ERSI: Cost of working 'too high'

thebigbiffo

bbam wrote: »

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.

the government do not do enough about the extortionate cost of childcare for one. it's a major hurdle for working parents.

smash

gurramok wrote: »

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)

There are still plenty of incentives to work, but people shouldn't accept a job that's not worth their while. I'll go back to my comment about companies using the recession to beat their staff.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

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

And not all priests are pedos either.

TheIrishGrover

Yeah, the dole is too high. Blah blah blah. I've been on the dole now for a year. I worked and paid taxes since I was 18. Before I was left go I was on a very good wage and paid more taxes than most. I needed to re-educate myself as my skillset is no longer needed here so I have to pay for my course out of my own pocket. I have no kids and live on my own with a large mortgage. Yeah, I'm living on easy street and am laughing at you suckers paying for me..... Oh wait, you're NOT. I'M paying for me! I paid my taxes for TWENTY YEARS!!!!!!!! My redundancy payment is paying my mortgage, I'm getting a token payment from the social and paying for my own education as I was not unemployed long enough when the course started.

So before another thread is started about "The Dole Is Too High" realise that not everyone on the dole has 14 kids and pulling in 40K a year. Not EVERYONE want's to stay on the dole. Do you have any idea how demoralising it is going in to collect your dole when all you want to do is work? When you see people throw their eyes up to heaven and tut-tuttung at people queueing for their social? It sickens me to see people abusing the system and the size of some of the payouts just as much as everyone else but not as much as it sickens me to see everyone on the dole getting tagged as layabouts who are too well off to work.

Paparazzo

Another thing people haven't factored in, if you have a baby and leave them in creche, you miss more than half of their waking life. There's a good chance a stranger will see their first steps or first words instead of you.
If you're on the dole you get to spend most of that time with your children.

OldNotWIse

Why dont they cut the welfare for those who have been on it since before the crash? That way, they are not targetting those who have lost their jobs because of the recession, they will only be hitting the ones who thought themselves to be "above" certain jobs.

Min

Self employed people who worked don't get the dole if they lose their job even though they paid their taxes.
There needs to be a sliding scale of payment over time, so it gives time for people to find work and the incentive for those on the dole and who don't want to work to either do something or get nothing.
The money saved from the sliding scale could be used to help the self employed while they seek work or prepare to start a new business.

There are people on the dole who want nothing but to work and can't find a job, then there are the opposites who are parasites in society, feeding off the people who work and those who want to work.
So I don't think one should get the dole forever, if people choose not to work then let them fund their lifestyle themselves, not the taxpayer and those who will take a job if the opportunity arrives.
We need to distinguish between those who won't work and refuse to work and those who will work and who do contibute by wanting to work.
We can't lump the good people on the dole with those who are just leeches and who offer society nothing.

bbam

thebigbiffo wrote: »

the government do not do enough about the extortionate cost of childcare for one. it's a major hurdle for working parents.

They provide a free preschool year as it is. How could this be improved on giving our finances. I ha thought of getting unemployed qualified people together under supervision to provide free child care in a community but would this not be unfair to those already in that business?

smash

bbam wrote: »

They provide a free preschool year as it is.

They do? Because I never heard of that... They had a benefit a few years ago that was a set payout every 3 months, which in total over the year didn't even cover the cost of 1 months' cresche fees. But that's well gone.

bbam

Min wrote: »

Self employed people who worked don't get the dole if they lose their job even though they paid their taxes.
There needs to be a sliding scale of payment over time, so it gives time for people to find work and the incentive for those on the dole and who don't want to work to either do something or get nothing.
The money saved from the sliding scale could be used to help the self employed while they seek work or prepare to start a new business.

There are people on the dole who want nothing but to work and can't find a job, then there are the opposites who are parasites in society, feeding off the people who work and those who want to work.
So I don't think one should get the dole forever, if people choose not to work then let them fund their lifestyle themselves, not the taxpayer and those who will take a job if the opportunity arrives.
We need to distinguish between those who won't work and refuse to work and those who will work and who do contibute by wanting to work.
We can't lump the good people on the dole with those who are just leeches and who offer society nothing.

None of this does anything to reduce the cost of living.
Or do we just accept that we have a horrifically expensive economy and get on with it. If it is so then I feel reducing the dole would be pointless as we would have an onslaught of poverty stricken families.

Or will it be done in the hope that emigration is the option of choice and off load as many as we can who are unemployed.

OldNotWIse

smash wrote: »

They do? Because I never heard of that... They had a benefit a few years ago that was a set payout every 3 months, which in total over the year didn't even cover the cost of 1 months' cresche fees. But that's well gone.

I was under the impression one year of pre-school was free aswell

bbam

I know my daughter is currently in the free pre school year, saving of about €50 a week for us.

steddyeddy

Cost of working too high? Surely thats the cost of living is too high. Irelands not a cheap country and many of the costs asociated with working here are what really makes work expensive. Many of the costs of working eg childcare, travel ect dont apply on the dole.

The amount of people queing for free meals in the capuchin day centre in Dublin has tripled. Another report said 1 in 5 children go to bed hungry. Most of these are people who are claiming the dole. Not everyone gets rent allowance or the other forms of welfare that are available. This view of people on the dole as being better off not working is a fallacy.

Min

bbam wrote: »

None of this does anything to reduce the cost of living.
Or do we just accept that we have a horrifically expensive economy and get on with it. If it is so then I feel reducing the dole would be pointless as we would have an onslaught of poverty stricken families.

Or will it be done in the hope that emigration is the option of choice and off load as many as we can who are unemployed.

It may not be popular but if every unemployed Irish person or foreigner stayed around here when they couldn't find work, we would be in a much worse state with even less money for things like the dole.
We need the emigration, and we need to re-educate properly those who have no work, if one refused to get re-educated then give him or her nothing, that money would be better spent on those who want to better themselves and in turn better the society they live in.

thebigbiffo

bbam wrote: »

They provide a free preschool year as it is. How could this be improved on giving our finances. I ha thought of getting unemployed qualified people together under supervision to provide free child care in a community but would this not be unfair to those already in that business?

yeah a years free pre-school. it's actually just 3 hours a day, and as someone above has pointed out, about about the equivilent of €50 per week.

in many countries there is community childcare which is goverment funded and i think that is the solution. yes, it does effect the business owner but to my mind not the actual workers who would be needed in any new system.

a huge portion of childcare costs these days are also only benefiting the black market,as is the case with me.

smash

thebigbiffo wrote: »

a huge portion of childcare costs these days are also only benefiting the black market,as is the case with me.

That's very racist

seamus

thebigbiffo wrote: »

Electricity etc is negligable.

Electricity is only negligible when you're talking about a day here and there. Over a year, the cost of running your lighting, TVs, set-top boxes, stereos, Playstations, heating, cookers, etc all adds up. It's only a small part of the childcare cost, but it is still a cost which comes back to you.

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.

What you're talking about here are children younger than 4 years of age.
I'm sure there are plenty of things that you can do with a toddler in the house that cost nothing, but the parent has to think of their own mental health too. Yes, leaving the house is an option, I accept that, but at the same time you will still leave the house and take the car. I'm not saying that scrapping the childcare is more expensive, I'm simply saying that it's not an instant saving of €1,100 (in your case). There will still be costs naturally associated with minding the kids at home, which you don't incur if you have them in a childminder's.

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.

Of all things actually you can choose not to eat in work. You can't choose not to eat at home.
And since you're at home and pottering about, you can dip your hand into the biscuit tin, have your fiftieth cup of tea, have an extra slice of bread with lunch, etc etc. In work your food budget is largely fixed, especially if you bring a packed lunch.
So IMO, this is the one area where staying at home may actually cost more than going to work.

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!

It's "simplistic" because as I point out, you're simply crossing out the cost of going to work, but not factoring in the cost of staying at home. Staying at home costs money.
It's also too specific because, for example, not everyone has €1,100 in childminding costs, or €400 in petrol costs.

I, for example, pay around €200/year (€17/month) to commute and when I have a child, childcare costs will work out around €400/month. So by your calculations I would only have to earn around €13k/year net to be "better" off than on the dole. But then my situation isn't typical either. That's what I mean about the individual situation not being any good as a metric.

Monty Burnz

steddyeddy wrote: »

The amount of people queing for free meals in the capuchin day centre in Dublin has tripled. Another report said 1 in 5 children go to bed hungry.

May I suggest that some people are not spending their money on the things they should? Cigarettes, drugs, drink - these things should be bought after you feed your kids.

steddyeddy wrote: »

Most of these are people who are claiming the dole. Not everyone gets rent allowance or the other forms of welfare that are available. This view of people on the dole as being better off not working is a fallacy.

The view isn't that people on the dole are better off in general - the view (and the research demonstrates) that some people are better off on the dole.

thebigbiffo

seamus wrote: »

...........QUOTE]

look i see your point, but the fact is that in many cases the costs associated with working are a disincentive to taking employment - dont take my word for it, take the ESRI's!

What would you do to re-balance this problem - overall?

seamus

thebigbiffo wrote: »

What would you do to re-balance this problem - overall?

I've yet to read the paper, but on the face of it, the most obvious ways to address the imbalance are to provide employer and employee tax incentives for more sustainable commuting for employees (i.e. anything but driving), moving child benefit to a tax credit system rather than a blind handout, and provide employer incentives for telecommuting on a full or part time basis. And perhaps a tax credit rebate system for childcare costs.

Assuming that the two biggest issues are the cost of childcare and the cost of fuel, then we need to stop people driving to work and either let them spend more time at home or reduce the cost of childcare for working people.

And of course reduce social welfare overall.

thebigbiffo

seamus wrote: »

I've yet to read the paper, but on the face of it, the most obvious ways to address the imbalance are to provide employer and employee tax incentives for more sustainable commuting for employees (i.e. anything but driving), moving child benefit to a tax credit system rather than a blind handout, and provide employer incentives for telecommuting on a full or part time basis. And perhaps a tax credit rebate system for childcare costs.

Assuming that the two biggest issues are the cost of childcare and the cost of fuel, then we need to stop people driving to work and either let them spend more time at home or reduce the cost of childcare for working people.

And of course reduce social welfare overall.

my thinking exactly! *tips hat

christmas2012

44 % of couples with children would be better off on the dole,(the esri stated,thats still less than 50 %)it was reported,i dont belive that we all would be better off on the dole,at least they can afford to have insurance,proper medical insurance,road tax,ncts,car insurance,etc..

those on the dole cannot afford thats why the need the welfare,they have no other source of income..

what are the esri trying to suggest to cut the dole while people on the dole are struggling as it is?

cut the dole,and what they become homeless?

Monty Burnz

christmas2012 wrote: »

44 % of couples with children would be better off on the dole,(the esri stated,thats still less than 50 %)it was reported,i dont belive that we all would be better off on the dole,at least they can afford to have insurance,proper medical insurance,road tax,ncts,car insurance,etc..

those on the dole cannot afford thats why the need the welfare,they have no other source of income..

what are the esri trying to suggest to cut the dole while people on the dole are struggling as it is?

cut the dole,and what they become homeless?

Restructure the dole so that nobody on the dole earns more than an equivalent person who goes to the trouble of going to work and paying taxes that pay the other guy's dole.

CruelCoin

Thats not really what it suggests.

Its more a case of the dole being overly lavish, and the quite rightly wrong scenario where those working 40 hours a week are not much better off than those at home doing nothing.

The dole should be brought back to basics. i.e: roof, food, clothes; all at a basic level. i.e: spuds with butter, a 1 bed apartment for 10 people and sack-cloth clothes.
Why i should have to have my hard earned money support those who earned nothing is beyond me.

christmas2012

thats bull**** those on the dole can barely afford their rent as it is,and can barely afford the food shopping for the week along with gas and electric and all the charges for household..

SEPT 23 1989

I expect savage cuts to social welfare now that this state sponsored report has come out

smash

christmas2012 wrote: »

thats bull**** those on the dole can barely afford their rent as it is,and can barely afford the food shopping for the week along with gas and electric and all the charges for household..

Yea but you see, a high percentage of those who are working can barely afford food, childcare, bills and mortgage repayments either. So out of the 2, who do you think has it handier?

Monty Burnz

christmas2012 wrote: »

thats bull**** those on the dole can barely afford their rent as it is,and can barely afford the food shopping for the week along with gas and electric and all the charges for household..

Cut their income and their rents will fall too. Simple economics.

christmas2012

They cant just cut dole like that,people have to be able to afford to live.


'' Cut their income and their rents will fall too. Simple economics. ''


not neccesarily so , the renters can keep their prices up and simply evict you ,then your simply homeless..

and,burton already cut the dole..

Bell Butter

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

I expect savage cuts to social welfare now that this state sponsored report has come out

Well if the government don't cut it, the Germans will demand it.

christmas2012

Ze germans can demand cuts from elsewhere im sure they will find handsome cuts if they cut those who are living at yours and my expense,who are still living the life of reilly even after the celtic tiger bust..

smash

christmas2012 wrote: »

Ze germans can demand cuts from elsewhere im sure they will find handsome cuts if they cut those who are living at yours and my expense,who are still living the life of reilly even after the celtic tiger bust..

If elsewhere than social welfare, who exactly can be cut that is living the good life off the money of the taxpayer?

Bell Butter

smash wrote: »

If elsewhere than social welfare, who exactly can be cut that is living the good life off the money of the taxpayer?

No where else, we took in €34bn in revenue and spent 20bn on social welfare.

christmas2012

all the bankers that got us into this mess that are still on pretty much the same salaries for one..

There are still a few politicians out there living on good wage,that need to be cut,any politician that is earning over 50 k needs to be cut..

Monty Burnz

christmas2012 wrote: »

They cant just cut dole like that,people have to be able to afford to live.


'' Cut their income and their rents will fall too. Simple economics. ''


not neccesarily so , the renters can keep their prices up and simply evict you ,then your simply homeless..

and,burton already cut the dole..

...and they have an empty house making no money at all?

yosemite_sam

Good, it cannot come fast enough. Where I am living a large percentage of claimants drive very good cars and enjoy an excellent standard of living. There is zero incentive to work for a lot of people

Monty Burnz

christmas2012 wrote: »

all the bankers that got us into this mess that are still on pretty much the same salaries for one..

There are still a few politicians out there living on good wage,that need to be cut,any politician that is earning over 50 k needs to be cut..

Right, that step will save us about €20 million. Only about €9,980 million left to find.

christmas2012

Before people start going and jumping on the cut the dole /slash the dole bandwagon,just think one day YOU could be stuck on the dole,and how would you react to that?

Lets be realistic those who are on the dole,do not have a second source of income,they dont have any funds available to them other than what they get off of welfare,if you cut that and they cannot afford their rent for that week they become homeless as a result..

I know if that happened to me i would sue the state..

hondasam

christmas2012 wrote: »

Before people start going and jumping on the cut the dole /slash the dole bandwagon,just think one day YOU could be stuck on the dole,and how would you react to that?

Lets be realistic those who are on the dole,do not have a second source of income,they dont have any funds available to them other than what they get off of welfare,if you cut that and they cannot afford their rent for that week they become homeless as a result..

I know if that happened to me i would sue the state..

People who are working might not have funds either except their wages on Friday, who will they sue when they can't pay rent or mortgage?

smash

christmas2012 wrote: »

all the bankers that got us into this mess that are still on pretty much the same salaries for one..

Firstly, they're not. Secondly, they're private organisations not paid for by the taxpayer. The bailout was, their salaries are not.

christmas2012 wrote: »

There are still a few politicians out there living on good wage,that need to be cut,any politician that is earning over 50 k needs to be cut..

Come back to reality will you.

Monty Burnz

christmas2012 wrote: »

Before people start going and jumping on the cut the dole /slash the dole bandwagon,just think one day YOU could be stuck on the dole,and how would you react to that?

I have been on the dole. I was delighted to be getting money for no work.

yore

christmas2012 wrote: »

Before people start going and jumping on the cut the dole /slash the dole bandwagon,just think one day YOU could be stuck on the dole,and how would you react to that?

Lets be realistic those who are on the dole,do not have a second source of income,they dont have any funds available to them other than what they get off of welfare,if you cut that and they cannot afford their rent for that week they become homeless as a result..

I know if that happened to me i would sue the state..

Hey Christmas, looks like the dole turns out to be a major job-blocker after all.....

christmas2012

What im saying is that the reason i would have become homeless is because joan burton the dopey so and so,had cut my dole,there fore cannot pay the landlord his usual fee..i would say that the fact i had my dole cut by a govt official i would say that would have been the root cause of my homelessness..

christmas2012

the dole isnt a job blocker yore it is a life saver for many and it shouldnt be cut any further than it already has been..

a job blocker as i previously explanied is job bridge because it occupies what could have been a) paid jobs advertised and b) if tesco turns around and uses jobbridge as opposed to hire paid workers,what the hell do you call that?

anyway,i refuse to discuss this with you on this thread,as i dont believe it to be the appropriate thread..

Monty Burnz

christmas2012 wrote: »

What im saying is that the reason i would have become homeless is because joan burton the dopey so and so,had cut my dole,there fore cannot pay the landlord his usual fee..i would say that the fact i had my dole cut by a govt official i would say that would have been the root cause of my homelessness..

The sense of entitlement in this country is astonishing.

yore

christmas2012 wrote: »

They cant just cut dole like that,people have to be able to afford to live under the same standards that they have become accustomed to

FYP as they say

yore

christmas2012 wrote: »

the dole isnt a job blocker yore it is a life saver for many and it shouldnt be cut any further than it already has been..

Ah, I'll admit I was only taking the pi$$ out of you because you loved that phrase in the other thread. But we'll leave that thread to lie.
Sorry for taking the pi$$ out of you, feel free to sue me when you are finished suing the government for whatever :-P

hondasam

christmas2012 wrote: »

the dole isnt a job blocker yore it is a life saver for many and it shouldnt be cut any further than it already has been..

But it's ok to keep cutting workers pay and taking more taxes from us.

yore

hondasam wrote: »

But it's ok to keep cutting workers pay and taking more taxes from us.

Apparently so. If you have a job and are working hard and paying your taxes then you are entitled to starve. If you are sitting on your hole and sponging, you deserve, and are entitled to, a higher minimum standard of living. (according to some here at least)

christmas2012

they dont just tax for dole they tax for other things aswell the dole is not the sole beneficiary of taxes as we all know theres,government quangos,governement officials there are government members all taking their cut..

christmas2012

When did i ever say those that are working are entitled to starve?Its their own fault if the borrowed from boom to bust over the fake boom celtic tiger years..