Why long term social welfare should be cut in the Budget

Status
Not open for further replies.
Brendan Burgess said:
The biggest problem I see is the issue of people who are in low paid work all their life. They lose their job or retire and their pension would be based on their fund and their age. With a 4% employee contribution and a 10.75% employer contribution, they would get very little as their fund would be very low. I don't know the best solution to this. It could be that the taxpayer doubles the contribution of the low paid
Click to expand...

Sorry Brendan, but I remain wholly unconvinced about your proposal. It reads like a private pension fund.
In the quote above I am confused as who you think the 'taxpayer' would be in this situation. Would that be you? In adittion to your contributions, in your name?

I think the following comment, in one post, highlights the complexities of the issue that I have not been able to do in 500 posts


Sophrosyne said:
I think you need to cover all of the payments made out of the Social Insurance Fund:

· Jobseeker's Benefit

· Illness Benefit

· Maternity Benefit

· Adoptive Benefit

· Health and Safety Benefit

· Invalidity Pension

· Widow's, Widower's or Surviving Civil Partner's (Contributory) Pension

· Guardian's Payment (Contributory)

· State Pension (Contributory)

· Treatment Benefit

· Occupational Injuries Benefit

· Carer's Benefit
Click to expand...


This is socialism at work, it is you, me, your colleague, your neighbour, your parents, your children, collectively standing together, contributing our collective earned wealth, to make sure there is a safety net for ALL!

In the private sector it is somewhat mirrored in the private insurance industry.
 
Shortie,

I have no issue with my taxes being used to help out those who need assistance.

My issue is with wasters; people who milk the system or are too lazy to work.

Brendan met a chap on tv the other day who wants to be a librarian or work with books; he's in receipt of unemployment benefit but seems to be selective in the jobs he wants. Get him behind a counter in McDonalds now!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Gordon Gekko said:
My issue is with wasters; people who milk the system or are too lazy to work.
Click to expand...

Gordon Gekko said:
Get him behind a counter in McDonalds now! How many more wasters are out there?
Click to expand...

Why should McDonald's employ 'waster's? Why not put him on the counter where you work? Would you employ him?
The unemployment rate is what 6.5%?, it may be made up of 'wasters' as you so eloquently put it, but it is also made up of skilled, semi-skilled workers who are effectively in-between jobs (temporarily unemployed), as well as long-term unemployed etc.

Yes, there are people who could do better for themselves, buts it's the thin end of the wedge that you are beating yourself up on again.
As I said before there is no point in the unemployed architect applying for the vacancy at the local butcher's is there?

Under Brendans proposal, if I have already contributed to PRSI, I would be fully within my rights to take time off - perhaps to look for work in the area that I really want to, like a librarian?
 
Shortie, I've seen it said before...you really need to Google "thin end of the wedge" because it's your own malapropism of sorts.

There is merit in an unemployed architect working in McDonald's if society has no need for anymore architects.

I would make working a fait accompli for the wasters by targetting them and cutting their benefits to zero.

And just for the record, I haven't worked behind a counter since I was a teenager.
 
Gekko

The 'wedge' is the cost to the State for paying unemployment benefits.
Ideally, it would be wonderful if no one was ever unemployed, it wouldn't cost any of us a cent. But reality dictates this is a cost that needs to be borne by those at work.
The 'thin end' of that wedge is the unemployment benefits being paid to the 'wasters' and 'malingers' as you call them.
The rest is being paid to people genuinely looking for work.
If there is still a need for architects , then I do not take issue with the architect who doesn't apply for the job at McD's. Instead, it's fair game if the architect is actively seeking suitable work for his/her skills.
If the architect is struggling financially it may be the case that s/he decides to go work at McD's, subject to McD's deciding whether to offer any vacancy to the architect.
It is not for you, or the State, to decide who works where and when - that is a central command type economy veering to Soviet type socialism.

Can you relate to BB proposal at all? If yes, can I ask, if everyone who works and contributes to their own social fund, for their own use, at their own discretion (at retirement, or career break etc), then where will the taxes come from to support those who you agree should receive assistance?
 
Last edited:
Hi Shortie

My proposal is that people should have an account and that their pension and other time when they are not working would be paid from that.

Those with no account would get state assistance but at much less than the current rates.

Brendan
 
I don't agree with forcing somebody who is ST unemployed to take any job at all.

They and their employer will end up worse off if forced to take an unsuitable job.

However, anybody over, say, 12 months, on JSB, JSA, then yes, they should take whatever job is available.
 
Hi Brendan

I get what you are saying. An account, in which, the more you contribute, the more you get out. So if you earn twice my salary on average, you should have twice the pension?
That is fine. But those who do not have accounts, for example, someone who is a full-time home carer. How is their income provided? From which pot? And who contributes to this pot? Presumably the taxpayer? Is this in addition to their own contributory account? Or are contributions taken from your own account to support the home carer?
 
Note that much of this debate is about the role, scope and scale of social insurance, versus the role of private insurance and private savings.
 
In this country it seems to me that you can live very well without working. As a previous poster said you should never be as well off not working as you ate working but in this country people who never work expect and often get what someone else worked hard for. This to me is wrong. Why bother working if you can get it all free. JA is a safety net, I have used it myself previously but it was never meant to be a net you never leave. It's not good for people to live like this and yet the state enables them by never cutting it off. There should be a limit to how long you get it, not something very short but perhaps up to 5 years so that you know you have to find work.
 
According to tradingeconomics.com the long-term unemployment rate in Ireland is 3.6%. LT unemployment is 12 months without work. The trend is downward.

https://tradingeconomics.com/ireland/long-term-unemployment-rate

This indicates to me that as employment opportunities improve most people, even those LT unemployed, are seeking and taking up employment opportunities.
Furthermore, as the labour force is constantly changing, it is quite plausible to me anyway, that the rate of people 's 'who never worked' is a tiny fraction of that.

In which case, if JSA or JSB is cut on the basis that there is a welfare 'culture', you are simply cutting the financial assistance of those people who are actively seeking employment.
 
TheBigShort said:
Hi Brendan

I get what you are saying. An account, in which, the more you contribute, the more you get out. So if you earn twice my salary on average, you should have twice the pension?
That is fine. But those who do not have accounts, for example, someone who is a full-time home carer. How is their income provided? From which pot? And who contributes to this pot? Presumably the taxpayer? Is this in addition to their own contributory account? Or are contributions taken from your own account to support the home carer?
Click to expand...

I think that the answer is fairly obvious. Not all of (say) my contributions would be ring-fenced for me; a proportion would be retained centrally to assist people who deserve it.

I love how misguided bleeding heart socialists dismiss people's experiences as anecdotal. My friend used to work at the airport. It was a common occurence for women on social welfare to just abandon their buggies at the airport. a) They're on social welfare; how and why are they going on holiday?! b) They knew they'd just get another buggy on social welfare and happily said as much to the airport staff.

This kind of nonsense is happening across Ireland. What percentage of the circa €20b social welfare budget do you think is paid out to wasters and spoofers, BigShort?

How many thousand "single mothers" are "living alone" for strategic reasons when in reality their partner is there every other night?

I would happily see a poor unfortunate soul in a wheelchair paid €50k a year if we could hammer the spoofers and leeches.
 
The very long-term unemployed rate (2yrs+) according to this EU fact sheet was 0.8% in 2005 when the country was at peak of employment.

(Google very long-term unemployed)

As the labour force is constantly changing, it is unlikely that the exact same people from one month to the next are very long-term unemployed.
So the people who never worked are again only a portion of that figure. So would it be beyond reason to assume that the people who never worked would be somewhere in the region of 1 in every 200 working age adults? Or in a 2m adult working age, about 20,000-30,000 people?
And if we drill into those figures is it possible that the reason they never worked is simply not just down to laziness? Other factors such as mental and physical condition?

In all when you drill it down, perhaps we are only talking about a cohort of 15,000 people who are lazy, criminal, etc.
If we cut their benefits by €100 then the State could save €100x15,000x52 weeks = €78m a year reducing the social protection budget from €19.1 bn to €19.02bn.
 
Gordon Gekko said:
This kind of nonsense is happening across Ireland. What percentage of the circa €20b social welfare budget do you think is paid out to wasters and spoofers, BigShort?
Click to expand...

I don't know Gekko! If someone is defrauding the system they should pay the consequences for sure.


Gordon Gekko said:
How many thousand "single mothers" are living alone for strategic reasons?
Click to expand...

You are again suggesting fraud. If fraud is all you want to stamp out, I have no issue there.
But the topic isn't about fraud. It is about cutting social welfare which will affect those who aren't defrauding the system too.
 
TheBigShort said:
I don't know Gekko! If someone is defrauding the system they should pay the consequences for sure.




You are again suggesting fraud. If fraud is all you want to stamp out, I have no issue there.
But the topic isn't about fraud. It is about cutting social welfare which will affect those who aren't defrauding the system too.
Click to expand...

A proverbial beggar who's picking and choosing in terms of potential jobs is a fraudster.
 
TheBigShort said:
If we cut their benefits by €100 then the State could save €100x15,000x52 weeks = €78m a year reducing the social protection budget from €19.1 bn to €19.02bn.
Click to expand...

One such initiative every year would cumulatively make a significant dent...
 
Gordon Gekko said:
A proverbial beggar who's picking and choosing in terms of potential jobs is a fraudster.
Click to expand...

I think that's a tad much now Gordon. If a skilled worker finds themselves unexpectedly unemployed, are you saying they should apply immediately for every unskilled job available rather than trying to get a skilled job in their chosen field.

Is that what you'd see yourself doing, if you found yourself jobless tomorrow? You wouldn't even spend the first few weeks focused on well paying and stimulating jobs in your area of experience and expertise? Honestly?
 
torblednam said:
I think that's a tad much now Gordon. If a skilled worker finds themselves unexpectedly unemployed, are you saying they should apply immediately for every unskilled job available rather than trying to get a skilled job in their chosen field.

Is that what you'd see yourself doing, if you found yourself jobless tomorrow? You wouldn't even spend the first few weeks focused on well paying and stimulating jobs in your area of experience and expertise? Honestly?
Click to expand...

I have savings so I could afford to do that.

But in any event, I'm talking about unrealistic aspirations. If an architect can't find work because there is no construction activity, then he/she should be compelled to work in an unrelated sector.
 
odyssey06 said:
One such initiative every year would cumulatively make a significant dent...
Click to expand...
The initiatives are pretty thin on the ground as it is. It tends to start with big notions of cutting the welfare budget and diminishing into a tweak here and there.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top