Budget 2018 - Mod note in post #1

McMurphy

eagle eye wrote: »

I don't think you should get one cent if you are on the dole. I say dole rather than benefit. If somebody has worked for over two years I've no problem with the being given money for up to two years.
Those over two years should have to sit down with somebody who works out what they need to survive. They then get everything ordered for them in a local supermarket and whatever other type of store is necessary and they go collect it.

There should be no alcohol or cigarettes available to these people.

This would avoid abuse of the system where you have alcoholics and druggies using the money to feed their habit and then their partner goes in and begs for and gets more state money because the problem partner spent it all. I can guarantee you there would be a lot less wasters on the dole if they had no money for cigarettes or alcohol, or drugs for that matter.

Apocalypse scenario from the Max movie set ensues soon afterwards.

Simply Depriving people of cash is far from a solution.

eagle eye

I don't think you'd see any increase as those that do those things are at it regardless.

You'd have a lot of money to spend on drug rehabilitation centres with the money you'd be saving. This is an area where a lot of money needs to be spent. We currently have a horrendously poor drug rehabilitation policy. There is not anywhere near enough spaces for drug rehabilitation in this country.

pilly

eagle eye wrote: »

I don't think you should get one cent if you are on the dole. I say dole rather than benefit. If somebody has worked for over two years I've no problem with the being given money for up to two years.
Those over two years should have to sit down with somebody who works out what they need to survive. They then get everything ordered for them in a local supermarket and whatever other type of store is necessary and they go collect it.

There should be no alcohol or cigarettes available to these people.

This would avoid abuse of the system where you have alcoholics and druggies using the money to feed their habit and then their partner goes in and begs for and gets more state money because the problem partner spent it all. I can guarantee you there would be a lot less wasters on the dole if they had no money for cigarettes or alcohol, or drugs for that matter.

Yeah because I see companies advertising for "druggies and alcoholics" all the time to give them jobs. Crying out for them.

eagle eye

pilly wrote:

Yeah because I see companies advertising for "druggies and alcoholics" all the time to give them jobs. Crying out for them.

Read my reply to a previous poster.

Idbatterim

keane2097 wrote: »

Re:Renua - I think the majority of the electorate wouldn't see the idea of handing the country back to the church as a fair exchange for getting a fiver back off supposed dole scroungers.

They won't have any much / any influence on social matters. If the 8th is repealed next year, you think Renua will be looking to reinstate it?

Also if taxpayers want to bitch about every other group here looking after their own interest, they only have themselves to blame if they don't...

Donal55

eagle eye wrote: »

I don't think you should get one cent if you are on the dole. I say dole rather than benefit. If somebody has worked for over two years I've no problem with the being given money for up to two years.
Those over two years should have to sit down with somebody who works out what they need to survive. They then get everything ordered for them in a local supermarket and whatever other type of store is necessary and they go collect it.

There should be no alcohol or cigarettes available to these people.

This would avoid abuse of the system where you have alcoholics and druggies using the money to feed their habit and then their partner goes in and begs for and gets more state money because the problem partner spent it all. I can guarantee you there would be a lot less wasters on the dole if they had no money for cigarettes or alcohol, or drugs for that matter.

A bit like the big brother house.

Donal55

eagle eye wrote: »

I don't think you'd see any increase as those that do those things are at it regardless.

You'd have a lot of money to spend on drug rehabilitation centres with the money you'd be saving. This is an area where a lot of money needs to be spent. We currently have a horrendously poor drug rehabilitation policy. There is not anywhere near enough spaces for drug rehabilitation in this country.

So you don't think desperation could drive a law abiding person into crime?

Baggly

I don't think you have a grasp of the difference in behaviour between a person who is addicted to drugs and can feed their habit and someone who is addicted to drugs and suddenly is deprived of them.

I think there a lot more drug users close to desperation now that don't resort to crime that would turn to crime if their ability to source drugs was suddenly pulled from under them.

Leaving them to their own devices to get clean in the hopes they don't turn to crime or go straight to a clinic isn't something I can see working.

With the lack of opportunities for addicts or even recovering addicts, what you are proposing pretty much amounts to a crime trap, Imo.

Sorry mods will move on.

Geuze

Tony EH wrote: »

Most people don't want to be on the dole, but by christ, they're glad of it when the need it, including the big mouth scrap/reduce the dole types on Boards,

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

There are 249,000 on the Live Register.

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

Baggly

I think this budget didn't make much sense at all, hence the dissatisfaction from a lot of people...here and IRL.

I think this is one of the pitfalls of the current coalition agreement. I don't like fg but I like this incohesive budget even less.

Geuze

Rick Shaw wrote: »

Apocalypse scenario from the Max movie set ensues soon afterwards.

Simply Depriving people of cash is far from a solution.

Plenty of countries don't have JSA, they only have JSB.

Or else JSA runs out after a few years.

This is common.

Yet these societies don't breakdown.

People are on other welfare payments, but not JSA, as they aren't unemployed.

See here:

http://www.oecd.org/els/benefits-and-wages-statistics.htm

jk23

eagle eye wrote: »

I don't think you should get one cent if you are on the dole. I say dole rather than benefit. If somebody has worked for over two years I've no problem with the being given money for up to two years.
Those over two years should have to sit down with somebody who works out what they need to survive. They then get everything ordered for them in a local supermarket and whatever other type of store is necessary and they go collect it.

There should be no alcohol or cigarettes available to these people.

This would avoid abuse of the system where you have alcoholics and druggies using the money to feed their habit and then their partner goes in and begs for and gets more state money because the problem partner spent it all. I can guarantee you there would be a lot less wasters on the dole if they had no money for cigarettes or alcohol, or drugs for that matter.

While your system is similar to the American model in a way. You are forgetting the impact this would have on businesses around the country. People who are on the dole spend money in shops of all kinds ,use gyms and other forms of paid entertainment.

I don’t get why people think that just because they pay an amount of tax a week that they get to lambast a vulnerable section of society. There is a certain part of society in Ireland who have no intention of working and we know who they are and it won’t change. I certainly wouldn’t begrudge anyone social welfare who is a law abiding citizen and not committing large scale fraud . At the end of the day it’s their life.

Donal55

Geuze wrote: »

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

There are 249,000 on the Live Register.

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

You do know the Live register includes part time and casual workers. Could possibly account for the extra 100,000

Geuze

Yes, but could that explain all of the nearly 110,000 extra people?

pilly

Geuze wrote:

Yes, but could that explain all of the nearly 110,000 extra people?

I'm pretty sure it's possible 100,000 people work casually

Donal55

Geuze wrote: »

Yes, but could that explain all of the nearly 110,000 extra people?

Why not. Carers for instance can only work approx 19 per week I think.
Plenty of women work in the likes of Tesco, Dunnes Argos etc on a p/t basis whilst looking after kids.

Not everyone is a dole cheat.

johnnyskeleton

ELM327 wrote: »

A message which it seems is lost amongst some people here, and on boards threads in general.

pilly wrote: »

You know if everyone on here who knows someone on the fiddle would report them sure the social welfare bill would be cut in half, problem solved.

Tony EH wrote: »

The problem of the people whining in here is the dole, full stop. They are far from the societal bastions they'd have others believe.

Mod note:

This type of comment i.e. "certain people on this thread/forum believe X" is not acceptable and will be considered trolling. If someone says something you disagree with, argue the point with them. But generalisations as to what some people might think is not acceptable.

the_syco

How much is petrol going to be now?

Donal55

the_syco wrote: »

How much is petrol going to be now?

Depends on Trump and the Hurricanes.

Geuze

Donal55 wrote: »

Why not. Carers for instance can only work approx 19 per week I think.
Plenty of women work in the likes of Tesco, Dunnes Argos etc on a p/t basis whilst looking after kids.

Not everyone is a dole cheat.

I'll do further checking.

Casual and PT workers on LR = 52,000

A carer would be receiving CA, not JSA.

tayto lover

Hitman3000 wrote: »

So when are you going on the dole if it's so good?

I'm afraid I have a work ethic.
I couldn't bear to be supported by someone else.

tayto lover

BoatMad wrote: »

I personally think the budget will be seen as underwhelming but not negative for both FF and FG

The centre will get a lift from this and this is precisely the political objective

personally its a reasonable budget given the fiscal space, in fact Im surprised he had any money at all to spend

If they had anything at all to give then it should have been returned to the taxpayer. The people who get up every morning to go to work and keep the country ticking over i.e. the people specifically mention by Varadkar a few weeks ago.
But No. FG have become populist, a label they threw about like confetti a year or two ago.

Baggly

tayto lover wrote: »

If they had anything at all to give then it should have been returned to the taxpayer. The people who get up every morning to go to work and keep the country ticking over i.e. the people specifically mention by Varadkar a few weeks ago.
But No. FG have become populist, a label they threw about like confetti a year or two ago.

I dont read it like that. I read it like Varadkar would have liked to do that, which would have won him favour with the middle classes, so FF blocked that.

Its speculation on my part, but i wouldnt be surprised if something like this happened, which is why we have a bit of a everyone in the middle gets a 'something small, no-one is really happy' budget.

crossmolinalad

Pter wrote: »

Probably a lot more violent muggings and burglaries too.

And selling they re groceries next door and buying alcohol drugs and the smokes with it

_Kaiser_

Once again the debate descends into another "us vs them" argument - in this case the old reliable "dole heads vs employed". Irish begrudgery can always be relied on to worry about what someone else is getting/getting away with that you're not*

For the Government it's mission accomplished. While the ordinary folk squabble over the scraps, meanwhile the fact that we're building another economy dependent on property tax returns and throwing more money at things badly in need of reform (Health, AGS) goes largely unremarked,
and the fact that Varadkar once again showed himself to be all spin and no substance in his first real test as Taoiseach. We might as well get ready for the GE now.


* That's not to say Welfare fraud and abuse doesn't exist and shouldn't be tackled - absolutely it should! But it's nowhere near the problem that's being made out by some.

ELM327

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Once again the debate descends into another "us vs them" argument - in this case the old reliable "dole heads vs employed". Irish begrudgery can always be relied on to worry about what someone else is getting/getting away with that you're not*

For the Government it's mission accomplished. While the ordinary folk squabble over the scraps, meanwhile the fact that we're building another economy dependent on property tax returns and throwing more money at things badly in need of reform (Health, AGS) goes largely unremarked,
and the fact that Varadkar once again showed himself to be all spin and no substance in his first real test as Taoiseach. We might as well get ready for the GE now.


* That's not to say Welfare fraud and abuse doesn't exist and shouldn't be tacked - absolutely it should! But it's nowhere near the problem that's being made out by some.

I agree with your post.
We do tend to miss the bigger picture as Irish people.

_Kaiser_

ELM327 wrote: »

I agree with your post.
We do tend to miss the bigger picture as Irish people.

Exactly... and then we wonder why nothing changes/gets better!

Idbatterim

I think this budget didn't make much sense at all, hence the dissatisfaction from a lot of people...here and IRL.

I think this is one of the pitfalls of the current coalition agreement. I don't like fg but I like this incohesive budget even less.

I read a good article in the Irish times I think it was, saying this budget was to take wind out of the sails of the likes of SF...

Cyrus

Idbatterim wrote: »

I read a good article in the Irish times I think it was, saying this budget was to take wind out of the sails of the likes of SF...

how do you take the wind out of the sails of someone who promises everything to everyone barring those who will actually have to pay for it :pac:

James Brown

Cyrus wrote: »

how do you take the wind out of the sails of someone who promises everything to everyone barring those who will actually have to pay for it :pac:

What do you mean? Are you referring to tax exiles?

Cyrus

Matt Barrett wrote: »

What do you mean? Are you referring to tax exiles?

no sinn fein

James Brown

Cyrus wrote: »

no sinn fein

They would be paying taxes I'd assume.

Just read details on NAMA playing the part of a bank loaning to developers. The pitch is it falls under house building. I guess the government/NAMA assisting private builders build homes for sale on the market, is technically, the government/tax payer supplying homes.
I don't think it's advantageous to the public to go this route, regarding the housing crisis.
Some can't afford homes so we, the tax payers, seem to be in part fixing this by part financing private builds to be sold at market rate.
I can see how that's nice for the builder/seller.
Interest rates on the loans will be about 1% higher than AIB/BOI but giving builders about 80% of the monies needed.

https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2017/1011/911565-nama-house-building-spin-off-to-charge-8-interest-rate/

boardsuser1

Pascal is denying the budget was aimed at an election.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/1011/911444-budget/

Hitman3000

Cork Truck Driver wrote:

Pascal is denying the budget was aimed at an election.

A politician denying something, shocking.

boardsuser1

Hitman3000 wrote: »

A politician denying something, shocking.

Very honest people that lot :pac:

Donal55

Idbatterim wrote: »

I read a good article in the Irish times I think it was, saying this budget was to take wind out of the sails of the likes of SF...

Judging by some of the reactions here i'd say this budget took the wind outta sails of the FG electorate.

Idbatterim

Donal55 wrote: »

Judging by some of the reactions here i'd say this budget took the wind outta sails of the FG electorate.

I really think they don't care About their vote. Because they think the alternatives will be worse for us. Until a new party emerges that will represent the tax payer or Renua start winning seats at their expense, expect nothing to change ...

lawred2

Idbatterim wrote: »

Donal55 wrote: »

Judging by some of the reactions here i'd say this budget took the wind outta sails of the FG electorate.

I really think they don't care About their vote. Because they think the alternatives will be worse for us. Until a new party emerges that will represent the tax payer or Renua start winning seats at their expense, expect nothing to change ...

Renua still exist?

Idbatterim

lawred2 wrote: »

Renua still exist?

Yes. They won over 2% of the votes last time round, a threshold which gives them state funding they previously couldn't receive ...

I think maybe they should rebrand ... they really need to get their message out come elevtion time. They could really do with a "celebrity" candidate in my opinion to build awareness and get more exposure for them ...

boardsuser1

Idbatterim wrote: »

Yes. They won over 2% of the votes last time round, a threshold which gives them state funding they previously couldn't receive ...

I think maybe they should rebrand ... they really need to get their message out come elevtion time. They could really do with a "celebrity" candidate in my opinion to build awareness and get more exposure for them ...

Who’s leading them now since Lucinda Creighton quit?

I’ve heard nothing of them since the last election.

Idbatterim

Cork Truck Driver wrote: »

Who’s leading them now since Lucinda Creighton quit?

I’ve heard nothing of them since the last election.

John leahy is leader now. I'd like Lucinda to rejoin the party ... this is the issue, my Facebook etc is bombarded by fg propoganda. Renua can do all the good work and have great policies, but they need to make it known that they exist and what they stand for. I won't vote fg again ... ff mark 2

boardsuser1

Idbatterim wrote: »

John leahy is leader now. I'd like Lucinda to rejoin the party ... this is the issue, my Facebook etc is bombarded by fg propoganda. Renua can do all the good work and have great policies, but they need to make it known that they exist and what they stand for. I won't vote fg again ... ff mark 2

I’ve never heard of the man :pac:

Have you signed up to political parties on Facebook?

I wouldn’t dream of it.

If she runs in the next election I think it will be with Renua.

Both parties are like 2 peas in a pod.

Idbatterim

Cork Truck Driver wrote: »

I’ve never heard of the man :pac:

Have you signed up to political parties on Facebook?

I wouldn’t dream of it.

If she runs in the next election I think it will be with Renua.

Both parties are like 2 peas in a pod.

I think I've liked or signed up to fg. Gave them benefit of doubt. This budget was enough. No interest in them saying one thing and doing another ...

boardsuser1

Idbatterim wrote: »

I think I've liked or signed up to fg. Gave them benefit of doubt. This budget was enough. No interest in them saying one thing and doing another ...

I’d say Varadkar’s smooth talking is what will prevent the FG party from sinking.

If Enda was still on the bridge, the ship would have sunk long ago and Leo as well as Simon knew that.

Are you going to go SF next?

If Gerry retires more people will probably vote for them admittedly.

Idbatterim

Cork Truck Driver wrote: »

I’d say Varadkar’s smooth talking is what will prevent the FG party from sinking.

If Enda was still on the bridge, the ship would have sunk long ago and Leo as well as Simon knew that.

Are you going to go SF next?

If Gerry retires more people will probably vote for them admittedly.

No it will be Renua next. I'd never vote sf. In fairness there's a thread on after hours about the budget and the amount of comments on what a spoofer and fraud varadkar is, they are bang on ...

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1907246376207080&id=1475393262725729

djPSB

Idbatterim wrote: »

I really think they don't care About their vote. Because they think the alternatives will be worse for us. Until a new party emerges that will represent the tax payer or Renua start winning seats at their expense, expect nothing to change ...

The problem is if a party did invest public funds wholly in public services (like transport, healthcare, housing etc) rather than giving the bigger cohorts a few euro each, they'd do very well to get votes in the next election.

Capital projects take time which wouldn't be completed by the next election. So giving a little to the majority of the electorate makes sense for FG.

In reality, the vast majority of Irish people, only care about what's in it for themselves anyways and would fail to see the bigger picture. This isn't helped though by the way recent governments continually pump public funds into public services that are essentially black holes and outdated.

keane2097

The vast majority of Irish people always seem to think the rest of the Irish people are stupid.

In reality, the vast majority of Irish people I see or hear commentating are saying there's no point giving everyone a fiver, we should just spend the money on services.

listermint

keane2097 wrote: »

The vast majority of Irish people always seem to think the rest of the Irish people are stupid.

In reality, the vast majority of Irish people I see or hear commentating are saying there's no point giving everyone a fiver, we should just spend the money on services.

100% agree,

Im not sure what think tank they get their advice from but the idea that the majority of people cant see the bigger picture his laughable.

I think the vast majority of people are more intelligent than whats in the Dail tbh.

Wheeliebin30

listermint wrote: »

100% agree,

Im not sure what think tank they get their advice from but the idea that the majority of people cant see the bigger picture his laughable.

I think the vast majority of people are more intelligent than whats in the Dail tbh.

That's true.

But I have seen a lot of people say how come the social welfare got more than me, instead of how come they didn't invest in public services instead of giving a 5er to the social welfare.

Ah i dunno. It's a bit of a mess.

Idbatterim

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

That's true.

But I have seen a lot of people say how come the social welfare got more than me, instead of how come they didn't invest in public services instead of giving a 5er to the social welfare.

Ah i dunno. It's a bit of a mess.

My opinion is there is no justification for welfare increases. We live in a country where you lose over half your income on a low amount. Scandals like that. Like the appalling infrastructure. Like the insane debt. Housing, all endlessly morevsesecing of the Money. Maybe even certain welfare like carers are worthy of increases. But these blanket rises, throw it out like confetti vote buyers are a disgrace!!!