Dole cut for under-23's likely

unemployed

I cannot understand, not only this government, but the Irish people.

We are being told that we cannot borrow 500million. But yet ,something in the region of 28 billion is to be given to a dead bank. That is 28,000,000,000. The government want to save 4 billion. You do the maths.

Also the government seem to be taking the money from the people that will spend it, thus stimulating the economy.

Why not close some of the loop holes that people use to evade tax?
Why not close the Seanad?
Why not use the money that is to be given to a dead bank, to entice new business into Ireland?
Why are they doing nothing to save companies that need help to ride out the storm?
We are in this trouble because we had a debt economy. If the NAMA plan works out, they are going to stimulate another debt economy. Sooner or later we will be back to where we are now.

I have been unemployed since April. I am highly qualified, but there are no jobs out there for me. What are the government doing about that, Other than the fact that they will cut my unemployment benefit?

MaceFace

To those of you that are about to be hit with this cut - get used to it.

Your problem is you are not organised so can not voice your concerns as a group.
If you do become organised you will be demonised for being trouble makers who just want to riot.

You are an easy target and no one cares.

Sorry, but I think thats the truth of it.

amacachi

unemployed wrote: »

Also the government seem to be taking the money from the people that will spend it, thus stimulating the economy.

They have very little choice.

Why not close some of the loop holes that people use to evade tax?

There aren't that many loopholes, and those there are would cause those people to move away, raising everyone else's tax burden.

Why not close the Seanad?

Not the worst idea, though I'd prefer if they just gave it a use.

Why not use the money that is to be given to a dead bank, to entice new business into Ireland?

Because the money was got to keep the banks going. They can't just print money ya know.

Why are they doing nothing to save companies that need help to ride out the storm?

I agree to an extent.

We are in this trouble because we had a debt economy. If the NAMA plan works out, they are going to stimulate another debt economy. Sooner or later we will be back to where we are now.

We're in trouble because the government stupidly linked PS pay into the broader economy, knowing full well that when things went to **** the PS wasn't going to take pay cuts by the same method they received increases.

I have been unemployed since April. I am highly qualified, but there are no jobs out there for me. What are the government doing about that, Other than the fact that they will cut my unemployment benefit?

I thought it was just under 23s that were being cut? TBH I'm wondering exactly how highly qualified someone could be at that age. You could always go abroad if things are so bad, something I may have to do when I leave college.

unemployed

amacachi wrote: »

They have very little choice.


There aren't that many loopholes, and those there are would cause those people to move away, raising everyone else's tax burden.
.

There are a hell of a lot of loopholes. I was self employed before this.
Get yourself a good accountant, set up a limited company and you can evade a hell of a lot of tax.

I didn't milk the system. But some of the veterans told me how to get away with stuff. It's unbelievable and it's all above board.

Fighting Irish

unemployed wrote: »

I cannot understand, not only this government, but the Irish people.

We are being told that we cannot borrow 500million. But yet ,something in the region of 28 billion is to be given to a dead bank. That is 28,000,000,000. The government want to save 4 billion. You do the maths.

Also the government seem to be taking the money from the people that will spend it, thus stimulating the economy.

Why not close some of the loop holes that people use to evade tax?
Why not close the Seanad?
Why not use the money that is to be given to a dead bank, to entice new business into Ireland?
Why are they doing nothing to save companies that need help to ride out the storm?
We are in this trouble because we had a debt economy. If the NAMA plan works out, they are going to stimulate another debt economy. Sooner or later we will be back to where we are now.

I have been unemployed since April. I am highly qualified, but there are no jobs out there for me. What are the government doing about that, Other than the fact that they will cut my unemployment benefit?

There are jobs out there, just maybe not the one you want

cassette50

According to a leaked budget report on TV3 News just now- there is a 5% cut across the board for all social welfare recipients.

10% across the board cuts in child welfare, 20% dole cut for under 23's.

skearon

BlueLepreachaun wrote: »

Isn't it amazing how we absoloutly cannot borrow for a stimulas package because our credit ratings so bad yet we can borrow unknown billions for NAMA, can (supposidly) borrow €500m a week for current spending, we radided the pension reserve fund to give AIB and Bank of Ireland €8billion in welfare...but we just CANNOT afford a stimulas plan or an extra 20quid a week for people under 23!! WE JUST CANT...its very mysterious to me.

NAMA has the approval of the ECB and they are providing the loans for it.

We can continue to borrow €500m a week only because purchasers of Irish bonds support the Government's credible fiscal plan.

Funds in the National Pension Reserve Fund were used to ensure we have a functioning banking system, without which the economy would have collapsed, plus it looks likely this injection of funds will be converted into ordinary shares and therefore make money for the tax payer over the medium term.

What is really mysterious is why people deem it neccessary to reward people who contibute nothing to society? Welfare should be based on the level of contribution, and should reduce each year for those fit and healthy who refuse work/training. Even the leader of the Labour Party has stated, on The Panel, that people on welfare who don't make themselves available for work or education should have thei dole payments ceased.

BlueLepreachaun wrote: »

...don't they have to pay you to train if your on the dole? In fact, in FAS they pay you more...so this doens't make any sense if they're trying to save money, unless they plan on cutting the money going to those joker training schemes as well...which would defeat the entire supposed incentive for people to do them they are talking about here.
So maybe the cuts just to show the people were borrowing from that were doing something? It seems very haphazard and poorly thought out.

It makes perfect sense to reward those who try and better themselves through education, and whilst there have been some inexcusable failings in FAS, it certainly does not mean that all their courses are invalidated.

BlueLepreachaun wrote: »

If you wanted to encourage people into training this also doens't make sense from the perspective of the age they've picked, its not the under 23s that are undertained and underskilled its the over 50s.

I agree with you there, anyone, fit and healthy, on the dole long term should have their dole cut if they refuse education.

introspective85

murphaph wrote: »

The money's not there so cuts have to be made. Germany will only lend a feckless Ireland money for so long. They have already told Cowen and Lenihan to produce some serious cuts soon or else. 20% is too little tbh. It should be 20% for all dole recipients and 40% for dole recipients with less than 10 years stamps.

Only a month ago, they mentioned the possibility of 50% cuts for under 24s. It would seem the government is playing a very clever game of reverse bait and switch, getting people worried and worked up over the possibility of a severe cut in their dole, so that the actual amount they reduce it by, in this case 20%, seems reasonable and the relief of the affected individuals overpowers their sense of outrage, taking the sting out of a potential backlash.

amacachi

introspective85 wrote: »

Only a month ago, they mentioned the possibility of 50% cuts for under 24s. It would seem the government is playing a very clever game of reverse bait and switch, getting people worried and worked up over the possibility of a severe cut in their dole, so that the actual amount they reduce it by, in this case 20%, seems reasonable and the relief of the affected individuals overpowers their sense of outrage, taking the sting out of a potential backlash.

I said a few months back I'd be fine with a 10% cut across the board and I could probably manage 20% myself but not everyone could.

introspective85

skearon wrote: »

What is really mysterious is why people deem it neccessary to reward people who contibute nothing to society? Welfare should be based on the level of contribution, and should reduce each year for those fit and healthy who refuse work/training. Even the leader of the Labour Party has stated, on The Panel, that people on welfare who don't make themselves available for work or education should have thei dole payments ceased.
.

We'll never have a completely fair welfare system, Democracy by its very nature prevents this, since most welfare policies are shaped more by populist vote buying than common sense. Also alot of these long term unemployed are people who lost their jobs in their late 40s early 50s and although they may be deemed available for work, they are in effect unemployable and are just biding their time, till they can either apply for sickness benefit or the old age pension. Forcing these people into education would be pointless, unless of course they intend to avail of the enterprize allowance and pursue self employment, for which they may require training.

introspective85

amacachi wrote: »

I said a few months back I'd be fine with a 10% cut across the board and I could probably manage 20% myself but not everyone could.

At 24 this wont apply to me, thankfully. having been unemployed for just over a year i can now apply for the enterprize allowance, and become self employed. So much for the courses that are supposedly being made available, all the relevant fas courses are over subscribed!!!!!!:mad:

amacachi

introspective85 wrote: »

At 24 this wont apply to me, thankfully. having been unemployed for just over a year i can now apply for the enterprize allowance, and become self employed. So much for the courses that are supposedly being made available, all the relevant fas courses are over subscribed!!!!!!:mad:

Ah here I was on the dole for a year, don't talk to me about FÁS. Three times I signed up for courses and didn't hear back for months then they were cancelled. Total joke of a place.

introspective85

amacachi wrote: »

Ah here I was on the dole for a year, don't talk to me about FÁS. Three times I signed up for courses and didn't hear back for months then they were cancelled. Total joke of a place.

I wouldnt mind, but its not as if i want to do some fancy degree course( which are overrated and pretty much useless btw), all i want to do is a short course, 6 months max, that'll get me up to speed on the running of a business. I have a relative who did a similar fas course a while back and he had nothing but praise for it, so some of these courses are useful, but for now they're oversubscribed.:(

Methinks that the under 20s, who had their dole halved back in april, are just applying for these courses to keep their full dole, and have no interest in the course whatsoever. Now the only useful fas courses are clogged up with dead weight.

amacachi

introspective85 wrote: »

I wouldnt mind, but its not as if i want to do some fancy degree course( which are overrated and pretty much useless btw), all i want to do is a short course, 6 months max, that'll get me up to speed on the running of a business. I have a relative who did a similar fas course a while back and he had nothing but praise for it, so some of these courses are useful, but for now they're oversubscribed.:(

Methinks that the under 20s, who had their dole halved back in april, are just applying for these courses to keep their full dole, and have no interest in the course whatsoever. Now the only useful fas courses are clogged up with dead weight.

I didn't realise they'd get their full dole if they were doing a course. That actually made me LOL to be honest, no wonder they're oversubscribed. Also it keeps the numbers on the Live Register down which is what it's really all about.

introspective85

amacachi wrote: »

I didn't realise they'd get their full dole if they were doing a course. That actually made me LOL to be honest, no wonder they're oversubscribed. Also it keeps the numbers on the Live Register down which is what it's really all about.

I agree with incentives for them to take up education, but the sad reality is that many are just going through the motions of doing a fas course so they can keep their full dole. Maybe they should be required to pass a test covering course material about a month into it, to ascertain whether they are serious or not. If they fail then they lose their place and extra dole money. There should be other requirements, other than mere attendance. A dog can just show up, but that doesnt mean its interested or paying attention.

donojono

introspective85 wrote: »

all i want to do is a short course, 6 months max, that'll get me up to speed on the running of a business.

I am sure the Open University will have a short course that will suit your needs and there prices are fair. Consider the benefits it will bring you.

I think first of it is completly unfair to single out the under 23s
Under 23s are not kids and have just as much expenses as everyone else..

If you are going to cut anyones welfare do it to the long term unemployed - these are the people who have decided on it as a way of life, which is not what it is there for!

If under 23s dont want their social welfare cut down they have the option to take up education (ie. a FAS course). I am under 23 and have a masters degree - im not sure a fas course is going to add much to that.
Why not offer this option to the long term unemployed instead in an attempt to educate them and get them back into work?

lmimmfn

Deleted User wrote: »

I think first of it is completly unfair to single out the under 23s
Under 23s are not kids and have just as much expenses as everyone else..

If you are going to cut anyones welfare do it to the long term unemployed - these are the people who have decided on it as a way of life, which is not what it is there for!

If under 23s dont want their social welfare cut down they have the option to take up education (ie. a FAS course). I am under 23 and have a masters degree - im not sure a fas course is going to add much to that.
Why not offer this option to the long term unemployed instead in an attempt to educate them and get them back into work?

hmmmm, much as the long term unemployed can get annoying your average 30+ long term unemployed has a family, your averafe 22year old or whatever on the dole doesnt, not really the same thing? again im only stating averages, there will be loads who reply to this that they 22 with 2 dozen kids lol.

seclachi

lmimmfn wrote: »

hmmmm, much as the long term unemployed can get annoying your average 30+ long term unemployed has a family, your averafe 22year old or whatever on the dole doesnt, not really the same thing? again im only stating averages, there will be loads who reply to this that they 22 with 2 dozen kids lol.

Thats why it should just be tested, its not much good to a single 21 year old with 2 kids that the average 21 year old is single, likewise, its very handy for the single 30 year old that its automatically assumed he will have dependants.

lmimmfn

lmimmfn wrote: »

hmmmm, much as the long term unemployed can get annoying your average 30+ long term unemployed has a family, your averafe 22year old or whatever on the dole doesnt, not really the same thing? again im only stating averages, there will be loads who reply to this that they 22 with 2 dozen kids lol.

I do understand that but I think thats why it should be means tested.. there are tons 22+ without kids.. and probably many more people who live at home and dont pay rent.. and therefore dont need the 200e a week.

I realise that means testing is not an option because of the 'cost' but if they just made it a standard ammount across the board (ie. 150e pw) and added extra when proof of accomodation, childrens birth certs, etc. were presented I cant see how it would cost so much extra..

lmimmfn

seclachi wrote: »

Thats why it should just be tested, its not much good to a single 21 year old with 2 kids that the average 21 year old is single, likewise, its very handy for the single 30 year old that its automatically assumed he will have dependants.

thats a problem with society, you can only legislate in general, and tbh its fair enough in the majority of cases. If you legislate to include under 23's with families and what not you add more bureaucracy which increases the cost and reduces the overall effectiveness.

Its just a fact of life, although some of the blanket crap they do here in ireland really aggrovates me, but hey im not in power lol.

Deleted User wrote: »

I do understand that but I think thats why it should be means tested.. there are tons 22+ without kids.. and probably many more people who live at home and dont pay rent.. and therefore dont need the 200e a week.

I realise that means testing is not an option because of the 'cost' but if they just made it a standard ammount across the board (ie. 150e pw) and added extra when proof of accomodation, childrens birth certs, etc. were presented I cant see how it would cost so much extra..

while i understand where you are coming from, there is the cost of implenting such a scheme, on top of that it is a deterrant for under 23's having families which i guess is the point behind it all moving forward as Cowen likes to say.