Dole

dreamlogic

InFront wrote:

No, dole payments are made for six days per week actually. People do not receive dole for Sundays. Check it out.
I gave the example of January and the maths are perfectly correct.
27 dole days in January
1 dole day = €34
27 dole days = €34 x 27 = €918

Irrelevant. The maths for this is simple. People need to eat, use electricity, heating etc. on a Sunday the same as any other day of the week. This needs to be budgeted for. To close your eyes and pretend that Sunday doesn't exist must be a desperate attempt to grasp at straws here. Even if you were right about this(which you're not), you'd still be wrong about the €1000 figure:

If you read my post again, I said this is about €1,000 which it is.

I have been following your posts and replying to you in good faith each time by quoting the relevant extracts from your posts each time.
Don't try to make this sound complicated to deflect from your inaccuracy.
You originally said and I quote this again:

InFront wrote:

Or do you insist that 25 year olds living at home with their parents, and with no bills deserve about €1000 for a month of
unemployment?

Clearly if someone is living with their parents then they cannot also be receiving a supplement for rental accommodation. This supplement is only available to people who have been means tested and approved after their rental accomodation has been inspected, landlord approved etc.
You've made a large error in your calculations here to the tune of €97/ month.
They are receiving no more than €903 from the state for the duration of a 31-day-month time span in the case cited above.
It is incorrect and unfair of you actually to try to allege that an unemployed person who is not claiming the rent supplement is receiving a greater amount than this when they are not.
In the interests of not misleading people who might be reading, please explicitly retract this false information that you posted and are continuing to stand by as accurate.

Budget is different to salary.

The dole payment is not a salary. That's the whole point of it. It is an allowance that can be claimed when a person is no longer in receipt of a salary. It is not itself a salary. You never hear of anyone referring to dole as a salary. Funnily enough that's because it isn't one! You are the only person I've ever encountered who would describe it as such. You probably should correct this for yourself. I suggest you look up "salary" in a dictionary if you have any remaining doubts on this.

and the budget is closer to €30/ day

Yes, and thank you for acknowledging this at least. €29.13 for each day to be precise.
Budget is the whole issue here. The technicalities of how the payment is calculated are irrelevant.

You're chasing your own tail here.

*Sigh* Here's what you said:

InFront wrote:

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.

You omitted the €24 that the person pays out of their dole. So €106 is what you should've said there, not €130.

Oh and it's actually not €24 yet nor has it been, it's still €18 for now.

I am fully aware of that. But we're not debating last December's budget here. We are referring to the current budget which the government has announced the results of; I posted up this information myself yesterday. These new cuts are to come into effect in a few days.

InFront

dreamlogic wrote: »

Irrelevant. The maths for this is simple. People need to eat, use electricity, heating etc. on a Sunday the same as any other day of the week.

The Government won't pay people for working on a Sunday, quite rightly. If they're not going to be working Sundays, they'll just have to budget for it.
Just like their hair colouring you referred to earlier.

Even if you were right about this(which you're not), you'd still be wrong about the €1000 figure:

Can you quote where I said it was €1,000? I said about €1,000 for the first month of 2009. The exact figure is €919.35, most reasonable people would say "about €1,000" in casual terms, however I obviously would accept you may not.

Clearly if someone is living with their parents then they cannot also be receiving a supplement for rental accommodation.

Clearly nobody actually claimed otherwise. Read the post that you're quoting. Who mentioned living with parents in that post? If I were on the dole I would have received €1479.35 between rent allowance and dole payments for the the duration of January. That's about €1,500. I use the term 'about' to provide a round figure as lots of people do in everyday life.

This is ridiculously expensive. The exchequer debt widened to €7 billion last month and unemployment is expected to average 17% next year. The dole must be cut

They are receiving no more than €903 from the state for the duration of a 31-day-month time span in the case cited above.

No - you are receiving €919.35 in the timeframe I just mentioned. Just because you're not spending it in the same timeframe and not working Sundays doesn't effect the rate of reception.

It is incorrect and unfair of you actually to try to allege that an unemployed person who is not claiming the rent supplement is receiving a greater amount than this when they are not.

I referred to the cap, I never said anybody was receiving €130 per week. On top of their dole payments they are receiving a considerable amount of funding up to the cut off point of €130 per week. You seem to be grumbling about them having to contribute a mere €24 to that.

The dole payment is not a salary. That's the whole point of it. It is an allowance that can be claimed when a person is no longer in receipt of a salary. It is not itself a salary. You never hear of anyone referring to dole as a salary.

Some people in the AH thread I linked to called it their 'wages' so yes you can. Look you are the one saying it should cover fifty euro haircuts, so I don't see calling it that name could be a big deal. Semantics.

Dreamlogic, I would raise the issue of PRSI to you. These people on Jobseekers Allowance have not paid PRSI in the recent past and are not overnight victims of the recession, from a time when unemployment was low. Are you really opposed to their taking a €1.75 cut per day in their budget?

kadman

InFront wrote: »

Oh come off of it! Lets not act like you've been talking about Jobseeker's Benefit all along.

I haven,t. That particular question was about JB, as you would have seen if you read it correctly.

Job seekers benefit is a contributory fund that PRSI contributors have paid into and it is always more that €204 (jobseeker's allowance).

Incorrect.
http://www.welfare.ie/EN/Publications/sw19/Pages/sw19_sect6.aspx

Jobseeker's Benefit could be as low as 92 euro , depending on your income.

Jobseeker's Benefit Rate from 25 December 2008 Rate per week
Personal Rate €204.30

When are you going to provide us with a link to your proof of "subterfuge" and "creative form filling" to get mortgage holders caught up in irresponsible borrowing? I'm still waiting for that chestnut.

Here is a piece of that chestnut. I hope you dont choke on it. I,ll get you more if I can.

Full article.
http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/watchdog-to-probe-brokers-who-arrange-subprime-mortgages-1628220.html

By Charlie Weston Personal Finance Editor


Thursday February 05 2009

SUBPRIME brokers are to be probed by the Financial Regulator to ensure they are not facilitating consumers to get approved for mortgages they will not be able to service, the Irish Independent has learned

Concern about subprime brokers was heightened last summer when RTE's 'Prime Time' carried out an undercover expose of one broker, who has since ceased operating.

The programme alleged that the broker assisted a mortgage applicant, in this case the 'Prime Time' reporter, in completing a fallacious mortgage application. The regulator spokeswoman would not comment on any specifics about the probe into subprime brokers.

Your link to the combat poverty agency is meaningless in the context of this thread.

It has a relevence here. Its a bout the less well off in society trying to live with some dignity, on low rates of welfare. Its meaningless to you, because you are only interested in preserving the wealth of your 95k earners.

kadman

kadman

Jobseekers benefit is relative to income, so this puts a new perspective on whats a minimum rate for those on the dole

http://www.welfare.ie/EN/Publications/sw19/Pages/sw19_sect6.aspx

Jobseeker’s Benefit rates are graduated according to earnings in the relevant tax year. The earnings bands from the 1 January 2009 are as follows: Average weekly earnings Personal Rate Increase for a Qualified Adult
(See Note 3)

Less than €150.00 €91.80 €87.90
€150.00 and less than €220.00 €132.00 €87.90
€220.00 and less than €300.00 €160.10 €87.90
€300.00 or more €204.30 €135.60

So the JB rates are, 92e, 132e, 160e, and 204e. And not a standard of 204 for evrey one as a minimum.
kadman

InFront

kadman wrote: »

Incorrect.
http://www.welfare.ie/EN/Publications/sw19/Pages/sw19_sect6.aspx

Jobseeker's Benefit could be as low as 92 euro , depending on your income.

Jobseeker's Benefit Rate from 25 December 2008 Rate per week
Personal Rate €204.30

Firstly I should point out that I don't have a problem with Jobseekers Benefit at that rate - these guys have paid significant PRSI contributions. I freely stand corrected because to my understanding Joseeker's Benefit meant a surplus payment onto the allowance of €204.30 (JA). Clearly that is not the case and I'm glad you pointed it out.

I must say I am completely dumbfounded that the JB rate for someone who has paid such contributions in PRSI and income tax is the exact same rate as someone who may never have done so, and in fact may be less.

What does that say about rewarding taxpayers?

How can you guys be so defensive about JA when contributors to social insurance are lumped in with them and paid less?

Setting aside the obvious importance of making a contribution to society, what the heck is the point in contributing towards your social insurance if you get paid to somebody who has not? That is completely crazy - there is no way the JA rate ought to be the same as JB in my opinion.


Kadman as regards your link in relation to proof of subterfuge and creative form filling in mortgage lending, there are just a few issues.

The first and most obvious issue is he lack - or total absence - of evidence. I accept that evidence may exist, especially in light of the companies involved - but that article is merely reporting the Financial Regulator's stated intention to carry out an investigation having been made aware of allegations against two mortgage brokers dealing with sub-prime lenders.

Secondly, these mortgage brokers whose affairs are to be examined, are not themselves involved in the bank guarantee nor are they involved with recapitalisation, nor are their associates in the subprime banks involved in the bank guarantee nor are they in any way involved in recapitalisation or the exchequer. The taxpayer carry zero liability.

I think you do genuinely believe the issue of subterfuge with our main banks however, but there just is no evidence and as adults maybe we should just agree to disagree on that. However, it must also be stated that the people taking out these risky mortgages are not being pulled in off the streets... they were queuing up for mortgages and just like the developers, they were also at times victims of their own greed and irresponsibility. They also have had a part to play in the banking collapse and confidence in the Irish economy.

It has a relevence here. Its a bout the less well off in society trying to live with some dignity, on low rates of welfare. Its meaningless to you, because you are only interested in preserving the wealth of your 95k earners.

No it does matter, I'm just not seeing the significance in the context of this thread. I don't think dignity and other such vague terms are what this thread is about nor is dignity any of the states business. In my opinion the state has a business relationship with the people as its taxman and caretaker. People ought to care about people and dignity, not the Department of Finance.

dreamlogic

InFront wrote:

The Government won't pay people for working on a Sunday, quite rightly.

You know very well that I was not advocating a payment increase. I don't see why you have to keep twisting the context here everytime you are shown to be incorrect in your arithmetic.

If they're not going to be working Sundays, they'll just have to budget for it.

I've already covered this at length earlier. Anyway this point does not support your argument for wanting to cut payments simply because you're now resting your argument on the extra income having been there for the taking prior to the recession. There's a 14% cut right there! What more do you want?

Just like their hair colouring you referred to earlier.

It was predictable that you'd throw this back in sooner or later when you have nothing more to support your argument. Conveniently you ignore that you were the one who wanted to break down the budget into the minutiae of what the population spend their money on right down to the last bar of soap. I mentioned this item originally in passing, and I qualified it with that all important word: if. But considering you'd skim over a monthly discrepancy of €97 and dismiss it as nothing, it doesn't surprise me really that other details would escape your attention.

You are seeing only what you want to see. You can twist things as much as you want. The only thing it shows is that you don't want to debate this rationally. Because you have to centre your whole argument for imposing widespread cuts around some guy in his early 20s who is living with his parents. Which is obviously an insupportable case to make to any reasonable observer here.

The exact figure is €919.35, most reasonable people would say "about €1,000" in casual terms, however I obviously would accept you may not.

The exact figure is €903 and there is no place for "casual terms" in this debate when you are proposing to make further punitive cuts on a recently unemployed population. Leave your casual terms outside of the debate please.

Clearly nobody actually claimed otherwise. Read the post that you're quoting. Who mentioned living with parents in that post?

You did. I just quoted it to you in my last post. I have quoted it several times by now but you keep pretending it's not there. A bit like Sunday is not there in the weekly budget if a person happens to become unemployed :rolleyes:

If I were on the dole I would have received €1479.35 between rent allowance and dole payments for the the duration of January.

If you did, I'd have to report you to the department. Because obviously there would be an error somewhere in the calculations.

I use the term 'about' to provide a round figure as lots of people do in everyday life.

Which doesn't belong in this discussion in the context of proposing a cut to someone's payment. :mad:
I don't think you are qualified to generalize about "lots of people in everyday life" tbh.

The exchequer debt widened to €7 billion last month and unemployment is expected to average 17% next year. The dole must be cut

You have no argument here. This is simply a rant. There are other forums if all you want to do is whip up hysteria and social divide.

No - you are receiving €919.35 in the timeframe I just mentioned. Just because you're not spending it in the same timeframe and not working Sundays doesn't effect the rate of reception.

As already pointed out, this is irrelevant to the person budgeting for 7 days of the week.

I referred to the cap, I never said anybody was receiving €130 per week.

You did say this, as I quoted you on it. If you made an error, the mature thing to do would be to own up to that instead of denying it when someone points it out to you. And I repeat, the €130 is not the cap. The maximum payment at the upper level is €106. Big difference if you're unemployed. If you're not unemployed, it matters little.

On top of their dole payments they are receiving a considerable amount of funding up to the cut off point of €130 per week.

Please stop saying this, the max they can receive here is €106.

You seem to be grumbling about them having to contribute a mere €24 to that.

Some of us take a more detached and scientific approach to a debate of this nature. It doesn't surprise me though that you would choose to make that interpretation. It's easier for you than to deal with the substance of the argument. For the record, no-one is grumbling here about the existing payments. I am in favour of keeping the payments at current(end of May) levels which includes the recent budget cuts.

Some people in the AH thread I linked to called it their 'wages' so yes you can. Look you are the one saying it should cover fifty euro haircuts, so I don't see calling it that name could be a big deal. Semantics.

Again citing AH to "back up" your position :rolleyes: Again with mentioning the haircuts thing which you have been repeatedly revisiting in an almost pathological desire to distort what I originally said on that! Seems to me that the frequency with which you mention this detail would be proportionate to how quickly the bottom falls out of your argument...

Dreamlogic, I would raise the issue of PRSI to you. These people on Jobseekers Allowance have not paid PRSI in the recent past and are not overnight victims of the recession, from a time when unemployment was low. Are you really opposed to their taking a €1.75 cut per day in their budget?

That is a separate side-issue. You'd be talking about approx 2% of the population who would be long-term unemployed. I would not be opposed to a cut there, no. However I am totally opposed to widespread cuts which would affect everyone. There is no case to be made for further punishing people who are unemployed due to the recession.

EDIT: I do think that imposing a cut on long-term unemployed could be counter-productive in a recession though. It makes much more sense to impose such measures when the option to work is available. Also long-term unemployed amount will obviously be rising within the next two years if jobs don't become available. Why punish people who want to work but can't because the system has let them down? So on reflection I would not be in favour of selective measures like this until after the recession. The answer to not having people idle in the meantime is voluntary work and community involvement etc.

However, it must also be stated that the people taking out these risky mortgages are not being pulled in off the streets... they were queuing up for mortgages

If this was unsustainable, then government didn't think to warn people. In fact they encouraged people to spend spend spend. This is what we have leaders for. You cannot blame the masses for trusting in and following leadership.

What does that say about rewarding taxpayers?

You appear to have difficulty with the concept of taxation.

I don't think dignity and other such vague terms are what this thread is about nor is dignity any of the states business.

You have summed up your views perfectly here. Case closed as far as I'm concerned. You seem to have a heart of stone. You want to create an enslaved underclass in Irish society.

In my opinion the state has a business relationship with the people as its taxman and caretaker.

The state is not a business. The state should not be there to make a profit at the expense of basic human welfare. Obviously some parallels could be made with the running of a business. But in a time of recession and crisis, the state should be more concerned with protecting the vulnerable; not placing them in the firing line for it's own errors of judgement.

People ought to care about people and dignity, not the Department of Finance.

Last I heard, we had human representatives in government and Department of Finance. You appear to have difficulty with the concept of democracy.

Dob74

Persoally I dont really care if someone gets 205 euros a week. I couldnt live on it.
What concerns me is all the money we are giving the banks. We are throwing billions down a bottomless pit. Rewwarding people for mismanageing there business. Anyone else who does that is at the back of the dole queue.

And most people want to begrudge people being given a substance level of living.
Lets get the fatcats first, then we can worry about the small players.

kadman

Originally Posted by kadman
Incorrect.
http://www.welfare.ie/EN/Publication...w19_sect6.aspx

Jobseeker's Benefit could be as low as 92 euro , depending on your income.

Jobseeker's Benefit Rate from 25 December 2008 Rate per week
Personal Rate

=InFront;60388532]

Firstly I should point out that I don't have a problem with Jobseekers Benefit at that rate - these guys have paid significant PRSI contributions. I freely stand corrected because to my understanding Joseeker's Benefit meant a surplus payment onto the allowance of €204.30 (JA). Clearly that is not the case and I'm glad you pointed it out.

I must say I am completely dumbfounded that the JB rate for someone who has paid such contributions in PRSI and income tax is the exact same rate as someone who may never have done so, and in fact may be less.

I was quite surprised my self. Now that you realise that the dole may be far less than you thought it was, do you still believe that it should be cut. Even the low levels of support. As far as dole recipeints are concerned , as soon as they get a p45 , they are on the dole. Thats it, sign on the dole. And the dole does mean welfare support from the government .

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Dole

dole 1 (dl)
n.
1. Charitable dispensation of goods, especially money, food, or clothing.
2. A share of money, food, or clothing that has been charitably given.
3. Chiefly British The distribution by the government of relief payments to the unemployed; welfare.
4. Archaic One's fate.
tr.v. doled, dol·ing, doles
1. To dispense as charity.
2. To give out in small portions; distribute sparingly. See Synonyms at distribute.
Idiom:
on the dole
Receiving regular relief payments from or as if from the government.

How can you guys be so defensive about JA when contributors to social insurance are lumped in with them and paid less?

I am defensive about cutting the current levels of welfare support. I,m not defending any in particular. I,m defending a persons right to all of them as they currently stand.

I think you do genuinely believe the issue of subterfuge with our main banks however, but there just is no evidence and as adults maybe we should just agree to disagree on that. However, it must also be stated that the people taking out these risky mortgages are not being pulled in off the streets... they were queuing up for mortgages and just like the developers, they were also at times victims of their own greed and irresponsibility. They also have had a part to play in the banking collapse and confidence in the Irish economy.

Ordinary people, buying their own homes are nothing like greedy bankers and developers. They were not speculators, they were not driven by greed. How can you say that.

kadman

InFront

dreamlogic wrote: »

you are shown to be incorrect in your arithmetic.

Dreamlogic which part of this do you not understand?
In the first month of the year, there were 27 Dole days for which payment was due.
The rate is €34.05 per day according to the Department.
27 x €34.05 = €919.35... like do you actually get that yet? It's not a problem of simple multiplication it's a problem of you understanding it. Dole receipts for the first month of the year for one person amounts to that figure

There's a 14% cut right there! What more do you want?

Could you be clear as to what you're actually talking about? Please please don't tell me you're calling 1 day out of seven equivalent to a 14% pay cut? And you think I have arithmetic problems That's not how to calculate this.. I'm stunned if you think it makes sense but will just hope you are displaying a sense of humour.

Conveniently you ignore that you were the one who wanted to break down the budget into the minutiae of what the population spend their money on right down to the last bar of soap.

Actually no it was kadman's idea, not a bad idea though. Lots of the suggestions made good sense, like utilities, health care, talk about transport - the €50 haircut suggestions and the Government paying for hair colouring just stuck in my mind as a pretty terrible advertisement for the dole and what it says about peoples expectations of emergency aid.

Because you have to centre your whole argument for imposing widespread cuts around some guy in his early 20s who is living with his parents. Which is obviously an insupportable case to make to any reasonable observer here.

I think I said 25 which is somewhat significant. I'm glad you agree that is insupportable, maybe we are making progress.

The exact figure is €903 and there is no place for "casual terms" in this debate when you are proposing to make further punitive cuts on a recently unemployed population. Leave your casual terms outside of the debate please.

The figure I was referring to is €80.65 away from €1,000. If I were quoting a figure of €1080.65, I would say "about €1,000. Again, most reasonable peope wouldn't find a huge amount of fault with that but I will make an exception especially for you in future.

If you did, I'd have to report you to the department. Because obviously there would be an error somewhere in the calculations.

Meh, you can deny it all you want and if you want to keep bringing it up I'll just copy and paste it again.
27 dole days in Jan @ €34.05/ day = €919.35
5 rent days in Jan @ €112/ week = €112.00
Total welfare recepits for one person in month of Jan = €1479.35

I don't think you are qualified to generalize about "lots of people in everyday life" tbh.

Lol, I said lots of people in everyday life would say €1,479.35 would round that off to €1,500. I can't believe that you are arguing that point or the fact that it makes common sense! Says a lot.

And I repeat, the €130 is not the cap.

Sigh. From dictionary: Cap: a maximum limit, as one set by law or agreement on prices, wages, spending, etc., during a certain period of time; ceiling: a 9 percent cap on pay increases for this year.

Official information describes the maximum limit as 130 euro, hence my use of the word 'cap' to describe this maximum limit. Max limit or cap doesn't have to be the same as actual payment, got it?

Some of us take a more detached and scientific approach to a debate of this nature.

You seem to have a heart of stone

So much for 'detached and scientific'.

Again citing AH to "back up" your position :rolleyes:

No, I've provided links to the ESRI, banks, Government bodies and media reports - I don't remember you doing any of this. I showed you that link to AH when you suggested nobody refers to the dole as their salary - lots of people in that thread do.

Again with mentioning the haircuts thing which you have been repeatedly revisiting in an almost pathological desire to distort what I originally said on that!

Pathological desire? I think you need to put things in perspective dreamlogic, apply some measure, and it doesn't end with dole payments.

That is a separate side-issue. You'd be talking about approx 2% of the population who would be long-term unemployed.

It depends what you mean about long term unemployed. What does 2% refer to?
I am talking about people who are receiving JA - these people have not paid their PRSI contributions unlike JB.

I would not be opposed to a cut there, no.

I would not be in favour of selective measures like this

Clearly you have problems understanding where you stand on this issue. These people are being asked for €1.75 per day cut from their budget. That is not an unreasonable amount of money to help get this country back on its feet and pay for fellow ex-employees to be looked after - it basically means not buying the newspaper or filing a bottle of water for the tap instead of buying a new one. For heaven's sake how can you argue against €1.75?!! It doesn't mean much to a dole recipient but overall it means 6% to the taxpayer. This is a painless cut.

If this was unsustainable, then government didn't think to warn people.

Had you seriously never heard of the property bubble? Of what a tiger economy actualy refers to and how they inevitably end up? People like Eddie Hobbs, george Lee, David McWilliams - everyone was talking about it since the boom started and everyone knew it wouldn't last. You just cannot expect that statement to be taken seriously. It was not al developers. These people took out silly mortgages too and they have their blame to account for just like the developers.

In fact they encouraged people to spend spend spend.

There were actually periods of both, I'm thinking paticularly during the McCreevey era and then the SSIA scheme, so no it wasn't constant. And again, nobody held a gun to anybody's head and forced Michelle from Darndale to buy that Gucci bag.

This is what we have leaders for. You cannot blame the masses for trusting in and following leadership.

People get the Government they hire. But then, I guess you can't blame the masses for anything eh?

You appear to have difficulty with the concept of democracy

You want to create an enslaved underclass in Irish society.

With respect dreamlogic, this statement, and my apparent "pathological desire" to talk about haircuts make me think your replies ae prone to some exaggeration. Seriously, slavery? What are you talking about with the democracy issue?

The state is not a business.

That's geting into ideological issues and capitalism vs socialism which is a whole another can of worms.

InFront

kadman wrote: »

Now that you realise that the dole may be far less than you thought it was, do you still believe that it should be cut.

Jobseeker's Benefit is far, far less than I thought it was and no, it should not be cut. But I stil maintain a twelve euro per week cut in jobseeker's benefit is fair, if not merely as a symbolic duty. I just cannot see how anyone could support a situation where PRSI contributors get paid the same as non contributors. It's like contributing to a pension and then ending up with the state pension, t doesn't make sense and again I unreservedly apologise for not having grasped the idea of JB fully in my earlier posts.

Ordinary people, buying their own homes are nothing like greedy bankers and developers. They were not speculators, they were not driven by greed. How can you say that.

No and that is fair enough I take your point. However,if you take someone who took out an 80% or 90% mortgage in 2008 at a rate that was not realistic for their salaries or failed to take account of job loss, you must say that was somewhat irresponsible. They might not have been speculating in property, but they were speculating on the economy just like the developers.

kadman

thebman

InFront wrote: »

Jobseeker's Benefit is far, far less than I thought it was and no, it should not be cut. But I stil maintain a twelve euro per week cut in jobseeker's benefit is fair, if not merely as a symbolic duty. I just cannot see how anyone could support a situation where PRSI contributors get paid the same as non contributors. It's like contributing to a pension and then ending up with the state pension, t doesn't make sense and again I unreservedly apologise for not having grasped the idea of JB fully in my earlier posts.

I agree with this point. I think however that people coming out of college or people without sufficient contributions but who were working should be entitled to the full amount but that those that are clearly free loading should get reduced payments and behavior monitored to see are they trying to get employment.

No and that is fair enough I take your point. However,if you take someone who took out an 80% or 90% mortgage in 2008 at a rate that was not realistic for their salaries or failed to take account of job loss, you must say that was somewhat irresponsible. They might not have been speculating in property, but they were speculating on the economy just like the developers.

kadman

I agree with this and I'd go further. A lot of those people that can't pay now included commission on top of basic pay to get higher mortgages. Sure the banks allowed them to but both were involved in the lie about wages to secure higher mortgages and both are responsible.

What is going on with the banks bailouts is unacceptable because of the manner in which it is happening.

InFront

thebman wrote: »

I agree with this point. I think however that people coming out of college or people without sufficient contributions but who were working should be entitled to the full amount but that those that are clearly free loading should get reduced payments and behavior monitored to see are they trying to get employment.

Yes that would only be fair, I don't think it could realistically apply to students finishing college, those who were out of work for illness or pregnancy or maye even those who were abroad (if they lost their jobs outside the EEA and had to return home)

kadman

InFront wrote: »

Jobseeker's Benefit is far, far less than I thought it was and no, it should not be cut. But I stil maintain a twelve euro per week cut in jobseeker's benefit is fair, if not merely as a symbolic duty. I just cannot see how anyone could support a situation where PRSI contributors get paid the same as non contributors. It's like contributing to a pension and then ending up with the state pension, t doesn't make sense and again I unreservedly apologise for not having grasped the idea of JB fully in my earlier posts.

I suspect that your error here is a typo. If not please explain.

No and that is fair enough I take your point. However,if you take someone who took out an 80% or 90% mortgage in 2008 at a rate that was not realistic for their salaries or failed to take account of job loss, you must say that was somewhat irresponsible. They might not have been speculating in property, but they were speculating on the economy just like the developers.

I would not do that personally myself. But not being realistic with their salaries is one thing, I dont know if you,d even consider a mortgage if you knew you were losing your job. Or do you mean , should they have set their mortgage target based on the assumption that could they pay it if they lost their job. If people did that, they would not go for a mortgage. I hope I,m picking you up correctly here.



kadman

kadman

Can we all go for a drink now please................

kadman

InFront

kadman wrote: »

I suspect that your error here is a typo. If not please explain.
kadman

Ah yea it's a typo alright - the 6%-7% cut is in relation to JA. I don't foresee a cut in JB happening anytime soon nor should it unless deflation makes it an imperative down the line.

But not being realistic with their salaries is one thing, I dont know if you,d even consider a mortgage if you knew you were losing your job. Or do you mean , should they have set their mortgage target based on the assumption that could they pay it if they lost their job. If people did that, they would not go for a mortgage. I hope I,m picking you up correctly here

.
No I'm talking about people who were taking out irresponsible mortgages based on their current savings and where the bank was providing for maybe 90% of the mortgage - or even 100% or even 110% if there was a car involved. This was not an uncommon practice and I'm saying it can't all be blamed on bank managers. As we know, there was no reluctance in the property market and that didn't all come from the top. These debts that are now facing trouble cannot just be 'written off' and their role in the banking crisis and subsequent jobless figures must be recognised.

97i9y3941

InFront wrote: »

No I'm talking about people who were taking out irresponsible mortgages based on their current savings and where the bank was providing for maybe 90% of the mortgage - or even 100% or even 110% if there was a car involved. This was not an uncommon practice and I'm saying it can't all be blamed on bank managers. As we know, there was no reluctance in the property market and that didn't all come from the top. These debts that are now facing trouble cannot just be 'written off' and their role in the banking crisis and subsequent jobless figures must be recognised.

ah sure the country was booming at the time,them people thaught it would last.

97i9y3941

look im sorry if this offends anyone,but i heard on the news that very soon employers will have to advertise jobs for about 8 weeks then if he cant find an irish person he will have to scour europe because there is a tightening on the work permits,this has been now viewed as discrimination,well what are we suppose to do,leave the irish on the dole instead?

thebman

They could hire the most qualified applicant. That seems like a fair system to me.

InFront

Fred83 wrote: »

look im sorry if this offends anyone,but i heard on the news that very soon employers will have to advertise jobs for about 8 weeks then if he cant find an irish person he will have to scour europe because there is a tightening on the work permits,this has been now viewed as discrimination,well what are we suppose to do,leave the irish on the dole instead?

Do you really think it will go to 8 weeks? in this labour market?

After losing his or her job, a migrant worker, even if he has been here for the past ten years paying all of his taxes, has three months to find a replacement or basically leave the country.
Imagine a case where the day he is made redundant, a similar job arises. He has to wait two months before he can apply for this job, bearing in mind the total amount of time open to him is three months. With the labour market the way it is, most jobs get snapped up rather quickly so a lot of people shall be in this situation.

I'm not really taking a strong position on this. I can see the reasoning behind wanting to protect Irish workers, naturally.
I just wish there was more protection for someone who has been here maybe ten years, paid a lot of tax and whose naturalisation application has been caught up in the system maybe since 2007 and they are now jobless facing the prospect of being forced to leave Ireland in a matter of weeks.

97i9y3941

oh yeah defo,there was people here for years before the boom,and some of them get abuse now because of their orgin of country,is it true about the signs in poland not welcomeing the irish workers?,seems to be a rumour for ages?

thebman

AFAIK it was on one work site only and the paper just ran with it and made it out to be a widespread problem.

Martyr

Fred83 wrote:

...is it true about the signs in poland not welcomeing the irish workers?,seems to be a rumour for ages?

i was told that this particular sign was erected by irish contractors working in poland.

since the contractor can pay lower wages to the polish guys, they don't want irish builders coming in and trying to change that.

why be nasty to polish people that worked hard in this country now?
its hardly their fault alot of them still working are only there because the EMPLOYER is taking advantage of them...

if you wish to blame someone, blame the employer, he or she is the one exploiting foreign workers.

97i9y3941

yes that was mentioned in prime time investiages the other nite,the contractor said that theres a boom in the north due to the wages in the uk are 5 pounds for builders and theres nothing they can do nothing down here to reduce wages since it was signed into agreement *although that seems hard to belive when they roasted people during the boom

Martyr

come to think of it, was it not that long ago that the irish were being treated to some foreign hostility with signs like "no blacks, no irish, no dogs" ?? talk about irish now being hypocrites...don't worry, it won't be long before we all have to start emigrating again, and you can blame the government for that!

problems have been building up for years, nobody cared because they thought they would have it good forever... its only now that people are angry and starting to complain about these problems..well, its too little too late i'm afraid.

now we're all begrudgers. "back to normal" :P

97i9y3941

yeah,it might go back to days when you walk into a takeawaysthe person behind counter was irish,back to days when the jobs we werent too ashamed to do

kadman

Fred83 wrote: »

look im sorry if this offends anyone,but i heard on the news that very soon employers will have to advertise jobs for about 8 weeks then if he cant find an irish person he will have to scour europe because there is a tightening on the work permits,this has been now viewed as discrimination,well what are we suppose to do,leave the irish on the dole instead?

I think you may have your wires crossed there. The 8 week rule applies to those that apply for a job who come from outside of the EU. Then the employer has to advertise the position for 8 weeks, and if no person from the eu applies, then the job goes to the applicant from out side of the eu. If he advertises for 1 day and gets an Irish applicant or eu applicant, he can take him straight away.

It is discrimination, but it will discriminate against those from outside of the eu.


kadman

demon83

Ardent wrote: »

You're assuming that everyone on the dole actually needs the money for rent or whatnot...

Its annoying, I know of a good few construction workers guys in their mid 20s who are having a great time on the dole. Live at home and pay no rent, spend their weeks playing golf and drinking down the pub. I know this is not true of all people on the dole but show if its not means tested it can be abused

kadman

demon83 wrote: »

Its annoying, I know of a good few construction workers guys in their mid 20s who are having a great time on the dole. Live at home and pay no rent, spend their weeks playing golf and drinking down the pub. I know this is not true of all people on the dole but show if its not means tested it can be abused

I know some extremely experienced, professional construction managers that have had 30 years experience in the field. That have become unemployed due to the downturn in construction industry, through no fault of their own, and are now finding it virtually impossible to get any type of work. They have been waiting over 3 months due to the sw backlog, and are existing on fresh air. Along with that, they are also trying to support their son through college, who also has had no employment for the last 6 months.

What can the government offer a 53 year old construction professional, who is highly educated , and dedicated to his field. Probably a pension. Retraining , up skilling, further education would be a total waste of resources for this age group, as its more necessary to cater for younger peoples needs. So this group is probably going to be resigned to the scrap heap unfortunately. And unfortunately, I belong to this group. Whats out there for me. Nothing.

kadman

skearon

Fred83 wrote: »

look im sorry if this offends anyone,but i heard on the news that very soon employers will have to advertise jobs for about 8 weeks then if he cant find an irish person he will have to scour europe because there is a tightening on the work permits,this has been now viewed as discrimination,well what are we suppose to do,leave the irish on the dole instead?

Irish left on the dole? If these leeches refuse to take up jobs advertised for 8 weeks then they should be stuck off the dole, and the money saved given to those who want to learn and want to work.

kadman

skearon wrote: »

Irish left on the dole? If these leeches refuse to take up jobs advertised for 8 weeks then they should be stuck off the dole, and the money saved given to those who want to learn and want to work.

I assume that your opinion is given with the full regard of Article 45 section 4 subsection 2 of the Constitution of Ireland. I hope so.

kadman