IMF: social welfare benefits 'too high'

Heads the ball

molloyjh wrote: »

Or we could not scape-goat any particular groups and look at what is rational and reasonable. I was okay to take the cuts I've taken (increased taxes, USC, Pensions levy and pay cut). But now I know that Social Welfare payment can be cut, and our SW bill drastically reduced, I'm not willing to take on more cuts to continue to simultaneously fund and protect people who are getting more than they absolutely need. I've taken cuts, and will need to again, but to screw me for everything you can before looking to someone else is completely unfair on me. And it victimises me as a worker.

I respect workers (Im a long suffering one myself!) and I find that any of us have had to take cuts is sickening against the background of "its ok to give billions upon billions to banks, bondholders and the EFSF and ESM"

Can I just say, I am not scapegoating anyone and before we come to you (assuming you are middle class) I think we need to demand a madatory dividend from the banks, cut some other government departments, and then make cutbacks on the various classes in society in descending order.

But just to be clear, my purpose of posting here is not to place any blame on ANY section of society (other than my ECB rant). But I would point out again that the unemployed are the most remote from the banking/mortgage crises.

djpbarry

Heads the ball wrote: »

Certainly. However:
(i) Savings usually come from income (so if the income in inadequate, so too will the savings),
(ii) By definition vulnerable people may not have as much savings as more financially secure people,
(iii) Also long term unemployed people may not have savings.

You’re trying to use exceptions to disprove the rule.

Heads the ball wrote: »

But what I do have issue with is your methodology. You have a theory that it covers the basics, so if people struggle with it then they are doing something wrong (like over eating or whatever) but the normal methodology for evaluation theories is to see IF the evidence supports the theory.

I produced figures above (as has molloyjh) as evidence to support my theory. Figures which you have conveniently overlooked, I might add.

Heads the ball wrote: »

But certainly before we come to take a cut from you, we should cut the super rich, then the rich, then the middle class.

So basically, tax the bejesus out of everyone with an above average income, such that everyone ends up on the same take home pay?

Heads the ball wrote: »

Again my basis for this statement is that we were forced to bail out the Irish banks by the ECB.

That is incorrect. The decision to bail out the banks was made unilaterally.

Heads the ball wrote: »

The actual guarantee and bailout is really what pushed us out of the market, nothwithstanding that yes it was caused by 1 above.

I would say that the massive general government deficit was a pretty significant factor.

Heads the ball wrote: »

Yes sir. I agree. But what the ECB DID pursue policies of exceptionally low cost credit and they fulled the money supply.

That’s like blaming McDonalds for obesity.

Heads the ball wrote: »

But do you not see that we are now trying to blame social welfare recipients...

No we’re not? Well, I’m not anyway. I’m blaming FF.

Heads the ball wrote: »

...and as I have said in another thread they are almost the most blame-less section of society in that they never took out mortgages and are so distant to the issues which occurred.

Eh, mortgage interest supplement is a form of welfare.

Heads the ball

djpbarry wrote: »

You’re trying to use exceptions to disprove the rule.

Nope. Just pointing out the obvious flaws in your answer that welfare recipients can cover emergencies through savings when they probably dont have savings.

djpbarry wrote: »

So basically, tax the bejesus out of everyone with an above average income, such that everyone ends up on the same take home pay?

No, I never said that and you know I didnt. Tax them equitably.

djpbarry wrote: »

I would say that the massive general government deficit was a pretty significant factor.

What pushed us out of the market was the fact that the soverign was saddled with the bank debt. Now that is certainly a fact that im afraid you will have to concede.

djpbarry

Heads the ball wrote: »

Just pointing out the obvious flaws in your answer that welfare recipients can cover emergencies through savings when they probably dont have savings.

When someone loses their job their savings mysteriously vanish?

Heads the ball wrote: »

No, I never said that and you know I didnt. Tax them equitably.

Taxing top earners as much as possible before moving down the earners list is anything but equitable.

Heads the ball wrote: »

What pushed us out of the market was the fact that the soverign was saddled with the bank debt. Now that is certainly a fact that im afraid you will have to concede.

So how is it that Ireland has re-entered the bond markets? The bank debts have not been repaid? In fact, the national debt is still growing.

Heads the ball

djpbarry wrote: »

When someone loses their job their savings mysteriously vanish?

Not overnight no. But what about people who are long term unemployed or the young unemployed. These people are less likely to have the savings needed to cover the emergencies. Or what about people who have been in relatively low-paid/unskilled work - they are unlikely to have a warchest of savings.

Again I think this is arguing for the sake of it (and perhaps I am guilty of that too) but to say that everyone on the dole should be able to cover all emergencies from savings is, in my opinion, crass.

djpbarry wrote: »

Taxing top earners as much as possible before moving down the earners list is anything but equitable.

No its not. Because it raises proportionately more revenue to human misery, compared to doing so on the lower classes.

djpbarry wrote: »

So how is it that Ireland has re-entered the bond markets? The bank debts have not been repaid? In fact, the national debt is still growing.

I think we are going around in circles here. You said it was our deficit that pushed us into the program. So if the deficit is still growing then and we have returned to the bond markets then that (if anything) is support for the proposition that it was NOT the deficit that pushed us out of the market. Like I said this one is getting a bit circular and tbh I actually forget the point i was making here so, Im fine with dropping it.

Scofflaw

Heads the ball wrote: »

Sorry I will accept this is off topic a little - I hope you can see from the earlier posts where I was going with this - that overallthe whole IMF thing (sorry if that sounds a little like Fr Ted) is a little unpalatable.

Again my basis for this statement is that we were forced to bail out the Irish banks by the ECB. And my source for that is statements by Coveney and indeed Dan Boyles book.

Which carry no more weight than any other person's opinion, I'm afraid, partly because neither did anything more than repeat the same pub talk. Dan Boyle, at least, is trying to make himself electable again by trying the Fianna Fáil tactic of blaming the EU for their decision in 2008. Coveney, on the other hand, was referring to 2010.

If the ECB had ordered Ireland to save their banks in 2008, there would be written evidence, and there isn't - which is what makes the claim pub talk, because first it's necessary to believe that a sovereign country can be ordered to do something against its wishes by an international institution without creating any paper trail.

Heads the ball wrote: »

Certainly you can make the argument that WHAT CAUSED the need for the bailout was the actions between 1997 onwards in terms of reckless lending.

Well, recklessly weak regulation that allowed the banks to pile up risk.

Heads the ball wrote: »

I would say the following to that argument:

1: Yes that is true, but again, that is primarily the fault of the banks and the ECB. The banks are responsible for managing their risks and any bankruptcy of them

I'm not sure how that's the fault of the ECB - the Irish banks were regulated by the Irish Financial Regulator, whose job it was to ensure they weren't building up unacceptable risks, and who unfortunately left it to the banks to tell him whether they were. Naturally, they thought everything was just fine until everything exploded - an entirely predictable outcome, and the reason for having a regulator in the first place.

Heads the ball wrote: »

2: The actual guarantee and bailout is really what pushed us out of the market, nothwithstanding that yes it was caused by 1 above.

Er, no. The guarantee certainly played its part, because the Irish State guaranteed a banking sector several times the size of the Irish economy - but the guarantee was a unilateral Irish action based on inadequate appreciation of the risks in our banking sector, which in turn was the result of the inadequate Irish regulation of our banking sector. The guarantee was undertaken without consultation with the EU, something that's clear from all the documentary evidence surrounding it.

So, while you're free to believe it, your belief rests on no actual evidence, and flies in the face of a lot of evidence to the contrary. Such claims didn't even surface until 2010, when it became clear that the guarantee had played a part in bringing us into the arms of the IMF - as far as I can see, they're part of an attempted revision of recent history by Fianna Fáil.

cordially,
Scofflaw

BKtje

Debt is not the same thing as the deficit. The deficit is falling and has been for a few years now due to increased taxes and savings. The debt is still rising however as there is still a deficit.

The fact that the deficit is falling along with possible favourable events elsewhere has allowed Ireland to tentatively re-enter the bond markets.

djpbarry

Heads the ball wrote: »

...to say that everyone on the dole should be able to cover all emergencies from savings is, in my opinion, crass.

I’m not referring to everyone, I’m referring to the majority. And once again, you are forgetting that anyone in genuine need of assistance above the basic rate can apply for further benefits.

The problem here is that you are equating “in receipt of welfare” with “poor and vulnerable”, which is altogether far too simplistic an assumption.

Heads the ball wrote: »

No its not. Because it raises proportionately more revenue to human misery...

Surely sharing the burden evenly would cause the least hardship? And I’m sure you’re aware that higher earners in Ireland already pay a disproportionately large amount of tax, whereas low earners pay virtually none?

Heads the ball wrote: »

...compared to doing so on the lower classes.

Referring to welfare recipients as “lower class” is a touch insulting, don’t you think? Never mind extremely simplistic (once again).

Heads the ball wrote: »

I think we are going around in circles here. You said it was our deficit that pushed us into the program.

I said it was a major factor.

Heads the ball wrote: »

So if the deficit is still growing...

The deficit is not still growing – quite the opposite. The national debt is growing.

Heads the ball

Scofflaw wrote: »

Which carry no more weight than any other person's opinion, I'm afraid, partly because neither did anything more than repeat the same pub talk. Dan Boyle, at least, is trying to make himself electable again by trying the Fianna Fáil tactic of blaming the EU for their decision in 2008. Coveney, on the other hand, was referring to 2010.

If the ECB had ordered Ireland to save their banks in 2008, there would be written evidence, and there isn't - which is what makes the claim pub talk, because first it's necessary to believe that a sovereign country can be ordered to do something against its wishes by an international institution without creating any paper trail.



Well, recklessly weak regulation that allowed the banks to pile up risk.



I'm not sure how that's the fault of the ECB - the Irish banks were regulated by the Irish Financial Regulator, whose job it was to ensure they weren't building up unacceptable risks, and who unfortunately left it to the banks to tell him whether they were. Naturally, they thought everything was just fine until everything exploded - an entirely predictable outcome, and the reason for having a regulator in the first place.



Er, no. The guarantee certainly played its part, because the Irish State guaranteed a banking sector several times the size of the Irish economy - but the guarantee was a unilateral Irish action based on inadequate appreciation of the risks in our banking sector, which in turn was the result of the inadequate Irish regulation of our banking sector. The guarantee was undertaken without consultation with the EU, something that's clear from all the documentary evidence surrounding it.

So, while you're free to believe it, your belief rests on no actual evidence, and flies in the face of a lot of evidence to the contrary. Such claims didn't even surface until 2010, when it became clear that the guarantee had played a part in bringing us into the arms of the IMF - as far as I can see, they're part of an attempted revision of recent history by Fianna Fáil.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Look. The most I am willing to give you is:

There is no documentation surrounding the bailout and as a result I can accept that you would take the view that it was an above-board, cabinet decision made without duress and interference.

HOWEVER as a result of their being good evidence from TDs that we were forced into it and coupled with the fact that I dont believe any party in their right mind would have issued a blanket guarantee and coupled with the fact that there absolutely was no documentation (which makes me more worried about the bona fides of the transaction, not less worried!) I take the view that it was an ECB hatchett job.

Now I know you dismiss Dan Boyle and Coveney and thats fine that you dont want to rely on them. But to dismiss my opinion as "pub talk" just because you believe the opposite to be true is a bit silly in my opinion.

I think you are trying to kind of use the "innocent until proven guilty" approach here in that as there was no documentation that it was a dodgey deal, then it must have been all above board in your opinion and anything to the contrary is pub talk because it isnt backed up by evidence. I think thats a little naive personally. And I think if people pulled that card on these forums when debating anything which is questionable, then a lot of conversations would never get off the ground.

The way to seal the argument is: I am pointing to the evidence of TDs and that is much more weighty than your opinion which involves no more than pointing to the fact that no one chose to actually document what would have been a dodgey deal.

So on that basis I would say my opinion is further from pub talk than your see-no-evil opinion.

Heads the ball

djpbarry wrote: »

I’m not referring to everyone, I’m referring to the majority. And once again, you are forgetting that anyone in genuine need of assistance above the basic rate can apply for further benefits.

1: I dont know how you arrive at the "majority"?
2: I would accept that SOME probably could meet emergencies through savings, but I dont know that its the majority.
3: Lets stick with "vanilla welfare recipients" now please. How are they supposed to fund emergencies if they dont have savings?

djpbarry wrote: »

The problem here is that you are equating “in receipt of welfare” with “poor and vulnerable”, which is altogether far too simplistic an assumption.

Not at all. I would say that this bracket of society has a higher % of poor and vulnerable. And thats true.

djpbarry wrote: »

Surely sharing the burden evenly would cause the least hardship? And I’m sure you’re aware that higher earners in Ireland already pay a disproportionately large amount of tax, whereas low earners pay virtually none?

Disproportionate relative to what?

Sharing the burden absolutely would be fair. I just think I could stomach a proposal to reduce welfare after we have done everything we can elsewhere.

djpbarry wrote: »

Referring to welfare recipients as “lower class” is a touch insulting, don’t you think? Never mind extremely simplistic (once again).

Yes it is. Im happy to retract that and refer to them as the "welfare-recieving classes."

Head The Wall

Ah yes, politicians. The bastions of truth and honesty. I would definitely trust them before everyone else

Heads the ball

Head The Wall wrote: »

Ah yes, politicians. The bastions of truth and honesty. I would definitely trust them before everyone else

and the evidence you are producing is...?

K-9

Heads the ball wrote: »

Look. The most I am willing to give you is:

There is no documentation surrounding the bailout and as a result I can accept that you would take the view that it was an above-board, cabinet decision made without duress and interference.

HOWEVER as a result of their being good evidence from TDs that we were forced into it and coupled with the fact that I dont believe any party in their right mind would have issued a blanket guarantee and coupled with the fact that there absolutely was no documentation (which makes me more worried about the bona fides of the transaction, not less worried!) I take the view that it was an ECB hatchett job.

Now I know you dismiss Dan Boyle and Coveney and thats fine that you dont want to rely on them. But to dismiss my opinion as "pub talk" just because you believe the opposite to be true is a bit silly in my opinion.

I think you are trying to kind of use the "innocent until proven guilty" approach here in that as there was no documentation that it was a dodgey deal, then it must have been all above board in your opinion and anything to the contrary is pub talk because it isnt backed up by evidence. I think thats a little naive personally. And I think if people pulled that card on these forums when debating anything which is questionable, then a lot of conversations would never get off the ground.

The way to seal the argument is: I am pointing to the evidence of TDs and that is much more weighty than your opinion which involves no more than pointing to the fact that no one chose to actually document what would have been a dodgey deal.

So on that basis I would say my opinion is further from pub talk than your see-no-evil opinion.

We do have David McWilliams book where Lenihan visited him and McWilliams put forward his guarantee idea. We don't have any evidence from Brussels naturally because they weren't involved, indeed the Brussels was apparently very peed off at the unilateral guarantee when they wanted a co-ordinated approach.

There is a big concern over the lack of paperwork in Dublin, not in Brussels! You've somehow deduced from that, that the EU was involved. To carry on your logic, I think the US was involved too, sure they've no paperwork either.

Heads the ball

K-9 wrote: »

Heads the ball wrote: »

Look. The most I am willing to give you is:

There is no documentation surrounding the bailout and as a result I can accept that you would take the view that it was an above-board, cabinet decision made without duress and interference.

HOWEVER as a result of their being good evidence from TDs that we were forced into it and coupled with the fact that I dont believe any party in their right mind would have issued a blanket guarantee and coupled with the fact that there absolutely was no documentation (which makes me more worried about the bona fides of the transaction, not less worried!) I take the view that it was an ECB hatchett job.

Now I know you dismiss Dan Boyle and Coveney and thats fine that you dont want to rely on them. But to dismiss my opinion as "pub talk" just because you believe the opposite to be true is a bit silly in my opinion.

I think you are trying to kind of use the "innocent until proven guilty" approach here in that as there was no documentation that it was a dodgey deal, then it must have been all above board in your opinion and anything to the contrary is pub talk because it isnt backed up by evidence. I think thats a little naive personally. And I think if people pulled that card on these forums when debating anything which is questionable, then a lot of conversations would never get off the ground.

The way to seal the argument is: I am pointing to the evidence of TDs and that is much more weighty than your opinion which involves no more than pointing to the fact that no one chose to actually document what would have been a dodgey deal.

So on that basis I would say my opinion is further from pub talk than your see-no-evil opinion.

We do have David McWilliams book where Lenihan visited him and McWilliams put forward his guarantee idea. We don't have any evidence from Brussels naturally because they weren't involved, indeed the Brussels was apparently very peed off at the unilateral guarantee when they wanted a co-ordinated approach.

There is a big concern over the lack of paperwork in Dublin, not in Brussels! You've somehow deduced from that, that the EU was involved. To carry on your logic, I think the US was involved too, sure they've no paperwork either.

No sir. I havent deduced anything. I have taken boyle and coveney at their word.

In my opinion the only significance of the lack of paperwork is, it can hardly be held out as evidence that the transaction was unilateral. In fact, if the paperwork is significant it can only support the ssertion that the deal was shady.


It certainly cannot be brushed of
As pub talk

Head The Wall

Heads the ball wrote: »

and the evidence you are producing is...?

Well to get the ball rolling e have election manifestos, tribunals, soft landing and on and on. Now where's your proof that the ECB forced the Irish govt into the guarantee?

Heads the ball

Heads the ball wrote: »

K-9 wrote: »

Heads the ball wrote: »

Look. The most I am willing to give you is:

There is no documentation surrounding the bailout and as a result I can accept that you would take the view that it was an above-board, cabinet decision made without duress and interference.

HOWEVER as a result of their being good evidence from TDs that we were forced into it and coupled with the fact that I dont believe any party in their right mind would have issued a blanket guarantee and coupled with the fact that there absolutely was no documentation (which makes me more worried about the bona fides of the transaction, not less worried!) I take the view that it was an ECB hatchett job.

Now I know you dismiss Dan Boyle and Coveney and thats fine that you dont want to rely on them. But to dismiss my opinion as "pub talk" just because you believe the opposite to be true is a bit silly in my opinion.

I think you are trying to kind of use the "innocent until proven guilty" approach here in that as there was no documentation that it was a dodgey deal, then it must have been all above board in your opinion and anything to the contrary is pub talk because it isnt backed up by evidence. I think thats a little naive personally. And I think if people pulled that card on these forums when debating anything which is questionable, then a lot of conversations would never get off the ground.

The way to seal the argument is: I am pointing to the evidence of TDs and that is much more weighty than your opinion which involves no more than pointing to the fact that no one chose to actually document what would have been a dodgey deal.

So on that basis I would say my opinion is further from pub talk than your see-no-evil opinion.

We do have David McWilliams book where Lenihan visited him and McWilliams put forward his guarantee idea. We don't have any evidence from Brussels naturally because they weren't involved, indeed the Brussels was apparently very peed off at the unilateral guarantee when they wanted a co-ordinated approach.

There is a big concern over the lack of paperwork in Dublin, not in Brussels! You've somehow deduced from that, that the EU was involved. To carry on your logic, I think the US was involved too, sure they've no paperwork either.

No sir. I havent deduced anything. I have taken boyle and coveney at their word.

In my opinion the only significance of the lack of paperwork is, it can hardly be held out as evidence that the transaction was unilateral. In fact, if the paperwork is significant it can only support the ssertion that the deal was shady.


It certainly cannot be brushed of
As pub talk

Dont you see why your US analogy is crazy?

K-9

Heads the ball wrote: »

Dont you see why your US analogy is crazy?

Unlikely but their banks and investment funds had a lot to lose, big players. They've no paper trail so it is indeed possible!

We know paperwork is missing or wasn't recorded in Dublin, you are saying this conspiracy extended to Brussels based on a Senator who wasn't party to the events and an opposition TD.

Heads the ball

K-9 wrote: »

Heads the ball wrote: »

Dont you see why your US analogy is crazy?

Unlikely but their banks and investment funds had a lot to lose, big players. They've no paper trail so it is indeed possible!

We know paperwork is missing or wasn't recorded in Dublin, you are saying this conspiracy extended to Brussels based on a Senator who wasn't party to the events and an opposition TD.

The ecb had motive means and oppurtunity. The US had none of the above.

Sorry i am fine if you dont believe those sources but they carry more weight with me than scoffslaws OPINIONS which are themselves nothinh better than pub chat

Scofflaw

Heads the ball wrote: »

The ecb had motive means and oppurtunity. The US had none of the above.

Sorry i am fine if you dont believe those sources but they carry more weight with me than scoffslaws OPINIONS which are themselves nothinh better than pub chat

Not quite, but chapter and verse of the available evidence is well off topic. Frankly, it's sufficient to reiterate the point that your claim has no evidence to back it at all, which is frankly bizarre for a event that supposedly resulted in a country taking on half a trillion in bank debt on the orders of an international body. The belief that such things happen without any paper trail belongs more in the CT forum, to be honest.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Heads the ball

Scofflaw wrote: »

Heads the ball wrote: »

The ecb had motive means and oppurtunity. The US had none of the above.

Sorry i am fine if you dont believe those sources but they carry more weight with me than scoffslaws OPINIONS which are themselves nothinh better than pub chat

Not quite, but chapter and verse of the available evidence is well off topic. Frankly, it's sufficient to reiterate the point that your claim has no evidence to back it at all, which is frankly bizarre for a event that supposedly resulted in a country taking on half a trillion in bank debt on the orders of an international body. The belief that such things happen without any paper trail belongs more in the CT forum, to be honest.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Amazing.

Theres no evidence to back up my claim.. Other than TDs statements... Oh but i forgot you dont believe them sp it can be dismissed as pub talk. Wow.

About the paper trail. Ever heard of a telephone?

djpbarry

Heads the ball wrote: »

I would accept that SOME probably could meet emergencies through savings...

So you must accept that some welfare recipients could get by with lower payments.

Heads the ball wrote: »

Yes it is. Im happy to retract that and refer to them as the "welfare-recieving classes."

I was unaware that welfare recipients belong to a particular class?

You’re aware that about half the population are in receipt of some form of social welfare payment, yes?

Scofflaw

Heads the ball wrote: »

Amazing.

Theres no evidence to back up my claim.. Other than TDs statements... Oh but i forgot you dont believe them sp it can be dismissed as pub talk. Wow.

Sure, because one of them is repeating pub talk, while the other is talking about something else. Also, to be frank, you wouldn't take either of them at their word usually, I think.

Heads the ball wrote: »

About the paper trail. Ever heard of a telephone?

Um, yes. It's not very useful except for initial discussions, because there's no sign-off, hence verbal contracts being meaningless legally - that's why there's lots of paper generated when these things happen, so that everyone can point to what has been required of them and show the authority it's been required under. And there is lots of paper from the guarantee decision, none of which is ECB paper: http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?fn=/documents/Committees30thDail/PAC/Reports/document1.htm

You won't get a fiver out of the Irish government without a signature, but you nevertheless believe that half a trillion was guaranteed on the basis of an answerphone message (that being all the ECB contact Lenihan claimed), without anyone even checking back to see what was actually intended or whether the message was genuine. It's conspiracy theory stuff.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Geuze

I actually think Unemployment Insurance (UI) payments are too low.

In the USA they vary by state, but can be up to 450 USD per week.

In Germany about 60-67% of your former wages.

In Sweden, 80% of former pay.

Here, it's 188 pw flat-rate.

I think the problem is with the duration, not the level.

In most countries, it drops or stops altogether after 6 or 12 or 24 months, and people move onto no payment (USA) or a subsistence payment.

Geuze

One suggestion is to copy the USA and extend the duration of UI during a recession.

USA normal UI = 26 weeks, but extended now to 99 weeks.

Search for "99ers" on www.google.com, you will read about people coming up to the 99th week of UI payments.

Example:

JSB for 12 months normally
18 months if UNR > 8%
24 months if UNR > 10%

Payment level

The US pay 50% of former wages, subject to ceilings.

I suggest:

50% of former pay (wage ceiling = 700pw) for 6 months, max = 350pw
40% of former wage for next 6 months, max = 280pw
Then maybe another cut for next 12 months.

Geuze

With two years JSB, I would then abolish JSA.

It would be replaced with optional / voluntary jobs, i.e. the State would organise for everybody over 2 years unemployed to be offered work.

Call it workfare if you like.

Payment = 250 pw, 50 per day.

If people refuse, then move onto SWA at 125 pw.

Farmer Pudsey

Geuze wrote: »

With two years JSB, I would then abolish JSA.

It would be replaced with optional / voluntary jobs, i.e. the State would organise for everybody over 2 years unemployed to be offered work.

Call it workfare if you like.

Payment = 250 pw, 50 per day.

If people refuse, then move onto SWA at 125 pw.

This would cost extra so government cannot fund as troika would not agree. Also it wold cost satate more to employ people in made up jobs.

How about if you are unemployed longer that 12 months you have to work 7 days a fortnight over 50 euros/day for local council, community, tidy towns etc and they pay the surplas to employ you.

Sand

How about if you are unemployed longer that 12 months you have to work 7 days a fortnight over 50 euros/day for local council, community, tidy towns etc and they pay the surplas to employ you.

And the local council would sack the workers who usually do those jobs.

Any of these "make-work" schemes which require some sort of work in exchange for the dole are essentially driving people out of jobs which - if worth doing -would otherwise be done by workers hired like any other.

Geuze

No, there is so much work to do that there is enough work for the existing staff plus more.

Tea drinker

Geuze wrote: »

No, there is so much work to do that there is enough work for the existing staff plus more.

I agree with this. There is a perception of the previous back to work scheme that people end up working in shops or warehouses, putting a guy out of work , and are themselves replaced by the next back to work guy. So effectively one additional person becomes unemployed with all costs passed to the state, no additional productivity.

Maybe a pre-requisite is that no one can be driven out of employment as a result of any of these schemes. There's any number of maintenance type activities to be done around, e.g. Marlay park is in a mess, obviously the guys who are employed can't cope, some streets are dirty, motorway maintenance is noticably worse. Community care is one possible area, though not as transparent as working on a supervised group.

Thinking bigger, is there some way the stimulus can be used to get people into workshops (any number of premium quality empty warehouses) on a one or 2 day a week brainstorming sessions?
Help people building businesses out of ideas.

creedp

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, recklessly weak regulation that allowed the banks to pile up risk.


I'm not sure how that's the fault of the ECB - the Irish banks were regulated by the Irish Financial Regulator, whose job it was to ensure they weren't building up unacceptable risks, and who unfortunately left it to the banks to tell him whether they were. Naturally, they thought everything was just fine until everything exploded - an entirely predictable outcome, and the reason for having a regulator in the first place.

I'm not going to get involved in the overall debate here but I'm interested in this point that naturally banks couldn't be expected to properly govern themselves without some form of big brother breathing down their necks. What happened to the famed inate accountability/responsibility of the free market capitalist system? We hear all the time that Govt should get out of the economy and let it manage itself as only the market has the expertise to do this well. In fairness sure won't the executives be concerned about shareholder value and do everything possible to increase this value in the long term? Now of course we find that unless Govt is breathing down their necks they'll make a complete balls of it.

Now please continue on as I'm very intersted in the broader issues being discussed here.