Dole recipients Will have to work 19.5 hours

Sandvich

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

At least the Lotto is used as a method of raising funds, and the person recieving it on law of averages is likely to be less annoying than Paris Hilton.

Sandvich

wiseguy wrote: »

Socialism, a form of organized begrudgery . Mind your own business maybe?
The irony of thinking that people and companies can not run their own affairs, yet a centrally controlled organisation run by bureaucrats and politicians can :rolleyes: Yeh that worked out great in the past

You do realise that this comes across as "Know your place, peasant."

Of course it's a concern if large sums of money are being passed around like that when there are people in the world with no money at all.

Sandvich

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Good point. I dont understand this "I am not working for nothing" attitude - they will be working for their 196 a week. If they were working for nothing they would be getting nothing.

However you will have people are, and they will see it that way. It's an all or nothing scenario.

Welease

Sandvich wrote: »

People who have good qualifications and have been laid off are not dole scroungers.

Not everyone shares the same view of labour that you do, and yes, many people would feel demeaned by it, because they have worked hard to get where they are and are then thrown back into the bottom of the ladder just to keep their unemployment benefits, which they paid for through PRSI anyway.

If they feel demeaned by it.. then fine, they can emigrate, get a job or stop taking dole.. noone is forcing the long term unemployed to contribute their share to society.. I never used to word scounger, but you seem to content for those on long term benefits to contribute nothing while taking payments from the very same community.

Sandvich wrote: »

It's also very convenient for you to say that, again, when you have a job. You're just proving that people such as yourself are devoid of sympathy and understanding of the situation. People on the dole right now are not layabouts, nor does not being a layabout mean "any" work will do.

Really?.. I probably understand the situation a lot more than many celtic tiger kids. I left school in the last recession.. I've moved countries, cities several times, gotten both degrees and professional qualifications abroad, and reskilled in different areas to ensure I can continue to remain employed.. I also do volunteer work, because I understand the value of a community and the fact that people such as yourself seem to be willing to continually take from the communities they live in, but from your posts here, seem to believe you are above contributing anything to those communities in return.

Sandvich wrote: »

Would you pick dirty condoms up off the street without gloves?

What sort of rediculous statement is that?.. Why do you think anyone would have to pick up used condoms without gloves?

Sandvich wrote: »

These are all areas of potential economic growth for the private sector, especially environmental projects.

You don't seem to be realising that we can't go back to the way we were before, and our model as a productive nation needs to change from a factory based one to both a more educated one, and one providing services such as the ones you list.



I don't think that was a particularly good argument, as it sounds like one you eejits would use.



It could largely end up being so - again most of the sectors mentioned DO in fact have some private businesses involved. Childcare, environmental work, etc.



I find it funny for someone who basically doesn't give a **** about people who've been laid off to talk about giving a crap about other people.

It's also amusing that people who take issue being "forced" to pay taxes take no issue with others being forced to do charitable work.

I have no issue paying my taxes.. I pay lots.. I don't like them being wasted, but once again you seem content to make your arguement out of a position I have never taken..

If you believe you are above doing community work, then don't take dole.. Noone is forcing you.. It seems there are plenty of people both employed and unemployed who are happy to help their communities..

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Sandvich

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You are correct; most of Europe is going along the lines I would like to see it do so. It's a huge stretch to say things are how I'd like them to be, there is still a lot of corruption and I fear for the country of this country in particular, but at least it seems to be pointing towards the same place I am, with a bit of luck.

Which is why it's up to you with the outsider ideology to sell your stuff, you need to justify it to me and everyone else in europe. You can't act cocky and as if your way of doing things is automatic fact, and anyone who doesn't accept "that's the way life is" when in fact, your way of doing things is not currently upheld as such. It's crazy. But a lot of you do precisely this, and expect to be taken seriously.

Calling me a statist/collectivist etc. isn't really a good start. The Libertarians on this forum may have the run of the place but they don't do a very good job looking like good, practical people.

Bullseye1

Sandvich wrote: »

You are correct; most of Europe is going along the lines I would like to see it do so. It's a huge stretch to say things are how I'd like them to be, there is still a lot of corruption and I fear for the country of this country in particular, but at least it seems to be pointing towards the same place I am, with a bit of luck.

Which is why it's up to you with the outsider ideology to sell your stuff, you need to justify it to me and everyone else in europe. You can't act cocky and as if your way of doing things is automatic fact, and anyone who doesn't accept "that's the way life is" when in fact, your way of doing things is not currently upheld as such. It's crazy. But a lot of you do precisely this, and expect to be taken seriously.

Calling me a statist/collectivist etc. isn't really a good start. The Libertarians on this forum may have the run of the place but they don't do a very good job looking like good, practical people.

For someone who does not like to be pigeonholed you like to pigeonhole others LOL.

Bullseye1

As a self employed person i really do not see why my taxes should be assigned to people with no benefit to me or society as a whole when i am not entitled to those same benefits.

Sandvich

Welease wrote: »

If they feel demeaned by it.. then fine, they can emigrate, get a job or stop taking dole.. noone is forcing the long term unemployed to contribute their share to society.. I never used to word scounger, but you seem to content for those on long term benefits to contribute nothing while taking payments from the very same community.

There will always be some degree of unemployment due to disability, seasonal employment, layoffs, and just plain undesirables. However, we have pretty small unemployment before the recession, so is that really the issue?

People who obsess over benefits remind me of the Piracy crowd(the ones here on boards being particularly bad), and can't accept acceptable losses to any degree.

However many people seem to be all about "acceptable losses" when it comes to people falling through the net.

Really?.. I probably understand the situation a lot more than many celtic tiger kids. I left school in the last recession.. I've moved countries, cities several times, gotten both degrees and professional qualifications abroad, and reskilled in different areas to ensure I can continue to remain employed.. I also do volunteer work, because I understand the value of a community and the fact that people such as yourself seem to be willing to continually take from the communities they live in, but from your posts here, seem to believe you are above contributing anything to those communities in return.

Just to correct you - I'm on disability and currently doing a further education course. I've also done "volunteer" work recently making a website for NLN where a lot of people such as myself attend.

I believe it shows a lot about the nature of the person holding this viewpoint that they continually ignore these two facts about me.

Do you believe disability is the exact same as dole?

What sort of rediculous statement is that?.. Why do you think anyone would have to pick up used condoms without gloves?

I'm simply making the point that some tasks can appear pointless and absurd to some people. I used a more universal example as I don't know what you in particular would consider being as such.

I have no issue paying my taxes.. I pay lots.. I don't like them being wasted, but once again you seem content to make your arguement out of a position I have never taken..

It depends how you define "wasting". Many people here seem to be fine to a degree with paying taxes, but don't like to see it actually help people out.

Welease

Sandvich wrote: »

There will always be some degree of unemployment due to disability, seasonal employment, layoffs, and just plain undesirables. However, we have pretty small unemployment before the recession, so is that really the issue?

Who said it was an issue??? You seem to be the only one who has an issue..
This is a new scheme to allow those who are moving into long term unemployment to work in the community for extra money, and also to take further part time work without hitting their benefits. It also allows those who are moving onto long term benefit to avoid being means tested and having their dole cut.
The only people who will suffer, are those who believe they should continue to receive long term payments from the community without giving somethign back to the community.

Sandvich wrote: »

People who obsess over benefits remind me of the Piracy crowd(the ones here on boards being particularly bad), and can't accept acceptable losses to any degree.

However many people seem to be all about "acceptable losses" when it comes to people falling through the net.

No one is obsessing..
It's a simple idea that many, both employed and unemployed welcome.
You seem to be one of the very few who is taking issue with this scheme, and rather than address the issues, you seem to content to make up wildly inaccurate statements about having to pick up condoms without gloves

Sandvich wrote: »

Just to correct you - I'm on disability and currently doing a further education course. I've also done "volunteer" work recently making a website for NLN where a lot of people such as myself attend.

I believe it shows a lot about the nature of the person holding this viewpoint that they continually ignore these two facts about me.

And just to correct you!.. Can you point me to where I said you were not on diability or on further education?

I said your posts seem to indicate that you believe people are above contributing to their communities in return for dole.. which would seem to be the reason you disagree with the scheme.

Sandvich wrote: »

Do you believe disability is the exact same as dole?

No... did I saw it was? And I doubt those on disability would be eligible for the scheme.. whats your point?

Sandvich wrote: »

I'm simply making the point that some tasks can appear pointless and absurd to some people. I used a more universal example as I don't know what you in particular would consider being as such.

No, you made up a rediculous example that would never exist.. So why bother?

Sandvich wrote: »

It depends how you define "wasting". Many people here seem to be fine to a degree with paying taxes, but don't like to see it actually help people out.

Again.. utter rubbish.. you seem to be content just to make up posts that don't exist.. Where has anyone said that? Where did anyone say stop all dole?

This scheme helps people out..
Sitting at home receiving long term benefits.. doesn't help anyone out.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Sandvich

Fair enough. Unfortunately, the lines along which Europe is going do not appear to be economically sustainable over the longer term, especially given the prospective future ratio of retirees to younger workers.

What evidence do you have to back this up?

It would seem to me that unregulated capitalism is ultimately unsustainable.

If you think that countries such as China and India are content with the arrangement whereby they manufacture cheap stuff for us, we provide expensive expertise for them, and they keep lending us bucketloads of their money, I think you are in for a bit of a shock over the coming half-century.

That's more to do with power shift than anything else. And then making **** for cheap for us to begin with is largely an effect of capitalism anyway; better working conditions and pay is a largely "socialist" concept in some ways.

Things are going to shift around in the next few years, it's impossible to avoid. It doesn't mean than social democracies have somehow failed, and frnakly that's only one factor in a nation's success.

According to my dictionary, statism is "a political system in which the state exercises substantial centralized control over social and economic affairs." Judging by the positions you express on Boards.ie, it seems that you do indeed favour substantial centralized control, at least over economic affairs. I'm not sure of your position on social issues.

It is when it's used as an insult, in the manner "typical statists thinking x and y", that it's an issue.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

feicim

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Click here for answer

or here


Also..

Slavery in the sun

The abuses continue once hotels are built. According to Guyonne James of Tourism Concern, the hotel sector is characterised by “low wages, long hours and no contracts.” She goes on to say that “although Tourism Concern concentrates on majority world countries where there is no legislative framework to protect the environment or workers, many of the problems are the same in Europe and in Britain, even though the laws should protect people. The people you find doing the cleaning, cooking and gardening are the poorest and most desperate, because they will accept these poor conditions. In some countries this is local people, and in British cities it is often immigrants, legal or illegal.”(4,5)

People are used as resources (human resources) by companies who extract as much as they can from them while giving as little as possible back in return, especially large companies whose sole goal is the pursuit of profit.

Hiring people on contracts to avoid paying them holiday entitlements may not technically by theft but...

Sandvich

Cumann de Barra wrote: »

Absolutely

And this scheme is designed to make spongers start contributing to society

Emotionally weighted nonsense.

Sandvich

That's exactly right. But I don't know how you think we're going to maintain our high wages and our extensive social benefits after that power shift takes place. The social democracies of Europe are grossly uncompetitive, and we are going to have to face the fact in coming decades that economic uncompetitiveness comes at a high cost.

So what do you suggest, we lower our standard of living? Which happens either if we take a hit to welfare, or we switch to some amazing magic carpet libertarian system.

If anything it's a better argument to consolidate the wealth we can generate.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

OldNotWIse

I find it interesting how people are banging on about how "demeaning" this new scheme is...surely it is more demeaning to expect the state to support you for nothing? Is it not less demeaning to work for money than to get handouts??

OldNotWIse

Bullseye1 wrote: »

As a self employed person i really do not see why my taxes should be assigned to people with no benefit to me or society as a whole when i am not entitled to those same benefits.

very good point, the self employed tend to be victimised somewhat when it comes to welfare, though that may be a discussion for another thread. Suffice to say I have seen first hand how self employed are basically thrown to one side when they are too sick to work...and that has been the driving force behind my decision to be a PAYE worker!

katkin

Bullseye1 wrote: »

As a self employed person i really do not see why my taxes should be assigned to people with no benefit to me or society as a whole when i am not entitled to those same benefits.

Wrong. They have paid PRSI payments for their Jobseekers Benefit which they receive for 312 days. If you haven't paid enough PRSI payments as a self employed person then you, just like the other's when their JB runs out, may apply for the means-tested Jobseekers Allowance. The means test is the same whether you are self-employed or not.

wiseguy

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I find it interesting how people are banging on about how "demeaning" this new scheme is...surely it is more demeaning to expect the state to support you for nothing? Is it not less demeaning to work for money than to get handouts??

You see its all about entitlements without any responsibilities,
a manifestation of the typical Irish "me feinism"

Valmont

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I think the plan is to keep saying "Keynesian economics", "Stimulus plan", and "fairness" over and over until the problem vanishes. Perhaps the IMF has a few million workers growing In Vitro waiting to be unleashed when the unfunded pension liabilities start kicking in.

murphaph

Sandvich wrote: »

So what do you suggest, we lower our standard of living?

Finylly the penny drops. YES!!

Our standard of living was built on a fallacy. There was little or no substance to the economy which provided it. That economy has now been shown for what it was and Ireland is borrowing 20 BILLION a year to maintain that false standard of living. This may come as news to you: We were never a wealthy country.

Why should the average Irish person feel entitled to live in a 3 bed semi within commuting distance to work when the average German expects to live their whole life in a flat, likely without a car.

yermanoffthetv

Sandvich wrote: »

So what do you suggest, we lower our standard of living? Which happens either if we take a hit to welfare, or we switch to some amazing magic carpet libertarian system.

If anything it's a better argument to consolidate the wealth we can generate.

Id rather have a libertarian system where we dont have to prop up innefficient semi-states and a bloated bureaucratic public sector that couldnt organise a pissup in a brewry. People might then take some personal responsibility for themselves instead of whinging that "the gubbermint iz doin nathin bout it"

dan_d

Sandvich wrote: »

So what do you suggest, we lower our standard of living?

I have to ask. What exactly do you understand this to mean?

That you can't have 5 holidays a year? That you can't drive the latest range Rover from your semi-D house to the office every day? That you can't afford to shop in BT every week?

Or does it mean that you can afford 2 holidays a year, 1 or maybe 2 ordinary model cars, a decent (non fee paying) education for your kids, and a nice meal out every few weeks?

Or do you think we will all be going so low that we'll have trouble putting food on the table, not be able to put petrol in a car and have to save on heating and electricity in the winter?

What exactly does this statement mean? People throw it around as though we are going to regress overnight to the lifestyle of a Calcutta slum, but the reality for most is closer to my second option above.Would that be so awful? The average German may spend their life in a flat, but firstly, that's the norm over there, secondly, have you seen the size of their flats? thirdly, their cities are built for and cater to, people who live in apartment buildings, with community swimming pools, pitches, gardens, parks, play groups for kids (for free).They ski in the winter and often head for the water in the summer, they finish up work at 12am every Friday, their taxes fund a deeply efficient public transport system (meaning many don't need a car) and healthcare system...all in all they have an excellent lifestyle. And the same can be applied to France, Spain - the majority of developed European countries.Would "lowering our standard of living"to that level be such a disaster?

I know the response I'll get is "but life is cheaper over there". It is. Because people get paid less. The minimum wage is less. Social benefits are less. Taxes are higher. And prices are in line with that, with what people can actually afford to pay.They are all linked in together. But that won't happen here until people accept that they have to take home less money everyday.

This notion that our standards are dropping because we can't afford a new Prada handbag every other week - for the love of God, what on earth makes a bog standard middle class person feel they have either the income or the lifestyle to warrant that kind of expenditure? That is for very wealthy people.We were not wealthy. We lived on credit. When will that sink in??

Yes we need to lower our standards of living. And by that I mean - 1 car.1 or 2 holidays.Chop up the credit card. One less Playstation/Nintendo DS a year. One meal out every month, not four. Dunnes Stores instead of BT.Hold off on installing the new kitchen straight away.

I know there are people out there who are genuinely struggling, and this is not directed at them. They are another problem for another day, and I've derailed this thread enough.

SuperInfinity

dan_d wrote: »

I have to ask. What exactly do you understand this to mean?

That you can't have 5 holidays a year? That you can't drive the latest range Rover from your semi-D house to the office every day? That you can't afford to shop in BT every week?

Or does it mean that you can afford 2 holidays a year, 1 or maybe 2 ordinary model cars, a decent (non fee paying) education for your kids, and a nice meal out every few weeks?

Or do you think we will all be going so low that we'll have trouble putting food on the table, not be able to put petrol in a car and have to save on heating and electricity in the winter?

What exactly does this statement mean? People throw it around as though we are going to regress overnight to the lifestyle of a Calcutta slum, but the reality for most is closer to my second option above.Would that be so awful? The average German may spend their life in a flat, but firstly, that's the norm over there, secondly, have you seen the size of their flats? thirdly, their cities are built for and cater to, people who live in apartment buildings, with community swimming pools, pitches, gardens, parks, play groups for kids (for free).They ski in the winter and often head for the water in the summer, they finish up work at 12am every Friday, their taxes fund a deeply efficient public transport system (meaning many don't need a car) and healthcare system...all in all they have an excellent lifestyle. And the same can be applied to France, Spain - the majority of developed European countries.Would "lowering our standard of living"to that level be such a disaster?

I know the response I'll get is "but life is cheaper over there". It is. Because people get paid less. The minimum wage is less. Social benefits are less. Taxes are higher. And prices are in line with that, with what people can actually afford to pay.They are all linked in together. But that won't happen here until people accept that they have to take home less money everyday.

This notion that our standards are dropping because we can't afford a new Prada handbag every other week - for the love of God, what on earth makes a bog standard middle class person feel they have either the income or the lifestyle to warrant that kind of expenditure? That is for very wealthy people.We were not wealthy. We lived on credit. When will that sink in??

Yes we need to lower our standards of living. And by that I mean - 1 car.1 or 2 holidays.Chop up the credit card. One less Playstation/Nintendo DS a year. One meal out every month, not four. Dunnes Stores instead of BT.Hold off on installing the new kitchen straight away.

I know there are people out there who are genuinely struggling, and this is not directed at them. They are another problem for another day, and I've derailed this thread enough.

I agree with all of this, except the part about chopping up the credit card... lots of things are cheaper online.

I would also like to make the point that you can have an excellent standard of living and have little money. For example in CERTAIN parts of Asia and Africa, they get lovely, healthy, fresh raw food extremely cheaply, they live in places with little pollution, they have a LOT of rural land to walk around in, they can attend all their social events, are more and more connected to the internet and receiving satellite television, have less traffic expenses and don't have to pay for something as simple as parking a car, don't have to do a 39 hour slog behind a desk, they don't have to pay for heating because it's so warm in many of those places, have their houses built much more cheaply.... so even though they don't nearly as much money they can easily be living a "higher standard" of living if higher standard of living means anything.

timespast

In times of recession the same old excuses are used....... spongers, living off the state etc etc.

Many politicians, Bankers and property developers have screwed us for Billions!

If the Govt. wanted to do something useful they'd hand out free bus passes to those on benefits and encourage education courses, work experience with worthy companies and give aid to community group set ups to look after their area.

Remember these same people were all working quite happily until these idiots in Dail Eireann made a bollox of it.

katkin

I am an unemployed person who is against this scheme for many reasons, but one of them is not that I think the work is beneath me or I am too lazy. I know some people are paid to be animal welfare officers, etc but I would gladly help out the local animal shelter for the extra 20 quid - why hasn't O'Cuiv mentioned this area, I hope he considers it. I would clean up along rivers and country roads that local authorities never go to. I would work in a charity shop. I would visit old people for a chat and to do light housework, shopping for them. These are community spirited things that are rarely someone else's job (I might be wrong there). But I don't wish to further mess up someone else's chance of paid employment

furerer

timespast wrote: »

If the Govt. wanted to do something useful they'd hand out free bus passes to those on benefits and encourage education courses, work experience with worthy companies and give aid to community group set ups to look after their area.

A free bus pass is no good out this way.......there is NO public transport. Again you all seem to be talking from a Dublin point of view....in fact you all sound like a bunch of raving lunatics.
Do ANY of you REALLY think that working for dole is going to help this country out of the sh1t it is in? All it will achieve is a smugness from the well-off, the miserable people that have nothing to do all day but moan about everyone and everything because their own lives are so miserable......and I know a few that live around here!

The same problem Ireland has had it's entire history......the few that have do not want anyone to share in it.........Ireland has always suffered with poor employment, and always will, because the Irish cannot think outside of the box........the education system still teaches to hate the English, along with the multitude of Irish adults that also think that way. The Irish love to kick you when your down........as we can all read from this thread! The days of tipping the hat might have disappeared.....but the lick-as6ing is still there.

When you all get in touch with reality.........yes.........I mean outside of Ireland.........what! you mean there is somewhere outside of Ireland.....will that mean I'm going to be out of my safe zone?.....unfortunately yes! ....you might just see that the world does not turn thanks to money........it's a natural occurance, like life itself. Some of you sound like the schoolboy bullies I remember at school........and I hated them, but would not let them bully me. When you are strong, physically, mentally, or financially, you are supposed to help your fellow man that is not so strong.....but alas......as we see, that is not the case at all times. One day you may find yourself in a situation where you need assisance, this life or another........do you think that you will deserve it?

bbam

It all depends on how it is administered and who it's targetted at..

If it is aimed at those who are professionally unemployed.... grand, I'm referring to the 3-4% of the country who were unemployed during the boom years..... there was no excuse. Should have happened them long ago..

If it aimed at those who won't take up further training... grand. Everyone needs to be as employable as possible..

However
If it is aimed at those who are just recently unemployed then SHAME on the government......


In addition
Say you have a degree in X or Y... You go to mackers looking for a job and you're passed over because you're overqualified.. You keep looking but some knob has the bright idea that cleaning the streets to earn the assistance you are getting would be a better use of your time..

People go to college and educate themselves in order to avoid cleaning the streets.... Now the government think it's a great idea to make them do it to be entitled to their assistance....