Halve Dole for Under 24s

crossmolinalad

BlueLepreachaun wrote: »

They already made the grinch like move of eliminating the christmas bonus and there was no backlash.
[/font]

Well for real we didnt
christmas bonus was 196 eu
thats gone but we got another 8 euros a week x 52 = 416 euros back
416 -196 = 220 euros more a year we got
You dont hear me about the xbonus

As i've said before, i don't think halving the dole for people under 24 is a good move at all.


I also reckon crime rates would soar due to it (burglaries, muggings, etc.)

BlueLepreachaun

Er...yeh...everyone "knows someone", I went on a rant on a similar thread about a guy I know of buying whiskey and pints with his dole then scabbing lunch money in FAS the monday morning after pissing away all the welfare on the weekend.
There are welfare frauds as long as there are welfare systems.
Theres massive insurance fraud out there to, do you want to abolish car insurance?

crossmolinalad wrote: »

Well for real we didnt
christmas bonus was 196 eu
thats gone but we got another 8 euros a week x 52 = 416 euros back
416 -196 = 220 euros more a year we got
You dont hear me about the xbonus

Nobody, NOBODY saved that 8 euros a week and kept it aside for christmas, it just doens't work like that, they spent it on essentials.
People at a kitchen table in a housing estate dont think like an economist in UCD they dont ponder "purchasing power" etc
If they got the lump sum however they'd spend that on christmas presents, and the VAT from it would come straght back to the govt, it was a moronic move.

BlueLepreachaun

_Kooli_ wrote: »

Maybe all those one the dole could be shipped to Cork and Galway to clean up the mess from the floods.
They are glad of their public servants in those places right now i can tell you.

Shipped? they're not cargo, and they have families and lives to attend to.
I agree people on social welfare should do public works as their job until they find the job they want, just make the dole their wages, but this implication that if someone is on the dole they've done something wrong has to stop.

The rich dont get anything free, they are the main job creators and tax payers!

You must not know any rich people, any smart rich person pays a fraction of what a PAYE worker pays in tax, because they hire clever accountats that exploit loopholes written into the tax code for them by their puppets in Dail Eireann.

seriously reward those who work

Is that why IBEC want to cut the minimum wage and why employers are always talkin about wage "competativeness" (code for cuts)...because they want to reward those who work?

Wake up from the American Dream myth mate, working hard does not equal prosperity, the real world doens't work that way.

skearon

BlueLepreachaun wrote: »

Less than 12% are on the minimm wage. Unemployment was tiny during the celtic tiger years despite the dole being nearly the same (€185) as it is today, if it was such a strong disincentive thousands would have dumped their miniumum wage jobs and went on it, that didn't happen, thus disproving the disincentive theory.

During a sustained period of full employment there was 150,000 people claiming the dole, costing the state €3 billion a year, is that 'tiny' ?

Between 2001 and 2006, dole was doubled, when it should have been halved or, as Eamonn Gilmore said on The Panel recently, stopped for those who fail to make themselves available for work or education.

skearon

Dubya89 wrote: »

Anyone know how likely this is to be passed at the moment?

Surely the backlash would be huge if it was.

Unless neccessary adjustments are made in spending, the country will be unable to continue to borrrow €500m a week, resulting in welfare and public service salaries being halved over night; which would cause a real backlash.

BlueLepreachaun

skearon wrote: »

During a sustained period of full employment there was 150,000 people claiming the dole, costing the state €3 billion a year, is that 'tiny' ?

Between 2001 and 2006, dole was doubled, when it should have been halved or, as Eamonn Gilmore said on The Panel recently, stopped for those who fail to make themselves available for work or education.

You clearly have no idea what your talking about, do you know how unemployable most of those people were? Do you know most of them had nothing more than a junior cert or were over 50 with no skills or training? Do you realise during those years we got as close to full employment as a country gets? No country ever has 100% employment, its impossible, it just doens't happen, it can't.
That number is tiny, statistically, as is 3 billion out of a €55billion budget, espechally when you consider how much we wasted on other things like greyhound racing subsidies and overseas development aid.

Yes the dole was doubled, because the cost of living exploded during those years as the bubble that was the celtic tiger inflated.
If you think the dole should be halved you are either

1. Insanely rich and have never had to live on a low income in your entire life
2. Have never lived outside of home and had to make a household budget (in which case you'd realise its physically impossible to live on €100 a week)
3. Delusional.

To suggest the problem now is people failing to make themselves available for work, is willfully ignorant of the current situation.
Yes there were lazy people on the dole before, and there are some now, and thats as much the govts fault for not changing the rules or making it more education and skills oirentated.

The notion that because a few scumbags live off the dole for years that a person with 4 kids who lost their job through no fault of their own should have their income cut in half is ridicious, and as with others here you are confusing the actual problem (fiscal emergency) with your own beleifs about the deserving and undeserving poor.

Go masturbate over another copy of the economist and leave the rest of us to the real world.

crossmolinalad

>I agree people on social welfare should do public works as their job until they find the job they want, just make the dole their wages, but this implication that if someone is on the dole they've done something wrong has to stop.<

yepp and people who are working in public works???
they are to expensif because dole people are cheaper so sent them to the dole

sending unemployed people to work for their benefits is sending others to the dole
If they need people than they have to employ them

Is the same as above
If u have a construction compagnie in galway or cork you will get plenty work in the next comming weeks
U will need to employ more people so they getting of the dole
If the state says people of the dole have to do the jobs it will cost the state money
no tax will come in and who wants to employ someone who costs 800 eu a week as u can get someone who is doing the same job for 204 euro a week??
if they need people to do work they have to employ them
Im waiting for the first ads and it doesnt matter if its in cork (live in mayo)
I will take it only for normal wages

BlueLepreachaun

yepp and people who are working in public works???
they are to expensif because dole people are cheaper so sent them to the dole

I meant, since the public service is paying them anyway, they may as well do work for said public service while waiting for their own new jobs, work appropriate to their own skills and experience.

The idea being explored by Coughlin that they work for the private sector is way too dodgey, and I'm 100% opposed to it, its could lead to giving the private companies free slave labour paid for by the state, giving them the incentive to sack current workers and take on people from the dole, thus clearing their wage bill.

sending unemployed people to work for their benefits is sending others to the dole
If they need people than they have to employ them

Again, I mean public sector jobs, not private sector jobs, and I mean the dole is treated as a wage for the purposes of that job.

There are huge advantages to this idea:

• No breaks in peoples employment record
• They continue to gain work experience
• They have the dignity of actually working rather than sitting at home all day
• For the few usual suspects on the dole who just plain don't want to work it will force them to change their outlook.

If the state says people of the dole have to do the jobs it will cost the state money

It already costs the state €20 billion a year when were (supposidly though I find this dificult to beleive) borrowing 500million a week.
So whats better, paying people to do nothing or paying them to do something?

skearon

BlueLepreachaun wrote: »

You clearly have no idea what your talking about, do you know how unemployable most of those people were? Do you know most of them had nothing more than a junior cert or were over 50 with no skills or training? Do you realise during those years we got as close to full employment as a country gets? No country ever has 100% employment, its impossible, it just doens't happen, it can't.
That number is tiny, statistically, as is 3 billion out of a €55billion budget, espechally when you consider how much we wasted on other things like greyhound racing subsidies and overseas development aid.

No fit and healthy person is 'unemployable', the problem is that there is no incentive for such people to work, which is percisely why halving the dole for under 20s was introduced, as they get a higher rate if they attend education.

It's all about personal responsibility vs the selfishness of choosing to live off the work and taxes of others.

€3billion was not tiny then, and certainly isn't tiny now?

Overseas development aid is waste!?! Are you seriously suggesting that saving people's lives is less important that giving money to lazy people to buy beer and fags??

BlueLepreachaun wrote: »

Yes the dole was doubled, because the cost of living exploded during those years as the bubble that was the celtic tiger inflated.

The cost of living did not double during that period, plus even if it did, anyone who wanted to get a job could.

BlueLepreachaun wrote: »

If you think the dole should be halved you are either

1. Insanely rich and have never had to live on a low income in your entire life
2. Have never lived outside of home and had to make a household budget (in which case you'd realise its physically impossible to live on €100 a week)
3. Delusional.

To suggest the problem now is people failing to make themselves available for work, is willfully ignorant of the current situation.

Yes there were lazy people on the dole before, and there are some now, and thats as much the govts fault for not changing the rules or making it more education and skills oirentated.

I was referring to the period 2001 to 2006 when I said the dole should have been halved. The same 150,000 who refused to work then are still here, and what's utterly wrong with the system is that these people get the same payment as those who have worked, want to work, but have lost their jobs.

BlueLepreachaun wrote: »

The notion that because a few scumbags live off the dole for years that a person with 4 kids who lost their job through no fault of their own should have their income cut in half is ridicious, and as with others here you are confusing the actual problem (fiscal emergency) with your own beleifs about the deserving and undeserving poor.

Go masturbate over another copy of the economist and leave the rest of us to the real world.

People who worked and have lost their jobs should get a payment proportional to their salaries; 150,000 is a not 'a few' and these are the people who deserve to get their payment cut, unless they take part in community work etc.

You are aware that too much masturbation can damage your eyesight and therefore misread posts?

BlueLepreachaun

No fit and healthy person is 'unemployable', the problem is that there is no incentive for such people to work, which is percisely why halving the dole for under 20s was introduced, as they get a higher rate if they attend education.

Ok, firstly thats not the case, you can get far higher wages in most full time jobs than the dole, so your incentive point is bogus, don't tell me half a million people are unemployed because people making 800 a week were just DYING for the perverse incentive of the dole at 204 euro a week.
Secondly, cutting the dole in half is totally unessicary to make people attend training or education, all they had to do was change the rules to require the education. This was a spiteful and foolish way of saving money, and had nothing to do with education.

Third plenty of fit and healthy people are unemployable if they lack any basic skills or job experience. No job I've ever applied for has taken me for a physical during the interview, but all have looked at my education and experience.


If someone is living outside of home how the hell are they meant to exist on €100 a week? What if they were attending part time university as well? they are trying to improve themselves and still be punished by having their income cut in half and be unable to make ends meet.

It's all about personal responsibility vs the selfishness of choosing to live off the work and taxes of others.

No, it's not. You are clearly totally ignorant of even the most basic socioeconomic factors that go into unempolyment, you sound like something out of the 19th century.

You also clearly lack basic knowledge of how the system works, and the fact that nearly everyone who is on the dole now has for years themselves paid PRSI and taxes and are entitled to their payments, and so what if your taxes pay for someone else? you pay for other people to get medical care (some of it anyway) you pay for others to get fire services, you pay for others to attend public parks, you pay for other peoples roads, you pay for other peoples kids to go to school, just as they pay for yours.
It's called a society.

Overseas development aid is waste!?! Are you seriously suggesting that saving people's lives is less important that giving money to lazy people to buy beer and fags??

You think half a million people are buying ber and fags with their money?
I know my sister certanly isn't, she can barely afford school books for her kids. You are taking a small subset of the usual suspects, and pasting that steriotype onto every single person who is on the dole, I'm not sure where your bitter attitude comes from, maybe you resent the fact that your in a crappy job or something, but you need to educate yourself more, your ignorance of the issues is shining through very clearly.
ODA is a waste as long as the EU and USA have protectionist trade barriers up against the deveoping world and as long as our banks are crippling them with debt, for every €1 were giving them in aid they're probably paying €100 back on debt intrest to us.

The cost of living did not double during that period, plus even if it did, anyone who wanted to get a job could.

No, they could not. Try going for a job when your 55 years old and don't even have a leaving cert, even in unskilled jobs like supermarket workers your competition is going to be 19 year old college students who can afford to work for less and have more experience at the job than you do.

In any case, those were the years they should have reformed the system, I've already made my sugggestions as to what changes I'd make, it's not my fault, or the fault of people on social welfare that the govt was more itnrested in buying votes than implementing good social policy.
As you can see by looking at the fact that they didn't reform it then, the changes now are nothing to do with work incentives or morality but are the result of a hugely incompetant government desperatly trying to save money any way it can to prevent it's previous bad policies from drowning the country in red ink.

I was referring to the period 2001 to 2006 when I said the dole should have been halved.

It should have been halved as the cost of living was going up?...right...yeh...

The same 150,000 who refused to work then are still here, and what's utterly wrong with the system is that these people get the same payment as those who have worked, want to work, but have lost their jobs.

Are you a telepath? or have you broke into the systems computers and examined all 150,000 records? how is it you've decided that they were refusing to work?
I've already explained to you in most cases it's far more complicated by that but you wont let your 19th century views of social policy be interfered with by facts.
In any case, we have nearly half a million now, not 150,000, and nearly all those people lost their jobs through recession not lazyness.

People who worked and have lost their jobs should get a payment proportional to their salaries; 150,000 is a not 'a few' and these are the people who deserve to get their payment cut, unless they take part in community work etc.

Your obsessed with cuts, you dont have to threaten them, all that you need to do is change the rules to require work as part of getting the payments.
I agree with the proprotional thing, I think we should blend the mainstream European (where your dole is % of your former salery) and American systems (where there are time limits and education requriements)

skearon

BlueLepreachaun wrote: »

Ok, firstly thats not the case, you can get far higher wages in most full time jobs than the dole, so your incentive point is bogus, don't tell me half a million people are unemployed because people making 800 a week were just DYING for the perverse incentive of the dole at 204 euro a week.

Again please READ my posts, I was referring to the 150,000 hard core who have never worked, not those who have lost their jobs.

Plus the total is not 500,000, the most recent figures show 422,500 (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/1104/breaking39.htm)

BlueLepreachaun wrote: »

Secondly, cutting the dole in half is totally unessicary to make people attend training or education, all they had to do was change the rules to require the education. This was a spiteful and foolish way of saving money, and had nothing to do with education.

Third plenty of fit and healthy people are unemployable if they lack any basic skills or job experience. No job I've ever applied for has taken me for a physical during the interview, but all have looked at my education and experience.

Why is it unneccessary and foolish? It rewards those are genuinely trying to get employment.

BlueLepreachaun wrote: »

If someone is living outside of home how the hell are they meant to exist on €100 a week? What if they were attending part time university as well? they are trying to improve themselves and still be punished by having their income cut in half and be unable to make ends meet.

Under 25s manage of £50 a week in the UK, and over 25s on £60.50. And if some one is trying to improve themselves, then they absolutely should be entitled to the higher payment

BlueLepreachaun wrote: »

No, it's not. You are clearly totally ignorant of even the most basic socioeconomic factors that go into unempolyment, you sound like something out of the 19th century.

You also clearly lack basic knowledge of how the system works, and the fact that nearly everyone who is on the dole now has for years themselves paid PRSI and taxes and are entitled to their payments, and so what if your taxes pay for someone else? you pay for other people to get medical care (some of it anyway) you pay for others to get fire services, you pay for others to attend public parks, you pay for other peoples roads, you pay for other peoples kids to go to school, just as they pay for yours.
It's called a society.

I'm not the one ignorant of socioeconomic factors, plus the real fact is that 35% of those on the dole have never contributed anything. Those who have contributed should certainly get a much higher payment, ideally 70% of their previous years salary for a period of 24 months.

I've no problem with my taxes paying for services and facilities, however not for those in society who are able to contribute, but refuse to.

BlueLepreachaun wrote: »

You think half a million people are buying ber and fags with their money?

Again please READ what I actually posted.

BlueLepreachaun wrote: »

I know my sister certanly isn't, she can barely afford school books for her kids. You are taking a small subset of the usual suspects, and pasting that steriotype onto every single person who is on the dole, I'm not sure where your bitter attitude comes from, maybe you resent the fact that your in a crappy job or something, but you need to educate yourself more, your ignorance of the issues is shining through very clearly.

You're the one twisting my points and applying them to every single person on the dole.

BlueLepreachaun wrote: »

No, they could not. Try going for a job when your 55 years old and don't even have a leaving cert, even in unskilled jobs like supermarket workers your competition is going to be 19 year old college students who can afford to work for less and have more experience at the job than you do.

50,000 people a year, many without a word of English managed to find and keep jobs.

BlueLepreachaun wrote: »

In any case, those were the years they should have reformed the system, I've already made my sugggestions as to what changes I'd make, it's not my fault, or the fault of people on social welfare that the govt was more itnrested in buying votes than implementing good social policy.
As you can see by looking at the fact that they didn't reform it then, the changes now are nothing to do with work incentives or morality but are the result of a hugely incompetant government desperatly trying to save money any way it can to prevent it's previous bad policies from drowning the country in red ink.

I agree the government did make a huge mistake by doubling the dole during a period of full employment. However they are doing what is neccessary now as the country simple cannot, and will not be able to, borrow €500m a week indefinately.

BlueLepreachaun wrote: »

It should have been halved as the cost of living was going up?...right...yeh...


Are you a telepath? or have you broke into the systems computers and examined all 150,000 records? how is it you've decided that they were refusing to work?

Again, anyone who wanted a job could get one, and not be rewarded for not working.

BlueLepreachaun wrote: »

I've already explained to you in most cases it's far more complicated by that but you wont let your 19th century views of social policy be interfered with by facts.
In any case, we have nearly half a million now, not 150,000, and nearly all those people lost their jobs through recession not lazyness.

In the 19th century there was no welfare, and talking of facts, see comment earlier about actual numbers.

BlueLepreachaun wrote: »

Your obsessed with cuts, you dont have to threaten them, all that you need to do is change the rules to require work as part of getting the payments.

No, I support neccessary and logical measures, the undisputable fact is that the country can simply no longer afford to carry people who refuse to contribute to society.

BlueLepreachaun wrote: »

I agree with the proprotional thing, I think we should blend the mainstream European (where your dole is % of your former salery) and American systems (where there are time limits and education requriements)

I absolutely agree with you.

BlueLepreachaun

Again please READ my posts, I was referring to the 150,000 hard core who have never worked, not those who have lost their jobs.

It's not just a matter of incentives for those people either, its' far more complex.

Plus the total is not 500,000, the most recent figures show 422,500 (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/1104/breaking39.htm)

It will be soon enough, trust me. I'm just cutting to the chase.

Why is it unneccessary and foolish? It rewards those are genuinely trying to get employment.

No it doens't, it punishes people based on an abritrary and random age.
If it rewarded people trying to get employment it would have been a rule change across the board.

Under 25s manage of £50 a week in the UK, and over 25s on £60.50. And if some one is trying to improve themselves, then they absolutely should be entitled to the higher payment

Diffrent currency, diffrent economy, diffrent cost of living, diffrent public services that are free and you don't have to use your income for etc.

I'm not the one ignorant of socioeconomic factors, plus the real fact is that 35% of those on the dole have never contributed anything. Those who have contributed should certainly get a much higher payment, ideally 70% of their previous years salary for a period of 24 months.

I agree people who contribute should get a % of previous salery, but I don't think its realistic to expect people who havn't to live on 100euro a week, thats simply not possible, rent alone would be more than that for most people. The soloution to long term unemployed is to change the rules regarding training and the time limit rules, not gut their payments.

I've no problem with my taxes paying for services and facilities, however not for those in society who are able to contribute, but refuse to.

Most people don't refuse to, its the classic myth of the welfare queen.

50,000 people a year, many without a word of English managed to find and keep jobs.

Skilled people.

I agree the government did make a huge mistake by doubling the dole during a period of full employment. However they are doing what is neccessary now as the country simple cannot, and will not be able to, borrow €500m a week indefinately.

I very much doubt were ringing banks up at the end of every week asking for another 500 million, but were clearly in a fiscal emergency because we overrelyied on property taxes which were being fueled by a bubble, and it wasn' tpeople on social welfare buying investment properties in Bulgaria....
Endless cuts are not the way out of this, a simulas package is, Irelands in a delfationary spiral because of all this constant cuts and "wage flexibility" talk, everytime people hear about it they cling tighter to their money, which is why though we made deep cuts before we still have to make more now, becuase we keep loosing more and more money though the likes of VAT receipts as people hold on to every cent they have for fear of more cuts.

In the 19th century there was no welfare, and talking of facts, see comment earlier about actual numbers.

Exactly, and there wasn't welfare because the dominant ideology of the day was that people were poor because they were lazy.

No, I support neccessary and logical measures, the undisputable fact is that the country can simply no longer afford to carry people who refuse to contribute to society.

If you got that 150 000 who REFUSE to work (assuming they do actually refuse) working, then you still have 300 000 more on the dole, who are there because of the recession, so the fiscal problem would remain, like I said the problem is the economy overall, not individual lazyness.