where community projects go undone because taxes have to be diverted to this lark. It cuts the heart out of the community.



And I would say it is a since of indignation that some people expect the community to finance their lifestyle without making an contribution to society.
Click to expand...

So what do you propose?
 
TheBigShort said:
You have low expectations if somehow a 52" TV is considered a 'reward'. But I have offered my solution, or rather preferred option to welfare cuts, but I dont see alternatives being proposed other than cutting welfare.
I have argued why I think that is a bad idea, perhaps others will show how it would be a good idea?
Click to expand...

Sorry, let me please clarify what I said because you seem to have a habit of responding to things that I didn't say.

You stated:

"In other words, its cheaper to provide a house, welfare, 52" TV, than it is to employ extra gardai, courts and prison services."

to which I responded:

"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

If you think that my "expectations" are low, when I view a house, welfare and a 52 " TV as "rewards", then by the same token I would have to say that your "expectations" and your sense of entitlement is off the chart.

I think we've gone around this enough times. Have a nice afternoon.
 
TheBigShort said:
You have low expectations if somehow a 52" TV is considered a 'reward'. But I have offered my solution, or rather preferred option to welfare cuts, but I dont see alternatives being proposed other than cutting welfare.
I have argued why I think that is a bad idea, perhaps others will show how it would be a good idea?
Click to expand...

Well I can tell you what we do here:

Once off unemployment benefits, which is usually 400 working days, you have zero entitlements. Once you have consumed all your resources, including flogging the 52" TV on eBay you can apply to the community welfare officer who will decide what you need to have in order to live in that community as there are no automatic entitlements. If you are a young person who can't move back to live with parents, then you will be allocated a place in a dorm or if it is family a set of rooms to replace your rented accommodation. If say your daughter's class is going on a school field trip then the community will pay for this, you'll get food vouchers, cloths vouchers etc... but very little cash. In return you will be expected to work for the community and to pay them back once you have recovered your situation. A member of the community, usually a neighbour will be appointed to supervise you during the period. Their job is to make representations to the community on your behalf when you need something - like for instance your car needs to be repaired, that is assuming the community has agreed that you need a car in the first place.

Going on social support is something very few people do over here and when they do the are highly motivated to get off it ASAP. Very often the solution is to move to somewhere else and find a job. In the case of unskilled workers that often turns out to be a farm labour or maintenance work in the mountains.
 
TheBigShort said:
So what do you propose?
Click to expand...

If someone does not what to be part of the community that is fine, it's their choice. If those people then decide to be come criminals they should expect to fee the full force of the law and if that means we have to pay a bit more, then fine, it is more healthy for the community as a whole in the long run.
 
Im a bit puzzled I have to say. How much does it cost the Swiss taxpayer to supply a 'set of rooms' to a family, along with my food and clothes vouchers, on a weekly basis.
My daughter takes piano lessons currently at €40 a pop, would that be covered also?
What would happen if your community decided you dont need a car, or that they wont pay for repairs? What do you do then?

Some aspects sound reasonable but I dont see how it would end 'welfare dependency' if it was a case that someone wasnt bothered to work.
For those who are actively seeking work (like the vast majority of welfare dependants here) then it sounds like they would be provided with their social needs, which no doubt cost a bit. So I dont really get the point.

A lot of people are on social supports here but they are motivated to get off it. Its easy to say, go get a job, but in order to work, there has to be a job offer.

Id like to know the cost of the Swiss welfare schemes, including clothes and food vouchours, relative to Irish welfare payments.
 
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/poverty_fight-over-benefits-and-living-on-little-money/37977838

Sounds like headache in Switzerland. Due to variance in approach by each canton, trying to measure welfare assistance is not easy.

For instance, in this article, the lady lives in a 2 bed flat with $1,120 a month. I don't know if she gets food and clothing vouchers on top of that, or car repairs too?

Strangely, one of contributors to the article reckons Switzerlands welfare system contrbutes to a 'free loader' system and 'puts too much strain on the taxpayer'.

And there was me thinking you had a proposal that dismantled such a welfare culture!
 
Last edited:
ppmeath said:
Sorry, let me please clarify what I said because you seem to have a habit of responding to things that I didn't say.

You stated:

"In other words, its cheaper to provide a house, welfare, 52" TV, than it is to employ extra gardai, courts and prison services."

to which I responded:

"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

If you think that my "expectations" are low, when I view a house, welfare and a 52 " TV as "rewards", then by the same token I would have to say that your "expectations" and your sense of entitlement is off the chart.

I think we've gone around this enough times. Have a nice afternoon.
Click to expand...

I dont want to reward anyone for not contributing when they have the ability to do so. But in the real world, for a multitude of variable reasons, some people choose that lifestyle.
In the absence of any concrete proposal to get them change their ways, and cutting their welfare is a dumb costly proposal for reasons I have outlined, then paying their welfare is the best of a bad lot.

This, taking into account that the vast majority of welfare recipients would choose financial independence over welfare dependency, puts lie to the title of this thread and its underlying intentions.
 
Jim2007 said:
Well I can tell you what we do here:

Once off unemployment benefits, which is usually 400 working days, you have zero entitlements. Once you have consumed all your resources, including flogging the 52" TV on eBay you can apply to the community welfare officer who will decide what you need to have in order to live in that community as there are no automatic entitlements. If you are a young person who can't move back to live with parents, then you will be allocated a place in a dorm or if it is family a set of rooms to replace your rented accommodation. If say your daughter's class is going on a school field trip then the community will pay for this, you'll get food vouchers, cloths vouchers etc... but very little cash. In return you will be expected to work for the community and to pay them back once you have recovered your situation. A member of the community, usually a neighbour will be appointed to supervise you during the period. Their job is to make representations to the community on your behalf when you need something - like for instance your car needs to be repaired, that is assuming the community has agreed that you need a car in the first place.

Going on social support is something very few people do over here and when they do the are highly motivated to get off it ASAP. Very often the solution is to move to somewhere else and find a job. In the case of unskilled workers that often turns out to be a farm labour or maintenance work in the mountains.
Click to expand...


Which is the type of system that we want here. Prior to the welfare cuts to under 26 years olds, I could never quite grasp the logic of handing an 18 year old €188 per week. Absolutely crazy and the best thing that could be done was cutting that.

Although I still think that €100 euro per week is way too much to give to someone who has never worked, who still lives at home and when you think that his parent received €140 a month, one would imagine that one way to tackle this would be to extend what is "child" benefit to a "lazy teenager" benefit, payable to the parent for a defined period, stopping if the teen hasn't either found a job or gone to college, and replacing it with a training or college payment if they have.

Incentive for the teen to earn or learn and an incentive for the parent to guide the teen to take up something, rather then sitting at home and doing nothing.
 
ppmeath said:
Which is the type of system that we want here. Prior to the welfare cuts to under 26 years olds, I could never quite grasp the logic of handing an 18 year old €188 per week. Absolutely crazy and the best thing that could be done was cutting that.

Although I still think that €100 euro per week is way too much to give to someone who has never worked, who still lives at home and when you think that his parent received €140 a month, one would imagine that one way to tackle this would be to extend what is "child" benefit to a "lazy teenager" benefit, payable to the parent for a defined period, stopping if the teen hasn't either found a job or gone to college, and replacing it with a training or college payment if they have.

Incentive for the teen to earn or learn and an incentive for the parent to guide the teen to take up something, rather then sitting at home and doing nothing.
Click to expand...

Except child benefit stops at the age of 18, so the parent isnt in receipt of the €140 anymore. Perhaps it is this misunderstanding of how the welfare system works that has people believing in the headline tripe.
Also, my understanding is that participation rates of school leavers to third level education or equivalent are quite high in this country. Which backs up my view that most people are prepared and willing to do something for themselves. Which undermines the deliberately misinformed and disingenuous title of this topic.
 
TheBigShort said:
Except child benefit stops at the age of 18, so the parent isnt in receipt of the €140 anymore. Perhaps it is this misunderstanding of how the welfare system works that has people believing in the headline tripe.
Click to expand...

You really should try to read what I wrote, clearly you misunderstood, I said that when you consider that the parent received €140 per month up to the time the "child" reached 18, and on doing so the "adult" who is still living at home used to be entitled to (means tested of course) €188 a week, now reduced to €100 - the point still stands.

The parent's income has reduced by €140 and the "lazy teen" is being handed €100 a week - for nothing.

TheBigShort said:
Also, my understanding is that participation rates of school leavers to third level education or equivalent are quite high in this country. Which backs up my view that most people are prepared and willing to do something for themselves.
Click to expand...

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/some-99-of-dublin-6-students-go-on-to-third-level-1.1901885

"Provisional figures from the [broken link removed] (HEA) show that only 15 per cent of young people from Dublin 17 – covering [broken link removed] and[broken link removed] – go on to third level.

And only 16 per cent of those in Dublin 10 – encompassing [broken link removed] and[broken link removed] – do likewise.

This compares to 99 per cent of school leavers in Dublin 6, an area that includes Ranelagh and Rathmines, and 84 per cent in Dublin 4."
 
ppmeath said:
You really should try to read what I wrote, clearly you misunderstood, I said that when you consider that the parent received €140 per month up to the time the "child" reached 18, and on doing so the "adult" who is still living at home used to be entitled to (means tested of course) €188 a week, now reduced to €100 - the point still stands.

The parent's income has reduced by €140 and the "lazy teen" is being handed €100 a week - for nothing.



http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/some-99-of-dublin-6-students-go-on-to-third-level-1.1901885

"Provisional figures from the [broken link removed] (HEA) show that only 15 per cent of young people from Dublin 17 – covering [broken link removed] and[broken link removed] – go on to third level.

And only 16 per cent of those in Dublin 10 – encompassing [broken link removed] and[broken link removed] – do likewise.

This compares to 99 per cent of school leavers in Dublin 6, an area that includes Ranelagh and Rathmines, and 84 per cent in Dublin 4."
Click to expand...

Apologies, my mistake re, child benefit.
Im not really sure what your point is in identifying certains areas of Dublin and third level participation rates in those areas?
 
*sigh*.

TheBigShort said:
Also, my understanding is that participation rates of school leavers to third level education or equivalent are quite high in this country. Which backs up my view that most people are prepared and willing to do something for themselves. Which undermines the deliberately misinformed and disingenuous title of this topic.
Click to expand...

That is the point.
 
ppmeath said:
*sigh*.



That is the point.
Click to expand...

So some parts of Dublin are high, some parts are not so high, for third level education.

My point was that it was my understanding that school leaver participation in third level education or equivalent ( FAS courses and apprenticeships or employment) was high in this country (not in randomly selected areas).

So again....what point are you trying to make?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top