Halve Dole for Under 24s

ei.sdraob

Deleted User wrote: »

There are actually alot of figures out there to back up my point, however, they are not necessarily from legitimate sources, what I mean is, they may have been manipulated for certain organsations, so rather than me quote this rubbish, give me some time to verify this numbers and I will get back to you. Fair enough?

fair enough, there are other source all would show that renting is cheaper than buying, there might be outliers but there are plenty of studies, more true now than before

i would be interested to see figures that would show your point about buying being cheaper than renting, or was cheaper....

Deleted User wrote: »

Instead of hitting a 23 year old married man with a mortgage and child and 5 years of PRSI payments behind him. Why not hit the guy who has been 10 years on the dole. Who didn't get off his lazy arse when there were jobs all over the country to be had.

seriously how many 23 year olds would have a child and a mortgage? at 23 one should be finishing college

if someone fell out of leaving cert for the whole construction scam and didnt avail of the free education opportunities, and then decided to have kids and get a mortgage before 23! thats just damn irresponsible

if someone wants to have kids and mortgage before 23 as you mentioned, then thats fine, but they shouldn't be relying on welfare to pickup their tab

having kids and buying a house are HUGE responsibilities, something that seems to be severely lacking in this country

Deleted User wrote: »

It just angers me so much that it is always joe ordinary that gets hit! The people who have actually contributed to the economy are the ones who are now suffering the most from it's downturn.

i contributed alot and im suffering now somewhat

but instead of moaning about it lets do something about it, no point playing the blame game that the trade unions love when the house is burning around you, things that i support:

* cut the costs
* vote out the current government


me and you would be suffering alto more when all the taxmoney is going to pay of the interest on that 25billion being borrowed yearly

Kered75

ei.sdraob wrote: »

im angry that this country is in such a mess

but im a pragmatic person

as i said before the only way out of this

is to either:

1 * hugely increase productivity and exports (not gonna happen)
2 * cut down on spending, with PS and welfare being the biggest elephants in the room

or a mix of above

but any proposals to cut welfare results in moaning

while any proposals to cut PS results in strikes



you know what, lets do nothing and continue as we are, few years down the road well be handing our balls to IMF or others

then all of welfare and most of PS would go

that be something



people really do need to face up to the stark facts

I too agree with most your points but i don't see why the unlucky ones who lost their jobs should pay the most.I too have a problem with those who sat around and did nothing when we had pratically full employment in this country but remember that about two thirds of those currentley receiveing benefit have already taken huge cuts in the fact that they are now unemployed.They have also taken a cut in benefit due to no double week payment at christmas.
I also agree that this counrty is in a huge mess with worse yet to come,but if there is cuts they should come from the top down

Do we need 166 T.D's in a country of 4.5 million?
Should we pay for every little expence these T.D's run up?
Do we need to spend 8 Billion on Metro North??
Do we need to have 6 airports in the less sparsley populatated west?
Do we need so many County & Town Councils??

I too am very angry about the way this current government together with their coherts in the banking sector have drove the economy head first into a brick wall.But letting these same people walk off into the sunset with their pockets stuffed full of cash while the poorest in society pick up the tab is just wrong.

ei.sdraob

Kered75 wrote: »

Do we need 166 T.D's in a country of 4.5 million?
.

nope

Kered75 wrote: »

Should we pay for every little expence these T.D's run up?
.

lets not forget the goldplated pensions, whether they **** up the country or not

Kered75 wrote: »

Do we need to spend 8 Billion on Metro North??.

yes infrastructure and public transport investment is always a good idea

Kered75 wrote: »

Do we need to have 6 airports in the less sparsley populatated west?

if they can pay for themselves then why not?

Kered75 wrote: »

Do we need so many County & Town Councils??

nope way to much redundancy and bloat

Kered75 wrote: »

I too am very angry about the way this current government together with their coherts in the banking sector have drove the economy head first into a brick wall.

the government and bankers did do wrong,
but also at fault is everyone who bought in to the housing bubble, especially in the later years
also at fault everyone (majority) who kept voting them in or not bothering to vote

its like blaming a drug dealer for someones addiction, the druggie is responsible too you know to some degree

Kered75 wrote: »

while the poorest in society pick up the tab is just wrong.

the poorest dont pick up a tab since they dont pay as many taxes

its the working poor that get the tab

thats socialism for ya

Raskolnikov

ei.sdraob wrote: »

seriously how many 23 year olds would have a child and a mortgage? at 23 one should be finishing college

Lots of young people have been working since they were 15/16 and have built up several years of PRSI payments. If PRSI is a social insurance fund, it's a disgrace that it should discriminate against younger people. What's even more inequitable is that a 23 year old with 8 years or PRSI payments (I know lots of these) is entitled to less welfare than a 40 year old who never worked a day in his life. Although it's been many years, I was in this position once.

The only reason I can fathom for this measure, is that the government want young people to just stop annoying them and to leave the country.

dlofnep

Absolute nonsense. Another attack on the poor by this hames of a Government.

Klingon Hamlet

Raskolnikov wrote: »

Lots of young people have been working since they were 15/16 and have built up several years of PRSI payments. If PRSI is a social insurance fund, it's a disgrace that it should discriminate against younger people. What's even more inequitable is that a 23 year old with 8 years or PRSI payments (I know lots of these) is entitled to less welfare than a 40 year old who never worked a day in his life. Although it's been many years, I was in this position once.

The only reason I can fathom for this measure, is that the government want young people to just stop annoying them and to leave the country.

Nope, they want an easy target, and they know there's a certain level of resentment towards so called young slackers (even though those that label that demographic have refused to research and prove their opinions are educated and valid), so the gov will have fairly large support in these cutbacks.

The usual thing: ah they shoulda gone out and found a job. Really? Check out jobs.ie. Tell me how many jobs are truly available to the under 24s, especially those unfortunate enough to have minimal education behind them (low LC results, no college, etc). THEN come back to us.

I hate how ignorant we have become, especially towards our own people. the gov issuccessfully conquering and dividing us. meanwhile Cowen and Hearney and Hanafin get ever so slightly fatter in the waist and the wallet. WHY ISN'T ANYONE PROTESTING THIS?!

ei.sdraob

Raskolnikov wrote: »

Lots of young people have been working since they were 15/16 and have built up several years of PRSI payments. If PRSI is a social insurance fund, it's a disgrace that it should discriminate against younger people. What's even more inequitable is that a 23 year old with 8 years or PRSI payments (I know lots of these) is entitled to less welfare than a 40 year old who never worked a day in his life. Although it's been many years, I was in this position once.

The only reason I can fathom for this measure, is that the government want young people to just stop annoying them and to leave the country.

yes it is unfair if they did pay prsi for 8 years

but once again how many people like that are there

all these cases being thrown around but no figures being shown



a better means testing system would be nice, but that means more work for public service

and they dont like working, and are about to strike

so thats not gonna happen

AlekSmart

Having kids and buying a house are HUGE responsibilities, something that seems to be severely lacking in this country

Good thread this,as it underlines the enormous gap which exists in between actual Reality and percieved Reality in modern Ireland.

For the past 30 years Ireland has been a place where the begetting of children required no forethought whatever,as it was taken as given that the actual parent/s had a form of gold-plated insurance whereby somebody else would always be on-hand to stump up whatever was required to raise that child.

The large-scale disintegration of public order which has come in on the back of long term acceptance for this "Non-Responsibility" policy is now threatening to blow up in our faces as the many young unemployed may well react with anger at "Their" entitlements being cut....although the obvious answer would seem to get a girl pregnant and you get to keep the "big" money...??

The reality of living in a TOTALLY bankrupt country has yet to sink in......!

thebman

Raskolnikov wrote: »

Lots of young people have been working since they were 15/16 and have built up several years of PRSI payments. If PRSI is a social insurance fund, it's a disgrace that it should discriminate against younger people. What's even more inequitable is that a 23 year old with 8 years or PRSI payments (I know lots of these) is entitled to less welfare than a 40 year old who never worked a day in his life. Although it's been many years, I was in this position once.

The only reason I can fathom for this measure, is that the government want young people to just stop annoying them and to leave the country.

I agree its unfair however all insurance goes against young people so you can't really argue this would be unique to social insurance

I think FF will force through this because these people probably won't vote in the next election or at least less of them than the elderly and that is the problem. FF are playing annoy the people who vote least the most.

murphaph

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

The usual thing: ah they shoulda gone out and found a job. Really? Check out jobs.ie. Tell me how many jobs are truly available to the under 24s, especially those unfortunate enough to have minimal education behind them (low LC results, no college, etc). THEN come back to us.

If ya didn't bother with or couldn't manage to get into college, then should you really be entitled to dole+rent allowance/council house+medical card? (it works out about 2 grands worth a month that lot!)

Irish people's ideas of a decent standard of living are WAY higher than here in Germany were people on welfare expect things to be mega tough. I think Ireland totally lost the run of itself with high dole/high wages. It all has to come down to a level the country can afford. I reckon the PS can expect some nice cuts as well if they're prepared to go this far with social welfare (don't kid yourselves, people over 24 can expect 25% cuts in dole if they are going to halve it for under 24s). Those left making money for the country are also going to see tax hikes-fair enough if everyone else takes a cut.

Klingon Hamlet

murphaph wrote: »

If ya didn't bother with or couldn't manage to get into college, then should you really be entitled to dole+rent allowance/council house+medical card? (it works out about 2 grands worth a month that lot!)

Irish people's ideas of a decent standard of living are WAY higher than here in Germany were people on welfare expect things to be mega tough. I think Ireland totally lost the run of itself with high dole/high wages. It all has to come down to a level the country can afford. I reckon the PS can expect some nice cuts as well if they're prepared to go this far with social welfare (don't kid yourselves, people over 24 can expect 25% cuts in dole if they are going to halve it for under 24s). Those left making money for the country are also going to see tax hikes-fair enough if everyone else takes a cut.

I'm talking about under-24s who lost jobs as well. Not just slackers. people who contributed but are discriminated against because of their young age, based on an assumption concocted by an entirely different tier of society protected from the very perils they are now looking to subject the under 24s to:

Homelessness, poverty, strvation, desperation

When governemnt turns against its own, bites the hand that feeds it, then we are looking at a society about to implode. Violence you cannot imagine.

Instead we could be targetting fraudsters and career dole-ists. but no. That would take expensive administration, apparently. And time.

thebman

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

I'm talking about under-24s who lost jobs as well. Not just slackers. people who contributed but are discriminated against because of their young age, based on an assumption concocted by an entirely different tier of society protected from the very perils they are now looking to subject the under 24s to:

Homelessness, poverty, strvation, desperation

When governemnt turns against its own, bites the hand that feeds it, then we are looking at a society about to implode. Violence you cannot imagine.

Instead we could be targetting fraudsters and career dole-ists. but no. That would take expensive administration, apparently. And time.

I'm for doing it the right way myself but the government will not go after the dole for lifers on their own because they'll vote against them guaranteed because what else have they to do?

They feel they are entitled to it even though they never bothered paying anything in. Crazy.

ei.sdraob

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

I'm talking about under-24s who lost jobs as well. Not just slackers. people who contributed but are discriminated against because of their young age, based on an assumption concocted by an entirely different tier of society protected from the very perils they are now looking to subject the under 24s to:

Homelessness, poverty, strvation, desperation

When governemnt turns against its own, bites the hand that feeds it, then we are looking at a society about to implode. Violence you cannot imagine.

Instead we could be targetting fraudsters and career dole-ists. but no. That would take expensive administration, apparently. And time.

you need to think like a politician

if ( public service salaries -- ) {

   strikes->you->get ;
}
else if ( you cut welfare for people who dont bother voting ){

 you.get.few.argumentsOn( 'boards.ie' );

}

hmm tough choice

Klingon Hamlet

thebman wrote: »

I'm for doing it the right way myself but the government will not go after the dole for lifers on their own because they'll vote against them guaranteed because what else have they to do?

They feel they are entitled to it even though they never bothered paying anything in. Crazy.

We didn't vote in the under-20s reduction. We didn't vote in the under-24s proposal. So why would they need to vote in a progressively reducing scale depending on time on dole and depending on attempts at further education/new employment backed up by arranged interviews etc...

Seems to me my solutrion to encourage reintegration into the working society is not only a positive, progressive step forward for society, it also stops the chancers from giving the genuines such a bad name. It frees up money to fund a mortgage repayment fund for genuine cases in dire straits, it shows the people that support is given to those willing to contribute to society, it promotes self-sufficiency where possible...I mean the benefits (no pun intended) are endless.

introspective85

AlekSmart wrote: »

threatening to blow up in our faces as the many young unemployed may well react with anger at "Their" entitlements being cut

If the cut goes ahead as speculated, and as drastic as 50%, then we can expect serious public disorder. This age group will not take such a ridiculous and discriminatory cut lying down.

In other words come december the people on this thread supporting the cut may well be eating their words, when they see riots that make the o'connell street riot in feb 06, seem insignificant in comparison!!!!!!

I'll be taking to the streets to protest, although i dont endorse violence in any way.

ei.sdraob

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

Seems to me my solutrion to encourage reintegration into the working society is not only a positive, progressive step forward for society, it also stops the chancers from giving the genuines such a bad name. It frees up money to fund a mortgage repayment fund for genuine cases in dire straits, it shows the people that support is given to those willing to contribute to society, it promotes self-sufficiency where possible...I mean the benefits (no pun intended) are endless.

and where will the money come for your utopia?

last i checked we are bankrupt and getting deeper in debt

ei.sdraob

ei.sdraob wrote: »

fair enough, there are other source all would show that renting is cheaper than buying, there might be outliers but there are plenty of studies, more true now than before

i would be interested to see figures that would show your point about buying being cheaper than renting, or was cheaper....

I think you have actually completely missed my point again. To clarify, I haven't stated that it was never cheaper to rent than buy. I am saying that right now, there are mortgages out there alot less than rent would be. I'm not saying at all that people should not have bought houses they couldn't afford. What I'm saying is, it may make more economical sense now to help some people out with their mortgage rather than let them claim rent allowance.

seriously how many 23 year olds would have a child and a mortgage? at 23 one should be finishing college

Well I am one of those people! I was married when I was 20, had a mortgage at 21 and my daughter was born when I was 22.

When I bought my first house, the house I was renting previously was €1050 a month (or £800). My mortgage was €750. So it was much cheaper for me to buy. I am not relying on social welfare to pick up the tab, I have never been on the dole (thank god) and neither has my husband. Anyway, just giving you an example of a responsible under 24 yr old who has all of the above!

i contributed alot and im suffering now somewhat

I, but more so my husband, have contributed alot, thankfully, so far we're not "suffering". We have alot of luxuries that we haven't had to give up and hopefully never will.

but instead of moaning about it lets do something about it, no point playing the blame game that the trade unions love when the house is burning around you, things that i support:

* cut the costs
* vote out the current government

I agree, but lets cut costs intelligently for a change!

ei.sdraob

Deleted User wrote: »

I think you have actually completely missed my point again. To clarify, I haven't stated that it was never cheaper to rent than buy. I am saying that right now, there are mortgages out there alot less than rent would be. I'm not saying at all that people should not have bought houses they couldn't afford. What I'm saying is, it may make more economical sense now to help some people out with their mortgage rather than let them claim rent allowance.

you do realize these are only introductionary rates for a year or more before kicking into higher rate

and the rates are the lowest ever now, they will only go one way UP ^ ^ ^

Deleted User wrote: »

Well I am one of those people! I was married when I was 20, had a mortgage at 21 and my daughter was born when I was 22.

When I bought my first house, the house I was renting previously was €1050 a month (or £800). My mortgage was €750. So it was much cheaper for me to buy. I am not relying on social welfare to pick up the tab, I have never been on the dole (thank god) and neither has my husband. Anyway, just giving you an example of a responsible under 24 yr old who has all of the above!

so if you or your partner lost your job back then when you were under 24

do you expect the taxpayer to pick up the tab and pay for your mortgage? (and kids already get paid for via child benefit)

do yee take out income and mortgage protection insurance?

introspective85

ei.sdraob wrote: »

last i checked we are bankrupt and getting deeper in debt

Yet we continue to pay benefits to unemployed forieigners, and childrens allowance to kids that dont even live in the state.

Why dont we target non-citizens first, then if cuts still need to be made then by all means, i'd have no objections to across the board cuts regardless of age.

Sadly our country is infested with spineless cowards who fear being branded racist, so they attack their fellow citizens instead.

Pro-Eu traitors the lot of them!!!!!!!!

ei.sdraob

ei.sdraob wrote: »

you do realize these are only introduction rates for a year or more before kicking into higher rate

and the rates are the lowest ever now, they will only go one way UP ^ ^ ^

Yes I'm aware of that thank you. My point still stands.

so if you or your partner lost your job back then when you were under 24

do you expect the taxpayer to pick up the tab and pay for your mortgage? (and kids already get paid for via child benefit)

No, obviously not, but it would have been cheaper to keep dole allowances at 100% until he got a new job, rather than halve them and have us claim €1000 rent allowance or give us a council house.

do yee take out income and mortgage protection insurance?

Of course. Mortgage protection insurance is actually a requirement of getting a mortgage isn't it? (I may be incorrect). We also have life assurance, pension etc. As I said, I'm not some irresponsible kid.

The Muppet

The Gov. had better keep the Guards and Army sweet if they intend to implemmet this.

Dempsey may well get his trouble on the streets and it won't be the placid PS workers, I Hope the clean up doesn't cost more than the savings made from such a measure.

PS I'm not personally effected if implemented but I do fear there will be serious civil unrest if is.

ihatewallies

Kered75 wrote: »

I too agree with most your points but i don't see why the unlucky ones who lost their jobs should pay the most.I too have a problem with those who sat around and did nothing when we had pratically full employment in this country but remember that about two thirds of those currentley receiveing benefit have already taken huge cuts in the fact that they are now unemployed.They have also taken a cut in benefit due to no double week payment at christmas.
I also agree that this counrty is in a huge mess with worse yet to come,but if there is cuts they should come from the top down

Do we need 166 T.D's in a country of 4.5 million?
Should we pay for every little expence these T.D's run up?
Do we need to spend 8 Billion on Metro North??
Do we need to have 6 airports in the less sparsley populatated west?
Do we need so many County & Town Councils??

I too am very angry about the way this current government together with their coherts in the banking sector have drove the economy head first into a brick wall.But letting these same people walk off into the sunset with their pockets stuffed full of cash while the poorest in society pick up the tab is just wrong.

where did you get 8billion for Metro North from?

the bids are below 2 billion. IT's a PPP and no money is needed until it's built in 2016.

methinks you are a spoofer

major bill

thebman wrote: »

Not really, the majority are young, single with few financial obligations and require less money.

Its like saying insurance being higher for under 25's is discrimination when insurance companies have the facts to back up that they crash more.

Its not discrimination if you can show your not doing it because of the thing you are accused of discriminating against.

They aren't cutting it because your under 25 but because you have less financial obligations.

i agree with what your saying to an extent but not every under 24 is of good financial health therefore a proper means test to under 24's should be brought in, instead of a total cut for everybody.

major bill

dvpower wrote: »

Under 24s who want to avoid the proposed cut can simply take up a place in education or training. No big deal.

is a big deal if your already qualified and have already been there done that!!!

gerry28

For a young single 21 or 22 yr old living at home €204 per week is a sizable sum of pocket money every week.

I would feel sorry for anyone that age living out of the family home and getting their money cut to €100 a week.

ei.sdraob

introspective85 wrote: »

Yet we continue to pay benefits to unemployed forieigners, and childrens allowance to kids that dont even live in the state.

Why dont we target non-citizens first, then if cuts still need to be made then by all means, i'd have no objections to across the board cuts regardless of age.

Sadly our country is infested with spineless cowards who fear being branded racist, so they attack their fellow citizens instead.

Pro-Eu traitors the lot of them!!!!!!!!

talk about BNPesque trash

why dont you produce a numbers and facts to backup your xenophobic crap


yes there is abuse of the system but its a drop in the bucket compared to the 100,000 people who didnt get arsed getting a job when there were plenty and chose to live of the dole

introspective85

ei.sdraob wrote: »

talk about BNPesque trash

why dont you produce a numbers and facts to backup your xenophobic crap


yes there is abuse of the system but its a drop in the bucket compared to the 100,000 people who didnt get arsed getting a job when there were plenty and chose to live of the dole

according to the cso Unemployment among non-Irish nationals was at 14.7% in quarter one, while it was 9.4% for Irish nationals. What are these non-nationals living on, thin air????

Why does me, wishing to put the needs of our fellow citizens first make me a 'xenophobe'? Unless you yourself are a non-national or view the concept of nationhood as meaningless then you should Agree with me, on focusing the cuts on people who have no roots and no-ties to this country.

What we have in this country, Is a breed of self righteous nouveux riche, who hold a perverse belief of social marxism(ie multiculturalism, racial nihilism) combined with economic neo-liberal, internationalist capitalism. This Denizen rationalises everything along economic lines with no consideration for concepts such as patriotism or altruism for their own people, since this falls outside their degenerate cosmopolitan outlook. You my friend, are most definately of this ilk.

Like i've said on previous occasions, i believe in social welfare reform and do agree that it is open to abuse, but not until we leave the EU, end fractional reserve banking( look it up) and tighten up our immigration policy. Since it is the fractional reserve banking system that causes the bust and boom cycles, unemployement could then be practically eliminated. I wouldnt expect a member of the mindless NWO sheeple to grasp what i am on about, so i'll be charitible towards you in that regard.

Anyway, if this goes ahead, expect the sh*t to hit the fan in december!!! I sincerly hope you dont get caught in the crossfire!!!!!!:D

ei.sdraob

introspective85 wrote: »

according to the cso Unemployment among non-Irish nationals was at 14.7% in quarter one, while it was 9.4% for Irish nationals. What are these non-nationals living on, thin air????

Why does me, wishing to put the needs of our fellow citizens first make me a 'xenophobe'? Unless you yourself are a non-national or view the concept of nationhood as meaningless then you should Agree with me, on focusing the cuts on people who have no roots and no-ties to this country.

What we have in this country, Is a breed of self righteous nouveux riche, who hold a perverse belief of social marxism(ie multiculturalism, racial nihilism) combined with economic neo-liberal, internationalist capitalism. This Denizen rationalises everything along economic lines with no consideration for concepts such as patriotism or altruism for their own people, since this falls outside their degenerate cosmopolitan outlook. You my friend, are most definately of this ilk.

Like i've said on previous occasions, i believe in social welfare reform and do agree that it is open to abuse, but not until we leave the EU, end fractional reserve banking( look it up) and tighten up our immigration policy. Since it is the fractional reserve banking system that causes the bust and boom cycles, unemployement could then be practically eliminated. I wouldnt expect a member of the mindless NWO sheeple to grasp what i am on about, so i'll be charitible towards you in that regard.

Anyway, if this goes ahead, expect the sh*t to hit the fan in december!!! I sincerly hope you dont get caught in the crossfire!!!!!!:D

so if they paid prsi for years and worked at ****ty jobs

they dont deserve social insurance



so its ok to pay welfare to an irish person who hasnt worked, living with mammy and daddy but not ok to someone from EU who did work and most likely at ****ty jobs the Irish wont take? this thread is really descending into a joke now

tho i suppose racists like you dont get jobs in other countries and dont expect to get welfare if they ever endup loosing a job in another EU country, go crawl back under a rock you



you managed to use the words "NWO" and "sheeple" in same xenophobic post, conspiracy forum is this way >>>

Hay all,

Don't fancy reading 14 pages, but just wondering if anyone can answer this for me;

Will this cut affect those already on the Dole?


From what I remember, the under 20's cut only applied to new claimants. Those who were already signing on were left alone.

jodaw

Does anyone remember the "Game Of Life". I think there would be a good market out there for a newer version called "The Real Game Of Life". To educate in the real way that our financial system in set up ...

The deck is stacked against the ordinary person throughout their lives with ultimate goal to keep them essentially enslaved to their wages and unable to progress. The skyrocketing house prices have killed the dreams of mutiple generations of young Irish people and made the older generations "paper rich" ...

Fractional Reserve banking has caused the whole world to be in the position it is in at this moment. It is one of the biggest crimes ever to be imposed on humanity. What makes me laugh is how this crime is somehow magically shielded from people. The Secret ??? bahhhhh ... the real secret is benifitting from this crime. Sadly only a priviledged few benefit from eroding the wealth of many ...

Really saddens me

Boom, Bust, Bailout to infinity ... all the time the screw being tightened on the average person