ERSI: Cost of working 'too high'

thebigbiffo

See, told ya'll before, dole too high

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/many-families-better-off-on-welfare-claims-esri-report-555032.html

Seriously though, it is a major problem. For this thread, lets forget about how much the dole is and how easy it may/may not be to get by on...lets look at it from the other side of the coin.

Cards on the table, I normally take home anywhere between 2.8-3.5k per month depending, the wife, about 2.6k.

Childcare: 1100
Petrol: 400
Lunch: 80 (prob more, but I know people will start shouting about packed lunches)

They are just the basics and that's 1580 net. now, assuming you're getting dole/jobseekers of about 180p/w that's approx 720 + 1580 = 2300 is what you'd need to take home before you're better off working. My guess would be that's about 40k per year gross.

Shure, where's the incentive to work!

smash

The costs of actually getting to work these days with petrol prices and public transport prices is shocking.

TwoShedsJackson

Your guess is completely wrong, a single person on 40k a year takes home 30,333 after tax (according to Deloitte & Touche tax calculator)

Secondly, the dole being too high (or not) doesn't magically make jobs appear.

hondasam

we are lucky to have jobs and people on the dole would gladly take our jobs in the morning if they could or so they lead us to believe anyway.
It's the workers who are struggling at the moment not the people on the dole.

batistuta9

if you take €2800 & her €2600 yous have still got €3820 left

what are you complaining about?

kildare.17hmr

2.5-3k per month, fully expensed company car and packed lunch every day. If i didnt have the company car id be better off stayin at home because i drive 450 kn per week to and from work and about that running around for work and myself so thats about €120 a week on fuel. Other half is at home with the 2 kids. Have a mate with 3 kids on the dole since being let go last year, he comes out with about €500 a week and hates it, would go out and work in the morning for less and be happier

thebigbiffo

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

Your guess is completely wrong, a single person on 40k a year takes home 30,333 after tax (according to Deloitte & Touche tax calculator)

Secondly, the dole being too high (or not) doesn't magically make jobs appear.

Firstly, i dont think 'completely' is the right observation. lets say for arguments sake 35k salary then. I'm sorry for my approximation being inaccurate...

No, the dole doesn't make jobs appear, but it has an active role in how competitive we are as a workforce...which makes jobs appear.

hondasam

batistuta9 wrote: »

if you take €2800 & her €2600 yous have still got €3820 left

what are you complaining about?

He probably has to pay a mortgage, food,bills and other stuff.

Logical Fallacy

hondasam wrote: »

we are lucky to have jobs and people on the dole would gladly take our jobs in the morning if they could or so they lead us to believe anyway.
It's the workers who are struggling at the moment not the people on the dole.

Yes, everyone who has a job is struggling.

Everyone who is on the dole is on easy street.

Well done you.

thebigbiffo wrote: »

See, told ya'll before, dole too high

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/many-families-better-off-on-welfare-claims-esri-report-555032.html

Seriously though, it is a major problem. For this thread, lets forget about how much the dole is and how easy it may/may not be to get by on...lets look at it from the other side of the coin.

Cards on the table, I normally take home anywhere between 2.8-3.5k per month depending, the wife, about 2.6k.

Childcare: 1100
Petrol: 400
Lunch: 80 (prob more, but I know people will start shouting about packed lunches)

They are just the basics and that's 1580 net. now, assuming you're getting dole/jobseekers of about 180p/w that's approx 720 + 1580 = 2300 is what you'd need to take home before you're better off working. My guess would be that's about 40k per year gross.

Shure, where's the incentive to work!

Biffo, do you mind running through your thinking in this section please? Why did you add the rough cost of your bills to a months worth of Welfare? Slightly confused about the logic here.

hondasam

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Yes, everyone who has a job is struggling.

Everyone who is on the dole is on easy street.

Well done you.

I'm sure not everyone who has a job is struggling same as not everyone on the dole is struggling either.

Well done you too.

batistuta9

hondasam wrote: »

He probably has to pay a mortgage, food,bills and other stuff.

what is he eating, caviar?

plenty of people can survive on minimum wage or not much more than it a week

Oranage2

Never mind the dole is too high - The cost of living is f*cking scandalous.

thebigbiffo

batistuta9 wrote: »

if you take €2800 & her €2600 yous have still got €3820 left

what are you complaining about?

sorry, where did i complain about my own situation? quote me please?

I'm actually just observing, as the ESRI has, that one of us may be best off on the dole instead of working the ways things have gone. it's not seeing the absurdity of that situation (as you just have) that has the country the way it is.

Logical Fallacy

hondasam wrote: »

I'm sure not everyone who has a job is struggling same as not everyone on the dole is struggling either.

Well done you too.

That's not what you said though.

Sleepy

I've posted the workings elsewhere but for a single income, co-habiting family with two kids that rent in the Dublin area, you need to be earn over circa 40k to break even against your welfare entitlements.

That's a serious problem imho.

thebigbiffo

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Yes, everyone who has a job is struggling.

Everyone who is on the dole is on easy street.

Well done you.



Biffo, do you mind running through your thinking in this section please? Why did you add the rough cost of your bills to a months worth of Welfare? Slightly confused about the logic here.

sorry, I must have lapsed into Mongolian. Cost of working added to the dole for doing nothing = what you need in a job before you’re better off. Got it? Want me break it down further for ya there?

hondasam

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

That's not what you said though.

What did I say?

You said ''everyone'' not me.

Logical Fallacy

Sleepy wrote: »

I've posted the workings elsewhere but for a single income, co-habiting family with two kids that rent in the Dublin area, you need to be earn over circa 40k to break even against your welfare entitlements.

That's a serious problem imho.

Absolutely, but blanket statements like "The Dole is too high" don't help, because it's flawed. The issue at heart is all these stackable benefits on top of the normal dole payment. Child Benefit, Rent Allowance, Fuel Allowance etc etc etc.

There should be a make acceptable payment and then more stuff cannot be added to it.

thebigbiffo

Sleepy wrote: »

I've posted the workings elsewhere but for a single income, co-habiting family with two kids that rent in the Dublin area, you need to be earn over circa 40k to break even against your welfare entitlements.

That's a serious problem imho.

how could logical fallacy thank this and fail to grasp my point earlier in the thread

ya just dont like me do ya:(

smash

hondasam wrote: »

we are lucky to have jobs.

I don't like that statement, it implies that you should be grateful for it. But the way I see it these days is that a lot of people are stuck in jobs and a lot of companies are using the recession as a tool to beat workers with.

Logical Fallacy

thebigbiffo wrote: »

sorry, I must have lapsed into Mongolian. Cost of working added to the dole for doing nothing = what you need in a job before you’re better off. Got it? Want me break it down further for ya there?

Well yes, if you could.

Surely if you are on the dole then there is no cost of working? I mean, you wouldn't need 400 bucks for petrol, and you wouldn't need the money for childcare as you could look after the kids?

hondasam wrote: »

It's the workers who are struggling at the moment not the people on the dole.

That is what you said hondasam. To me, the above sentence is pretty clearly talking about all of one and all of the other.

It's clearly not what you meant to say though.

thebigbiffo

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Absolutely, but blanket statements like "The Dole is too high" don't help, because it's flawed. The issue at heart is all these stackable benefits on top of the normal dole payment. Child Benefit, Rent Allowance, Fuel Allowance etc etc etc.

There should be a make acceptable payment and then more stuff cannot be added to it.

the thread is entitled 'cost of working too high' and i clearly state in my first post (after an obviously sarcastic jokey opening) that the thread is more about the cost of working than it is about the dole. But the 2 are most definitely linked.

hondasam

smash wrote: »

I don't like that statement, it implies that you should be grateful for it. But the way I see it these days is that a lot of people are stuck in jobs and a lot of companies are using the recession as a tool to beat workers with.

I agree but it's what is trotted out all the time as if we should be grateful to be working even though we are earning less now.

gurramok

"Better off on dole" should really read " better off on welfare" as the dole is only one part of welfare.
One Parent Family Payment and child benefit along with Rent Supplement are other parts of welfare that make it worthwhile not to work.

Logical Fallacy

hondasam wrote: »

I agree but it's what is trotted out all the time as if we should be grateful to be working even though we are earning less now.

The really annoying one is the second someone with a job might mention their wages dropping due to cuts and deductions and such and someone come along with the "first world problems" thing.

****ing hate that stupid meme.

hondasam

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

That is what you said hondasam. To me, the above sentence is pretty clearly talking about all of one and all of the other.

It's clearly not what you meant to say though.

Seriously. I left out some workers some people on the dole.
Talk about nit picking a post.

TwoShedsJackson

thebigbiffo wrote: »

Firstly, i dont think 'completely' is the right observation. lets say for arguments sake 35k salary then. I'm sorry for my approximation being inaccurate...

No, the dole doesn't make jobs appear, but it has an active role in how competitive we are as a workforce...which makes jobs appear.

You make a guess and then draw a conclusion based on that, hardly an amazing technique. 35k is still wrong, it's 27,545 going by that calculator.

Most of the people on the dole are attempting to find new employment, there are the usual lifers who are not. Lowering it makes it no easier for the people who need it to find a job, can you explain how you think it does?

Our 'competetiveness as a workforce' does not matter if a company or employer doesn't set up in the first place. Do you think lowering the dole will make Spar or whoever open a few more branches?

thebigbiffo

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Well yes, if you could.

Surely if you are on the dole then there is no cost of working? I mean, you wouldn't need 400 bucks for petrol, and you wouldn't need the money for childcare as you could look after the kids?

jesus dude you f'ucking trolling me or what!? Or did you smoke a doob before booting up there? IF IT IS WORTH YOUR WHILE TAKING A JOB then based on the cost of having said job (in my situation anyway) you would need 2300 ish p/m after tax to break even. Dole: 720 + (PLUS, gettit) the cost of the job is how you arrive at that number. Any more questions? Seriously, do you not get it?

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

smash

gurramok wrote: »

"Better off on dole" should really read " better off on welfare" as the dole is only one part of welfare.
One Parent Family Payment and child benefit along with Rent Supplement are other parts of welfare that make it worthwhile not to work.

Only if you're a One Parent Family who are renting though. And that's not the majority.

Logical Fallacy

hondasam wrote: »

Seriously. I left out some workers some people on the dole.
Talk about nit picking a post.

Chill, I've already said that I now understand it wasn't what you meant to say.

But you are aware when communicating in text that you need to get all the words from your brain to the screen right...otherwise people might think you are saying something you are not saying?

Logical Fallacy

thebigbiffo wrote: »

jesus dude you f'ucking trolling me or what!? Or did you smoke a doob before booting up there? IF IT IS WORTH YOUR WHILE TAKING A JOB then based on the cost of having said job (in my situation anyway) you would need 2300 ish p/m after tax to break even. Dole: 720 + (PLUS, gettit) the cost of the job is how you arrive at that number. Any more questions? Seriously, do you not get it?

No Biffo, I don't. You are using your own personal situation as a catch all number. This makes no sense.

Lets say I am on the dole...the dole gets me about 720 a month. Now I can obviously live, eat, pay the rent and the bills on that 720 a month. I have no kids and I get a job within walking distance or a short bus journey from where I live.

I don't need to be earning 2300 a month after tax to break even. I think you finally grasp that...as you have finally said "In my situation" so well done there.

All I need to bring home more money than the dole I would be entitled to is minimum wage.

gurramok

smash wrote: »

Only if you're a One Parent Family who are renting though. And that's not the majority.

Renting with subsidised Rent Supplement and having more kids. The more kids you have the higher wage you will need in a job as Rent Supplement is not allowed for full time jobs, childcare would also to be paid for.

Whats the trend? The 2 biggest costs for a worker or potential worker in the workforce is accommodation(Mortgage\rent) and childcare. The only way to pay for these when working is having high paid job.

Rabidlamb

One the back of this new found info I'm trying to get let go from my job.
My job must be made redundant, correct, I can't just be sacked.
Already looking forward to breakfast TV & Jeremy Kyle, roll on the gravy train, choo choo.

grindle

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

But you are aware when communicating in text that you need to get all the words from your brain to the screen right...otherwise people might think you are saying something you are not saying?

Don't be so patronising. You're treating thebigbiffo's post like hieroglyphics, and I doubt you'd love to read
"You are aware when reading, that all of the words on the screen need to be read and understood, and THEN you post about it, otherwise everybody thinks you're stoned at 12.30pm."

Logical Fallacy

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Surely if you are on the dole then there is no cost of working? .

He's talking about additional costs such as commuting, childcare, etc, which would be involved in working which you don't have in dole

think opportunity cost type stuff, i guess

thebigbiffo

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

You make a guess and then draw a conclusion based on that, hardly an amazing technique. 35k is still wrong, it's 27,545 going by that calculator.

Most of the people on the dole are attempting to find new employment, there are the usual lifers who are not. Lowering it makes it no easier for the people who need it to find a job, can you explain how you think it does?

Our 'competetiveness as a workforce' does not matter if a company or employer doesn't set up in the first place. Do you think lowering the dole will make Spar or whoever open a few more branches?

how is 35k still wrong!!!! I said 2300 per month in my first post and 27545 divided by 12 is…anyone anyone???...2295.41 – I’ve actually overestimated by almost a fiver!! Dang darnit!!

We cannot be competitive in attracting jobs (I’m ignoring your frankly ignorant comment about Spar jobs) from outside the country with costs this high and such a small gap between entitlements and employment.

smash

gurramok wrote: »

Renting with subsidised Rent Supplement and having more kids. The more kids you have the higher wage you will need in a job as Rent Supplement is not allowed for full time jobs, childcare would also to be paid for.

Whats the trend? The 2 biggest costs for a worker or potential worker in the workforce is accommodation(Mortgage\rent) and childcare. The only way to pay for these when working is having high paid job.

And that's what people aspire to have. It's not the norm to say "Sure I'll pop out sprogs and claim it all", that's just a stereotype.

OldNotWIse

Oranage2 wrote: »

Never mind the dole is too high - The cost of living is f*cking scandalous.

I agree. I have a theory that financial demands expand to fit the money available. If you dont have the money coming in, people cant take it off you - (government/mammy/rent/creditors)

Rabidlamb

gurramok wrote: »

The 2 biggest costs for a worker or potential worker in the workforce is accommodation(Mortgage\rent) and childcare. The only way to pay for these when working is having high paid job.

Childcare is the real kicker, in many cases it can be more than the mortgage, especially for 2 kids.
Maybe if we didn't have to buy 40 miles from our parents we could use granny a few days a week.
The banks never stress tested for €1.60 a litre for someones daily commute either.
Excuse me, I'm just bitter.

ronano

Aquila wrote: »

I have a solution!
Emigrate!

back in your box there ff/fg/lab/irish political class

desertcircus

thebigbiffo wrote: »

See, told ya'll before, dole too high

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/many-families-better-off-on-welfare-claims-esri-report-555032.html

Seriously though, it is a major problem. For this thread, lets forget about how much the dole is and how easy it may/may not be to get by on...lets look at it from the other side of the coin.

Cards on the table, I normally take home anywhere between 2.8-3.5k per month depending, the wife, about 2.6k.

Childcare: 1100
Petrol: 400
Lunch: 80 (prob more, but I know people will start shouting about packed lunches)

They are just the basics and that's 1580 net. now, assuming you're getting dole/jobseekers of about 180p/w that's approx 720 + 1580 = 2300 is what you'd need to take home before you're better off working. My guess would be that's about 40k per year gross.

Shure, where's the incentive to work!

There are two glaring issues with your numbers. One is the figure for petrol; vast numbers of the population don't need to spend anywhere near a hundred quid a week on getting to work. If you live in a city and work within ten miles of your house, you could cycle - and thanks to the cycle to work scheme, a €500 bike is about thirty quid a month for the first year only. Let's allow 30 a month in perpetuity to attend to repairs (although that's a massive amount).

Next up is childcare: if you're in a two-income family, the price should be split between salaries. You earn a bit more than your partner, so let's split it 600/500 and assign the 600 to you.

On this analysis, you're looking at a breakeven point of just over 1400 quid a month. That's almost nine hundred quid a month less.

thebigbiffo

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

No Biffo, I don't. You are using your own personal situation as a catch all number. This makes no sense.

Lets say I am on the dole...the dole gets me about 720 a month. Now I can obviously live, eat, pay the rent and the bills on that 720 a month. I have no kids and I get a job within walking distance or a short bus journey from where I live.

I don't need to be earning 2300 a month after tax to break even. I think you finally grasp that...as you have finally said "In my situation" so well done there.

All I need to bring home more money than the dole I would be entitled to is minimum wage.

yeah, my situation and - according to the ESRI - the situation many people are in is that the COST of working outweighs the benefits.

listen, take off the troll mask, go back to the start, read again and then get back to me. oh and yeah, could you please also tell me who in this day and age incurrs no cost working.

you, my friend, have missed the entire point of this thread, derailed it and are ignorning the central point: the ESRI report linked. Take your attitude elsewhere is my suggestion.

gurramok

smash wrote: »

And that's what people aspire to have. It's not the norm to say "Sure I'll pop out sprogs and claim it all", that's just a stereotype.

We're suppose in to incentivise work not the other way around. Its setting a level at which a worker will not accept a job offer if it not worth his\her while. At the moment, that level is too high for the conditions outlined(Rent\mortgage\childcare and transport)

thebigbiffo

desertcircus wrote: »

There are two glaring issues with your numbers. One is the figure for petrol; vast numbers of the population don't need to spend anywhere near a hundred quid a week on getting to work. If you live in a city and work within ten miles of your house, you could cycle - and thanks to the cycle to work scheme, a €500 bike is about thirty quid a month for the first year only. Let's allow 30 a month in perpetuity to attend to repairs (although that's a massive amount).

Next up is childcare: if you're in a two-income family, the price should be split between salaries. You earn a bit more than your partner, so let's split it 600/500 and assign the 600 to you.

On this analysis, you're looking at a breakeven point of just over 1400 quid a month. That's almost nine hundred quid a month less.

Look LOOK a well-constructed argument!!

I agree that’s fair enough, but not everyone lives in a city… cycling’s fine until you enjoy a real irish summer. In reality, a huge proportion of the population need to use a car to get to work and are spending well over 100 a week on petrol.

The family as a unit would still save 1100 on childcare so it doesn’t matter who’s wage you take it from – it’s one individual who would claim the dole should one of us lose our jobs so it’s ok to look at it in my way.

1400 is still a chunk of money net however - and entry level, trainee jobs would still barely clear this. it's still not much of an incentive to a young person on the dole.

Monty Burnz

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

Your guess is completely wrong, a single person on 40k a year takes home 30,333 after tax (according to Deloitte & Touche tax calculator)

Secondly, the dole being too high (or not) doesn't magically make jobs appear.

This isn't the point though. It's about mugs going out to work for less than they'd get staying at home due to an unfair system, and it's about a time when there will be jobs to take and people not being incentivised to take them.

Monty Burnz

smash wrote: »

And that's what people aspire to have. It's not the norm to say "Sure I'll pop out sprogs and claim it all", that's just a stereotype.

It may be a stereotype, but it's not based on thin air either.

Logical Fallacy

grindle wrote: »

Don't be so patronising. You're treating thebigbiffo's post like hieroglyphics, and I doubt you'd love to read
"You are aware when reading, that all of the words on the screen need to be read and understood, and THEN you post about it, otherwise everybody thinks you're stoned at 12.30pm."

You mean pretty much exactly what Biffo said to me earlier in the thread?

bluewolf wrote: »

He's talking about additional costs such as commuting, childcare, etc, which would be involved in working which you don't have in dole

think opportunity cost type stuff, i guess

So basically he is moaning about having to pay for things based off choices he made. Cool.

thebigbiffo wrote: »

yeah, my situation and - according to the ESRI - the situation many people are in is that the COST of working outweighs the benefits.

listen, take off the troll mask, go back to the start, read again and then get back to me. oh and yeah, could you please also tell me who in this day and age incurrs no cost working.

you, my friend, have missed the entire point of this thread, derailed it and are ignorning the central point: the ESRI report linked. Take your attitude elsewhere is my suggestion.

Biffo, at the start of the thread I simply said I wasn't getting what you were saying, asked you to explain it to me and you responded with attitude. I returned attitude.

seamus

thebigbiffo wrote: »

Childcare: 1100
Petrol: 400
Lunch: 80 (prob more, but I know people will start shouting about packed lunches)

They are just the basics and that's 1580 net. now, assuming you're getting dole/jobseekers of about 180p/w that's approx 720 + 1580 = 2300 is what you'd need to take home before you're better off working. My guess would be that's about 40k per year gross.

Your costings are a little bit fallacious unless you suggest having your entire family sleep for 18 hours a day.

While childcare pays for the workers, it also pays for the food, heat and electricity associated with looking after your children for the day. If you take your child out of childcare, these costs come back to you.

While you won't have the same petrol costs, you also won't just sit at home watching TV all day. You will go out in the car. So there will be costs associated with going places to keep the kids busy, paying into places, buying ice creams and drinks to get them to shut up, etc.

I always find the lunch argument a bit weird. A packed lunch still isn't free. That food also costs you money, as well the resources to cook/make that lunch. In my experience, more time spent at home also results in more eating than being at work, so you will find yourself in the supermarket more often buying "bits" and in the long-run actually spending more on food than if you were at work.

Then you have the other costs, such as heating your home 24/7 during the winter, electricity costs during the day and in some cases your home insurance costs go up if you don't work.

While the basis behind your costings has some merit, it's far too simplistic and specific to be of any use.

thebigbiffo

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Biffo, at the start of the thread I simply said I wasn't getting what you were saying, asked you to explain it to me and you responded with attitude. I returned attitude.

look, after attempts at explaning my point to you, i'm finished.

seamus wrote: »

Your costings are a little bit fallacious unless you suggest having your entire family sleep for 18 hours a day.

While childcare pays for the workers, it also pays for the food, heat and electricity associated with looking after your children for the day. If you take your child out of childcare, these costs come back to you.

In my case, not really. and this is doubled edged: we have a childminder who gets 750 p/m for the kids PLUS FOOD (the remainder is my youngest who's in playschool, and your point applies there. Because we've been forced to try reduced costs we are unfortunately using said childminder - so she's paying no tax on our money, thus being part of the black market thus making the whole cycle worse still. Electricity etc is negligable.

seamus wrote: »

While you won't have the same petrol costs, you also won't just sit at home watching TV all day. You will go out in the car. So there will be costs associated with going places to keep the kids busy, paying into places, buying ice creams and drinks to get them to shut up, etc.

this certainly is not the case in most cases. yes, you'll still need to go out for shopping and the like but you have the OPTION of not. You do not have this option with work. Kids can be amused in their home or locale and a lesiure budget is tailored to suit.

seamus wrote: »

I always find the lunch argument a bit weird. A packed lunch still isn't free. That food also costs you money, as well the resources to cook/make that lunch. In my experience, more time spent at home also results in more eating than being at work, so you will find yourself in the supermarket more often buying "bits" and in the long-run actually spending more on food than if you were at work..

again, you've no choice but to eat something in work - or else be dead in your seat etc - whereas at home you budget for your needs etc. same same really.

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Then you have the other costs, such as heating your home 24/7 during the winter, electricity costs during the day and in some cases your home insurance costs go up if you don't work.

While the basis behind your costings has some merit, it's far too simplistic and specific to be of any use.

how can it be 'too simplistic to be of any use'? the main points you seem to have a problem with are the negligible one's!

i think the ESRI went into this in some detail and still came to the conclusion i did without my 'simplistic' numbers. that's the point here.

bbam

So how do we lower the cost of living? For the tens of thousands who have lost their jobs an are just managing to get bye on SW. I can appreciate it is seriously expensive to get back to work. Myself I noticed I had less money to spend after going back to work.
But we can't just slash the dole as the only answer as this will plunge about 20% of our population into poverty. Most of these are people who are on the dole through no fault of their own rather than it being a " lifestyle choice".

Just cutting welfare isn't right when the initial problem is that the cost of living hasn't declined significantly since the boom times. It's a catch 22 situation. It's not like there are 400,000 jobs there and people aren't bothering to apply for them.

How do we do this without creating huge poverty and the social problems that go with it.