Varadkar suggests prior income related welfare

Idbatterim

I highly agree with this, but as usual , nearly the first thing out of his mouth is the opposition will have an issue with it. People that voted for you dont care about the opposition, the reason so many became dissilusioned with varadkar, is his constant backing down.... there is no way tax cuts can be afforded or would be implemented by any irish party now over the next few years ...

Fg know that workers have had enough of the lies they need to do something to try and win back some support... this is possibly the cheapest option. The Mickey mouse income tax cuts they gave and dodnt give over the last few budgets, were an insult. Of course the housing scandal rumbles on and is getting worse...

https://www.thejournal.ie/unemployment-payment-pup-5344900-Feb2021/?utm_source=shortlink

McMurphy

Idbatterim wrote: »

I highly agree with this, but as usual , nearly the first thing out of his mouth is the opposition will have an issue with it. People that voted for you dont care about the opposition, the reason so many became dissilusioned with varadkar, is his constant backing down.... there is no way tax cuts can be afforded or would be implemented by any irish party now over the next few years ...

Fg know that workers have had enough of the lies they need to do something to try and win back some support... this is possibly the cheapest option. The Mickey mouse income tax cuts they gave and dodnt give over the last few budgets, were an insult. Of course the housing scandal rumbles on and is getting worse...

https://www.thejournal.ie/unemployment-payment-pup-5344900-Feb2021/?utm_source=shortlink

I'm actually with Leo on this one.

We should absolutely introduce a system that ensures, god forbid through no fault of your own, you find yourself out of work, that there's a safety net in place based on the more you put in, the more you get out.

Someone who has worked for 25 years paying hundreds of thousands of euro of tax and prsi should not be getting the same welfare benefits as Decko, who is 42 and has been on the scratcher since leaving school.

There, I agree with something Leo Varadkar suggested. Is it too early for a stiff spirit? :pac:

Idbatterim

If he introduces it, fair play, it's a very basic start. Resources now need to go, where they should be going, not on ever increasing black hole of " de vulneable "

grassylawn

Yeah you're basically ****ed if you are expected to cover dependents, insurance and mortgage repayments from the dole as it is now. Meanwhile long term unemployed people get forever homes worth over half a million.

drunkmonkey

I'm not with him on this but they do need a plan, the state made these people unemployed and denied them their right to earn a living.
Not everyone on pup is going to be happy with this as it's just a gateway to the standard unemployment rate.
I believe it will be challenged in the courts and the state held liable for their full earnings until they resume employment.
These people are due compensation from the state, that's my reading of their rights.

Invidious

Completely agreed with this. If you find yourself unemployed, your benefits should be a defined percentage of your previous year's earnings, not a flat rate of €203 or whatever it is.

Remember we pay PRSI, which stands for "Pay Related Social Insurance."

We seem to have forgotten about the "Pay Related" part.

McMurphy

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I'm not with him on this but they do need a plan, the state made these people unemployed and denied them their right to earn a living.
Not everyone on pup is going to be happy with this as it's just a gateway to the standard unemployment rate.
I believe it will be challenged in the courts and the state held liable for their full earnings until they resume employment.
These people are due compensation from the state, that's my reading of their rights.

It's not for PUP, they're considering overhauling the SW payment structure and linking it to previous prsi contribution when PUP is phased out.

However, he said when the payment is eventually wound down, it is an opportunity to reform the current social welfare system.

Good idea in theory, but I wouldn't hold my breath on Leo sticking to it either.

suicide_circus

It's an absolute no brainer.

The fact that someone who loses their job after working 10/20/30 years receives the same dole as someone who has never worked is morally reprehensible. It's a slap in the face. Any of the Scandi/Germanic social utopias provide dole rates based on contributions...then again these counties also charge for water by usage which is anathema to those in Ireland who like to trot out these counties' systems as something to emulate.

drunkmonkey

McMurphy wrote: »

It's not for PUP, they're considering overhauling the SW payment structure and linking it to previous prsi contribution when PUP is phased out.

Sorry yea I took it up wrong, I read it as a soft landing for the pup.
No issue with the idea it seems fair. We're a nation of begruggers, I'm sure people will take issue with it, pbp etc.

FileNotFound

Seems solid to be fair.

Don't believe anyone in society should be left desperate but most certainly the current system is broken and abused.

Look forward to the proposals, no doubt won't be perfect but better will do.

jam_mac_jam

While I agree with this in principle, the normal dole is not going to be reduced.

All this is going to do is increase it for some people just meaning a higher spend in social welfare.

If it was offset in reductions for those who have never worked it would be better but in practice this is just going to increase spending.

ThunbergsAreGo

It is a good idea. But as important is finding ways to make work pay for people at lower income, hopefully this is a step in the right direction

suicide_circus

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

While I agree with this in principle, the normal dole is not going to be reduced.

All this is going to do is increase it for some people just meaning a higher spend in social welfare.

If it was offset in reductions for those who have never worked it would be better but in practice this is just going to increase spending.

Personally i'd be ok with paying a bit more tax if this came in

Antares35

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

While I agree with this in principle, the normal dole is not going to be reduced.

All this is going to do is increase it for some people just meaning a higher spend in social welfare.

If it was offset in reductions for those who have never worked it would be better but in practice this is just going to increase spending.

And will we all just end up paying more PRSI? That was my initial reaction.

drunkmonkey

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

While I agree with this in principle, the normal dole is not going to be reduced.

All this is going to do is increase it for some people just meaning a higher spend in social welfare.

If it was offset in reductions for those who have never worked it would be better but in practice this is just going to increase spending.

I'd say the thinking is those on higher previous wages won't be unemployed long, it's just an extra helping hand while they get something else, their outgoings would be more than someone long term unemployed so they need a bit extra especially since they contributed more.

The J Stands for Jay

There needs to be a cap on the payments, and possibly some occupational exclusions. For example, you'd be sickened if the TD you voted out was getting ⅔ of their TD earnings from social welfare.

drunkmonkey

McGaggs wrote: »

There needs to be a cap on the payments, and possibly some occupational exclusions. For example, you'd be sickened if the TD you voted out was getting ⅔ of their TD earnings from social welfare.

It shouldn't be means tested, we could see cases where social welfare are valuing assets that they may be forced to sell or denied payment because of. Should be an exclusion period of 12mt.
I don't think we can exclude occupations, if there is a cap it should be relative to the person's outgoings.

jam_mac_jam

drunkmonkey wrote: »

It shouldn't be means tested, we could see cases where social welfare are valuing assets that they may be forced to sell or denied payment because of. Should be an exclusion period of 12mt.
I don't think we can exclude occupations, if there is a cap it should be relative to the person's outgoings.

So those who are sensible with money on their outgoings should be penalised?

Should be a time cap on it. Which should be implemented with the normal social welfare.

And if you have assets you can sell. I don't see the problem in selling them.

The J Stands for Jay

drunkmonkey wrote: »

It shouldn't be means tested, we could see cases where social welfare are valuing assets that they may be forced to sell or denied payment because of. Should be an exclusion period of 12mt.
I don't think we can exclude occupations, if there is a cap it should be relative to the person's outgoings.

The notion of a cap is to avoid a situation where a CEO is fired and the State pays them a weekly sum equivalent to €300k a year. I don't believe it should be means tested, basing it on contributions is enough. Basing it on outgoings doesn't seem fair to me. Should the State be funding CPC payments on a 7 series beemer?

Am I reading this wrong?

People who haven't contributed as much, would not get as much social supports as those who have?

How can this be anything other than fair?

Do it Leo.

drunkmonkey

McGaggs wrote: »

The notion of a cap is to avoid a situation where a CEO is fired and the State pays them a weekly sum equivalent to €300k a year. I don't believe it should be means tested, basing it on contributions is enough. Basing it on outgoings doesn't seem fair to me. Should the State be funding CPC payments on a 7 series beemer?

They'd only get the 300k if that had contributions to justify it. Car repayments shouldn't be taken into account, mortgage , school fees that kind of thing should be allowed.
How many CEO's are really going to sign on to social welfare for long on a sliding scale of payment.

Galwayguy35

Seems like a good idea, Varadkar comes up with something like this while Martin is stuttering his way through interviews and making very little sense.

Samsonsmasher

How about we just open up and get to work?

drunkmonkey

Hopefully he stumbles his way to the states for Paddy's Day, his position will be untenable when he returns.

The J Stands for Jay

drunkmonkey wrote: »

They'd only get the 300k if that had contributions to justify it. Car repayments shouldn't be taken into account, mortgage , school fees that kind of thing should be allowed.
How many CEO's are really going to sign on to social welfare for long on a sliding scale of payment.

It was just a ridiculous example to show what I meant. I don't think paying money to people in amounts that aren't strictly needed is a good idea, as it will potentially take tax/prsi money away from other areas.

jam_mac_jam

drunkmonkey wrote: »

They'd only get the 300k if that had contributions to justify it. Car repayments shouldn't be taken into account, mortgage , school fees that kind of thing should be allowed.
How many CEO's are really going to sign on to social welfare for long on a sliding scale of payment.

Not really. Why should a giant mortgage or private school fees be taken into account or paid for by the taxpayer.

There has to be a cap on the amount received. Social welfare is a safety net.

drunkmonkey

McGaggs wrote: »

It was just a ridiculous example to show what I meant. I don't think paying money to people in amounts that aren't strictly needed is a good idea, as it will potentially take tax/prsi money away from other areas.

They've already paid out this money though, it's not like they didn't contribute more than they'll get back for a few months.

stateofflux

Cant see anything happening any time soon because...

A)We have one of the most generous SW systems on the planet as it stands

B)the current cost of it is massive

C)any SW increases would have potential increased income tax implications

D)We are coming out of a pandemic and the economic recovery will take a while with wages set to stagnate even more (total bollox but it is what is is)

ShagNastii

I think he is just reiterating what so many believe the dole should be. It really should genuinely be seen as a helping hand for those who have lost their jobs and are actively pursuing employment somewhere new.

As a taxpayer I’d gladly row in behind somebody busting their balls and going one-nil down. Beats supplementing the people that don’t even want to play.

drunkmonkey

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Not really. Why should a giant mortgage or private school fees be taken into account or paid for by the taxpayer.

There has to be a cap on the amount received. Social welfare is a safety net.

As to not create unnecessary hardship. I agree it's a safety net it's just some people require a stronger one.

Outkast_IRE

The more you contribute as an individual or a family , the more support should be a available to you. Obviously with a reasonable threshold above which a maximum income doesnt entitle you to any more.



The unemployment support is a good first step but tonnes more work to be done on
1. Supporting families with both parents working - Childcare costs are outrageous.

2. In a country with a socialised healthcare system virtually every family feels the need to have private health insurance. This is bonkers, and we have accepted it far too easily. We rely on private healthcare far too much in the country considering what is spent in the health budget per annum.

3. When someone who has worked for many years is made unemployed they should immediately be given the choice of Looking for work or participate in a university level upskilling course (Not mickey mouse course)