The dole is too much!!

Mary D

I could have nearly guessed your handicap!

As I said I'm not too far from the Inner City (in fact my mother is is from Dominic Street originally and I still have cousins there) so I think I can safely say I have no prejudices to reflect.

I think you should go back to the golfcourse (where you'll find most of the "suits" socailise and make your ridiculous comparsions to welfare expenditure here to military expenditure in the UK, perhaps you'll be better understood on the green.

Lockstep

Mary D wrote: »

As I said I'm not too far from the Inner City (in fact my mother is is from Dominic Street originally and I still have cousins there) so I think I can safely say I have no prejudices to reflect.

My face when I read the above:


............................................________
....................................,.-‘”...................``~.,
.............................,.-”...................................“-.,
.........................,/...............................................”:,
.....................,?......................................................\,
.................../...........................................................,}
................./......................................................,:`^`..}
.............../...................................................,:”........./
..............?.....__.........................................:`.........../
............./__.(.....“~-,_..............................,:`........../
.........../(_....”~,_........“~,_....................,:`........_/
..........{.._$;_......”=,_.......“-,_.......,.-~-,},.~”;/....}
...........((.....*~_.......”=-._......“;,,./`..../”............../
...,,,___.\`~,......“~.,....................`.....}............../
............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-”
............/.`~,......`-...............................\....../\
.............\`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....\,__
,,_..........}.>-._\...................................|..............`=~-,
.....`=~-,_\_......`\,.................................\
...................`=~-,,.\,...............................\
................................`:,,...........................`\..............__
.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``
........................................_\..........._,-%.......`\
...................................,<`.._|_,-&``................`\

starflake

Berty wrote: »

* Ahem. Finders fee please. 5%

If I'm owed anything I'll buy you a pint :D thanks a mill lads for all the help!

Irishcrx

Wow, thought this thread would have died.

Can I just clarify once again as I have before if people would read it. I am not sayING everyone on the dole is like him or a scrounger, I am simply saying the percentage that are wasters really shouldn't be paid as much and there money should be dropped in order to HELP the hard working people who have been paying for them all these years when they need it.

IE the people who cannot afford to keep their homes at the min, I have a house myself , work full time and even i've got bills and rising prices on top of my and the threat of loosing my own job so I understand.

CDfm

Irishcrx wrote: »

Wow, thought this thread would have died.

Can I just clarify once again as I have before if people would read it. I am not sayING everyone on the dole is like him or a scrounger, I am simply saying the percentage that are wasters really shouldn't be paid as much and there money should be dropped in order to HELP the hard working people who have been paying for them all these years when they need it.

IE the people who cannot afford to keep their homes at the min, I have a house myself , work full time and even i've got bills and rising prices on top of my and the threat of loosing my own job so I understand.

There are several issues - there are people who are long term unemployed who are unemployed by choice.

There are others who wont take a job because the benefit system is a disincentive to work

People like unmarried mothers have an incentive to morph into long term unemployed and an underclass because of the nature of the system encourages it. This is really grossly unfair to them.

Others are unemployable or disabled and this is another sector.

The problem that arises is that when the system makes it uneconomic to work.

THen you have the whole cost of social welfare payments -like it or not the real value of our unemployment benefit will have to drop big time as the cost to ordinary people in their taxes makes it too high to sustain.

This is not a dig at the unemployed but it is reckoned that our labour costs need to drop 20% so we can become competitive again and that will mean benefits and tax revenue will also need to fall in real terms.

97i9y3941

CDfm wrote: »

but our welfare system pays children allowance for children not resident in the state :mad:

Do we also give married and dependants allowances on the dole for wives and families not living in Ireland.

thats because we are too quiet of a nation,because of this "they are european citizens and are entilted to it" rubbish ,although i heard mary hanifan changed it to make sure that those who are drawing it are actually living in the country

CDfm

Fred83 wrote: »

thats because we are too quiet of a nation,because of this "they are european citizens and are entilted to it" rubbish ,although i heard mary hanifan changed it to make sure that those who are drawing it are actually living in the country

if you went to france or spain you would see different rules

a friend of mine working in spain moved to holland for work and unless he makes voluntary contributions over asnd above his duch social security in spain his kids will not be entitled to attend school or recieve medical care

howzat for europe

xOxSinéadxOx

the dole is definitely too high, I know people thinking the dole is looking more attractive than their job and if people are thinking that it has to be too high

Tar.Aldarion

How is it too high, you get no money to spend really. Rent, ESB, heating, food. That's it gone.

Breaktown

I think in an ideal world a lot of problems could be solved by actually doing a proper individual means test for everyone and also by improving the signing on system.

By a proper means test I mean that I am on welfare but I only get €85.90 a week because I live with my boyfriend. Welfare "means tested" me and have a standard thing where they claim he gives me 60% of his income. I don't know what right they have to say that or where they get that figure from. While I was working, we split everything 50:50. Yet welfare refused to see that. Now he is forced to support me, which I find humiliating as I am very independant. Believe me, I would rather be working. We can survive but can't save any money. I have also never been entitled to rent allowance, even before we were living together, as most landlords won't accept it.

I sign on once a month to prove that I am looking for work. Yet that doesn't prove anything. I could quite easily show them rejection letters and emails I have been getting. Those people who want to be unemployed wouldn't be able to do as easily. If welfare actually followed up on this, maybe they could reduce the money of people who are on welfare soley to sponge of the system while still allowing a fair amount of money who are only on it because they have no choice.

But like I said, that would only happen in an ideal world.

CDfm

Breaktown wrote: »

I think in an ideal world a lot of problems could be solved by actually doing a proper individual means test for everyone and also by improving the signing on system.

By a proper means test I mean that I am on welfare but I only get €85.90 a week because I live with my boyfriend. Welfare "means tested" me and have a standard thing where they claim he gives me 60% of his income. I don't know what right they have to say that or where they get that figure from. While I was working, we split everything 50:50. Yet welfare refused to see that.

But like I said, that would only happen in an ideal world.

But you live together and if you were married you would do a lot worse.

i wonder if others believe you should recieve any benefits at all -i have doubts

Call it the cost of sex and that 2 can live cheaper than 1 so your needs are less

Tar.Aldarion

And what about people that live with housemates and are not couples, why is it fair that they get more with the same costs?

CDfm

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

And what about people that live with housemates and are not couples, why is it fair that they get more with the same costs?

they are not on the same benefits:D

Tar.Aldarion

Yeah, it's haard to convince them to be friends with benefits.:mad:

97i9y3941

Breaktown wrote: »

I think in an ideal world a lot of problems could be solved by actually doing a proper individual means test for everyone and also by improving the signing on system.

By a proper means test I mean that I am on welfare but I only get €85.90 a week because I live with my boyfriend. Welfare "means tested" me and have a standard thing where they claim he gives me 60% of his income. I don't know what right they have to say that or where they get that figure from. While I was working, we split everything 50:50. Yet welfare refused to see that. Now he is forced to support me, which I find humiliating as I am very independant. Believe me, I would rather be working. We can survive but can't save any money. I have also never been entitled to rent allowance, even before we were living together, as most landlords won't accept it.

I sign on once a month to prove that I am looking for work. Yet that doesn't prove anything. I could quite easily show them rejection letters and emails I have been getting. Those people who want to be unemployed wouldn't be able to do as easily. If welfare actually followed up on this, maybe they could reduce the money of people who are on welfare soley to sponge of the system while still allowing a fair amount of money who are only on it because they have no choice.

But like I said, that would only happen in an ideal world.

unfortantly the system is not 100% either,if you are 24 and under living at home,you are asscessed on your parents income,so if your parents work and pay tax and stuff,you might not be entilted to anything,so basically the gov is calling you an ejit for paying tax or your parents should leave their jobs and go on the dole queue so their sons/daughters who are 24 and under could get the dole

carrieb

It is far too much!! 800 euro a month for doing FA.
I am living in Italy at the moment and 800-1000 euro per month is considered good money.
I was in a language class one day, full of people from all over the world, inc a lot of Europeans and the whole class sat with their mouths open when I explained how it works. None of them could believe it, there were ppl from Switzerland, Holland, Sweeden, Central America, the US, none had ever heard of such a concept.
I know a girl who was on the dole for over a year recently, shes lives at home and has no car so was loaded with the 200 per month. Had more the enough to live and save!!
She has a degree though and was finally made go to some interviews by FAS and got a job in a week. People like that drive me mad.
It should def be tested, a 20 yr old living at home who is just lazy does not deserve for 1 second to get what a 55 yr old father of 3 who has just lost his job is entitled to.
Makes my blood boil!

Stheno

alrilad wrote: »

Ive heard alot of people latey complaining that as they were self employed they cant claim any benifits. I know the dole is off limits but surly they can claim something. I am self employed and I am luck I still have work, but if this was to change am I on my own with no money and a morgage to pay. Is there anything for them?

This is because if you are self employed and a company director as a result of being self employed, you only pay total PRSI of 5% so you are exempt from certain benefits, I had this when I contracted in IT

As your social insurance benefits are averaged out over five years, with year two of the five being the most crucial in the current tax year, it can really affect what you are entitled to.

I e.g. lost dental and optical benefit, even though apart from one year out of the five I was a PAYE worker

pandas wrote: »

its not 'free money'!!!

you only get it if you paid your social INSURANCE two years ago, i.e. if you were working. you are not entitled to it if you didn't and plus you can only stay claiming it for a certain amount of months after which you are cut off!!

i think with the amount of PRSI we pay each year, if and when i will need the dole, i sure as hell hope all of the measly €200 it is there for me without any qualms.

Incorrect, see above.

Fred83 wrote: »

there is fierce mumbleing about the gov cutting payment on the dole,i would support that,aslong as people that have family/kids arent cut in the meagre payment

Personally I'm all for it, I'm willing to take a 10% increase in pay in the form of increased tax, why not do the same on the dole?

MIN2511 wrote: »

The families/Kids and old people are the first ones to be targeted in our economy....

Not true, for most of the political parties, the grey vote is too powerful, as evinced by the medical card changes for the over seventies that were revoked for a large majority following the last budget.

Mena wrote: »

If you've paid your PRSI it's YOUR money. Now what I would agree with is limiting the duration of the payments. If you worked for 10 years and paid 20k* in PRSI, then you get that 20k back, over say a one or two year period. After that, sort yourself out.


*not actual figures

No it's not your money, it's not a ****ing savings scheme ffs.

It's YOUR contribution to the social infrastructure that we need in this country such as health, education, unemployment etc etc etc, not YOUR savings for when times are bad.

CDfm wrote: »

I had the same thing.

You dont get it now with levies etc

People are loosing their jobs as our labour costs are 20% too high

Less wages leess taxes

So will you be happy with a 10-20% pay cut/increase in taxes?

starflake wrote: »

I can? I didnt know that. have p60 in front of me here.. I am totally clueless about tax and such

Educate yourself, I think something like 3 million (small change in these times) is saved by the government every year due to people not knowing what they are entitled to, and it's not exactly rocket science.

CDfm wrote: »

But you live together and if you were married you would do a lot worse.

i wonder if others believe you should recieve any benefits at all -i have doubts

Call it the cost of sex and that 2 can live cheaper than 1 so your needs are less

Bollox, complete and utter bollox, even under joint assessment, when it comes to unemployment benefit, if you as an individual are married, you are entitled to full payments once your PRSI contributions as an individual are in order, regardless of what your spouse is earning.

Unemployment assistance is different and is means tested.

Personally, with an apparent Dail consensus that we need an interim budget I can see the higher rate of tax going up to at least 45%, incentives for employers to create jobs, and no reduction in social welfare so as not to affect the least well off in society.

I've no real problem with it, it's tough times we live in and everyone needs to contribute.

If however, such measures come in, and there is no tightening on those who make maximising the dole to swan off on holidays done I shall be infuriated.

CDfm

nouggatti wrote: »

Bollox, complete and utter bollox, even under joint assessment, when it comes to unemployment benefit, if you as an individual are married, you are entitled to full payments once your PRSI contributions as an individual are in order, regardless of what your spouse is earning.

Unemployment assistance is different and is means tested.

Does this mean Breakdown getting unemployment assistance is getting a better shake to a married couple in the same cirtcumstances with the same income.

If so it is not fair.

Stheno

CDfm wrote: »

Does this mean Breakdown getting unemployment assistance is getting a better shake to a married couple in the same cirtcumstances with the same income.

If so it is not fair.

No I am talking about unemployment benefit which is not means tested, but is based on PRSI contributions.

Regardless of what one spouse earns, if the other spouse becomes unemployed, then the unemployed spouse is entitled to full unemployment benefit of 204 euro per week, once they have the relevant PRSI contributions.

I know of one couple where spouse a. earned 75k per year, and spouse b. was unemployed and collected the full UB of approx 194 per week
(2007/2008) for approx eighteen months, after working sporadically for five years. AND, when their PRSI ran out, even with means testing they were entitled to 66 euro per week, whilst spouse a continued to take home a basic of +4000 euro, not including bonuses, which were regular enough at the time.

Spouse b complained to their friends that they were not entitled to help with their mortgage lolol:D

This is the sort of stuff that imo needs to be stamped out, kinda like means testing childrens allowance.

CDfm

nouggatti wrote: »

No I am talking about unemployment benefit which is not means tested, but is based on PRSI contributions.

This is the sort of stuff that imo needs to be stamped out, kinda like means testing childrens allowance.

Would you disallow Breakdowns claim that she should be allowed full unemployment assistance then

Stheno

CDfm wrote: »

Would you disallow Breakdowns claim that she should be allowed full unemployment assistance then

Yes, if she were married, she is not, and could of course lie, but fair dues to her, she is being honest, which is something I admire.

Were she married I would personally deny her claim unless it was means tested, as she is not married the point is moot, I was specifically replying to your point that were she married it would be worse, when this is not actually the case.

The whole married vs cohabiting couples and their tax treatment is an entirely different subject

CDfm

nouggatti wrote: »

Yes, if she were married, she is not, and could of course lie, but fair dues to her, she is being honest, which is something I admire.

Were she married I would personally deny her claim unless it was means tested, as she is not married the point is moot, I was specifically replying to your point that were she married it would be worse, when this is not actually the case.

The whole married vs cohabiting couples and their tax treatment is an entirely different subject

I would treat her and her parrner as a married couple and deny her claim and assess her on 100% of his income:)

Stheno

CDfm wrote: »

I would treat her and her parrner as a married couple and deny her claim and assess her on 100% of his income:)

Ah but you've missed a vital point

She has previously worked, under the current system, if she were married, then she potentially have enough PRSI stamps to be entitled to the full allowance of any unemployed person who has paid stamps, yet as an unmarried person she is not, which is fundamental inequality imo.

CDfm

nouggatti wrote: »

Ah but you've missed a vital point

She has previously worked, under the current system, if she were married, then she potentially have enough PRSI stamps to be entitled to the full allowance of any unemployed person who has paid stamps, yet as an unmarried person she is not, which is fundamental inequality imo.

does she quailify for benefit then she would be claiming without means testin

Stheno

CDfm wrote: »

does she quailify for benefit then she would be claiming without means testin

That would depend on her PRSI contributions over the past five years, with a minimum contribution required for 2007 (iirc) to validate her claim.

If she met those criteria as a married person she would, or as a single person, what skews her case is that her partner lives with her.

Catholic Ireland still exists, even in our taxation/benefits system

Breaktown

I don't qualify for benefit because I was in college until 2007 and then I did office temp work on and off. Haven't been able to get a permanent job.

MonicaBing

I read the original post and then closed my eyes in frustration and didnt read any other posts but i agree in principle. But i was laid off in Nov and cant for hell love nor lack of bloody connections get another job, and the 22, TWENTYBLOODYTWO courses i applied for have waiting lists and i may not get them. I have 2 kids,one in secondary and one in primary and its killing me, physically and emotionally to support and raise them on the €225 i get a week from the government, I have never been unemployed before now and its so heartbreaking for me as i cant bear to be idle. So in one way im all for means testing, serious means testing but i rely on it to live on what i get from government, so i bloody need it. My council rent is €100, and my CU repayment is 25, i cancelled CCard in Dec and i've €60 left on it. I cut it in half the day i cancelled, yet it would have been a lifeline for my son's secondary school fees.
So in effect i have €100 to buy food, pay esb(i have meter), buy fuel nad pay school bus, fees, shoes etc out of rest a week?

im not asking for sympathy, i want to work, i have never been in this predicament before and im bloody lost as to what to do, i can see bills adding up before me now and no frigging way out.

97i9y3941

nouggatti wrote: »

Personally I'm all for it, I'm willing to take a 10% increase in pay in the form of increased tax, why not do the same on the dole?

if they do,do it,one way they could cut it is cut it on those that live at home with parents still or do not have any kids/spouses,least by €30-50 off it*for those that live at home*

CDfm

Breaktown wrote: »

I don't qualify for benefit because I was in college until 2007 and then I did office temp work on and off. Haven't been able to get a permanent job.

i think you are doing alright with your benefits

kraggy

ScumLord wrote: »

Jayz Irishcrx, if €200 is looking attractive to you, it may be time to look for another job. Other than that why get so upset about your friend, if he wants to waste his life let him. People in this country need to stop worrying about what everyone else is getting and just mind there own business.

But it is our business. Afterall, we're the ones paying for it.

A simple divide in the amount paid should be determined by whether or not the person who is claiming has a mortgage or not.

Someone who has no mortgage should not be getting anywhere near 200 euro a week, whether they are the newly laid off and are genuinely looking for work or the old school bum who has been lazing around for years.

Which leads me on to another criterion: The longer you are on the dole, the less you should be getting. Constant, regular payments serves nobody except the scummer who has been on it for years.

I DO realise that there are thousands of people who have just been laid off and who would rather be working. I sympathise with them but as stated in point one, of those, the ones with mortgages should be getting significantly more than those with no such responsibility (the former should get more than 200 euro and the latter should get less than 200 and the long-term unemployed should get less again).