On The dole and going to las vegas

hopalong85

MizzLolly wrote: »

You're not speaking from personal experience. You're going by what a friend says. Hardly reliable evidence. I'm getting the government grant and I'm working part time aswell. I know first hand and I'm afraid what you posted m'dear is very misinformed.

You cannot 'live it up' solely on the education grant.

I'm going on the experiences of people I am close to. It's very reliable evidence. You are one person. You do not represent the entire population of grant receiving students. Don't call me "m'dear" please. It just sounds patronising. I know people who do 'live it up' (relatively speaking) on the education grant. This is off topic, we should probably drop it.

genericguy

Degsy wrote: »

Well nearly two years to an able-bodied male is a bit too long to be completley out of work dont you think?

regarding iamxavier's comment about education - i found education to be a collossal handicap in finding work last year - i literally couldn't get any job relevant to my education, BUT - i was also applying for jobs like picking up rubbish in apartment blocks/flats, jobs in food places etc.

one guy called me up about a janitorial position around dolphin's barn flats:

guy: "are you seriously looking for this job?"
me: "absolutely"
guy: "well to be honest, i'm looking for someone to pick up rubbish, not clone it".

i ended up going back doing security (something i had promised myself i'd never do again), which kept me alive until i got something else.

two years is far too long to be sitting on your hole, and to be honest that long ago there were plenty of jobs to be had, and there are currently a number of fast food places looking for employees. get the fcuk out and apply.

i can never understand why people complain about being on the dole, yet won't apply to macdonalds or borrow a fcuking ladder so they can go cleaning windows etc. thankfully, the dole is going to be slashed in november, and when i rise to power you'll be cleaning the streets for your dole money after 2 months of job-searching.

deadhead13

hopalong85 wrote: »

What's your point? All you're doing is highlighting how ridiculously generous the social welfare system in this country is. I'm not saying that people on the dole CAN'T go on holidays, I'm saying that I believe that people on the dole SHOULDN'T be able to afford holidays on the back of welfare payments. I think that makes a mockery of what social welfar should be about.

The OP booked and paid for the trip to Vegas before he was let go. He is entitled to do what he is doing and best of luck to him. Thats my point.

Rondolfus

hopalong85 wrote: »

Haha, it isn't drivel. I have friends who receive the grant. They are able to have a very good social life on the back of the grant. I'm sure this isn't the case for all people receiving the grant but it certainly is for some. Keep in mind I'm speaking of people I actually know here, so please don't spout on about misinformed drivel.

This is true about everything. Certain people will abuse the system if they can, no matter what it is. The social service system is a legitimate public service. People who have payed taxes have a right to use the system if necessary.

Like everything there is no exact science to it. Means testing is always controversial, partciular in the case of an education grant. Some people find themsleves just outside the claim bracket. This means that despite having bascially the same wealth as someone entitled to the grant, they are not entitled to it. There needs to be a cut off point somewhere!

From my experience , it is the people JUST outside the entitlement bracket that take issue with the education grant. ( I can understand why). However those who are way outside the bracket are from quite wealthy families. By wealthy, I mean families that can (if they so choose) pay for the upkeep of their son or daughter throughout their education. If they choose not to, the student should take it up with their parents not the Government.

The education grant ensures that everybody has access to education regardless of economic situation. That is fair.

If you have a problem with tax payers money being wasted I suggest you aim your anger at Irish politicans who pay themselves HUGE salaires and claim a HUGE amount of expenses all from tax payers money. Or how about the Banks, which the tax payer bailed out!! They have given themselves pay rises!! So the very people responsible for the current crisis can claim tax payers money with impunity, however, the victims of these idiots can't claim basic living and educational expenses without being made feel like scroungers?

To hell with that, if you are entitled to ANYTHING claim it because you can be sure the leaders of this country would and indeed are claiming far more than their fair share! Better in your pocket than theirs!

drkpower

j2u wrote: »

I have no problem in working so your answer is if your still on the dole in a years time then they should be paid to cival work? well ok then so aout of nowhere the government will just give us on the dole job despite the fact he already made cuts for such positions? Seeing as there must be enough jobs for all us folk on the dole then why wait? just fast forward and give/invent jobs for us and increase your taxes by double or treble to cover the cost?
Honestly how would it work?

Your post isnt entirely clear but I'll give it a go.....

The reason that I dont suggest that we shouldn't immediately "fast forward" (to a situation where the Government pays those on intermediate-long term SW in return for work of a civic nature) is that there should be a certain period that any individual who loses a job is given to find another suitable job.

However, after a certain period, if that person cannot find another job (despite months/years trying) they shouldnt simply get SW forever in return for nothing and should therefore have to do the 'civic' work in return for a basic amount of SW. This amount should be no more than 1/2 the minimum wage so as to always incentivise work over SW 'civic' work.

I would only advocate removing SW altogether if the persom refused to do this work or was disruptive in so doing. The benefits of this system are that you leave noone penniless with the consequent social hardship that that encourages. The individual gets to do a job and that experience will stand to them when they return to the workforce no matter what capacity it is in. There is also more self-worth in working than in not working. And the state benefits by getting some benefit for the money they pay out to the long/intermediate term unemployed. Its a win-win.

genericguy

drkpower wrote: »

However, after a certain period, if that person cannot find another job (despite months/years trying) they shouldnt simply get SW forever in return for nothing and should therefore have to do the 'civic' work in return for a basic amount of SW. Aside from the fact that the State gets some benefit, the individual will also benefit because there is more self-worth in working than in not working. Its a win-win.

i think we really need to have a system like this in place - i can't see any argument against it, other than it might upset the 'hereditary unemployed'. but sure they don't fcuking vote anyway, so why would any government be concerned about them?

drkpower

genericguy wrote: »

i think we really need to have a system like this in place - i can't see any argument against it, other than it might upset the 'hereditary unemployed'. but sure they don't fcuking vote anyway, so why would any government be concerned about them?

The only downside is that whatever area of work that you engage people in (and obviously you will have many thousands suitable for this work) will be "encroaching" on jobs that people currently do for the Government. For instance, a major programme of city and town beautification would be a prime example fo the type of work involved. One would expect the unions who act for street cleaners to go ballistic as their traditional jobs are being threatened (or demeaned) and if the system were succesful, one could imagine politicians making the street cleaning jobs redundant because they now have other cheaper workers to do the work.

They are the risks and they are significant. But, you dont make an omellete without breaking some eggs. And I dont see that those risks are so significant as to move the balance away from engaging in this type of project.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

hopalong85 wrote: »

Iamxavier, I'm not sure how to multi quote like you did. Anyway I'll try to address what you said.

use

then quoted text here, and then

to quote multiple things.

I don't believe it is fine to use dole money to fund a holiday. We just have different beliefs on what welfare should be about. I believe it should be about providing the bare minimum necessary for survival. You do not. That's fine, you're entitled to your opinion.

I am trying to get you to think for yourself, but you keep making assumptions, really. I never said it is find to use dold money to fund a holiday. I don't do this, I rather keep my dole for important things like bills and food. You also must factor in ones mental health. One must do something to keep this in check. Be it a holiday, or a some sort of weekly excursion, or other recreational activity.

Unfortunately for you, I fear that things will almost certainly change with regard to our welfare system in the near future.

It will recieve a 10% cut, or maybe more, which is fine by me, but it only means I will be claiming rent allowance, fuel allowance and any other allowance I can. So in effect, the reduction in welfare payments is actually going to do more damage than good, in my case.

My definition of a holiday? Really? Don't think I need to justify that with an answer.

It's important, as your idea of a holiday may be a trip to Ibiza, or Rome, or some other destination that is linked with expense. I wouldn't call a weekend in wexford a holiday. I would accept, going to visit your girlfriends family in another country is still a holiday. I don't like sun holidays, 7 days tops is enough for one, every 2 or 3 years. That's my opinion though.

You said a poster was trolling when he mentioned buying a new tv. Immediately underneath this statement you boasted about eating an 11 course meal on a foreign holiday. Ironic.

That poster in question said he spend social welfare on his TV, then said thanks lads. I didn't say anything of the kind. I wanted to know what you would assume. I was right, you thought I spent my own money, which I got from social welfare, on the holiday and meal.

You imply you didn't pay for said holiday from dole money. Being on the dole, yes I did assume you paid for it with dole money. If you have other resources then I'm unsure as to why you're claiming welfare in the first place. Perhaps you'd care to expand on this?

While I do not have to prove myself to anybody, I will let you know how, just so you might start thinking outside the box. Stop making assumptions, it's not a good thing, seriously.

My girlfriend is from Belgium, she visits her parents every Xmas and in the summer again. As we have very little money, her mother pays for our flights, we stay at her parents or brothers house so no expenses there either, her mother cooks for us, and if we decide to eat out, it's very cheap. The 11 course meal was on her dad, who pays for a dinner for the whole family every year. While I may have resources to provide me with this holiday and meal, it is seperate to my income which I am assessed on. You going to tell me that I am in the wrong now? If my ticket wasn't paid for I wouldn't have gone

Not everything is as it seems

I completely agree that there are many other factors which are crippling this country. However for you to deny that our welfare bill is contributing to our problems is simply wrong. Welfare is costing the country a colossal amount. An unsustainable amount in fact.

So, what should those without work do? You do realise that welfare payments help the country more than you think? This money is spent on food rent and bills, which further keeps people in jobs, crime rate is lower too. If you take this money away, you will have a lot more homeless people, a lot more crime and a lot more problems in general. Social welfare is a good thing, the abuse of social welfare is not.

You have been on social welfare for 16 months? That's a very long time. Have you been actively seeking employment during this period? I've seen many shops, fast food restaurants and pubs advertising a need for staff in the past 16 months. Perhaps where you live things are different.

Like you wouldn't believe... I don't live near any pubs shops or fast food resturaunts. Most companies near me are family run, there is no work in my area at all. 16 months is not a long time, taking into account the situation at hand. I have sent more CV's out than you could imagine, I would get better benifit if I dug a massive hole and filled it with my CV's. Most people think that the jobs on the websites are real, while people like myself know damned well what is going on.

For instance, poker kings in sandyford have been advertising some jobs on websites for the past year or more. Those jobs don't exist. Same with the agencies, you know how many interviews I have been to with these shower of cnuts? "Oh we have this great position in the <insert random company here>", I go in and they say oh we have no jobs, they just wanted to give me advice like "go on social welfare" etc etc...

I think it's ok for people on the dole to spend money on items such as alcohol and cigarrettes. Sure. I'm not draconian. The welfare State is not great at all, it needs dramatic reform. Hope I've covered everything. Not sure where you're coming from with the "assumption" angle.

So it's ok to buy drugs but not save and go on a holiday. I don't buy smokes or drink, what should I do with the cash I saved from this?

I call it as I see it, and I'm usually quite good at analyzing situations.

All of your posts suggest otherwise You are very very bad at analyzing situations, you are very very good at making assumptions...

An assumption is a statement (true or false) which is to be taken as true for the purpose of the argument which follows.

For example, I say "I am on social welfare and I am going on holidays" you automatically assumed that I paid for it. As you are conditioned to believe... but contrary to popular belief, it is wrong, therefore you assumed what you believed to be true. Did you want it to be true so you could have an argument? I do not know. Assumptions are dangerous. Remember that

Degsy wrote: »

Well nearly two years to an able-bodied male is a bit too long to be completley out of work dont you think?

More assumptions? You know I am able-bodied, how?

16 is not nearly 24.

I would think 2 years is a long time to be out of work, considering 2 years ago it was easy to get work, although I was in college 2 years ago, so impossible to be working. 16 months is not a long time taking into account current circumstances. Or the circumstances we were in 16 months ago. You think this recessions started recently?

Maybe you have a job in your place for me?

hopalong85 wrote: »

Haha, it isn't drivel. I have friends who receive the grant. They are able to have a very good social life on the back of the grant. I'm sure this isn't the case for all people receiving the grant but it certainly is for some. Keep in mind I'm speaking of people I actually know here, so please don't spout on about misinformed drivel.

If you can live it up on 90 euro a week, why are people working???

Harpy

i find it funny how this thread is named on the dole and going to las vegas and the one under it is named 'is the dole too much'.. haha i just found it funny.

i have no problem with you going to las vegas while on the dole seen as you had paid for it before you went on the dole if you're able to afford it then why not..

i'm probably gonna go sign up for the dole this week.. finished college in may, was half looking for a job over the summer, didn't put much effort into it i'd be the first to admit it but for the last two months i've been looking for jobs really hard and i just can't get one and i'm not just applying to ones relating to my course either.. I'm applying just normal jobs in shops and places like and i still can't get anything.. I didn't want to go on the dole because i was afraid i'd get too used to it and get into a rut. but at the moment im going out of my head with sending in cvs and hearing nothing and having no money on top of it. So i might as well sign on and get what im entitled to.

oh and on the point of living it up on student grants, i didn't get a grant but i had a few friends who did one or two of them got the full grant and i can tell you they surely where not living it up.. they struggled a couple of them would live it up for a few weeks going out drinking when they got their grant but that money dried up very fast once they were doing that so they had to have a part time job as well..I don't know one person who was getting the grant and living it up soley off the grant. they either had a job or their parents helped them out.

j2u

genericguy wrote: »

i think we really need to have a system like this in place - i can't see any argument against it, other than it might upset the 'hereditary unemployed'. but sure they don't fcuking vote anyway, so why would any government be concerned about them?

At what point does it turn to slavery? You think people are going to work for half there social welfare in a job they dont like ? not a chance , wishfull thinking? would you?
the dole would be great and probaly is for those that have no mortgage,kids(i dont have kids)no loans to pay but what about the ones that do and are still struggling? The other issue is not what they do to get the dole but how can they pay the other crippling bills mentioned whilst on it?

Please tell me how bank loans and mortgages will be repaid when the dole is cut and people simply cant pay one out of teh two or in some cases both? Again before debating what they do to get the dole answer the above question?

So lets say they cant pay the loans whats goin to happen? either all teh banks end up declaring complete bankruptcy or ur tax money is increased to bail them out?

Then your idea of people working for half of a demolished dole? And that wont lead to huge crime increase because????????

Maybe nike will invest in ireland and we can get jobs sewing footballs for a €5 a day. Your ideas will make us a third world country . If im wrong please explain what will hapen to ireland and your taxes if people cant afford there loans even if they work like slaves?

genericguy

j2u wrote: »

At what point does it turn to slavery? You think people are going to work for half there social welfare in a job they dont like ? not a chance , wishfull thinking? would you?
the dole would be great and probaly is for those that have no mortgage,kids(i dont have kids)no loans to pay but what about the ones that do and are still struggling? The other issue is not what they do to get the dole but how can they pay the other crippling bills mentioned whilst on it?

Please tell me how bank loans and mortgages will be repaid when the dole is cut and people simply cant pay one out of teh two or in some cases both? Again before debating what they do to get the dole answer the above question?

So lets say they cant pay the loans whats goin to happen? either all teh banks end up declaring complete bankruptcy or ur tax money is increased to bail them out?

Then your idea of people working for half of a demolished dole? And that wont lead to huge crime increase because????????

Maybe nike will invest in ireland and we can get jobs sewing footballs for a €5 a day. Your ideas will make us a third world country . If im wrong please explain what will hapen to ireland and your taxes if people cant afford there loans even if they work like slaves?

right, first part: rubbish argument. they'd be paid, ergo it is not slavery.
and yes, i certainly would be happy to get off my hole and do anything if i genuinely couldn't get a job. there's something inherently wrong with any man that wants to stay at home all day every day watching jeremy fcuking kyle and that fat cnut blathnaid ni chofaigh.

second part: it must certainly be hard to live on the dole with a huge BMW in the garden and a nice house, with various loans for plasma televisions etc. All the more reason to take that motherfcuking job in burger king, no? sell the car, cut the credit card and move into the smallest cheapest place appropriate to your familial circumstances.

third part: my tax money is already being squandered by the cnuts in government who are spending it at e200 a head on people who for the most part won't lower themselves to take up a menial job. nobody should be sitting at home, there are jobs out there. instead, you should be given a suitable time during which to find work, i'd say two months because i'm a generous man. at this point, your sweeping brush/paint brush/wheelie bin and high visibility vest would arrive at the door, and you would be out making a contribution to the world. in fact, i'd send you all out with wheelbarrows to help finish building the roads. the savings could be used to sort out the HSE.

you think my ideas would turn ireland into a third world country? what exactly do you think ireland is? get a job, save some money, and go visit any developed country in mainland europe and tell me this place is so great - it's an absolute hole in the earth, people in other countries are laughing at us.

Gummy Panda

genericguy wrote: »

third part: my tax money is already being squandered by the cnuts in government who are spending it at e200 a head on people who for the most part won't lower themselves to take up a menial job.

You mean their tax money is being spent on them?

I pay PRSI. If i lose my job tomorrow, I'll be straight down to claim the dole. I paid enough PRSI to claim it without shame.

Dun laoire

j2u wrote: »

Hi im on the dole and im going to las vegas in a few weeks.i had booked it before i got layed off from work. Just wondering are there many others on the dole going to vegas?
Thanks

Fair play little fella. You have a great time. When on the roulette wheel stick 20 of your fine american dollars on black and when it clicks smile to yourself and say "Dun Laoire ya daisy"

drkpower

Gummy Panda wrote: »

You mean their tax money is being spent on them?

I pay PRSI. If i lose my job tomorrow, I'll be straight down to claim the dole. I paid enough PRSI to claim it without shame.

To follow that logic through, however, it would mean that when someone who had previously paid PRSI lost their job, they would only get paid the dole until their PRSI money 'ran out'. Is that what you want?

I would also claim the dole if I lost my job and everyone is right to claim it in such circumstances. But where people are claiming the dole as a lifestyle, rather than during a transitory phase, something is wrong, both for the individual and for society. That needs to change.

furiousox

Assuming you have paid enough prsi you are entitled to the jobseekers allowance of €204pw for 12 months.
lf you're still out of work after 12 months you are means tested and your JA is adjusted accordingly.
Just making the point that if you're unemployed you don't get €204pw indefinitely.

We've drifted quite a bit from the vegas topic though haven't we?

j2u

Personally i think it would be more cost affective if the government appointed people to have it means tested and treat each case differently.
If somebody has a load of bills and loans and simply cant afford a large cut then they should not be forced to take one but the people on the dole that just live at home with parents and cant provide any proof of financial burdens should be the ones that take a cut.
i just dont see how its reasonable or logical to cut everybodys dole assuming everybody in the country on the dole is in the same situation.
If my theory unfortunatly proves correct that a massive cut to the dole will lead to an increase in taxes for more bank bail outs which leads to more job cuts then what next? cut it again? it would get to the point that there is such social unrest crime will spiral out of control and ther could be even possibility of forced overthrow of the government through means of violence.
may seem an extreme scenario but look back on history and think again?
What state would the country have to be in for that to happen and how far is it away?

FlutterinBantam

So you just get up to your neck in hock and then sit back??

Is that it??

drkpower

j2u wrote: »

If somebody has a load of bills and loans and simply cant afford a large cut then they should not be forced to take one .......

I have a load of bills and a massive mortgage and cant afford to take a large pay cut or a large tax rise but I just had to take one of each; should I get the money back?

Should the PS worker who cant afford the pension levy or the likely cut coming their way shortly not be forced to take one?

We live in the real world. The Government can keep spending about 1/3 of its expenditure on SW and run a €20+ billion deficit because people have bills and loans; if the State cannot resolve its own loans and bills in a relatively short period of time, SW will be cut and cut savagely. And there will be noone to cry to it about - it will just happen.

And given your OP, I'd avoid the use of terms such as 'affordability'; clearly you can afford quite a decent cut.

Valmont

This guy is great. He is genuine but that original post was structured specifically to incite you lot. The joke here is on those who fell for it and responded with "OMG you sponger, get a job loike".

The guy was laid off, it's not his fault and he's looking for more work. Why should he cancel a holiday he had put money towards and had been looking forward too?

I can't wait to see his pictures: "Vegas on welfare, part 1".

OutlawPete

The problem with welfare is not the amount per se, but that it is unfair to those that really need it and those that have earned it.

The fact that there are junkies getting it is not right. I'm sorry, but if your a junkie and welfare know this then you are not available for work and so you should be given food vouchers, rent allowance and that's it.

The goverment should invest more in drug rehab and help these people turn there lives around rather than have them self medicating every day. It's a cul de sac of a life and the tax payer picks up the tab with no payback.

People on disability get treated like crap too. We all know how messed up the GP system and hospitals are and yet they are needed to be at the top of their game for people who are ill. I know someone who took their own life cause welfare was making them go from billy to jack to prove an illness and the stress of it made the illness worse and well, you know the rest.

I feel eople who pay tax for 10 years should get €300 plus on the dole for example, 5 years maybe €250 and so on and so forth. They have invested in the system more than some so they should be entitled to that little bit more comfort.

If people are on the dole haven't worked in years then alot of that has to do with the goverment. Nobody wants to be on the dole. Everyone wants their own home one day for instance and so I can't see anyone been happy being on the dole when being so means never having any kind of security for yourself.

In Ireland everything that is related to 'getting back to work' or 'starting your own business' is pathetic. This needs to change. Enterprise Ireland is a joke. I have enough experience with these people to know.

Everything needs to change. The goverment has made a mess of every single faucet of this country. Not one thing works as it should. We need better politicians - where they are going to come from God only knows but the current system of 'daddy was a politican and so that's what i'll be' has to change.

Also, expecting these people to run major parts of society like schools, hospitals etc is a joke. If you owned a newsagents or a restaurant you wouldn't just expect Enda Kenny, or Brian Cowen to be able to run it succesfully just cause of what they are. It's madness.

We don't need new schools, hospitals etc - we just need the right people to be appointed by goverment who have experience in management to run them properly - from the bottom up. Why should Mary Harney be able to run the health system? What makes her qualified?

I don't have a problem with Social Welfare reform once it makes the distinctions between the people that require it. Long time tax payers, junkies, people with disabilities, single mothers etc should not all be just lumped in together - it isn't right or fair.

LadyMayBelle

Good on ya off the vegas! Got back pay myself (in college now and working part time) but I'll be going on hols with some of my monies

OutlawPete

Dun laoire wrote: »

stick 20 of your fine american dollars on black and when it clicks smile to yourself and say "Dun Laoire ya daisy"

Have this image of a guy storming out of MGM Grand, punching a Valet boy & screaming "F**k you Dun Laoire" .. as he's hauled away by Vegas's finest

SV

Nico22 wrote: »

Have this image of a guy storming out of MGM Grand, punching a Valet boy & screaming "F**k you Dun Laoire" .. as he's hauled away by Vegas's finest

lmao, I'm in tears laughing at that :D

j2u

drkpower wrote: »

I have a load of bills and a massive mortgage and cant afford to take a large pay cut or a large tax rise but I just had to take one of each; should I get the money back?

Should the PS worker who cant afford the pension levy or the likely cut coming their way shortly not be forced to take one?

We live in the real world. The Government can keep spending about 1/3 of its expenditure on SW and run a €20+ billion deficit because people have bills and loans; if the State cannot resolve its own loans and bills in a relatively short period of time, SW will be cut and cut savagely. And there will be noone to cry to it about - it will just happen.

And given your OP, I'd avoid the use of terms such as 'affordability'; clearly you can afford quite a decent cut.

If you cant afford the cut then why not just go on the dole? if your trying to compare yourself having to take a cut to people on the dole taking a cut then obviosly they dont compare because you must still be getting more than the dole if your not on it? Its clearly not the same thing as obviously with your cut your still getting more so how can it compare to someone who is getting feck all on the dole now after they pay bills and expected to take a cut.
I had to take a huge cut before being put on the dole so i do know theres a difference. And how do you make out that the government can afford a €20+ billion because of loans and bills? eh is that why taxpayers money is been used to bail banks out? I dont understand how does the government make money by people not paying their loans and banks having to be bailed out for millions ? How please clarify

j2u

Nico22 wrote: »

Have this image of a guy storming out of MGM Grand, punching a Valet boy & screaming "F**k you Dun Laoire" .. as he's hauled away by Vegas's finest

If i lose money on red i will try putting it on black and just LET IT ROLL BABY.

drkpower

j2u wrote: »

If you cant afford the cut then why not just go on the dole? if your trying to compare yourself having to take a cut to people on the dole taking a cut then obviosly they dont compare because you must still be getting more than the dole if your not on it? Its clearly not the same thing as obviously with your cut your still getting more so how can it compare to someone who is getting feck all on the dole now after they pay bills and expected to take a cut.
I had to take a huge cut before being put on the dole so i do know theres a difference. And how do you make out that the government can afford a €20+ billion because of loans and bills? eh is that why taxpayers money is been used to bail banks out? I dont understand how does the government make money by people not paying their loans and banks having to be bailed out for millions ? How please clarify

Once again, your post is not entirely clear.

1. Yes; I am still getting more than the dole. As is anyone else who is working. Because we deserve it. I do not say this to be mean; I say it to be truthful and realistic. We live in a meritocracy.

2. €204 per week (with rental allowance +/- other allowances) is not 'feck all' as evidently proved by your own plans over the next few weeks. But it should be "feck all"; it should be subsistence - otherwise, it would be a viable lifestyle choice, which it should not be.

3. Your last paragraph doesnt make much sense; you might want to rephrase it. Regardless of bank bailouts/NAMA etc, the Government, on day to day spending, is spending over €20 billion than it takes in - that is not sustainable - so even if there was no NAMA, we would still need to cut SW significantly.

4. You have stated that those who "cannot afford it" shouldnt have to take a cut. So what about a State who cannot afford to pay people wages or SW? So, based on your logic, they shouldnt have to keep paying it. Fair enough.

Dun laoire

j2u wrote: »

If i lose money on red i will try putting it on black and just LET IT ROLL BABY.

no ya cabbage, put 20 on black. Trust me

j2u

drkpower wrote: »

Once again, your post is not entirely clear.

1. Yes; I am still getting more than the dole. As is anyone else who is working. Because we deserve it. I do not say this to be mean; I say it to be truthful and realistic. We live in a meritocracy.

2. €204 per week (with rental allowance +/- other allowances) is not 'feck all' as evidently proved by your own plans over the next few weeks. But it should be "feck all"; it should be subsistence - otherwise, it would be a viable lifestyle choice, which it should not be.

3. Your last paragraph doesnt make much sense; you might want to rephrase it. Regardless of bank bailouts/NAMA etc, the Government, on day to day spending, is spending over €20 billion than it takes in - that is not sustainable - so even if there was no NAMA, we would still need to cut SW significantly.

4. You have stated that those who "cannot afford it" shouldnt have to take a cut. So what about a State who cannot afford to pay people wages or SW? So, based on your logic, they shouldnt have to keep paying it. Fair enough.

Im saying that those who cant afford it will have a choice between pay my loan or eat? which do you think they will choose?? For anybody in even a worse case than me that are the options. So its only going to further increase the banks financial bills which is going to lead to more bail out. So what is your logic? it seems to be wishfull thinking to me.As i said before my father gets mortgage relief .rent allowance which has already been cut three times. The idea that with rent allowance and the dole you have more tan enough is is complete bull. And yes im going to vegas but thats because im going to be ine the exact same situation when i come back , what if i dont go? use he money saved to pay some of my car loan and then im still paying the same amount back for another 2 years or more? what use is that? if i dont go to vegas im paying out €500 plus in bills and if i do im paying out €500 plus in bills so the fact that im going to vegas does not have anything to to with my current financial situation. I mean if there are more cuts and more loans not repaid where is the money going to come from? its not a matter of opinion its just the only logical fact. If the banks need money to save themselves form huge job cuts or bankrupcty where will it come from? will it be from government bail and increased taxes? its a yes no answer? clearly yes it will, so please tell me your solution or explain why that wont happen?

OutlawPete

Agree to disagree at this stage lads.

Firestarter is about to come on (ITV4) .. order an Indian (but not if ya's are on the dole now .. ya hear )

drkpower

j2u wrote: »

So its only going to further increase the banks financial bills which is going to lead to more bail out. So what is your logic?

So, your point is that the Government should continue to pay people more money that it can afford so that those people can repay their loans to the bank so that the banks will survive and wont need bailouts.....!! Nice one.
Listen; the Government is €20,000,000,000 in the red every year. If it doesnt cut SW (and everything else), it will no longer be able to pay for anything; it will be forced to get a loan from the IMF and SW will be cut to somewhere in the region of €60-70 per week. Is that what you want? Because that is what following your suggestions would lead to.

j2u wrote: »

And yes im going to vegas but thats because im going to be ine the exact same situation when i come back , what if i dont go?

Hey; go to Vegas if you want. But what you just said is a cop out, pure and simple. Its not a budget-neutral situation and if you think it is your financial worries are worse than I first appreciated.