Let's end this 'dole is too much' stuff

KINGVictor · 30-05-2009 9:07pm

Seaneh wrote: »

WTF?

Is this ture?

You can't volunteer while on the dole?

That's a ****ing joke!

Neither are you allowed to study part-time!!

dotsman · 30-05-2009 9:27pm

delllat wrote: »

whats wrong with it?

Everything. There's a reason why every communist economy has collapsed. It is only fair that those who contribute to a system are protected by that system and benefit from the system, while those who have taken the pi$$ are at the bottom of the pile.

I'm not saying a fully privatised system is the solution, but if it's a choice of either the current BS system or compulsory Income Protection Insurance, then I would have to prefer Income Protection. (Ultimately, a combination of the 2 is the ideal).

delllat wrote: »

he isnt ,they both have bills to pay :rolleyes:

But not the same bills! A hardworking skilled person in their thirties with a large mortgage (now larger than the value of their home) and young family who has just lost their job through no fault of their own will have slightly different bills compared to a 20 year-old who's never/barely worked in their life and living either at home or in a council house/flat.

thebullkf · 30-05-2009 9:49pm

af_thefragile wrote: »

They could always think of a new job.
Like c'mon. This is what i was saying about imagination.

They could:
Clean up the streets.
Clean up the liffey.
Build a monument.
Look after the gardens.
Help old people cross streets.
Assist people.

I dunno, like there are hundreds of things one could think of for them to do that would give them something to do and at the same time serve the city too.

As for insurance, well, they're already paying so much for the Dole, they should be able to get a cheap insurance cover too. Its not like some high risk job they need to do. And they're the government, they make the laws! They could do without insurance for the "Dole workers". Just look after them if anything goes wrong.

GTFO- we all should be doing the highlighted above..if we did we'd have the best city in europe...andthe cleanest...minimum wage needs to be ncreased to make working attractive-thats if there's jobs in the first place!!!!

Anyone who's long term doler and was fit for work during the boom but didn't shold be penalised.

force criminals to pay for their own stay in prison where feasible.

penalise drunks/abusive/druggies that clog our hospitals/social welfare system.

frequent drug testing of dolers...not clean??
no dole
simple.

and we all know someone who's abusing the system/bending rules to suit themselves-they should be shoppped!

...and ffs some of u need to stop referring to it as free money.:mad:

its not.

you try living on 204e a week.

sure you get affordable housing...by their very nature are just that-affordable...normally a house you wouldn't buy if you could afford otherwise.

very easy to mudsling.

WE HANG THE PETTY THIEVES,WE ELECT THE BIG ONES.

delllat · 30-05-2009 9:55pm

a mortgage isnt like a physical handicap that someone is born with,the guy with the 500k mortgage took a risk when he signed up

the man who choose the simple life cant be punished because too many people made bad decisions and cant pay their mortagages now

thebullkf · 30-05-2009 10:03pm

delllat wrote: »

a mortgage isnt like a physical handicap that someone is born with,the guy with the 500k mortgage took a risk when he signed up

the man who choose the simple life cant be punished because too many people made bad decisions and cant pay their mortagages now

THE SIMPLE LIFE????

you mean get workers to fund his simple life??

if it wasn't for the poor sob who thought he could afford the 500k mortgage by working hard and having a good credit history.......

the simple life wouldn't be there for the likes of the leeches we have.

its not calculus.

everyone takes the easy option i.e. "simple life".

=

no dole left.

=

country in the toilet.
EASY.

dotsman · 30-05-2009 10:13pm

delllat wrote: »

a mortgage isnt like a physical handicap that someone is born with,the guy with the 500k mortgage took a risk when he signed up

the man who choose the simple life cant be punished because too many people made bad decisions and cant pay their mortagages now

OK, you're just trolling now. There's no way you can believe that this post represents an intelligent argument.

The man who chose "the simple" life actually chose to be a leech. Unfortunately, the leech's host (the honest, hardworking, taxpaying members of society) can no longer afford to support this leech (as some of them have honestly lost their jobs and require this social insurance fund that they have paid so much of their hard-earned money into)

delllat · 30-05-2009 10:21pm

i just think weve had spongers on the dole as long as there was dole or at least since its been lucrative

the problem now is all the halfwitz who cant fund their celtic tiger lifestyles

poor people have always gotten the dole and nobody has ever cared,now the x-rich (new poor)
want it too its causing problems

thebullkf · 30-05-2009 10:23pm

delllat wrote: »

i just think weve had spongers on the dole as long as there was dole or at least since its been lucrative

the problem now is all the halfwitz who cant fund their celtic tiger lifestyles

poor people have always gotten the dole and nobody has ever cared,now the x-rich (new poor)
want it too its causing problems

explain please

Spudmonkey · 30-05-2009 11:50pm

delllat wrote: »

i just think weve had spongers on the dole as long as there was dole or at least since its been lucrative

the problem now is all the halfwitz who cant fund their celtic tiger lifestyles

poor people have always gotten the dole and nobody has ever cared,now the x-rich (new poor)
want it too its causing problems

You are joking right? Do you honestly think it is the hardworking peoples obligation to fund these people's "simple life"? If we all chose the simple life who would pay the bills? Where would the dole money come from?

Fact of the matter is, those recently on the dole have paid the most into the welfare system and therefore deserve the most out of it. Not spongers who were un-employed during the good times because they were too lazy to work. There is no argument here!

Lockstep · 31-05-2009 1:37am

ShooterSF wrote: »

I do like the idea of a learn to earn scheme but unfortunately it's not economically viable right now.

Why?

We have free education in the country, they might as well avail of it.

Lockstep · 31-05-2009 1:40am

dotsman wrote: »

Everything. There's a reason why every communist economy has collapsed. It is only fair that those who contribute to a system are protected by that system and benefit from the system, while those who have taken the pi$$ are at the bottom of the pile.

I'm not saying a fully privatised system is the solution, but if it's a choice of either the current BS system or compulsory Income Protection Insurance, then I would have to prefer Income Protection. (Ultimately, a combination of the 2 is the ideal).

But not the same bills! A hardworking skilled person in their thirties with a large mortgage (now larger than the value of their home) and young family who has just lost their job through no fault of their own will have slightly different bills compared to a 20 year-old who's never/barely worked in their life and living either at home or in a council house/flat.

Would you be in favour of a prohibition on inheritance?
Surely this would ensure that there is more of a meritocracy and ensures that people don't benefit purely because of their parents.

InFront · 31-05-2009 2:14am

thebullkf wrote: »

frequent drug testing of dolers...not clean??
no dole
simple.

There were many aspects to your post I disagreed with, but this one stands out. I think drug testing of social welfare recipients, particularly in the current economic climate, is one more humiliation they should not be expected to suffer.

ronbyrne2005 · 31-05-2009 2:39am

Those on dole over a year should be made work for their money. Theres 2 million rats in Dublin, make them catch rats for their corn or clean up the tons of plastic that gets washed up on beaches around Ireland and which no one is picking up. Theres tons of jobs that could be done that arent being done. **** , even put them on exercise bikes that power dynamos that feed into national grid and they will be kept fit and be contributing to society. Forced sterilisation for the "sinlge"mothers claiming social welfare all their adult life that have several kids by several differnt guys and lads on dole who have had several kids should get the snip with the sperm stored in ice untill they get a job. All violent and habitual criminals to get snip too and maybe amputation(just one half of one leg) to prevent them breaking into houses, assualting people, running from law etc.

ronbyrne2005 · 31-05-2009 2:42am

ALso the unemplyed professionals could be employed at 500 euro a week to investigate long term dole claims that are suspicisious, spy on those claiming disability, watch to see if any claiming dole are working illegally etc.

chocgirl · 31-05-2009 2:45am

Really think that there needs to be a clear and considerable difference between the payout to the long term unemployed and those who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own.

Imo it's reasonable that people who have worked hard and contributed well should have more to fall back on.

chocgirl · 31-05-2009 2:52am

Working in an area with big socioeconomic problems and see generations and generations of families seeing the dole as an entitlement. This has to end. Firmly believe as well that any child related welfare benefits should be curtailed after two children. Current situation is only encouraging big families completely dependent on the state and letting the cycle repeat itself for generations to come.

InFront · 31-05-2009 3:08am

ronbyrne2005 wrote: »

and maybe amputation(just one half of one leg) to prevent them..............running from law etc.

I always presumed that was just a metaphor:pac:

dotsman · 31-05-2009 1:51pm

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Would you be in favour of a prohibition on inheritance?
Surely this would ensure that there is more of a meritocracy and ensures that people don't benefit purely because of their parents.

Not sure how this is related, but no, I would not be in favour of a prohibition on inheritance. If a person earns there money honestly, then they are entitled to spend it as they please. For many parents/grandparents, the desire to see their descendants taken care of is strong and it would be very wrong to interfere with that, especially when I can't see any benefit from it (if a person knows that they their wealth will go to the state rather than split between all their kids/grandkids when they die, they'll just blow it all on any old thing (coke and hookers;)) rahter than leave it to the taxman out of spite.

Likewise, for the majority of people, the inheritence is of sentimental value as well as financial. The family home that a person was raised in is more than bricks and mortar for many people. A mother's jewelry and other family heirlooms mean a lot more to people than their pricetag.

Anyway, at present, in this country, inheritance is already heavily taxed. What's worse is that this money is double-taxed. The person who earned payed tax on it, and then it is taxed again when it is passed on to the dependants.

Finally, I don't see how a prohibition would work. If you're not allowed leave things to your descendants, surely you woul give it to them just before you die (where possible!). There is also the reverse of that. What about a young parent dying when the kids are still actual kids and unable to fend for themselves. Should we chuck them out on the street?

InFront wrote: »

I think drug testing of social welfare recipients, particularly in the current economic climate, is one more humiliation they should not be expected to suffer.

I don't think that drug testing is that much of a humiliation. We demand that all sports stars are tested. Many corporations already implement this. Not sure about Ireland, but in many countries, the defence forces, pilots, police etc are all tested.

If you don't want drug testing, then may I suggest another way around this - vouchers. Instead of cash, they are given a debit card which can be used in a number of stores (Dunnes/Aldi etc). With the card having a photo ID on it, ensuring that only the recipient can spend it, you can ensure that social welfare is being spent wisely and is not been treated as a comfort fund.

FlutterinBantam · 31-05-2009 4:39pm

Confab wrote: »

...with a simple chart from the OECD.

Image tags... bah humbug.

Load of bollox, why are there so many "furriners" in here "taking our jobs"??

I'll tell you why, because the fookers who would normally do the jobs preferred to do fook all and take the dole and the other allowances going with it.
Mosie Ahearne said it loud and clear this morning,or maybe it was yesterday,but the jist of his comment was that in Dublin Central people preferred to stay on the dole rather than take a job which would pay circa the equivelant.
Fcuker was DEAD RIGHTcue aghast comments and wringing of hands, but the guy speaks the truth.

Will probably lose loads of votes on account of that, but for the first time in yonks I heard a politician telling it as it is.

The dogs in the street know that, but like the Industrial schools ,every will chose to ignore it.

Get real people.

FlutterinBantam · 31-05-2009 4:47pm

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Would you be in favour of a prohibition on inheritance?
Surely this would ensure that there is more of a meritocracy and ensures that people don't benefit purely because of their parents.

heh heh heh, you should move to the gulags my friend.

why do the parents have money?

because the didn't piss it down the wall of the nearest pub, hire stretched limos for the Communion/Confirmation/removal of first teeth etc etc.
They spend their money on education and advancement rather than souped up cars and gallons of lager and trips to see Liverpool in Anfield.

What you want is everybody in a morass of mad mediocrity with no initiative, no risk takers , just stolid punters depending on the state for everything.

Get real buddy.

Lockstep · 31-05-2009 5:20pm

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

heh heh heh, you should move to the gulags my friend.

Lolwut?

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

why do the parents have money?

because the didn't piss it down the wall of the nearest pub, hire stretched limos for the Communion/Confirmation/removal of first teeth etc etc.

Yes; the parents.
Not the kids.
The parents.
Let's take my quote in context; Dotsman claiming the rich are there because of hard work and gumption; an abolition of inheritance would make this a much fairer remark to claim.

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

They spend their money on education and advancement rather than souped up cars and gallons of lager and trips to see Liverpool in Anfield.

Because the parents had money they must be spending it on education and advancement?
Righto, your reasoning and logic are flawless.

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

What you want is everybody in a morass of mad mediocrity with no initiative, no risk takers , just stolid punters depending on the state for everything.

Get real buddy.

Oh sweet irony...

Let's get real here shall we;
How does eliminating inheritance cause mediocrity?
It would prevent children from piggybacking on their parents success. Encouraging them to succeed on their own merit rather than inheriting money,

You've pulled the morass and mediocrity idea out of nowhere.
Care to explain your reasoning behind it?

Get real buddy.

Lockstep · 31-05-2009 5:27pm

dotsman wrote: »

Not sure how this is related, but no, I would not be in favour of a prohibition on inheritance. If a person earns there money honestly, then they are entitled to spend it as they please. For many parents/grandparents, the desire to see their descendants taken care of is strong and it would be very wrong to interfere with that, especially when I can't see any benefit from it (if a person knows that they their wealth will go to the state rather than split between all their kids/grandkids when they die, they'll just blow it all on any old thing (coke and hookers;)) rahter than leave it to the taxman out of spite.

So?
You are claiming that the rich are there because they work hard etc.
I don't see how you can hold this idea while believing that someone should be able to be wealthy purely for being born to the right people.

dotsman wrote: »

Likewise, for the majority of people, the inheritence is of sentimental value as well as financial. The family home that a person was raised in is more than bricks and mortar for many people. A mother's jewelry and other family heirlooms mean a lot more to people than their pricetag.

Once again; so?
What's sentimentality got to do with anything? We are talking about the wealthy and whether they are there because of hard work.

dotsman wrote: »

Anyway, at present, in this country, inheritance is already heavily taxed. What's worse is that this money is double-taxed. The person who earned payed tax on it, and then it is taxed again when it is passed on to the dependants.

How much is it taxed exactly?

Even if it is something as high as 80% it still means that a millionaire's kid does not deserve their wealth, they are still getting 200k for no work at all.
Defending inheritance is completely at odds with your claims to

dotsman wrote: »

Finally, I don't see how a prohibition would work. If you're not allowed leave things to your descendants, surely you woul give it to them just before you die (where possible!). There is also the reverse of that. What about a young parent dying when the kids are still actual kids and unable to fend for themselves. Should we chuck them out on the street?

1) Sure, but the state could take any money in the possession of someone when they die.
2) Noone is talking of putting anyone out on the street, they could go stay with their relatives or go into care if nothing else.

How you can defend the rich as being deserving of their wealth while defending inheritance is beyond me.

FlutterinBantam · 31-05-2009 5:32pm

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Lolwut?

Yes; the parents.
Not the kids.
The parents.
Let's take my quote in context; Dotsman claiming the rich are there because of hard work and gumption; an abolition of inheritance would make this a much fairer remark to claim.

Because the parents had money they must be spending it on education and advancement?
Righto, your reasoning and logic are flawless.

Oh sweet irony...

Let's get real here shall we;
How does eliminating inheritance cause mediocrity?
It would prevent children from piggybacking on their parents success. Encouraging them to succeed on their own merit rather than inheriting money,

You've pulled the morass and mediocrity idea out of nowhere.
Care to explain your reasoning behind it?

Get real buddy.

Where would you suggest the inheritance money goes??

Lockstep · 31-05-2009 5:34pm

In this scenario; the State? FUnd for care of orphans etc or something.

I'm not an advocate of a 100% inheritance tax rate, but am wondering why someone who claims the rich are only there because of hard work can be against such a tax. Surely it would level the playing field and ensure a more genuine meritocracy.

FlutterinBantam · 31-05-2009 5:49pm

kickoutthejams wrote: »

In this scenario; the State? FUnd for care of orphans etc or something.

I'm not an advocate of a 100% inheritance tax rate, but am wondering why someone who claims the rich are only there because of hard work can be against such a tax. Surely it would level the playing field and ensure a more genuine meritocracy.

Genuine mediocrity horse.

Are you for real? What do you mean level the playing field-everybody playing in the Blue Square league.?

what incentive is there then for anyone to take risks,use initiative, use their education, get qualifications.??

What will you have, bunch of fat slobs hanging around the pub doors sucking their fags and depending on the state to see them through, while doing a few nixers and contributing NOTHING

get real buddy.

Joe Higgins got kicked out for that kind of shyte.

delllat · 31-05-2009 7:00pm

the dole is here to stay for life no matter what so everyone should just stop going on about it

every country has its share of spongers,ours are just better paid than most

Lockstep · 31-05-2009 7:17pm

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Genuine mediocrity horse.
Are you for real? What do you mean level the playing field-everybody playing in the Blue Square league.?

I'll simplify it then.

1)It was claimed that the wealthy work hard and so deserve their wealth.
2)If this is the case, then surely we would be able to abolish inheritance, seeing as it means that those who have done no work are still able to benefit from the wealth they did nothing to deserve (as regards to effort) By abolishing this, it would mean that those who are wealthy are more likely to have earned the wealth and this ensures a more meritocratic society. A more level playing field as you cannot rely as much on your birth.
Understand now?

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

what incentive is there then for anyone to take risks,use initiative, use their education, get qualifications.??

You think the only reason we seek to do well in life is to pass on wealth to our kids?
Righto.

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

What will you have, bunch of fat slobs hanging around the pub doors sucking their fags and depending on the state to see them through, while doing a few nixers and contributing NOTHING

Please explain your logic here.
How does preventing kids from benefiting from their parents hard work and wealth turn them into welfare-dependants?
Unless they were already the type to rely on welfare rather than hard work in which case they are no different to welfare bums born to more disadvantaged families.

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

get real buddy.

Yes, you used that line before.

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Joe Higgins got kicked out for that kind of shyte.

When was Joe Higgins ever kicked out?
I'm not a fan of the man but he wasn't returned to the Dáil. And he stands a chance of becoming an MEP.
At any rate, I don't see where the correlation is between Joe Higgins and myself.

Please try and from a coherent answer in your reply, screeching incoherently about dem welfare bums does nothing.

FlutterinBantam · 31-05-2009 7:18pm

delllat wrote: »

the dole is here to stay for life no matter what so everyone should just stop going on about it

every country has its share of spongers,ours are just better paid than most

Uhmmmm... there are some who might doubt the veracity of that statement pal.

We live in very strange and dangerous times,some people might eventually have to do a turn to earn a crust.

remember who told you;)

m5ex9oqjawdg2i · 31-05-2009 7:20pm

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Load of bollox, why are there so many "furriners" in here "taking our jobs"??

I'll tell you why, because the fookers who would normally do the jobs preferred to do fook all and take the dole and the other allowances going with it.
Mosie Ahearne said it loud and clear this morning,or maybe it was yesterday,but the jist of his comment was that in Dublin Central people preferred to stay on the dole rather than take a job which would pay circa the equivelant.
Fcuker was DEAD RIGHT[/B]cue aghast comments and wringing of hands, but the guy speaks the truth.

Will probably lose loads of votes on account of that, but for the first time in yonks I heard a politician telling it as it is.

The dogs in the street know that, but like the Industrial schools ,every will chose to ignore it.

Get real people.

A while back, say a few years ago, we needed these foreigners to work the jobs. We didn't have a massive unemployed population and a lot of them were temporary. The lifetime unemployed should get a slap for being lazy sh!ts.

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

heh heh heh, you should move to the gulags my friend.

why do the parents have money?

because the didn't piss it down the wall of the nearest pub, hire stretched limos for the Communion/Confirmation/removal of first teeth etc etc.
They spend their money on education and advancement rather than souped up cars and gallons of lager and trips to see Liverpool in Anfield.

What you want is everybody in a morass of mad mediocrity with no initiative, no risk takers , just stolid punters depending on the state for everything.

Get real buddy.

What planet are you living on? Really, I think it is you that needs to get a clue...

kickoutthejams wrote: »

In this scenario; the State? FUnd for care of orphans etc or something.

I'm not an advocate of a 100% inheritance tax rate, but am wondering why someone who claims the rich are only there because of hard work can be against such a tax. Surely it would level the playing field and ensure a more genuine meritocracy.

The state should not benifit from the hard work, or luck, of parents. You are looking for comunism... not good. My parents are pretty wealthy, with various differant properties, I might benifit from that some day but not relying on it. The state should have very little claim on their wealth, regardless of what they want to do with it.

thebullkf wrote: »

frequent drug testing of dolers...not clean??
no dole
simple.

Are you taking the piss? People should be treated like criminals for what reasons??? Rediculous and thoughtless idea...

thebullkf wrote: »

THE SIMPLE LIFE????

you mean get workers to fund his simple life??

if it wasn't for the poor sob who thought he could afford the 500k mortgage by working hard and having a good credit history.......

the simple life wouldn't be there for the likes of the leeches we have.

its not calculus.

everyone takes the easy option i.e. "simple life".

=

no dole left.

=

country in the toilet.
EASY.

So you are saying it is the person who made a wreckless decision of purchasing a house that he couldn't afford is the one who kept the country afloat? You will find it is the complete opposite, the retard who bought a 500K house on a 30K wage is the one who sunk us...

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Why?

We have free education in the country, they might as well avail of it.

Free education? You are not from Ireland, are you? If so you are dillusioned.

There has never been free education in Ireland...

ronbyrne2005 wrote: »

Those on dole over a year should be made work for their money. Theres 2 million rats in Dublin, make them catch rats for their corn or clean up the tons of plastic that gets washed up on beaches around Ireland and which no one is picking up. Theres tons of jobs that could be done that arent being done. **** , even put them on exercise bikes that power dynamos that feed into national grid and they will be kept fit and be contributing to society. Forced sterilisation for the "sinlge"mothers claiming social welfare all their adult life that have several kids by several differnt guys and lads on dole who have had several kids should get the snip with the sperm stored in ice untill they get a job. All violent and habitual criminals to get snip too and maybe amputation(just one half of one leg) to prevent them breaking into houses, assualting people, running from law etc.

Dictatorship is what you are seeking, so please, GTFO. Go to some far east sh!thole that does this kinda crap, see if you agree with it then.

ronbyrne2005 wrote: »

ALso the unemplyed professionals could be employed at 500 euro a week to investigate long term dole claims that are suspicisious, spy on those claiming disability, watch to see if any claiming dole are working illegally etc.

FlutterinBantam · 31-05-2009 7:25pm

kickoutthejams wrote: »

I'll simplify it then.

1)It was claimed that the wealthy work hard and so deserve their wealth.
2)If this is the case, then surely we would be able to abolish inheritance, seeing as it means that those who have done no work are still able to benefit from the wealth they did nothing to deserve (as regards to effort) By abolishing this, it would mean that those who are wealthy are more likely to have earned the wealth and this ensures a more meritocratic society. A more level playing field as you cannot rely as much on your birth.
Understand now?

You think the only reason we seek to do well in life is to pass on wealth to our kids?
Righto.

Please explain your logic here.
How does preventing kids from benefiting from their parents hard work and wealth turn them into welfare-dependants?
Unless they were already the type to rely on welfare rather than hard work in which case they are no different to welfare bums born to more disadvantaged families.

Yes, you used that line before.

When was Joe Higgins ever kicked out?
I'm not a fan of the man but he wasn't returned to the Dáil. And he stands a chance of becoming an MEP.
At any rate, I don't see where the correlation is between Joe Higgins and myself.

Please try and from a coherent answer in your reply, screeching incoherently about dem welfare bums does nothing.

You seem to enjoy malienating my words to suit you purpose pal.

I'll give you one reason, a personal one.

If I thought the fruits of my labours and effort would not go to my family, but to pack of wasters who would piss it up against the gable end of "Jack's Oooirish Bar" I would light my Zippo and conflagerate the fookin lot.

Why are there hundreds and thousands of non nationals here working away?

Because the lazy people who would rather roam around in pyjamas all day didn't want them,that's why.

Thats what Maurice Ahearn said this morning, and much as I dislike the guy, he is right.

Let's end this 'dole is too much' stuff

Comments