Reduce unemployment benefit

littletiger

Everyone one is complaining about public sector pay and that it should be reduced and benchmarked against eurozone countries.

Lets do the same for people who are receiving unemploymeny benifit. What's good for the goose.....

how about no

Terry

Ok. We'll get on this right away.
There should be a budget in...
Last week.

ntlbell

far be it from me to be backseat modding :rolleyes:

but there has been forums created for this sort of stuff can it not be moved so we can discuss it without the bull**** of AH?

Gummy Panda

ntlbell wrote: »

far be it from me to be backseat modding :rolleyes:

but there has been forums created for this sort of stuff can it not be moved so we can discuss it without the bull**** of AH?

OP should have posted in the correct forum them.

I say burn their houses down.

ronbyrne2005

Yeah its too much given the massive black hole we are in, reduce it gradually in line with falls in cost of living. No incentive for people on dole to work unless the income exceeds the large social wefare benefits. I dont think people realise how screwed this country is and it wont stabalise untill salaries in all areas fall, till costs of business and living fall , till minimum wage falls, till GNP per capita falls etc etc.

jimmycrackcorm

Should be reduced over time to encourage the professional unemployed to change careers.

if you're under-25 and have no kids, you shouldn't get 205euro..

m@cc@

littletiger wrote: »

Everyone one is complaining about public sector pay and that it should be reduced and benchmarked against eurozone countries.

Lets do the same for people who are receiving unemploymeny benifit. What's good for the goose.....

The public sector pay would be my main concern tbh.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

if you're under-25 and have no kids, you shouldn't get 205euro..

what if you are married and have a mortgage?

ejmaztec

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Should be reduced over time to encourage the professional unemployed to change to carer's allowance.

fyp

deepriver

should be reduced to 100 per week, thats still a decent chunk, and would bring our social welfare spend down to 10 billion overnight

if you do the math, our welfare bills is currently 20 billion per annum (based on 5-8% unemployment) and we take in 31 billion in tax, that means (apart from discretionary taxes) 95% of the population dedicates 66% of its tax payments towards 5-8% of the population, crazy stats

also put prisoners to work, preferebly building roads and digging tunnels for metro north... I know if I went to prision I would prefer 10 hours of work rather than inactivity

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

woot? hell no, if anything increase it, I cannot afford to go out twice a week in town anymore...

ejmaztec

deepriver wrote: »

should be reduced to 100 per week, thats still a decent chunk, and would bring our social welfare spend down to 10 billion overnight

if you do the math, our welfare bills is currently 20 billion per annum (based on 5-8% unemployment) and we take in 31 billion in tax, that means (apart from discretionary taxes) 95% of the population dedicates 66% of its tax payments towards 5-8% of the population, crazy stats

also put prisoners to work, preferebly building roads and digging tunnels for metro north... I know if I went to prision I would prefer 10 hours of work rather than inactivity

Prisoners and tunnels? Not a good idea.

and a tunnel straight to the airport at that!

Gummy Panda

Ernest Ancient Rectangle wrote: »

woot? hell no, if anything increase it, I cannot afford to go out twice a week in town anymore...

You can!

You just need to read the recession busting tips in this thread

littletiger

Deleted User wrote: »

what if you are married and have a mortgage?

Bye Bye house

Terry

deepriver wrote: »

should be reduced to 100 per week, thats still a decent chunk, and would bring our social welfare spend down to 10 billion overnight

if you do the math, our welfare bills is currently 20 billion per annum (based on 5-8% unemployment) and we take in 31 billion in tax, that means (apart from discretionary taxes) 95% of the population dedicates 66% of its tax payments towards 5-8% of the population, crazy stats

also put prisoners to work, preferebly building roads and digging tunnels for metro north... I know if I went to prision I would prefer 10 hours of work rather than inactivity

Making prisoners work doesn't make sense in that context.
You're putting labourers out of work that way. Less tax payed into the government coffers.

If you're going to get prisoners to d oanything, then it should be doing something in the community. Cleaning up graffiti, mowing grass (no, not gardens) in urban and suburban estates, cleaning up beauty spots and the like.

fasterkitten

littletiger wrote: »

Bye Bye house

And what happens to people who become homeless? They become a further burden on the state. Sheesh!

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

what if you are married and have a mortgage?

Person A: single and shares a house with strangers.

Person B: married with mortgage.


Why should person A have to share a house if we think that Person B should be allowed to keep his mortgage and house?

littletiger

fasterkitten wrote: »

And what happens to people who become homeless? They become a further burden on the state. Sheesh!

Way too much of a nanny state. People just think they are entitled to everything.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

deepriver wrote: »

should be reduced to 100 per week, thats still a decent chunk, and would bring our social welfare spend down to 10 billion overnight

if you do the math, our welfare bills is currently 20 billion per annum (based on 5-8% unemployment) and we take in 31 billion in tax, that means (apart from discretionary taxes) 95% of the population dedicates 66% of its tax payments towards 5-8% of the population, crazy stats

also put prisoners to work, preferebly building roads and digging tunnels for metro north... I know if I went to prision I would prefer 10 hours of work rather than inactivity

There's pure crap if ever I seen it... 66% of tax goes to 5-8% of the population? Where do you get these figures from?

fasterkitten

fasterkitten wrote: »

And what happens to people who become homeless? They become a further burden on the state. Sheesh!

Homeless? No.. they just don't have the pleasure of me paying extra tax for welfare so they own a house.

They share like the rest of us

professore

littletiger wrote: »

Way too much of a nanny state. People just think they are entitled to everything.

Well if I lost my house i would be in robbing yours ... and since you follow a neocon republican social model, there would be no cops to catch me

Ernest Ancient Rectangle

Ernest Ancient Rectangle wrote: »

There's pure crap if ever I seen it... 66% of tax goes to 5-8% of the population? Where do you get these figures from?

it's not unreasonable.. In the thread earlier about the guy with 4 kids and a house, he was taking home c.37k in welfare.

that's 9 times what i pay in income tax.. 9 people to support one family.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Person A: single and shares a house with strangers.

Person B: married with mortgage.


Why should person A have to share a house if we think that Person B should be allowed to keep his mortgage and house?

if you allow person b to lose his mortgage you have a. a homeless person who is now blacklisted and b. another house which the banks have to sell at a loss

I just don't see your point about being under 25 and no kids, but if you're 26 and no kids with no mortgage etc then you can have the full welfare payment. Makes no sense.

My name is URL

170 euro per week would suffice imo. I had to sign on 3 weeks ago and have bills and rent to pay, but for a single person with no kids, the rate now is laughably high.

I really couldn't blame people for taking up the dole queues full-time.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

if you allow person b to lose his mortgage you have a. a homeless person who is now blacklisted and b. another house which the banks have to sell at a loss

I just don't see your point about being under 25 and no kids, but if you're 26 and no kids with no mortgage etc then you can have the full welfare payment. Makes no sense.

ok, any age with no kids = 150euro plus rent allowance?

Fizman

Deleted User wrote: »

what if you are married and have a mortgage?

littletiger wrote: »

Bye Bye house

Not necessarily!

Interesting read.........



http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/now-golfing-pays-better-than-work-1708412.html

ctrl-alt-delete

So how about we bring everything down to the euro zone average then?

If only it were as simple as that,

The allowance is €200 or so here, its £60 in England, the fact that it reflects the average needed to survive for a week says a lot,

mainly that we have better things to be changing

Sage'sMama

This is a great idea,i haven't heard of this before.Imagine all the money we'd save.We could invest it in banks who in turn could invest it in overseas property and devolpers.We could even get the goverment to control the finances.

The people on the dole should be then made to paint the cliffs of moher and when they are finished jump.

Sage'sMama

Sage'sMama wrote: »

This is a great idea,i haven't heard of this before.Imagine all the money we'd save.We could invest it in banks who in turn could invest it in overseas property and devolpers.We could even get the goverment to control the finances.

The people on the dole should be then made to paint the cliffs of moher and when they are finished jump.

you're a talking tabloid newspaper.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

ok, any age with no kids = 150euro plus rent allowance?

well there are lots of flaws in your argument. Unfortunately it's not just you that is paying for people's unemployment benefit, in alot of cases nowadays the unemployed person has worked hard for many years and paid their taxes themselves and earned their stamps in order to be entitled to social welfare allowance if they lose their jobs in unfortunate circumstances. I 100% agree that long term unemployed should have their allowances reduced, definitely, but for people who have lost their jobs because of the recession, it's unfair to make them suffer further.

I bought my first house at 22 was married and had no children and at that stage I had been working and paying tax for 8 years, had I been made redundant I don't think it would have been fair to say - oh - no job - move out of your house so and you can feck off if you think that tax you paid was worth anything!

That's all, I just think people need to realise that there are alot of people on the dole who really would rather not be - who would love to be out working - but at this moment in time are finding that even supermarkets won't employ them.

I have never been on the dole by the way and hopefully will never have to be.

Novella

Damn right it should be reduced! No one deserves that amount of money for doing sweet **** all. The only people who don't agree with this are the one's claiming it. I think it's fair enough if you've just been made redundant or whatever but for those who've never worked, those people should get zilch! Oh, and if you have kids, that is your problem. I'm sorry but if you couldn't afford them, you shouldn't have had them.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

well there are lots of flaws in your argument. Unfortunately it's not just you that is paying for people's unemployment benefit, in alot of cases nowadays the unemployed person has worked hard for many years and paid their taxes themselves and earned their stamps in order to be entitled to social welfare allowance if they lose their jobs in unfortunate circumstances. I 100% agree that long term unemployed should have their allowances reduced, definitely, but for people who have lost their jobs because of the recession, it's unfair to make them suffer further.

I bought my first house at 22 was married and had no children and at that stage I had been working and paying tax for 8 years, had I been made redundant I don't think it would have been fair to say - oh - no job - move out of your house so and you can feck off if you think that tax you paid was worth anything!

That's all, I just think people need to realise that there are alot of people on the dole who really would rather not be - who would love to be out working - but at this moment in time are finding that even supermarkets won't employ them.

I have never been on the dole by the way and hopefully will never have to be.

i can see your point yes.. but our country's finances are fuked.

i refuse to accept that just because someone has signed into a mortgage, they are entitled to more welfare.. the house is collateral for the mortgage, not my income tax. if the person can't afford their house because of redundancy, that's the risk associated with signing into it in the first place?

My name is URL

Novella wrote: »

Oh, and if you have kids, that is your problem. I'm sorry but if you couldn't afford them, you shouldn't have had them.

That's BS, people breed, people support their young. If State provision of means to support children is taken away it will invariably mean that crime increases as a result.

Upward Spiral

Upward Spiral wrote: »

That's BS, people breed, people support their young.

you said it yourself really..


like in fairness, i don't enjoy supporting the spawn of some pyjammy mammy knacker.. our social welfare system means that it isn't even a financial disaster to have a kid at 16.
it should be a financial disaster.. it should cripple you.

littletiger

Deleted User wrote: »

That's all, I just think people need to realise that there are alot of people on the dole who really would rather not be - who would love to be out working - but at this moment in time are finding that even supermarkets won't employ them.

I have never been on the dole by the way and hopefully will never have to be.

BTW I would probably have a s**te attack if I lost my job. My stomach is sinking just thinking about it. However, my original statement stands

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

i can see your point yes.. but our country's finances are fuked.

i refuse to accept that just because someone has signed into a mortgage, they are entitled to more welfare.. the house is collateral for the mortgage, not my income tax. if the person can't afford their house because of redundancy, that's the risk associated with signing into it in the first place?

yes but the point I'm making is they have paid their taxes too. And I didn't mean to imply that I think you should get more because you have a mortgage just that you shouldn't have to lose your house because the banks have fúcked our country up. Anyway, tis too late on a school night to be arguing, so sorry if you think that's what I'm at

My name is URL

Deleted User wrote: »

you said it yourself really..


like in fairness, i don't enjoy supporting the spawn of some pyjammy mammy knacker.. our social welfare system means that it isn't even a financial disaster to have a kid at 16.
it should be a financial disaster.. it should cripple you.

It should have nothing to do with finance.

The only reason it is is because we created a world where only the more well-off can or are expected to survive.

If this was an uncivilized world the tables would soon turn on what wealth even means. We are 'civilized' thankfully, and need to support that idea.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

yes but the point I'm making is they have paid their taxes too. And I didn't mean to imply that I think you should get more because you have a mortgage just that you shouldn't have to lose your house because the banks have fúcked our country up. Anyway, tis too late on a school night to be arguing, so sorry if you think that's what I'm at

well our taxes don't just goto welfare either.. and you're right, it is too late. this argument has been had and will be had many more times on boards without any agreed upon solution..

Upward Spiral wrote: »

It should have nothing to do with finance.

The only reason it is is because we created a world where only the more well-off can or are expected to survive.

If this was an uncivilized world the tables would soon turn on what wealth even means. We are 'civilized' thankfully, and need to support that idea.

ah now, is a topic about unemployment benefit really the place for a discussion on capitalism..

having a kid is a big financial undertaking.. way too many people have too many kids because this financial burden is carried by the tax-payer.

irish_bob

professore wrote: »

Well if I lost my house i would be in robbing yours ... and since you follow a neocon republican social model, there would be no cops to catch me

since i follow a neo con model , i would keep a gun in my house , you might meet him some day

seanybiker

ntlbell wrote: »

without the bull**** of AH?

hey after hours isnt bullsh1t.

Some people tut tut.

deepriver

having a kid is a big financial undertaking.. way too many people have too many kids because this financial burden is carried by the tax-payer.



welfare kids should be made dig the tunnels to the airport

easyeason3

I could afford to have social welfare cut by a maximum of €10. Anymore than that & I don't think I would manage financially. As it is things are extremely tight money wise.

But I agree that a reduction should be at least considered if not implemented straight away. I know one of my friends would be better off signing on because of the pay cut she had to take as well as reduced hours. So it don't think it's fair on people like her who are still working, paying taxes & being crippled by pay cuts.

Also I'd like to see a massive clamp down on single mothers having a house paid for by the state all to themselves. One woman who lives a street away from me has one child & has a four bedroom house being paid for at the moment. That in my opinion is an absolute disgrace. And it's not an isolated case either. Most single mothers who have a house provided for them have at the minimum a three bedroom house when there is only an adult & child living in it.

I'm not targetting single mothers here at all, it's just an example that popped into my head. I know they have to live somewhere too.

deepriver

it never ceases to amaze me how pubs in some lower socio-economic areas are rammed at lunch time, me thinks the welfare is mispent - replace 50% of welfare with food stamps for the same value...that would knock daytime drinking on the head...

... those same pubs always have a bookies 2 doors down... I have no illusions as to where most of welfare payments go

professore

easyeason3 wrote: »

Most single mothers who have a house provided for them have at the minimum a three bedroom house when there is only an adult & child living in it.

This is simply not true. Most unemployed single mothers I know have pretty poor cramped accommodation (not that I know many, but I know a few).

It never ceases to amaze me how people attack the vulnerable in society yet are delighted to support the government giving away their taxes to banks and property developers. Wake up !!!! :mad: You're only 2 paydays away from them yourselves !!!!

professore

professore wrote: »

This is simply not true. Most unemployed single mothers I know have pretty poor cramped accommodation (not that I know many, but I know a few).

It never ceases to amaze me how people attack the vulnerable in society yet are delighted to support the government giving away their taxes to banks and property developers. Wake up !!!! :mad: You're only 2 paydays away from them yourselves !!!!

show me one single post on the whole of boards that shows support for the government giving away their taxes to banks and property developers?

deepriver

professore wrote: »

This is simply not true. Most unemployed single mothers I know have pretty poor cramped accommodation (not that I know many, but I know a few).

i bet you try and tap them up.. get off that PC horse

easyeason3

professore wrote: »

This is simply not true. Most unemployed single mothers I know have pretty poor cramped accommodation (not that I know many, but I know a few).

It never ceases to amaze me how people attack the vulnerable in society yet are delighted to support the government giving away their taxes to banks and property developers. Wake up !!!! :mad:

No, I'm not attacking them but I'm pointing out an obvious waste of money.
Jesus I'm not saying that they shouldn't get help but you have to agree that one adult & one child in a four bedroom house is excessive?
I happen to know a good few single mothers & none of them are unfortunate to live in cramped conditions.
One lady was due to get married in two months time & has called off the wedding because ' I wouldn't get as many benefits ', her words not mine.

ShooterSF

deepriver wrote: »

it never ceases to amaze me how pubs in some lower socio-economic areas are rammed at lunch time, me thinks the welfare is mispent - replace 50% of welfare with food stamps for the same value...that would knock daytime drinking on the head...

... those same pubs always have a bookies 2 doors down... I have no illusions as to where most of welfare payments go

Ah yes the old "People on the dole are lazy drunk gamblers". Excellent.