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

dr.bollocko

Kill and cook the homeless. Feed them to the poor. Disband all social welfare.

melissak

The problem drinkers will find a way to drink. This will cost the state more money. People on the dole or anyone in fact should investigate home brewing. It is better for you, as you don't use most of the chemicals used commercially, it is cheap and very satisfying and if I do say so myself my blackberry and apple cider is delightful.

Tarzana2

K-9 wrote: »

Well he has a point but what does he actually suggest doing about it.

Cigarettes and fast food would need to be included as well, so a voucher system?

That's the only way, really. But it is so controlling, and so demoralising to anyone who is really trying to find new work.

steddyeddy

Tarzana2 wrote: »

I did science. I can't say that the biochemistry students distinguished themselves as slackers. They worked hard, played hard like anyone else. They are still getting a good education, if they can do that and have an active social life, good for them. Once work is done to a high standard, I don't see what relevance their social life has. Many also worked part-time. It's not a waste at all, IMO.

Oh I wouldn't change it necessarily. I'm just pointing out that we're paying for people to get a degree. So to begrudge a few beers out of 188 is ridiculous. These people are effectively having a lot of fun at great expense to the taxpayer. That's grand but people should be aware of it when they criticise people funded by the taxpayer for being on the dole.

You might think that drinking hard correlates positively with the best students but I'm going to have to disagree with you on that.

melissak

This is true. Also farmers getting government grants...

steddyeddy wrote: »

Oh I wouldn't change it necessarily. I'm just pointing out that we're paying for people to get a degree. So to begrudge a few beers out of 188 is ridiculous. These people are effectively having a lot of fun at great expense to the taxpayer. That's grand but people should be aware of it when they criticise people funded by the taxpayer for being on the dole.

You might think that drinking hard correlates positively with the best students but I'm going to have to disagree with you on that.

K-9

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Kill and cook the homeless. Feed them to the poor. Disband all social welfare.

That's a benefit I didn't foresee, I'm in.

steddyeddy

melissak wrote: »

This is true. Also farmers getting government grants...

Yep often by cooking the books. I don't have a huge problem with it but the taxpayer should take a look at what else they're funding.

I think it's all a matter of perspective. People are saying those out of work should be given a voucher. Should we not say the same for child benefit, should we introduce student loans and scrutinise how students spend their time?

readytosnap

melissak wrote: »

and if I do say so myself my blackberry and apple cider is delightful.

prove it, send me a few bottles

gladrags

If Norris was so concerned about alcohol abuse,
surely his first campaign should be to get the Dail bar closed.

The last I heard was that our overpaid bimbo's were racking up unpaid bills,at the taxpayers expence.

Have one on me folks.

Capercaillie

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Kill and cook the homeless. Feed them to the poor. Disband all social welfare.

They would be well fattened on a diet of takeaways/beer and well preserved by all the smoking they do!

melissak

readytosnap wrote: »

prove it, send me a few bottles

I would but I'm too selfish! Just kidding it is all drank. Goes down awful easy... No hangover either...

RobertKK

melissak wrote: »

This is true. Also farmers getting government grants...

Nothing wrong with farmers getting assistance from the government. It can be stopped when the state stops being involved in the agriculture sector, which won't be happening given it is the most important area of the indigenous Irish economy.

RobertKK

steddyeddy wrote: »

Yep often by cooking the books. I don't have a huge problem with it but the taxpayer should take a look at what else they're funding.

I think it's all a matter of perspective. People are saying those out of work should be given a voucher. Should we not say the same for child benefit, should we introduce student loans and scrutinise how students spend their time?

Cook the books, how?

One can't cover up sales, one can't cover up money from Europe/the state.
You need receipts for the expenses/cost of running the business, every cent has to be accountable.

I think a lot see all the money that a farmers makes fom sales/EU/state payments, but nothing about the costs of running a farm.

melissak

RobertKK wrote: »

Nothing wrong with farmers getting assistance from the government. It can be stopped when the state stops being involved in the agriculture sector, which won't be happening given it is the most important area of the indigenous Irish economy.

Nothing wrong with people on hard times getting the dole either. Or carers, or the disabled etc. The farming sector is woefully mismanaged and some farmers are getting 40 grand a year in grants and still their income is so low their kids get college grants. Something iffy there. I am all for grants for expansion, work done, hard times etc but big farmers getting money each year just for having land is wrong. We import 10 billion euros worth of food each year, not just exotic stuff but things we could produce. I'm not blaming the farmers, it is the system to blame, but we could do so much better.

Tarzana2

steddyeddy wrote: »

You might think that drinking hard correlates positively with the best students but I'm going to have to disagree with you on that.

I didn't say that though. I said you can be a good to great student and have a heavy social life. I didn't say all the best students do this. In fact, I'd say I was saying the opposite of there being a strong correlation. I was actually pointing out that the two are mutually exclusive. If you're going to be a bad student, curtailing your social life won't help you.

Minderbinder

gladrags wrote: »

If Norris was so concerned about alcohol abuse,
surely his first campaign should be to get the Dail bar closed.

The last I heard was that our overpaid bimbo's were racking up unpaid bills,at the taxpayers expence.

did you hear that down the pub?

RobertKK

melissak wrote: »

Nothing wrong with people on hard times getting the dole either. Or carers, or the disabled etc. The farming sector is woefully mismanaged and some farmers are getting 40 grand a year in grants and still their income is so low their kids get college grants. Something iffy there. I am all for grants for expansion, work done, hard times etc but big farmers getting money each year just for having land is wrong. We import 10 billion euros worth of food each year, not just exotic stuff but things we could produce. I'm not blaming the farmers, it is the system to blame, but we could do so much better.

I am not against others getting money like the grouops you mentioned, carers for example save the state probably billions and should get a bit more for the very valuable care they provide.
Likewise the disabled.
The dole is needed, but if someone is on the dole when unemployment is essentially at full employment, then they are just lazy and should have their payments stopped when work is there if one wanted it.
If you make more money in farming you have more money to spend on the farm which is good for agribusiness.
If you make a capital spend on your farm, you get so many years of depreciation that can used on your accounts so it is possible to lower ones income to qualify, but on the other side of things, it is supporting other jobs and creates tax for the state and it keeps farms modernised.
I do agree about the high level of money certain farmers get, but didn't you hear the top people in the IFA and Simon Coveney agreeing, they need it...they also argued these were the most efficient farmers, which would go against them needing the higher payments.
Anyway the government did their best to do what the top people of the IFA wanted.
There are trade agreements that mean we can't stop imports of things we produce.

gladrags

Minderbinder wrote: »

did you hear that down the pub?

No.

It is well documented,I believe the food bill is also off the wall.

The Keystone Cops are chasing them.

"Private debt collectors are to be employed on an “ongoing basis” to chase up unpaid Dáil bar tabs running into tens of thousands of euro.

The decision has been taken by the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission, which runs Leinster House, after it was found that a small number of TDs and senators are consistently breaching credit limits."

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/bailiffs-to-chase-leinster-house-bar-tabs-276134.html

Of course Norris is too busy sitting on his arce in the Senate,snoozing his head off,to notice.

And you can be sure it will be the best wines for him,at Christmas.

Hotblack Desiato

melissak wrote: »

Is this true? Was it a social welfare payment or something to do with trinity college?

It's called permanent health insurance and a lot of people have it, I believe Norris rather than TCD paid the contributions, he had to retire from his lecturing job so why shouldn't he claim what he'd paid for and was entitled to? Nothing to do with social welfare, but as can be seen from several posters on this thread the facts don't matter when it comes to smearing someone.

quinnd6

From the majority of people on this thread I never read such a load of nonsense, lack of any empathy, total stereotyping and just complete ignorance really.
It's a disgrace the kind of suggestions people are coming up with here and coming up to christmas aswell you'd think people would have some cop on really and a bit more understanding.
There aren't jobs everywhere for everyone it's just a load of media government propoganda nonsense.
There's a load of mean scrooges on the thread.

darkpagandeath

Seems there are a lot of curtain twitching tin pot dictators about. Grace Grace that fella on the dole... Look he has brand name shopping again. Grace you know our money should not be used on this, We should make them have vouchers and shop in lidl. I'm sure some here would be happy to have the workhouse back and have people paid with vouchers that can only be used in the company shop.

I assume Leo and Borris are up in arms about the cheap drink in the Dail bar yes ? and pontificating to our betters about setting examples from the top and defiantly not drinking late at night and voting. I think people who have zero idea of how much stuff cost should stay quiet borris seems to have no notion of how much drink is. Cheap crates my ass anyone else here with a problem I suggest giving ones job up and go live on the dole if it's so great. The government have become a parody of the RCC and believe they are the moral guardians protecting us from ourselves.

Jan Laco

I think if someone buys drink with their free money, it means they have enough to cover their expenses and have the extra to spend on drink. So perhaps it should be looked at to cut back on their extra dole to help in future recessions.

Greentopia

quinnd6 wrote: »

From the majority of people on this thread I never read such a load of nonsense, lack of any empathy, total stereotyping and just complete ignorance really.

Are you surprised? This is AH. Par for the course. 30 years of toxic American neoliberal doctrine in ireland has produced a generation of right wing Me Feiners who think the market should decide everything, destroying support and empathy for the poor and marginalised and has set people at each others throats-middle class against working, public sector against private, those with jobs against those without etc., and is destroying the social fabric of society. It's brought out the absolute worst in people. That's what neoliberalism does:

http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/12/04/american-nightmare-the-depravity-of-neoliberalism/
http://www.alternet.org/economy/has-neoliberalism-turned-us-all-psychopaths

Greentopia

As for Norris-utter drivel seems to be coming out of his mouth lately, this is just more of it.

If unemployed people want to spend their money on drink after all food, bills and essentials have been taken care of why shouldn't they? it's no-one else's business.

quinnd6

Yes I didn't realise there were so many selfish, arrogant tools in this country.
I get angrier the more bull I read here.
I think I'm really done with After hours and done with this thread.

kazamo

Jan Laco wrote: »

I think if someone buys drink with their free money, it means they have enough to cover their expenses and have the extra to spend on drink. So perhaps it should be looked at to cut back on their extra dole to help in future recessions.

Or maybe we should return it to it original status..... paye related.

If a high earner loses their job they should be assisted in their time of need as they have already paid for it. This flat rate payment is a disgrace and conveniently ignores the high contributions of some job seekers.

It would also solve the problem of the ones who have never worked.
if they haven't contributed, they shouldn't benefit

Capercaillie

kazamo wrote: »

Or maybe we should return it to it original status..... paye related.

If a high earner loses their job they should be assisted in their time of need as they have already paid for it. This flat rate payment is a disgrace and conveniently ignores the high contributions of some job seekers.

It would also solve the problem of the ones who have never worked.
if they haven't contributed, they shouldn't benefit

The way it is at the moment, if your self-employed and you lose your job your entitled to nothing. If your a layabout and never worked a day in your life you get everything: dole, rent allowance etc.

melissak

Tarzana2 wrote: »

I didn't say that though. I said you can be a good to great student and have a heavy social life. I didn't say all the best students do this. In fact, I'd say I was saying the opposite of there being a strong correlation. I was actually pointing out that the two are mutually exclusive. If you're going to be a bad student, curtailing your social life won't help you.

Of course there is nothing wrong with students socialising. It broadens their minds often and develops their communication skills etc. But what is good for the goose is good for the gander, unless we choose to live in a society where some are more equal than others which seems to be the good senators position

Iwasfrozen

melissak wrote: »

Of course there is nothing wrong with students socialising. It broadens their minds often and develops their communication skills etc. But what is good for the goose is good for the gander, unless we choose to live in a society where some are more equal than others which seems to be the good senators position

The mistake a lot of people seem to make is alcohol = social life.

melissak

I understand that we can't stop imports. My problem is that we don't produce enough veg etc because most farmers are in beef because of the way the grants are structured. We have a lot going for us agriculturally but we could do better. The massive farmers do not need everlasting grants. It is allowing them to lfix prices and land bank and wipe out small farmers and block people from entering the system. It is caused by cronyism and is it believe a racket. Most farmers are doing a good job in difficult circumstances but some are taking the piss

RobertKK wrote: »

I am not against others getting money like the grouops you mentioned, carers for example save the state probably billions and should get a bit more for the very valuable care they provide.
Likewise the disabled.
The dole is needed, but if someone is on the dole when unemployment is essentially at full employment, then they are just lazy and should have their payments stopped when work is there if one wanted it.
If you make more money in farming you have more money to spend on the farm which is good for agribusiness.
If you make a capital spend on your farm, you get so many years of depreciation that can used on your accounts so it is possible to lower ones income to qualify, but on the other side of things, it is supporting other jobs and creates tax for the state and it keeps farms modernised.
I do agree about the high level of money certain farmers get, but didn't you hear the top people in the IFA and Simon Coveney agreeing, they need it...they also argued these were the most efficient farmers, which would go against them needing the higher payments.
Anyway the government did their best to do what the top people of the IFA wanted.
There are trade agreements that mean we can't stop imports of things we produce.

darkpagandeath

Capercaillie wrote: »

The way it is at the moment, if your self-employed and you lose your job your entitled to nothing. If your a layabout and never worked a day in your life you get everything: dole, rent allowance etc.

Boll*x

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/social_welfare_payments/unemployed_people/self_employed_and_unemployment.html

CaptainInsano

I wonder how much of my hard earned tax will go on presents for children of dole scroungers to brighten up their lives a bit? This fcuking country.

Swiftly

CaptainInsano wrote: »

I wonder how much of my hard earned tax will go on presents for children of dole scroungers to brighten up their lives a bit? This fcuking country.

The more the merrier

Tarzana2

melissak wrote: »

Of course there is nothing wrong with students socialising. It broadens their minds often and develops their communication skills etc. But what is good for the goose is good for the gander, unless we choose to live in a society where some are more equal than others which seems to be the good senators position

Apart from student grants, students don't have that money in their hand to spend. And registration fees are rising and not cheap. Some people indeed see them as a sly way of getting students to pay fees. And as a student grant recipient myself, mine was never squandered. It went almost entirely on rent. Drinking was done after everything else was paid. Most students I knew had part time jobs as well, and if they want to spend that money on socialising, so be it. It's not really comparable, but I have to say I don't agree with DN's views either.

animaal

I'm not worried one way or another about this issue; it's not going to change, and if it did, I don't see what great benefit we'd see.

But I assume everybody who believes "it's nobody else's business, they can spend their dole as they see fit" would be equally supportive of the middle classes spending their child benefit on wine or holidays. Or, for that matter, putting it into private education or healthcare.

darkpagandeath

animaal wrote: »

I'm not worried one way or another about this issue; it's not going to change, and if it did, I don't see what great benefit we'd see.

But I assume everybody who believes "it's nobody else's business, they can spend their dole as they see fit" would be equally supportive of the middle classes spending their child benefit on wine or holidays. Or, for that matter, putting it into private education or healthcare.

Absolutely once it's means tested.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

I used to raid my dads fridge for the week and buy noodles and bread for toast to be able to drink my "weekly allowance". My father paid my rent and gave me X amount per week for food/going out. Save the food money to drink it.

esforum

quinnd6 wrote: »

I know you get the odd person who doesn't want to work but most people actually want to work and can't get work.

As of April 2015 the unemployed rate stands at 9.7%. In 2000 it stood at 4.1%, the lowest in history.

personally I dont consider that to be the odd person. Thats 4.1% of the fit for work persons who didnt bother their arses and still dont bother their arses.*

*These numbers apply to those on jobseekers allowance and benefit, not disability or pensions. Those in this thread including them are either unaware of the difference or trying to muddy the water

KomradeBishop

What I don't get about all this "my tax dollars funding...*inane ranting* (literally in this case)" bollocks, is why people don't apply these views consistently?

Lets take private utility services, that you can't avoid: If you have to pay for electricity, telephone, now water, heating etc. - and the only difference is which provider you choose (and a lot of markets here are a bit cartel-like, so the idea of 'choice' is even a bit airy...), then it's a mandatory payment with very little difference to a tax, then why shouldn't you also demand a say in how that money is spent?

We all know there's no such thing as "voting with your feet", when you've only got a handful of equally shítty service providers to choose from, where your only real choice is the minutiae/manner in which they screw you - so why do people accept the idea that we should have no say over that, yet go on about the 'my tax dollars funding *blah*' nonsense?

These private providers exert significant control over our lives, and over huge sectors of the economy - effectively governing a wide swathe of the economy and society - and we allow them to exist, through laws regulating companies (no company exists without state consent) - so if we're to be consistent, we should be demanding a greater say over what they do with money we spend with them as well.

A lot of money from the public goes into funding ridiculous salaries and whatnot, among service providers that can't be avoided - taking a far greater hit out of our pockets than any dole recipients buying alcohol - and that kind of stuff is widely regarded as increasing inequality in general, so why not get pissed-off/morally-indignant about something that actually matters, instead another stupid discussion about how dole recipients spend their money?

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Absolutely once it's means tested.

Why should it be? It's for the child not the parent. It's not a monthly reward for not killing your child. It's to go towards what the child needs. All children under the age of 18 are equal, and should be treated as such. Why penalise the children of those who go out to work and pay their taxes and contribute to society? Who is more entitled to receive back some of what they pay into? It shouldn't be there to reward stupid people for reproducing what they cannot afford to feed/clothe/care for.
It's given to parents of all children under the age of 18, and it should stay that way or be gotten rid of altogether. Not used as an extra reward for the career dolers

esforum

Tarzana2 wrote: »

Apart from student grants, students don't have that money in their hand to spend. And registration fees are rising and not cheap. Some people indeed see them as a sly way of getting students to pay fees. And as a student grant recipient myself, mine was never squandered. It went almost entirely on rent. Drinking was done after everything else was paid. Most students I knew had part time jobs as well, and if they want to spend that money on socialising, so be it. It's not really comparable, but I have to say I don't agree with DN's views either.

do you think that people are deaf and blind? Do you honestly, hand on heart think that we dont see and hear students get absolutely **** faced all the time? fresher week? youtube? The main streets of the cities on student nights?

I have known many students over the years, some were genuinely poor and survived on the grant, some didnt qualify for a grant and worked part time to pay their way and then there was those that pissed the grant up against the wall or on holidays. You fall somewhere in the middle by the sounds of it but lets remember, your not going to college for my benefit, your going so you get the education you need for your dèsìred career.

IM not against welfare, we have a social responsibility to assist others in their time of need and its a ****ing disgrace that after working all your life and paying a pension both the payments and the resulting pension are taxed BUT and I repeat but, if you dont contribute to the pot, you shouldnt eat from it.

darkpagandeath

esforum wrote: »

As of April 2015 the unemployed rate stands at 9.7%. In 2000 it stood at 4.1%, the lowest in history.

personally I dont consider that to be the odd person. Thats 4.7 of the fit for work persons who didnt bother their arses and still dont bother their arses.*

*These numbers apply to those on jobseekers allowance and benefit, not disability or pensions. Those in this thread including them are either unaware of the difference or trying to muddy the water

3% is the average of unemployment in a developed economy don't let that get in the way of a ridiculous rant. Remind us again how many people are in that population that has 90% unemployment. You know that would be a very significant number.

esforum

KomradeBishop wrote: »

What I don't get about all this "my tax dollars funding...*inane ranting* (literally in this case)" bollocks, is why people don't apply these views consistently?

Lets take private utility services, that you can't avoid: If you have to pay for electricity, telephone, now water, heating etc. - and the only difference is which provider you choose (and a lot of markets here are a bit cartel-like, so the idea of 'choice' is even a bit airy...), then it's a mandatory payment with very little difference to a tax, then why shouldn't you also demand a say in how that money is spent?

We all know there's no such thing as "voting with your feet", when you've only got a handful of equally shítty service providers to choose from, where your only real choice is the minutiae/manner in which they screw you - so why do people accept the idea that we should have no say over that, yet go on about the 'my tax dollars funding *blah*' nonsense?

These private providers exert significant control over our lives, and over huge sectors of the economy - effectively governing a wide swathe of the economy and society - and we allow them to exist, through laws regulating companies (no company exists without state consent) - so if we're to be consistent, we should be demanding a greater say over what they do with money we spend with them as well.

A lot of money from the public goes into funding ridiculous salaries and whatnot, among service providers that can't be avoided - taking a far greater hit out of our pockets than any dole recipients buying alcohol - and that kind of stuff is widely regarded as increasing inequality in general, so why not get pissed-off/morally-indignant about something that actually matters, instead another stupid discussion about how dole recipients spend their money?

If a private company ****s me over I leave that company. If they dont represent value for money I leave that company and I think most people actually do give out about how this money is spent. If its not on infrastructure and service but all going into the ceo's pocket people would indeed leave the company.

I dont recall ever having that choice with social welfare but would certainly welcome such a move. Stop paying tax and hire private systems so I am essentially purchasing my own private job insurance like I do health and pension.

Oh and lets talk about private health insurance while were at it. heaven forbid a working person uses the public system and doesnt take out private insurance, sure we all know that the public system is only for the non tax paying public. ironic, you work and pay tax that funds the system but are pushed into having private insurance to use the system whereas the 4.1% never have nor will pay a cent

melissak

To my shame I squandered plenty of mine. After I paid rent bills books etc pretty much all of my grant and wages from part time job went on beer...
I worked in a bakery and ate literally nothing but leftover cake all of first year!!! Good times..n

Tarzana2 wrote: »

Apart from student grants, students don't have that money in their hand to spend. And registration fees are rising and not cheap. Some people indeed see them as a sly way of getting students to pay fees. And as a student grant recipient myself, mine was never squandered. It went almost entirely on rent. Drinking was done after everything else was paid. Most students I knew had part time jobs as well, and if they want to spend that money on socialising, so be it. It's not really comparable, but I have to say I don't agree with DN's views either.

errlloyd

What Norris said was pretty stupid, but it was in the context of the debate about minimum unit pricing. So basically.

"hey Mr Norris, don't you think it's terrible that people on welfare will have to pay more for cans" and his response was effectively "no".

Someone said on page one he's on meds, and I've heard those meds make you absolutely loopy. So I'd say he just ended up going unscripted and spurting ****.

KomradeBishop

esforum wrote: »

If a private company ****s me over I leave that company. If they dont represent value for money I leave that company and I think most people actually do give out about how this money is spent. If its not on infrastructure and service but all going into the ceo's pocket people would indeed leave the company.

I dont recall ever having that choice with social welfare but would certainly welcome such a move. Stop paying tax and hire private systems so I am essentially purchasing my own private job insurance like I do health and pension.

Oh and lets talk about private health insurance while were at it. heaven forbid a working person uses the public system and doesnt take out private insurance, sure we all know that the public system is only for the non tax paying public. ironic, you work and pay tax that funds the system but are pushed into having private insurance to use the system whereas the 4.1% never have nor will pay a cent

That's not really true though - in the major provider markets that you can't avoid, there are only a handful of providers to choose from - and each usually as crap as the other, just in different ways.

The idea that there is always an issue-free provider to choose is a myth - choice doesn't mean a thing when your options are limited; a bit like what Henry Ford said:
"Any customer can have a car painted any colour that he wants so long as it is black."

People don't even have a clue of what the salaries are in the charities they donate to, nevermind the service providers - can anyone here cite the salaries in a major service provider, without Googling? Doubt it.

No though - people will argue for pages and pages over the minutiae of how a dole recipient spends their money, with barely a thought put into how money they mandatorily have to spend elsewhere goes...

melissak

Seriously who votes for this toss Pot. The Senate is a pure waste of money. What does he even do bar pontificate? What is his purpose?

Iwasfrozen

KomradeBishop wrote: »

What I don't get about all this "my tax dollars funding...*inane ranting* (literally in this case)" bollocks, is why people don't apply these views consistently?

Lets take private utility services, that you can't avoid: If you have to pay for electricity, telephone, now water, heating etc. - and the only difference is which provider you choose (and a lot of markets here are a bit cartel-like, so the idea of 'choice' is even a bit airy...), then it's a mandatory payment with very little difference to a tax, then why shouldn't you also demand a say in how that money is spent?

We all know there's no such thing as "voting with your feet", when you've only got a handful of equally shítty service providers to choose from, where your only real choice is the minutiae/manner in which they screw you - so why do people accept the idea that we should have no say over that, yet go on about the 'my tax dollars funding *blah*' nonsense?

These private providers exert significant control over our lives, and over huge sectors of the economy - effectively governing a wide swathe of the economy and society - and we allow them to exist, through laws regulating companies (no company exists without state consent) - so if we're to be consistent, we should be demanding a greater say over what they do with money we spend with them as well.

A lot of money from the public goes into funding ridiculous salaries and whatnot, among service providers that can't be avoided - taking a far greater hit out of our pockets than any dole recipients buying alcohol - and that kind of stuff is widely regarded as increasing inequality in general, so why not get pissed-off/morally-indignant about something that actually matters, instead another stupid discussion about how dole recipients spend their money?

The difference is you can choose to not have electricity.

Figbiscuithead

You will find chancers in every area of society from wealthy politicians to tax evading/avoiding multimillionaires and business owners to those on the dole. Why do some people only ever focus on the most disadvantaged in our society? I haven't lived in Ireland for years but from what I can gather on here, the attitude towards the unemployed claiming social benefits in Ireland is like nothing I've ever come across anywhere else. Yes, of course there are those who absolutely take the piss but why should the large majority of people who respect the rules and are genuine cases be punished as a result? It seems the age old adage of "Don't judge [insert group here] by the actions of a few" seems to go completely out of the window when it comes to the unemployed. Some very heartless attitudes on here that are disappointing to read.

Greentopia

animaal wrote: »

I'm not worried one way or another about this issue; it's not going to change, and if it did, I don't see what great benefit we'd see.

But I assume everybody who believes "it's nobody else's business, they can spend their dole as they see fit" would be equally supportive of the middle classes spending their child benefit on wine or holidays. Or, for that matter, putting it into private education or healthcare.

Yep, no problem with that at all so long as they are genuinely entitled to it and the needs of their children are met before it's spent on wine, holidays. I don't support private education or healthcare but if people want to spend their money on them what business is it of me?