Halve Dole for Under 24s

uberwolf

company I've connections with recently granted a 23 year old his request to reduce his days to three from five. He wanted to play golf with his unemployed buddies and the benefits made up enough of his salary to make it seem a good idea.

I'd be cutting the mickey money to new births to a mothers below a certain age group fairly quickly as well, the state should be moving out of incentivised production of children to child mothers.

_Kooli_

Why not just half the dole for anyone with less than 10 years PRSI payments.

FGR

_Kooli_ wrote: »

Why not just half the dole for anyone with less than 10 years PRSI payments.

Make that a more realistic 5 and we have a winner.

RAWLiNGS

I'm 21 years old now, and have been working since I'm 17, so if I was made redundant tomorrow I can expect to get the halved rate? or is this only apply for those who don't qualify for the JB?

johnathan woss

uberwolf wrote: »

company I've connections with recently granted a 23 year old his request to reduce his days to three from five. He wanted to play golf with his unemployed buddies and the benefits made up enough of his salary to make it seem a good idea.

I thought that you can't claim benefits if you voluntarily leave your job (or in this case reduce your working days) ?

If so then has he lied to the welfare office ?

If so he should be reported.

HollyB

uberwolf wrote: »

I'd be cutting the mickey money to new births to a mothers below a certain age group fairly quickly as well, the state should be moving out of incentivised production of children to child mothers.

I'd say they could run into trouble if they tried that. It wouldn't take long for somebody to bring a discrimination case on the grounds of age.

The perk that needs to be tackled in order to disincentivise children as a career choice is the free housing. How attractive would teenage parenthood, or parenthood for those who didn't work and don't intend to work be if, instead of getting an apartment or house because of the child, their choice was between staying in the family home (assuming that their family is willing to put them up, although with under 18s, they'd have to) and being housed in shared accommodation with others in similar circumstances?

Qs

Well this should at least generate more jobs in the Gardai because crime will rise significantly if this happens.

Amhran Nua

GaNjaHaN wrote: »

Proper Irish politics, p1ss off the people who are less likely to vote.

Of course, they can do what they like to people who don't vote.

The lesson to take away from this is, vote.

donegalfella wrote: »

If we want young people to see lower-paid jobs as a viable prospect, we have to cut the dole for that age group. Otherwise the dole is in direct competition with minimum-wage employment.

Your analysis is missing out that due to free market labour policies, young people are now competing for those minimum wage jobs with hundreds of thousands of new entrants to the labour market who have an incentive to take those jobs since the money goes a lot further back home.

schween wrote: »

If the govt intentionally cause a brain drain they will be shooting themselves in the foot, so I doubt this is the case.

Heh, what country have you been living in for the last ten years.

Fol20 wrote: »

they did the jobs that irish people didnt want to do a few years ago and thats the thanks they get..Sure the irish did the exact same thing 20 years ago when the immigrated to usa

A couple of points here; what you are saying is that prior to about halfway through 2004 (the boom collapsed in 2006), nobody swept a floor or served up a burger in Ireland, and that Ireland has the same capacity to absorb labour as the USA?

ei.sdraob wrote: »

germany and china have a population who save alot and now both countries are out of recessions and getting on with more growth

You make a good point about savings here, but I would argue that neither Germany nor China are getting on with things. What they've done is replace exports with stimulus programmes which they pray will tide them over until things pick up again. When the money runs out they will be as badly off as anyone else, which in Germany's case is about halfway through next year.

skearon wrote: »

It was nothing to do with Harney, free movement of labour and capital has been there since 1973.

So there was free movement of labour from accession states in 1973?

skearon wrote: »

What is ::mad:: is the fact we had 150,000 native Irish too lazy to find work during a period of full employment.

Have you got figures for the number of those that were long term unemployed, as opposed to seasonal or incidental unemployed? It would seem like normal churn for a healthy economy to have a few people out of work at any given time, and 150k from a workforce of 2 million is reasonable.

skearon wrote: »

The economy would have ground to a halt if it had not been for immigration.

The facts argue against your point of view - again, economic migration (as distinct from immigration) on a large scale only started in 2004, the boom collapsed in 2006.

Arsenal1986

I know it hasnt been made clear at all but I presume that this will only apply, if it did come in, to people between 20 and 25 who apply for the dole after the budget? This is what the Bord Snip report recommended, a reduced rate of dole for this age group for new applicants for the dole in that age group. People already on it would be fine.

97i9y3941

another suggestion printed in the mail on sunday yesterday,was the govs idea to cut the dole for singletons who are in their mid 20s and aged 30,who still live at home with their parents,which isnt a bad idea either...

shoegirl

Its a smart if cyncial move, simply because the under 25s can be either forced into education (which effectively takes them off the books) or into emmigration.

This government knows full well that emmigration isn't the option this time that it was in the 1950s and 1980s because of much heavier visa restrictions for anybody over 30. Thus the turning of the screw on younger folk rather than cutting the dole for people who have fewer years of active work (and yes, there are tens of thousands of people on the dole in their 30s or 40s who have years if not decades of the welfare begging bowl on their history, but God help us, they are "vulnerable" it seems, young folks who played no part in the downfall are to be punished instead, because they won't vote out this government when the time comes).

thebman

shoegirl wrote: »

Its a smart if cyncial move, simply because the under 25s can be either forced into education (which effectively takes them off the books) or into emmigration.

This government knows full well that emmigration isn't the option this time that it was in the 1950s and 1980s because of much heavier visa restrictions for anybody over 30. Thus the turning of the screw on younger folk rather than cutting the dole for people who have fewer years of active work (and yes, there are tens of thousands of people on the dole in their 30s or 40s who have years if not decades of the welfare begging bowl on their history, but God help us, they are "vulnerable" it seems, young folks who played no part in the downfall are to be punished instead, because they won't vote out this government when the time comes).

Well they are also the ones being let go the most by companies.

I'd say its more likely that its being cut because this trend is likely to continue as employers are more likely to let go these people as they have few financial commitments in most cases.

You could also argue this is the governments attempt to make it less appealing for employers to focus cuts on the younger people but that probably wouldn't work anyway as they will still be seen to be able to move back home to the parents by employers letting people go.

Fred83

Fred83 wrote: »

another suggestion printed in the mail on sunday yesterday,was the govs idea to cut the dole for singletons who are in their mid 20s and aged 30,who still live at home with their parents,which isnt a bad idea either...

I don't get that?

Cut the dole for people in their mid 20s to 30, if they live at home with their parents?


So cut the dole, for people who didn't buy a house, and whose current financial condition leaves them unable to even rent a place?


Talk about kicking you when you're down!?


The whole age thing is a load of bollocks. If they're gonna cut it, it should be a clean sweep across the board. A percentage knocked off everyone's payments.

murphaph

No, the 5 (or perhaps 10, depending on how much is saved with 5) year PRSI contiribution rule is the most sensible option here. Target those wasters in their 30's and 40's who never worked a day in their lives, even when times were 'good'.

Tipp Man

murphaph wrote: »

No, the 5 (or perhaps 10, depending on how much is saved with 5) year PRSI contiribution rule is the most sensible option here. Target those wasters in their 30's and 40's who never worked a day in their lives, even when times were 'good'.

Defo agree, there are a lot of people on the dole now who have contributed to this country and often through no fault of their own are now unemployed. Conversely there are people on the dole who have never worked a day of their lives (we all know some) but yet the welfare system refuses to differntiate between the 2 categories and gives them all the same.

Perhaps a sliding scale could be of use here, 10 years contributions get 204, 7 years gets 175, 5 years gets 150 and 0years gets 100 (just as example)

Ronan|Raven

A sliding scale would be a much fairer option. To issue a blanket cut to any demographic regardless of contribution payments is highly unjustified I feel.

Esentially it is almost rewarding those who never got off their arses and hitting those who could be 29 and worked since the age of 20 in a highly unfair manner.

Ronan|Raven

Ronan|Raven wrote: »

A sliding scale would be a much fairer option. To issue a blanket cut to any demographic regardless of contribution payments is highly unjustified I feel.

Esentially it is almost rewarding those who never got off their arses and hitting those who could be 29 and worked since the age of 20 in a highly unfair manner.

I just feel that it's a little unfair to bring such things in now, when, no matter how much incentive a person can have to find work, there simply is not work available.


I'm 21, and I haven't been in a job in about a year and a half (I only worked about two or three years in my life) and now no matter ho wmuch Id like a job its not going to happen.


All I can do at the moment is keep my head down and stick to FAS courses, so i do feel it would be a little unfair on people in similar situations to my own (not exactly greatly educated, youngish, and no employment prospects in sight.. though admittedly, even if i was offered a job, i'd turn it down in favour of following through FAS' computer courses, which is my current plan for the next year or so).

Tipp Man

Deleted User wrote: »

I just feel that it's a little unfair to bring such things in now, when, no matter how much incentive a person can have to find work, there simply is not work available.


I'm 21, and I haven't been in a job in about a year and a half (I only worked about two or three years in my life) and now no matter ho wmuch Id like a job its not going to happen. The fact is that a lot of people have made living on social a career and have had it too cushy for 2 long, for a country the size of Ireland to have an annual spend on social welfare of 21.5bn is simply unbelievable


All I can do at the moment is keep my head down and stick to FAS courses, so i do feel it would be a little unfair on people in similar situations to my own (not exactly greatly educated, youngish, and no employment prospects in sight.. though admittedly, even if i was offered a job, i'd turn it down in favour of following through FAS' computer courses, which is my current plan for the next year or so).

Well not really, if you have worked for 3 years then you get more than someone who has never contributed, the way things are being talked about you might simply have your dole halved anyway.

Just on a side note, i find it very interesting that you say you'd turn down a job to finish your FAS courses, why would you do this?? There are plenty of people who have completed FAS courses and haven't had offers of employment

murphaph

Deleted User wrote: »

though admittedly, even if i was offered a job, i'd turn it down in favour of following through FAS' computer courses, which is my current plan for the next year or so).

Then you really should be taking JB/JA at all. If you're offered a job and refuse, you should have your dole removed altogether tbh. If you want to study computers (admirable) then you are a student and students don't get dole. Sorry to be so blunt.

Tipp Man

Tipp Man wrote:

Just on a side note, i find it very interesting that you say you'd turn down a job to finish your FAS courses, why would you do this?? There are plenty of people who have completed FAS courses and haven't had offers of employment

I'm not the most educated person in the world, and at the moment i'm actually enjoying learning about ye olde 'puters. I'd like to see it through to the end. It'll probably only take another year or two anyway before I finish them off, and so i can only hope the country is on the mend by then.

murphaph wrote: »

Then you really should be taking JB/JA at all. If you're offered a job and refuse, you should have your dole removed altogether tbh. If you want to study computers (admirable) then you are a student and students don't get dole. Sorry to be so blunt.

Fair point. However, I'm getting a fairly basic computer education that I probably wouldn't pay for anyway. In the event that I decide (After i do FAS' courses) i'd like to get a much more in-depth knowledge of computers, then i'll be sure to head off to college and become a proper student.

In the mean time, I'd rather try to learn something useful with my time, than chase non-existant jobs or sit around the house. If they're gonna pay me to do so, then I won't argue with that.

irish_bob

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not the most educated person in the world, and at the moment i'm actually enjoying learning about ye olde 'puters. I'd like to see it through to the end. It'll probably only take another year or two anyway before I finish them off, and so i can only hope the country is on the mend by then.





Fair point. However, I'm getting a fairly basic computer education that I probably wouldn't pay for anyway. In the event that I decide (After i do FAS' courses) i'd like to get a much more in-depth knowledge of computers, then i'll be sure to head off to college and become a proper student.

In the mean time, I'd rather try to learn something useful with my time, than chase non-existant jobs or sit around the house. If they're gonna pay me to do so, then I won't argue with that.

good luck , hope it works out for you

stupidusername

What doesn't make sense is the 204 euros max for people living in Dublin, and those living in the middle of nowhere. There are jobs going in Dublin but there's no chance I could move up there and depend on the dole to survive while i'm looking for a job. I'm looking for a job since i've been unemployed but when all that's going is part time up to 20 hours it's not worth it. Why would I come off 204 euros a week to get a measly 170-180euros? Never mind the supposed feeling of shame of claiming from the state, if I can't survive on it why would I do it??

The idea of halving the dole for people with less than 5/10 years contributions is stupid. Im 25 and I've just finished college. I worked for a year before I went to college, worked for most of my time at college, saved as much as I could (to survive) and because I couldn't take a job in fourth year because of the work load I have no contributions left. So even though I've worked just about all the time I could, because of the break in work I still wouldn't be entitled to the minimum amount? Stupid. I agree that if cuts need to be made (which is wrong in a lot of ways) people that are long term unemployed should be targeted first. People that are unemployed for 2 years or more should be the ones cut, not the people that are newly unemployed because of the fault of the government.

What might work is a sort of incremental deduction based on how long you're unemployed. Eg, For each year you're unemployed the amount is cut by 10% maybe. That'd be some sort of incentive to get a job, and would be a little more fair than cutting it from young people just because they're young.

Jemmy

stupidusername wrote: »

What might work is a sort of incremental deduction based on how long you're unemployed. Eg, For each year you're unemployed the amount is cut by 10% maybe. That'd be some sort of incentive to get a job, and would be a little more fair than cutting it from young people just because they're young.

This wouldn't be a bad idea, give people the motivation to EVENTUALLY get a job!

old boy

Jemmy wrote: »

This wouldn't be a bad idea, give people the motivation to EVENTUALLY get a job!

jemmy, the question every one would like answered is where is the feckin JOB.

Shea O'Meara

Does anybody else find it strange to be so concerned about cutting pensions, social welfare and other benefits at this time? I can see the need to look at every area, but don't we need to look at the bigger picture also, NAMA, idiot politicians etc? I think the Government would be more than happy to see the public/private debate rather than any further attention be pointed at them. It wasn't the nurses, unemployed or pensioners who squandered the public finances.

thebman

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

Does anybody else find it strange to be so concerned about cutting pensions, social welfare and other benefits at this time? I can see the need to look at every area, but don't we need to look at the bigger picture also, NAMA, idiot politicians etc? I think the Government would be more than happy to see the public/private debate rather than any further attention be pointed at them. It wasn't the nurses, unemployed or pensioners who squandered the public finances.

NAMA is off the books so doesn't feature as part of this budget despite the problems with it that need to be discussed.

People need to realise that the government is over 20 billion in the red before the subject of NAMA even comes up

Idiot politicians will always be idiots. Its like discussing what colour the sky is in this country TBH.

Shea O'Meara

My point is if we are going to look at public servants and those on welfare as scapegoats, we may as well blame 'dem Polish' or some other nonsense.

thebman

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

My point is if we are going to look at public servants and those on welfare as scapegoats, we may as well blame 'dem Polish' or some other nonsense.

Its not scape goating. Nobody is saying they are responsible for the crisis let along solely responsible

20 billion in the red means the government have to look at expenditure and wages and social welfare get the most money so have to be cut the most.

Its not scape goating, its logic.

corcaigh1

Long Onion wrote: »

No problem with it - there are jobs there for those who want them problem is that they are not attractive due to the rates paid by the welfare - give a real incentive to find work. I would be in favour of keeping the benefit higher for those who return to education though.

Where are the ****ing jobs u speak of..eh?

irish_bob

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

Does anybody else find it strange to be so concerned about cutting pensions, social welfare and other benefits at this time? I can see the need to look at every area, but don't we need to look at the bigger picture also, NAMA, idiot politicians etc? I think the Government would be more than happy to see the public/private debate rather than any further attention be pointed at them. It wasn't the nurses, unemployed or pensioners who squandered the public finances.

the wellfare and public sector wage bill was always going to have to be dealt with , the banking crisis has only compounded our problems , our massive wellfare and public sector wage bill grew to the level its at on the back of the property boom and the revenue it generated , it was not conventional income tax receipts which funded the public sector wage bill or the social wellfare bill and it wont be now so their must be cuts