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

Social Welfare State

Options
135

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Wheely
    Closed Accounts Posts: 400 ✭✭Wheely


    Halla Basin wrote: »
    There should be enough social welfare to keep you barely alive. Food, basically.

    Barely alive......? Hardly welfare then is it?


  • Options
    #63
    Wheely
    Closed Accounts Posts: 400 ✭✭Wheely


    Frankiestylee wrote: »
    Our best customers are also on social welfare and tend to drink everyday, though I wouldn't class them as alcoholics.

    Sorry what would you class as an alcoholic then? Someone who drinks more than every day and spends more than your weekly wages on booze? What's an alcoholic in your book?


  • Options
    #64
    Wheely
    Closed Accounts Posts: 400 ✭✭Wheely


    turgon wrote: »
    People have had children under these schemes and its very likely the only reason some of these people had kids was because Social Welfare was there to foot the bill. .

    Do you honestly really believe this?


  • Options
    #65
    Bandit12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,442 ✭✭✭Bandit12


    Wheely wrote: »
    Do you honestly really believe this?
    Do you honestly think people don't do this?


  • Options
    #66
    Wheely
    Closed Accounts Posts: 400 ✭✭Wheely


    Húrin wrote: »
    . So yes there are welfare recipients, spongers even, living in upper class areas.

    So ALL welfare recepients in your eyes are spongers regardless of their level of need, poverty etc?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Wheely
    Closed Accounts Posts: 400 ✭✭Wheely


    JonathanAnon wrote: »

    Nothing will change in this country because you have too many left wing groups willing to stand up for useless wasters like these people. To think that the same state we live in that provides these wasters with all of their luxuries, also puts hardworking people in jail for not being able to pay off bank loans (having lost their jobs). it's just wrong.

    Eh those wasters and the poor hardworking people who lose their jobs rely on the same welfare system to survive just so ya know.


  • Options
    #68
    Wheely
    Closed Accounts Posts: 400 ✭✭Wheely


    Bandit12 wrote: »
    Do you honestly think people don't do this?

    No! I honestly believe that the ONLY reason some people have children is cos Social Welfare is there to foot the bill. Why?

    Or that SW is a "goldmine" for that matter.


  • Options
    #69
    Spudmonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 2,901 ✭✭✭Spudmonkey


    Wheely wrote: »
    No! I honestly believe that the ONLY reason some people have children is cos Social Welfare is there to foot the bill. Why?

    Or that SW is a "goldmine" for that matter.

    I suppose the Harte family were only passing time yeah? To say they are getting 3800 a month, maybe not a goldmine, but certainly a decent living!


  • Options
    #70
    Automan
    Registered Users Posts: 327 ✭✭Automan


    Joey the lips wrote: »
    I am at a loss to discover your link to my original post. What you and the poster that thanked you is saying is that people choose to stay at home and have more kids and get a bigger house yes! How does that relate to this statement by me

    In fact it can be proven if you make it easier for people to earn money they have less kids cause greed drives them to earn more!

    I think your getting confused. I also think that you are adding to the stigma. You are implying in your comments that people who stay at home on the dole are doing it by choice! You have no proof of this. The state has no proof either because to receive welfare you have to be activly looking for work or not in a position to work.

    Ok so, pay attention:
    You said:

    In fact it can be proven if you make it easier for people to earn money they have less kids cause greed drives them to earn more!

    My reply to this:

    Your having a laugh right??? It never dawned on you that a couple working could not afford to have more than one child when there paying around 1000 euros per month on creche fees, how many working couples do you know that could afford 2000 euros per month creche fees for two children under 4?



    Also would appreciate if you would bother to fully read my post before replying:
    Joey the lips wrote: »
    adding to the stigma. You are implying in your comments that people who stay at home on the dole are doing it by choice!

    ahem:
    Automan wrote:
    For those on social who dont want to work dont have this problem as they can stay at home and look after there kids, to some of these the more kids they have the more money,the bigger the house they will receive from the state.


  • Options
    #71
    spank_inferno
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,892 ✭✭✭spank_inferno


    Wheely wrote: »
    No! I honestly believe that the ONLY reason some people have children is cos Social Welfare is there to foot the bill. Why?

    Or that SW is a "goldmine" for that matter.

    Here in Wickla it is the career choice for many girls
    Not all girls, but many.

    And when they see what its like with the 1 child sure wtf why not have another!
    You get a bigger house when you do anyway so no harm.

    Its quite naieve (at best) to think this doesnt happen.

    How do I know?
    Not 1 but 2 of my female cousins are in this boat.
    They arent breaking any law, its the system after all.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Wheely
    Closed Accounts Posts: 400 ✭✭Wheely


    Spudmonkey wrote: »
    I suppose the Harte family were only passing time yeah? To say they are getting 3800 a month, maybe not a goldmine, but certainly a decent living!

    I don't know what the Harte family were doing, or why they chose to have so many children. I do know it's a story about a single family and you're proposing a massive overhaul of social policy based on it.

    But in the past you've advocated cutting off the dole for long-term unemployed, scrapping the entire concept of the dole altogether, scrapping the concept of the minimum wage altogether, while at the same time fawning over Brian Lenihans performance in interviews and saying how people are preoccupied with the banks and the developers, preferring to pass off the blame for everything on those who got "caught up in the Celtic Tiger and bought property etc etc" while at the same time nauseatingly patting yourself on the back for scrimping and saving and not buying stuff.

    So forgive me if I don't put a single shred of stock into someone who displays such a virulent disdain for those less fortunate than you to the point where you refer to human beings as the "family scummer" and advocates a return to the stocks for poor people.

    Social policy/empathy/general knowledge just don't seem to be your strong suits I'm afraid.


  • Options
    #73
    Wheely
    Closed Accounts Posts: 400 ✭✭Wheely


    spank_inferno wrote: »
    Here in Wickla it is the career choice for many girls
    Not all girls, but many.

    And when they see what its like with the 1 child sure wtf why not have another!
    You get a bigger house when you do anyway so no harm.

    Its quite naieve (at best) to think this doesnt happen.

    How do I know?
    Not 1 but 2 of my female cousins are in this boat.
    They arent breaking any law, its the system after all.

    Two of your female cousins have actually confided in you that the ONLY reason they chose to have children is because social welfare will pick up the tab for them!? What can I say? Obviously I cannot argue with anecdotal evidence but I am shocked if that is the case.........


  • Options
    #74
    AlekSmart
    Registered Users Posts: 14,005 ✭✭✭✭AlekSmart


    I think your getting confused. I also think that you are adding to the stigma. You are implying in your comments that people who stay at home on the dole are doing it by choice! You have no proof of this. The state has no proof either because to receive welfare you have to be activly looking for work or not in a position to work.

    I`m not so certain that the individuals who represent the genus of this thread would see any stigma associated with their methodology...to believe that they would is naieve in extremis...:)

    Similarly the scope of the term "Actively seeking employment" can be and is broadened each week...... :eek:


    Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.

    Charles Mackay (1812-1889)



  • Options
    #75
    Joey the lips
    Registered Users Posts: 10,262 ✭✭✭✭Joey the lips


    AlekSmart wrote: »
    I`m not so certain that the individuals who represent the genus of this thread would see any stigma associated with their methodology...to believe that they would is naieve in extremis...:)

    Similarly the scope of the term "Actively seeking employment" can be and is broadened each week...... :eek:


    You have now raised 2 valid points

    1. The people using this thread are using it as a weapon to attack those on social welfare. Its a generalisation and its poor at that. It is using not the norm examples and it is a general attack at the unemployed.

    2. You are pointing out that just because a person is activly seeking employment does not mean they are any better, by better i mean the standard that is being criticised on this thread.


    I have to say I have been following this thread from the outset. I do not see it as a contrabution to society. I do not even see it as being intelligent. Its is suggestive that if you are on social welfare over a certain period of time that you are low life. It is also suggestive that those on social welfare need to have it cut.

    I doubt i will change the minds of those who have commented but i do ask you do a couple of things. Volenteer for 1 months work in the simn community vincent de paul or focus point. You know people that generally frequesnt these places are on social welfare and generally dont frequest boards. Then maybe you will understand the situation better.

    As a last point on my rant. Yes i agree thousends I dont doubt are abusing the system but the problem is the system itself. If someone is claiming illegally they should be reported or have an inspecition. The beautiful thing about this is if they are still claiming then obv the state judges them as requiring assistance.

    One very high profile charity has an expression on its books now. The new poor are the 08 drivers. They have large loans. No job and a car worth nothing since the VRT change. This this make them spongers or does this make them misfortunate? I will let you decide cause clearly with only one-two cases so far backing up all the information decisions have already been made.


  • Options
    #76
    Bandit12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,442 ✭✭✭Bandit12


    Spudmonkey wrote: »
    I suppose the Harte family were only passing time yeah? To say they are getting 3800 a month, maybe not a goldmine, but certainly a decent living!
    3800 a month sounds pretty much like a goldmine to me when you are'nt even working.


  • Options
    #77
    Raiser
    Registered Users Posts: 4,929 ✭✭✭Raiser


    Set up large State run factories manufacturing some basic essential that we currently import at huge expense and give these people jobs - make them work 10 hours a week at first in case the reality of actually doing something productive kills them :mad:

    As it is, aside from the genuinely disadvantaged few, there seems to be huge numbers of society wandering around the streets drinking cider and breeding young offenders, all funded from that big missing chunk of our payslip.

    - Seemingly the new trend is that they won't even mind their own fcuking kids now either - just check them into a State-subsidised Creche and go shop lifting all day......


  • Options
    #78
    Spudmonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 2,901 ✭✭✭Spudmonkey


    Wheely wrote: »
    I don't know what the Harte family were doing, or why they chose to have so many children. I do know it's a story about a single family and you're proposing a massive overhaul of social policy based on it.

    First I'll address the single paragraph in your long winded post that actually references the thread.

    I think in a situation where an unemployed family can fair better than one working, it pretty much shows there is something wrong and yes the entire system needs an overhaul!
    Wheely wrote: »
    But in the past you've advocated cutting off the dole for long-term unemployed, scrapping the entire concept of the dole altogether, scrapping the concept of the minimum wage altogether, while at the same time fawning over Brian Lenihans performance in interviews and saying how people are preoccupied with the banks and the developers, preferring to pass off the blame for everything on those who got "caught up in the Celtic Tiger and bought property etc etc" while at the same time nauseatingly patting yourself on the back for scrimping and saving and not buying stuff.

    I'm sorry but WTF has this got to do with anything? It has nothing to do with the thread? Again Wheely, attacking the poster and not the post, maybe you should try contain your arguments to what was written and not your pre-concieved notions you have about someone! If you have a problem with me or what I post then bring it up with the mods.
    Wheely wrote: »
    So forgive me if I don't put a single shred of stock into someone who displays such a virulent disdain for those less fortunate than you to the point where you refer to human beings as the "family scummer" and advocates a return to the stocks for poor people.

    WTF you consider people too lazy to work "poor people"? I consider people who leach off the state and off the hard working population because they can't be bothered complete scum.
    Wheely wrote: »
    Social policy/empathy/general knowledge just don't seem to be your strong suits I'm afraid.

    :rolleyes: Again attacking the poster, why do I even bother answering your replys?

    Anyway I'm back to work where I can pay my taxes and fund some more (in your opinion) "poor peoples" extravagant lifestyles.
    Bandit12 wrote: »
    3800 a month sounds pretty much like a goldmine to me when you are'nt even working.

    Apologies Bandit12, you are right, it is a goldmine!


  • Options
    #79
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    right so lads lets get the pitchforks and sort it out like in the olden days

    oh wait, nvm

    these people have no shame, its both amusing and sad at the same time

    but it is a perfect illustration of how badly messed up the welfare system is, fairplay to the journalists who exposed this farce for what it is

    someone mentioned its unfair on the kids, and yes thats true but what do yee think they will grow up to be: productive members of society or spongers?

    their parents are setting a terrible example for their kids and thats an even bigger crime in my eyes :eek:


  • Options
    #80
    Wheely
    Closed Accounts Posts: 400 ✭✭Wheely


    Spudmonkey wrote: »
    First I'll address the single paragraph in your long winded post that actually references the thread.

    I think in a situation where an unemployed family can fair better than one working, it pretty much shows there is something wrong and yes the entire system needs an overhaul!
    You want to do away with the entire system not overhaul it. I never defended the perfection of the system but you want to abolish welfare as a concept.

    Spudmonkey wrote: »
    I'm sorry but WTF has this got to do with anything? It has nothing to do with the thread? Again Wheely, attacking the poster and not the post, maybe you should try contain your arguments to what was written and not your pre-conceived notions you have about someone! If you have a problem with me or what I post then bring it up with the mods.
    Thin lie between attacking the poster, attacking his post and attacking his previous posts. I did contain my argument to what was written and wasn't operating on pre-conceived notions about you. Just cos you didn't write them on this thread doesn't mean I'm not familiar with your opinions in the past. And you might think them irrelevant but in a thread discussing social welfare I think your past musing on the concept of welfare on this website are relevant. Stop playing the victim and trying to pretend I've formed all these horribly unjustified pre-conceived notions about you. I didn't reference one thing you haven't posted up here in the past. Just cos it exposes your horrendous double standards you get annoyed.
    Spudmonkey wrote: »

    WTF you consider people too lazy to work "poor people"? I consider people who leach off the state and off the hard working population because they can't be bothered complete scum.

    People too lazy to work/poor people, there's a massive overlap between our two categorisations you must admit. How many of these people who are too lazy to work live in Blackrock.

    Also call it what you will I was really focusing on your advocacy for a return to the stocks, hmm wikipedia definition

    "Stocks are devices used since medieval times for torture, public humiliation, and corporal punishment. The stocks partially immobilized its victims exposing them in public place to the scorn of the local people, who often took to insulting, kicking, spitting and in some cases urinating and defecating on its victims."[/QUOTE]

    Spudmonkey wrote: »
    :rolleyes: Again attacking the poster, why do I even bother answering your replys?

    Anyway I'm back to work where I can pay my taxes and fund some more (in your opinion) "poor peoples" extravagant lifestyles.

    Read that definition there of the stocks again. God I'm so sorry I attacked your lack of acumen in the realms of empathy and social policy!!!!

    Fine if you think I attacked the poor poster report me.


  • Options
    #81
    Wheely
    Closed Accounts Posts: 400 ✭✭Wheely


    Raiser wrote: »
    As it is, aside from the genuinely disadvantaged few, there seems to be huge numbers of society wandering around the streets drinking cider and breeding young offenders, all funded from that big missing chunk of our payslip.

    Sorry what is genuinely disadvantaged in your book?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Raiser
    Registered Users Posts: 4,929 ✭✭✭Raiser


    Wheely wrote: »
    Sorry what is genuinely disadvantaged in your book?

    Don't be ridiculous - It precisely and plainly put, anyone in receipt of social welfare should be genuine and in turn they are of course deserving of same. Nobody should begrudge sincere people who are at some particular time in their life dependant on Social Welfare assistance. Best of luck to them and may they have a change in fortunes very soon.

    I just hate the cynical Leeches that have been making a career out of claiming State handouts as a lifestyle choice and the Social Workers who have facilitated them cause its easier to just say yes to most Scumbags.

    - For any of them reading this; If I'm paying for your fcuking pyjamas then I should have a say in whether you are allowed to wear them down town, to the pub and when out assaulting your 12 kids in public.


  • Options
    #83
    Kama
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,027 ✭✭✭Kama


    Don't be ridiculous - It precisely and plainly put, anyone in receipt of social welfare should be genuine and in turn they are of course deserving of same.

    This is an old problem; how do you determine the deserving and undeserving poor? I'm reminded of Chris Morriss in Brass Eye, between 'Good Aids' and 'Bad Aids'; 'oh, you got it from blood transfusion, thats not your fault...oh, you had sex and got Aids, that's the Bad Aids, you should be persecuted'.

    One problem is that to determine whether someone deserves it or not....requires a comparatively larger public bureaucracy of well-paid civil servants than a non-means-testing, universal system. I'd ask what method you think should be used to separate the sheep from the goats, beyond checking if they are wearing a tracksuit :rolleyes: As has been said, the comfortable middle-classes are well-able to milk social welfare, but the shock-horror moral outrage seems to concentrate pretty well on the underclass.

    I'd agree we should be employing the unemployed, I'm somewhat of a supporter of workfare, but I only think that it will really work in context of a Keynesian program of public works. You need something which can absorb a large stock of labour, which the current sectors of the economy cannot.


  • Options
    #84
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    apparently the father has made a reply here on boards

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61540554&postcount=116


  • Options
    #85
    quietsailor
    Registered Users Posts: 1,428 ✭✭✭quietsailor


    Folks,

    there has been a lot of points raised on this thread about money and how much people on welfare are costing the state because they have large families. This is in the short term but a long term effect is the world's population and the availability of resources out there. At the moment Ireland is ok but if we keep up our growth - approx 2% per year we are going to run into trouble with resources.

    China tried to exert a population control poicy that was draconian by any standards - killing second children in a family and that country couldn't keep it's population under control. Knowing this what hope have we.

    IF - and I don't know enough about the welfare system yet in Ireland - the truth is that people are having children just for the State benifits they receive why not have a graduated scale for child welfare - for example

    100% for the 1st
    60% for the 2nd
    30% for the third
    10% for the fourth.
    0% for the 5th and subsequent child.

    why wouldn't this work -- if you want to have children you have the right to do so, but if you can't afford to raise a child don't have one. ---- Yes I know there will always be children conceived accidently whose parent's will find it difficult to rear that child but generations before us managed didn't they!! I know my parents would have liked to have more children but the couldn't afford to keep all of us in a safe, decent lifestyle if they had more chidren so they stopped at 2.

    This isn't a trolling expedition by the way, but I'm curious to see how more left wing political people would view this idea. It isn't against any civil rights that I can think of -- your free to do what you want, but it necessitates a cut in child benefits so you have to make a choice after your 1st child whether to have more and then each child would get less

    one child on its own would get 100%
    2 children would get (100%+60%)/2 = 80% each. BUT it's the parent's choice, not anyone elses.


  • Options
    #86
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    quietsailor wrote: »
    Folks,

    there has been a lot of points raised on this thread about money and how much people on welfare are costing the state because they have large families. This is in the short term but a long term effect is the world's population and the availability of resources out there. At the moment Ireland is ok but if we keep up our growth - approx 2% per year we are going to run into trouble with resources.

    China tried to exert a population control poicy that was draconian by any standards - killing second children in a family and that country couldn't keep it's population under control. Knowing this what hope have we.

    IF - and I don't know enough about the welfare system yet in Ireland - the truth is that people are having children just for the State benifits they receive why not have a graduated scale for child welfare - for example

    100% for the 1st
    60% for the 2nd
    30% for the third
    10% for the fourth.
    0% for the 5th and subsequent child.

    why wouldn't this work -- if you want to have children you have the right to do so, but if you can't afford to raise a child don't have one. ---- Yes I know there will always be children conceived accidently whose parent's will find it difficult to rear that child but generations before us managed didn't they!! I know my parents would have liked to have more children but the couldn't afford to keep all of us in a safe, decent lifestyle if they had more chidren so they stopped at 2.

    This isn't a trolling expedition by the way, but I'm curious to see how more left wing political people would view this idea. It isn't against any civil rights that I can think of -- your free to do what you want, but it necessitates a cut in child benefits so you have to make a choice after your 1st child whether to have more and then each child would get less

    one child on its own would get 100%
    2 children would get (100%+60%)/2 = 80% each. BUT it's the parent's choice, not anyone elses.

    your premise begins on the idea that everyone is entitled to money for having children to begin with

    since the premise itself is flawed your theory is flawed, but i do agree with you, since we do have child benefit why is it structured to encourage having kids not the other way around

    and its not only children's allowance

    tax credits are geared towards encouraging people to marry and have kids

    from what i gather this is all due to the constitutional position on the family

    .


  • Options
    #87
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    tax credits are geared towards encouraging people to marry and have kids

    What tax credits would they be?


  • Options
    #88
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    dvpower wrote: »
    What tax credits would they be?

    marriage tax credit

    single parent tax credit



    people who start business lose

    paye tax credit


    hence a single person who starts a business is worse off than a married person who is average on wage when it comes to being income taxed

    fair? i dunno


  • Options
    #89
    Lockstep
    Registered Users Posts: 9,030 ✭✭✭Lockstep


    Joey the lips wrote: »
    I doubt i will change the minds of those who have commented but i do ask you do a couple of things. Volenteer for 1 months work in the simn community vincent de paul or focus point. You know people that generally frequesnt these places are on social welfare and generally dont frequest boards. Then maybe you will understand the situation better.

    Massive +1 here.
    I'm usually fairly bemused by some of those who go on rants against people such as immigrants/travellers/the unemployed etc.
    While attacking others for being filthy PC brigade, leftie, ivory tower residing liberals, they don't seem to have any personal interaction with the subjects of their criticism.


  • Options
    #90
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    this guy gets same benefits as someone working at 45k before tax job

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61542836&postcount=153


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Lockstep
    Registered Users Posts: 9,030 ✭✭✭Lockstep


    Spudmonkey wrote: »
    First I'll address the single paragraph in your long winded post that actually references the thread.

    I think in a situation where an unemployed family can fair better than one working, it pretty much shows there is something wrong and yes the entire system needs an overhaul!
    Welcome to practice over theory.
    Of course there will always be discrepancies and injustices that occur, there is no such thing as an infallible system.

    Spudmonkey wrote: »
    I'm sorry but WTF has this got to do with anything? It has nothing to do with the thread? Again Wheely, attacking the poster and not the post, maybe you should try contain your arguments to what was written and not your pre-concieved notions you have about someone! If you have a problem with me or what I post then bring it up with the mods.
    Outlining previous points you have made is not exactly relevant to the discussion at hand but it is certainly not "attacking" you.


    Spudmonkey wrote: »
    WTF you consider people too lazy to work "poor people"? I consider people who leach off the state and off the hard working population because they can't be bothered complete scum.
    Can you prove that they exist in sufficient numbers to guarantee your proposed massive rehaul of the system? (in a time when job cuts are occuring left right and centre, suggesting that maybe there are many unempoyed people because of the economy, rather than because of laziness)


    Spudmonkey wrote: »
    :rolleyes: Again attacking the poster, why do I even bother answering your replys?

    Anyway I'm back to work where I can pay my taxes and fund some more (in your opinion) "poor peoples" extravagant lifestyles.
    Which is what most of us do. I don't really see why you are bringing this up.


Advertisement