Should date be set to cut off long-term dole wasters ?"

ELM327

ELM327 wrote: »

Ok.
So lets test your theory.

Are you currently availing of social housing?
(feel free not to answer of course)

end of the road wrote: »

no i'm not, nor have i ever. why?

because your posts on this thread would illustrate otherwise.
It's the same sense of self entitlement displayed by someone who is directly or indirectly profiting off the back of others, gaining a free house/lifestyle in the process.

end of the road

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Rubbish.

There is plenty of jobs out there now where with a little bit of initiative you can work your way up.

We are actually experiencing a labour shortage.

Nothing stopping someone starting a job and furthering themselves in education on the side and working their way up.

It's not going to get handed on a silver platter for them though.

They have to use a bit of self motivation to do it. I suspect a lot are just too dam lazy to try it though.

not rubbish. There is not plenty of jobs out there where with a little bit of initiative you can work your way up. employers require experience for the most meanial of jobs and that needs to be clamped down on hard. all the education or motivation in the world won't change that.

jamesthepeach wrote: »

Garauntee you neither of them will be paying anywhere near the rent a working person pays when renting privately in the exact same house in the exact same neighbourhood.

yeah and? so what? that's the whole point of social housing, to help people on low incomes including mostly working people to have a roof over their head at an affordable rent reflecting and based on their income. it's not their job to pay the same rent as someone in private accommodation which is based on market forces. i get there will be some in privately rented accommodation who struggle and i sympathise, however they are probably across the threshold to qualify for social housing or other help. that's not the fault of those who live in social housing.

end of the road

ELM327 wrote: »

But they shouldnt. That's inequitable.
Why should they both receive the same house? What is the value of work, if you get it for free anyway?

they aren't getting it for free. there are no free houses in ireland. the value of work is that you can earn a lot more money then you ever could on benefits. it's nonsense to suggest that a single man in a social house should pay the same rent as 4 people in another social house who are all working. inequitability doesn't come into it, income does.

ELM327 wrote: »

because your posts on this thread would illustrate otherwise. It's the same sense of self entitlement displayed by someone who is directly or indirectly profiting off the back of others, gaining a free house/lifestyle in the process.

only in the hard done by victim playing minds is any of that the case. in reality, most of us workers simply step back from the victim playing and hard done by nonsense and actually deal with reality and facts. we made our choices and excepted the consiquences for it and don't think we are special or great or more deserving because of it. we will all rot away in the end anyway.
the reality is there is a system there to help, that is right just and correct. yes some scam and they must be dealt with. some slip through the cracks and that is unfortunate and the system must do better. some are just over the threshold to qualify for help and that is unfortunate as they may also need it.
the few self entitled people victim playing and spouting hard done by nonsense, who think they are special or great or more deserving because they made the choice to buy a house, not only are as bad as the few self entitled in social houseing, but try and turn their hard done by nonsense on to the rest of us.
again there are no free houses in ireland. people pay rent. if you are paying any sort of money to remain in a house, that is rent and therefore the house is not free.

ELM327

end of the road wrote: »

they aren't getting it for free. there are no free houses in ireland. the value of work is that you can earn a lot more money then you ever could on benefits. it's nonsense to suggest that a single man in a social house should pay the same rent as 4 people in another social house who are all working. inequitability doesn't come into it, income does.



only in the hard done by victim playing minds is any of that the case. in reality, most of us workers simply step back from the victim playing and hard done by nonsense and actually deal with reality and facts. we made our choices and excepted the consiquences for it and don't think we are special or great or more deserving because of it. we will all rot away in the end anyway.
the reality is there is a system there to help, that is right just and correct. yes some scam and they must be dealt with. some slip through the cracks and that is unfortunate and the system must do better. some are just over the threshold to qualify for help and that is unfortunate as they may also need it.
the few self entitled people victim playing and spouting hard done by nonsense, who think they are special or great or more deserving because they made the choice to buy a house, not only are as bad as the few self entitled in social houseing, but try and turn their hard done by nonsense on to the rest of us.
again there are no free houses in ireland. people pay rent. if you are paying any sort of money to remain in a house, that is rent and therefore the house is not free.

Ok. There are no free houses.
Give me my house with €50 a week "rent" please.

AudreyHepburn

Yes absolutely - if you are physically and mentally capable of working and it can be shown that you are not making and have never made an effort to find a job your dole should be cut or stopped immediately.

The dole is for those in dire straights, not those too lazy to bother.

end of the road

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Yes absolutely - if you are physically and mentally capable of working and it can be shown that you are not making and have never made an effort to find a job your dole should be cut or stopped immediately.

The dole is for those in dire straights, not those too lazy to bother.

in theory i agree, but in reality it's not practical.
would you force employers by law to employ these people?
the type of people we are talking about here are people employers wouldn't want to have anything to do with.

Wheeliebin30

end of the road wrote: »

they aren't getting it for free. there are no free houses in ireland. the value of work is that you can earn a lot more money then you ever could on benefits. it's nonsense to suggest that a single man in a social house should pay the same rent as 4 people in another social house who are all working. inequitability doesn't come into it, income does.



only in the hard done by victim playing minds is any of that the case. in reality, most of us workers simply step back from the victim playing and hard done by nonsense and actually deal with reality and facts. we made our choices and excepted the consiquences for it and don't think we are special or great or more deserving because of it. we will all rot away in the end anyway.
the reality is there is a system there to help, that is right just and correct. yes some scam and they must be dealt with. some slip through the cracks and that is unfortunate and the system must do better. some are just over the threshold to qualify for help and that is unfortunate as they may also need it.
the few self entitled people victim playing and spouting hard done by nonsense, who think they are special or great or more deserving because they made the choice to buy a house, not only are as bad as the few self entitled in social houseing, but try and turn their hard done by nonsense on to the rest of us.
again there are no free houses in ireland. people pay rent. if you are paying any sort of money to remain in a house, that is rent and therefore the house is not free.

When someone is in receipt of social welfare and using that to pay there 50 euro a week then yes it is a free house.

No two ways about it.

end of the road

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

When someone is in receipt of social welfare and using that to pay there 50 euro a week then yes it is a free house.

No two ways about it.

it's not a free house, it's a subsidized house. still not free however. they are subsidized because they don't earn enough to pay full market rent and are unlikely to do so. get over it and move on. most people in social houses or receiving wellfare are not scammers.

Wheeliebin30

end of the road wrote: »

it's not a free house, it's a subsidized house. still not free however. they are subsidized because they don't earn enough to pay full market rent and are unlikely to do so. get over it and move on. most people in social houses or receiving wellfare are not scammers.

They don't earn anything full stop.

end of the road

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

They don't earn anything full stop.

wrong. a large number of people in social housing work.

Wheeliebin30

end of the road wrote: »

wrong. a large number of people in social housing work.

Well obviously.

But we're not talking about them.

This thread is about long term dole people.

end of the road

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Well obviously.

But we're not talking about them.

This thread is about long term dole people.

which there is only a very very small amount of. it's not great of course but we have to deal with reality and the practicalities, those people are unemployable.

ELM327

ELM327 wrote: »

Ok. There are no free houses.
Give me my house with €50 a week "rent" please.

What I find strange about your attitude is that you can live the dole life if you want to?

Call your boss a wanker in the morning and head down the dole office to start your claim. Off over to the Council office and tell them you want to put your name on the housing list.

Don't get a new job. Become unemployable. In about 15 years, the council will house you. Maybe quicker if you squeeze out a couple of kids.



It's an option that is open to pretty much everyone in the country.

If you don't think you'd be cut out for that kind of life, then there you go. Not everyone is. And not everyone is enjoying it or lapping it up in their free houses.

I work for myself and i tend to be mental busy for a fortnight or so every 5-6 weeks. I mean 16-18 hour days. Deadlines. Stress. You name it. And I'm self employed so if i feck things up i'm in trouble.

For the other few weeks between that mental busy period, i'd have a few small bits to do here and there, but casual stuff and nothing as serious as the aforementioned work.


I can assure you. Getting up and not going to work is just as much a chore as getting up and going to work.

I'm in the fortunate position that my work is pretty decent wage-wise, so i can head off for a week here and there or go and do things. People on €188 a week generally dont have that luxury. I don't at all envy someone on the dole. Free house or not.


But, if i want, the option to go and do that lifestyle is there.

Kermit.de.frog

end of the road wrote: »

in theory i agree, but in reality it's not practical.
would you force employers by law to employ these people?
the type of people we are talking about here are people employers wouldn't want to have anything to do with.

And why is that? And why should we care that they fcuked their lives up to the extent of being unemployable?

Why is that everyone else's problem?

Elmo

No, you have already got people into a cycle after 5 years.

For people who have been on the dole for that long the DSP need to look at the next 5 years. This means retraining and looking at the individual. 5 years of unemployment and getting back into the workforce is a hard task, it a hard task for people to change job, you can imagine what it would be like for someone with possibly no experience of work in the last 5 years.

By a strict cut off point you are basically making a bad situation worse.

Really no one should be on the dole for more than a year. Remember after 9 month JB runs out, and means testing kicks in for JA.

There are many reason for being unemployed for the last 5 years, and in reality its a small percentage of people in each DSP district.

We should care enough to help them out of their situation. Judging them and Demonizing them doesn't help anyone.

end of the road

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

And why is that? And why should we care that they fcuked their lives up to the extent of being unemployable?

Why is that everyone else's problem?

because it's cheaper for it to be our problem then the alternative. i no more like it then anyone else but at the end of the day it's reality whether we like it or not.

PTH2009

with Turas Nua now, i work but only part time and get Xs and Os so im still technically not fully employed. Have had 2 meetings promising me all this stuff and now i have to do a CV course and other courses too help my confidence etc

crystal hedgehog

Gatling wrote: »

No longer than 5 years and then your on your own seems fair

Then this country could very likely end up like South Africa where the haves live behind high walls and in fear of the the have-nots breaking in and not only taking what ever they can,but torturing and even killing them,because they are so angry and resentful at the way they are treated! I personally think it's wicked and would never say it was justified, I am just warning that it could happen and DOES in some countries where the poor are just set adrift.
We could also end up with gangs of destitute street children begging, some with eyes gouged out or legs broken, as they have in India. So, although I do think that a very SMALL percentage of people are lazy, I would rather they still got thrown their bag of peanuts every week than live in a place where these sorts of things went on.Plus,we can't know the hearts and minds of people.One of the reasons there are so many long-term unemployed is that there is still a dearth of proper,long term and permanent jobs that pay a living wage!If it were just the case that all dole claimants are lazy, then there would not have been nearly full employment in the year preceding the 2008 crash.The lazy and feckless will always be with us,but it's the very much lesser of several evils!

Uosdwis R. Dewoh

Ideally they should have a job before the five years is up, via mandatory training.

ELM327

crystal hedgehog wrote: »

Then this country could very likely end up like South Africa where the haves live behind high walls and in fear of the the have-nots breaking in and not only taking what ever they can,but torturing and even killing them,because they are so angry and resentful at the way they are treated! I personally think it's wicked and would never say it was justified, I am just warning that it could happen and DOES in some countries where the poor are just set adrift.
We could also end up with gangs of destitute street children begging, some with eyes gouged out or legs broken, as they have in India. So, although I do think that a very SMALL percentage of people are lazy, I would rather they still got thrown their bag of peanuts every week than live in a place where these sorts of things went on.Plus,we can't know the hearts and minds of people.One of the reasons there are so many long-term unemployed is that there is still a dearth of proper,long term and permanent jobs that pay a living wage!If it were just the case that all dole claimants are lazy, then there would not have been nearly full employment in the year preceding the 2008 crash.The lazy and feckless will always be with us,but it's the very much lesser of several evils!

You are aware that "full employment" doesn't actually mean full employment, right?
I think 3% on the dole is counted as full employment, therefore there's always lifers. And as like begats like, it will get worse with each generation.

Viscount Aggro

A mate of mine is talking about his upcoming "payrise" in the budget. Thats the welfare mentality that is out there.
I reckon it would take 35K salary to replace his "pay" and rent allowance, medical card etc.

He suffers from a condition called ergophobia. I had to look it up.

ELM327

Viscount Aggro wrote: »

A mate of mine is talking about his upcoming "payrise" in the budget. Thats the welfare mentality that is out there.
I reckon it would take 35K salary to replace his "pay" and rent allowance, medical card etc.

He suffers from a condition called ergophobia. I had to look it up.

Good word. It's not many times here I have to look up a word used on thread.

I despise, and cannot express in stronger terms, my disgust, at the word "pay" being used for social welfare payments.
I spent 9 months on JSB (means tested) in 2009 and would not have referred to it as pay. It's not pay.

It should be regarded as sustenance but it is regarded as a lifestyle subsidy.

35k is the mooted amount from many newspaper financial columns but I have not see calculations behind it. For those with children I suspect it may be more.

Elmo

ELM327 wrote: »

Good word. It's not many times here I have to look up a word used on thread.

I despise, and cannot express in stronger terms, my disgust, at the word "pay" being used for social welfare payments.
I spent 9 months on JSB (means tested) in 2009 and would not have referred to it as pay. It's not pay.

It should be regarded as sustenance but it is regarded as a lifestyle subsidy.

35k is the mooted amount from many newspaper financial columns but I have not see calculations behind it. For those with children I suspect it may be more.

35k? For a single person? The max is 9,776 a year. The issue really is that many people in employment need rent allowance to help them survive.

JSB is not means tested. Dependents and other allowances (such as rent) are means tested payments, when on JSB. JSA is fully means tested.

SuperTortoise

Elmo wrote: »

35k? For a single person? The max is 9,776 a year. The issue really is that many people in employment need rent allowance to help them survive.

JSB is not means tested. Dependents and other allowances (such as rent) are means tested payments, when on JSB. JSA is fully means tested.

9,776 in Basic payment, what about all the other perks such as next to free house, full medical cards, xmas bonus!, fuel allowance, there's more that i'm missing i'm sure.
So now what is it worth? Ballpark figure?

dasa29

SuperTortoise wrote: »

9,776 in Basic payment, what about all the other perks such as next to free house, full medical cards, xmas bonus!, fuel allowance, there's more that i'm missing i'm sure.
So now what is it worth? Ballpark figure?

if i look at basic payment, rent allowance, fuel allowance, Xmas Bonus and the amount i get is €15150.8, this is for a single person. As far as i know fuel allowance is only paid to 1 person in a household.

I did not include medical card because you can't tell how many times you will use it in a year. Also what a person or couple can get from CWO in regards to rent allowance differ in each county.

Timistry

Social Welfare recipients seem to have more to gain out of this budget than PAYE workers, if the figures that are been mooted are true

Mr. teddywinkles

ELM327 wrote: »

You are aware that "full employment" doesn't actually mean full employment, right?
I think 3% on the dole is counted as full employment, therefore there's always lifers. And as like begats like, it will get worse with each generation.

Always people in transition between jobs too.

Geuze

crystal hedgehog wrote: »

Then this country could very likely end up like South Africa where the haves live behind high walls and in fear of the the have-nots breaking in and not only taking what ever they can,but torturing and even killing them,because they are so angry and resentful at the way they are treated! I personally think it's wicked and would never say it was justified, I am just warning that it could happen and DOES in some countries where the poor are just set adrift.
We could also end up with gangs of destitute street children begging, some with eyes gouged out or legs broken, as they have in India.

There are European countries with no JSA.

They have other anti-poverty welfare payments instead.

If we abolished JSA, many unemployable people would switch onto SWA.

So your vision would not happen.

Example: Denmark, Estonia, CZ = no "dole" for single people.

See here:

https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=TAXBEN

Look at the 5th year after unemployment.

Geuze

There are 141,500 unemployed people in Ireland, 6.2% of the labour force.

http://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/qnhs/quarterlynationalhouseholdsurveyquarter22017/


There are 249,000 on the Live Register.

http://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/lr/liveregisterseptember2017/

So we have more than 100,000 people who are not unemployed, but are on the Live Register.

BillyBobBS

SuperTortoise wrote: »

9,776 in Basic payment, what about all the other perks such as next to free house, full medical cards, xmas bonus!, fuel allowance, there's more that i'm missing i'm sure.
So now what is it worth? Ballpark figure?

What free houses?

Geuze

Gatling wrote: »

No longer than 5 years and then your on your own seems fair

The following countries have zero unemployment payments for single people after 5 years:

CZ
DK
Estonia
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Latvia
Lux
NL
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switz

etc.


Hmmm, not so sure about this data, see here

https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=TAXBEN


Click on NRR - over 5 years.

The NRR is the Net Replacement rates.

ELM327

Geuze wrote: »

The following countries have zero unemployment payments for single people after 5 years:

CZ
DK
Estonia
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Latvia
Lux
NL
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switz

etc.

We should introduce that here too.

NoviGlitzko

I think something should come into place where if you're on it more than two years you should see a decrease. 4 years, another decrease, and so on until you are left with half of what a freshly off work dole (which itself could be increased because of it) is for someone who's lost a job.

arctictree

I'm pretty sure you'd have to scrap the minimum wage if you stopped dole after 5 years. People would need some way to legally earn money for food and shelter.

NinjaTruncs

They should be made work for it. 30 hours/four days a week in various forms of community work. You don't show up you don't get paid. People on disability would get work appropriate for their condition. It would also allow them to gain experience.

If you don't like the work you get a better job during the other 138 hours a week you have off. Entitled to four weeks off like any other job, no sick pay for the first three days off.

Would also help reduce fraud as one person can't be in two places at once to work.

joe stodge

what if there was a punch a long termer in the face day?

one day a year when you could crack as many lads on the scratch long term as you could right in gob?

would that be a better idea?

buckwheat

I think they should be made to wear a bell

tomwaterford

NinjaTruncs wrote: »

They should be made work for it. 30 hours/four days a week in various forms of community work. You don't show up you don't get paid. .

ThIs is ture....a friend of mine runs a CE scheme,and she has awlful trouble of getting people to turn up and even do work

There's people apply for these (very keen etc to do them) and meet all requirements etc,then the DSP send/force others out and they won't do a tap....like literally they'll turn up and stand around in the cold for the 19 or 20 hours and not do a tap.

While others who do be itching to do em,end up doing stuff voluntarily to pass the day

end of the road

NinjaTruncs wrote: »

They should be made work for it. 30 hours/four days a week in various forms of community work. You don't show up you don't get paid. People on disability would get work appropriate for their condition. It would also allow them to gain experience.

If you don't like the work you get a better job during the other 138 hours a week you have off. Entitled to four weeks off like any other job, no sick pay for the first three days off.

Would also help reduce fraud as one person can't be in two places at once to work.

not practical.
1. community work already has the staff to do it.
2. the few we are talking about here would require supervision which is expensive.
sadly again, wellfare works out cheaper.
those who do want to work will find work eventually. things are picking up slowly and more companies will invest in ireland creating jobs, especially once brexit happens.

jaxxx

I'm on welfare. I'm trying everything I can to get a job, any job and for the life of me I always fall flat. Sometimes I get lucky and get a temporary job on a couple month's contract but I can't land anything permanent. I dunno whether I'm just unlucky or whether the universe has it out for me or whether I'm somehow screwing myself over. I despise being on welfare. It's so demoralising and disheartening. And this budget increases welfare by €5 I think, and honestly I don't agree with it. I'm lucky in that I'm living at home so my expenses are kept to a minimum, but I make weekly contributions to try and pay some of my keep.

I'd love to be doing one of the community enterprise schemes, but you have to be on welfare for a minimum of 12 months. I was lucky to get a temporary 6 month contract at the start of the year, but that reset my time for eligibility for the CE scheme. I'd love to be out doing 20/30 hours a week for the money I'm getting, at least that way I'm getting some experience to help me secure a job as well as feel as though I'm doing some little bit to earn my weekly dole.

Ulysses Gaze

end of the road wrote: »

not practical.
1. community work already has the staff to do it.
2. the few we are talking about here would require supervision which is expensive.
sadly again, wellfare works out cheaper.
those who do want to work will find work eventually. things are picking up slowly and more companies will invest in ireland creating jobs, especially once brexit happens.

This bit is the key.

It would require people sitting on these people to get them to do any work at all. You could not turn your back on them for 20 minutes or they would be skiving off.

tomwaterford

The CE schemes are loved where I am....as there is a kind of an understanding...if you do them...your allowed work another job part time etc aswell and keep your payment

So...lads do be working at silage/maybe milking cows etc aswell and works out an ok enough wage for the week

and no DSP breathing down your neck/worrying about getting caught working etc

sdanseo

We could start by not spending €219m on the Christmas Bonus. If you want to buy Christmas presents or a Turkey, save during the year like everyone else.

Just to put €219m in perspective:

€47 for every man, woman and child in the country
The annual budget of a small hospital
88 of John Halligan's cath labs
Around 5% of DART Underground
A quarter of a motorway from Cork to Limerick

SuperTortoise

dasa29 wrote: »

if i look at basic payment, rent allowance, fuel allowance, Xmas Bonus and the amount i get is €15150.8, this is for a single person. As far as i know fuel allowance is only paid to 1 person in a household.

I did not include medical card because you can't tell how many times you will use it in a year. Also what a person or couple can get from CWO in regards to rent allowance differ in each county.

Thanks you for those figures.

So let's say someone is earning 22,000 NET and has costs in the order of 4,500 for travel to and from work per annum, that leaves them with 17,500 NET for a 40 hour week Vs 15,150 while on the dole working zero hours per week.

When it's put that way it's easy to see why people are fed up of the current system.

doolox

Some people can do a days work, need little or no supervision and can think their way out of most problems that arise or escalate problems to a higher authority in a calm disciplined manner and keep things moving along.

Money gets earned, profits are generated and everyone is happy.

Other people are not able to do this.

We can separate out those who are physically not able for a days work due to access and other issues. Some accommodations can be made but this takes time and money, not always possible in private companies already hard stretched to compete with other companies who just hire the fittest people for the job and dump the rest at the first available opportunity.

Society needs to sort out who can work from those who cannot.

There needs to be a defined set of norms for what is expected of people in terms of hours worked, some can work full time other may only be able to work part time etc. Others may not be able to work at all.

As pointed out in previous posts the cost of 1 to 1 supervision of those people who are not willing to work makes it a losing proposition, as it costs more to extract any useful work out of them than is worthwhile, it is cheaper to leave them on the dole than to force them to engage in work.

What is needed is a comprehensive alliance between health, education, labour and social protection to redefine their various clients and work out an individualised care and development plan for each unemployed person depending on their mental and physical health, stage in life, needs in life etc..

For example there are some people near retirement age who will never get another job in their lives but still have to be seen to be "seeking employment". Others with major childcare and other family commitments but no adequate support towards childcare costs or access to transport are also pushed out of the labour market.

It serves no useful purpose for some people to be forced to play games with social welfare officials when the truth is they cannot work, will never be hired for work or do not have the capacity to work due to age, disability or other constraints.

almostbroke

I think the worst thing about being unemployed is the longer you're out of work, your confidence goes.....if you were interested in doing volunteer work in an industry you're interested in, you may be able to do this and hold on to your unemployment payment. Getting this experience on your cv is sometimes one of the best ways of actually securing a real job.....check out www.volunteer.ie

Best of luck.....