IMF: social welfare benefits 'too high'

Scortho

KyussBishop wrote: »

The job guarantee creates public jobs temporarily, and is also a mechanism for managing price inflation (avoiding or ameliorating inflation/devaluation); the government would use printed money to fund this.

A job guarantee is likely something that would need to be taken part in across Europe, probably with a pilot program somewhere first (and with the state Ireland is in, we'd be a good candidate for that pilot); it does not have to lead to inflation/devaluation, and it's something that needs to be lobbied for at an EU level.

Discussion here on boards which is limited in scope to Ireland is wrong, because that only allows options that harm our economy more; control over currency is so central to a countries sovereignty, and is the path to less harmful solutions, such that discourse should focus on EU action not on Ireland.

The problem with the jobs guarantee scheme that you suggest is that it will be temporary. We need long term employment for these workers. How long will they be temporary for?

Its one of the problems with the idea of retro fitting all old houses with better insulation. What happens when all these houses insulation has been upgraded? We start refitting them again.

A lot of unemployed people are construction related or low skilled. Some aren't but a lot are, or their skills are no longer required.
Would we not be better off providing proper training in areas where there is demand for workers?
For example tech companies are crying out for highly skilled staff. Paypal decided to create 1000 jobs here but within six months had problems filling 500 of them due to shortfalls in language skills.

Our public service is too big as it is so the government supplying jobs isn't an ideal situation.

We need to reduce the costs to an employer of hiring new staff. Reduce the red tape. Make it easier for them to do so.

Employers PRSI is a major problem.
While if an employer creates a new job and takes an unemployed person of the dole, they don't have to pay PRSI for 18 months, they know that after 18 months time the cost of employment will rise. Many just won't take that risk especially if the demand isn't there.

KyussBishop

Count Dooku wrote: »

Your explanation will work only for self-sufficent countries, not for country which import nearly everything
This is why most of money created by export sector and government without control of own currency cannot add much to it

Well that's part of the requirements: Money creation has to be lobbied for on an EU level, since we don't have control over our currency; it would likely have to be an EU-wide project because of this.

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

We have a piblic service that is over staffed we may have gaps in it here and there but in general we have too many public servants.

I do not know what you mean by a job guarantee I presume it is something like that if you complete a training cource that you are gaurantee a job.

There can be no gaurantee how can you force employer's to take on workers if you subsidise or allow them workers for a lower rate you make another employer uncompeditive who lets staff off.

Government do not enable the private all they can do is create an envoirment where employers can employ people. At present that envoirment is in general a situtation where an employee costs a minimum of 500 euro's/week work.

I do not advocate cutting off welfare but rather that decisions have to be made they should be to encourage people to consider low paid work. For a lot of people this is the only work that is available. Go into any convience shop, Aldi, Lidl, Dunnes, over half the employees are non nationals I believe that this is because a lot of Irish workers are happier on the dole.

There is a hardcore of at least 100K workers that have no intension of going back to work. If the government decided that it was going to cut welfare by 5% a year for the next 3-4 years it would encourage people to consider there choices and opt for low paid work rather than Welfare. We should then support these workers through FIS and medical cards and not tax there CB and have realistic college grant means tests.

Ah, I explain the job guarantee more in this thread:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056751652

Basically, the aim of it is to provide full employment, through temporarily taking on unemployed workers into a public sector job guarantee program (funded through money creation).
The government would create the new jobs either through infrastructure programs, building stocks of goods for anticipated future need (buffered to avoid private competition) or....anything; potentially any kind of jobs so long as it doesn't compete with private industry directly.

It's also a mechanism for managing inflation, and so the potential inflationary effects of money creation can be ameliorated through monetary/fiscal policy tightening.


The job guarantee would also use the methods you describe to reduce welfare recipients, but pushing them into the job guarantee instead if the quality of private sector jobs isn't up to scratch.

KyussBishop

Scortho wrote:

The problem with the jobs guarantee scheme that you suggest is that it will be temporary. We need long term employment for these workers. How long will they be temporary for?

When I say temporary though, I mean temporary as in "until private sector improves", at which point workers will move back to working in the private sector, and the job guarantee programs will shut down when that movement back has completed.

Scortho wrote:

A lot of unemployed people are construction related or low skilled. Some aren't but a lot are, or their skills are no longer required.
Would we not be better off providing proper training in areas where there is demand for workers?
For example tech companies are crying out for highly skilled staff. Paypal decided to create 1000 jobs here but within six months had problems filling 500 of them due to shortfalls in language skills.

Well see, the job guarantee is perfect for this kind of retraining because the job guarantee can provide programs for a wide variety of job types, and they can be tailored to keeping workers skills sharp in their current area, or it can be tailored on retraining them for another area altogether.

Scortho wrote:

We need to reduce the costs to an employer of hiring new staff. Reduce the red tape. Make it easier for them to do so.

Employers PRSI is a major problem.
While if an employer creates a new job and takes an unemployed person of the dole, they don't have to pay PRSI for 18 months, they know that after 18 months time the cost of employment will rise. Many just won't take that risk especially if the demand isn't there.

You're right that's exactly it, it's a problem of demand so business just don't need workers right now; they don't have the sales/profits to expand.

The job guarantee gets all those workers in unemployment doing something productive, and puts money in their hands which goes into the economy and spurs demand, leading to an eventual recovery of the private sector.


There is still the wider issue of debt deflation and such though (where people who are in debt and being faced with higher expenses are not spending, cooling demand), and that could possibly be attacked through other measures, like a possible debt jubilee; though that is another policy/discussion entirely.

Scortho

KyussBishop wrote: »

When I say temporary though, I mean temporary as in "until private sector improves", at which point workers will move back to working in the private sector, and the job guarantee programs will shut down when that movement back has completed.


Well see, the job guarantee is perfect for this kind of retraining because the job guarantee can provide programs for a wide variety of job types, and they can be tailored to keeping workers skills sharp in their current area, or it can be tailored on retraining them for another area altogether.


You're right that's exactly it, it's a problem of demand so business just don't need workers right now; they don't have the sales/profits to expand.

The job guarantee gets all those workers in unemployment doing something productive, and puts money in their hands which goes into the economy and spurs demand, leading to an eventual recovery of the private sector.


There is still the wider issue of debt deflation and such though (where people who are in debt and being faced with higher expenses are not spending, cooling demand), and that could possibly be attacked through other measures, like a possible debt jubilee; though that is another policy/discussion entirely.

So its a bit like getting people working for there dole?
And what happens if/when some refuse?

later12

@KyussBishop
I would like to be a bigger fan of MMT. I think most of it is logically appealing on paper. However, the bit I struggle with most is that aspect of Modern Monetary Theory which you are proposing, which is the role of the state in providing a Job Guarantee. Lets start off by saying some positive things about it.

There is no doubt but that this is appealing in terms of social justice, and that it delivers a social benefit on society in itself.

There is no doubt but that unemployment generally causes greater damage to the economy than inflation.

There is also no doubt but that fiscal policy, in conjunction with High powered money, can stimulate aggregate demand in the economy.

There is little doubt but that the scheme could theoretically save the exchequer money over dole payments as a proportion of G.D.P, especially when the multiplier effects of the rising income of buffer stock employees are taken into consideration (Mitchell & Watts, 1997)

But is the Job Guarantee Scheme itself economically viable?

Here are the problems and misgivings in its implementation:

• The Self-Imposed Solvency Constraint of the Euro Area
  
  Not a fault of MMT/ JG in itself , but an obvious place to start.
  
  The Euro Area does not enjoy the same freedom from insolvency as exists in other jurisdictions in light of the independence of the ECB and, more importantly, Art. 123 of the Treaties which prohibits the ECB from acting as the state's banker. We'd be lucky if that changed in the next few years, let alone the idea of our German friends overcoming their obsessive fear of inflation.

• The type of work that can be undertaken
  
  JG jobs would inevitably display certain common characteristics: they would require (i) very little capital investment (high capital expenditure in an automatic stabilizer would seem inefficient and difficult to administer), (ii) no skill, and (iii) produce things which are currently, by definition, deemed economically useless.
  
  You might as well be paying people to play hula hoop. It's not quite clear what kind of value this sort of experience benefit would accrue which private sector employers would find useful. Whereas people who used to never have any job were once the undesirable candidates for employment in the private sector, those who are coming from unproductive JG jobs become the new undesirable candidates for employment.
  
  Job Guarantees do not eradicate a lower tier of applicant. They just change what sort of unproductive activity the lower tier (apologies... I'm sure there is a better expression than that) of applicant engages in with his time.

• Where wage (w) of JG employees > productivity (q) of JG employees
  
  Here, JG employees are engaging in unproductive work to make a more significant claim on the exchequer for being out of work in the private or mainstream public sector, i.e. making a claim on productivity elsewhere in the economy.
  
  What we call the replacement rates from welfare are now replaced with even higher replacement (in fact, minimum wage exactly) rates from unproductive employment. This is in danger of turning into a disincentive to work amongst the low paid elsehwhere in the economy, especially if this JG work pays a similar wage, requires little to no skill, is perceived as un-demanding, and there is scarce chance of being fired.
  
  A similar problem arises where q<Q (Q=potential productivity). Why should the worker leave his JG job when the economic conditions improve, only to have to work harder in a more competitive environment, for only a slight increase in his wages

• Inflation and the Expansionary Gap
  
  Think about how the economy naturally reacts to inflationary pressures in an expansionary gap today, say a rate of about 8% which we deem to be too high.
  
  Demand falls, and wage restraint kicks in when more people move from earning (say) €500 per week in work to earning €188 on welfare, maybe the inflation rate falls to a healthier 3%.
  
  But imagine a situation where 'welfare' (the JG scheme) pays €350 per week instead of €188.
  
  What happens to demand? Well, demand falls more slowly in response to high inflation.
  
  So, demand has to reduce further - more people must lose their jobs (enter the JG scheme) to bring inflation back down than would have had to go on benefits, because there is greater force required to reduce demand and close the expansionary gap.

To sum up, I have a lot of time for MMT in a general sense. And there are valid counter-arguments to all of the above points. But we should not hold up the Job Guarantee scheme as a knight in shining armour that only paranoid German hawks would want to reject. Too much MMT literature (as far as I have seen) dwells on why inflation should not be a concern during a recessionary gap, which is not really up for debate anyway. In short, they tend to use a lot of straw man arguments instead of focusing on the more serious shortcomings of their Job Guarantee proposals, three of which I have laid out above, and a fourth which is a political reality constraint here in the EU.

Full employment should be a macroeconomic policy goal that Central Banks place greater emphasis on. But full employment can be encouraged via other less troublesome tools than the Job Creation program, for example stimulus packages in specific industries or reduced taxation, both of which have been employed to some extent during the 2008-12 crisis and are arguably responsible for at least mitigating what could have been an otherwise far greater economic and financial catastrophe.

I think I have some more points to make but can sense this post is turning into a novel so I will leave it there.

KyussBishop

Scortho wrote: »

So its a bit like getting people working for there dole?
And what happens if/when some refuse?

In a sense, except more money is being spent, but is funded through money creation, with extra policies to manage potential inflation from that (which is a part that gets a bit more complicated and I'm not yet fully sold on).

If people refuse to take some kind of job guarantee job, they can simply be cut off of welfare (jobseekers) after a time (alternatively it could just be abolished altogether, so people have to work to get anything in the first place).

@later12:
That is an interesting post, and one of the first/better examples challenging the meat of the MMT ideas I've seen thus far.

You're right that essentially the primary showstopping problems are all at an EU level right now; it would require very significant adjustments to how things are done, and significant political breakthroughs with other EU nations who've got more relative control.

Considering how significantly a lack of control over currency impacts the sovereignty of a country, and its internal politics, the Euro is quite astonishingly stupid in retrospect.

later12 wrote:

JG jobs would inevitably display certain common characteristics: they would require (i) very little capital investment (high capital expenditure in an automatic stabilizer would seem inefficient and difficult to administer), (ii) no skill, and (iii) produce things which are currently, by definition, deemed economically useless.

Hmm, that's an interesting point; yes that does constrain it quite a lot alright.
They do not have to produce economically useless things though, so long as the things that they produce can be stocked for later consumption (after the economic difficulties are over), preferably satisfying an estimated future demand.

Still though, the limited capital expenditure makes a pretty good point, which I didn't think about; I think this could be partially bypassed for necessary infrastructure projects, but that is still limited in scope.

I would say though, that it is still a net plus in skill over unemployment, but the usefulness of experience on the job guarantee will of course differ depending on the JG work and the field the person normally works in.

later12 wrote:

Where wage (w) of JG employees > productivity (q) of JG employees

Good points, which would certainly require setting an adequate minimum wage, and also providing ample retraining opportunity for workers looking to reskill/upskill; this definitely will act as a bottom-end for private sector wages, and will make collective bargaining a lot more powerful.

This will mean that employers will need to provide better conditions for their minimum wages jobs for workers to take them up; the job guarantee will really need to make sure workers earn their money (and do its best to make the jobs productive), and perhaps add safeguards to directly integrate workers back into private industry when it recovers.

later12 wrote:

Inflation and the Expansionary Gap

With the MMT approach, this appears to be (as you mention) managed by using monetary/fiscal policy to push more people into the job guarantee program, which is argued to be a more efficient means of correcting the inflation than straight out unemployment.
Yes though, it is a little unclear if this would result in more or less people going into the job guarantee, than in an unemployment-only situation; it is argued that that's the case, but I'm not sold on it yet.

This is where I get a bit unsure really; I may need to read up on this more as there is a bit of hand-waviness when it comes to this particular bit with MMT.

This article, under "Would the NAIBER will be higher than the NAIRU?" goes into some detail on this (but is a bit unclear):
http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=10554

later12 wrote:

To sum up, I have a lot of time for MMT in a general sense. And there are valid counter-arguments to all of the above points. But we should not hold up the Job Guarantee scheme as a knight in shining armour that only paranoid German hawks would want to reject. Too much MMT literature (as far as I have seen) dwells on why inflation should not be a concern during a recessionary gap, which is not really up for debate anyway. In short, they tend to use a lot of straw man arguments instead of focusing on the more serious shortcomings of their Job Guarantee proposals, three of which I have laid out above, and a fourth which is a political reality constraint here in the EU.

Full employment should be a macroeconomic policy goal that Central Banks place greater emphasis on. But full employment can be encouraged via other less troublesome tools than the Job Creation program, for example stimulus packages in specific industries or reduced taxation, both of which have been employed to some extent during the 2008-12 crisis and are arguably responsible for at least mitigating what could have been an otherwise far greater economic and financial catastrophe.

I think I have some more points to make but can sense this post is turning into a novel so I will leave it there.

Absolutely, it's not a panacea in itself, and am completely open to the idea that there may be flaws I am not yet aware of, which may be unresolvable; its concepts are a welcome alternate point of view to the general austerity-only outlook though, but yes that doesn't mean adopting it wholesale is a good idea.

I get the impression more as I read it, that this particular policy is best in an already relatively well balanced economy (as a kind of automatic countermeasure); though even with some of the probable flaws pointed out, may still have a lot to add now even if it can only be rolled out partially, to avoid impacting private industry more.

Interesting post in any case; certainly interested in hearing more I will try read up more on the inflationary problems laid out.

Count Dooku

KyussBishop wrote: »

When I say temporary though, I mean temporary as in "until private sector improves"

Do you mean another property bubble?

Farmer Pudsey

KyussBishop wrote: »

Ah, I explain the job guarantee more in this thread:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056751652

Basically, the aim of it is to provide full employment, through temporarily taking on unemployed workers into a public sector job guarantee program (funded through money creation).
The government would create the new jobs either through infrastructure programs, building stocks of goods for anticipated future need (buffered to avoid private competition) or....anything; potentially any kind of jobs so long as it doesn't compete with private industry directly.

It's also a mechanism for managing inflation, and so the potential inflationary effects of money creation can be ameliorated through monetary/fiscal policy tightening.


The job guarantee would also use the methods you describe to reduce welfare recipients, but pushing them into the job guarantee instead if the quality of private sector jobs isn't up to scratch.

You are off you rocker this is what broke the country in the late seventies when FF got to power in 1977 they did this they recruited into semi-state body's and the public service then Haughy came to power and continued they got unemployment to around 90K however it was short lived and it took 15 years to straighten out the economy.

I agree we need quantive easing ie creation of money however this should be used to allow the banks reduce the deposit rate to savers and encourage them to start spending again.

You cannot get Merlin The Magician to say ''Hey Presto'' and magic uo a couple hundred thousand jobs

KyussBishop

Count Dooku wrote: »

Do you mean another property bubble?

Ah, no? I mean, the job guarantee program would only be run temporarily, and as the private sector improves and companies start taking on workers again, they move back out of the job guarantee into the private sector.

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

You are off you rocker this is what broke the country in the late seventies when FF got to power in 1977 they did this they recruited into semi-state body's and the public service then Haughy came to power and continued they got unemployment to around 90K however it was short lived and it took 15 years to straighten out the economy.

I agree we need quantive easing ie creation of money however this should be used to allow the banks reduce the deposit rate to savers and encourage them to start spending again.

You cannot get Merlin The Magician to say ''Hey Presto'' and magic uo a couple hundred thousand jobs

Have you made an effort to understand the idea behind the job guarantee in any way at all? The very fact that there was unemployment in the countering example you give, makes it not comparable at all.

You seem out to rubbish it without even trying to understand it; if you want to critique it, read up on it and point out specific issues, as later12 has done.
It helps also if you realize I'm not proposing it has no flaws, so can lose the combativeness as I'm perfectly happy to acknowledge any legitimate flaws pointed out.

Farmer Pudsey

KyussBishop wrote: »

Ah, no? I mean, the job guarantee program would only be run temporarily, and as the private sector improves and companies start taking on workers again, they move back out of the job guarantee into the private sector.


Have you made an effort to understand the idea behind the job guarantee in any way at all? The very fact that there was unemployment in the countering example you give, makes it not comparable at all.

You seem out to rubbish it without even trying to understand it; if you want to critique it, read up on it and point out specific issues, as later12 has done.
It helps also if you realize I'm not proposing it has no flaws, so can lose the combativeness as I'm perfectly happy to acknowledge any legitimate flaws pointed out.

I have read it and it is exactly what happened in the late seventies. You also have to understand why would I or on worker if we were on an OK wage because of the job guarantee scheme look for another job that may involve harder work or longer hours when we could have a good lifestyle on a makeeup job.

Governments cannot create jobs or give a job guarantee if you like we have it at present with our welfare system except you can stay at home.

KyussBishop

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

I have read it and it is exactly what happened in the late seventies. You also have to understand why would I or on worker if we were on an OK wage because of the job guarantee scheme look for another job that may involve harder work or longer hours when we could have a good lifestyle on a makeeup job.

Governments cannot create jobs or give a job guarantee if you like we have it at present with our welfare system except you can stay at home.

So in the 70's the government had a job guarantee program, pushing workers into temporary employment programs in the public sector, with the specific intention of using that as a method to manage inflation, and wiping out unemployment?

You'll need to provide some kind of source; I'm not familiar with the economic setup in the 70's but from what you've said so far it doesn't sound equivalent at all.

Farmer Pudsey

KyussBishop wrote: »

So in the 70's the government had a job guarantee program, pushing workers into temporary employment programs in the public sector, with the specific intention of using that as a method to manage inflation, and wiping out unemployment?

You'll need to provide some kind of source; I'm not familiar with the economic setup in the 70's but from what you've said so far it doesn't sound equivalent at all.

Right Kyuss what will be the rate of pay on these makeeup jobs. What will workers do in these makeeup up jobs. Will we get them to do urban renewal work, cleaning dykes at side of roads, educational support in school's or what will the unemployed hairdresser do.

KyussBishop

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

Right Kyuss what will be the rate of pay on these makeeup jobs. What will workers do in these makeeup up jobs. Will we get them to do urban renewal work, cleaning dykes at side of roads, educational support in school's or what will the unemployed hairdresser do.

I don't have to lay out every step of the plan, lest it be rendered invalid; I've pretty clearly left a lot of questions open on it, and have stated I'm not sold on it myself either.

You are more interested in ridiculing it than discussing it really, and you don't seem to have made an effort to understand it or source your criticisms thus far.

Tea drinker

Scortho wrote: »

So its a bit like getting people working for there dole?
And what happens if/when some refuse?

It's a bit like working in your job. What happens when some refuse?

Scortho

Tea drinker wrote: »

It's a bit like working in your job. What happens when some refuse?

Depends on who refuses really!:D

Verbal warning written warning HR meetings etc. And maybe the sack

Kurz

Scortho wrote: »

Depends on who refuses really!:D

Verbal warning written warning HR meetings etc. And maybe the sack

In the public sector??

Scortho

Kurz wrote: »

In the public sector??

Nah the worlds third largerst private sector employer!

Tea drinker

Scortho wrote: »

Depends on who refuses really!:D

Verbal warning written warning HR meetings etc. And maybe the sack

Exactly, by and large we all have to work, so why for some people is it a case of "call in the UNHCR" if someone on the dole has to do the same?

Scortho

Tea drinker wrote: »

Exactly, by and large we all have to work, so why for some people is it a case of "call in the UNHCR" if someone on the dole has to do the same?

Personally, anyone who is on the dole and refuses a job offer or training scheme should see there payments cut off/given food vouchers instead. Unfortunatedly many people in Ireland don't see it that way.
Now if you've just lost your job, you should be given time to get back on your feet.
But the idea that people can refuse jobs, training places etc and see a marginal cut to welfare is wrong. An example is seen here:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0827/1224323032763.html

later12

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

I have read it and it is exactly what happened in the late seventies.

No it isn't. Either you don't know what happened in the late 70s or you don't understand what is being proposed. Sorry to be blunt, but there's no point beating around the bush on that. That's the first point.

I raised the question of replacement rates myself. I also stated there are good counter arguments. One good counter argument to the replacement rates from JG is that JG could be made unattractive by running in conjunction with a Back to Private Sector Work scheme, by improved monitoring & administration of jobseeking within cost-benefit parameters, and by running in 6 month contractual stints so that employees don't 'settle in' and are constantly being exposed to new challenges and skills, eventually desiring to put them to use in a more stable environment.

So a mixture of carrot and stick, as usual.

AlekSmart

Scortho wrote: »

Personally, anyone who is on the dole and refuses a job offer or training scheme should see there payments cut off/given food vouchers instead. Unfortunatedly many people in Ireland don't see it that way.
Now if you've just lost your job, you should be given time to get back on your feet.
But the idea that people can refuse jobs, training places etc and see a marginal cut to welfare is wrong. An example is seen here:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0827/1224323032763.html

All good sound theory until one comes across the reality a lá the DSP....

“This was attended by around 125 staff nationally who are integral to the information, policy and decision-making processes in relation to the application of penalty rates.”

If we take worst case scenario of c.300,000+ potential customers with suitable allowance for Sickness/Holiday/Rostering etc then that 125 I suspect could be halved on any given day......now I'd love to see the individual workload of each of those DSP staff members Joan.....;)

Farmer Pudsey

later12 wrote: »

No it isn't. Either you don't know what happened in the late 70s or you don't understand what is being proposed. Sorry to be blunt, but there's no point beating around the bush on that. That's the first point.

I raised the question of replacement rates myself. I also stated there are good counter arguments. One good counter argument to the replacement rates from JG is that JG could be made unattractive by running in conjunction with a Back to Private Sector Work scheme, by improved monitoring & administration of jobseeking within cost-benefit parameters, and by running in 6 month contractual stints so that employees don't 'settle in' and are constantly being exposed to new challenges and skills, eventually desiring to put them to use in a more stable environment.

So a mixture of carrot and stick, as usual.

I know exactly what happened in the seventies.

You suggest a back to private work scheme and Kyuss suggests a job guarantee scheme. Exactly in a couple paragraphs set out the schemes and the approximately what the pay rates would be. What employers in the private sector would benefit and how you would make sure that you would not unbalance the job security of existing workers.

As far as I can see it is a makeeup job scheme

skafish

There may be other ways to reduce social welfare spend than meerly cutting JA or JB.
For example, what proportion of the population has an exemption from TV lisence fees? How many of those could afford to pay all of some of the fee?
I fully accept that people need to be helped, but where is the necessity to have free access to the airwaves?
What benifit is it to anyone (except those on bloated RTE salaries)?

Tea drinker

skafish wrote: »

There may be other ways to reduce social welfare spend than meerly cutting JA or JB.
For example, what proportion of the population has an exemption from TV lisence fees? How many of those could afford to pay all of some of the fee?
I fully accept that people need to be helped, but where is the necessity to have free access to the airwaves?
What benifit is it to anyone (except those on bloated RTE salaries)?

True, but inevitably some old person living in 3rd world conditions will be dug up by the media to say why taking his TV licence is bad.
No chance of them driving around Mount Merrion, and the better parts of Dun Laoghaire Malahide blackrock etc.
Same with the buss pass. Of course some old people with lots of dough live.... frugally not wanting to draw attention to the cash they plan on brining with them. These are a difficult target.
How do we get to a situation where those who need it get it, and those who don't are properly and easily assessed as not needing it? What can revenue and social welfare do together?

flutered

dunno if this is the correct thread for this, people in my road this morning who have a medical card for their children recieved a form to be filled in by the principal of the the school they are attending, to include the names of the kids etc, good thinking 99.

Tea drinker

flutered wrote: »

dunno if this is the correct thread for this, people in my road this morning who have a medical card for their children recieved a form to be filled in by the principal of the the school they are attending, to include the names of the kids etc, good thinking 99.

Hi flutered, how is this good? That we know they are attending a school?

Maura74

Tea drinker wrote: »

True, but inevitably some old person living in 3rd world conditions will be dug up by the media to say why taking his TV licence is bad.
No chance of them driving around Mount Merrion, and the better parts of Dun Laoghaire Malahide blackrock etc.
Same with the buss pass. Of course some old people with lots of dough live.... frugally not wanting to draw attention to the cash they plan on brining with them. These are a difficult target.
How do we get to a situation where those who need it get it, and those who don't are properly and easily assessed as not needing it? What can revenue and social welfare do together?

All freebee as mentioned about should be based on what is the average national income and revenue should know what people earning are, be it from savings or investments or income from renting out their houses or working to survive. If people have money saved under their floorboard then they are not earning income from it therefore no tax will apply.
Some pensioners may live frugal because they have been living like that all their lives and did not have money to spend on large houses and new cars every year and going holidays twice a year or the latest high tech items like iPods and mobile phone or indeed any phones, holidays were not hear of then unless you were very lucky.

When you have been brought up without what some called nowadays necessary for day to day living such fridges or running water for a tin bath in front of the large open fires in the living room, it is very difficult to go out and splash your money about like what a lot of young people did when money was cheap and plentiful during the Tiger years.

Tea drinker

Maura74 wrote: »

If people have money saved under their floorboard then they are not earning income from it therefore no tax will apply.
Some pensioners may live frugal because they have been living like that all their lives and did not have money to spend on large houses and new cars every year and going holidays twice a year or the latest high tech items like iPods and mobile phone or indeed any phones, holidays were not hear of then unless you were very lucky.

Hi Maura, living frugally I'm all for it, but from a moral standpoint are they (pensioner with 10's of k in cash) taking a TV licence from a less well off pensioner?
From personal experience money in the mattress is often closely tied to tax avoidance - so not so innocent and cuddly. I've had enough of these ould codgers on the take to last me well into my own old age ;-)
All assets should be assessed, same as with non contrib old age pension, it's reduced based on money / assets you have. If we don't have a focussed approach to reducing the benefits there will HAVE to be an unfocussed one, where less well off pensioners are targetted as much as the well off uncle Gaybo crowd. So are you in favour of that?

road_hog

poor pensioners in this country are a very small minority , even the state pension is high enough to make poverty near impossible unless the recipient has some substance addiction , its impossible to be poor on a minimum ( non contributory ) pension of 218 per week when nearly all your expenses bar food are subsidised in some shape or form , pensioners can easily afford to take some pain , the only thing preventing this is politics and soft headed sentimentality on the part of the general popolous , we like to subscribe to the whimsical notion that everyone becomes inherently vulnerable and poverty stricken the second they reach the age of sixty six , its a childish fantasy and one we cant afford

Farmer Pudsey

Some pensioners have a fear of not haveing enough money to bury themselves,with some this is totally irrational Fear. I know where maura is coming from here. Also there is a fear that where there are a husband and wife on the OAP that there will be a substantial reduction in income when one of them passes away.

Two old people on the OAP if they own there own house may be quite comfortable on 436/week but reduce that to 218 and the single surviver has all the same bills ESB, Phone, heating, Sky TV and it is nearly as cheap feed two as one.

I agree that some OAP do not need all the benifits that they recieve but the perception of Tea drinker that all money kept as Cash is tax evasion (Tax avoidance is legal) is incorrect. Some older people never used a bank and again may have always kept cash at home

countrynosebag

1. regarding the imf and the advice, or is it instructions?
i am probably incorrect but, i thought there was an amount to be cut back and paid back - how we organise that is up to us
2. regarding unemployment benefits - i believe there has been a cut to the persons that live with their families - that probably is reasonable for most but certainly those feeling 'hardship' for some reason should be having some sort of process wherein that claim for the WHOLE family unit could then be assessed
i expect this would lead to howls of invasion of privacy but.....money must be placed where it is needed and surely no-one has issues with that?
3. child benefits are incorrectly issued, i feel, i believe that a person who - for example- receives 1 million euros per week - has the right to claim too
this would be because it is a universal claim - have i understood this correctly
now, how unfair and ridiculous is that, if that is the case
there should be a payment targeted to those who need it
4. travel cards - i want to rant about these too......
i am now incapacitated, walking, hobbling or not as the case may be and
prohibited from driving (permanently) and the bus/train card is a real necessity BUT it has been changed from having my partner there, and therefore a card protected traveller - i.e. does not pay - he has been withdrawn and i am supposed to wobble around by myself and attempt to carry and drag shopping too - practically impossible and i have not used it once, i am stuck for long periods and feeling my 'imprisonment' most acutely
the country buses have been altered so much that i can no longer go to the next village where my library, dentist, opthalmist, hairdresser and many user-friendly shops are - plus small chats and a tiny amount of human contact which allowed me to interact a little
the buses have very high steps and are now nearly impossible to use at all and so few are willing to -help the 'on and off' business as in our sue-happy world not many are prepared to risk it
it would be very sensible to have accessible minibuses going to these places and if we had to book for that day, especially to be picked up and dropped off (the severely incapacitated, i do realise, are another case altogether) that would only be sensible, a good use of resources
5. extra allowances
as i receive an incapacitated allowance i am ever more aware that my monies do not stretch without judicious money-management
i, alongside so many others i am sure, rely on the extra 'allowance' not cash
in the form of fuel allowance, tv licence and a bit towards the telephone and it enabled me - for the first time - to risk the net and contact with the world and an amazing window on so many things is now possible i can hardly describe the ecstasy of learning, playing, keeping up-to-date etc. etc
none of this would be possible for me now
this gift of a little, 'cheapo' has changed my life
these allowances give me something to get up for, and i smile and laugh again, i can rant and use my brain again
if these are taken and money is dropped again................life is no longer sunny in the storms and all is just cold and ever quiet and lonely and hard
i make this earnest explanation on behalf of those in our often unfriendly, unkind, unhelpful and greedy nation to please stop and consider the riches being piled up by so many now and the unwillingless to pay a fairer tax to help so many
have a clear conscience or don't you understand that concept............

Cuddlesworth

Scortho wrote: »

Nah the worlds third largerst private sector employer!

Whats it like working for Wallmart?

Maura74

Tea drinker wrote: »

Hi Maura, living frugally I'm all for it, but from a moral standpoint are they (pensioner with 10's of k in cash) taking a TV licence from a less well off pensioner?
From personal experience money in the mattress is often closely tied to tax avoidance - so not so innocent and cuddly. I've had enough of these ould codgers on the take to last me well into my own old age ;-)
All assets should be assessed, same as with non contrib old age pension, it's reduced based on money / assets you have. If we don't have a focussed approach to reducing the benefits there will HAVE to be an unfocussed one, where less well off pensioners are targetted as much as the well off uncle Gaybo crowd. So are you in favour of that?

Of course I am not in favour of wealth people getting freebees that's why it should be tax on individual earnings at the national average wage then all money will be taxed even money under the mattress.

Tax avoidance is legal but morally wrong unless you are friends of the government then it is totally OK, asked millionaires that set up companies off shore and puts millions in it and then take out of the company equivalent to the minimum wage and then they will be tax on that low wage now that is tax avoidance and morally wrong.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2012/jun/20/take-that-tax-avoidance-investigation

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/entertainment/music/news/u2-frontman-bonos-tax-avoidance-depriving-poor-14203187.html


UK government was trying to put tax on mansions but it did not go through as too many of them would have to pay more tax and after all they have just given themselves a big tax break in march budget. :mad::mad:

flutered

Tea drinker wrote: »

Hi flutered, how is this good? That we know they are attending a school?

it has been proven before that everything that is put in forms is not the truth, perhaps this may do for the hse what the ash cloud has done for the dept of spcial welfare, who knows, there may be people collecting the back to school allowance for no existant children, if so they are also claiming other benifits also.

flutered

i, alongside so many others i am sure, rely on the extra 'allowance' not cash
in the form of fuel allowance, tv licence and a bit towards the telephone and it enabled me - for the first time - to risk the net and contact with the world and an amazing window on so many things is now possible i can hardly describe the ecstasy of learning, playing, keeping up-to-date etc. etc
none of this would be possible for me now
this gift of a little, 'cheapo' has changed my life
these allowances give me something to get up for, and i smile and laugh again, i can rant and use my brain again
if these are taken and money is dropped again................life is no longer sunny in the storms and all is just cold and ever quiet and lonely and hard
i make this earnest explanation on behalf of those in our often unfriendly, unkind, unhelpful and greedy nation to please stop and consider the riches being piled up by so many now and the unwillingless to pay a fairer tax to help so many
have a clear conscience or don't you understand that concept............[/QUOTE]
i am nearly in the same boat as you, the walking hobbling bit, the internet is now my social life, people find this hard to understand, what do they want us to do, sit in a corner complaining about the hand life has given us, then banished to q home which will pump us full of drugs so as we can doze away, so as to make our carers life easy, let them collect their wage package easier, then the crowd running the place put in a bigger bill to the hse for our care, ah yes bottler knows about all this, does he not.

flutered

road_hog wrote: »

poor pensioners in this country are a very small minority , even the state pension is high enough to make poverty near impossible unless the recipient has some substance addiction , its impossible to be poor on a minimum ( non contributory ) pension of 218 per week when nearly all your expenses bar food are subsidised in some shape or form , pensioners can easily afford to take some pain , the only thing preventing this is politics and soft headed sentimentality on the part of the general popolous , we like to subscribe to the whimsical notion that everyone becomes inherently vulnerable and poverty stricken the second they reach the age of sixty six , its a childish fantasy and one we cant afford

what about all the disabled on pensions, their contributary pension is 193 euro per week, the non contributary would be less than this, also please bear in mind that their costs are awseome, any little thing that requires doing has to be paid for in hard cash.

Tea drinker

countrynosebag wrote: »

.....this gift of a little, 'cheapo' has changed my life
these allowances give me something to get up for, and i smile and laugh again, i can rant and use my brain again
if these are taken and money is dropped again................life is no longer sunny in the storms and all is just cold and ever quiet and lonely and hard
i make this earnest explanation on behalf of those in our often unfriendly, unkind, unhelpful and greedy nation to please stop and consider the riches being piled up by so many now and the unwillingless to pay a fairer tax to help so many have a clear conscience or don't you understand that concept............

It sounds to me that the allowances make a huge difference to your quality of life, same as they do for my own mother.
I really want there to be cuts for the people who can afford it, so that those who can't afford cuts don't have to bear them. But the cuts have to be made, and unless we can devise a way to do it properly, it will be done improperly, like most things in Ireland.

Geuze

Yes, this is just one case:

Pensioner couple, income 900-1000 pw, approx 50k pa gross
Low tax paid, under 10%

Two medical cards
Two travel passes
Household benefits package
Free IT classes

No debt
250k on deposit.

Is this sustainable?

countrynosebag

not entirely clear as to what some of the replies actually mean
1. if people are claiming for children they do not have than that is disgusting BUT i thought there was a proper checking system at the welfare end of things and THERE SHOULD BE
please note i am not claiming for children nor for anything i am not entitled to
in fact i do not claim all
first of all we spent most of the savings before we went 'cap-in-hand-' i know we are entitled but it came hard after a lifetime of work which was put an end to purely by an accident and the attendant problems are not my choice i can assure you
i would so much rather continue on my planned paths of part-time nursing and master's - much more interesting than pain, limited abilities and drugs which also create their own problems
2. if the welfare people wish to check the matresses here then so be it and i would want them either left in the same condition or new ones
also the welfare in the country appears to be pretty thorough......all papers and a/c, all certificates of birth etc - originals only accepted, rigorous hospital checks - before and after long surgery and afterwards, huge 'books' of forms, and regular spot-checks about yearly i think
we refused carer allowance - wanting to save the country money and due to non-contribution issues (living on our savings) we have been "punished"- by less than the full amount and my invalidity is just over 180euros
we will not be getting the new broadcast system - and will be fine with the old skybox and freeview NOT THE PAY AREAS for when we want tv
we will continue with our well and so avoid another bill ie for water, we will use our own
we will hope madly our septic tank is up-to-scratch
we paid our house tax - enda kenny informs us it was for pavements, lamp posts and buses - we do not have even one of those three services
we are responsible re-littering and pay too for the dustbin service who forget us sometimes - we did ask them to take the bins but we find it so hard to drag the weight to the road and they are good mostly (we keep them just inside of the drive to help all round but........
we have asked for no help and when all froze we had no water and used water bottles, when we had some for tea, and we ate from the freezer which is wonderful for those times when no outings are possible
we are most sensible and do not drink or smoke........the substances in this house are prescribed drugs and cooking herbs and spices, my big habit is black pepper and his is chile tomato sauce
i think most would agree they are innocent enough
we have a wind-up torch each - i recommend these to all, i don't know about the whole country but the electric system has it's foibles............
i hope this satisfies those who actually appear angry at the benefit recipients
i am happy that someone also appears to be in favour of fair tax
oh, and fuel allowance was cut and the cold for us is a painful affair
monies are cut too - not much scope for tucking things in our matresses eh?

road_hog

flutered wrote: »

what about all the disabled on pensions, their contributary pension is 193 euro per week, the non contributary would be less than this, also please bear in mind that their costs are awseome, any little thing that requires doing has to be paid for in hard cash.

their is a world of difference between pensioners and the disabled , pensioners are " offically " vulnerable , the disabled are genuinely so , i vehemently oppose cuts to this politically weak demographic , unfortunatley no politican ever lost his or her seat by marginalising the disabled , regardless of what age they are

Scortho

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Whats it like working for Wallmart?

It seems that the brainwashing they gave us was wrong!:eek:

As another clue we had a highly publicised feck up during the summer over an important sporting event.

creedp

flutered wrote: »

what about all the disabled on pensions, their contributary pension is 193 euro per week, the non contributary would be less than this, also please bear in mind that their costs are awseome, any little thing that requires doing has to be paid for in hard cash.

What about Michael Smurfit? What about the majority of pensioners who are not disabled? The point being that supports should be more targeted. We always fall into the same trap, because there are some difficult cases we can't change anything for anyone!

ART6

creedp wrote: »

What about Michael Smurfit? What about the majority of pensioners who are not disabled? The point being that supports should be more targeted. We always fall into the same trap, because there are some difficult cases we can't change anything for anyone!

Surely supports, and especially pensions, are already targeted? Anyone on a single state pension pays no income tax. Someone with a large private pension pays tax on it.

winterwood

Social welfare is too high for some, and a clear disincentive to go out and work. We all know people who'll say to us that it's just not worth their while to work full-time because of all the supplements they'd lose. Why isn't it possible for people to hold on to supplements and allowances for a while if take up work? On the other hand, I was shocked to see the level of homelessness in Dublin when I was up there last. There's no excuse for a modern state to fail its citizens that badly.

Kinski

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

Some pensioners have a fear of not haveing enough money to bury themselves

I hear that, but I've yet to see them throw any bodies in the skip out back because the deceased couldn't afford a burial...

bbsrs

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

Some older people never used a bank and again may have always kept cash at home

True , they followed the example of a former Finance minister and Taoiseach and they got digital calculators so as not to be the laughing stock of Europe by using stupid ole pencils to keep track of it all. What a country , you couldn't make it up.

Stark

ART6 wrote: »

Surely supports, and especially pensions, are already targeted? Anyone on a single state pension pays no income tax. Someone with a large private pension pays tax on it.

The likes of Michael Smurfit still get free medical card, travel pass etc.

creedp

Stark wrote: »

The likes of Michael Smurfit still get free medical card, travel pass etc.

Yea Michael will still get a medical card so long as his and his partner/wife's annual income does not exceed €70k. Somehow I don't think Michael will fall into this category unless his accountants are really creative. In fairness, though a pensioner with an income of €70k is really financially vulnerable and really deserves all the tax funded allowances/supplements he can get his hands on!!

Stark

Open to correction here, but I thought people who already had a medical card before 2009 get to hang on to it regardless of income? Afaik, the income rules only affect new applicants.

Geuze

No, pensioners on over 700/1400 pw were meant to hand back their medical cards.

Some did, some didn't.

It turns out there's no way to identify those who didn't.