Leo is the new king of Ireland.

Colonel Claptrap

It doesn't need to have a positive economic impact. It could be cost neutral and still reap benefits for society.

If Joe spends all day sitting on his ma's couch, scratching his hole, playing PlayStation what good is that for society?

If he goes out, earns a living, understands responsibilities and appreciates the value of a euro earned then surely it's a worthwhile endeavour?

I suspect there is a strong correlation between long term unemployed and mental illness as well as physical illness. Let this be one of the tools we use to tackle mental illness in Ireland.

It's not about forcing people into jobs they don't want, just so that live register figures come down. It's about encouraging people to be meaningful, productive citizens who feel like they belong to a community.

If that costs a little more than it brings in, I'd happily pay that tax.

blanch152

charlie14 wrote: »

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.

I haven't seen a single example of that around here, you might link to where someone clearly supports both aspects of what Varadkar was saying.

I would agree with Varadkar that families earning 100k aren't necessarily rich, but I would completely abolish (or drastically reduce) child benefit and replace it with direct provision of maternity leave, childcare, free school travel, free school meals, after-school homework clubs, free school books and materials etc. That would mean child benefit doesn't get spent on ski holidays for mammy and daddy or doesn't get injected or drunk down the pub.

It is a common mistake around here that when a poster agrees with one aspect of something that a politician says that they are automatically linked with everything else a politician says and don't have a mind of their own. You are probably unfairly maligning those unknown posters you don't name.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

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.

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.

You are contradicting yourself. On the one hand, you want to make criminals of people who are claiming benefit but could work, but on the other hand, if someone makes the quite reasonable point that if the rules allow it they are not criminals and that the rules should be changed, you accuse that person of a "pretty ****ty thing to try pull to increase participation rates." Threatening to put people claiming their legal entitlements into jail is worse. If the rules allow people to doss, then the rules need to be changed, that is all.

The figures I produced certainly suggest that something needs to be changed.

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

It doesn't need to have a positive economic impact. It could be cost neutral and still reap benefits for society.

If Joe spends all day sitting on his ma's couch, scratching his hole, playing PlayStation what good is that for society?

If he goes out, earns a living, understands responsibilities and appreciates the value of a euro earned then surely it's a worthwhile endeavour?

I suspect there is a strong correlation between long term unemployed and mental illness as well as physical illness. Let this be one of the tools we use to tackle mental illness in Ireland.

It's not about forcing people into jobs they don't want, just so that live register figures come down. It's about encouraging people to be meaningful, productive citizens who feel like they belong to a community.

If that costs a little more than it brings in, I'd happily pay that tax.

Bingo, you got it. And even if it costs a little more, now is the time to do it, as there are long-term savings.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

I haven't seen a single example of that around here, you might link to where someone clearly supports both aspects of what Varadkar was saying.

I would agree with Varadkar that families earning 100k aren't necessarily rich, but I would completely abolish (or drastically reduce) child benefit and replace it with direct provision of maternity leave, childcare, free school travel, free school meals, after-school homework clubs, free school books and materials etc. That would mean child benefit doesn't get spent on ski holidays for mammy and daddy or doesn't get injected or drunk down the pub.

It is a common mistake around here that when a poster agrees with one aspect of something that a politician says that they are automatically linked with everything else a politician says and don't have a mind of their own. You are probably unfairly maligning those unknown posters you don't name.




You are contradicting yourself. On the one hand, you want to make criminals of people who are claiming benefit but could work, but on the other hand, if someone makes the quite reasonable point that if the rules allow it they are not criminals and that the rules should be changed, you accuse that person of a "pretty ****ty thing to try pull to increase participation rates." Threatening to put people claiming their legal entitlements into jail is worse. If the rules allow people to doss, then the rules need to be changed, that is all.

The figures I produced certainly suggest that something needs to be changed.



Bingo, you got it. And even if it costs a little more, now is the time to do it, as there are long-term savings.

What complete disingenuous fudgery.
You are constantly misconstruing my comments.
I have only ever commented on unemployed people, collecting state aid under the guise of not having or being unable to find a job, when they are really unemployed by choice, as being fraudulent or criminal in my view. I have repeated this numerous times at this point. I have not said similar about lone parents or dogs for the blind or which ever one you want to add to the pile. Is that clear to you now?

Your suggestion that we look at the 'generous' rates given to the disabled and lone parents as a way of 'luring' them into the wok place is the topic of my comments.
It would be setting a very low standard, if the state, as you suggested, looked to paring back on benefits to the disabled to lure them into the work place.

As I've said two times previously, vetting and means testing is fine in itself, but not with the goal of luring disabled people back into the work place. It would be acceptable if it were deemed they physically could, not make them for the sole purpose of bucking up participation rates.
Cutting back based on need is a completely different story as long as it's justifiable.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

What complete disingenuous fudgery.
You are constantly misconstruing my comments.
I have only ever commented on unemployed people, collecting state aid under the guise of not having or being unable to find a job, when they are really unemployed by choice, as being fraudulent or criminal in my view. I have repeated this numerous times at this point. I have not said similar about lone parents or dogs for the blind or which ever one you want to add to the pile. Is that clear to you now?

Your suggestion that we look at the 'generous' rates given to the disabled and lone parents as a way of 'luring' them into the wok place is the topic of my comments.
It would be setting a very low standard, if the state, as you suggested, looked to paring back on benefits to the disabled to lure them into the work place.

As I've said two times previously, vetting and means testing is fine in itself, but not with the goal of luring disabled people back into the work place. It would be acceptable if it were deemed they physically could, not make them for the sole purpose of bucking up participation rates.
Cutting back based on need is a completely different story as long as it's justifiable.

I am not the one making criminals of anyone legitimately claiming social welfare, you are. If the rules allow someone "collecting state aid under the guise of not having or being unable to find a job, when they are really unemployed by choice," then them's the rules and there is nothing criminal. Change the rules I say, make them criminals you say.

The rules currently may also allow someone "collecting state aid under the guise of being disabled and not having or being unable to find a job, when they are really not disabled and unemployed by choice", then those rules should also be changed. I assume you would put them in jail as well?

Consonata

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

If Joe spends all day sitting on his ma's couch, scratching his hole, playing PlayStation what good is that for society?

If he goes out, earns a living, understands responsibilities and appreciates the value of a euro earned then surely it's a worthwhile endeavour?

Assuming that that is a significant proportion of the current unemployed isn't really borne out in reality. I have yet to see any statistic that proves that. Though what I can say is, in my own home county of Donegal, unemployment is at 18%, yet in the entire county of Donegal there is only 62 jobs according to indeed.ie.

Sometimes work can't be found, and people who think that people would choose sitting at home on the dole rather than being at work clearly have never been on the dole before.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

I am not the one making criminals of anyone legitimately claiming social welfare, you are. If the rules allow someone "collecting state aid under the guise of not having or being unable to find a job, when they are really unemployed by choice," then them's the rules and there is nothing criminal. Change the rules I say, make them criminals you say.

The rules currently may also allow someone "collecting state aid under the guise of being disabled and not having or being unable to find a job, when they are really not disabled and unemployed by choice", then those rules should also be changed. I assume you would put them in jail as well?

Are you having your own argument here? You don't seem to be reading my comments correctly.
Nobody 'legitimately' collecting social welfare is a criminal. Agreed. Those falsely claiming it are, IMO. You cannot get welfare for being unemployed if you cannot show you are seeking employment. If you are on welfare and state you have no intention of getting a job because you just don't want to work, you won't be long being cut off or penalised in some form. You have to show, on a regular basis, you are seeking work.
This relates back to a poster suggesting we 'encourage' those unemployed people, who claim welfare, but choose not to work, back to work. I was suggesting these people need be penalised if found not 'encouraged' The query being, if the state knows of such people why are they getting welfare?

You are fudging. 'what if you said this, then that would mean you believe that'. Really?
It you wish to retract or change your sentiment that we should look at the 'generous' payments to the disabled with the aim of 'luring' them back to work to improve participation rates, please feel free, but cut the codology please.

James Brown

Martin clutching for some semblance of 'being in opposition'.

Taoiseach defends use of private investigators by Dept
The Taoiseach has defended the use of private investigators by the Department of Health to examine the work of a number of hospital consultants.

...Mr Martin said it set a "sinister and dangerous precedence" and he said it was "an abuse of power".

The Taoiseach said RTÉ Prime Time highlighted a number of consultants were working in private hospitals when they should have been dedicating their time to public patients.
https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2018/0612/970077-private-investigators/

I think it's only right the state/Varadkar be using any means to ensure the tax payer isn't missing out.
I know from personal experience that specialists who 'aren't available' for some time, often offer private services within days.

I can't see Leo putting ads on the side of buses asking folk to inform on consultants mind, different strokes for the different classes

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

I haven't seen a single example of that around here, you might link to where someone clearly supports both aspects of what Varadkar was saying.

I would agree with Varadkar that families earning 100k aren't necessarily rich, but I would completely abolish (or drastically reduce) child benefit and replace it with direct provision of maternity leave, childcare, free school travel, free school meals, after-school homework clubs, free school books and materials etc. That would mean child benefit doesn't get spent on ski holidays for mammy and daddy or doesn't get injected or drunk down the pub.

It is a common mistake around here that when a poster agrees with one aspect of something that a politician says that they are automatically linked with everything else a politician says and don't have a mind of their own. You are probably unfairly maligning those unknown posters you don't name.

All very commendably aspirational, but with the maximum child benefit being 35 euro a week you are going to be well short of funding for direct provision of maternity leave, childcare, free school travel, free school meals, after school homework clubs, free school books and materials etc.
So where will the additional funding required come from, tax increases ?


Somewhat confused by your post and not wishing to unfairly malign you and seeing as your proposal is future based, in the here and now are you in favour of means testing child benefit or not ?

charlie14

Matt Barrett wrote: »

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.

I would have thought the same, but when it comes to the sacred cow of children`s allowance and means testing it seems no argument is too ridiculous.
What makes it even more of a farce is that EU national living in Ireland with families living in their home countries are entitled to receive full payments, whereas in many of their home countries they would be means tested.

blanch152

charlie14 wrote: »

All very commendably aspirational, but with the maximum child benefit being 35 euro a week you are going to be well short of funding for direct provision of maternity leave, childcare, free school travel, free school meals, after school homework clubs, free school books and materials etc.
So where will the additional funding required come from, tax increases ?


Somewhat confused by your post and not wishing to unfairly malign you and seeing as your proposal is future based, in the here and now are you in favour of means testing child benefit or not ?

You don't need to have an opinion on means testing child benefit if you want to abolish it or drastically reduce it. For example, if child benefit was set at €30 per month, it wouldn't be worthwhile means testing it.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Are you having your own argument here? You don't seem to be reading my comments correctly.
Nobody 'legitimately' collecting social welfare is a criminal. Agreed. Those falsely claiming it are, IMO. You cannot get welfare for being unemployed if you cannot show you are seeking employment. If you are on welfare and state you have no intention of getting a job because you just don't want to work, you won't be long being cut off or penalised in some form. You have to show, on a regular basis, you are seeking work.
This relates back to a poster suggesting we 'encourage' those unemployed people, who claim welfare, but choose not to work, back to work. I was suggesting these people need be penalised if found not 'encouraged' The query being, if the state knows of such people why are they getting welfare?

You are fudging. 'what if you said this, then that would mean you believe that'. Really?
It you wish to retract or change your sentiment that we should look at the 'generous' payments to the disabled with the aim of 'luring' them back to work to improve participation rates, please feel free, but cut the codology please.

How do you define disabled?


Do you use the definition in the Equality Acts?

Or do you use the definition in the Garda Vetting Act?

Or the Disability Act?

Or the Special Needs Education Act?

Or the Employment Acts?

Or the Social Welfare regulations?


Which one of the many different definitions of disabled do you subscribe to?

Edward M

blanch152 wrote: »

How do you define disabled?


Do you use the definition in the Equality Acts?

Or do you use the definition in the Garda Vetting Act?

Or the Disability Act?

Or the Special Needs Education Act?

Or the Employment Acts?

Or the Social Welfare regulations?


Which one of the many different definitions of disabled do you subscribe to?

Ireland has been, until recently, behind the gate with regards rights of the disabled.
Thankfully now the UN charter on rights of the disabled has begun to be enacted, that's another first for Leo and FG, but our record has been poor and no mistake, supports alone are not enough, rights have to be implemented.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/government-to-begin-ratifying-un-convention-on-disability-rights-1.3418273?mode=amp

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

How do you define disabled?


Do you use the definition in the Equality Acts?

Or do you use the definition in the Garda Vetting Act?

Or the Disability Act?

Or the Special Needs Education Act?

Or the Employment Acts?

Or the Social Welfare regulations?

Which one of the many different definitions of disabled do you subscribe to?

Do you not know which one you were referring to?
As we are discussing your idea that we might look at reducing the 'generous' payments to our own disabled to 'lure' them back into the work place, I would suggest the welfare one, pertaining to 'Disability Allowance'.

Rules
To qualify for Disability Allowance (DA) you must:

Have an injury, disease or physical or mental disability that has continued, or may be expected to continue, for at least one year
As a result of this disability be substantially restricted in undertaking work that would otherwise be suitable for a person of your age, experience and qualifications
Be aged between 16 and 66. When you reach 66 years of age you no longer qualify for DA, but you are assessed for a State pension.
Satisfy a means test
Satisfy the habitual residence condition.
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/social_welfare_payments/disability_and_illness/disability_allowance.html#ld1a9a

As I've said maybe four times at this stage, if the criteria the constitutes having a disability is changed, that's a different matter. If it were done so to solely grow rates of participation that would be a very low move, when health and well being are the concern.
If your plan is to go into what constitutes disability, by whose metric and you choosing not to agree with that body or organisation, please leave me well out of it. You're threading water at this point.

Nitrogan

Irish taxpayers can't afford the current expenditure on health and social welfare. It's propped up by corporation tax revenues which could disappear soon.

Leo's failure is that he hasn't warned anyone of this. It's going to create a domestic crash when revenues suddenly dry with no easy bailout money.

Wheeliebin30

Nitrogan wrote: »

Irish taxpayers can't afford the current expenditure on health and social welfare. It's propped up by corporation tax revenues which could disappear soon.

Leo's failure is that he hasn't warned anyone of this. It's going to create a domestic crash when revenues suddenly dry with no easy bailout money.

Rainy day fund proposed by FG which Sinn Féin have opposes strongly.

But you’re right 20 billion a year on social welfare is unsustainable.

But what can ya do...

James Brown

Nitrogan wrote: »

Irish taxpayers can't afford the current expenditure on health and social welfare. It's propped up by corporation tax revenues which could disappear soon.

Leo's failure is that he hasn't warned anyone of this. It's going to create a domestic crash when revenues suddenly dry with no easy bailout money.

Welfare props up the economy. They are in a pickle. If welfare/state aid is reduced, people won't be able to afford rents. Employers will have to let staff go, who were previously subsidsed by the state. Like the economy, health is a result of poor management/oversight. The spends on welfare and health are needed to 'keep the recovery going' as it were. If we start cutting back it wouldn't be long before the 'economy' falls down around our ears, IMO.
I agree though, eventually somethings going to give.

christy c

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Welfare props up the economy. They are in a pickle. If welfare/state aid is reduced, people won't be able to afford rents. Employers will have to let staff go, who were previously subsidsed by the state. Like the economy, health is a result of poor management/oversight. The spends on welfare and health are needed to 'keep the recovery going' as it were. If we start cutting back it wouldn't be long before the 'economy' falls down around our ears, IMO.
I agree though, eventually somethings going to give.

Can you explain how money taken out of the economy through taxation, then put back in through welfare is propping up the very economy it's taken out of?

Zubeneschamali

christy c wrote: »

Can you explain how money taken out of the economy through taxation, then put back in through welfare is propping up the very economy it's taken out of?

Tax comes from relatively well off people who would otherwise save and invest.


Welfare goes to people who immediately buy Dutch Gold with it, stimulating the economy.

christy c

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Tax comes from relatively well off people who would otherwise save and invest.


Welfare goes to people who immediately buy Dutch Gold with it, stimulating the economy.

I wouldn't call someone on 35k hitting the marginal rate as relatively well off. They could cut that rate and also stimulate the economy if they wanted.

Nitrogan

There were warnings of the property bubble similarly ignored in the mid 00's because everyone wanted their turn at the trough.

Higher interest rates are coming and no one is ready for the shock on boom era loans.

Zubeneschamali

christy c wrote: »

I wouldn't call someone on 35k hitting the marginal rate as relatively well off.

Compared to the bloke on welfare, I mean.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Welfare props up the economy.

Can you produce a link to any respected economist who seriously believes that economies are propped up by welfare and welfare recipients. It is a novel one for me.

Wheeliebin30

Nitrogan wrote: »

There were warnings of the property bubble similarly ignored in the mid 00's because everyone wanted their turn at the trough.

Higher interest rates are coming and no one is ready for the shock on boom era loans.

But but we have to build 100s of thousands of social houses!!!!

Is it sustainable??

No it never was.

But but, who cares now, sure we’ll worry about it in 10 years,

FreudianSlippers

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Tax comes from relatively well off people who would otherwise save and invest.


Welfare goes to people who immediately buy Dutch Gold with it, stimulating the economy.

For the most part these people are "saving and investing" for their pensions - so it's stimulate the economy now or ensure that the economy isn't smashed in the future. There are plenty of other ways to stimulate the economy now to counter-act the burden of "relatively well off" people saving and/or investing.

FreudianSlippers

Nitrogan wrote: »

There were warnings of the property bubble similarly ignored in the mid 00's because everyone wanted their turn at the trough.

Higher interest rates are coming and no one is ready for the shock on boom era loans.

Property bubble is largely irrelevant at the moment, as bubble isn't credit-fuelled. I don't think I'd be buying a house right now personally, but that's finger-in-the-air economics on my part.

James Brown

christy c wrote: »

Can you explain how money taken out of the economy through taxation, then put back in through welfare is propping up the very economy it's taken out of?

Yes.
The housing Industry charges at rates people can't afford. Rather than changing the way they do business, or the state amending the way it does business, tax payer money is used by way of welfare and financial aid to enable the housing industry keep a customer base. The profits of the housing industry are supported by welfare and financial aid paid for by the tax payer. Add to that subsidies to small and large business, grants, employees only able to work on low salaries with state aid.
Now take the post I am responding to, for context.

Nitrogan wrote: »

Irish taxpayers can't afford the current expenditure on health and social welfare. It's propped up by corporation tax revenues which could disappear soon.

Leo's failure is that he hasn't warned anyone of this. It's going to create a domestic crash when revenues suddenly dry with no easy bailout money.

It's under the mistaken impression that everything is one way. Corporations pay tax, everyone lower down the chain feeds off it (and we've some gougers down the bottom). In fact these corporations are in part paying tax from profit, in part, propped up by the tax payer. Simply pointing out it's not all one way. The bottom will fall out because you can't keep taking from it.

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

But but we have to build 100s of thousands of social houses!!!!

Is it sustainable??

No it never was.

But but, who cares now, sure we’ll worry about it in 10 years,

So handing out tax monies to the public, to help create a customer base for private industry and private profit is the road we should stay on?
It's a cut your nose to spite your face agenda. Giving developers cheap loans of tax payer money and giving renters and purchasers financial aid with tax payer monies and an ever increasing cost in hotel accommodation for the growing numbers reliant on 'emergency' accommodation is sustainable?

christy c

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Yes.
The housing Industry charges at rates people can't afford. Rather than changing the way they do business, or the state amending the way it does business, tax payer money is used by way of welfare and financial aid to enable the housing industry keep a customer base. The profits of the housing industry are supported by welfare and financial aid paid for by the tax payer. Add to that subsidies to small and large business, grants, employees only able to work on low salaries with state aid.
Now take the post I am responding to, for context.

Your post focuses fairly heavily on the housing sector which is probably reasonable enough. However that's very different from saying the economy is propped up by welfare, which is incorrect as the economy is much wider than that.

I know you mention grants to businesses, but when the source of that income is originally from the economy then it's not really propping anything up, apart from maybe individual sectors.

James Brown

christy c wrote: »

Your post focuses fairly heavily on the housing sector which is probably reasonable enough. However that's very different from saying the economy is propped up by welfare, which is incorrect as the economy is much wider than that.

I know you mention grants to businesses, but when the source of that income is originally from the economy then it's not really propping anything up, apart from maybe individual sectors.

The state's number one priority is the housing industry, IMO.
I said in part, not completely. Simply pointing out it's not all one way. People talk about state aid, (welfare, subsidies, grants, tax relief etc.) like it's all going towards ne'er-do-wells buying cans of Dutch Gold.
If we took away or cut back on such things the state would need to 'change the way we do business' as it were. Currently, with the growing crises, this model does not work.

christy c

Matt Barrett wrote: »

The state's number one priority is the housing industry, IMO.
I said in part, not completely. Simply pointing out it's not all one way. People talk about state aid, (welfare, subsidies, grants, tax relief etc.) like it's all going towards ne'er-do-wells buying cans of Dutch Gold.
If we took away or cut back on such things the state would need to 'change the way we do business' as it were. Currently, with the growing crises, this model does not work.

What you originally said a few days ago was: "Welfare props up the economy". That is false.

What you are arguing is that certain sectors of the economy are propping up other sectors.

James Brown

christy c wrote: »

What you originally said a few days ago was: "Welfare props up the economy". That is false.

What you are arguing is that certain sectors of the economy are propping up other sectors.

No it's not. 'welfare' in the context of state aid. When people spout welfare it means state aid, that's what I meant anyway, (as apparent in all the posts). The housing industry, private landlords would suffer immensely if state aid was taken from either themselves or their customer base.
Employers with staff who depend on rental aid or welfare to subsidise low salary would either need a raise or be let go. Take away all the grants and incentives from business you'd see layoffs and closures. The economy would collapse with out it, IMO. The economy is a two tier ponzi scheme. The bottom will fall out, however I'm quite sure the average working tax payer will bear the brunt and carry the weight, enabling FF/FG to carry on business as usual, after scolding us all of course.

It's a simple premise. The economy is propped up by welfare/state aid. It could not function with out it. I'm responding to the idea it's all one way. It is not.