IMF: social welfare benefits 'too high'

EchoO

djpbarry wrote: »

Because, in Ireland:

Total tax take <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< welfare + public sector salaries

Yes and by 2015 when all the adjustments agreed with the troika have been made this will no longer be the case, but Ireland will have still have the 3rd lowest(if not lower) spending on social protection as a percentage of GNI in the EU.

ardmacha wrote: »

It isn't relevant. Expenditure as a proportion of GNP is relevant, comparing it with a tax take that is lower than other places is not a reasonable comparison.

I would tend to agree.

AlekSmart

djpbarry wrote: »

Not to mention free travel passes, which can be worth a lot of money in London.

Never mind London.......

Table G3 & G4 on Page 86 of this fine document of record are illustrative of whither stands Ireland right now.

http://www.welfare.ie/EN/Policy/ResearchSurveysAndStatistics/Documents/2011stats.pdf

Electricity Allowance 2011 € 179,251,000
TV Licence 2011 € 57,647,000
Telephone Allowance 2011 € 111,961,000
Gas Allowance 2011 € 20,716,000
Travel Allowance 2011 € 75,597,000
Fuel Allowance 2011 € 265,839,000

Giving a total (Provisional) cost for 2011 of....€711,011,000

A cracking good read.....:o

K-9

Colours wrote: »

Anglo was never a proper bank so the government should have let it sink. Unfortunately the regulator was so inept and incompetent and gullible, it recommended the complete opposite.

I think that the Irish government should have gone further with BoI and AIB and nationalised them in their entirety so that we the people would have full control of them. Instead they're still being run by greedy execs earning obscene amounts of money.

Apparently the Department of Finance couldn't see any reason to save Anglo either, but that was ignored anyway. Suppose we'll never know what exactly happened that night as the records don't exist.

Anyway, mod voice on:

Can we please try and keep it Welfare based, instead of everything barring the kitchen sink!

KyussBishop

Regarding the complaints about how unemployed people spend their benefits (on pints etc.):
While I don't agree with clamping down on such stuff, can someone explain an actual practical method of how that would be clamped down on?

I don't see how food stamps or restricted welfare credit-card type things will work, because it's extremely easy to get around that by just organizing with a friend that you'll buy some food he needs, and he'll give you the cash for that; there you go, the restrictions are rendered a completely useless waste of money in organizing food stamps or a credit system etc..

Even if you accept the principle that there are some things people should not be allowed to buy, it's just not possible to enforce that and it's a waste of money trying to, so what is the point in debating over it?


It's not really a valid argument against reducing welfare either (n.b. I think welfare should see a slight reduction, unrelated to this), because that would be generalizing and lumping all people together who are on benefits as if they all abuse their welfare to take undue luxuries.

K-9

AlekSmart wrote: »

Never mind London.......

Table G3 & G4 on Page 86 of this fine document of record are illustrative of whither stands Ireland right now.

http://www.welfare.ie/EN/Policy/ResearchSurveysAndStatistics/Documents/2011stats.pdf

Electricity Allowance 2011 € 179,251,000
TV Licence 2011 € 57,647,000
Telephone Allowance 2011 € 111,961,000
Gas Allowance 2011 € 20,716,000
Travel Allowance 2011 € 75,597,000
Fuel Allowance 2011 € 265,839,000

Giving a total (Provisional) cost for 2011 of....€711,011,000

A cracking good read.....:o

Pensioner would probably get the majority of that expenditure, on top of pension payments that haven't been touched at all. They wont be touched as we all know, they'd prefer to cut carers payments while increasing their burden through cutbacks.

djpbarry

EchoO wrote: »

Yes and by 2015 when all the adjustments agreed with the troika have been made this will no longer be the case, but Ireland will have still have the 3rd lowest(if not lower) spending on social protection as a percentage of GNI in the EU.

I’m guessing government revenue as a percentage of GNI is also one of the lowest in the EU? Spending on welfare in Ireland might be low relative to how much money is in the economy, but it’s high relative to government revenue. Hence the problem.

KyussBishop wrote: »

Regarding the complaints about how unemployed people spend their benefits (on pints etc.):
While I don't agree with clamping down on such stuff, can someone explain an actual practical method of how that would be clamped down on?

I don’t know if this has arisen as a result of what I’ve posted, but that’s certainly not what I was advocating. I was simply making the point that if one has no housing costs and no dependents, then €188 per week is going to leave you with a fair bit of disposable income. To me, that’s just not right.

The whole point of welfare is that it’s supposed to be there if you need it. It shouldn’t be viewed, as it is by so many in Ireland, as an entitlement.

EchoO

djpbarry wrote: »

I’m guessing government revenue as a percentage of GNI is also one of the lowest in the EU? Spending on welfare in Ireland might be low relative to how much money is in the economy, but it’s high relative to government revenue. Hence the problem.

You're right it is one of the lowest, but in 2006 spending on welfare was still the 3rd lowest in the EU. Go back to 1999 it was the same. The point being, Ireland's spending on social protection was always low relatively speaking. A crash in government revenue and a huge jump in the number of welfare recipients means an adjustment has to be made, but once that is done our spending in this area will continue to be what it has always been - low.

KyussBishop

djpbarry wrote:

I don’t know if this has arisen as a result of what I’ve posted, but that’s certainly not what I was advocating. I was simply making the point that if one has no housing costs and no dependents, then €188 per week is going to leave you with a fair bit of disposable income. To me, that’s just not right.

The whole point of welfare is that it’s supposed to be there if you need it. It shouldn’t be viewed, as it is by so many in Ireland, as an entitlement.

Okey, it's just something that seems to be recurringly picked out as an issue with welfare.

Does it matter also though, if people do view it as an entitlement? (not the way I view it, I think people should do what they can to get work of course) I mean, how people view it has little significance, as they either qualify for benefits or not; why does it matter if they qualify for it with a bad attitude, vs a good attitude?

If they are engaged in fraud, or if they skimp on searching/applying for jobs, they should be cut off, but if they aren't engaged in fraud and yet still have a bad attitude, there's not really anything that can be done about that either, bar enforcing the rules already in place.
A lot of ideas for further clamping down on the minority who abuse, often seem like they would either be unsuccessful, or that they would end up causing harm to most legitimate recipients as well.

It would be good, to have the general civic attitude that you should only take it if you need it, but on the flip side I think the general societal attitude has gone too far past that, with anyone on benefits under risk of getting vilified and associated with the scrounger label.

djpbarry

KyussBishop wrote: »

Does it matter also though, if people do view it as an entitlement? (not the way I view it, I think people should do what they can to get work of course) I mean, how people view it has little significance, as they either qualify for benefits or not; why does it matter if they qualify for it with a bad attitude, vs a good attitude?

Because peoples' attitude towards welfare influence political decisions on the issue and, therefore, the availability of welfare.

Count Dooku

ardmacha wrote: »

It isn't relevant. Expenditure as a proportion of GNP is relevant, comparing it with a tax take that is lower than other places is not a reasonable comparison.

Expenditure as a proportion of GNP is irrelevant because Irish economy is based on low corporate tax and cannot be compared with developed countries with own indigenous industries

golfwallah

Heads the ball wrote: »

Like I said earlier if spending money on pints is that obscene lets not pretend those on welfare are the only ones who have a pint. I know plenty of middle and upper class people who drink heavily. Im growing weary of this "who has a pint" argument. Let me save you the bother lets say you proved every welfare recipient has four pints and every middle class family have no pints (and I'm not for a moment conceding that because that's not the case) I still see far far more obscene stuff going on here like what I listed in an earlier post and like what another poster just mentioned about execs. So the pints argument can be spared.

I think if you don't lie a country that protects its vulnerable then why don't you move!

Nobody here has dealt head on with the morality point I am making. Instead the arguments are all tangential to that.

EchoO wrote: »

You're right it is one of the lowest, but in 2006 spending on welfare was still the 3rd lowest in the EU. Go back to 1999 it was the same. The point being, Ireland's spending on social protection was always low relatively speaking. A crash in government revenue and a huge jump in the number of welfare recipients means an adjustment has to be made, but once that is done our spending in this area will continue to be what it has always been - low.

The real problem spending money we don’t have on social welfare has nothing to do with narrow views of morality / fairness or whether recipients should be entitled to have a few pints or how we stack up compared to other countries – it’s to do with borrowing and all the bad outcomes and avoidable risks such borrowings entail.

We could do a lot more good for society at large by reducing the spend on a social welfare system we simply can’t afford and redeploying it to more productive purposes such as reducing debt and the interest payments it brings, reducing taxes to encourage / reward enterprise, re-focussing our health and education systems to make them more effective and fit for purpose, etc. The list of alternatives to socialist minded borrowing goes on and on.

If anyone needs persuading that unaffordable and risky borrowing for immediate consumption is a bad idea – just look at the examples of people all around us in negative equity or better still, look at the example of the economic and political mess that borrowing created for Argentina.

Argentina started out on a par with the United States in the late 18th / early 19th centuries but made bad choices in their subsequent development, including unrealistic political promises requiring borrowing to prop up their social welfare system. Click for link to book synopsis on the subject in ft.com.

Heads the ball

golfwallah wrote: »

The real problem spending money we don’t have on social welfare has nothing to do with narrow views of morality / fairness or whether recipients should be entitled to have a few pints or how we stack up compared to other countries – it’s to do with borrowing and all the bad outcomes and avoidable risks such borrowings entail.

We could do a lot more good for society at large by reducing the spend on a social welfare system we simply can’t afford and redeploying it to more productive purposes such as reducing debt and the interest payments it brings, reducing taxes to encourage / reward enterprise, re-focussing our health and education systems to make them more effective and fit for purpose, etc. The list of alternatives to socialist minded borrowing goes on and on.

If anyone needs persuading that unaffordable and risky borrowing for immediate consumption is a bad idea – just look at the examples of people all around us in negative equity or better still, look at the example of the economic and political mess that borrowing created for Argentina.

Argentina started out on a par with the United States in the late 18th / early 19th centuries but made bad choices in their subsequent development, including unrealistic political promises requiring borrowing to prop up their social welfare system. Click for link to book synopsis on the subject in ft.com.

But again you haven't addressed the morality point other than to just dismiss it.

It's distasteful to victimise the vulnerable in society after everything that has happened over the past number of years.

It's plain wrong. It's vile. It's indicative of a nasty streak we have in us as a people (ie scapegoating). If something is immoral, it cannot be argued that it is economically necessary. All economic policies must pass a basic morality test and in my opinion, the proposal to reduce welfare fails it by a distance.

djpbarry

Heads the ball wrote: »

It's distasteful to victimise the vulnerable in society...

As has been said countless times, it's naive to equate "vulnerable" with "in receipt of welfare".

Heads the ball wrote: »

It's plain wrong. It's vile. It's indicative of a nasty streak we have in us as a people (ie scapegoating). If something is immoral, it cannot be argued that it is economically necessary. All economic policies must pass a basic morality test and in my opinion, the proposal to reduce welfare fails it by a distance.

Should Ireland therefore increase welfare spending?

Count Dooku

Heads the ball wrote: »

But again you haven't addressed the morality point other than to just dismiss it.

I don't see any morality when family on dole will have more than family with single earner

EchoO

Count Dooku wrote: »

Expenditure as a proportion of GNP is irrelevant because Irish economy is based on low corporate tax and cannot be compared with developed countries with own indigenous industries

Whether you use GNP or GDP, Ireland's expenditure on social protection is well below the EU15 average.

Ireland's total expenditure on social protection per head of population is the fourth lowest in the EU15.

Count Dooku

EchoO wrote: »

Whether you use GNP or GDP, Ireland's expenditure on social protection is well below the EU15 average.

Mostly because country obsessed with equality and doesn't pay jobseekers benefit as percent of previous income, while jobseeker allowance is highest in all OECD countries
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/60/51/49971098.xlsx
Ireland is only country where long term unemployed family will get more than family with single earner ( net replacement rate is 108%)

Heads the ball

djpbarry wrote: »

As has been said countless times, it's naive to equate "vulnerable" with "in receipt of welfare".
Should Ireland therefore increase welfare spending?

It certainly has been said but I have also said many times that not everyone in receipt of welfare is as vulnerable as the next but that generally this section of society has a higher number of vulnerable people. That's a fact. It's not a shocking claim.

And on that basis we shouldn't target that area.

Re your second question, I am expressing opinions as to why welfare should not be reduced and I am not going down that road with you.

Heads the ball

Count Dooku wrote: »

I don't see any morality when family on dole will have more than family with single earner

WADR that's not a reason to cut welfare. There will be anomalies within the system like what you pointed to above, but that's typically around the margins. Unless you have a perfect system people will always be able to point to anomalies.

The purpose of welfare would seem to be to allow those are out of work, or in some other way vulnerable to live with a certain amount of dignity. I don't think it's right if we operated a system whereby once someone could point to someone not on welfare who is worse off than someone on welfare that welfare would be reduced immediately. And we don't operate such a system here.

Even if you cut welfare, you will still be able to find some people working who are less well off than those on welfare.

So for the above reasons I reject your argument.

EchoO

Count Dooku wrote: »

Mostly because country obsessed with equality and doesn't pay jobseekers benefit as percent of previous income, while jobseeker allowance is highest in all OECD countries
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/60/51/49971098.xlsx
Ireland is only country where long term unemployed family will get more than family with single earner ( net replacement rate is 108%)

But the amount time spent on unemployment benefit before a person is moved onto unemployment assistance is relatively low in Ireland. At 13 months Ireland would be the 5th lowest. Denmark 48 months, Netherlands 38 months, France 36 months, Portugal 32 months, Germany 24...etc...etc.

Count Dooku

EchoO wrote: »

But the amount time spent on unemployment benefit before a person is moved onto unemployment assistance is relatively low in Ireland. At 13 months Ireland would be the 5th lowest. Denmark 48 months, Netherlands 38 months, France 36 months, Portugal 32 months, Germany 24...etc...etc.

Because Ireland is poor country and looks different mostly because GDP is inflated by MNC's transactions and GNP inflated by borrowings ( from bondholders before and from Troika now)
Countries what you mentioned before have corporate tax between 30% and 40% of total tax take, while 75% of Irish economy based on attracting MNC's by low corporate tax and taxing their workers

Count Dooku

Heads the ball wrote: »

WADR that's not a reason to cut welfare. There will be anomalies within the system like what you pointed to above, but that's typically around the margins. Unless you have a perfect system people will always be able to point to anomalies.

The purpose of welfare would seem to be to allow those are out of work, or in some other way vulnerable to live with a certain amount of dignity. I don't think it's right if we operated a system whereby once someone could point to someone not on welfare who is worse off than someone on welfare that welfare would be reduced immediately. And we don't operate such a system here.

Even if you cut welfare, you will still be able to find some people working who are less well off than those on welfare.

So for the above reasons I reject your argument.

Do you mean that everything what is not suit your theory is anomaly?
So why people should search for job if they will have plenty of dignity while staying on dole?

Heads the ball

Count Dooku wrote: »

Heads the ball wrote: »

WADR that's not a reason to cut welfare. There will be anomalies within the system like what you pointed to above, but that's typically around the margins. Unless you have a perfect system people will always be able to point to anomalies.

The purpose of welfare would seem to be to allow those are out of work, or in some other way vulnerable to live with a certain amount of dignity. I don't think it's right if we operated a system whereby once someone could point to someone not on welfare who is worse off than someone on welfare that welfare would be reduced immediately. And we don't operate such a system here.

Even if you cut welfare, you will still be able to find some people working who are less well off than those on welfare.

So for the above reasons I reject your argument.

Do you mean that everything what is not suit your theory is anomaly?
So why people should search for job if they will have plenty of dignity while staying on dole?

Answer to q1 is: "no" and do you not see how your example is an anomaly?

Answer to q2 is: lots really. Like perhaps not being on that pay rate forever and i think you are legally required to be searching for work to claim dole.

golfwallah

Heads the ball wrote: »

But again you haven't addressed the morality point other than to just dismiss it.

It's distasteful to victimise the vulnerable in society after everything that has happened over the past number of years.

It's plain wrong. It's vile. It's indicative of a nasty streak we have in us as a people (ie scapegoating). If something is immoral, it cannot be argued that it is economically necessary. All economic policies must pass a basic morality test and in my opinion, the proposal to reduce welfare fails it by a distance.

No, I haven’t dismissed anything, nor do I believe it appropriate to pass narrow moral judgements on a forum, whose purpose is debating economics. Quite the contrary, I hold the view that it’s perfectly reasonable to discuss choices in public spending without pulling the “morality card”.

Resorting to emotive high sounding terms like “morality” “distasteful to victimise the vulnerable in society”, “It's plain wrong”, “It's vile”, “It's indicative of a nasty streak” is calculated to stifle rational debate with an overarching “moral prerogative / dogma”, particularly when constantly reinforced with barracking demands like “you haven't addressed the morality point”.

If you can’t make your point in economic terms, without the one track logic of “it’s wrong because I say so”, I don’t know what you are doing on the economics forum.

This type of self righteous language is more suited to debating Religion & Spirituality, for which there is a separate forum on boards.ie.

Nor do I do not see economics through the narrow lens of protecting any particular sectional interest in Irish society, be that the beneficiaries of an unaffordable social welfare system or of other inefficiencies in spending from the public purse.

No, my concern is promoting debate on the economic issues. And my point is that we should protect the overall economic interests of Irish society from government policies requiring unsustainable borrowing. I believe that such a policy of spending vast amounts of money, that we simply do not have, will inevitably lead to the bankruptcy of the state (just as it has for Argentina).

This type of spendthrift policy, as followed by our present government, is not in the overall long-term interest of this little country of ours, regardless of immediate short-term impact on any particular partisan group.

Heads the ball

golfwallah wrote: »

Heads the ball wrote: »

But again you haven't addressed the morality point other than to just dismiss it.

It's distasteful to victimise the vulnerable in society after everything that has happened over the past number of years.

It's plain wrong. It's vile. It's indicative of a nasty streak we have in us as a people (ie scapegoating). If something is immoral, it cannot be argued that it is economically necessary. All economic policies must pass a basic morality test and in my opinion, the proposal to reduce welfare fails it by a distance.

No, I haven’t dismissed anything, nor do I believe it appropriate to pass narrow moral judgements on a forum, whose purpose is debating economics. Quite the contrary, I hold the view that it’s perfectly reasonable to discuss choices in public spending without pulling the “morality card”.

Resorting to emotive high sounding terms like “morality” “distasteful to victimise the vulnerable in society”, “It's plain wrong”, “It's vile”, “It's indicative of a nasty streak” is calculated to stifle rational debate with an overarching “moral prerogative / dogma”, particularly when constantly reinforced with barracking demands like “you haven't addressed the morality point”.

If you can’t make your point in economic terms, without the one track logic of “it’s wrong because I say so”, I don’t know what you are doing on the economics forum.

This type of self righteous language is more suited to debating Religion & Spirituality, for which there is a separate forum on boards.ie.

Nor do I do not see economics through the narrow lens of protecting any particular sectional interest in Irish society, be that the beneficiaries of an unaffordable social welfare system or of other inefficiencies in spending from the public purse.

No, my concern is promoting debate on the economic issues. And my point is that we should protect the overall economic interests of Irish society from government policies requiring unsustainable borrowing. I believe that such a policy of spending vast amounts of money, that we simply do not have, will inevitably lead to the bankruptcy of the state (just as it has for Argentina).

This type of spendthrift policy, as followed by our present government, is not in the overall long-term interest of this little country of ours, regardless of immediate short-term impact on any particular partisan group.

Ah i see. Now your position is morality doesnt belong on this thread. Now that, sir, is a narrow, artificial view.

murphaph

EchoO wrote: »

But the amount time spent on unemployment benefit before a person is moved onto unemployment assistance is relatively low in Ireland. At 13 months Ireland would be the 5th lowest. Denmark 48 months, Netherlands 38 months, France 36 months, Portugal 32 months, Germany 24...etc...etc.

AFAIK under 55's in Germany move to Arbeitslosengeld II after 12 months in receipt of Arbeitslosengeld I, 18 months for over 55's.

Anyway, I'd be fine if it was 24 months in Ireland, so long as it happened. People who have contributed should not end up receiving the same or worse benefits than those who have never contributed.

djpbarry

EchoO wrote: »

Whether you use GNP or GDP, Ireland's expenditure on social protection is well below the EU15 average.

And if you use government revenue? Because in the context of managing general government deficit, that’s the only measure that matters.

djpbarry

Heads the ball wrote: »

It certainly has been said but I have also said many times that not everyone in receipt of welfare is as vulnerable as the next...

Now we’re getting somewhere. So do you accept that maybe, just maybe, those who you are not placing in the “vulnerable” category could survive a cut to their welfare payments?

Heads the ball wrote: »

Re your second question, I am expressing opinions as to why welfare should not be reduced and I am not going down that road with you.

That’s a cop out. Because you know the answer is obviously no, Ireland should not increase spending on welfare, don’t you?

So if Ireland should not increase spending on welfare and should not decrease spending on welfare, that implies that the current level of spending on welfare is just right. That’s quite a remarkable coincidence, wouldn’t you say?

K-9

Thread is starting to run its course at this stage. Stating something is morally right doesn't really add much to the discussion, neither does not answering valid questions.

EchoO

djpbarry wrote: »

And if you use government revenue? Because in the context of managing general government deficit, that’s the only measure that matters.

Well the process of managing that deficit involves both increasing revenue and reducing Government spending. Over the course of the bailout at least 2.8 billion euro will be cut from the social protection budget. I would be inclined to raise the total tax take by a greater amount than the Government is planning to do, others want deeper cuts. But it's all academic because unless we need another bailout, what actually is going to happen has already been agreed.

How the Government is going is to make the rest of that 2.8 billion euro cut to the welfare budget without cutting the basic welfare rates remains to be seen, but those cuts will be made one way or another.

Heads the ball

djpbarry wrote: »

Heads the ball wrote: »

It certainly has been said but I have also said many times that not everyone in receipt of welfare is as vulnerable as the next...

Now we’re getting somewhere. So do you accept that maybe, just maybe, those who you are not placing in the “vulnerable” category could survive a cut to their welfare payments?

Heads the ball wrote: »

Re your second question, I am expressing opinions as to why welfare should not be reduced and I am not going down that road with you.

That’s a cop out. Because you know the answer is obviously no, Ireland should not increase spending on welfare, don’t you?

So if Ireland should not increase spending on welfare and should not decrease spending on welfare, that implies that the current level of spending on welfare is just right. That’s quite a remarkable coincidence, wouldn’t you say?

Im not getting involved in that discussion because its extraordinarily ridiculous in my opinion because that same flawed methodology could be applied to every department/area of spending and that certainly would stifle what another poster is calling for, which is the ability to have an economic debate without "pulling certain cards"

This thread is primarily about th IMF suggestion that welfare is too high. It is not an argument about "is it too low"
plus i dont see how it is unbelievable/coincidental that the welfare rate is broadly appropriate at the moment.

djpbarry

Heads the ball wrote: »

Im not getting involved in that discussion because its extraordinarily ridiculous in my opinion because that same flawed methodology could be applied to every department/area of spending and that certainly would stifle what another poster is calling for, which is the ability to have an economic debate without "pulling certain cards"

I am asking you a perfectly rational economic question – are there people in Ireland, currently in receipt of welfare, who could survive a cut to their benefits?

Heads the ball wrote: »

This thread is primarily about th IMF suggestion that welfare is too high. It is not an argument about "is it too low"
plus i dont see how it is unbelievable/coincidental that the welfare rate is broadly appropriate at the moment.

If it’s “broadly appropriate”, then surely welfare could be cut by a small amount and it would still be “broadly appropriate”?

You’re insisting that welfare should not be cut at all, you’re not advocating any increase in welfare rates, so the obvious conclusion is that you feel welfare payments as they currently stand are absolutely spot on. That being the case, I would ask on what metric is your conclusion based?

Heads the ball

djpbarry wrote: »

I am asking you a perfectly rational economic question – are there people in Ireland, currently in receipt of welfare, who could survive a cut to their benefits??

But thats not the point. Do you agree that there are people in that bracket who could not survive a cut?

I could point to any area of spending or section of society (or indeed a bank) and say is there anyone in this bracket who is getting more than they could otherwise survive on. And if the answer was "yes" that wouldnt be a rationale to go cutting it for everyone in that group.

If someone has 20euro left at the end of the week Im afraid thats not something that upsets me given bank exec pay, bondholders and bank guarantees.

djpbarry wrote: »

If it’s “broadly appropriate”, then surely welfare could be cut by a small amount and it would still be “broadly appropriate”?

But I dont think that can be justified as it would be inequitable in the current context (open-cheque-book guarantees to the banks) and I think a 10euro cut to welfare would save a disproportionately small amount of spending compared to the hardship it would cause.

djpbarry wrote: »

You’re insisting that welfare should not be cut at all, you’re not advocating any increase in welfare rates, so the obvious conclusion is that you feel welfare payments as they currently stand are absolutely spot on. That being the case, I would ask on what metric is your conclusion based?

Thats not an obvious conclusion as I have not answered your question (for reason that it is a flawed approach to the argument) about increasing welfare rates. So you dont know whether I favour an increase or not. So you cant make the conclusion that I think it is spot on.

Count Dooku

Heads the ball wrote: »

Answer to q1 is: "no" and do you not see how your example is an anomaly?

Answer to q2 is: lots really. Like perhaps not being on that pay rate forever and i think you are legally required to be searching for work to claim dole.

A. I'm not alone who doesn't see it as anomaly. IMF, OECD, ESRI and many others came to the same conclusion
B. The only requirement is to provide evidence, but not really search for job. Just apply for position s with guaranteed failure, that's all.

JP Liz V1

Hasnt the dole been cut already for under 25s?

Heads the ball

Count Dooku wrote: »

Heads the ball wrote: »

Answer to q1 is: "no" and do you not see how your example is an anomaly?

Answer to q2 is: lots really. Like perhaps not being on that pay rate forever and i think you are legally required to be searching for work to claim dole.

A. I'm not alone who doesn't see it as anomaly. IMF, OECD, ESRI and many others came to the same conclusion
B. The only requirement is to provide evidence, but not really search for job. Just apply for position s with guaranteed failure, that's all.

But it is an anomaly as the average middle class is better than the average dole person

your second point is an enforcement issue its not a rationale to cut welfare

Farmer Pudsey

The big question is that as we need 3.5 billion of cuts at a minimum in the next budget shoild social welfare be excluded, should CS pay be excluded. If both of these are excluded then most of the pain will fall on working people.

Social Welfare makes up between 30&40% of the budget.At present it is the biggest budget in the government. If means test Child Benifit as we do not have either Tax credits for childern or for Creshe fees then the incentive to continue working or to look for a job is reduced. We already have this anomaly where earning people between 20-50K are no better off if they have a couple of childern in college

So if we have to make cuts do we protect workers or Social Welfare recipents. It is not possible to get much more tax out of the system as Tax evasion/ avoidance will be more profitable. Taxes on fuel is a tax on work and property and water rates will effect workers as there will be waivers for the unsmployed etc.

Heads the ball

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

The big question is that as we need 3.5 billion of cuts at a minimum in the next budget shoild social welfare be excluded, should CS pay be excluded. If both of these are excluded then most of the pain will fall on working people.

Social Welfare makes up between 30&40% of the budget.At present it is the biggest budget in the government. If means test Child Benifit as we do not have either Tax credits for childern or for Creshe fees then the incentive to continue working or to look for a job is reduced. We already have this anomaly where earning people between 20-50K are no better off if they have a couple of childern in college

So if we have to make cuts do we protect workers or Social Welfare recipents. It is not possible to get much more tax out of the system as Tax evasion/ avoidance will be more profitable. Taxes on fuel is a tax on work and property and water rates will effect workers as there will be waivers for the unsmployed etc.

Leave welfare alone

Cut exec pay in banks,
Force the banks to pay a mandatory dividend of 500m each per annum,
Cut down on NAMA legal fees
Cut down on bank legal fees
Cut down on foreign aid
Reform Health Service and do away with the layer upon layer upon layer of costly administration and reform consultants pay

not yet

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

The big question is that as we need 3.5 billion of cuts at a minimum in the next budget shoild social welfare be excluded, should CS pay be excluded. If both of these are excluded then most of the pain will fall on working people.

Social Welfare makes up between 30&40% of the budget.At present it is the biggest budget in the government. If means test Child Benifit as we do not have either Tax credits for childern or for Creshe fees then the incentive to continue working or to look for a job is reduced. We already have this anomaly where earning people between 20-50K are no better off if they have a couple of childern in college

So if we have to make cuts do we protect workers or Social Welfare recipents. It is not possible to get much more tax out of the system as Tax evasion/ avoidance will be more profitable. Taxes on fuel is a tax on work and property and water rates will effect workers as there will be waivers for the unsmployed etc.

Sorry..come again. working people ?
So the PS are not working people then, that's the kind of attitude that makes me want to puke.

Yeah in certain areas SW is to high, when did we cross over to rent allowance, this little beauty is costing the state 1 billion + a year. Whats with people coming into the state and receiving rent allowance after 3 months.

djpbarry

Heads the ball wrote: »

But thats not the point.

Of course it’s the point! If you accept that there are welfare recipients who could easily survive on lower payments, then you must accept that there is scope to reduce welfare.

Heads the ball wrote: »

Do you agree that there are people in that bracket who could not survive a cut?

Probably, yes. But I never said that cuts should be applied to everyone equally, did I?

Heads the ball wrote: »

I could point to any area of spending or section of society (or indeed a bank) and say is there anyone in this bracket who is getting more than they could otherwise survive on. And if the answer was "yes" that wouldnt be a rationale to go cutting it for everyone in that group.

That’s a false dichotomy - it’s not a simple choice of “cuts for all” versus “cuts for nobody”.

Heads the ball wrote: »

If someone has 20euro left at the end of the week Im afraid thats not something that upsets me given bank exec pay, bondholders and bank guarantees.

You know what? There are always going to be people in the world who make obscene amounts of money (or at least there will be for the foreseeable future). Using this fact as an excuse not to balance the national books isn’t what I would call sound fiscal policy.

Heads the ball wrote: »

But I dont think that can be justified as it would be inequitable in the current context (open-cheque-book guarantees to the banks) and I think a 10euro cut to welfare would save a disproportionately small amount of spending compared to the hardship it would cause.

I don’t think you’re really aware of the scale of Ireland’s welfare spending? Ireland currently spends about €20 billion on welfare every year (and that doesn’t include public sector pensions – another €3 billion). Cutting welfare by a very modest 5% (the cost of living in Ireland is currently about 4% lower than it was at the beginning of 2009) would save €1 billion per annum. That is a very significant saving for a very small cut in welfare – the basic rate of jobseekers’ benefit would still be a very generous €179 per week.

Heads the ball wrote: »

Thats not an obvious conclusion as I have not answered your question (for reason that it is a flawed approach to the argument) about increasing welfare rates.

No, you haven’t answered the question. In fact, you’ve gone to great lengths to avoid the question. Which leads me to conclude that you are not in favour of increasing welfare because that would be ridiculous under current circumstances.

djpbarry

Heads the ball wrote: »

Cut down on foreign aid

You’ve spent the entire thread arguing that welfare spending should be maintained to protect “the vulnerable” in Ireland, but you’re happy enough to cut foreign aid?

Wow.

I couldn’t be bothered arguing with that level of hypocrisy. I’m done here.

Farmer Pudsey

Heads the ball wrote: »

Leave welfare alone

Cut exec pay in banks,
Force the banks to pay a mandatory dividend of 500m each per annum,
Cut down on NAMA legal fees
Cut down on bank legal fees
Cut down on foreign aid
Reform Health Service and do away with the layer upon layer upon layer of costly administration and reform consultants pay

I agree about Bank exec pay, legal fees however it will not benifit the exchequer, 500 million from the banks we might have to replace it with funding from the exchequer. Nama Legal fees, foreign Aid and reform of the health service will it save 5-600 million next year.

So best case senario is that we are still short 2.5 billion.

not yet wrote: »

Sorry..come again. working people ?
So the PS are not working people then, that's the kind of attitude that makes me want to puke.

Yeah in certain areas SW is to high, when did we cross over to rent allowance, this little beauty is costing the state 1 billion + a year. Whats with people coming into the state and receiving rent allowance after 3 months.

The reality is that in Ieland average private sector workers wage is below 28k while average PS workers wage is around 45k I think. In GB the difference is about 5K sterling. This is not sustainable. My own believe is that bench marking should be reversed and PS sector pensions should be reduced accordling. the workers in the PS who benfited from Benchmarking during the boom got a disportional pay rise compared to other PS workers also higher paid PS workers got massive pay rises and these should also be reversed. Pay in some semi-stae bodies is excessive such as Bord Gais and The ESB and the level od divident they pay the exchequer is miniscule.

The max pension that any PS worker should be entitles to is around 40K

Heads the ball

djpbarry wrote: »

You’ve spent the entire thread arguing that welfare spending should be maintained to protect “the vulnerable” in Ireland, but you’re happy enough to cut foreign aid?

Wow.

I couldn’t be bothered arguing with that level of hypocrisy. I’m done here.

Ok. I would throw in the towel too if I was you.

Charity starts at home. I would rather see foreign aid cut than I would social welfare. Simple.

djpbarry

Heads the ball wrote: »

Charity starts at home. I would rather see foreign aid cut than I would social welfare. Simple.

The fact that you are comparing welfare recipients in Ireland with those who benefit from Ireland’s foreign aid spending overseas really just serves to emphasise how utterly devoid of rationale your arguments are.

Cheerio.

Heads the ball

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

I agree about Bank exec pay, legal fees however it will not benifit the exchequer, 500 million from the banks we might have to replace it with funding from the exchequer. Nama Legal fees, foreign Aid and reform of the health service will it save 5-600 million next year.

So best case senario is that we are still short 2.5 billion.

A cut in bank exec pay means more profits for the bank and is beneficial to us.

There is nothing to say the exchequer would "have to replace" the 500m.
I still say go to the banks and take a 500m dividend from each.

I think we could squeeze NAMA legal fees, foreign aid and health service a little more - closer to 1bn.

I think that gets us closer to being 1bn off your target savings

Heads the ball

djpbarry wrote: »

The fact that you are comparing welfare recipients in Ireland with those who benefit from Ireland’s foreign aid spending overseas really just serves to emphasise how utterly devoid of rationale your arguments are.

Cheerio.

Eh ok - if cutting foreign aid upsets you (which is not an unreasonable position) I am happy to retract that suggestion.

I feel it weakens the argument of the pro-cut-social-welfare argument who say "but we have no money left" when Gilmore announces 3m for Somalia.

djpbarry

Heads the ball wrote: »

Eh ok - if cutting foreign aid upsets you...

It doesn't. I'm just pointing out that opposing cuts to welfare, on the basis of "protecting the vulnerable", while simultaneously advocating a cut to foreign aid makes you a hypocrite of epic proportions.

Scofflaw

Right, thread reopened following multiple requests and a bit of trimming. Please don't follow the path of one-liners and snide competitiveness that resulted in the previous lock.

moderately,
Scofflaw

EchoO

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

The big question is that as we need 3.5 billion of cuts at a minimum in the next budget shoild social welfare be excluded, should CS pay be excluded. If both of these are excluded then most of the pain will fall on working people.

Broadly speaking, what's going to happen in budget 2013 has been known since last January. €1.25 billion in new taxes and €2.25 billion in cuts, upwards of 500 million in cuts coming from the social protection budget.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0103/breaking3.html

According to Joan Burton it will take at least 2 years before the revenue I.T. system can communicate with the social services I.T system. Which means changes in child benefit are unlikely. Enda Kenny has said they are sticking to the programme for Government and there will be no cuts the the basic welfare rates. So where exactly the 500 million euro cut in the welfare budget is coming from is unclear.

djpbarry

EchoO wrote: »

Enda Kenny has said they are sticking to the programme for Government and there will be no cuts the the basic welfare rates. So where exactly the 500 million euro cut in the welfare budget is coming from is unclear.

How many pensioners are expected to die in the next 12 months?

Farmer Pudsey

EchoO wrote: »

Broadly speaking, what's going to happen in budget 2013 has been known since last January. €1.25 billion in new taxes and €2.25 billion in cuts, upwards of 500 million in cuts coming from the social protection budget.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0103/breaking3.html

According to Joan Burton it will take at least 2 years before the revenue I.T. system can communicate with the social services I.T system. Which means changes in child benefit are unlikely. Enda Kenny has said they are sticking to the programme for Government and there will be no cuts the the basic welfare rates. So where exactly the 500 million euro cut in the welfare budget is coming from is unclear.

This is what I mean by the government tying it hands by FG not wanting to raise taxes and LAB not wanting to touch Croke Park and Social welafre benifits. You will have severe cut on some sectors.You will find that 3rd level fees go up, petrol/diesel go up, child benfit get cut, household charge increase, waterrates all these will have a disapportionate effect on workers and families especially those who own there own homes.