Should we be allowing beggars to choose?

ei.sdraob

petethebrick wrote: »

The idea of providing people who have made prsi contributions for many years with food stamps and bus passes is ridiculous however- if out of work, people are fully entitled to monetary recompense to spend as they see fit.

thats an interesting point

lets take this further


have public PRSI insurance like scheme with a card as per OP which is an electronic version of food stamps etc

and have a private PRSI insurance scheme which pays out in cash



and give the people a choice of which pot their PRSI goes, sort of like pension schemes are done

Meeja Ireland

Taxipete29 wrote: »

For those more recently unemployed they should have a grace period of a year to look for a job and or enter some class of training or education programme. In this way you target the spongers and dont punish those who have genuinely contributed over the years only to fall foul of the collapse in the economy. The added bonus is the community gets alot of cheap labour to perform tasks which otherwise go untended.

There was something called the Back To Work scheme a few years ago which was well-designed and supportive. It gave the applicant 75% of his dole, along with all the extra entitlements, for one year. During this time the applicant was supported in finding training, and allowed to earn money as well.

In the second year the figure dropped to 50%, and then to 25% in the third. By then the person had received three years of support, and had been allowed to integrate into the workforce in a realistic, unfrightening way.

The scheme recognised the blurry border between work and unemployment. You often don't get off the dole by walking into full-time employment. You pick up a few hours in a cafe or garage, and hope that it spins off into permanence. Sadly, the normal dole system penalises this, or at least disincentivises it.

ei.sdraob

Meeja Ireland wrote: »

There was something called the Back To Work scheme a few years ago which was well-designed and supportive. It gave the applicant 75% of his dole, along with all the extra entitlements, for one year. During this time the applicant was supported in finding training, and allowed to earn money as well.

is Back to work scheme gone now? :eek:


I know some people who benefited greatly from this back few years ago and now run several businesses

sceptre

Rb wrote: »

I'd also be in favour of removing the right to vote from those currently receiving unemployment benefit.

Part of me likes the idea of removing the right to vote from anyone without a treble-tested standardised IQ average of less than 140 or 170 or similar on the grounds that half of the Oireachtas is made up of idiots elected by idiots but I'd never support it because universal suffrage is a cornerstone of reasonable democracy; also, organised dismantling of universal suffrage is a slippery slope towards only allowing those who "deserve" a vote to vote, which comes with its own harrowing conclusion. None of us want to live there.

Sorry to be blunt but your suggestion is silly. I'm still curious though as to how the suggestion might make society better, democracy more representative or have any purpose at all apart from actually taking dignity away from people who, even with the coldest attitude towards utility contribution to society as a measure of worth, deserve it just as much as film studies students (to pick on a group at random), given that they contribute just as much to the universe simply by virtue of existing.

Meeja Ireland

ei.sdraob wrote: »

is Back to work scheme gone now? :eek:

I know some people who benefited greatly from this back few years ago and now run several businesses

I think it was dropped a few years ago, but to be honest I'm no expert. One of the audience members on Frontline a couple of weeks ago was pleading for it to be brought back.

I also know people it really helped.

Darlughda

The entitlement culture can be infuriating, particularly when its used as a defense legislatively.

But, imposing a morality upon people in receipt of basic social welfare is not far off from the punitive sysem of moral correction popular in the 19th century.
Who gets to decide what a person's basics needs are? If that basic sense of determination over one's choices of what they need for survival and priority in life is removed, then you have a situation where a sub-class of citizen emerges, whom everyone thinks they have a 'right' to judge morally and challenge aggressively.

Overheal

Long Onion wrote: »

It would lead to a black market economy with poeple hocking food allowances for cigarettes. I would also wonder about the possible effects it may have on children who have no say over their parents financial situation. What would we do coming up to christmas/ birthdays?

It would be harsh to punish children in such ways (N.b. I am not to be taken as proposing that kids deserve playstations, but some small present may be nice)

Seriously? This christmas comment seems ridiculous and unqualified.

As for the former, have a read over the Food Stamp Program (USA)

edit: Theres already a black market for cigarettes :rolleyes: and if you think single mammys dont dip in to their child benefits for this already Im sure youre gravely mistaken.

Toys are essential for children's healthy development, so I don't see a problem with having an allowance for a certain amount of toys and "bonus" allowances around the child's birthday and christmas. Of course, they would be small enough that you wouldn't have people buying playstations on it.

Again you're allowing those sentiments you were against in your OP to creep in. The State shouldnt be responsible for paying bonuses for religious holidays or Children's Birthdays. Childrens clothing and toys and prams fall under the jurisdiction of a flat rate Childrens Allowance.

Medievalist wrote: »

Having your life dictated to you is not preserving dignity. Most people on the dole are embarrassed at being unemployed. Most people don't want to be standing in that queue. I've seen people trying to hide their cards in the post office so no knows they are unemployed. Having to produce a specific card in the local supermarket to get food is going to further demoralise an already depressed section of society. And being told you can't buy cigarettes? Now, I'm not a smoker and I hate smoking, but I think people are under enough stress as it is without having to give up cigarettes cold turkey.

Socialising is very important while unemployed. People on the dole no longer have daily interaction with others. This can have serious mental health issues. I don't condone partying every week on dole money, but not being able to go for a pint or two, or a coffee with friends and get out of the house to talk about stuff can have serious effects on people.

The system does need to be more means tested though. Those on the dole long term should have to provide proof they are looking for work. Social Welfare office doesn't seem to ask for proof on a regular basis anymore.

Theres a line between Mental Health and Coddling. If you're worried about depression, theres The Medical Card.

It should not be the role of a welfare system to make the unemployed look happy and wealthy so they can socialize. It should also not be a primary concern whether they feel Dignified or not. The whole point is that being Unemployed sucks and that people need more reasons to want to aggressively seek re-employment, not less.

And pray-tell, whats the point in a few beers and feeling good about yourself, when suddenly that cute girl you were eying asks you what you do for a living and you have to either lie or tell her you're unemployed. Why live a lie? I would find that more embarrassing than the latter.

I was recently unemployed for 13 months. It does suck. You dont socialize. You want to socialize. to do that you want to have money. How to get money? Oh yeah, file for unemployment spend 40 hours a week finding a job. Embarrassing yes. But with hundreds of millions of people in the same boat, the only thing you have to be embarrassed by is if you aren't trying hard enough. Why should I feel embarrassed simply for falling on hard times? Just work your hardest to get through it. You then have little to be mortified of.

Taxipete29 wrote: »

While I agree that there are a substantial number of people on the dole who have made it a career choice, the vast majority at this point are new claimants who have lost their job due to the recent unpleasantness. It would be unfair to those who have worked hard and suddenly found themselves in this predicament to further remove their dignity by treating them in this fashion.

The Government have failed on a consistent basis to tackle the problem of long-term unemployed who have no interest in work. These people need to be targetted through work programmes whereby they provide a service to the community they have leeched off for years. You give them a choice, communtiy work for say 20-25 hours a week, if they choose not to do it you provide them with the card as suggested.

For those more recently unemployed they should have a grace period of a year to look for a job and or enter some class of training or education programme. In this way you target the spongers and dont punish those who have genuinely contributed over the years only to fall foul of the collapse in the economy. The added bonus is the community gets alot of cheap labour to perform tasks which otherwise go untended.

Thats a fair comment to make. The long-term employed should receive proportionately more benefits than someone who just entered or whom has never entered the workforce. And any worker should be able to get better benefits if they choose to pursue community service.

That being said against my last comment, they too need to grin and bear it. A bit of emotional maturity is required when waiting in a Dole queue. Your mortified. Tough. **** happens to all of us.

SLUSK

Papa Smut wrote: »

I take it you are not being serious here? In the middle of a recession where a lot of people are desperate to get back to work, should not be ALLOWED to try and politically change things?


I am absolutely speechless.

If you don't own any share isn a publicly traded company you are not allowed to vote in their annual shareholders meeting.

Why should people who do not pay any taxes be allowed to have the same say in how things are run as someone who pays loads of money in taxes?

bonkey

SLUSK wrote: »

If you don't own any share isn a publicly traded company you are not allowed to vote in their annual shareholders meeting.

Why should people who do not pay any taxes be allowed to have the same say in how things are run as someone who pays loads of money in taxes?

For the same reason that the rich get exactly the same number of votes as the poor in a democracy, but shareholders get to wield power commensurate with the number of shares they own.

If I earn twice what you do...should I get two votes to your one?
If I earn 1000 times what you do, should I get 1000 votes to your one?

And lets not even start on asking how the stay-at-home parents get figured into the whole "earn or you don't vote" line of reasoning.

Medievalist

SLUSK wrote: »

If you don't own any share isn a publicly traded company you are not allowed to vote in their annual shareholders meeting.

Why should people who do not pay any taxes be allowed to have the same say in how things are run as someone who pays loads of money in taxes?

That's ingenious! We should have introduced that years ago in this country.

All the very wealthy people who avoided paying taxes for years would not have been able to vote.

Then they wouldn't have voted in FF again.

Then FF wouldn't have fecked up the country and economy.

Then there'd be less unemployment.

And this whole conversation would be moot!

Overheal

I know youre being silly, but if you excluded the Superrich or even anyone making over 200k youd still probably account only for less than 5% of the voting population.

How much did FF win by?

Boskowski

Long Onion wrote: »

I would also wonder about the possible effects it may have on children who have no say over their parents financial situation. What would we do coming up to christmas/ birthdays?

It would be harsh to punish children in such ways (N.b. I am not to be taken as proposing that kids deserve playstations, but some small present may be nice)

Hello? Think of the children?

Of course it would be nice if the children got something but life is harsh and some parents have more and some have less. My parents were piss poor when I was a little boy. It didn't damage me all that badly. If anything I'm not taking anything for granted now.

Boskowski

Medievalist wrote: »

Having your life dictated to you is not preserving dignity. Most people on the dole are embarrassed at being unemployed. Most people don't want to be standing in that queue. I've seen people trying to hide their cards in the post office so no knows they are unemployed. Having to produce a specific card in the local supermarket to get food is going to further demoralise an already depressed section of society.

Well ,we're all having our lives dictated. Form the very beginning. We have to go to school where we have to work very hard to get the points that allow us to include the things we're interested in into our career choices. Then we have to go to work all our lives where we spend most of the time doing something completely different from the things we'd actually like to spend our lifetime on. If you don't agree with this there is no place for you in society. You're fvcked.

If that's not having your life dictated I don't know what is.

Now you lose your job for a long time (remember we're not talking about your PRSI stuff that you entitled to for what roughly a year, we're talking long term dole here) and you have your life dictated a little more but you receive services that prevent you from dropping out of society.

While not great it doesn't sound outrageously harsh either. Again, remember we're talking long term dole here.

Medievalist

realcam wrote: »

Again, remember we're talking long term dole here.

I'm not sure the OP was refering solely to the long-term unemployed receiving benefits via a card. If we are talking just long-term claimants, then the approach does need to change slightly.

I'm certainly very suprised that the social welfare offices don't check for proof of job applications. I think that's a severe shortcoming in the system. I don't think people should be punished for not finding jobs (they're not exactly growing on trees at the moment), but there should certainly be incentive to keep looking. Otherwise it would be very easy for people to give up/ realise they could exploit the system.

The newly unemployed shouldn't be targeted. Say for the first 12 months things continue as they are now. Person applies for dole and signs on every month. After 12 months, in order to continue receiving the dole, they must provide proof that they are a) seeking employment and b) involved in training/ volunteering/ community activities for 20-25hrs a week. This keeps people active and engaged, and they are contributing to society.

After 18 months, perhaps then a more restrictive form of benefit distribution could be introduced. Eg, they have a certain percentage of their benefits go directly to bank/ landlord for mortgage/ rent, or ESB etc. This would increase the pressure to continue looking for work, while still maintaining a certain level of dignity and flexibility.

Any restrictions should only take place after a person's benefits funded by their PRSI contibutions run out.

johnnyskeleton

starbelgrade wrote: »

And what if you couldn't even find a few shifts to put in? What then? No, there is nothing wrong with earning your keep. There is nothing wrong with paying into a social system that helps those who cannot do the same. But what if you lost your job? Would you hold the same stance? I think not.

All things being equal, a government sponsored (or whoever) system of casual work for a few quid's dole money would be a godsend compared to the reality of trying to sign on and being bounced around for a few weeks (you'd better have some savings) and what if you're self employed? It's very hard to claim the dole once you've closed the doors so to speak, and a system whereby you could top up your income by putting in a few shifts would help those of an entrepreneurial turn to muddle through the hard times. The current system demands effectively that you cease trading and go on the dole full time.

johnnyskeleton

Rb wrote: »

I'd also be in favour of removing the right to vote from those currently receiving unemployment benefit.

That would only relatively increase the voting power of public servants and, without making any negative comment about public servants as they are now, this could lead to a system whereby half the country is employed in the public sector and the other half lives in absolute poverty. The disenfranchisement of those on jobseekers could lead to a system where the government makes sure that there are no jobs for them to seek.

starbelgrade

Rb wrote: »

I'd also be in favour of removing the right to vote from those currently receiving unemployment benefit.

What the ****?! :eek::eek:

Joey the lips

Rb wrote: »

TI'd also be in favour of removing the right to vote from those currently receiving unemployment benefit.
.

You post really stinks and this is the lowest point. You know someone my eye. I reckon you read the exceptions in the news papers like most. Anybody who applys for a job and it pays less is actually entitiled to carious top ups etc.

Oh and by the way you seriously need to learn your history. The reason the irish had no rights many years ago is that the had no voteing rights becuase they owned no property. You take voteing rights of the unemployed and why in the name of god should politicians work to help them out of the hole they are in?

If we live in that fantasy the rich will run more of this country than they do now and the country will be truly beyond fooked.

Zambia

Excellent thread.

The OP was headed in the right direction and as the posts have gone on a real alternative began to crawl out of the thread.

Essentially it starts to look like a welfare step ladder. As you earn and pay PRSI you move up the ladder. Should you lose your job you start to descend on the other side with entitlements dwindling till you reach rock bottom. Which I see as the card idea in the OP.

The right of the vote is not that important as I gather half the lazy f**kers concerned would not bother walking to the polling station.

stefanj

Zambia232 wrote: »

The right of the vote is not that important as I gather half the lazy f**kers concerned would not bother walking to the polling station.

Let's move one step further to .... ?

This thread is scarey

Zambia

stefanj wrote: »

Let's move one step further to .... ?

This thread is scarey

Maybe I should clarify. If you have spent the last 5 years on the dole in Ireland though no reason of ill health or genuine circumstance. Then yes you are a lazy F**ker.

And it would be of no concern to you if someone took away your vote as you probably never used it.

I would not be in favour of removing the vote from anyone in fact I would make it a crime not to vote.