Tánaiste Moany Burton: IW protesters 'seem to have extremely expensive phones'

SpaceTime

The problem is that in Ireland we still don't really see 'social security' in the same way as many continental European countries tend to.

People here still see it as a sort of 'charity' which comes from the fact that we really didn't have a social security system in the modern sense until relatively late. Most advanced European countries developed very comprehensive social security models in the immediate aftermath of WWII.

Most of them see social services like creches etc as something they pay for collectively though their taxes and expect good services back and that's why they pay high taxes.

In Ireland we tend to still be stuck in the 19th century poor law model to some degree i.e. that welfare is for 'paupers' and that working people shouldn't be getting any social services. I think many English speaking countries are stuck in this kind of mode of thinking and it's largely driven by American conservative politics. In many ways the United States' social policy is where Europe was in about 1890, just with modern technology.

You have to move to a hybrid where we have a notion that you're paying into a social insurance system that actually provides community based services to everyone rather than just a system that has handouts for poor people.

We create umpteen poverty traps and disincentives to take up jobs because of how the system works i.e. if you're completely unemployed, you get access to lots of services where as if you're trying to start into the workplace or you're on a low income or a medium income, you're basically left to fend for yourself.

The system needs to be completely redesigned from the ground up with a holistic, universal type approach that removes all these poverty traps and two-tierism.

rob316

Jesus few a politician annoys me as much as Burton. Her stance on social welfare is basically everyone is a fraudster and we will get you. She has actually no interest in overhauling the system.

AlekSmart

renegademaster wrote: »

water - check
sandwiches - check
banner - check
fully charged up nokia 106 - check

:pac:

A 106 .....wait...wait ...wait....I have a prefectly good 3310 with a cracked screen I can lend ya......before your credibility is destroyed by that 106.....

It's all about da bass !!

Idbatterim

Jesus few a politician annoys me as much as Burton. Her stance on social welfare is basically everyone is a fraudster and we will get you. She has actually no interest in overhauling the system.

other than tinkering with it, no she doesnt. But she has done a bloody good job of defending the welfare budget... I think Labour are becoming far more realistic now that they are in office!

rob316

She should have Social welfare checks at the protests to find out are people claiming with these expensive phones.

Her comment is ignorant she thinks it's only poor people are protesting who should shut up and pay the charges instead of spending it on phones.

She's a moron.

kneemos

rob316 wrote: »

She should have Social welfare checks at the protests to find out are people claiming with these expensive phones.

Her comment is ignorant she thinks it's only poor people are protesting who should shut up and pay the charges instead of spending it on phones.

She's a moron.

Thought their voter base was mostly poorer people?or have they ambitions of becoming the new FF?

rob316

kneemos wrote: »

Thought their voter base was mostly poorer people?or have they ambitions of becoming the new FF?

All cut from the same cloth the lot of them. Votes from anyone will do. Totally out of touch with the working man.

Why say anything at all. Sensitive issue just adding heat to the fire.

Gatling

rob316 wrote: »

Her stance on social welfare is basically everyone is a fraudster and we will get you. She has actually no interest in overhauling the system.

She's done a pretty good job so far .
and yet she held back on a whole lot of cuts .
as she's stated welfare should be short term support not a lifestyle or career choice

VinLieger

Gatling wrote: »

She's done a pretty good job so far .
and yet she held back on a whole lot of cuts .
as she's stated welfare should be short term support not a lifestyle or career choice

Exactly considering we have one of the higest social welfare payments in Europe Burton has actually fought her corner quite well with regards to fending off cuts, however people only ever see the failures cus everyone is always the most hard done by in their own eyes.

Laois6556

VinLieger wrote: »

Exactly considering we have one of the higest social welfare payments in Europe Burton has actually fought her corner quite well with regards to fending off cuts, however people only ever see the failures cus everyone is always the most hard done by in their own eyes.

Especially the well off.

Gatling

Laois6556 wrote: »

Especially the well off.

Are the well off spending a lifetime on welfare .
Complaining about the wasting of tax payers money.

Is there something wrong about people who are highly educated and highly skilled in what they do earning higher paying salaries .

VinLieger

Laois6556 wrote: »

Especially the well off.

Ooooh sarcasm, thank's for proving my point.

Im curious as what you class as well off though is it anyone on the highest tax band?

Laois6556

Gatling wrote: »

Are the well off spending a lifetime on welfare .
Complaining about the wasting of tax payers money

This is what I mean. Very, very few people spend there lives on the dole. The rich like to paint anyone in receipt of social welfare as scroungers when this is not the case at all. Then they complain about an increase in taxes on their overpaid jobs.

Laois6556

VinLieger wrote: »

Ooooh sarcasm, thank's for proving my point.

Im curious as what you class as well off though is it anyone on the highest tax band?

How do you know I'm not well off? Not all of us look down on those less well off as scummy scroungers.

Gatling

Laois6556 wrote: »

This is what I mean. Very, very few people spend there lives on the dole. The rich like to paint anyone in receipt of social welfare as scroungers when this is not the case at all. Then they complain about an increase in taxes on their overpaid jobs.

At the height of the boom 60+ 000 stayed long term unemployed .
Very few people yeah

Laois6556

Gatling wrote: »

At the height of the boom 60+ 000 stayed long term unemployed .
Very few people yeah

It was far less than that, under 10,000 in fact.

yipeeeee

Laois6556 wrote: »

It was far less than that, under 10,000 in fact.

Not a chance.

VinLieger

Laois6556 wrote: »

How do you know I'm not well off? Not all of us look down on those less well off as scummy scroungers.

I never said you weren't, I just made a comment that everyone complains that they are hard done by which you then turned around to effectively say "but the rich complain the most"

Laois6556

yipeeeee wrote: »

Not a chance.

It was, very few people. Even 60,000 people isn't that much. The way people go on is as if everyone on the dole never worked before.

We can all quote figures for long term unemployed, but there is a section of society that, through no fault of their own are unemployable. No matter what we think, there are many thousands that are being failed by the system. Many have health problems, physical or mental that are not allowed or considered bad enough for disability allowance. There are many others who lack the social skills necessary for them to gain and keep employment. The number of chancers is really quiet small.

yipeeeee

Laois6556 wrote: »

It was, very few people. Even 60,000 people isn't that much. The way people go on is as if everyone on the dole never worked before.

So it wasn't under 10,000?

KomradeBishop

Gatling wrote: »

At the height of the boom 60+ 000 stayed long term unemployed .
Very few people yeah

[Citation Needed]

Laois6556

VinLieger wrote: »

I never said you weren't, I just made a comment that everyone complains that they are hard done by which you then turned around to effectively say "but the rich complain the most"

Well it's the truth, considering how tough some people have it, those comfortably well off really have nothing to complain about. Yet they never miss an oportunity to.

yipeeeee

[Deleted User] wrote: »

We can all quote figures for long term unemployed, but there is a section of society that, through no fault of their own are unemployable. No matter what we think, there are many thousands that are being failed by the system. Many have health problems, physical or mental that are not allowed or considered bad enough for disability allowance. There are many others who lack the social skills necessary for them to gain and keep employment. The number of chancers is really quiet small.

Yet they all are able to sleep with a roof over their head every night.

And they arent dying of starvation or freezing to death.

So who is giving them this help they need?

Laois6556

yipeeeee wrote: »

So it wasn't under 10,000?

It was but even the 60,000 figure you believe isn't a lot.

yipeeeee

Laois6556 wrote: »

It was but even the 60,000 figure you believe isn't a lot.

Unemployment was the lowest at 4.5% during the boom.

A simple google told me you just made all that up.

KomradeBishop

You know just as well as anyone, that 'Unemployed' does not equal 'Long Term Unemployed'.

Gatling

Laois6556 wrote: »

It was far less than that, under 10,000 in fact.

Wrong

Gatling

KomradeBishop wrote: »

[Citation Needed]

Looks like your on the wrong website


Iiki a little clue if it helps.

KomradeBishop

Ok, two myths to do away with here:
1: Unemployed does not equal Long Term Unemployed, and
2: Long Term Unemployed does not equal Does-Not-Want-Work/Scrounger

How anyone can believe either of those things, I don't know - just incredibly ignorant.

Gatling

2005 unemployed in Ireland 98,000+ alone

The fact the term long term unemployed has changed from anything over 5 years to 18 months is now considered long term unemployed

VinLieger

Laois6556 wrote: »

Well it's the truth, considering how tough some people have it, those comfortably well off really have nothing to complain about. Yet they never miss an oportunity to.

Possibly because they are always the targets, tax the rich is not a solution to econmic problems and never will be. Yes let's tax the job creators and people who pay the vast majority of tax as it is even more, that will deffinitely fix things and won't be the last nail in the coffin that makes them leave the country.

Laois6556

VinLieger wrote: »

Possibly because they are always the targets, tax the rich is not a solution to econmic problems and never will be. Yes let's tax the job creators and people who pay the vast majority of tax as it is even more, that will deffinitely fix things and won't be the last nail in the coffin that makes them leave the country.

So everyone well off are job creators and everyone on social welfare are scrounging scum.

KomradeBishop

VinLieger wrote: »

Possibly because they are always the targets, tax the rich is not a solution to econmic problems and never will be. Yes let's tax the job creators and people who pay the vast majority of tax as it is even more, that will deffinitely fix things and won't be the last nail in the coffin that makes them leave the country.

More myths to do away with:
Rich does not equal Job Creator.

Laois6556

Ok here's some real numbers. From this article in 2013 it says that 43,375 of those on the dole have never paid in the PRSI system: http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/one-in-seven-people-on-the-dole-has-never-worked-a-single-day-29278033.html

Of that 43,000, only 20,000 were of working age during the boom. Then we have to cut off the number who emigrated and came back, never had to pay tax, worked in the black economy, the unemployable (drug addicts etc). After doing this we reach a number below 10,000. 10,000 people who were unemployed during the boom and continue to be, that's not bad is it?

Gatling

Laois6556 wrote: »

Ok here's some real numbers. From this article in 2013 it says that 43,375 of those on the dole have never paid in the PRSI system: http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/one-in-seven-people-on-the-dole-has-never-worked-a-single-day-29278033.html

Of that 43,000, only 20,000 were of working age during the boom. Then we have to cut off the number who emigrated and came back, never had to pay tax, worked in the black economy, the unemployable (drug addicts etc). After doing this we reach a number below 10,000. 10,000 people who were unemployed during the boom and continue to be, that's not bad is it?

(98,000 unemployed in 2005 alone)

2,677 people aged between 60 and 65 who have never made any PRSI contribution.

43,375 people, or one in seven of those in receipt of the €188-a-week Jobseeker's Benefit, have never made any contribution to the PRSI system, in other words, they have never been in employment.

I notice no mention of those on less than 188 or those who are qualified adults .

Laois6556

Gatling wrote: »

98,000 unemployed in 2005 alone

Did you read anything in the article? Did you read anything on this thread in the last page? Under 10,000 were unemployed during the boom and remain unemployed. So that's under 10,000 that have no excuse as to why they're long term unemployed. That's not a very high figure, aren't you happy?

Gatling

Laois6556 wrote: »

Did you read anything in the article? Did you read anything on this thread in the last page? Under 10,000 were unemployed during the boom and remain unemployed. So that's under 10,000 that have no excuse as to why they're long term unemployed. That's not a very high figure, aren't you happy?

According to you and one article which doesn't mention under 10,000 unemployed through the boom

mickydoomsux

Laois6556 wrote: »

Did you read anything in the article? Did you read anything on this thread in the last page? Under 10,000 were unemployed during the boom and remain unemployed. So that's under 10,000 that have no excuse as to why they're long term unemployed. That's not a very high figure, aren't you happy?

Would the Government at the time not have been singing this figure you've arrived at from the rooftops?

Laois6556

Gatling wrote: »

According to you and one article which doesn't mention under 10,000 unemployed through the boom

You must have missed this part of my post: "Of that 43,000, only 20,000 were of working age during the boom. Then we have to cut off the number who emigrated and came back, never had to pay tax, worked in the black economy, the unemployable (drug addicts etc). After doing this we reach a number below 10,000. 10,000 people who were unemployed during the boom and continue to be, that's not bad is it?"

So under 10,000 were unemployed during and after the boom. That's not bad, why aren't you happy?

Laois6556

mickydoomsux wrote: »

Would the Government at the time not have been singing this figure you've arrived at from the rooftops?

Did you read the article I linked and my posts? Where are the numbers wrong?

VinLieger

KomradeBishop wrote: »

More myths to do away with:
Rich does not equal Job Creator.

No but rich people are required to make jobs, taxing the rich into oblivion is not a solution. They pay a huge portion of the countries income tax so taxing them even more will very likely cause many higher earners to simply get the hell out, leaving us with a huge shortfall to make up from where?

KomradeBishop

VinLieger wrote: »

No but rich people are required to make jobs, taxing the rich into oblivion is not a solution. They pay a huge portion of the countries income tax so taxing them even more will very likely cause many higher earners to simply get the hell out, leaving us with a huge shortfall to make up from where?

No they aren't, banks give loans to fund businesses, to make jobs, all the time.

Rich does not equal Job Creator.

Since these businesses can't survive without their customers, it's really the customers of these businesses that are the job creators really; without their money the businesses would not exist.

Gatling

Laois6556 wrote: »

You must have missed this part of my post: "Of that 43,000, only 20,000 were of working age during the boom.

That doesn't mean there was less than 10,000 unemployed during the the boom

hatrickpatrick

Why do people have to be poor to take issue with injustice? I could be the richest man on the planet and still have a problem with paying a nest feathering fee for political cronies which is disguised as an environmentalist initiative. How wealthy one is doesn't have to change one's principles.

VinLieger

KomradeBishop wrote: »

No they aren't, banks give loans to fund businesses, to make jobs, all the time.

Rich does not equal Job Creator.

Since these businesses can't survive without their customers, it's really the customers of these businesses that are the job creators really; without their money the businesses would not exist.

Just continue living in your socialist paradise where everyone isn't allowed earn a net of over 40k no matter what they have done to earn it

KomradeBishop

Gatling wrote: »

That doesn't mean there was less than 10,000 unemployed during the the boom

Make up your mind, are you talking about:
1: The unemployed
2: The long-term unemployed, or
3: Dole scroungers that don't want to work?

You seem to be switching between one and the other at a whim there.

Laois6556

Gatling wrote: »

That doesn't mean there was less than 10,000 unemployed during the the boom

What are you doing? Where's the rest of my post gone? What's wrong with knowing that there was only 10,000 that were unemployed during and after the boom?

KomradeBishop

VinLieger wrote: »

Just continue living in your socialist paradise where everyone isn't allowed earn a net of over 40k no matter what they have done to earn it

Ooookay...what?... Is this some generic "blah blah socialist! blah blah" response? I don't remember anyone saying that.

VinLieger

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Ooookay...what?... Is this some generic "blah blah socialist! blah blah" response? I don't remember anyone saying that.

No i was just a bit frustrated, apologies, can I ask you though honestly what you would class as rich? And what is a fair tax system in your mind? Your comments in this thread an others I have noticed are heavily sociliast leaning and your name betrays this as well. If i'm wrong tell me.