Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Dole
Options
Comments
-
No, did you read the thread? or even the last few posts?whatrules???
the employers rules???
"Changing the rules" meant changing the case studys fictional living conditions when another poster said he wanted the case study character to be based in Kerry.how many jobs are currently offered in kerry????
I was suggesting that if Dublin is cheaper to live in, and there are more jobs in Dublin, then shouldnt that be even considered by someone like the character in the case study? Furthermore, I didn't just limit it to Dublin, I said a large jobs centre. This could mean Cork, Galway, Limerick, Waterford, and so on.about 10&of the jobs in dublin.....therefore that implies....move to dublin!!!!!!!!!!
you're talkingvia your back door.
If I could only get offered a job in Kerry or go on the dole, I don't think it would be unreasonable of me to even consider that move, likewise moving back i with my parents until I got back on my feet.
Ae these suggestions really so terrible? How generous is the dole really expected to be when there is such a growing demand for it?0 -
0
-
Be realistic then! If you want to say that the unemployment amount has jumped by 70% over the 7 years, why don't you apply the same analysis to actual cost of living? Take ESB prices, what sort of increases are we talking about for the same time period? A quick search on google reveals that household ESB bills doubled between 2000-2008 - that's a 100% increase. Natural gas for the same time period - 87%. Everything else went up as well! Are you not aware that Ireland became one of the most expensive places to live during the early to mid 00s, they even had a name for it, Rip Off Ireland! Where have you been living?Well it is what is is... The figures are right there. What is your reality....
So what's your point? You were a student and you did the normal student living that just about every student in the country goes through during their college years, myself included. But what about someone who is 30+ (most people in other words) who has worked and paid their way and suddenly their livelihood is taken away through no fault of their own!. Are you saying all those people should go back to living like young lads who are students eating pot noodle, baked beans and cheap food as a way of life, drinking litres of cider for their entertainment, usually going home at the weekend with their mothers there to do their laundry etc? Get real!!The loan was about 5000 euro... Yea thats right i lived on 5000 for about 8 months. That is well within the amount one would get on the dole. This covered rent, food and all other bills, yea it was ****...but I was studying and was still able to go on the pi$$ once and a while...0 -
I’ll take your point on the Sunday issue, though the point stands that a social welfare recipient would be able to keep a dole payment and end up earning €84 greater than €204 per week by the Sunday work set out earlier – that’s €1152 for four weeks including dole. Four days are employment, the rest is the dole. That's a major issue as far as I'm concerned.
But bak to our friend Robert and as regards the car issue, there are a number of problems with this on your behalf. Firstly, it doesn't cost have to cost €330per month to run a basic car. As it happens this is not very far off of his disposable income though.
In any case, he could cut down on petrol costs (€125, seriously) and he doesn't really need monthly breakdown cover. I find it bizarre that you think he requires €80 per month for parts and a mechanic's attention? Get real. I haven't paid that much on parts or mechanics in the last six months for my car.
But lets not forget that if you want to change the rules you have to change all the rules.
By living in the country where the cost of living is lower, robert will not be paying Dublin prices in food and rent, nor his transport costs of €60.
Eve though it looks as though he could afford a car on the dole if you adjust the cost of living from Dublin to Kerry, I propose nevertheless he uses his bike and public transport as much as possible. I'm sure he's still thinking about the environment. Also as a cost cutting measure, maybe save for car maintenance, maybe to save money to get a place in Dublin or a large jobs centre, maybe Robert could actually move in with his family for a while instead of living alone ten miles from the nearest town.
And before you suggest so, most people are not orphaned, single, alone and living 10 miles from the nearest town while on the dole so this is dealing strictly with a minority to humour you.
Excluding what's been said already about the ability to pay for a car while on the dole, what ever happened to buses? Most people do live within reasonable distance to a bus. And whatever happened to getting a lift? Bikes? If things are that bad maybe you should consider taking up Robert's old life in Dublin as per the dole example.
Your argument is fundamentally flawed, because its based on Robert being subsidised in some of his bills, by his 2 flat mates.
Roberts next door neighbour is Jonny.
His weekly outgoings are,
Rent 95.
Utilities 20.
Groceries 50
Bus Eirean 15
Dublin Bus. 5
Sundries. 20.
Grand total...205
Jonny, by the way is not a fictitious character, lives in Dun Laoire, and is not on the dole. But we are delighted to see him come home at the weekends.
I suspect that the reason for people wanting dole cuts is more to do with, make others pay, rather than me.Most people advocating dole cuts, do not know the reality of living on the dole.
kadman0 -
You need to factor in random emergencies though. So let's use computer repairs to take one example. We already know that this young man has his own computer. Or let's say he does anyway.. And let's say it's not a brand new computer, around 18 months old maybe.Now Roberts rent, accomodation, electricity, heating, travelling, mobile phone costs, haircut, broadband, clothes, and television licence have been paid for as well as his medical and drug expenses. He is left with a grand total of €243 per month for emergency spending and keping in contact with his family and adding to his savings
Considering that they are not built to last, it is reasonable to predict that a hard drive or monitor might fail within say 6 months of someone becoming unemployed... In which case you'd have to factor in the monthly cost of an internet cafe - around €50 /month... until he can manage to somehow save to buy a new computer or have the hard drive replaced etc....
Other examples of emergencies/unbudgeted for events might be: household appliances need to be replaced, DIY, repairs, quarterly bank fees, birthdays, other family/group obligations,... etc.
There is always something, as anyone who lives in the real world will tell you! So let's deduct that €50 to cover monthly emergencies, leaving him now with €193.
Also - if this unemployed person happens to be female - a haircut costs a lot more than €12! You're talking €50 as the minimum for a cut alone. I would also say mens cost more than €12, probably more like €20+ if we're talking Dublin here... So we'll deduct a further €38 to cover a female haircut and the total leftover amount is now at €155.
Also what about weekly laundry? Many places don't have their own (free) laundry facilities - especially if we're talking rent-allowance standard accommodation. So a trip to the launderette in Rathmines - €10 / week. Brings us down to €115 as pocket money for the month... €115 / 4 = €28 in pocket money for the week if he or she is lucky : /
Also what hasn't been mentioned at all is that many people out there are ineligible for rent allowance. Anyone who wants to get rent allowance has to settle for the very cheapest of places, many of the single places barely fit to live in. Either that or maybe they have an understanding landlord who'll agree to drop their current rent to just below the threshold(= very cheap accommodation). Failing that, the tenant has to somehow pay their rent out of their dole, with the help of zero rent allowance! Now, they may at some point manage to convince their landlord to reduce their rent... Or when the lease they are currently locked into expires, they can move to low-standard accommodation, and become eligible to receive rent allowance. But to get by until then - typically - they would have to borrow from their credit union to be able to live... Which would in turn result in soon having a montly debt to be paid which would further eat into that remaining €115....
But the bills - esb, heating, broadband, food etc - would amount to more for a person living alone...Oh for goodness sake... if he lives n his own he gets additional rental assistance from social welfare.I would also like to point out that people such as Robert (above) are entitled to work on Sundays at a treble rate of pay without it impacting on dole payments, rent assistance, or medical card entitlement.The ability to work for treble pay on a Sunday, which is a gross wage of €181.65 for seven hours without it efectng your dole payments, is absolutely fact.Fair enough I'm sorry you haven't but I've been paid at that rate on a Sunday as a student and it is not unheard of in a high wage society like Ireland.
You seem to be missing the whole point here! People want to work. But people are being laid off from their jobs! There is no work available!That's a major issue as far as I'm concerned.
What's crazy? Can you explain what is crazy? The allowance goes to the post office and is collected in person every week!In fact, they then pay the jobseekers allowance into your bank account, for some crazy reason.
It would be an additional expense all the same, well over and above what you've already covered in your budget.Not everybody needs a car in the country and being on the dole is not a financial prohibition to maintaining one, even with a 7% dole cut
:mad:How generous is the dole really expected to be when there is such a growing demand for it?
So why not tax the rich then? Would that not make more sense? They are the ones who have the millions!The shortfall that's currently in excess of €20 bilion
And having read my post, can you now still imagine an average person living on €204? Considering how as I've shown above, even a young relatively carefree single person age 25 is hard pressed to get by?!0 -
Advertisement
-
The current increase in taxes, levies to pay for the bank bailouts is because your income tax is used to bail out the greed of banks. The current crisis is not caused by social welfare payments, its caused by the government raiding your pension fund for private corporations.The National Pensions Reserve Fund was established in April 2001 to meet as much as possible of the costs of Ireland's social welfare and public service pensions from 2025 onwards when these costs are projected to increase dramatically due to the ageing of the population. No money can be drawn down before 2025 and, from then on, drawdowns will continue until at least 2055 under rules to be made by the Minister for Finance. By spreading the Exchequer burden arising from Ireland's additional pension commitments over a lengthy period, these drawdowns will contribute to the long-term sustainability of the pension system.
The Fund is controlled and managed by the National Pensions Reserve Fund Commission. The Commission's functions include the determination and implementation of the Fund's investment strategy in accordance with its statutory investment policy. This policy requires that the Fund be invested so as to secure the optimal total financial return provided the level of risk is acceptable to the Commission.
In February 2009 the Minister for Finance announced that the Fund would finance a €7 billion bank recapitalisation programme. Investments made in financial institutions by the Fund under the programme are made under Ministerial direction and the Fund’s statutory investment policy is not applied to these investments.
The Commission performs its functions through the National Treasury Management Agency, which is the Manager of the Fund.
And now the fund has been hi jacked to pay an unknown amount to the banks. Unfortunately you are now a co signer of a debt that you can never pay. Unemployment is set to rise , so many on this thread, may be forced to live on a pittance.
kadman0 -
Your argument is fundamentally flawed, because its based on Robert being subsidised in some of his bills, by his 2 flat mates.
Roberts next door neighbour is Jonny.
His weekly outgoings are,
Rent 95.
Utilities 20.
Groceries 50
Bus Eirean 15
Dublin Bus. 5
Sundries. 20.
Grand total...205
Jonny, by the way is not a fictitious character, lives in Dun Laoire, and is not on the dole. But we are delighted to see him come home at the weekends.
I suspect that the reason for people wanting dole cuts is more to do with, make others pay, rather than me.Most people advocating dole cuts, do not know the reality of living on the dole.
kadman
+1;)0 -
Fair enough I'm sorry you haven't but I've been paid at that rate on a Sunday as a student and it is not unheard of in a high wage society like Ireland.
so after an 8hr shift you got 24hrs pay at basic??
don't know anyone that ever got that.
anyone else??
i've gotten double time plus a day in lieu-(i.e. effectively treble pay)
on bank hol MONDAY..
not good friday though.0 -
people recently let go are ENTITLED to the dole...No, did you read the thread? or even the last few posts?
"Changing the rules" meant changing the case studys fictional living conditions when another poster said he wanted the case study character to be based in Kerry.
lets assume he's based in kerry...jobs?? - none
I was suggesting that if Dublin is cheaper to live in, and there are more jobs in Dublin, then shouldnt that be even considered by someone like the character in the case study? Furthermore, I didn't just limit it to Dublin, I said a large jobs centre. This could mean Cork, Galway, Limerick, Waterford, and so on.
If I could only get offered a job in Kerry or go on the dole, I don't think it would be unreasonable of me to even consider that move,
i'd love to live in kerry..just not feasible.
also if you have a family i think its definitely unreasonable to expect them to consider moving-for possibly twice the dole=min wage??
min wage needs to be increased when more jobs arise.
same fcukers that made millions during the boom are now using
the recession to offer derisory wages for the few jobs out there.sickening.
likewise moving back i with my parents until I got back on my feet.
Ae these suggestions really so terrible? How generous is the dole really expected to be when there is such a growing demand for it?
via their contributions.0 -
Yes, all of these things! I can't speak for the person you're replying to, and I'm sorry if I'm presenting my case badly here but this would sum it up:dreamlogic wrote: »So what's your point? You were a student and you did the normal student living that just about every student in the country goes through during their college years, myself included. But what about someone who is 30+ (most people in other words) who has worked and paid their way and suddenly their livelihood is taken away through no fault of their own!. Are you saying all those people should go back to living like young lads who are students eating pot noodle, baked beans and cheap food as a way of life, drinking litres of cider for their entertainment, usually going home at the weekend with their mothers there to do their laundry etc? Get real!!- The Dole is firstly and most importantly emergency aid for those who find themselves in the unfortunate position of being unemployed
- The current dole rate (JA) is a sufficient rate to allow recipients to live from day to day, paying for groceries and other essential items
- The dole is not intended to preserve a qualit of life that existed when the individual was employed. This is instead a significant aim of Jobseeker's Benefit
- In a period of consisent inflation, dole increases may have been justified under cetain circumstances
- In a period of consistent and significant deflation, the dole must correspondingly fall
He is not being 'subsidised' they are all paying their share. You are constantly ducking the point, most people renting like this are not living alone. If they are living alone, further social welfare aid is available. If this is not sufficient, maybe such people should consider, I don't know, looking for a cheaper alternative? This isn't rocket science. The dole is not there to preserve the life one used to have as a worker. Again, that's more closesly like the role of Jobseeker's Benefit.Originally posted by kadman
Your argument is fundamentally flawed, because its based on Robert being subsidised in some of his bills, by his 2 flat mates.
Actually, if his only source of income is Jobseeker's Allowance, Jonny will only have to contribute €18 towards his rent or €24 from the first of June if his current rent is €95 per week, so that now leaves him with an extra €308 per month than he would have under your inaccurate calculations.Originally posted by kadman
Roberts next door neighbour is Jonny.
His weekly outgoings are,
Rent 95.
Utilities 20.
Groceries 50
Bus Eirean 15
Dublin Bus. 5
Sundries. 20.
Grand total...205
Jonny, by the way is not a fictitious character, lives in Dun Laoire, and is not on the dole. But we are delighted to see him come home at the weekends.
When people quote a figure of €204 per week for JA they should remember o factor in the rent assistance provided by the Department of Social Welfare for such individuals - upto an extra €130 for a single person such as Jonny in Dublin, for example. That amounts to €330 for Jonny for the week.
That's not right. Go to a training college, she might even get it for free. Either way, for a girl to get her haircut it's not going to cost a minimum of €50, and in my opinion, there are no grounds for arguing in favour of that expense when one is on the Dole. If it does cover it wonderful. But you cannot expect the dole to actively aim to cover that kind of thing.Originally posted by dreamlogic
Also - if this unemployed person happens to be female - a haircut costs a lot more than €12! You're talking €50 as the minimum for a cut alone.
My rent in a nice, bright two-bedroomed shared apartment Ive just moved into in Portobello, with another professional, in South Dublin is €400 per month. At the moment if I were receiving rent allowance that is within the limit, so if I were Dole dependent, I would only be paying €18 per week for my apartment.Originally posted by dreamlogic
Also what hasn't been mentioned at all is that many people out there are ineligible for rent allowance. Anyone who wants to get rent allowance has to settle for the very cheapest of places, many of the single places barely fit to live in.
Don't get me wrong here, I think that is only correct, in fact I think the Government should go further in some respects that I don't want to get into because it's off topic. I'm just pointing out what I think is a mistake in your statement. Places at the admissible rent levels are more than habitable and in fact, comfortable.
Yes, and I believe in a 1 to 2% rise in tax on the current higher income band and a new higher tax bands on top of this at salaries above €95, 000 and again at salaries above €145, 000. But that isn't enough, and you can't fix this economy by taxing wealth out of it, you have to combine it with spending cuts.Originally posted by dreamlogic
So why not tax the rich then? Would that not make more sense? They are the ones who have the millions!
Look, even after your own altered calculations, this Robert character is coming out with €28 in pocket money for the week after everything essential and the miscellaneous items have been paid for. I'm sorry, but unlike you and Kadman, I don't think that is such an outrage. Nor would cutting that left over money be, if it meant a significant cut of millions for the exchequer over a period of time.0 -
Advertisement
-
so after an 8hr shift you got 24hrs pay at basic??
don't know anyone that ever got that.
anyone else??
i've gotten double time plus a day in lieu-(i.e. effectively treble pay)
on bank hol MONDAY..
not good friday though.
This is offtopic but since you brought it up..no, it wasn't for a full day. When I did work on Sundays it was for five hours at that rate. Therefore it was five hours that I applied to this Robert characters wage. Anyway, it isn't relevant. If you didn't earn it the only solution that I can hink of is, maybe we worked in different jobs for different employers???0 -
This is offtopic but since you brought it up..no, it wasn't for a full day. When I did work on Sundays it was for five hours at that rate. Therefore it was five hours that I applied to this Robert characters wage. Anyway, it isn't relevant. If you didn't earn it the only solution that I can hink of is, maybe we worked in different jobs for different employers???
some job.
wonder if thats still the rate.
IMO dole should not be cut.
find alternative ways.
for instance wealthy criminals should pay for their own incarceration.
force our celebrities and superstars to pay tax relevant to their wealth-U2?
long term dolers should be penalised-anyone unemployed during the boom that was medically fit for work should have their dole reduced.
and people need to start outing their neighbours and family members that are abusing SW.
i could be wrongly informed on this next point but...
stop paying Child allowance to people who are claiming for children not even resident in this country....0 -
The current increase in taxes, levies to pay for the bank bailouts is because your income tax is used to bail out the greed of banks. The current crisis is not caused by social welfare payments, its caused by the government raiding your pension fund for private corporations.
kadman
The taxation raised doesn't even cover the cost of S/W and public service expenditure; That's before we get into the whole banking situation. Even without the banks problems we'd still be living beyond our means.0 -
some job.
wonder if thats still the rate.
IMO dole should not be cut.
find alternative ways.
for instance wealthy criminals should pay for their own incarceration.
force our celebrities and superstars to pay tax relevant to their wealth-U2?
long term dolers should be penalised-anyone unemployed during the boom that was medically fit for work should have their dole reduced.
and people need to start outing their neighbours and family members that are abusing SW.
i could be wrongly informed on this next point but...
stop paying Child allowance to people who are claiming for children not even resident in this country....
Lol, FORCE our celebrities, I'd love to see what tax system would come up with that, ultimately they'd just leave Ireland forever, leaving the rest to foot the bill (the top 5% of the workforce pay 40% of income tax).
People who are working in Ireland are paying PRSI and are entitled to it's full benefits for their family, whether they live here or not. We could cut their PRSI rate?
On the car issue, I had no car, until I got a job, then I got a car based on the income I'd be receiving.0 -
Yes, all of these things! I can't speak for the person you're replying to, and I'm sorry if I'm presenting my case badly here but this would sum it up:[*]The Dole is firstly and most importantly emergency aid for those who find themselves in the unfortunate position of being unemployed
[*]The current dole rate (JA) is a sufficient rate to allow recipients to live from day to day, paying for groceries and other essential items
[*]The dole is not intended to preserve a qualit of life that existed when the individual was employed. This is instead a significant aim of Jobseeker's Benefit
[*]In a period of consisent inflation, dole increases may have been justified under cetain circumstances
[*]In a period of consistent and significant deflation, the dole must correspondingly fall
JB rate is 204, how would that preserve your quality of life , prior to unemployment.He is not being 'subsidised' they are all paying their share. You are constantly ducking the point, most people renting like this are not living alone. If they are living alone, further social welfare aid is available. If this is not sufficient, maybe such people should consider, I don't know, looking for a cheaper alternative? This isn't rocket science. The dole is not there to preserve the life one used to have as a worker. Again, that's more closesly like the role of Jobseeker's Benefit.
If you are sharing your bills with 2 others, you are being subsidised. If it costs 30 a week to heat a house, if he,s on his own he pays 30. JB is 204, JA could end up less, depending on means. The role of JB will not preserve the life one used to have.Actually, if his only source of income is Jobseeker's Allowance, Jonny will only have to contribute €18 towards his rent or €24 from the first of June if his current rent is €95 per week, so that now leaves him with an extra €308 per month than he would have under your inaccurate calculations.
You clearly have not read the post regarding Jonny, and his source of financial support, as you are now quoting your own inaccuracies.When people quote a figure of €204 per week for JA they should remember o factor in the rent assistance provided by the Department of Social Welfare for such individuals - upto an extra €130 for a single person such as Jonny in Dublin, for example. That amounts to €330 for Jonny for the week.
Jonny is not on the doleThat's not right. Go to a training college, she might even get it for free. Either way, for a girl to get her haircut it's not going to cost a minimum of €50, and in my opinion, there are no grounds for arguing in favour of that expense when one is on the Dole. If it does cover it wonderful. But you cannot expect the dole to actively aim to cover that kind of thing.
My rent in a nice, bright two-bedroomed shared apartment Ive just moved into in Portobello, with another professional, in South Dublin is €400 per month. At the moment if I were receiving rent allowance that is within the limit, so if I were Dole dependent, I would only be paying €18 per week for my apartment.
Don't get me wrong here, I think that is only correct, in fact I think the Government should go further in some respects that I don't want to get into because it's off topic. I'm just pointing out what I think is a mistake in your statement. Places at the admissible rent levels are more than habitable and in fact, comfortable.
Yes, and I believe in a 1 to 2% rise in tax on the current higher income band and a new higher tax bands on top of this at salaries above €95, 000 and again at salaries above €145, 000. But that isn't enough, and you can't fix this economy by taxing wealth out of it, you have to combine it with spending cuts.
Look, even after your own altered calculations, this Robert character is coming out with €28 in pocket money for the week after everything essential and the miscellaneous items have been paid for. I'm sorry, but unlike you and Kadman, I don't think that is such an outrage. Nor would cutting that left over money be, if it meant a significant cut of millions for the exchequer over a period of time.
Unlike you InFront, I believe in the protection and support of the less well off in society, even if it impacts on me , as its a societies moral duty to do so. You should have a spell on the dole for a while, it might temper your vigour in relation to your hard attitude. After your dole cuts, would you consider maybe cutting the fuel allowance, back to school support, old age pension maybe.
Jonny,s financial support for his location in Dublin is from his parents, as Jonny has no job, and is attending college. As jobs are now extremely thin on the ground for college students, he has been unsuccessful to gain employment of any sort for the current holiday period, but he will keep looking.So his parents must bear the burden of his financial commitments.
He is not on the dole.
kadman0 -
jimmycrackcorm wrote: »The taxation raised doesn't even cover the cost of S/W and public service expenditure; That's before we get into the whole banking situation. Even without the banks problems we'd still be living beyond our means.
True, but our expenditure bill has now been increased, because we are giving bilions from our pension fund to private corporations....banks. Not because of any social welfare increases. Its not rocket science. Why do we feel the need to blame those on social welfare, they are victims of the crisis, not the cause of it.
kadman0 -
I do believe in the protection of those who are unemployed. I believe in protection and emergency aid for as long as they need it, and additional support where they can show that it is necessary. I don't support in excess of 300 euro a month to keep a car on the road, or they Government actively trying to cover the costs of 50 euro haircuts as one poster suggested they should, or the Government paying for Italian Leather shoes as per this thread.Unlike you InFront, I believe in the protection and support of the less well off in society, even if it impacts on me , as its a societies moral duty to do so.
Italian Leather Shoes Thread
I myself have been in a similar position, during five years of college I mainly relied on the support of my parents to cover the most significant costs of my attending college, such as books, equipment, food and so on. Part time and holiday work does not go far in such situations. The point is that my parents, and I'm sure this character's parents, work very hard to pay for college fees and get their children a thirld level education. They, like all taxpayers, deserve to know that their tax money is being spent most efficiently, on those people who need it the most - not on leather shoes.Jonny,s financial support for his location in Dublin is from his parents, as Jonny has no job, and is attending college. As jobs are now extremely thin on the ground for college students, he has been unsuccessful to gain employment of any sort for the current holiday period, but he will keep looking.So his parents must bear the burden of his financial commitments.
He is not on the dole.
By the way, I'm not saying the example I linked to is common - but it does exist and it is one aspect of the social welfare system which, like any form of waste, will annoy people a great deal and gives everybody else a bad name.0 -
I do believe in the protection of those who are unemployed. I believe in protection and emergency aid for as long as they need it, and additional support where they can show that it is necessary. I don't support in excess of 300 euro a month to keep a car on the road, or they Government actively trying to cover the costs of 50 euro haircuts as one poster suggested they should, or the Government paying for Italian Leather shoes as per this thread.
Italian Leather Shoes Thread
I myself have been in a similar position, during five years of college I mainly relied on the support of my parents to cover the most significant costs of my attending college, such as books, equipment, food and so on. Part time and holiday work does not go far in such situations. The point is that my parents, and I'm sure this character's parents, work very hard to pay for college fees and get their children a thirld level education. They, like all taxpayers, deserve to know that their tax money is being spent most efficiently, on those people who need it the most - not on leather shoes.
By the way, I'm not saying the example I linked to is common - but it does exist and it is one aspect of the social welfare system which, like any form of waste, will annoy people a great deal and gives everybody else a bad name.
Jonnys parents have given full financial support, and continue to do so, in order to provide an opportunity for third level education for him. They like all other tax payers deserve to know that their money is well spent, indeed.
They are firm in their belief that it would be wiser to suppport those in need with their taxes, rather than give it away to bankers. unfortunately they do not have a choice where it goes. They believe that where its needed most, is in the support of the social fabric of a caring society, and not in the pockets of private corporations, who have squandered the future of Jonnys labour, in paying a debt for the banks.
If Jonny,s parents were on the dole, how would be finish college?
kadman0 -
True, but our expenditure bill has now been increased, because we are giving bilions from our pension fund to private corporations....banks. Not because of any social welfare increases. Its not rocket science. Why do we feel the need to blame those on social welfare, they are victims of the crisis, not the cause of it.
kadman
Our expenditure bill increased because we raised the rate of social welfare, and public service wages so high when we were creaming it from stamp duty and VRT.
People bought houses and cars using credit from the banks, and the banks are now finding out that they can't pay it back, the money supply is cut off, and the expenditure needs to return to a more normal level as a result.
The bank bailout is absolutely necessary to keep the country going, and, in theory, all the money put into the banks, will eventually get paid back once the financial system returns to normality and banks become profitable again. Money given away by the government will never ever come back.
The mathematics isn't hard, no matter what scenario "Johnny" finds himself in.0 -
If Jonny,s parents were on the dole, how would be finish college?
Through educational grants and a part time job - hopefully.
This is one good point I think you have made. I've just finished college where some students' families were paying (literally) hundreds of thousands of euro for private educational fees and accomodation because thankfully they could, but unfortunately some of the Irish classmates were struggling to get by. It was a fascinatingly bizarre dichotomy.
Luckily, most people in the system do get by but I fully accept that when it comes to education, there is still not enough support to help those who come from disadvantaged backgrounds or maybe single parent families where the parent was social welfare reliant. That is a kind of state aid that nobody can begrudge. Perhaps money that you think should be set aside for car maintenance should go towards educational grants in the cases you refer to.
Furthermore, I would take issue with your opinion on the bailout of the banks. If the banks were not re-capitalised, how do you propose industry would ever gain the capital to bring about new jobs? If the banks had no money, who would pay for student loans? Or car loans where people need a car to get to work? Everyone needs banks, it isn't a matter of choice. Whether everybody needs the dole at the current rate, is at worst doubtful.0 -
Advertisement
-
Our expenditure bill increased because we raised the rate of social welfare, and public service wages so high when we were creaming it from stamp duty and VRT.
People bought houses and cars using credit from the banks, and the banks are now finding out that they can't pay it back, the money supply is cut off, and the expenditure needs to return to a more normal level as a result.
The bank bailout is absolutely necessary to keep the country going, and, in theory, all the money put into the banks, will eventually get paid back once the financial system returns to normality and banks become profitable again. Money given away by the government will never ever come back.
The mathematics isn't hard, no matter what scenario "Johnny" finds himself in.
You must be one of the only people that has ever posted on the issue of the banks paying back the money, when the country returns to financial stability. If you believe that is going to happen in the next couple of decades, you are indeed worthy of your avatar.The government doesn,t even know the level of guarantee.
In case its slipped your mind, the maple 15 screwed the country out of 8 billion euro, and there is nothing more about them in the msm. Why.
The countries banks are bankrupt, and any bail out given so far, has not been released by the banks to sme,s.
And the best you can come up with is blame the social welfare. I guess selective amnesia is affecting your judgement. We have not even hit rock bottom yet, and you are talking about recovery. Give me a break.
kadman0 -
What about, heating , gas, car insurance, tax, petrol , clothes, car maintainence, phone, tv lisense, milk, medical. If you can put the figures up for all of that on 204E, then MABS would be delighted to talk to you, as you appear to have it cracked.
kadman
I live alone and my household bills cost €300 a month. This includes the items in bold. It also includes a basic SKY package, no sports or movies or anything expensive.
This dole business is really annoying. Six months ago people on boards maybe it was PI or After Hours were insisting that unemployed people should sell their cars and televisions and rent books from the library for entertainment. I always considered that to be unrealistic but now unemployed people want Xbox's and cars, expensive haircuts....that too is unrealistic.
Yesterday I met someone who was complaining that she only had €20 to go into town with until she got "paid" today. That €20 is enough to buy a coffee somewhere, something to wear from Penneys and some special offer food from the supermarket, M+S even, with €20 she wouldn't have to go to Lidl.truebluedub wrote: »Studies such as Wickham (2004) have shown that the lack of car ownership can adversely impact an individuals ability to get a job. It also plays a role in social exclusion.
Strangely a driving test is one of the few things that isn't free to the unemployed. Loads of people also seem to think "fuel allowance" is for petrol. (It's not,it's for heating). But if you apply for it and qualify you can spend it on whatever you want.
What if this hypothetical Robert fella smokes? Or if he has a girlfriend and has to buy her presents or bring her on nights out? What if he has a dog and has to buy dog food every week?0 -
You must be one of the only people that has ever posted on the issue of the banks paying back the money, when the country returns to financial stability. If you believe that is going to happen in the next couple of decades, you are indeed worthy of your avatar.The government doesn,t even know the level of guarantee.
In case its slipped your mind, the maple 15 screwed the country out of 8 billion euro, and there is nothing more about them in the msm. Why.
The countries banks are bankrupt, and any bail out given so far, has not been released by the banks to sme,s.
And the best you can come up with is blame the social welfare. I guess selective amnesia is affecting your judgement. We have not even hit rock bottom yet, and you are talking about recovery. Give me a break.
kadman
If it's going to be decades before our economy recovers and the banks operate normally again, then you will see the dole cut to a fraction of what it is today. The country cannot operate at the current deficit level for more than a couple of years, before our bonds turn to junk status. We might as well leave the country today.
There is two scenario's:
The banks fail, the government can't guarantee the savings, Ireland is wiped out as an economic entity for decades, no money for basic healthcare, let alone the jobless.
The banks don't fail, profits return, and provide an income to the tax payer for years as they pay back the recapitalisation money with interest.
Either way, the current deficit is so large, that social and public services have to be cut, even if the banks weren't getting bailed out.0 -
If it's going to be decades before our economy recovers and the banks operate normally again, then you will see the dole cut to a fraction of what it is today. The country cannot operate at the current deficit level for more than a couple of years, before our bonds turn to junk status. We might as well leave the country today.
Yes you may as well leave. Otherwise you will also be one of the dole recipients, on the pittance that you want given nowThere is two scenario's:
The banks fail, the government can't guarantee the savings, Ireland is wiped out as an economic entity for decades, no money for basic healthcare, let alone the jobless.
The banks don't fail, profits return, and provide an income to the tax payer for years as they pay back the recapitalisation money with interest.
The banks already have profited. They have been guaranteed a bail out for amounts that no body knows. With money from the pension fund, now their petty cash box.
.Either way, the current deficit is so large, that social and public services have to be cut, even if the banks weren't getting bailed out
What about recouping money from the maple 15.
There has n,t been a single bailout for any mortgage holder in the country, why.
Third Scenario:
Government gives my taxes to bail out the bank, by way of the private individual who has mortgage debt to the banks. He pays his mortgage to the bank as agreed. The bank gets its money to put back into circulation .
This would have the effect of supplying money to the banks, and relieving the mortgage holder of his debt. But the banks only make bags of money when we are in debt, and thats where we are going to be kept.
Whether you realise it or not, you, and your children are now enslaved in the largest debt since the formation of the state. No matter what the banks do in the years to come, your debt burden has increased significantly in the recent months, and is set to continue on a rising scale for the futue decades. Even if the banks pay off the unknown debt, you wont.
Lets face it, you dont recapitalise solvent banks, only insolvent ones.
Sorry mods for going completely off topic.
kadman0 -
Are you talking about the taxpayer paying for all of these mortgages and never getting their money back? I would seriously hope not because that is a dreadful idea.Government gives my taxes to bail out the bank, by way of the private individual who has mortgage debt to the banks. He pays his mortgage to the bank as agreed. The bank gets its money to put back into circulation .
This would have the effect of supplying money to the banks, and relieving the mortgage holder of his debt
On the offchance that you actually mean that the debtor pays back the state, instead of saying the debtor's debt "is relieved", then that too is a bad idea. It's basically NAMA without the benefits.
NAMA is there to help the banks by getting rid of their worrying debts, and also aims to help business and mortgage holders. Businesses are given new loan agreements which are more realistic which they pay back. They stay in business. They pay wages to their employees and their employees pay off their mortgages and reinject money into the economy through taxes. Everyone is happy.
If you are proposing that we just help mortgage holders, then mortgages get paid off, but wait, what about the businesses. Nobody bothered to help them out so they defaulted on their loans. The banks collaps. Nobody can get credit. Businesses have to let people go. Everybody is now on the dole and because we are all on the dole we can finally all agree that the dole should be increased.
Where's the money?0 -
I would agree with this definition normally. But today things are different. The situation is abnormal. There are no jobs to be had, and people are faced with no choice except to survive on the dole for an indefinite length of time.InFront wrote:The Dole is firstly and most importantly emergency aid for those who find themselves in the unfortunate position of being unemployed
Yet you are saying that it's acceptable that people should be expected to live on even less than currently, in a state of "emergency", until such time as government gets its act together to provide people with jobs? For however long that might be. 6 months, 1 year, 2 years? people have no idea how long they are going to be left waiting...
Well obviously not. If people are sharing, they are going to constitute the majority of the population. A significant number however, do live alone.most people renting like this are not living alone.
Such as what? Why should grown adults be forced by economic necessity to move in with complete strangers? This is 2009. If people opt to live alone for whatever reason, they should not be penalised for this!If they are living alone, further social welfare aid is available. If this is not sufficient, maybe such people should consider, I don't know, looking for a cheaper alternative?
There is no-one receiving an extra €130 per week so can you please stop posting inaccurate information! If you are interested in debating this issue, at least get your basic facts right as to the amount of the entitlements that are being paid out instead of making it up as you go along!....Inaccurate calculations.
When people quote a figure of €204 per week for JA they should remember o factor in the rent assistance provided by the Department of Social Welfare for such individuals - upto an extra €130 for a single person such as Jonny in Dublin, for example. That amounts to €330 for Jonny for the week.
Yeah right. I've done that before and I came out with an uneven haircut. Never again!Go to a training college, she might even get it for free.
If you dispute the cost of a female haircut, you can do a search online or walk into any salon and see what the going rate is. I think you'll find that €50 is a conservative estimate actually if you factor in that many people also opt to colour their hair(especially people who have lost their natural colour). I don't opt for this myself so I don't know what this costs typically. But many people do, and why would you want to deprive them of this? Do you want it to get to the stage where people stop caring about their appearance?for a girl to get her haircut it's not going to cost a minimum of €50,
Should people not be entitled to look presentable? Would you not want them to look presentable in the event of a job interview?and in my opinion, there are no grounds for arguing in favour of that expense when one is on the Dole.
I live in the same area myself. I am glad that you've just moved into a new place and all and that you are happy with it. You are forgetting though that many landlords of such properties will turn people away unless - like you - they happen to be professionals.My rent in a nice, bright two-bedroomed shared apartment Ive just moved into in Portobello, with another professional, in South Dublin is €400 per month.
I agree with the last part - It isn't enough! But why are you are advocating a 7% cut in dole, but only a "1 to 2% rise in tax on the current higher income band"?! How is that fair to the people who the rich have made their money off the backs of?Yes, and I believe in a 1 to 2% rise in tax on the current higher income band and a new higher tax bands on top of this at salaries above €95, 000 and again at salaries above €145, 000. But that isn't enough...
Well maybe this is because you yourself are a student and haven't yet contributed enough to understand the concept of what is fair and what is not fair! Even leaving aside the issue of what one has or hasn't contributed, it is my view that people ought to be entitled to a decent dole payment in the absense of any option to take up employment. Cutting dole payments does not make any sense if there is no work out there for people to do! When this situation changes, and work becomes available, then cutting dole payments makes sense. Until then, cutting the payments does not make sense.I'm sorry, but unlike you and Kadman, I don't think that is such an outrage.
What you coldly refer to as "the exchequer" is in fact our own money! And people need to be more vocal about this fact!..if it meant a significant cut of millions for the exchequer over a period of time.
Easy. It would begin with more people using credit unions, and credit unions (non-profit organisations) would expand to replace day-to-day banking in peoples lives.If the banks were not re-capitalised, how do you propose industry would ever gain the capital to bring about new jobs? If the banks had no money, who would pay for student loans? Or car loans where people need a car to get to work?0 -
We don't have a royal family here in Ireland. If they have a problem with paying their way then as far as I am concerned, they are not welcome in the country. Seize their assets, take their passports, give them a one-way ticket out and good riddance!astrofool wrote:Lol, FORCE our celebrities, I'd love to see what tax system would come up with that, ultimately they'd just leave Ireland forever, leaving the rest to foot the bill
You can quote percentages like this all you like. The fact of the matter is that the gap between the super-rich and someone on the dole is massive, and this gap is INCREASING as time goes on. Is this your idea of progress?!(the top 5% of the workforce pay 40% of income tax)
Here's a quote from an article written in 2007(published by a mainstream Irish newspaper):
Astrofool, no-one is saying that the rich are not paying ANY tax. The issue here is that they are not paying their fair share of tax. Not by a long shot in fact!Consider what is happening here. According to the Bank of Ireland, the richest 1pc in our country own 20pc of all the wealth. They have assets of €92bn. The top 2pc own 30pc of the nation's wealth and the top 5pc own 40pc. This is an extraordinary concentration of wealth in very few hands. While the wealth of the nation has gone up by 350pc in the past decade, those at the top have seen their wealth sky-rocket.
It is "necessary" if you only care about the rich in society. There is nothing "necessary" about it in the bigger picture whatsoever.The bank bailout is absolutely necessary to keep the country going, and, in theory, all the money put into the banks, will eventually get paid back once the financial system returns to normality and banks become profitable again.
Who owns the money? Can you explain what you mean by "come back"? Where does it "come back" to exactly? Back into the hands of the rich?Money given away by the government will never ever come back.
No-one here is saying it's hard. But the government and their friends would like the rest of us to think it is all very complex, or something that only they can understand! It's not.The mathematics isn't hard
What's at issue here essentially is a difference in values: Some people are in favour of protecting the rich at the expense of the poor. Others are in favour of protecting the poor at the expense of the rich. That's what it comes down to astrofool, nothing else.
The banks getting bailed out hardly helps matters though does it?! Who cares about banks, investment etc. when it comes down to it if people have to suffer due to lack of healthcare etc. in the process. It is a simple matter of priorities. There is plenty of money and capital in this country in the hands of the rich. You can pretend that this is not the case if you want. But you are simply wrong when you try to paint the situation like our hands are tied and we have no option other than to go with protecting the rich!Either way, the current deficit is so large, that social and public services have to be cut, even if the banks weren't getting bailed out.0 -
Are you talking about the taxpayer paying for all of these mortgages and never getting their money back? I would seriously hope not because that is a dreadful idea.
The tax payer has been forced to pay the banks, with out the prospect of them getting their money back. How is that ok. Its a dreadful idea from the banks point of view.On the offchance that you actually mean that the creditor pays back the state, instead of saying the creditor's debt "is relieved", then that too is a bad idea. It's basically NAMA without the benefits.
There are no benefits of NAMA at the present time, as the legal issues of what they propose have not been established, it may take years to do so.NAMA is there to help the banks by getting rid of their worrying debts, and also aims to help business and mortgage holders. Businesses are given new loan agreements which are more realistic which they pay back. They stay in business. They pay wages to their employees and their employees pay off their mortgages and reinject money into the economy through taxes. Everyone is happy.
Correct, they are there to buy the worrying debts that the bank cant get rid of, with my tax money. Nothing has been set up by the government to help the ordinary paye worker, or those on social welfare dealing with a mortgage debt they have .They have already paid for any support they get with their PRSI payments. The banks have paid nothing.The leading institutions in the country could not get money from these debts. These same institutions have been established for decades here, so presumably are experts. Yet they cant generate income from them. So now we set up a new agency, and think NAMA can do it. Its accepted that there are major legal implications regarding taking these out standing accounts into NAMA, that may take years to resolve.In the meantime we are going down the pan. Its not there to help me pay my mortgage.If you are proposing that we just help mortgage holders, then mortgages get paid off, but wait, what about the businesses. Nobody bothered to help them out so they defaulted on their loans. The banks collaps. Nobody can get credit. Businesses have to let people go. Everybody is now on the dole and because we are all on the dole we can finally all agree that the dole should be increased.
We should have helped everybody, we didn,t. We have guaranteed an income stream for the banks for decades. That nobody knows the size of.And in return we may be getting a heap of bad debts, that even the bank could not earn on. So the taxpayer, and social welfare recipients are taking the pain for it. Can you name any banker, government official, that is taking the same amount of pain.
QUOTE]Where's the money?[/
First of all , you had it. Then the inland revenue got it. Then the NRPF got it. Then it was given to the banks. They now own the pension funds income stream, because we will continue to bail them out, and they will continue to ask for more.
Sorry for going off topic mods.
kadman0 -
dreamlogic wrote: »There is no-one receiving an extra €130 per week so can you please stop posting inaccurate information! If you are interested in debating this issue, at least get your basic facts right as to the amount of the entitlements that are being paid out instead of making it up as you go along!
Of course there is, in the form of rent allowance - maximum rate is €130 per week for Dublin and Wicklow for a single person living alone. It's lower for elsewhere in the country.
If you're including single parents with one child, a maximum rate of €1000 per month applies to Dublin.
Where are you getting the idea that there is no-one receiving this amount? There is, and I've dealt with them in my previous job.
Rent relief rates0 -
Advertisement
-
dreamlogic wrote: »Astrofool, no-one is saying that the rich are not paying ANY tax. The issue here is that they are not paying their fair share of tax. Not by a long shot in fact!
The problem is that the rich are the one part of society that can readily move country, increasing taxes on them often reduces the amount of tax that they pay. France, for example, has a punitive tax on high earners with high assets, and has seen their tax received from this group fall steadily as a result (it's a populist tax, nothing more). Many businessmen who work in france commute in from brussels daily.
With 5% contributing 40% to our income tax, if that 5% move, we are f*cked, the burden has to be picked up by everyone equally, and that means cutting benefits as well as increasing taxes.
Of course, the last person who seized the assets of the rich people was in Zimbabwe, and we all know how well that has turned out.
Can anyone tell me, is the bank bailout being included in our day to day figures, or is it being included on the balance sheets as a loan?0
Advertisement