We don't know what austerity is

maninasia

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Ah another poster who thinks everyone gets the raft of "freebies" eh? Go and read back some of the posts by people who are dealing with the reality day in and day out then come back to us


I agree with the first part.. there should be a sliding scale AND support when you DO get a job (as opposed to the current system where you're cut off instantly and left to fend for yourself for the first 4-6 weeks)

Ditto that if someone has never worked and no interest in it they should only get the bare minimum

Private Industry though wasted just as much in the "good times" as anyone else and made the same stupid decisions as many people did - or have you forgotten that the banks in this country were privately owned until relatively recently?

As for the PS, that's another inaccurate generalisation. While yes there are a lot of overpaid, lazy institutionalised middle-management types that should be weeded out, there are also a lot of younger front-line hard working people who you're tarring with the same brush (I could never praise nurses enough for example) and these people are also the ones who bare the brunt of any cuts that are implemented so to say they're "taken care of" isn't quite true.

Sorry the PS has been taken care of by the Croke Park agreement i.e. no compulsory redundancies and the continued payment of increments. That's not to say that they are not being stressed by cutbacks and voluntary redundancies, but the fact of the matter is most know that they will never t get such a deal as the CPA again. They have collectively chose this route through their unions, which on one hand claims to be 'looking for efficiencies' while on the other hand actually prohibits the government from choosing the fastest and most effective route to get these efficiencies!

Pensioners also have not been touched. Social welfare has barely been touched.

The pain has been put off by the lending spigot of the European Central Bank. Turn off that spigot and everything would come tumbling down.

As for private industry, the banks were nationalized by the FF government, it didn't have to be this way, but the government and senior civil servants chose this disastrous course of action as a type of bluff the market that failed spectacularly.

geneyuss

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

As for the rest of your examples...

- Phones: This isn't a luxury these days, it's an essential if you actually plan to get a job (ditto broadband). Of course, only in Ireland is key infrastructure deemed an "extra" - probably why our "smart economy" isn't so smart!

- Cable TV: I had Sky at the time and it was reduced to the minimum only because I didn't have the €300-400 outlay required to switch to FTA. But then what was I thinking? How dare I expect to have even a semblance of normality in my unemployed life right? :rolleyes:

- Running the car: I have a 06 Passat that I bought in 2008 and which now has 223,000 km on it. Unfortunately I've never been able to buy a new car every year ya see, oh and in case you hadn't noticed.. public transport ranges from impractical to non-existent once you go beyond Dublin.
How then would I get to all those interviews at short notice or even to the shops in some cases? Or would you rather I move back to Dublin (as I eventually did when I got my current job) and claim more in rent allowance?

- XBox games: Sorry, don't have one. Do have a PC though but haven't played, never mind bought a game in ages - does that count?

- Off to the pub: I could barely afford that now, never mind when I was on €188 a week. I guess I'm not as good as getting free drinks as others?


In short, you are a perfect example of this insecure, "me fein" type that is far too concerned with what everyone else is doing with "his/her taxes" than waking up to the real problems and waste that goes on in this country.

Apt username though - as in "have your head stuck in..."

although you were not replying to me, id like to pick up on this, as i think it proves a point, i work full-time during week, and have a part-time job one night at week ends,

phones ---- i have a E40 phone (E10 pw on credit)

cable/sky---- i dont or never have had , nor a flash flat screen, in fact my telly is about 14 years old, i have 8 fta channels,

car---- a 03 volvo, that i have two years and wont be in a position to upgrade any time soon, i must add, its the newest car ive had

games---dont play them, just this four year old laptop

pub----i have a few in the local on friday nights, if ive a few bob left after paying the same bills that everyone else has,---no clubs or anything

so,,,you aint doing that bad is all im saying

the keen edge

dahamsta wrote: »

I'd love to see the high horse brigade forced to live on social welfare for a month. You wouldn't last the first week. You haven't a notion what you're talking about, no background knowledge or understanding, or even a semblance of empathy. You're just parrots, trotting out the same tripe over and over. You're disgusting, ignorant prigs.

(I'm self-employed and have never drawn a penny a social welfare, so you can hold your stereotyping comments thanks. I'm finding it difficult on the small salary I pay myself though, the idea of having to live on social welfare is terrifying. Perhaps if you actually thought about it, about how it fits into your spending, just for a second while you wind up for your next diatribe, you might get a bit of a judder too.)

The irony, oh the irony, and from a user with over 15000 posts.

_Kaiser_

maninasia wrote: »

Well if you are unemployed are you not entitled to rental assistance? Are not many unemployed and their families entitled to medical cards while working people are not?
Is it not the case that there are some people claiming double benefits i.e. care allowance and dole allowance?
Are you able to avail of extra allowances for your kids going back to school?
Is it not the case that you must be in receipt of unemployment benefit before you can apply to get a grant as a mature student at 3rd level?

My point was that not everyone on the dole gets all these "extras" and those that do are means tested for them and can lose them again at the drop of a hat - hence the "poverty trap" that so many people find themselves unable to climb out of.

Even with these additional benefits, I genuinely don't understand where people get this idea that it amounts to a small fortune when most of the time it's just enough to get over whatever they're intended for.

There will always be welfare cheats who will be the ones living in luxury on the dole, but I'd like to think these are still in the minority and those are the people that should be targeted here - not the person just trying to survive with some sort of dignity until they get a new job.

geneyuss

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

If you mean do I challenge stereotypical inaccurate generalisations like some of what has been posted in this thread, then yes.. I'm not one for just accepting crap or poor service or incompetence/apathy in general though

As for the last line - if you'd bothered to actually read what was posted you'd have gathered that not only am I working but I'm doing well in it.

But by all means, feel free to trade barbs anonymously from behind your screen there - it's certainly not bothering me

i apologise, was getting you confused with another poster,
im pretty new here,,,no 15000 posts for me

maninasia

Agreed, but the fact remains the system as it stands is unfair to people who have substantially paid into it and does not sufficiently discriminate the lifestyle dolies from people who are genuinely in between jobs.
Importantly, can the country afford to keep paying the current social welfare rates, I think the answer is obvious.

Sand

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Oh there's so much wrong with this post I don't know where to begin, but...

People like yourself need to realise that you (like the rest of us) could find yourself out of work in the morning, and that lifestyle you had, loans you took out which were perfectly serviceable while you were working haven't disappeared with your job and will still need to be paid.

I love the whole idea that you can just ring the bank though and tell them "I've no job so tough.. you'll just have to wait until I do". That may work for the big boys (are you familiar with the quote along the lines of: "borrow 1000 from the bank and they own you, borrow 10,000,000 and you own them") but for ordinary Joe that will just land them in court - and we know too that swift justice is dispensed in this country to those who can't afford to work the system or don't have the right contacts (which is why people end up being sent to jail for having no TV license and other such minutiae)

As for the rest of your examples...

- Phones: This isn't a luxury these days, it's an essential if you actually plan to get a job (ditto broadband). Of course, only in Ireland is key infrastructure deemed an "extra" - probably why our "smart economy" isn't so smart!

- Cable TV: I had Sky at the time and it was reduced to the minimum only because I didn't have the €300-400 outlay required to switch to FTA. But then what was I thinking? How dare I expect to have even a semblance of normality in my unemployed life right? :rolleyes:

- Running the car: I have a 06 Passat that I bought in 2008 and which now has 223,000 km on it. Unfortunately I've never been able to buy a new car every year ya see, oh and in case you hadn't noticed.. public transport ranges from impractical to non-existent once you go beyond Dublin.
How then would I get to all those interviews at short notice or even to the shops in some cases? Or would you rather I move back to Dublin (as I eventually did when I got my current job) and claim more in rent allowance?

- XBox games: Sorry, don't have one. Do have a PC though but haven't played, never mind bought a game in ages - does that count?

- Off to the pub: I could barely afford that now, never mind when I was on €188 a week. I guess I'm not as good as getting free drinks as others?


In short, you are a perfect example of this insecure, "me fein" type that is far too concerned with what everyone else is doing with "his/her taxes" than waking up to the real problems and waste that goes on in this country.

Apt username though - as in "have your head stuck in..."

And breathe.

Now, having got that off your chest, are you saying the dole should be benchmarked to include the cost of servicing your debts?

I'm guessing the answer will be yes though because it appears the dole should be bench-marked to cover your smartphone, broadband, TV and car. God forbid you'd have to use a bus, get a lift or visit a public library.

I'm guessing from your dismissive attitude to the idea of negotiating with your creditors that you didn't seriously explore your options or negotiate with them. Your creditors will try to intimidate you (and perhaps succeeded in your case) but a judge will throw out any case where the bank hasn't made any genuine efforts to find a negotiated solution. Your fear of being dragged screaming out of your bed by the bailiffs inside a few months is misjudged.

In short, you are a perfect example of this insecure, "me fein" type that is far too concerned with what everyone else is doing with "his/her taxes" than waking up to the real problems and waste that goes on in this country.

Well, that's an unkind statement to make.

Id argue that one of the real problems and waste that goes on in this country is that people are fairly good at the beal bocht and want the dole to cover their lifestyle, to keep them in a certain standard of living that goes beyond basic utilities and food. Everyone thinks "Cut them, dont cut me!".

By any objective standard, the dole in this country is unaffordable - notice Im not saying too high which is a subjective judgement. I am saying unaffordable which is an objective one given our huge deficit.

You can go on saying what a terrible person I am, and if it makes you feel better, grand - work it all out. But it wont change the reality of what is and isnt unaffordable.

_Kaiser_

maninasia wrote: »

Sorry the PS has been taken care of by the Croke Park agreement i.e. no compulsory redundancies and the continued payment of increments. That's not to say that they are not being stressed by cutbacks and voluntary redundancies,

Really?? Perhaps you can explain to me then why I was made redundant after 4.5 years in the PS? It certainly wasn't voluntary - on either side - but the mandate was that anyone who wasn't permanent couldn't be renewed

but the fact of the matter is most know that they will never t get such a deal as the CPA again. They have collectively chose this route through their unions, which on one hand claims to be 'looking for efficiencies' while on the other hand actually prohibits the government from choosing the fastest and most effective route to get these efficiencies!

I agree with you that the PS needs a complete reform at all levels and a benchmarking system of performance (like in any private company I've ever worked for) brought in.

Of course, in theory these are already in place but I had only 1 "review" in the time I was there and it was the easiest I'd ever been to. Lucky for them/me I suppose that I actually like working and take pride and responsibility in my work so did whatever was necessary.

I will grant you though that the "increments" system needs to go too - but that said, I know of private companies where a department head will be told s/he has a predefined range of results to assign - so even if there's a team of 10 star performers, only 1/2 will actually be recognised as such.

Pensioners also have not been touched. Social welfare has barely been touched.

Whatever about pensioners, you seem to forget that any changes (be it the price of bread, increase in a litre of diesel or an actual cut on the rate) afects those on social welfare first and hardest.

The pain has been put off by the lending spigot of the European Central Bank. Turn off that spigot and everything would come tumbling down.

As for private industry, the banks were nationalized by the FF government, it didn't have to be this way, but the government and senior civil servants chose this disastrous course of action as a type of bluff the market that failed spectacularly.

This I agree with - but the function was to allow the gravy train at the top to continue uninterrupted so in that way I suppose you can judge it a spectacular success

maninasia

The typical argument in Ireland is, 'you don't have a socialist viewpoint' therefore 'you are a bad person'.
What rubbish!

Sand

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

As for the PS, that's another inaccurate generalisation. While yes there are a lot of overpaid, lazy institutionalised middle-management types that should be weeded out, there are also a lot of younger front-line hard working people who you're tarring with the same brush (I could never praise nurses enough for example) and these people are also the ones who bare the brunt of any cuts that are implemented so to say they're "taken care of" isn't quite true.

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Although I feel the burden of tax needs to be spread more evenly, I don't begrudge anyone the €188 they get and for which they will most likely be treated like a junkie scumbag by those helpful people in the Dept of Social Welfare (or whatever name they're calling it this week)

You don't seem to be afraid to throw around a few inaccurate generalizations yourself.

Use of the long suffering "front-line workers" as a human shield present and correct though. Was that "jobsworth" as you called her one of the wonderful "younger front-line hard working people"? It was that "overpaid, lazy, institutionalised middle management" type who sorted out your problem for you when you went over her head right?

_Kaiser_

Sand wrote: »

And breathe.

I'm grand thanks, but I still disagree I'm afraid

Now, having got that off your chest, are you saying the dole should be benchmarked to include the cost of servicing your debts?

I'm guessing the answer will be yes though because it appears the dole should be bench-marked to cover your smartphone, broadband, TV and car. God forbid you'd have to use a bus, get a lift or visit a public library.

Again per my earlier reply, public transport often isn't a practical option outside of Dublin - that's if it exists at all.

As for getting a lift.. that's fine if you know someone in the first instance and who has the time to chauffeur you around - who pays for the petrol/diesel by the way?

I'm guessing from your dismissive attitude to the idea of negotiating with your creditors that you didn't seriously explore your options or negotiate with them. Your creditors will try to intimidate you (and perhaps succeeded in your case) but a judge will throw out any case where the bank hasn't made any genuine efforts to find a negotiated solution. Your fear of being dragged screaming out of your bed by the bailiffs inside a few months is misjudged.

On the contrary, the very first thing I did when I was made redundant (as in literally the next day) was ring the bank and the utility companies and inform of the situation and negotiate new lower/extended payment terms with them.

Paying nothing however wasn't on the table (and I did ask) so maybe I just bank with the wrong crowd but I've yet to hear of anyone who doesn't have to give them something

Id argue that one of the real problems and waste that goes on in this country is that people are fairly good at the beal bocht and want the dole to cover their lifestyle, to keep them in a certain standard of living that goes beyond basic utilities and food. Everyone thinks "Cut them, dont cut me!".

By any objective standard, the dole in this country is unaffordable - notice Im not saying too high which is a subjective judgement. I am saying unaffordable which is an objective one given our huge deficit.

You can go on saying what a terrible person I am, and if it makes you feel better, grand - work it all out. But it wont change the reality of what is and isnt unaffordable.

You can argue about what's affordable or not all day, but when we have a situation where those at the top (or even the upper-middle) are completely or largely insulated from these realities as is the case now, calling for those on the last rung of the ladder who are already suffering through unemployment, financial hardship and stress to take even more pain to keep the gravy flowing is not only futile, but it's plain wrong and THAT is what a lot of people have a problem with.

If the burden truly was being shared equally across all of Irish society so that yes, the unemployed take some pain but those better able to pay actually do pay, we would be doing a lot better than the current strategy of trying to squeeze the bottom and lower-middle for the lot.

Enda said we're all in this together - time for him to put his money where his mouth is so!

Marcusm

godtabh wrote: »

That's private enterprise. What has that got to do with austerity?

It's not private enterprise, it's third sector, NFP whatever you want to call it and it's justified in part by reference to senior public service jobs. From what I've seen of the guy's performance (and I don't mean letting his hair down in Poland), he'd struggle to get a true private sector job at that level.

_Kaiser_

Sand wrote: »

You don't seem to be afraid to throw around a few inaccurate generalizations yourself.

Use of the long suffering "front-line workers" as a human shield present and correct though. Was that "jobsworth" as you called her one of the wonderful "younger front-line hard working people"? It was that "overpaid, lazy, institutionalised middle management" type who sorted out your problem for you when you went over her head right?

Ah but only when I pressed him on the matter.. initially he wanted to try and give me the line that "those blue slips are sent from Dundalk and we have no control over it" but I was having none of it and insisted he process my signing on there and then - which he did

And no, the lady in question was in fact one of those stereotypical permanent, there-too-long types that the PS is infamous for.

Look, there are lazy incompetent people in every business and organisation and there are many more that take their jobs seriously and work their ass off - unfortunately though it seems that the former are the ones who rise into the positions of authority (in the public and private sectors I might add) and that then is where the problem starts and where this image comes from.

But if you want to quibble over trivialities rather than answer the points that's grand too - although I have to say I feel like we're not going to get anywhere on this one at this point

irishguy

zenno wrote: »

Theres nothing left after bills on €188 a week from the social welfare so I don't know how anybody on the basic welfare payment of €188 can go on any holidays, it's impossible.

I agree if you have kids/mortgage it would be tough to live on this. If you have no responsibilitys you could easily live on this and go on holidays/concerts/nights out. I know quite a few people (in there 20's) who did this over the last 5 years(most by choice) they could have gotten jobs (most were college Educated) but couldn't be bothered. Now they can't even get jobs if they wanted to as they wasted the last number of years. Those are the people who need their benefits cut!!

PucaMama

geneyuss wrote: »

I know how the system works, i dont need to "do a bit of reading " on it, maybe you do so as you'd get more than E188 pw

back to school allowance = free clothes
child allowance is for every child (rich or poor)= totally wrong
free elec and phone for pensioners (rich or poor) = wrong
rent allowance= free home (if one cant afford it,find somewhere smaller/share)
Dont even get me started on the amount the CWO's hand out every week to travellers and foreign nationals, i have a friend who is a community welfare officer and she tells me its frightening what people come in and look for money for, and usually get it, new prams, new furniture , new tellys , playstations for the kids, you name it.

back to school allowance = free clothes are you having a laugh?!? school books this year for 2 out of 4 in my house cost almost 300 euro. and then their are uniforms. (these are my siblings and by my house i mean my parents. i dont live there now.) you will NOT see my mother/father or anyone else in the house getting free treats from this money. this is so children can get their "free" education.:rolleyes: oh and rent allowance covers part of your rent. EVERYONE that rents gets it when unemployed. if you are unemployed and have a mortgage you can get help with that also. all the above are needed. i wouldnt begrudge it to anyone who needs it.

EDIT: Does your friend carry all the rumours out of work their boss wouldnt like that.

geneyuss

PucaMama wrote: »

back to school allowance = free clothes are you having a laugh?!? school books this year for 2 out of 4 in my house cost almost 300 euro. and then their are uniforms. (these are my siblings and by my house i mean my parents. i dont live there now.) you will NOT see my mother/father or anyone else in the house getting free treats from this money. this is so children can get their "free" education.:rolleyes: oh and rent allowance covers part of your rent. EVERYONE that rents gets it when unemployed. if you are unemployed and have a mortgage you can get help with that also. all the above are needed. i wouldnt begrudge it to anyone who needs it.

EDIT: Does your friend carry all the rumours out of work their boss wouldnt like that.

oh well if you want to nit-pick

Back to School Clothing and Footwear Allowance= free clothes ( no im not having a laugh) i have a 14 yo son, i know how much it costs, but im not entitled to anything in my quoted post because like a mug , i work.

im aware the rent allowance pays the majority of the rent and not all, the landlords have alot to answer for here with the ridiculous rents the charge anyway

no,,she's a friend and it came up in conversation one day, people do actually talk to eachother sometimes without the aid of a keyboard, hardly rumours if no names were mentioned either, i often talk about my job and complain about certain aspects of it, does that mean i am carrying rumours? i think not

PucaMama

geneyuss wrote: »

oh well if you want to nit-pick

Back to School Clothing and Footwear Allowance= free clothes ( no im not having a laugh) i have a 14 yo son, i know how much it costs, but im not entitled to anything in my quoted post because like a mug , i work.

im aware the rent allowance pays the majority of the rent and not all, the landlords have alot to answer for here with the ridiculous rents the charge anyway

no,,she's a friend and it came up in conversation one day, people do actually talk to eachother sometimes without the aid of a keyboard, hardly rumours if no names were mentioned either, i often talk about my job and complain about certain aspects of it, does that mean i am carrying rumours? i think not

back to school allowance is to get them BACK TO SCHOOL with uniforms and books etc. NOT for a nice shopping trip for "new clothes" as you keep saying.

geneyuss

PucaMama wrote: »

back to school allowance is to get them BACK TO SCHOOL with uniforms and books etc. NOT for a nice shopping trip for "new clothes" as you keep saying.

thats not even putting words in my mouth, its completely misconstruing what i said, as a matter of fact, i have said nothing of the sort, so im guessing you have no argument or opinion other than to tell lies.
back to school allowance,and clothing and footwear allowance are different things, i know its hard to keep up with so many of them
the whole point of this thread was that we dont know what austerity is, and with ALL these allowances its hardly surprising is my argument.
But i think we will know soon enough

zenno

irishguy wrote: »

I agree if you have kids/mortgage it would be tough to live on this. If you have no responsibilitys you could easily live on this and go on holidays/concerts/nights out. I know quite a few people (in there 20's) who did this over the last 5 years(most by choice) they could have gotten jobs (most were college Educated) but couldn't be bothered. Now they can't even get jobs if they wanted to as they wasted the last number of years. Those are the people who need their benefits cut!!

For the love of cornflakes, will you people stop making accusations that unemployed people can go on holidays when your income from social welfare is €188 per week only, NOT month, per week. How on this planet can you say "with No responsibilities" ?, You are living in koo koo land.

You are talking about 20 year old's that are young and live with their parents and pay no rent, esb bills, food or other monies for household cleaning items and all the rest that is essential. So i'll leave you up there in that koo koo nest to figure out how €188 after payment of these things can leave you plenty of money for holidays ?.

OMARS_COMING_

Things aren't that bad here at all,far from it.

I always thought that a recession meant that people had no money,struggled to pay for food,had no disposable income at all - basically living on the bread line.

Now i know what recession really means,its not having the money to buy what you want when you want it like it was here for years.

If you are unemployed you can get 188 euro a week for NOTHING! couple that with rent allowance and a medical card,various schemes such as back to education allowance where the government will pay you to study in college,we really have little to moan about in Ireland.

_Kaiser_

OMARS_COMING_ wrote: »

If you are unemployed you can get 188 euro a week for NOTHING! couple that with rent allowance and a medical card,various schemes such as back to education allowance where the government will pay you to study in college,we really have little to moan about in Ireland.

In the vast majority of cases in the last 4 years, people in receipt of this are merely getting back (some of) what they've paid over many years of working and paying taxes in this country

I agree with you though that those who have not worked and don't want to should only get a minimum allowance until they show they are making a genuine effort to contribute - a civilised first world country (which we supposedly are - although this forum would make you wonder sometimes!) can't let people starve after all.

Avatarr

Wow, not a semblance of balance in a lot of comments, its like flicking through the headlines of some shoddy tabloids.

At height of boom we had 3-4% unemployment, which means there's is about 11% who want to work and cannot get employment. So this stereotype of all welfare recipients creaming the system is "BS".

If you want to bash a group of people in society, why not politicians, financial regulator and EU. Social welfare has not caused this mess.

I don't get the disproportionate anger towards €188 recipients, a small % of which are spongers.

A bit of balance please.

geneyuss

OMARS_COMING_ wrote: »

Things aren't that bad here at all,far from it.

I always thought that a recession meant that people had no money,struggled to pay for food,had no disposable income at all - basically living on the bread line.

Now i know what recession really means,its not having the money to buy what you want when you want it like it was here for years.

If you are unemployed you can get 188 euro a week for NOTHING! couple that with rent allowance and a medical card,various schemes such as back to education allowance where the government will pay you to study in college,we really have little to moan about in Ireland.

never a truer word spoken

yep, its a hard life :rolleyes: and they still complain about how tough they have it, we all have our crosses to bare especially those that have to work for what they get.

KindOfIrish

geneyuss wrote: »

i have a friend who is a community welfare officer and she tells me its frightening what people come in and look for money for, and usually get it, new prams, new furniture , new tellys , playstations for the kids, you name it.

are you a taxi driver?;)

OMARS_COMING_

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

In the vast majority of cases in the last 4 years, people in receipt of this are merely getting back (some of) what they've paid over many years of working and paying taxes in this country

I agree with you though that those who have not worked and don't want to should only get a minimum allowance until they show they are making a genuine effort to contribute - a civilised first world country (which we supposedly are - although this forum would make you wonder sometimes!) can't let people starve after all.

I totally agree with you.

The system is seriously flawed.I have many friends that live a very comfortable life on social welfare - admittedly most are still living at home with their parents so the 188 euro a week is just pocket money to them,why work for money and lose your medical card when you can get these things for doing nothing?

A few of people i know decided to quit there jobs to go on social welfare for 9 months to be able to qualify for the back to education allowance and student grant which is a total of around 13k a year,what a messed up system that it definitely pays not to work unless you earn a nice wage every week.

Social welfare payment of 188 a week,rent allowance,medical card,free college/Fas courses compared to a minimum wage job of 335 a week with no medical card or goverment support and when you factor in travel costs etc your working for about an extra 80 euro a week which will probaly go towards rent, i mean why even bother?

geneyuss

Avatarr wrote: »

Wow, not a semblance of balance in a lot of comments, its like flicking through the headlines of some shoddy tabloids.

At height of boom we had 3-4% unemployment, which means there's is about 11% who want to work and cannot get employment. So this stereotype of all welfare recipients creaming the system is "BS".

If you want to bash a group of people in society, why not politicians, financial regulator and EU. Social welfare has not caused this mess.

I don't get the disproportionate anger towards €188 recipients, a small % of which are sponges.

A bit of balance please.

absolute rubbish, most of that 11% are gone back home or went to London, you have never worked on a building site clearly, its broad sweeping comments like this that create an air of confusion,we were (supposedly) at 3-4 % unemployment for one reason--- construction.

Although these are figures that i never believed, regardless, we still have imo the same 6-7% unemployed that dont want to work.
i do agree its a small % that are spongers, but thats not the issue, welfare as a whole is too generous, to many allowances for this and that, to many reasons not to "need" to work.Nevermind want to work

geneyuss

KindOfIrish wrote: »

are you a taxi driver?;)

good god no,,,why do you ask,,,(awaits smart reply ) :cool:

Avatarr

geneyuss wrote: »

absolute rubbish, most of that 11% are gone back home or went to London, you have never worked on a building site clearly, its broad sweeping comments like this that create an air of confusion,we were (supposedly) at 3-4 % unemployment for one reason--- construction.

Although these are figures that i never believed, regardless, we still have imo the same 6-7% unemployed that dont want to work.
i do agree its a small % that are spongers, but thats not the issue, welfare as a whole is too generous, to many allowances for this and that, to many reasons not to "need" to work.Nevermind want to work

How can you say 6-7% don't want to work, 2007 unemployment 4.4%, when its argued there was a lot of vacancies out there, surely this is the max figure. Quote your reference for 6-7% and the figures for % which have "gone home".

http://www.cso.ie/en/statistics/labourmarket/principalstatistics/seasonallyadjustedstandardisedunemploymentratessur/

geneyuss

Avatarr wrote: »

How can you say 6-7% don't want to work, 2007 unemployment 4.4%, when its argued there was a lot of vacancies out there, surely this is the max figure. Quote your reference for 6-7% and the figures for % which have "gone home".

http://www.cso.ie/en/statistics/labourmarket/principalstatistics/seasonallyadjustedstandardisedunemploymentratessur/

for the same reason you say its a tiny % are spongers,
i go by what i see, not what some pen pushing overpaid underworked civil servant tells me, its because of those very people we are even talking about austerity so please don't insult me by providing links with figures that crowd have conjured up to keep Ze Germans happy.

i have actually had one of those CSO officers calling to me every 13 weeks for the past year for some "quarterly" study rubbish.
I, and i assume many like me tell them anything just to get rid of them, so yeah,,very accurate

Avatarr

geneyuss wrote: »

for the same reason you say its a tiny % are spongers,
i go by what i see, not what some pen pushing overpaid underworked civil servant tells me, its because of those very people we are even talking about austerity so please don't insult me by providing links with figures that crowd have conjured up to keep Ze Germans happy.

:rolleyes:

Farmer Pudsey

Avatarr wrote: »

How can you say 6-7% don't want to work, 2007 unemployment 4.4%, when its argued there was a lot of vacancies out there, surely this is the max figure. Quote your reference for 6-7% and the figures for % which have "gone home".

http://www.cso.ie/en/statistics/labourmarket/principalstatistics/seasonallyadjustedstandardisedunemploymentratessur/

Avatarr lets put it another way 4.4% do not want to work at all. Then there is about another half of the unemployed that will not work because it will never pay them with the present welfare syastem. The reality is that if you are single and earning 188/week and living at home you will need a basic of about 500/week before tax to have much extra if the vjob is any distance from you.

The most glaring imbalance in the welfare system is between family's where they both work these people need in the area of 50K before tax at least and maybe more before it pays them to work. In this country if you are unemployed you are well looked after.

If you are on welfare and are a non smoker and a moderate drinker single
and living at home there is no reason that you could not have a very nice lifestyle.

Avatarr

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

Avatarr lets put it another way 4.4% do not want to work at all. Then there is about another half of the unemployed that will not work because it will never pay them with the present welfare syastem. The reality is that if you are single and earning 188/week and living at home you will need a basic of about 500/week before tax to have much extra if the vjob is any distance from you.

The most glaring imbalance in the welfare system is between family's where they both work these people need in the area of 50K before tax at least and maybe more before it pays them to work. In this country if you are unemployed you are well looked after.

If you are on welfare and are a non smoker and a moderate drinker single
and living at home there is no reason that you could not have a very nice lifestyle.

I agree on 4.4%, this is a good guide to those who have no interest in working (there is however a portion in here that cant work). I also agree with you on the people living at home e.t.c, but there is the 11 odd % who can't get work who desparately want to work, who have families and mortgages that they now cannot afford.

Its the sterotyping that bugs, all welfare recipients are wasters. That is just not the case, they unfortunately are the collateral damage for failed light touch regulation.

By the way, I am one of the lucky ones in fulltime employement.

murphaph

Avatarr wrote: »

At height of boom we had 3-4% unemployment, which means there's is about 11% who want to work and cannot get employment. So this stereotype of all welfare recipients creaming the system is "BS".

You can't know for sure. I believe that the majority on welfare want to work, but I'm not so naive to think that once hardworking people who have now tasted the myriad of assorted benefits available to them will consider seeking employment twice before stepping off the welfare train. How many? we can't know.

Heads the ball

NIMAN wrote: »

If you can still afford Sky TV when on the dole, then are you really suffering as bad as you think you are?

People shouldnt "suffer" when they are on welfare

southsiderosie

MOD NOTE:

I think one poster put it best:

Avatarr wrote: »

Wow, not a semblance of balance in a lot of comments, its like flicking through the headlines of some shoddy tabloids.

Pretty much. As the charter notes, THIS IS A POLITICS FORUM, NOT LIVELINE.

This thread has no redeeming qualities whatsoever, and I'm closing it; I don't think we need another thread where the main point seems to be whinging about people on the dole allegedly living the high life. I would like to think that the day will come when we can have a conversation about the nature of welfare without wild stories about foreigners and prams, dole scroungers with iPhones, or public sector employee bashing coming into play, but I fear that day is long off.

southsiderosie

MOD NOTE:

If you are interested in having a discussion on the level of Irish welfare benefits, there is another thread running in the forum here:

IMF: Social welfare benefits 'too high'