David Norris - Social welfare shouldn't be spent on alcohol

thee glitz

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

An alternative to banning those on social welfare from buying alcohol is to tax it out of their league effectively meaning only those with stable jobs can drink.

It's not a good alternative though.

Iwasfrozen

thee glitz wrote: »

It's not a good alternative though.

It's better than what we have now.

Don't get me wrong. I'd prefer recipients were given a special debit card that couldn't be used to buy alcohol.

Annasopra

thee glitz wrote: »

It's not a good alternative though.

Neither suggestion is a good idea at all

namloc1980

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

An alternative to banning those on social welfare from buying alcohol is to tax it out of their league effectively meaning only those with stable jobs can drink.

Is that you Leo?

thee glitz

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Neither suggestion is a good idea at all

What other option isn't a good idea - a coupon / card system?

racso1975

esforum wrote: »

apply for and attend job interviews?

stand at teh GPO every single night, you will see the soup and sandwich run. Look at how many recipients of this service will walk up for their free meal while wearing nike and adidas runners and tracksuits while smoking and carrying a can.

And they make what percentage of the population?

Swiftly

esforum wrote: »

apply for and attend job interviews?

stand at teh GPO every single night, you will see the soup and sandwich run. Look at how many recipients of this service will walk up for their free meal while wearing nike and adidas runners and tracksuits while smoking and carrying a can.

Would you prefer them to be naked? Or wear a grass/twig ensemble. Imagine homeless people with clothes attending the soup sandwich run. What an outrage

EazyD

Swiftly wrote: »

Would you prefer them to be naked? Or wear a grass/twig ensemble

I think they are simply pointing out that these undesirables tend to be sporting fairly expensive attire despite their circumstances.

Swiftly

EazyD wrote: »

I think they are simply pointing out that these undesirables tend to be sporting fairly expensive attire despite their circumstances.

Maybe they bought them in a charity shop? Maybe they were donated/given to them? Maybe they bought them before they fell on hard times. It's not like they're wearing prada or dolce. It's just pure moany stuck up judgemental I hate my life let's make as many people miserable as possible with me crying about every little thing.

If you look at a group of homeless people and your thought is Oh they wearing Adidas how dare they. Then you're beyond help.

mikeym

A bag of cans never hurt anyone :D:D

readytosnap

mikeym wrote: »

A bag of cans never hurt anyone :D:D

Unless you got a smack o'them

sheesh

its a bit laughable that a senator and former academic is giving out about people wasting tax payers money.

Iwasfrozen

Swiftly wrote: »

Maybe they bought them in a charity shop? Maybe they were donated/given to them? Maybe they bought them before they fell on hard times. It's not like they're wearing prada or dolce. It's just pure moany stuck up judgemental I hate my life let's make as many people miserable as possible with me crying about every little thing.

If you look at a group of homeless people and your thought is Oh they wearing Adidas how dare they. Then you're beyond help.

I don't think you can draw a parallel between depression and frugality, though no doubt it helps your argument to do so.

All we're asking for are debut cards that can't be used to buy alcohol, cigarettes and a few other items I'm sure we can work out. It's a fairly simple and responsible suggestion.

Swiftly

I don't think we can draw a parallel between anything you said and relevance, though no doubt it helps your argument

MRnotlob606

Yogurt knitting good for nothing supercilious idiot.

EazyD

Swiftly wrote: »

Maybe they bought them in a charity shop? Maybe they were donated/given to them? Maybe they bought them before they fell on hard times. It's not like they're wearing prada or dolce. It's just pure moany stuck up judgemental I hate my life let's make as many people miserable as possible with me crying about every little thing.

If you look at a group of homeless people and your thought is Oh they wearing Adidas how dare they. Then you're beyond help.

It has nothing to do with my happiness, it's a simple observation. Perhaps your right, it's just a pure coincidence that they take to air max like a moth to the light.

Iwasfrozen

Swiftly wrote: »

I don't think we can draw a parallel between anything you said and relevance, though no doubt it helps your argument

No? I don't think it's unreasonable to place conditions on free money. If the recipient chooses he can refuse the money and his freedom to do so will be respected.

Swiftly

EazyD wrote: »

It has nothing to do with my happiness, it's a simple observation. Perhaps your right, it's just a pure coincidence that they take to air max like a moth to the light.

Simple indeed. Didn't mention your happiness just said you're one of those ultra moany whingers. You look at a group of homeless people and you're outraged that they're wearing addidas and nike, if that's your thought process you're a heartless miserable being.

Swiftly

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No? I don't think it's unreasonable to place conditions on free money. If the recipient chooses he can refuse the money and his freedom to do so will be respected.

Luckily your opinion doesn't mean diddly squat and they can spend it however they like

EazyD

Swiftly wrote: »

Simple indeed. Didn't mention your happiness just said you're one of those ultra moany whingers. You look at a group of homeless people and you're outraged that they're wearing addidas and nike, if that's your thought process you're a heartless miserable being.

And your a purveyor of assumptions. You assume that is my mindset. However again I will point out that it is merely an observation, whether you feel I was insinuating such or not is irrelevant.

MakeEmLaugh

David Norris has come under fire for saying that people on social welfare shouldn't be allowed to spend it on alcohol.

Speaking on Newstalk in relation to the new minimum prices on alcohol announced by Leo Varadkar this week, Norris said the following.

“I have no sympathy...

I hear people on the wireless saying: ‘Oh, what about the poor people on social welfare and them being deprived of the few drinks...

I don’t spend my tax dollars to buy drinks for people on social welfare. I really don’t and I resent that, I think that it’s ridiculous that tax dollars are being used to fund drinking...

I don’t think tax is for people to be drinking all the time, and I see them all around my area buying slabs of drinks for virtually nothing... vomiting and puking all over the place.

Drink is now a human right, it’s ridiculous.”

While he may have bothered quite a few people, I personally, agree with Norris to some extent.

Alcohol is a luxury, not a right.

If you cannot work for health reasons, then obviously how you spend your welfare is up to you.

However, if you could find a job – particularly in the capital, where unemployment is nowhere near as high as it is the rest of the country – but you choose to receive jobseekers allowance, rent allowance etc, and then spend a significant proportion of it on drink, then tax payers have a right to be annoyed.

quinnd6

Maybe Norris and the people giving out about unemployed people here should take a minute and think about if you were unemployed.
Would you like it if people said you weren't entitled to have a drink?
I'm not talking binge drinking.
I'm talking one can at the weekend.
Would you like it if people said you weren't entitled to that?
It's something to think about isn't it.
How would Norris like it if it was said he wasn't entitled to have a drink.

gormdubhgorm

Norris is a snob, he gated his own street maybe he thinks everyone on welfare buys slabs of drink. But they do not. Welfare includes disability, pensioners etc. He has gone down in my estimation as I thought he would be the last person to play on stereotypes. Maybe he thinks reading Joyce is the answer? I left out another bit in his statement he claimed he sees "THEM buying slabs of drink around his area". Enough said.

Jesus Wept

He is a bellend.

Breaston Plants

He's dead right.

IngazZagni

I'm surprised at the negative reactions to his comments. He made a very simple statement that I completly agree with. Of course not everything is black and white but you could hardly say anything without generalising a little bit.

Alcohol is not a welfare item. It is not needed. No you don't need alcohol to have an enjoyable time at the pub or improve any aspect of your social life. You could argue the total opposite in fact.

I believe certain welfare recipients should reconsider how they spend all of our tax money.

DarkyHughes

As long as it's not against the law you can spend it on what you like.

I wouldn't want people spending money on drink every night of the week or almost every night. But people should be able to have a few drinks on the weekends welfare money or not.

gormdubhgorm

Roger_007 wrote: »

David Norris says he doesn't want his "tax dollars" to be spent on drink!

http://www.thejournal.ie/david-norris-welfare-drink-2496750-Dec2015/?utm_source=email

He seems to forget that it's our tax dollars which pay him.

Also I thought we use Euros, he thinks he is the OK coral.

Jimoslimos

IngazZagni wrote: »

I believe certain welfare recipients should reconsider how they spend all of our tax money.

Spending dole money on alcohol and cigarettes would recoup a lot of that "tax money". Lotto too.

Capercaillie

DarkyHughes wrote: »

As long as it's not against the law you can spend it on what you like.

I wouldn't want people spending money on drink every night of the week or almost every night. But people should be able to have a few drinks on the weekends welfare money or not.

Considering they are getting the money for doing nothing, they might try and do something useful with money rather than totally wasting it.

StewartGriffin

Capercaillie wrote: »

Considering they are getting the money for doing nothing, they might try and do something useful with money rather than totally wasting it.

Why? What's it to you?

GLaDOS

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

David Norris has come under fire for saying that people on social welfare shouldn't be allowed to spend it on alcohol.

Speaking on Newstalk in relation to the new minimum prices on alcohol announced by Leo Varadkar this week, Norris said the following.

“I have no sympathy...

I hear people on the wireless saying: ‘Oh, what about the poor people on social welfare and them being deprived of the few drinks...

I don’t spend my tax dollars to buy drinks for people on social welfare. I really don’t and I resent that, I think that it’s ridiculous that tax dollars are being used to fund drinking...

I don’t think tax is for people to be drinking all the time, and I see them all around my area buying slabs of drinks for virtually nothing... vomiting and puking all over the place.

Drink is now a human right, it’s ridiculous.”

While he may have bothered quite a few people, I personally, agree with Norris to some extent.

Alcohol is a luxury, not a right.

If you cannot work for health reasons, then obviously how you spend your welfare is up to you.

However, if you could find a job – particularly in the capital, where unemployment is nowhere near as high as it is the rest of the country – but you choose to receive jobseekers allowance, rent allowance etc, and then spend a significant proportion of it on drink, then tax payers have a right to be annoyed.

I've merged this with the existing thread, poll now moved to the original thread.

Capercaillie

StewartGriffin wrote: »

Why? What's it to you?

Considering the tax payer is paying for it, it's a total waste. They would be better off trying to get a job.

Micky Dolenz

I'll spend me dole whichever way I see fit. I'm entitled to it.

Capercaillie

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

I'll spend me dole whichever way I see fit. I'm entitled to it.

That's the problem with this Country, the sense of "entitlement".

esforum

Swiftly wrote: »

Would you prefer them to be naked? Or wear a grass/twig ensemble. Imagine homeless people with clothes attending the soup sandwich run. What an outrage

Swiftly wrote: »

Maybe they bought them in a charity shop? Maybe they were donated/given to them? Maybe they bought them before they fell on hard times. It's not like they're wearing prada or dolce. It's just pure moany stuck up judgemental I hate my life let's make as many people miserable as possible with me crying about every little thing.

If you look at a group of homeless people and your thought is Oh they wearing Adidas how dare they. Then you're beyond help.

You are one naive person. I also notice you ignore the cigarettes and alcohol aspect of my post. Nothing smart to say in reply?

I spend my days dealing with these people, they arent homeless, they dont work, they dont want to work, instead they spend YOUR money on alcohol, smokes and drugs. They have sky dishes and nicer cars than I.

And they sure as be damned arent working Christmas morning propping up the GPO or seperating drunk parents like I have!

Theres legitimate unemploted, theres legitimate homeless. They are the ones that drag themselves back out. The ones that havent worked in 10 years, what exactly do you think caused them too be unemployed in 2005?

Cienciano

Read the article to find out his reason what his problem is with it. He doesnt give one. He needs to get a proper argument other than "the country has gone mad on drink".

StewartGriffin

Capercaillie wrote: »

Considering the tax payer is paying for it, it's a total waste. They would be better off trying to get a job.

True. You'd be better off doing something more useful on a Friday evening than posting on After Hours. Not my place to tell you that though.

DarkyHughes

Capercaillie wrote: »

Considering they are getting the money for doing nothing, they might try and do something useful with money rather than totally wasting it.

Yes, I hope people do something useful with their welfare money but I'm not going to go mad if people have a night out once or twice a month.

Capercaillie

StewartGriffin wrote: »

True. You'd be better off doing something more useful on a Friday evening than posting on After Hours. Not my place to tell you that though.

I'm spending my hard earned money, not scavenged off the state.

Bongalongherb

Here we go again, blaming the least well-off for the health service problem and all other problems. I'm sure it's hard enough to survive on a few quid on the dole but then being stigmatised for unfortunately losing your job you have to put up with fascist remarks like this from a senator who lives off taxpayers monies.

We should have got rid of this idiot when we had the chance in the last referendum but we thought it would give the government more power if we voted to abolish the senate.

DarkyHughes

esforum wrote: »

You are one naive person. I also notice you ignore the cigarettes and alcohol aspect of my post. Nothing smart to say in reply?

I spend my days dealing with these people, they arent homeless, they dont work, they dont want to work, instead they spend YOUR money on alcohol, smokes and drugs. They have sky dishes and nicer cars than I.

And they sure as be damned arent working Christmas morning propping up the GPO or seperating drunk parents like I have!

Theres legitimate unemploted, theres legitimate homeless. They are the ones that drag themselves back out. The ones that havent worked in 10 years, what exactly do you think caused them too be unemployed in 2005?

I'm pretty sure it's the states money.

Bubbaclaus

Capercaillie wrote: »

That's the problem with this Country, the sense of "entitlement".

Entitled Ireland has become a massive growing problem.

What some people fail to realise is that every single cent they receive in welfare this has been taken from somebody else (or maybe they do realise but just don't care)

esforum

DarkyHughes wrote: »

I'm pretty sure it's the states money.

Im pretty sure you and I are the state.

Capercaillie

DarkyHughes wrote: »

I'm pretty sure it's the states money.

Taxpayer.

DarkyHughes

esforum wrote: »

Im pretty sure you and I are the state.

We are citizens inside the state.

Assetbacked

It should be reduced when the economy is doing well.

Tarzana2

The only way to control how welfare money is spent is to give it out in the form of vouchers and I cannot stress how much I hate that idea. It's so stigmatising.

PucaMama

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Entitled Ireland has become a massive growing problem.

What some people fail to realise is that every single cent they receive in welfare this has been taken from somebody else (or maybe they do realise but just don't care)

Or out of their own wages they had been earning for years?

questionmark?

Jim Bob Scratcher wrote: »

Norris is forgetting that people on welfare who drink are taxpayers too..

Am............right???