Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Leo is the new king of Ireland.
Comments
-
Colonel Claptrap wrote: »Governments should encourage as many people as possible to contribute to the workforce, assuming they are able.
Would you not agree?
I do not agree that the Government should be trying to force students, pensioners and the disabled into the workforce.0 -
Eh, no,
https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/elcq/earningsandlabourcostsq42017finalq12018preliminaryestimates/
I cannot find anything in the CSO data that relates to median earnings. The article claims to "estimate" it, but there doesn't appear to be any statistical back-up for the "estimate".0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »Why are you suggesting luring people into the workforce? Is anyone not working by choice and being financed by the state? If there are a significant amount who choose not to work and receive state aid, isn't that illegal?
I'm not getting what you think the problem is and how this would solve it.Zubeneschamali wrote: »I do not agree that the Government should be trying to force students, pensioners and the disabled into the workforce.
I don't think you understand the point. There is something strange about Ireland. We are not an old country such as the Nordics, so all other things being equal, we should have a higher participation rate in the workforce, yet we are six or seven percentage points below them. That could be as many as 100,000 people who would be working if Ireland was Sweden.
We need to understand why. Some of it can be explained by higher than average participation rates at third-level.
https://www.cso.ie/px/pxeirestat/Statire/SelectVarVal/saveselections.asp
A 15% higher participation rate might account for around 20,000 of the missing 100,000, so we still have 80,000 people not participating in the workforce that would otherwise do so in a Nordic country.
I haven't said they are doing anything illegal, which is the usual default tired accusation when anyone makes a point like mine, obviously, the Irish laws allow them not to participate. The kneejerk defence of the unemployed does not help open debate.
There are a number of issues worth exploring to determine why Ireland's participation rates are low. These include:
- Childcare costs being high, should we have direct provision of childcare instead of child benefit?
- Relatively generous arrangements for payment of disability allowance?
- Relatively generous arrangements for payment of lone parents allowance?
I am sure there are more possibilities that others will think of.0 -
Zubeneschamali wrote: »I do not agree that the Government should be trying to force students, pensioners and the disabled into the workforce.
Apologies, let me clarify.
It refers to the labour force, not the population in general. That means people employed and people unemployed.
Students, pensioners and disabled are not classified as unemployed so exist outside the labour force.0 -
I don't think you understand the point. There is something strange about Ireland. We are not an old country such as the Nordics, so all other things being equal, we should have a higher participation rate in the workforce, yet we are six or seven percentage points below them. That could be as many as 100,000 people who would be working if Ireland was Sweden.
We need to understand why. Some of it can be explained by higher than average participation rates at third-level.
https://www.cso.ie/px/pxeirestat/Statire/SelectVarVal/saveselections.asp
A 15% higher participation rate might account for around 20,000 of the missing 100,000, so we still have 80,000 people not participating in the workforce that would otherwise do so in a Nordic country.
I haven't said they are doing anything illegal, which is the usual default tired accusation when anyone makes a point like mine, obviously, the Irish laws allow them not to participate. The kneejerk defence of the unemployed does not help open debate.
There are a number of issues worth exploring to determine why Ireland's participation rates are low. These include:
- Childcare costs being high, should we have direct provision of childcare instead of child benefit?
- Relatively generous arrangements for payment of disability allowance?
- Relatively generous arrangements for payment of lone parents allowance?
I am sure there are more possibilities that others will think of.
I was simply requesting you clarify. If people weren't constantly referring to the unemployed, like they are the only recipients of state aid, and often as fraudulently doing so, maybe you wouldn't have jumped to that assumption. On my part, I was not able to understand your point, who wasn't working that could be and what was the issue you were attempting to resolve?
You seem to be suggesting that there are people choosing not to work. These are either wealthy people or people on welfare/state aid, (if choosing not to work, doing so illegally). Which begged the question, who are we to be luring into the workforce? You seem to be suggesting that if childcare was not so costly, we could have more people in the workforce. I agree. I think child care should be an item to tackle if it means people can get back into the workforce.
You lost me on 'relatively generous arrangements' for payment of disability allowance and lone parents allowance. Are you saying if people couldn't survive on those allowances, they'd be more likely to have to 'choose' to seek employment?
And again, what is the problem, 'luring' people, by cutting their state aid, back into the workforce, designed to solve?
Is the idea that making things tougher for lone parents and the disabled might aid the economy? To what end? I mean what's the point of making peoples lives more miserable to aid the economy? What's the ultimate goal of helping/aiding the economy, if not to provide for and aid society?0 -
Advertisement
-
Matt Barrett wrote: »I was simply requesting you clarify. If people weren't constantly referring to the unemployed, like they are the only recipients of state aid, and often as fraudulently doing so, maybe you wouldn't have jumped to that assumption. On my part, I was not able to understand your point, who wasn't working that could be and what was the issue you were attempting to resolve?
You seem to be suggesting that there are people choosing not to work. These are either wealthy people or people on welfare/state aid, (if choosing not to work, doing so illegally). Which begged the question, who are we to be luring into the workforce? You seem to be suggesting that if childcare was not so costly, we could have more people in the workforce. I agree. I think child care should be an item to tackle if it means people can get back into the workforce.
You lost me on 'relatively generous arrangements' for payment of disability allowance and lone parents allowance. Are you saying if people couldn't survive on those allowances, they'd be more likely to have to 'choose' to seek employment?
And again, what is the problem, 'luring' people, by cutting their state aid, back into the workforce, designed to solve?
Is the idea that making things tougher for lone parents and the disabled might aid the economy? To what end? I mean what's the point of making peoples lives more miserable to aid the economy? What's the ultimate goal of helping/aiding the economy, if not to provide for and aid society?
I think you need to read my post again before seeming to understand it.
Where did I say I would be making things tougher for lone parents and the disabled?
What I am saying is that it is fairest for society in general that the rules for qualifying for payment of a social welfare allowance are clear and fair and in line with what happens in other European countries. Do you agree?
If you disagree, are you saying that people who shouldn't get a payment by European standards should be included? Or are you saying that people who should get a payment by European standards should be excluded?
All I have done is point to the Nordic Labour Force Participation Rates and ask the question why are we different. I have included a couple of reasons of my own, but I have made it clear they may be others. Other than accuse me of trying to force the disabled back into the workforce (but if you change the qualifying criteria, then by definition, they aren't disabled), you haven't produced a single suggestion of your own or explanation of the difference.0 -
Eh, no,
https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/elcq/earningsandlabourcostsq42017finalq12018preliminaryestimates/
I cannot find anything in the CSO data that relates to median earnings. The article claims to "estimate" it, but there doesn't appear to be any statistical back-up for the "estimate".
You clearly weren't looking hard enough.
https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-syi/psyi2017/econ/earn/Median weekly earnings for all age groups was €528.81 in 2014 an increase of 1.1% from the previous year. The 60 and over age group had the highest earnings growth in 2014, increasing 3.8%, while the 30-39 age group had the lowest earnings growth of 0.1%. The age group with the highest earnings in 2014 was the 40-49 group, whose median earnings were €659.50. The 30-39 group was the highest earning female age category while the 50-59 group was the highest earning male age category. The age cohort with the highest earnings growth in 2014 was the 15-24 group for males and the 60 and over group for females. The largest fall in male median earnings was in the 50-59 group, which fell by 0.6% in 2014, while the largest decrease in female median earnings was in the 30-39 group, which fell 0.2%. See graph above and table 19.5.
€528.81 x 52 = €27498.12 in 2014
For that to have increased by 1000 in the following 4 years would tally with economic figures that we have available to us.0 -
I think you need to read my post again before seeming to understand it.
Where did I say I would be making things tougher for lone parents and the disabled?
What I am saying is that it is fairest for society in general that the rules for qualifying for payment of a social welfare allowance are clear and fair and in line with what happens in other European countries. Do you agree?
If you disagree, are you saying that people who shouldn't get a payment by European standards should be included? Or are you saying that people who should get a payment by European standards should be excluded?
All I have done is point to the Nordic Labour Force Participation Rates and ask the question why are we different. I have included a couple of reasons of my own, but I have made it clear they may be others. Other than accuse me of trying to force the disabled back into the workforce (but if you change the qualifying criteria, then by definition, they aren't disabled), you haven't produced a single suggestion of your own or explanation of the difference.
You said 'relatively generous arrangements'. 'Generous' would suggest a surplus to need.
However you view it, how would cutting or reducing rates of disability or lone parents aid not make things tougher for those affected? And why would these people then 'choose' to enter the workforce if not out of necessity due to their financial status being tougher?
What is the goal here? Having a higher participation rate does not equal improved standards or better quality of life and it may aid the economy on one end, as subsidies are needed out the back end to help these people who are currently not working re-enter/enter the work place.
How ever you re word it, it still amounts to;Zubeneschamali wrote: »I do not agree that the Government should be trying to force students, pensioners and the disabled into the workforce.
...or whatever other 'possibilities that others will think of'.0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »Encourage who? And what's the problem this might solve?
Encourage the unemployed who choose not to work.
There are countless problems this could solve.
Having a job improves self worth, gives confidence to individuals, encourages socialization with peers and others in your community, provides financial stability, fosters skills, a trade or a qualification.
Leaving the house every day improves physical health. Socialization has a huge effect on mental health, which arguably is often a contributor towards not wanting to work.
Having a job provides stability to start a family, and sets an example to your children that work pays.
Having a job and paying income tax helps you feel committed to your community, your town or your country. You belong. You matter.0 -
Colonel Claptrap wrote: »Encourage the unemployed who choose not to work.
There are countless problems this could solve.
Having a job improves self worth, gives confidence to individuals, encourages socialization with peers and others in your community, provides financial stability, fosters skills, a trade or a qualification.
Leaving the house every day improves physical health. Socialization has a huge effect on mental health, which arguably is often a contributor towards not wanting to work.
Having a job provides stability to start a family, and sets an example to your children that work pays.
Having a job and paying income tax helps you feel committed to your community, your town or your country. You belong. You matter.
If they are collecting state aid they are breaking the law. Why encourage them to stop breaking the law? And I believe the numbers signing on is at its lowest level since July 2008, happy days, no?
You're talking on the merits of having a job. The talk was on increasing the participation rate by luring people on various alleged 'generous' state aid, (the disabled and lone parents etc.) into the work place.0 -
Advertisement
-
Matt Barrett wrote: »If they are collecting state aid they are breaking the law. Why encourage them to stop breaking the law?
Is this a real question?Matt Barrett wrote: »You're talking on the merits of having a job. The talk was on increasing the participation rate by luring people on various alleged 'generous' state aid, (the disabled and lone parents etc.) into the work place.
If you read my posts again you will see that I explicitly exclude students, pensioners and the disabled. Lone parents are classified as childminders which is effectively employment. Again, excluded from the labour force.
What do you think should be done about people in the labour force who can work but choose not to?
Should we 'lure' them into employment? Or leave them be?0 -
Colonel Claptrap wrote: »What do you think should be done about people in the labour force who can work but choose not to?
What percentage of people who are outside the workforce willingly do not take employment if it is made available to them?
You seem to be harbouring a certain degree of prejudice to people on social welfare.0 -
Apologies, I missed your edit.Matt Barrett wrote: »And I believe the numbers signing on is at its lowest level since July 2008, happy days, no?
Happy days indeed. I posted this 3 days ago. Kudos to the government so? I can't think of a better thread for you to go ahead and commend them. What do you think?0 -
Colonel Claptrap wrote: »Is this a real question?
If you read my posts again you will see that I explicitly exclude students, pensioners and the disabled. Lone parents are classified as childminders which is effectively employment. Again, excluded from the labour force.
What do you think should be done about people in the labour force who can work but choose not to?
Should we 'lure' them into employment? Or leave them be?
It had a '?' after it.
I was discussing lone parents and the disabled, remarking on the comment of another.
We shouldn't be luring or 'encouraging' criminals. We should be penalising and fining them.
Are you seriously suggesting there's a large enough number of people choosing not to work, feigning unemployment? How did Leo miss these welfare Ninja's? The other day you were on about the low levels of people signing on. Out of those how many choose not to work I wonder? Again, to bring it back, I don't see the merit of cutting state aid to any quarter, in an effort to force people into the work place. It's lowering standards and to what end? The economy? For whose benefit? Not the disabled any way.0 -
What percentage of people who are outside the workforce willingly do not take employment if it is made available to them?
I think that information is available online. Possibly CSO but I'm open to correction.You seem to be harbouring a certain degree of prejudice to people on social welfare.
Come on. You know that's nonsense and I know that's nonsense.0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »It had a '?' after it.
I was discussing lone parents and the disabled, remarking on the comment of another.
We shouldn't be luring or 'encouraging' criminals. We should be penalising and fining them.
Are you seriously suggesting there's a large enough number of people choosing not to work, feigning unemployment? How did Leo miss these welfare Ninja's? The other day you were on about the low levels of people signing on. Out of those how many choose not to work I wonder? Again, to bring it back, I don't see the merit of cutting state aid to any quarter, in an effort to force people into the work place. It's lowering standards and to what end? The economy? For whose benefit? Not the disabled any way.
I'm lost.
I think you need to go back and look at which posters are replying to which posts.0 -
Colonel Claptrap wrote: »I'm lost.
I think you need to go back and look at which posters are replying to which posts.
You need to read what you're commenting on.
It's explained quiet clearly. You came in on the tail end of a discussion. I was asking a poster questions based on their comments, you jumped in and seem to have confused yourself.
You steered off course, quoting me, quoting someone else and then inserting your own agenda.
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=107233488&postcount=15610 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »You need to read what you're commenting on.
It's explained quiet clearly. You came in on the tail end of a discussion. I was asking a poster questions based on their comments, you jumped in and seem to have confused yourself.
You steered off course, quoting me, quoting someone else and then inserting your own agenda.
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=107233488&postcount=1561
This thread is tedious again.
You made an assumption about participation rates in the labour market. It's a common misconception in economics so I replied, explaining that what you were talking about (disabled, lone parents, pensioners etc) is different from the labour force (employed + unemployed). I was merely offering clarification.
Rather than answer the follow up question I posed - what should be done with those who refuse to work? - you went off on one of your famous tangents.
I was then randomly accused of having a grudge against social welfare recipients by another poster.
If you don't want to debate the stuff, that's grand. Ignore me.
But this thread was a bit of craic when we actually discussed the meaty stuff. Can we shake hands and get back to that?
Will the Taoiseach go to the Arás and resign or will he hang on until FF pull the government down? With such momentum behind him, it must be tempting to ride the referendum wave into a general election. Id say he's gunning for it, but in the back of his mind he must be thinking - look at what happened to the Tories....
Might be handy if he could blame the collapse on the independent alliance. They're always liable to do something bonkers.
The post-ref opinion polls will be interesting.0 -
Enda Kenny was presented with an award today by the European Movement in Ireland. The award was for “Irish European of the Year”. However the award is nothing more than a self congratulatory slap on the the back.
You see the European Movement has an Honorary President. His name is Leo Varadkar. Before Leo got the job Enda held the position. On the board of the European Movement Ireland is Jillian Van Turnhout. Jillian became a senator as result of a Taoiseach’s nomination by Enda Kenny.
Of course such an organisation must be funded. Where does it get it’s funding from? €200,000 from the department of the Taoiseach.
So basically today we have had to listen to wall to wall coverage of Enda giving an award to himself. Worse still. You had to pay for it. - Ming Flanagan
I just read this. I'd heard it was makey-uppy but if this is true it's pretty sad, no?0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »It had a '?' after it.
I was discussing lone parents and the disabled, remarking on the comment of another.
We shouldn't be luring or 'encouraging' criminals. We should be penalising and fining them.
Are you seriously suggesting there's a large enough number of people choosing not to work, feigning unemployment? How did Leo miss these welfare Ninja's? The other day you were on about the low levels of people signing on. Out of those how many choose not to work I wonder? Again, to bring it back, I don't see the merit of cutting state aid to any quarter, in an effort to force people into the work place. It's lowering standards and to what end? The economy? For whose benefit? Not the disabled any way.
You are the only one calling them criminals. They are not criminals if the rules for disability allowance are so loose that they qualify in Ireland when they wouldn't qualify in the UK, Poland or Sweden.
And again, who said anything about cutting state benefits for existing people? Even changing the criteria only for new applicants would help reduce the numbers and encourage more into the workplace without taking a penny off anyone.
The National Disability Authority identified the problem in the early 2000s.
http://nda.ie/nda-files/Disability-and-Work-The-picture-we-learn-from-official-statistics.pdf
They wanted to tackle the problem of benefit traps. Since then, the number of people on disability has rocketed. Ireland is now one of the sickest countries in the world if you measure by disability problems. It is not targetting the disabled or hitting the most vulnerable to conclude that there is something strange going on. Either Ireland is unique for some reason or there is a problem with the system.
Let us have the debate about how disability interacts with work without populist pronouncements about people feigning unemployment. It is a tired response suitable for the foghorns in the Dail like Mick Wallace and Claire Daly, and not one that adds anything to a legitimate debate. What is more important is that rather than wanting protection from do-gooder social welfare supporters, people with a disability want the chance to actually go out and work for a living.
https://www.welfare.ie/en/downloads/SocialPortraitPeopleWithDisabilities.pdf
As this report makes clear, there is an onus on employers as well:
" Just as jobs are constantly being defined and re-defined, to meet the changing needs of the workplace in the context of technological change, jobs can also be re-defined to meet the differing needs and abilities of workers
with a disability. "
Finally, to be clear, the reports I have quoted identify the problem. I don't always agree with their proposed solution, in fact I strongly disagree with many of the proposals, as they are generally written from a left-wing perspective. However, they all agree that there is a need to get those on disability allowance back into the workforce.
Putting ones head in the sand and pretending there is no problem is a short-sighted position.0 -
Advertisement
-
You are putting words in my mouth. Anyone getting paid unemployment who can work but is not willing to is comitting fraud in my opinion. Where did I state you or anyone else called them criminals? Don't fudge and then say you're seeking reasoned discussion.
Back to lone parents and those with disabilities. You are suggesting they be lured into the work place and cite generous rates of state aid compared to other countries.
That amounts to making their lives harder so they have no option but to enter the workplace be they disabled or a lone parent. If people are deemed no longer disabled by Harris introducing some new metric ala Murphy, that's another story. We can debate now you've elaborated which was all I was asking you do. Your dragging clare Daly and mick Wallace into it is amusing if not unexpected.0 -
Lone parents can work but choose not to; is that fraud?0
-
Matt Barrett wrote: »You are putting words in my mouth. Anyone getting paid unemployment who can work but is not willing to is comitting fraud in my opinion. Where did I state you or anyone else called them criminals? Don't fudge and then say you're seeking reasoned discussion.
Back to lone parents and those with disabilities. You are suggesting they be lured into the work place and cite generous rates of state aid compared to other countries.
That amounts to making their lives harder so they have no option but to enter the workplace be they disabled or a lone parent. If people are deemed no longer disabled by Harris introducing some new metric ala Murphy, that's another story. We can debate now you've elaborated which was all I was asking you do. Your dragging clare Daly and mick Wallace into it is amusing if not unexpected.
Would a homemaker not be entitled to unemployment benefits? Is this fraud in your opinion?0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »You are putting words in my mouth. Anyone getting paid unemployment who can work but is not willing to is comitting fraud in my opinion. Where did I state you or anyone else called them criminals? Don't fudge and then say you're seeking reasoned discussion.
Back to lone parents and those with disabilities. You are suggesting they be lured into the work place and cite generous rates of state aid compared to other countries.
That amounts to making their lives harder so they have no option but to enter the workplace be they disabled or a lone parent. If people are deemed no longer disabled by Harris introducing some new metric ala Murphy, that's another story. We can debate now you've elaborated which was all I was asking you do. Your dragging clare Daly and mick Wallace into it is amusing if not unexpected.
That may be your opinion, but it is not legally true.
A person may well be able to work, but may qualify for payment under the terms of the unemployment benefit arrangements and may choose to take the payment. I agree with you that it is wrong, but it is not fraud, because it is legally allowed. Similarly, a person may well be able to work, but may qualify for payment under the terms of the disability benefit arrangements and may choose to take the payment. That may not even be disabled under other definitions in other acts or other regulations. However, it is perfectly legal for them to take the payment and it is not fraud.
The issue in the above cases is not the person, who is doing nothing wrong or illegal, it is the system that allows them to claim something that is wrong.0 -
FreudianSlippers wrote: »Lone parents can work but choose not to; is that fraud?
Are the kids imaginary? If so, yes.Would a homemaker not be entitled to unemployment benefits? Is this fraud in your opinion?
What's a homemaker?
Lads I said unemployed people, claiming because they are unemployed, who can work, but choose not to. I think you know this.That may be your opinion, but it is not legally true.
A person may well be able to work, but may qualify for payment under the terms of the unemployment benefit arrangements and may choose to take the payment. I agree with you that it is wrong, but it is not fraud, because it is legally allowed. Similarly, a person may well be able to work, but may qualify for payment under the terms of the disability benefit arrangements and may choose to take the payment. That may not even be disabled under other definitions in other acts or other regulations. However, it is perfectly legal for them to take the payment and it is not fraud.
The issue in the above cases is not the person, who is doing nothing wrong or illegal, it is the system that allows them to claim something that is wrong.
I'm of the opinion that if you claim unemployment because you have no job, can avail of a job but choose not to, you are falsely claiming. Unemployment is not for people who choose not to work, it's to assist people who cannot find work.
To whom it may concern, this relates back to the idea of 'luring' or 'encouraging' people back into the work place, using lone parents and the disabled as an example and citing generous state aid.
The problem with that is there are checks and balances in place. You can't walk into the department of social protection and claim disability without a disability which means you cannot work or need state aid contribution to make ends meet. No government criteria is designed for folk who stroll in and claim they need money because they don't want to work, and get it.
The trouble with 'luring' or 'encouraging' people back into the work place by making things tougher for them is a race to the bottom. If they are judged unfit or unable to work, cutting their aid might make them seek work out of necessity, but it's a pretty ****ty thing to try pull to increase participation rates. And again, to what end? On a practical level we've already got taxpayers availing of rent aid so they can function, add to that state child care for lone parents to return to work which may end up costing the state so the state can take in, only to give back out. More people working sounds great but we need consider salaries, working hours, state aid. Raising participation rates is not necessarily of benefit in every circumstance. That said, it would be some stroke to re evaluate what it means to be disabled to simply feed the two tier economy which saw the 'consistent poverty rate' in Dublin almost double between 2011 to 2016. Again, we can dispute the metrics or maybe Harris will pull a Murphy.0 -
So, if a parent were to quit their job to look after their kids for a few years, you'd consider this to be falsely claiming welfare?Matt Barrett wrote: »FreudianSlippers wrote: »Lone parents can work but choose not to; is that fraud?
Are the kids imaginary? If so, yes.Would a homemaker not be entitled to unemployment benefits? Is this fraud in your opinion?
What's a homemaker?
Lads I said unemployed people, claiming because they are unemployed, who can work, but choose not to. I think you know this.That may be your opinion, but it is not legally true.
A person may well be able to work, but may qualify for payment under the terms of the unemployment benefit arrangements and may choose to take the payment. I agree with you that it is wrong, but it is not fraud, because it is legally allowed. Similarly, a person may well be able to work, but may qualify for payment under the terms of the disability benefit arrangements and may choose to take the payment. That may not even be disabled under other definitions in other acts or other regulations. However, it is perfectly legal for them to take the payment and it is not fraud.
The issue in the above cases is not the person, who is doing nothing wrong or illegal, it is the system that allows them to claim something that is wrong.
I'm of the opinion that if you claim unemployment because you have no job, can avail of a job but choose not to, you are falsely claiming. Unemployment is not for people who choose not to work, it's to assist people who cannot find work.
To whom it may concern, this relates back to the idea of 'luring' or 'encouraging' people back into the work place, using lone parents and the disabled as an example and citing generous state aid.
The problem with that is there are checks and balances in place. You can't walk into the department of social protection and claim disability without a disability which means you cannot work or need state aid contribution to make ends meet. No government criteria is designed for folk who stroll in and claim they need money because they don't want to work, and get it.
The trouble with 'luring' or 'encouraging' people back into the work place by making things tougher for them is a race to the bottom. If they are judged unfit or unable to work, cutting their aid might make them seek work out of necessity, but it's a pretty ****ty thing to try pull to increase participation rates. And again, to what end? On a practical level we've already got taxpayers availing of rent aid so they can function, add to that state child care for lone parents to return to work which may end up costing the state so the state can take in, only to give back out. More people working sounds great but we need consider salaries, working hours, state aid. Raising participation rates is not necessarily of benefit in every circumstance. That said, it would be some stroke to re evaluate what it means to be disabled to simply feed the two tier economy which saw the 'consistent poverty rate' in Dublin almost double between 2011 to 2016. Again, we can dispute the metrics or maybe Harris will pull a Murphy.
They're not looking for a job, but are capable of working, and claiming benefits. Would you consider such a person to be defrauding the state?
Going by your previous posts, I'm led to be believe you do, though it's such a ridiculous thing to claim is fraud I'll need you to clarify.0 -
There are many ways to encourage those who choose not to work, back into the workforce.
Rather than cut benefits (stick), the UK will soon trial a system where long term unemployed are allowed to keep some benefits if they agree to remain in paid employment for 6 months, at which point benefits are gradually reduced. This is the carrot.
If you can normalise the daily process of getting up, travelling to work, interacting with people and enjoying that good feeling of earning something - then people are more inclined to remain employed.
Its interesting that I was automatically accused of being a dole basher yesterday. In reality I would rather support the approach above.
Not all socially liberal, fiscally conservative voters want to kick welfare recipients while they're down. On the contrary I'd say most are compassionate and want to find equitable ways to make work pay.
Far too often 'Thatcherite', 'Tories' and 'Leo's welfare fraud campaign' are bandied around this thread as a form of slur. I invite people to take a step back and look at how centrist our government are.
The international stage is full of far right and far left characters. Boring old Ireland, thankfully, do not have these clowns in our body politic. We should consider ourselves lucky when you look at countries like Venezuela, India and USA.0 -
What I find amusing is that some around here bemoan the money paid to welfare recipients which in the vast majority of cases is means tested, yet agree with Varadkar that children`s allowance should not be means tested as it would create hardship for a family with an income of 100,000 per annum.0
-
Matt Barrett wrote: »If they are judged unfit or unable to work, cutting their aid might make them seek work out of necessity, but it's a pretty ****ty thing to try pull to increase participation rates. And again, to what end?
To what end? To ensure people who are able to support themselves do, therefore lightening the load on taxpayers who are working and contributing.
Of course this wouldn't be necessary if we are confident that the initial criteria used wasn't too broad and that the department got every judgement 100% correct. But with human error being inevitable, I don't think anyone could have that confidence?0 -
Advertisement
-
What I find amusing is that some around here bemoan the money paid to welfare recipients which in the vast majority of cases is means tested, yet agree with Varadkar that children`s allowance should not be means tested as it would create hardship for a family with an income of 100,000 per annum.
There was also reference to the costs involved in carrying out assessments. I would have thought all this information is already with the state in one form or another. You can't walk in and claim childrens allowance without some information and proof being passed I would have thought.To what end? To ensure people who are able to support themselves do, therefore lightening the load on taxpayers who are working and contributing.
Of course this wouldn't be necessary if we are confident that the initial criteria used wasn't too broad and that the department got every judgement 100% correct. But with human error being inevitable, I don't think anyone could have that confidence?
As I said, it would need be assessed. Merely increasing participation rates would not automatically equate to a better economy for the public. It might be akin to the various employment schemes, people were off the live register but still being paid by the state. Looked good for the government of the day, I worry the state is more concerned with empty optics than the people it serves.
Again, changing the criteria in an effort to justify aid given is fine and something we already do. Looking to pare back on it with the sole goal of getting people back to work is tricky and dangerous if assisting the persons disability is possibly given second place to rising participation rates.
We should be constantly vetting and means testing to ensure genuine needs are met and the tax payers money isn't being wasted.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement