The basic rate of social welfare needs to be cut

cm2000

Our social welfare payment of 204 euro needs to be cut as it is too close to the minimum wage and stops people working for minimum wage. Here are some stats.

If I work a 35 hour week at minimum wage, I will earn a whopping €302.75 per week.
If I stay at home and choose not to I will earn €204 per week.
If I need to get one train to work and one train home that would be €4.60 a day, €23 a week.
Now say I need to get a very moderately priced lunch while at work, say €5 a day, €25 a week.
Therefore, my 35 hour week will in essence get me €50.75 more than if I choose not to.
This is wrong yes?

Scofflaw

cm2000 wrote: »

Our social welfare payment of 204 euro needs to be cut as it is too close to the minimum wage and stops people working for minimum wage. Here are some stats.

If I work a 35 hour week at minimum wage, I will earn a whopping €302.75 per week.
If I stay at home and choose not to I will earn €204 per week.
If I need to get one train to work and one train home that would be €4.60 a day, €23 a week.
Now say I need to get a very moderately priced lunch while at work, say €5 a day, €25 a week.
Therefore, my 35 hour week will in essence get me €50.75 more than if I choose not to.
This is wrong yes?

No offence, but why not a 40-hour week? Or indeed, anything up to a 48-hour week? That would net you €163 more a week than the dole - nearly an 80% increase.

Even on your 35-hour week, you've still put yourself in a better position to find more and/or better paid work by working than by being on the dole - in addition to earning 25% more.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Riskymove

cm2000 wrote: »

Now say I need to get a very moderately priced lunch while at work, say €5 a day, €25 a week.

do people eat for free on welfare?

cm2000

Scofflaw wrote: »

No offence, but why not a 40-hour week? Or indeed, anything up to a 48-hour week? That would net you €163 more a week than the dole - nearly an 80% increase.

Even on your 35-hour week, you've still put yourself in a better position to find more and/or better paid work by working than by being on the dole.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Because its a basic nine to five wage where your lunch hour is not paid, as is the case in most minimum wage jobs, i think thats a fair enough example tbh

cm2000

Riskymove wrote: »

do people eat for free on welfare?

yes, thats the nature of the thing

Scofflaw

cm2000 wrote: »

Because its a basic nine to five wage where your lunch hour is not paid, as is the case in most minimum wage jobs, i think thats a fair enough example tbh

Alright, but I'd still take it over welfare. I'd probably go a packed lunch though.

cordially,
Scofflaw

cm2000

Scofflaw wrote: »

Alright, but I'd still take it over welfare. I'd probably go a packed lunch though.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Does the only small difference not make you think it should be cut? 50 quid for a weeks work is what your actually getting

Riskymove

cm2000 wrote: »

yes, thats the nature of the thing

TESCO is free to welfare is it?

cm2000

Riskymove wrote: »

TESCO is free to welfare is it?

you asked if people ate for free on welfare, yes they do, they do everything for free.. its the nature of welfare..

Riskymove

cm2000 wrote: »

you asked if people ate for free on welfare, yes they do, they do everything for free.. its the nature of welfare..

but they still have to spend some of the €204 on food, your example above implied they did not and that the cost of lunch "ate" into the difference for a worker

kippy

Scofflaw wrote: »

Alright, but I'd still take it over welfare. I'd probably go a packed lunch though.

cordially,
Scofflaw

In fairness, people posting these kind of thread do have a point. It really us up to the individual what they chose and even this poster has forgotten a few key points.
Welfare is not just the 204 a week, there are many other potential benefits as well out there for people on welfare, allowances for training, other allowances,medcal card etc....

The whole lot needs to come down in my opinion. From social welfare and associated benefits to minimum wage, to public sector wages, which should in turn bring down cost of living costs across the board.

I know of many people who have gone on the dole for 6 months to a year rather than work for 6 months to a year because they are planning to do a college course which they will get very well paid for doing if they are on the dole, but if they leave a job to go on the course they get screwed over to pay for it.
Thats the reality and I am sure other areas of welfare are abused as well, thats just wrong.

The government should try reduce certain costs if they bring down families incomes, from VAT to fees for certain public services, to esb costs to other costs they can effect.
It has to happen from the bottom up though or the top down, whatever works.

_michelle_

at this moment in time i really dont think welfare rates should be cut as so many people are losing their jobs that you cant really say it is no incentive for people to work as many had no choice & if they were given the choice would choose to work, not be on welfare struggling to get by.

Taxipete29

cm2000 wrote: »

Our social welfare payment of 204 euro needs to be cut as it is too close to the minimum wage and stops people working for minimum wage. Here are some stats.

If I work a 35 hour week at minimum wage, I will earn a whopping €302.75 per week.
If I stay at home and choose not to I will earn €204 per week.
If I need to get one train to work and one train home that would be €4.60 a day, €23 a week.
Now say I need to get a very moderately priced lunch while at work, say €5 a day, €25 a week.
Therefore, my 35 hour week will in essence get me €50.75 more than if I choose not to.
This is wrong yes?

The vast majority of people in this country have more self respect than to choose welfare over a minimum wage job. There will always be people who wont work. It was like this when our welfare system wasnt so generous and will remain a sad fact of life.

Genuine people on welfare will be looking for work so it stands to reason they would also have transport costs not to mention the fact that they have to eat. I find your comparison lacking in substance.

Even finding a minimum wage job at the moment is difficult. While I am working at the moment as a taxi driver I desperatly want to get out of it so that I can devote the neccessary time to my part-time studies. A minimum wage job would do me fine, but they are few in number and with the level of competition there is, its a struggle to even get to an interview. In short the high welfare is not stopping genuine people from looking for work. You only have to look at the queues of people a month or 2 ago looking for christmas work in M+S. Irish people mostly have pride enough to want to work for their money.

cm2000

Riskymove wrote: »

but they still have to spend some of the €204 on food, your example above implied they did not and that the cost of lunch "ate" into the difference for a worker

Ah I know I was being pedantic. It is however much cheaper to prepare food at home, and someone working may not have the time to do so etc. its not really the point though. The basic point is that the gap between a minimum wage job and welfare is far far too small and it definitely does disincentivises minimum wage work

OP: You have forgotten Rent Allowance

Taxipete29

cm2000 wrote: »

Ah I know I was being pedantic. It is however much cheaper to prepare food at home, and someone working may not have the time to do so etc. its not really the point though. The basic point is that the gap between a minimum wage job and welfare is far far too small and it definitely does disincentivises minimum wage work

Sure if they only work 35 hours a week there is plenty of time left to prepare lunches, dinners etc

cm2000

Taxipete29 wrote: »

The vast majority of people in this country have more self respect than to choose welfare over a minimum wage job. There will always be people who wont work. It was like this when our welfare system wasnt so generous and will remain a sad fact of life.

Genuine people on welfare will be looking for work so it stands to reason they would also have transport costs not to mention the fact that they have to eat. I find your comparison lacking in substance.

Even finding a minimum wage job at the moment is difficult. While I am working at the moment as a taxi driver I desperatly want to get out of it so that I can devote the neccessary time to my part-time studies. A minimum wage job would do me fine, but they are few in number and with the level of competition there is, its a struggle to even get to an interview. In short the high welfare is not stopping genuine people from looking for work. You only have to look at the queues of people a month or 2 ago looking for christmas work in M+S. Irish people mostly have pride enough to want to work for their money.

I took up a temporary contract position a number of months ago on minimum wage which has since ceased. The hours were very bad, you could be told you were not needed certain days etc. The employer took on 65 or so people. Of these about 9/10 were Irish. Most were eastern european. I disagree. I think it's far too comfortable, with rent allowance, child benefit etc, its far to easy to be unemployed. It should be hard, especially for those who haven't made the necessary prsi contributions.

Taxipete29

cm2000 wrote: »

I took up a temporary contract position a number of months ago on minimum wage which has since ceased. The hours were very bad, you could be told you were not needed certain days etc. The employer took on 65 or so people. Of these about 9/10 were Irish. Most were eastern european. I disagree. I think it's far too comfortable, with rent allowance, child benefit etc, its far to easy to be unemployed. It should be hard, especially for those who haven't made the necessary prsi contributions.

Did it ever occur to you that perhaps these eastern eurpeans were better candidates for the positions than other Irish who applied. It doesnt follow that because more non-irish got the jobs that there were few irish who even applied. You cannot make that judgement unless you have evidence to the contrary.

cm2000

Taxipete29 wrote: »

Did it ever occur to you that perhaps these eastern eurpeans were better candidates for the positions than other Irish who applied. It doesnt follow that because more non-irish got the jobs that there were few irish who even applied. You cannot make that judgement unless you have evidence to the contrary.

No. my interview was basically
can you lift things? speak english? and get to work?
was a monkey job.. Irish just didnt apply

rasper

cm2000 wrote: »

I took up a temporary contract position a number of months ago on minimum wage which has since ceased. The hours were very bad, you could be told you were not needed certain days etc. The employer took on 65 or so people. Of these about 9/10 were Irish. Most were eastern european. I disagree. I think it's far too comfortable, with rent allowance, child benefit etc, its far to easy to be unemployed. It should be hard, especially for those who haven't made the necessary prsi contributions.

This lazy Irish won't work mentality really sickens me, generally an employer like the above with crap hours and short notice cancelllations prefers to hire workers who keep their mouths shut and can't complain so unless most of the applicants were EE then your story means nothing.
Fact is we had one of the lowest unemployment rates in Europe when we had jobs now we don't and we have one of the highest. so cut the welfare and there still no jobs just people f**k off out to another country.
Ohh I see

cm2000

rasper wrote: »

This lazy Irish won't work mentality really sickens me, generally an employer like the above with crap hours and short notice cancelllations prefers to hire workers who keep their mouths shut and can't complain so unless most of the applicants were EE then your story means nothing.
Fact is we had one of the lowest unemployment rates in Europe when we had jobs now we don't and we have one of the highest. so cut the welfare and there still no jobs just people f**k off out to another country.
Ohh I see

Most of the applicants were Eastern European, Myself and a friend, both Irish, Both with good degrees etc. applied and had the job in a couple of days, there was no anti irish bias, there just werent that many irish applicants. Why? because, 300 odd quid with crap hours is hardly worth it.... hense my point. its not even a lazy mentality, just a logical one.

Taxipete29

cm2000 wrote: »

No. my interview was basically
can you lift things? speak english? and get to work?
was a monkey job.. Irish just didnt apply

Well I think the lines of people queuing for jobs in M+S and Londis much earlier in the year do not back up your claims. There were Irish a plenty on those queues of all ages.

Irish people wouldnt work minimum wage jobs during the tiger years because they got better jobs not because they were lazy. Now they have little choice and from what I can see are quite happily accepting whatever work they can get. Your one experience does not tell even part of the story.

cm2000

Taxipete29 wrote: »

Well I think the lines of people queuing for jobs in M+S and Londis much earlier in the year do not back up your claims. There were Irish a plenty on those queues of all ages.

Irish people wouldnt work minimum wage jobs during the tiger years because they got better jobs not because they were lazy. Now they have little choice and from what I can see are quite happily accepting whatever work they can get. Your one experience does not tell even part of the story.

Do you think it is fair that someone who chooses not to work gets only 50-70 quid less per week than someone in the same boat who does work?

P. Breathnach

cm2000 wrote: »

Do you think it is fair that someone who chooses not to work gets only 50-70 quid less per week than someone in the same boat who does work?

That's a loaded question and, in present circumstances, unfairly so. There are many on social welfare through no choice of their own.

jimmmy

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That's a loaded question and, in present circumstances, unfairly so. There are many on social welfare through no choice of their own.

But there are some on social welfare because once they get all the allowances, medical card, social housing etc its not worth their while working. All government handouts need to be reduced, from the job-seekers allowance ( nearly 3 times what it is north of the border, even though lidl, aldi etc does not charge 3 times here UK or German prices ) to those who get their 40,000 and 100,000 euro per year public sector pensions.

Johnboy1951

cm2000 wrote: »

Do you think it is fair that someone who chooses not to work gets only 50-70 quid less per week than someone in the same boat who does work?

How do you propose to separate those who "choose" not to work from those who cannot find employment?

Is it not the case that if an unemployed person is offered a job and refuses it for no good reason, such as medical, that his benefits are cut?

It is a long time since I was in such a situation, but that was how it was administered ........

P. Breathnach

jimmmy wrote: »

But there are some on social welfare because once they get all the allowances, medical card, social housing etc its not worth their while working. All government handouts need to be reduced, from the job-seekers allowance ( nearly 3 times what it is north of the border, even though lidl, aldi etc does not charge 3 times here UK or German prices ) to those who get their 40,000 and 100,000 euro per year public sector pensions.

This is not a public-sector bashing thread; it's a social welfare bashing thread.

jimmmy

P. Breathnach wrote: »

This is not a public-sector bashing thread; it's a social welfare bashing thread.

Its nothing about bashing...its to do with the unsustainable ( and out of line compared with other countries ) amount of money the government gives out to people for doing no work in return.

Scofflaw

jimmmy wrote: »

Its nothing about bashing...its to do with the unsustainable ( and out of line compared with other countries ) amount of money the government gives out to people for doing no work in return.

Don't pull this thread off-topic, jimmmy. Your repeated condemnation of the public sector is perilously close to trolling already.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Taxipete29

cm2000 wrote: »

Do you think it is fair that someone who chooses not to work gets only 50-70 quid less per week than someone in the same boat who does work?

To be fair, if you work a full week ie 39/40 hours you get nearly 150 more.

Social welfare is there to help people.I will admit many have abused the system over the years and I am all for weeding out the spongers. However most of the people on the dole now are newly unemployed and it would be disgracful to hit them now, when they are the ones who are already feeling the burden of the current crisis the most.

Tackle the spongers and those who milk the system illegally, but you cannot punish the very people for who the welfare system was created to help.

cm2000

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

How do you propose to separate those who "choose" not to work from those who cannot find employment?

Is it not the case that if an unemployed person is offered a job and refuses it for no good reason, such as medical, that his benefits are cut?

It is a long time since I was in such a situation, but that was how it was administered ........

Easy enough, for every 6 months you are on social welfare, cut it 25%