Dole

Spudmonkey

I am not for a second condoning what the bankers and the property developers did, I think they should be punished for what they have done, but what is that going to do other than give you a few moments of satisfaction. It's not going to solve anything is it?

There are two ways only (as far as I'm aware) to recover the economy.

1. Increase taxes

2. Cut spending

And both of these need to be done, taxes need to be increased, cuts need to be made.

Giving out about banks and property developers is not going to solve anything..

Spudmonkey

irish_bob wrote: »

you must work in the public sector , no one in the private sector so readily uses to many union tutores cliched rhetoric , THOSE WHO CAUSED IT , THE BANKERS , DEVELOPERS , the usual banners

Me in the public sector? I don't think so! I'm not part of a union either, I despise them, because they ruin companies and countries!

97i9y3941

its sickening one way,they are picking on the most vunerable in society,why cant they cut wages for the biggest earners,all red tape contract ****e

kadman

irish_bob wrote: »

kadman wrote: »

you must work in the public sector , no one in the private sector so readily uses to many union tutores cliched rhetoric , THOSE WHO CAUSED IT , THE BANKERS , DEVELOPERS , the usual banners

bad politics cause the mess we are in beit with bad and corrupt planning descisions , inapropriate relationships with vested interests , be it with developers or with unions and the complete and utter vote buying exerices that was benchmarking , all of theese weak political descisions have brought the irish people to where it is , it was the state in nearly all cases the fcuked up royaly

as for the cost of living for those on the dole , the cost of living will drop in tandem with the reduction in dole payments , thats who it works , retailers cannot keep prices high when thier customers purchasing power is reduced , they can but they wont sell anything , retailers can only charge what the market will allow and due to unemployed people having too much state money to play with , prices stay high , business live and die by the market and the market is not like the state , it doesnt take six months to adapt to change

You clearly have been confused in reading this thread, or at least the last few posts. So please go back again and re read them. You should then be able to find out in what sector I work in, as I have posted my current position quite clearly, as you would have found out if you read them. Hopefully you may do the same.

From your post I would ascertain that regardless of what sector you work in, your post is based on the fear that the government may take more taxes from you, to support those unlucky enough to be on the dole. hence you speak from the " get it from them not me podium".

kadman

kadman

Spudmonkey wrote: »

Me in the public sector? I don't think so! I'm not part of a union either, I despise them, because they ruin companies and countries!

I think that post was directed at me, or am I confused as well....:)

kadman

Spudmonkey

I don't know, I'm all confussssed

skearon

Fred83 wrote: »

its sickening one way,they are picking on the most vunerable in society,why cant they cut wages for the biggest earners,all red tape contract ****e

The 'most vunerable' have benefited hugely over the past number of years, with increases far outstriping inflation.

Take home pay has already been cut by the levies.

Remember 1% of tax payers contribute 25% of all income tax, and 7% contribute 50%.

What IS sickening is that peopel who have worked all their lives, and have lost their jobs, get the same payment as someone who refuses to work and has never contributed anything to society.

kadman

skearon wrote: »

The 'most vunerable' have benefited hugely over the past number of years, with increases far outstriping inflation.

You obviously now very little about the suffering of the less well off in society, by making this kind of statement

Take home pay has already been cut by the levies.

Remember 1% of tax payers contribute 25% of all income tax, and 7% contribute 50%.

Pity you dont say what the 1% and 7% tax payers earn.

What IS sickening is that peopel who have worked all their lives, and have lost their jobs, get the same payment as someone who refuses to work and has never contributed anything to society.

Whats more sickening is the generalisations thrown around in relation to those on the dole. I dont know any one that refuses to work, who is on the dole. As the minimum wage would be maybe double what a dole recipient gets. I,ve worked in the construction industry for 35 years on and off, and now I,m on the dole, and i dont want to be here. If its such a fekking holiday that you seem to think it is, I,ll swap with you.

As you seem to be quoting high earners tax contributions, I have to assume you are in that category I,ll gladly have your job. If I,m mistaken, accept my apologies.

kadman

Spudmonkey

kadman wrote: »

You obviously now very little about the suffering of the less well off in society, by making this kind of statement

There has to be a distinction made between who are the real less well off in society and those who aren't, because the goverment's idea of the less well off and the normal person's idea of the less well off are two completely different things.

My idea of the less well off (and hopefully most peoples) are those;

- Who have worked all their lives
- Who have never over extended themselves, always lived within their means
- Who have paid their taxes etc
- Who may have someone close to them struck down by illness
- Who have generally given something back to society

These people now find themselves in an awkward place due to the folly of bankers, property developers, people who have lived the last 10 years on credit

On the other hand the governments idea of the less well off are scroungers who have never worked a day in their lives and whose entire family have made a living for themselves off social welfare. These people are a scurge on society.

This is who skearon mean't by his/hers post. After all, who were the people on the social welfare during the good times except the governments "poor and vulnerable".

skearon

kadman wrote: »

You obviously now very little about the suffering of the less well off in society, by making this kind of statement

I am stating a fact - welfare increased, on average, 7-10% per annum, when at the same time inflation was 3.4%.

kadman wrote: »

Pity you dont say what the 1% and 7% tax payers earn.

They earn whatever their employer values their labour at. And luckily for the everyone, the 7% contribute 50% of total income tax.

kadman wrote: »

Whats more sickening is the generalisations thrown around in relation to those on the dole. I dont know any one that refuses to work, who is on the dole.

You must live in a very posh area, or go around with your eyes shut. During a time when anyone who wanted a job could get one, Ireland still had over 150,000 people claiming 'job seekers' allowance.

kadman wrote: »

As the minimum wage would be maybe double what a dole recipient gets. I,ve worked in the construction industry for 35 years on and off, and now I,m on the dole, and i dont want to be here. If its such a fekking holiday that you seem to think it is, I,ll swap with you.

Anyone who has worked, and contributed taxes/PRSI certainly deserves to receive more than those who never worked.

kadman wrote: »

As you seem to be quoting high earners tax contributions, I have to assume you are in that category I,ll gladly have your job. If I,m mistaken, accept my apologies.

Apology accepted.

AlekSmart

What IS sickening is that peopel who have worked all their lives, and have lost their jobs, get the same payment as someone who refuses to work and has never contributed anything to society.

Both kearon and spudmonkey`s posts reflect an attitude which,like my own,is somewhat confused by what level of benefit is supposedly provided by PAY RELATED SOCIAL INSURANCE.....That word "Related" continues to bemuse me

Back when I was a chizzler the introduction of PRSI brought with it a uniformity of entitlement which broadly meant that the longer one remained in Employment and the more payments one accrued therefore the greater level of benefit those contributions purchased.

Now that original idea sounds so realistically simple that we just KNOW it ain`t so Ma......

Our exalted rulers got cocky and brushed away all the normal rules of prudence...such as....Insurance being based upon a simple ethos..."The premiums of the MANY paying for the claims of the FEW"

Sadly what we are now faced with is an Irish solution for an Irish problem which invlves reversing the entire principle and standing it on it`s head.

Spudmonkeys five-a-day is so very true but also so very lacking in appreciation today.

- Who have worked all their lives
- Who have never over extended themselves, always lived within their means
- Who have paid their taxes etc
- Who may have someone close to them struck down by illness
- Who have generally given something back to society

These prudent types,dull as dishwater,never attained ANY status during the Tiger days..No Apartments in Spain,No annual new car,no Golf-Club memberships.....jeez but they must have been soooo boring to live alongside.

But hey,modern Ireland required dynamism,adventure and far sightedness of the style so readily apparent in the boardroom of Anglo-Irish Bank and the Dublin Docklands Development Authority to name but two..yep...that was what we needed alright and unfettered by silly ol regulations devised to protect risk-averse boring folks....:)

Crikey but those developers and entrepreneurs took some gambles,in the National Interest as it now turns out.....since the boring risk-averse prolateriat now have had the ethos of RISK dropped straight down onto their shoulders..like it or not !

The really scary element for me is just how much we are focusing our major efforts onto restarting the Housing market..whilst as an entity we have little or nothing to produce,sell or add value to in order to fund more damn property purchasing.......Talk about the madness of King George....an Irish Government member would have laughed the poor bugger out of his throne !!!! :eek:

kadman

Spudmonkey wrote: »

There has to be a distinction made between who are the real less well off in society and those who aren't, because the goverment's idea of the less well off and the normal person's idea of the less well off are two completely different things.

My idea of the less well off (and hopefully most peoples) are those;

- Who have worked all their lives
- Who have never over extended themselves, always lived within their means
- Who have paid their taxes etc
- Who may have someone close to them struck down by illness
- Who have generally given something back to society

These people now find themselves in an awkward place due to the folly of bankers, property developers, people who have lived the last 10 years on credit

On the other hand the governments idea of the less well off are scroungers who have never worked a day in their lives and whose entire family have made a living for themselves off social welfare. These people are a scurge on society.

This is who skearon mean't by his/hers post. After all, who were the people on the social welfare during the good times except the governments "poor and vulnerable".

What is really amazing about this post, is that you have not mentioned people who fit your 1-5 criteria, and are now on the dole. Is that an oversite on your part.

Skearon appears to collectively group all people who find them selves on the dole, he does not differentiate between any groups. So I take it that includes me. I,m on the dole , not by choice. I am neither a scrounger , waster, sponger or scourge on any society. I dont live in a posh area either. I,ve worked for 35 years on and off in construction, and have paid all my dues during that time to support those with out a job, and pay for my benefits.

As I,ve said in earlier posts, if you have both read them. I dont diferentiate between people that are struggling, either with a low paid job, or on the dole. You both clearly do. You want to further penalise dole recipients. Its more to do with , take it from them but not me.


kadman

Spudmonkey

kadman wrote: »

What is really amazing about this post, is that you have not mentioned people who fit your 1-5 criteria, and are now on the dole. Is that an oversite on your part.

I don't understand? Do you want the names of people?

kadman wrote: »

Skearon appears to collectively group all people who find them selves on the dole, he does not differentiate between any groups. So I take it that includes me. I,m on the dole , not by choice. I am neither a scrounger , waster, sponger or scourge on any society. I dont live in a posh area either. I,ve worked for 35 years on and off in construction, and have paid all my dues during that time to support those with out a job, and pay for my benefits.

If you look above you seem to fit the traits I outlined above; worked (on and off) for 35 years, paid your taxes, and you seem to be eager to work again (from what I've seen in other posts). I don't think anyone has a problem with you or someone in your predicament receiving welfare. I would be surprised if there was and thats where I'd disagree with them.

kadman wrote: »

As I,ve said in earlier posts, if you have both read them. I dont diferentiate between people that are struggling, either with a low paid job, or on the dole. You both clearly do. You want to further penalise dole recipients. Its more to do with , take it from them but not me.

It's not about penalising dole recipients, although I would like to see welfare fraud severly penalised. It's about trying to keep the country afloat and stop the IMF from coming in. It's not a bottomless pot that the government are getting their funds from.

kadman

Spudmonkey wrote: »

I don't understand? Do you want the names of people?

I did not ask for names. Your list did not make it clear that you were actually referring to people on the dole, who did fit your 1-5 slot.

kadman

Spudmonkey

Apologies. Yes these are the people I think are deserving of social welfare.

irish_bob

Spudmonkey wrote: »

There has to be a distinction made between who are the real less well off in society and those who aren't, because the goverment's idea of the less well off and the normal person's idea of the less well off are two completely different things.

My idea of the less well off (and hopefully most peoples) are those;

- Who have worked all their lives
- Who have never over extended themselves, always lived within their means
- Who have paid their taxes etc
- Who may have someone close to them struck down by illness
- Who have generally given something back to society

These people now find themselves in an awkward place due to the folly of bankers, property developers, people who have lived the last 10 years on credit

On the other hand the governments idea of the less well off are scroungers who have never worked a day in their lives and whose entire family have made a living for themselves off social welfare. These people are a scurge on society.

This is who skearon mean't by his/hers post. After all, who were the people on the social welfare during the good times except the governments "poor and vulnerable".

what your talking about the vulnerable and the OFFICIAL VULNERABLE

the official vulnerable are the elderly ( including a retired garda superintendant on a 600 a week pension ) foreign nationals , tinkers and lifers on the dole


btw , due to the fact that you have to be earning close to 20 k a year to be in the tax net , many who are on the dole now never contributed a red cent to the state

shoegirl

Daithinski wrote: »

The dole is being sneakily cut on a piecemeal basis, in the usual stealthy tax-ish manner, for house owners and families that are on the dole.

ie The reduction in mortgage allowance and the reduction in childare

These measures might as well have been a cut in social welfare because they equate to less money every month for those on welfare.

These measures penalise house owners with families.

If you have no kids and are renting a house you are now better off (relatively speaking) than a good portion of your fellow dole-ees.

Correct, spot on. I'd say what they will do is increase the number of years PRSI required to qualify and reduce the rates for those who don't qualify for the contributory dole.

Apparently 2 out of every 3 Poles laid off are going home, I suspect thats probably down to being unable to qualify for the contributory JSA and rent being too high to qualify for rent subsidies, as well as things being no wose off back home.

weird

Apologies if any of this has been stated before, I haven't read all the previous posts.

First off, the dole is a very good thing in my opinion. I certainly wouldn't mind having my wages taxed even more if it meant that my fellow residents on this Isle were taken care of. I feel it our duty to help our fellow man, even at our own expense.

However, I very much dislike dole scumbags. I hate these people who seemingly manipulate government agencies for all the free money and housing they can get and do so for the term of life.

Point and case: My best mate who is Irish was laid off in January this year after working 7 years for his employer. His wife, a Slovak, had been laid off after 3 years of employment so both of them found themselves without jobs.

They've had to fight tooth and nail for every bit of assistance they are entitled to.

When they were going through the merry-go-round of social welfare they were amazed how every single time a drunken malcontent scumbag went in he was handed every sort of aid he wanted on a silver platter, and if the government official didn't give him what he wanted he'd raise a fuss (like a child) and they would indulge him for fear he'd do it again. However, when my mate and his wife tried to get what they were entitled to they were interrogated and screwed around at every turn. She was routinely degraded and spoken down to because she was from Eastern Europe.

Both of them are now on FÁS courses, my mate is studying computer programming.

When he is not studying at home he's doing something else productive like taking art classes.

So, I really think that if you want to be on the dole you have to be studying or actively looking for work. We should really evaluate our criteria and processes to insure that people aren't taking advantage of our social welfare system.

This government has done a horrible job at safeguarding our social welfare and has allowed other E.U. member states and their citizens to treat us as fools.

97i9y3941

yes think its a joke giving it to people that drink it away or shoot it up their veins,im sorry if it sounds cruel but the taxpayers money already goes into the hse paying for them sort of people to get treatment for their addictions,as for people with no kids and such,dole is gone to stage where any jobs,most them only 3 day week and such would lead you more finacally better off on the dole than what the jobs pay,sad but true...