Christmas bonus - gone!!

Quartet

gcgirl wrote: »

An 80 yr old woman will only get her medical card along with her pension!

+Fuel
+Telephone
+Carer
+Christmas Bonus
etc

My point here is that the current taxpayers cant continue to support the huge welfare bill - what should those in work do? Sell up, move abroad and send home their money to support those on current welfare payments..

Increasing numbers who will require social welfare + those already on it - people paying tax (even where it they have been massively taxed) Will Not Equal the amount that will be required.

Everyone - workers and social welfare recipients need to take cuts.

There is no Massive Cookie Jar in the Sky

aare

Quartet wrote: »

Everyone - workers and social welfare recipients need to take cuts.

Sadly, that is probably very true...I just wish the government would be clearer and most honest about it.

However, I don't think they give you a carer's allowance unless you have a carer...

...and I really don't think pensioners should have to take significant cuts...after all, they can hardly start their own businesses...and they won't live very long...many of them not even long enough to see the economy recover...

KittyeeTrix

The worst thing about this dole situation is that even more people in the not too distant future will find themselves in a dole office signing on.

That in it'self is a hard thing to do when you want to work, but it is even harder when you feel that other people regard you as lazy and a failure!!!!!

Long term dole recipients should have their weekly take home severly cut. My old housemate from college dropped out and moved home, within 2 weeks of this he was signing on. I met him a week after he was signed on and he was asking to borrow money as he had drank his weeks dole all ready. His entire family are on the dole and ahve been for years.

Quartet

aare wrote: »

...and I really don't think pensioners should have to take significant cuts...after all, they can hardly start their own businesses...and they won't live very long...many of them not even long enough to see the economy recover...

aare - not suggesting that , just clarifying OP points on Welfare benefits.

Rakeline

Quartet wrote: »

+Fuel
+Telephone
+Carer
+Christmas Bonus
etc

My point here is that the current taxpayers cant continue to support the huge welfare bill - what should those in work do? Sell up, move abroad and send home their money to support those on current welfare payments..

Increasing numbers who will require social welfare + those already on it - people paying tax (even where it they have been massively taxed) Will Not Equal the amount that will be required.

Everyone - workers and social welfare recipients need to take cuts.

The older people made this contry they shouldnt have to live in poverty, i totally agree about workers to they got hit bad with this one especially young family couples but you have to think that things have being mismanaged in a big way. This budget done nothing to create jobs it helped the banks in a huge way. Its stupid and the worst part is we all just sit here and take it.

And about everyone getting cuts in the climate you cant go buy a sandwich and coffee somewhere see what it costs you if you take a cut you cant have these really simple things, most people are on the balance before this after the next 1 we'll be fuked!

aare

fluffyorganic1 wrote: »

The worst thing about this dole situation is that even more people in the not too distant future will find themselves in a dole office signing on.

That in it'self is a hard thing to do when you want to work, but it is even harder when you feel that other people regard you as lazy and a failure!!!!!

Doesn't help anyone, does it?

Truth is, there aren't any easy ways back off the dole any time soon either...it really isn't a crime to be unemployed in a recession...and people shouldn't be treated, or talked about as though it is...should they

partyatmygaff

Personally I think the christmas bonus should of never been there to start with, Surely social welfare is only there to help tide you on and survive, you dont need to buy presents, children wont die if they dont get a present one or two years, some people have went their ENTIRE childhood without a single present(Yes even in ireland), go out etc during christmas so why should you get extra money.

I think the dole itself should be left at the level it is though, its getting very expensive to live here, cost of living is going up from what I can see.
Or better yet it should be variable say 100 - 300 depending on a person's circumstances. It would prevent the spongers and lazy sh1ts like "NTLsucks" from wasting taxpayers money (Although in his case i think no dole money would be a better alternative) while keeping those in serious debt and trouble afloat.

aare

Quartet wrote: »

aare - not suggesting that , just clarifying OP points on Welfare benefits.

Didn't think you were...:)

I just thought I'd better get that in before someone else started demanding a return to the workhouse for the elderly...

Quartet

partyatmygaff wrote: »

...I think the dole itself should be left at the level it is though, its getting very expensive to live here, cost of living is going up from what I can see.
.

Ok but the question remains who is going to fund this dole? Considering there will be lots more people signing on and a lot less tax coming in!

There is no Massive Cookie Jar in the Sky..

aare

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Personally I think the christmas bonus should of never been there to start with, Surely social welfare is only there to help tide you on and survive, you dont need to buy presents, children wont die if they dont get a present one or two years, some people have went their ENTIRE childhood without a single present(Yes even in ireland), go out etc during christmas so why should you get extra money.

Actually, as far as I know, at least until recently...the Christmas payment was only for the long term unemployed, single parents, pensioners and the disabled...

• Whatever you think about the long term unemployed, why punish their kids?
• Once a single mother has a child she can hardly send it back, so why make the kids suffer?
• Retirement isn't something you can be "tided over"
• Let's not even get into "the disabled right to reproduce" argument here

OF COURSE it was the cherry on the icing on the cake, and in hard times that HAS to be the first thing to go...but why grude it in the good times?

partyatmygaff

Quartet wrote: »

Ok but the question remains who is going to fund this dole? Considering there will be lots more people signing on and a lot less tax coming in!

Well that bastard Brian Cowen could survive on €75,000 instead of €175,000.
Need i continue with the rest of our "government's" wages. He isnt doing a very good job for someone getting paid more than nearly every single remaining working person in the country.

KittyeeTrix

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Well that bastard Brian Cowen could survive on €75,000 instead of €175,000.
Need i continue with the rest of our "government's" wages. He isnt doing a very good job for someone getting paid more than nearly every single remaining working person in the country.

Well said:)

Quartet

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Well that bastard Brian Cowen could survive on €75,000 instead of €175,000.
Need i continue with the rest of our "government's" wages. He isnt doing a very good job for someone getting paid more than nearly every single remaining working person in the country.

Agree ...but even taking all their money off them still wont pay for the steadily increasing Social Welfare bill...

There is no Massive Cookie Jar in the Sky...

partyatmygaff

aare wrote: »

Actually, as far as I know, at least until recently...the Christmas payment was only for the long term unemployed, single parents, pensioners and the disabled...

• Whatever you think about the long term unemployed, why punish their kids?
• Once a single mother has a child she can hardly send it back, so why make the kids suffer?
• Retirement isn't something you can be "tided over"
• Let's not even get into "the disabled right to reproduce" argument here

OF COURSE it was the cherry on the icing on the cake, and in hard times that HAS to be the first thing to go...but why grude it in the good times?

Ah now dont get me wrong, Im not saying make kids starve to death or wear rags. No presents is not the end of the world, I grew up in the celtic tiger, sadly I never really got to experience any of the positve aspects of it (I hope you get what I mean in regard to presents etc).
Pensioners deserve every penny, they worked hard all their lives, this is the least we can give them and the disabled are not able to work but are entitled to live, I never said they shouldnt have children either.

Kids have to learn that not everyone can afford presents and that its not all about getting presents, they might be miserable or down for a few days but they'll understand when they're older(I did)

partyatmygaff

Quartet wrote: »

Agree ...but even taking all their money off them still wont pay for the steadily increasing Social Welfare bill...

It would be the start of many other things needed to be cut back.

aare

Deleted User wrote: »

Long term dole recipients should have their weekly take home severly cut. My old housemate from college dropped out and moved home, within 2 weeks of this he was signing on. I met him a week after he was signed on and he was asking to borrow money as he had drank his weeks dole all ready. His entire family are on the dole and ahve been for years.

The only problem with that is that a significant number of the long term unemployed are unemployable through no real fault of their own...

They left school or lost a job in the wrong place, at the wrong time (I forget, so many of you don't realise how bad things used to be). Women of my generation were still raised and educated to be stay at home mothers in many parts of the country too...

...then, for one reason or another it wound up too late for them to get a foot on the employment ladder, simply BECAUSE they had no work history, and FAS frequently couldn't organise a p*ss up in a brewery, and get it right...so they never had a chance...

It is neither fair, not realistic, to cut those people to below subsistence levels, just so a few people can feel better...

Allah Hu Akbar

aare wrote: »

One small problem...

Rent supplements were never quite sufficient to meet the market prices, and plenty of landlords will not take them at all...

Isn't is illegal for landlords not to take it?

People should be in council houses and not paying hugh rents.

aare

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Ah now dont get me wrong, Im not saying make kids starve to death or wear rags. No presents is not the end of the world, I grew up in the celtic tiger, sadly I never really got to experience any of the positve aspects of it (I hope you get what I mean in regard to presents etc).
Pensioners deserve every penny, they worked hard all their lives, this is the least we can give them and the disabled are not able to work but are entitled to live, I never said they shouldnt have children either.

Kids have to learn that not everyone can afford presents and that its not all about getting presents, they might be miserable or down for a few days but they'll understand when they're older(I did)

I do understand...more than you know...but I always feel happier when I see kids have it BETTER than I did...and, in the "Celtic Tiger" scam era, to give 'em a bit of Christmas was a drop in the ocean...

So why not?

partyatmygaff

aare wrote: »

The only problem with that is that a significant number of the long term unemployed are unemployable through no real fault of their own...

They left school or lost a job in the wrong place, at the wrong time (I forget, so many of you don't realise how bad things used to be). Women of my generation were still raised and educated to be stay at home mothers in many parts of the country too...

...then, for one reason or another it wound up too late for them to get a foot on the employment ladder, simply BECAUSE they had no work history, and FAS frequently couldn't organise a p*ss up in a brewery, and get it right...so they never had a chance...

It is neither fair, not realistic, to cut those people to below subsistence levels, just so a few people can feel better...

Not to be very harsh but i believe leaving school early would definitley count as a fault of their own. Your own problem/laziness that you would ditch your education in the hope of finding any old job.

In other countries No job = Live on the streets until you find a job.


Im not saying we should follow that way of treating unemployed people but we're off fairly well compared to the rest.

aare

Allah Hu Akbar wrote: »

Isn't is illegal for landlords not to take it?

I am afraid it is not illegal for a landlord to refuse to accept any new tenant without even giving a reason

Allah Hu Akbar wrote: »

People should be in council houses and not paying hugh rents.

Absolutely...except that there are nowhere near enough council houses to meet the need.

Some of the current moves MAY be aimed at changing that down the line...trouble is, they are doing it *rseways...which costs more and causes far more distress...

partyatmygaff

aare wrote: »

I do understand...more than you know...but I always feel happier when I see kids have it BETTER than I did...and, in the "Celtic Tiger" scam era, to give 'em a bit of Christmas was a drop in the ocean...

So why not?

I would love for every child and would wish for my own children (Way way way off in the future:p) to have a better childhood than I did but one or two years wouldn't really destroy a child's entire childhood (if it would help the country to stay afloat), just a bad memory but not an entire train wreck of a childhood.
Besides focusing on presents and material wealth isn't good for people

aare

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Not to be very harsh but i believe leaving school early would definitley count as a fault of their own. Your own problem/laziness that you would ditch your education in the hope of finding any old job.

Doesn't apply if you don't have a family to support you, there is no way you can stay on...or, in many cases there really were families who would insist on girls leaving school at the first opportunity...

partyatmygaff wrote: »

In other countries No job = Live on the streets until you find a job.

Many countries where the weather is far better, and life is, overall, more brutal...you can force people to look for work, but you can't force anyone to employ them...

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Im not saying we should follow that way of treating unemployed people but we're off fairly well compared to the rest.

It just won't achieve anything to drive vulnerable people over the edge with desperation NOW, when there is even LESS chance of them being able to find work than ever...that is just cruel.

Disease Ridden

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Well that bastard Brian Cowen could survive on €75,000 instead of €175,000.
Need i continue with the rest of our "government's" wages. He isnt doing a very good job for someone getting paid more than nearly every single remaining working person in the country.

Correct. Not suggesting anybody in this thread would be foolish enough to believe that taking that kind of money off the politicians, top civil servants, bankers etc would amount to anything other than a drop in the ocean of the needed revenues, but my goodness, it is no exaggeration at all to say the Brian Cowen gets more money than nearly every working person remaining in this country. Theres is NO pain in going from 220,000 to 175,000 when everyone else is fighting to keep their jobs and their lives intact.

I have to say, that when I see that arrogant, "at least I'm okay" grin of Willie O'Dea when he does be on Questions and Answers, my blood boils. The other day he was telling us how the unemployment situation we have now is "nothing" compared to that of the late eighties, "although at least then you could JUST emigrate", basically indirectly giving us the attitude held by members of government ie. when we cant provide for you's, fcuk off somewhere else.
Also, his little joke to journalists there a while back saying how he should "still manage alright" after his pay cut really made me mad; what a low-life, insensitive prick he is, cant believe anybody would vote for him.

Taoiseach should be on max 120,000, ministers on 80,000. After all, isnt it the privelage of being in the job that mtters? Oh wait, its not a privelage for these people, its a fcuking BIRTHRIGHT.

I dont have much hope of these people wages being decreased, despite the fact that they are completely out of line with reality these days.

aare

aare wrote: »

The only problem with that is that a significant number of the long term unemployed are unemployable through no real fault of their own...

I'm sure that if they had really wanted jobs they could have easily got jobs during the Celtic Tiger years. We needed to bring in Eastern European workers to fill so many jobs that so many dole claiments refused to work. Most long term dole claiments are simply lazy and happy to live off every one else taxes while never contributing anything to society.

aare wrote: »

They left school or lost a job in the wrong place, at the wrong time (I forget, so many of you don't realise how bad things used to be). Women of my generation were still raised and educated to be stay at home mothers in many parts of the country too...

My dad left school when he was 12 or 13 and that did'nt stop him getting work. He spent years in England working and for the past number of years has been a financial consultant who managed to put a roof over all 8 of his kids and 2 foster kids heads. He never relied on the state to feed his family. Granted many women were raised to be housewives but at the end of the day so many of these prepped housewives went out and worked. They didn't jsut say well if I can't get a man then I think I'll live off the state.

aare wrote: »

...then, for one reason or another it wound up too late for them to get a foot on the employment ladder, simply BECAUSE they had no work history, and FAS frequently couldn't organise a p*ss up in a brewery, and get it right...so they never had a chance...

It is neither fair, not realistic, to cut those people to below subsistence levels, just so a few people can feel better...

As I said above, there were jobs there just so many long term claiments were too lazy to go out and earn their keep. They could easily have gotten jobs mopping floors or serving fast food but would prefer to stay at home living in council homes and spending tax payers money week end week out.

Do you serious think that it's acceptable for entire families to be claiming the dole for years on end and never once contribute anything.

aare

partyatmygaff wrote: »

I would love for every child and would wish for my own children (Way way way off in the future:p) to have a better childhood than I did but one or two years wouldn't really destroy a child's entire childhood (if it would help the country to stay afloat), just a bad memory but not an entire train wreck of a childhood.
Besides focusing on presents and material wealth isn't good for people

I am certainly with you on that one...KEEP IT TEMPORARY and you can cut far deeper...and morale stays higher...

But, instead the government actually used this recession as an excuse to try and force a long term agenda to manipulate the social housing provision ahead of the relevant infrastructure instead...

It's like stopping to rearrange the furniture while the house is on fire...

More than mildly bonkers, and not very profitable in the long run...not to mention scaring everybody in range rigid...

That they are only doing remarkably similar things across the board, in every area, doesn't do anything but compound the error...

Scofflaw

I'm sure that if they had really wanted jobs they could have easily got jobs during the Celtic Tiger years. We needed to bring in Eastern European workers to fill so many jobs that so many dole claiments refused to work. Most long term dole claiments are simply lazy and happy to live off every one else taxes while never contributing anything to society.

Not entirely the case. Some of the long-term unemployed really are just unemployable, even for mopping floors or flipping burgers. They're not ill, or lazy, or physically or mentally incapable as such, they're just temperamentally unsuitable for employment. You wouldn't employ them if they were the last job applicant on earth - you'd be better off doing the job yourself.

cordially,
Scofflaw

aare

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm sure that if they had really wanted jobs they could have easily got jobs during the Celtic Tiger years. We needed to bring in Eastern European workers to fill so many jobs that so many dole claiments refused to work.

Certainly not (usually) women with no employment record going back ten years or more, sometimes even as a result of staying home to care for a parent or relative.

I was actually trying to float a project that would have helped otherwise unemployable women to find work as late as 1998, and was blocked every step of the way for "political" reasons that were absolutely irrelevant to the people who could have benefited.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

My dad left school when he was 12 or 13 and that did'nt stop him getting work. He spent years in England working and for the past number of years has been a financial consultant who managed to put a roof over all 8 of his kids and 2 foster kids heads.

He worked hard and got the breaks...and that is good...but some people never even got a chance...particularly women, a disadvantage (and make NO mistake, it once WAS) I very much doubt your dad shared...

partyatmygaff wrote: »

As I said above, there were jobs there just so many long term claiments were too lazy to go out and earn their keep. They could easily have gotten jobs mopping floors or serving fast food but would prefer to stay at home living in council homes and spending tax payers money week end week out.

But you don't really know that, do you, you are just surmising...you could be very wrong, and who will do the judging?

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Do you serious think that it's acceptable for entire families to be claiming the dole for years on end and never once contribute anything.

It a lot more acceptable than for the same "whole families" to be living on the proceeds of crime, which is what those same families may well do if you cut them (and there children) to below subsistance level, as previously mentioned, to make a few people feel better.

I doesn't make any kind of sense...

useful_contacts

Darren Noisy Puppy wrote: »

This is tripe, where do you get your information. Stop getting it there. It is false.

i was on the dole 2 years ago and i didnt get a bonus when my friend who was on the dole 2 years had

i went down to the dole office and asked why and they told me id to be on it 15 months to qualify

so they are lying are they:rolleyes: because your right and im wrong... ya sure!!!

aare

aare wrote: »

Certainly not (usually) women with no employment record going back ten years or more, sometimes even as a result of staying home to care for a parent or relative.

I was actually trying to float a project that would have helped otherwise unemployable women to find work as late as 1998, and was blocked every step of the way for "political" reasons that were absolutely irrelevant to the people who could have benefited.

I'll agree with you to a degree regarding women finding it difficult to find employement at times. There has been an awful disrespect paid to the members of my mothers generation.

aare wrote: »

He worked hard and got the breaks...and that is good...but some people never even got a chance...particularly women, a disadvantage (and make NO mistake, it once WAS) I very much doubt your dad shared...

But how many of the long term claiments never even bothered to try and get a job. They were far too happy to just sit at home and accept every hand out that they could get. It is this group which should suffer.

aare wrote: »

But you don't really know that, do you, you are just surmising...you could be very wrong, and who will do the judging?

I can name quite a few. There is a small percentage of our country who deem it acceptable to live off welfare and then have the sudacity to complain when even a small amount is taken off of them.

aare wrote: »

It a lot more acceptable than for the same "whole families" to be living on the proceeds of crime, which is what those same families may well do if you cut them (and there children) to below subsistance level, as previously mentioned, to make a few people feel better.

I doesn't make any kind of sense...

Tbh many of those people are all ready living off the proceeds of crime. It's called fraud. Do you really think that it's fair for someone who has been working the past 20 years to be getting the same as someone who has lived off the dole their entire lives never once contributing anything to society?

As I said before there are two forms of dole claiment, those who are out of work due to a lack of jobs and those who would prefer to stay at home and live off the charity of the government and tax payers.