Cut the dole!! Way too many leeches

bigeasyeah

Fitting response so.

irish_bob

bigeasyeah wrote: »

Well who are these people? does one have a family? Is all they have in common is their unemployment? Can you post a link? Can this reader be cited as unbiased? Im not being smart- Im genuinely interested.I want to read that letter.

if your asking me whether or not thier is anyone in the north who along with being unemployed and on 60 pounds a week , also has kids , i would say that thier are probably many who have kids and are on the dole

as regards the letter writers facts being biased , the rate of dole payments both north and south are on public record for all to see

thebman

lmimmfn wrote: »

In all honesty theres absolutely 0 point in going through each and every benefit on both sides simply because they all differ bar base payment.

The cost of living is neglible if someone on the dole is receiving most of their rent on rent allowance and can shop up north in any shape or form

Pardon me for saying so but I think that is a load of crap and cope out excuse because it doesn't suit your argument.

The only thing that matters is the overall benefits given to each. Its just that this isn't as easy to work out. Well when you are talking about leaving people to go hungry or not be able to pay rent, I say these are very significant factors that just can't be ignored because they are difficult to work out.

Rent allowance was cut by 8% in the budget and many landlords in the south don't accept it. It needs to be made mandatory with a reporting system in place for people to report when their landlords refuse to accept rent allowance before you can say unemployed people are getting rent allowance.

Put it like this, its possible on welfare to stay at home looking after 2 kids, have a working partner on the black and get 700euro per week on all the welfare + whatever is earned black.

I doubt that will be the case come September if it is even the case now. I think you need to break down your example by benefit before it will make any sense to other people. You also need to state if any of these are means tested as that would mean they might not get the amount you state they would get in which case it would be a misleading example.

bigeasyeah

irish_bob wrote: »

if your asking me whether or not thier is anyone in the north who along with being unemployed and on 60 pounds a week , also has kids , i would say that thier are probably many who have kids and are on the dole

as regards the letter writers facts being biased , the rate of dole payments both north and south are on public record for all to see

This record of dole payments you mention-why did you mention it? Surely your not implying that the author of the aforementioned letter had access to this information and used it to substantiate their claims.
To cite a letter which no one else can have access to makes any reference to it void.
'i would say that their probably...' This is mere speculation.Your claims should be backed up with more than only anecdotes.

MikeC101

thebman wrote: »

Rent allowance was cut by 8% in the budget and many landlords in the south don't accept it. It needs to be made mandatory with a reporting system in place for people to report when their landlords refuse to accept rent allowance before you can say unemployed people are getting rent allowance.

There's a few problems with making rent allowance compulsory to accept though. It would be pretty difficult to implement - for one, it's generally below market levels for rent - so if a landlord has the option of taking rent allowance or a higher amount in cash which will he go for? Equally it's kind of hard to enforce - how do you prove that a landlord picked a non rent allowance tenant over one on rent allowance solely because of the rent allowance? And it is his private property, he can't really be forced into accepting a tenant he doesn't want (as far as I'm aware private rentals are exempt from discrimination laws?).

It's a tough situation - in theory rent allowance should be preferable, as it's a guaranteed payment from the health board into the landlords account, in practice it isn't due to the problems (whether real or imagined) it may bring in the landlords view.

Dublin_Gunner

MikeC101 wrote: »

Equally it's kind of hard to enforce - how do you prove that a landlord picked a non rent allowance tenant over one on rent allowance solely because of the rent allowance? And it is his private property, he can't really be forced into accepting a tenant he doesn't want (as far as I'm aware private rentals are exempt from discrimination laws?).

All you have to do is go to daft.ie or other similar sites to see accomodation for rent, where it implicitly states 'Rent Allowance Not Accepted'.

Its up to the landlord who they rent their property to, and for how much.

Back to the dole argument for a minute though - I really think they need to tighten the system up.

While I don't agree that it should be slashed across the board, I do believe they need to clamp down on who qualifies / doesn't.

The amount of 'dole heads' you see around the place that you know have never had a job in their lives, yet can afford to go to the off licence just about every day for a few beers and smokes with their mates - I used to see it all the time when I managed an off licence a few years ago.

I would propose that after 1 year, somebody's dole application should be reviewed - and it should have to be proven that they are actively looking for work, with written refusals from job applications presented in order to continue receiving the same level of benefit.

If this cannot be proven, their dole payments should be halved in the second year, then benefits taken away altogether by the 3rd year if proof cannot be shown that they are looking for work.

There is no reason that a work capable person should be off work for more than a year without some form of disability - there are plenty of jobs, just not maybe the high paying ones that people seem to think they'll eventually get if they wait long enough.

At the moment, people do not have incentive for looking for work. The reason being that minimum wage barely pays over dole levels when tax and posible travel costs / lunch etc are taken into account.

So should minimum wage be increased? Or perhaps unemployment benefit reduced?

Either way the system doesn't work, and the government feel the need to punish those that actually bother earning a living, all the while supporting those that don't offer anything to society.

thebman

MikeC101 wrote: »

There's a few problems with making rent allowance compulsory to accept though. It would be pretty difficult to implement - for one, it's generally below market levels for rent - so if a landlord has the option of taking rent allowance or a higher amount in cash which will he go for? Equally it's kind of hard to enforce - how do you prove that a landlord picked a non rent allowance tenant over one on rent allowance solely because of the rent allowance? And it is his private property, he can't really be forced into accepting a tenant he doesn't want (as far as I'm aware private rentals are exempt from discrimination laws?).

It's a tough situation - in theory rent allowance should be preferable, as it's a guaranteed payment from the health board into the landlords account, in practice it isn't due to the problems (whether real or imagined) it may bring in the landlords view.

Well if you ban advertising that you don't accept it that is step one (just look at ads on daft).

Then he can't say it as a reason not to accept a viewer of the house although rent allowance shouldn't come up in the conversation much like age shouldn't come up in a job interview.

If he accepts the person to move in but later withdraws then he has little grounds other than because the person offered rent allowance since he already met them and interviewed/questioned them and checked references in which case they should be allowed take them to the small claims court for compensation of wasting their time and discrimination and should be fined for not accepting rent allowance.

Dublin_Gunner

thebman wrote: »

If he accepts the person to move in but later withdraws then he has little grounds other than because the person offered rent allowance since he already met them and interviewed/questioned them and checked references in which case they should be allowed take them to the small claims court for compensation of wasting their time and discrimination and should be fined for not accepting rent allowance.

Thats just silly. In reality if you're renting your own private dwelling, its your choice who to rent it too - discrimination or not, its a private rental agreement that must be entered into, and while general law of contract would apply, discrimination does not.

thebman

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

The amount of 'dole heads' you see around the place that you know have never had a job in their lives, yet can afford to go to the off licence just about every day for a few beers and smokes with their mates - I used to see it all the time when I managed an off licence a few years ago.

I think you could reduce welfare if you could force them to accept rent allowance so that would give them less money to throw around. Half the problem seems to be that there seems to be an acceptance that landlords shouldn't have to accept rent allowance so people should be able to live on the dole alone. However this is not reasonable IMO. The system is overly generous. Either make it compulsory to accept rent allowance or cut it altogether IMO.

I would propose that after 1 year, somebody's dole application should be reviewed - and it should have to be proven that they are actively looking for work, with written refusals from job applications presented in order to continue receiving the same level of benefit.

A problem with that is employers often don't get back to people especially if they have many applications. They only offer the job to someone especially for high paying jobs or high profile jobs. I think that needs to be stopped too. HR departments should do their jobs and if you could make that compulsory you could introduce such a system.

There is no reason that a work capable person should be off work for more than a year without some form of disability - there are plenty of jobs, just not maybe the high paying ones that people seem to think they'll eventually get if they wait long enough.

I disagree, there is a genuine shortage of jobs at the moment with people with qualifications working in Burger Kings when they used to be solicitors.

At the moment, people do not have incentive for looking for work. The reason being that minimum wage barely pays over dole levels when tax and posible travel costs / lunch etc are taken into account.

So should minimum wage be increased? Or perhaps unemployment benefit reduced?

We all know unemployment should be reduce and there is only one reason the government don't do it. Allowing people to scam welfare essentially buys them votes.

thebman

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

Thats just silly. In reality if you're renting your own private dwelling, its your choice who to rent it too - discrimination or not, its a private rental agreement that must be entered into, and while general law of contract would apply, discrimination does not.

Cool, rent a room. Tell someone you won't rent to them because of the colour of their skin.

Watch what happens next. Not renting to someone because they offer rent allowance as part payment is discrimination based on the assumption they are no good because they don't have a job.

Dublin_Gunner

I disagree, there is a genuine shortage of jobs at the moment with people with qualifications working in Burger Kings when they used to be solicitors.

But thats exactly my point. There ARE jobs - just not as many of the high paying jobs that those people once had. Surely working in Burger King et al to earn money should be better than claiming benefits eh?

Dublin_Gunner

thebman wrote: »

Cool, rent a room. Tell someone you won't rent to them because of the colour of their skin.

Watch what happens next. Not renting to someone because they offer rent allowance as part payment is discrimination based on the assumption they are no good because they don't have a job.

Nope, you just say you've accepted an offer from another applicant.

You can advertise that you do not accept rent allowance without any repercussions.

MikeC101

thebman wrote: »

Well if you ban advertising that you don't accept it that is step one (just look at ads on daft).

Then he can't say it as a reason not to accept a viewer of the house although rent allowance shouldn't come up in the conversation much like age shouldn't come up in a job interview.

If he accepts the person to move in but later withdraws then he has little grounds other than because the person offered rent allowance since he already met them and interviewed/questioned them and checked references in which case they should be allowed take them to the small claims court for compensation of wasting their time and discrimination and should be fined for not accepting rent allowance.

How can you prove the landlord "accepted" you? He won't sign contracts until he's checked your references - at which point he'll surely find out if you're on rent allowance or not - and anyway he's perfectly entitled to refuse to rent to you on any grounds, it's his private property, discrimination law doesn't come into it. If he wants to refuse to rent to you on the grounds that he thinks your hair is too long, or doesn't like your shoes - he can.

It's not an ideal situation, but I don't see a really workable solution to it.

thebman

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

But thats exactly my point. There ARE jobs - just not as many of the high paying jobs that those people once had. Surely working in Burger King et al to earn money should be better than claiming benefits eh?

No there are less jobs everywhere not just high paying jobs.

Please post a list of all these many hundreds of thousands of jobs that are available.

You think only one solicitor or highly qualified person has gone for that job? Get real and look around you.

Economy is falling apart. If there are less people employed in high paying jobs, there are less people to buy sandwiches at the local deli and they let people go instead of taking more on too. It all has a knock on effect.

Dublin_Gunner

thebman wrote: »

No there are less jobs everywhere not just high paying jobs.

Less, yes. None? No.

Jobs?? Oh yeah..

http://www.irishjobs.ie/

http://jobsearch.monster.ie/Browse.aspx

http://www.recruitireland.com/hotjobs/

thebman

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

Less, yes. None? No.

Jobs?? Oh yeah..

http://www.irishjobs.ie/

http://jobsearch.monster.ie/Browse.aspx

http://www.recruitireland.com/hotjobs/

Less jobs than people unemployed is the problem not that there aren't any jobs.

Christ some people just refuse to see whats starring them in the face sometimes.

Yeah I used to work for one of those sites so you don't need to link me to them. I know exactly what the state of jobs in this country is at the moment.

thebman

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

Nope, you just say you've accepted an offer from another applicant.

You can advertise that you do not accept rent allowance without any repercussions.

For gods sake that was the very first change I suggested be made to the current system. It should be illegal to advertise that rent allowance isn't accepted. It is now more okay than no Irish need apply.

MikeC101 wrote: »

How can you prove the landlord "accepted" you? He won't sign contracts until he's checked your references - at which point he'll surely find out if you're on rent allowance or not - and anyway he's perfectly entitled to refuse to rent to you on any grounds, it's his private property, discrimination law doesn't come into it. If he wants to refuse to rent to you on the grounds that he thinks your hair is too long, or doesn't like your shoes - he can.

It's not an ideal situation, but I don't see a really workable solution to it.

You can have a witness to the viewing.

He isn't perfectly entitled to refuse you on those grounds or at least shouldn't be. It is not okay to say I'm not going to rent to you because you don't like someones shoes because it has no effect on the persons ability to pay or how he will treat your property and any suspicions you may have are assumptions and therefore discriminatory. I'm not working within the current system, I'm suggesting we amend it so this is the case.

It isn't just private property. You have opened it up to the public to rent from you so you must obey public laws governing rented property.

MikeC101

thebman wrote: »

For gods sake that was the very first change I suggested be made to the current system. It should be illegal to advertise that rent allowance isn't accepted. It is now more okay than no Irish need apply.



You can have a witness to the viewing.

He isn't perfectly entitled to refuse you on those grounds or at least shouldn't be. It is not okay to say I'm not going to rent to you because you don't like someones shoes because it has no effect on the persons ability to pay or how he will treat your property and any suspicions you may have are assumptions and therefore discriminatory. I'm not working within the current system, I'm suggesting we amend it so this is the case.

It isn't just private property. You have opened it up to the public to rent from you so you must obey public laws governing rented property.

A witness to the viewing? How would that work? Set up a government agency and have someone present at every viewing? It's unfortunate, and I'd agree with the idea that it's very unfair that so many landlords won't even consider rent allowance, but if you attempted to impose this sort of restriction it would cause all sorts of problems.

Would a landlord be obliged to accept any tenant that applied, unless he could prove he wasn't discriminating against him in any way?

Regardless of what you may believe by offering to rent property a landlord is NOT "opening it to the public" he is offering an invitation to interested parties to meet and then negotiate a private agreement. It's still his private property, he's not forced to follow discrimination laws, and he can refuse anyone he wants, for any reason he wants.

Though to be perfectly honest a big reason for landlords not accepting rent allowance is that they're not registered as landlords, or declaring the income. Also the rates for rent allowance are usually below market level, but the health board won't pay above the level they have set. I found in the vast majority of cases I dealt with the tenant has to get the landlord to sign the health board documentation claiming a lower rent than he's charging, and the tenant makes up the shortfall himself - which can lead to a lot of headaches further down the line.

Add to that the fairly widespread belief (whether it's valid or not) that people on rent allowance will be home all day, letting friends stay over constantly and it's something that a lot of landlords just want to stay clear of.

I'm not sure what could be done, but forcing landlords to accept rent allowance isn't the answer.

thebman

MikeC101 wrote: »

I'm not sure what could be done, but forcing landlords to accept rent allowance isn't the answer.

Cool so you'd support abandoning it altogether and just giving the extra money as part of the dole because if they won't accept rent allowance then there is no other alternative but to scrap it since the system doesn't work and people still need the money to afford accommodation.

MikeC101

thebman wrote: »

Cool so you'd support abandoning it altogether and just giving the extra money as part of the dole because if they won't accept rent allowance then there is no other alternative but to scrap it since the system doesn't work and people still need the money to afford accommodation.

Yes that's right, as I don't think that the current system works all that well therefore I must be in favour of your alternative for it. Because obviously the only options are to do what you say or else scrap it altogether.

I'm just telling you that your idea of forcing rent allowance on landlords won't work.

thebman

MikeC101 wrote: »

Yes that's right, as I don't think that the current system works all that well therefore I must be in favour of your alternative for it. Because obviously the only options are to do what you say or else scrap it altogether.

I'm just telling you that your idea of forcing rent allowance on landlords won't work.

Okay, logically if your against a mandatory acceptance system and you dislike the current system then you must want no rent allowance.

Or want is your alternative system?

Appleguy

thebman wrote: »

An post haven't been good in my area lately. A letter and a parcel and sent to me and neither has arrived in 3 weeks.

You see the problem is when the government reduces their wages with the pension levy they get annoyed, unmotivated and don't work as hard.

Ok so why not make them collect their pin at the dole office 5=7 days before payment. This takes the chances of it being lost in the post away.

This will untimately piss off people on the dole but in fairness they are unemployed so may not have a lot to do anyway. And i can guarantee those dependent on the dole wont think twice about it.

This will correct those flying in to receive payments.

Neverwhere

This thread is actually starting to make me angry. The past few months I've begun to notice that retired people nad people who HAVE jobs are just blinded to the severity of the current situation. If one of those people tells my fiance to get off his ass and get a job for the days hes not in college one more time I'm going to go on a rampage.
The boy has been looking for MONTHS and has refused to go on the DOLE. Beleive it or not...there is next to nothing going. And that ranges from high paying down to mopping floors

NatDonegal

mealone43 wrote: »

And what about the ones who are not abusing the system and cant get employment because of ageism in Ireland or the jobs are not there because of FF mismanagement?They have paid for their "dole" through sometimes lifelong contributions. Very easy to be critical when you are lucky enoufgh to be in fukll time employment. Hope you never have to be on the labour, no maybe it would be good that you get a year or two on the labour and I wonder how your tune would sound then?

I do survive on €200 euro per week... and i do it easily... that includes money to pay for rent, food, fuel my car, and other costs of living... if i were to lose my job i could live on the dole the same way that i am now.

... the way i see it, taxes are your way to contribute to society... to pay for the services (roads, education, gardai etc)... you shouldn't be in the mind that it is owed back to you.

I don't begrudge it to those that need it... just be grateful you are getting it. People should see it as a BENEFIT not an entitlement.

Dob74

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

Less, yes. None? No.

Jobs?? Oh yeah..

http://www.irishjobs.ie/

http://jobsearch.monster.ie/Browse.aspx

http://www.recruitireland.com/hotjobs/

Most of the jobs advertised on these sites are just recruiters looking for names to put on there database.

T-Square

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

Less, yes. None? No.

Jobs?? Oh yeah..

http://www.irishjobs.ie/

http://jobsearch.monster.ie/Browse.aspx

http://www.recruitireland.com/hotjobs/

so so so soooooooooooooo many fake jobs

T-Square

Neverwhere wrote: »

This thread is actually starting to make me angry. The past few months I've begun to notice that retired people nad people who HAVE jobs are just blinded to the severity of the current situation. If one of those people tells my fiance to get off his ass and get a job for the days hes not in college one more time I'm going to go on a rampage.
The boy has been looking for MONTHS and has refused to go on the DOLE. Beleive it or not...there is next to nothing going. And that ranges from high paying down to mopping floors

He will pay a lot of taxes for a long time,
he should take the dole,
so long as he's not planning on leaving Ireland as soon as he graduates.

But if he hasn't taken it, it sounds like he doesn't need it.
So, leave him as he is.

thebman

T-Square wrote: »

so so so soooooooooooooo many fake jobs

You can restrict it to employer jobs only on some of the sites which cuts out the crap.

It is depressing if you do that though :P so you were warned.

JennyQ4496

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

Less, yes. None? No.

Jobs?? Oh yeah..

http://www.irishjobs.ie/

http://jobsearch.monster.ie/Browse.aspx

http://www.recruitireland.com/hotjobs/

A niece of mine was just let go (along with 9 others) from one of these recrutiment agencies. She told me that there was approx 3-4 jobs at any time on the web site that are "real" the rest are made up to fill in the blanks.
It is very obvious you are not in job search mode at the moment. I am a professional recently let go and believe me when I tell you there are not a lot of jobs out there.
To those of you who think I am to proud to work in Mickey Dee's you are sorely mistaken but they will not take you on because they know and they are correct that you are only there until a job comes up in your professional field.
As for the dole, the vast majority of people in the dole are not there by choice and have paid there part to society.

Dublin_Gunner

JennyQ4496 wrote: »

As for the dole, the vast majority of people in the dole are not there by choice and have paid there part to society.

No, luckily I am not in job-search mode, but quickly just listed those crappy links.

However I totally agree that (hopefully) the vast majority claiming the dole are not there by choice, but by necessity. There are however thousands that are claiming that shouldn't be, and this is where the government really need to clamp down.

There is millions being spent on benefits that are not being claimed justly, and this in turn effects the benefits of those that truly need them.

If the false claimants were clamped down, there would have probably been no need to reduce any of the benefit expenditure in the recent budget. But as per usual, the government takes the easy way out - instead of spending a bit more to eradicate the problem, they punish the majority who rely on the benefits that are being claimed honestly.