The Dole

oscarBravo

Steve012 wrote: »

Can't get a job withou experience, can't experience withou a job, dat's why me get d labour.

Isn't that what Jobbridge is for?

Yes, yes, I know some companies have taken the piss with it, but I know of a number of people who have gone from unemployed to a highly successful career path through Jobbridge.

everybodyhas1

Pecker31 wrote: »

I couldn't agree more, I come from a small town and see the same old people getting the dole every week, I would say 20% of them can't work due to disability or otherwise and the others are useless s**ts who want to do nothing but screw taxpayers.

They should be made work maybe 1/2 days a week for the council or whoever to make amends for the free money they are getting. It would be no harm and might stop a lot of the leeching.

**Rant Over** Phew!

Working is definitly good for a persons mental health. Some people have extreemly low self esteem. It becomes debilitating. No matter what they come from, this mind set is their downfall over and over. They do not believe in themselves. They world of employment becomes as unattainable an forigen as visiting mars. Things are never ever black and white.

Godge

laoch na mona wrote: »

don't unemployed people pay VAT and other indirect taxes. They also spend money which helps keep the economy going

That is a bit of an urban myth.

VAT on essential items is 0%.

"The Zero rate of VAT applies to the supply of most foodstuffs, such as bread, butter, cheese, cereals, condiments, flour, fruit, herbs, meat, milk, pasta, pastes, sauces, soup, spices, sugar, and vegetables (fresh or frozen). This list is by no means exhaustive."

Childrens' clothing and footwear are also zero-rated. Books and newspapers are at a reduced rate of 9%.

A lot more goods are rated at the standard rate (12.5%). When it comes to food, these include chocolate, sweets, soft drinks etc. - it actually makes the sugar tax concept strange.

It is only luxury goods - which are VAT-rated at 23%.

The urban myth generally arises from the following misunderstanding.

Assume a person earning 100k pays 40k in income tax. Out of the remaining 60k he buys a mixed range of goods, some at 0%, some at 12%, others at 23%, paying about 15% of this in VAT. That works out at 9k. However, when you relate that back to his original income of 100k, he is only paying 9% in VAT, entirely due to the fact that he is also paying 40k in income tax.

Assume a person with a family on 25k social welfare payments. They pay no income tax and buy a range of mixed goods. As they can afford less luxury goods, they pay about 12% in VAT out of the 25k. This 12% is compared to the 9% paid by the higher income and a narrative emerges that poorer people pay more of their income in VAT.

It simply isn't true because it is comparing apples with oranges. The higher income earner only pays a smaller percentage of his gross income because a huge big chunk of that gross income is taken by income tax. Of course, the stupid maths doesn't stop the populist bleating class of politician like RBB or the Smurf from shouting the mistruth from the rooftop.

ressem

Godge wrote: »

That is a bit of an urban myth.

VAT on essential items is 0%.

...

The urban myth generally arises from the following misunderstanding.

Urban myth, misunderstanding, mistruth?
The original statement was that the unemployed currently pay back through tax a (small) proportion of what they are gifted by society.


Let's see...
Adult clothing, electricity, heating fuel, spectacles (not all have medical cards), home appliances. Essentials that are charged at the standard rate except the bits that can be picked up second hand.

Is it efficient, or a way of doing things that can't be improved? Hell no.

Irish and UK society hasn't got out of it's tendency to dump people on the margins, leaving them idle or without prospects other than emigration, for destructive reasons.
We couldn't have people on social welfare opening a shop in an empty town, because that might compete with a fictional non-existent unsustainable commercial replacement.
(alternative is replacing SW with minimum income guarantee)

Have you seen the Panorama program "Living with cuts in Austerity town", where the provision of public servants is deemed so expensive that volunteers such as police volunteers are required to keep the building open?

Godge

ressem wrote: »

Urban myth, misunderstanding, mistruth?
The original statement was that the unemployed currently pay back through tax a (small) proportion of what they are gifted by society.


Let's see...
Adult clothing, electricity, heating fuel, spectacles (not all have medical cards), home appliances. Essentials that are charged at the standard rate except the bits that can be picked up second hand.

Is it efficient, or a way of doing things that can't be improved? Hell no.

Irish and UK society hasn't got out of it's tendency to dump people on the margins, leaving them idle or without prospects other than emigration, for destructive reasons.
We couldn't have people on social welfare opening a shop in an empty town, because that might compete with a fictional non-existent unsustainable commercial replacement.
(alternative is replacing SW with minimum income guarantee)

Have you seen the Panorama program "Living with cuts in Austerity town", where the provision of public servants is deemed so expensive that volunteers such as police volunteers are required to keep the building open?

That wasn't the original statement. There is this urban myth going round on social media that the unemployed and low paid pay more tax because of VAT.