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

Varadkar suggests prior income related welfare

Options
13

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Mimon
    Registered Users Posts: 1,473 ✭✭✭Mimon


    lawred2 wrote: »
    He'll be accused of discrimination

    By people who won't vote for him anyway. He needs to go with initiatives like this and represent the people that do vote for his party.

    Enough of this trying to please everyone populist nonsense. There is no party out there representing the taxpayer/squeezed middle and he would have huge support if he went this way.


  • Options
    #63
    Signore Fancy Pants
    Registered Users Posts: 3,686 ✭✭✭Signore Fancy Pants


    They should also introduce a mandatory 104 day a year work programme for able bodied people who are in receipt of social welfare for 12+ months.

    Those who are, should be contributing to the upkeep or projects by their local county council. Failure to turn up, reduces your payment.

    Free money does not inspire the work shy to seek employment.


  • Options
    #64
    Mad_maxx
    Registered Users Posts: 13,503 ✭✭✭✭Mad_maxx


    Dempo1 wrote: »
    It's no narrative at all he has been by far more vocal about cutting SW entitlements (he calls it reform) than any other politician in recent history. Ironically some of this decisions to date have actually cost the state more and in numerous hundreds of Millions, Jobs Path just one example. He championed anti fraud measures yielding a pittance of what he suggested was going on.

    Meanwhile another Limp good news story released today, seems they've finally agreed to allow those caught having to retire at 65, recieve a basic SW payment for a year without them having to go through hoops until they are entitled to their pension. God bless them, they are so considerate. I've a neighbour, 64 years of age, being absolutely bullied an harrased by Jobs Path, he's currently doing an online course from his house (with crap broadband) & can barely send a WhatsApp message let alone send an email , learning how to create Resumes and apply for Jobs. He worked in construction for 40 years. Just beyond comprehension how any government could Justify this nonsense.


    where exactly have the government cut social welfare since Leo took over ?

    its nothing but talk so far


  • Options
    #65
    Geuze
    Registered Users Posts: 13,513 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    Dempo1 wrote: »
    It's no narrative at all he has been by far more vocal about cutting SW entitlements (he calls it reform) than any other politician in recent history.


    Cutting SW entitlements!!!!!!!

    He has extended them.

    Since FG got into power in 2011, am I correct to say:
    • Paternity leave and benefit introduced
    • Parental leave extended
    • Parents leave introduced
    • JSB extended to self-employed
    • Treatment Benefit restored


    Yes, okay, OPFP was reformed to stop when the child is aged 7, that still leaves us out of line with other countries, some countries don't even have any OPFP.


  • Options
    #66
    Dempo1
    Registered Users Posts: 26,986 ✭✭✭✭Dempo1


    Mad_maxx wrote: »
    where exactly have the government cut social welfare since Leo took over ?

    its nothing but talk so far

    I never said they cut it, I've said they've tried every trick in the book to cut rates. Also interesting to note, today's latest toe dipping exercise re retirees getting a basic SW rate prior to entitlement of full pension is another deviation from one of FG"s election promise were they promised they would deal with the disparity in SW Rate paid for the year retirees have to claim SW Before getting pension. Another sneaky cop out.

    Is maith an scáthán súil charad.




  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Dempo1
    Registered Users Posts: 26,986 ✭✭✭✭Dempo1


    Geuze wrote: »
    Cutting SW entitlements!!!!!!!

    He has extended them.

    Since FG got into power in 2011, am I correct to say:
    • Paternity leave and benefit introduced
    • Parental leave extended
    • Parents leave introduced
    • JSB extended to self-employed
    • Treatment Benefit restored


    Yes, okay, OPFP was reformed to stop when the child is aged 7, that still leaves us out of line with other countries, some countries don't even have any OPFP.

    You are correct but I'm referring to basic Unemployment SW rates, all the above commendable but to suggest FG solely responsible is a stretch.

    Is maith an scáthán súil charad.




  • Options
    #68
    blanch152
    Registered Users Posts: 27,971 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Dempo1 wrote: »
    You are correct but I'm referring to basic Unemployment SW rates, all the above commendable but to suggest FG solely responsible is a stretch.

    They have been in government during that time, so how is someone else responsible?


  • Options
    #69
    Dempo1
    Registered Users Posts: 26,986 ✭✭✭✭Dempo1


    blanch152 wrote: »
    They have been in government during that time, so how is someone else responsible?

    It's called coalition and it certainly wasn't FG pushing any of the mentioned improvements

    Is maith an scáthán súil charad.




  • Options
    #70
    oholly121
    Registered Users Posts: 193 ✭✭oholly121


    Northernlily wrote: »
    Red card is a a bit OTT for that post to be honest.

    And the site wonders why they are losing posters.

    Over moderation.

    Perhaps the mod could explain the rational behind the red card?


  • Options
    #71
    Geuze
    Registered Users Posts: 13,513 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    Dempo1 wrote: »
    You are correct but I'm referring to basic Unemployment SW rates, all the above commendable but to suggest FG solely responsible is a stretch.

    All basic welfare rates (except pensions) were cut twice during the Great Recession.

    I don't have the exact dates, I will try to check.


    I had a look, and it looks like 2009 into 2010 saw a cut, and 2010 into 2011.

    2009 JSA = 204.30
    2010 JSA = 196
    2011 JSA = 188


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Antares35
    Registered Users Posts: 3,845 ✭✭✭Antares35


    oholly121 wrote: »
    Perhaps the mod could explain the rational behind the red card?

    I think there's some kind of dispute forum where things like that can be asked? If I recall.

    Something I wondered too, what about the statutory maternity benefit payment? Is it right that someone contributing a huge amount in PRSI every year gets the same statutory payment as someone who pays a lot less? I'm undecided, but just to put it out there. The logic is the same - it's a welfare payment and should it therefore be based on contribution?


  • Options
    #73
    Geuze
    Registered Users Posts: 13,513 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    Antares35 wrote: »
    Something I wondered too, what about the statutory maternity benefit payment? Is it right that someone contributing a huge amount in PRSI every year gets the same statutory payment as someone who pays a lot less? I'm undecided, but just to put it out there. The logic is the same - it's a welfare payment and should it therefore be based on contribution?


    MB used to be linked to previous income, that was a victim of the Great Recession cuts, it was made a flat payment.

    If we move away from flat-rated payments, to earnings-related payments, it will have to be for all SI benefits, surely?

    State pension
    JSB
    IB
    MB/PB
    etc.


    By the way, JSB has an element of being earnings-related:

    https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/social_welfare_payments/unemployed_people/jobseekers_benefit.html#l62fd2


  • Options
    #74
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 3,801 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    About time something like this was brought in. Now address pensions. The contributory pension is very easy to be below the non contributory.


  • Options
    #75
    ThunbergsAreGo
    Registered Users Posts: 10,399 ✭✭✭✭ThunbergsAreGo


    Dempo1 wrote: »
    It's no narrative at all he has been by far more vocal about cutting SW entitlements (he calls it reform) than any other politician in recent history. Ironically some of this decisions to date have actually cost the state more and in numerous hundreds of Millions, Jobs Path just one example. He championed anti fraud measures yielding a pittance of what he suggested was going on.

    Still paid for the initiative about 6 times over.


  • Options
    #76
    Dempo1
    Registered Users Posts: 26,986 ✭✭✭✭Dempo1


    ThunbergsAreGo wrote: »
    Still paid for the initiative about 6 times over.

    Seriously, he claimed multiples of what was actually discovered being fraudulent claimed. Jobs path separately has cost almost €150 million and probably more, Had there been no jobs path, less money would have been spent creating actual employment, in essence Leo's little pet projects have cost the state much more than he intended to save.

    Is maith an scáthán súil charad.




  • Options
    #77
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Signore Fancy Pants wrote: »
    They should also introduce a mandatory 104 day a year work programme for able bodied people who are in receipt of social welfare for 12+ months.

    Those who are, should be contributing to the upkeep or projects by their local county council. Failure to turn up, reduces your payment.

    Free money does not inspire the work shy to seek employment.

    The point of it is to allow people who can't get a job to finance their living expenses. If the government are to hand out jobs, great.


  • Options
    #78
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    blanch152 wrote: »
    They have been in government during that time, so how is someone else responsible?

    Fianna Fail and before them Labour? Or do junior partners not play a roll which means what for FG today?


  • Options
    #79
    Dempo1
    Registered Users Posts: 26,986 ✭✭✭✭Dempo1


    James Brown wrote: »
    The point of it is to allow people who can't get a job to finance their living expenses. If the government are to hand out jobs, great.

    Just to point out, Jobs Path essentially killed community employment projects

    Is maith an scáthán súil charad.




  • Options
    #80
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Dempo1 wrote: »
    Just to point out, Jobs Path essentially killed community employment projects

    If, as the post suggested, the government should force people to work for their welfare that's essentially employment.

    I remember the Fas CE schemes and Job Bridge. Used by private business for cheap labour which resulted in less actual employment.


  • Options
    #81
    Dempo1
    Registered Users Posts: 26,986 ✭✭✭✭Dempo1


    James Brown wrote: »
    If, as the post suggested, the government should force people to work for their welfare that's essentially employment.

    I remember the Fas CE schemes and Job Bridge. Used by private business for cheap labour which resulted in less actual employment.

    Fas CE schemes were certainly not used by private companies, I can't comment on Jobs Bridge. In defence of FAS and community empl schemes, they brought a sense of worth to participants and helped local communities. Jobs path only lined the pockets of Recruitment agencies, one not even registered in the state. 12% job activation, most not even lasting 12 months should be enough evidence it's not working.

    Is maith an scáthán súil charad.




  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Hoboo
    Registered Users Posts: 3,566 ✭✭✭Hoboo


    Dempo1 wrote: »
    Fas CE schemes were certainly not used by private companies, I can't comment on Jobs Bridge. In defence of FAS and community empl schemes, they brought a sense of worth to participants and helped local communities. Jobs path only lined the pockets of Recruitment agencies, one not even registered in the state. 12% job activation, most not even lasting 12 months should be enough evidence it's not working.

    Agree 100%. Is the 12% accurate though, I'd have thought closer to 1.2%. They include everyone that has moved into employment whether they helped secure the position or not. Someones pockets were nicely lined for that contract and it's renewal.


  • Options
    #83
    Dempo1
    Registered Users Posts: 26,986 ✭✭✭✭Dempo1


    Hoboo wrote: »
    Agree 100%. Is the 12% accurate though, I'd have thought closer to 1.2%. They include everyone that has moved into employment whether they helped secure the position or not. Someones pockets were nicely lined for that contract and it's renewal.

    Can't be sure, there was fireworks at the last public accounts committee but ultimately its been a costly shambles from the start, and little Idea borrowed apparently from a similar UK model

    Is maith an scáthán súil charad.




  • Options
    #84
    Tony EH
    Registered Users Posts: 19,340 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    Dempo1 wrote: »
    It's no narrative at all he has been by far more vocal about cutting SW entitlements (he calls it reform) than any other politician in recent history. Ironically some of this decisions to date have actually cost the state more and in numerous hundreds of Millions, Jobs Path just one example. He championed anti fraud measures yielding a pittance of what he suggested was going on.

    Meanwhile another Limp good news story released today, seems they've finally agreed to allow those caught having to retire at 65, recieve a basic SW payment for a year without them having to go through hoops until they are entitled to their pension. God bless them, they are so considerate. I've a neighbour, 64 years of age, being absolutely bullied an harrased by Jobs Path, he's currently doing an online course from his house (with crap broadband) & can barely send a WhatsApp message let alone send an email , learning how to create Resumes and apply for Jobs. He worked in construction for 40 years. Just beyond comprehension how any government could Justify this nonsense.

    This is where the real social welfare reforms need to be. Doing away with the bullying nonsense that prevails over here because someone ends up out of work.

    I know a barman, he was from our local. He lost his job in his 60's. Tried for a while to get another barman job elsewhere and it wasn't happening despite, literally, decades in the business. Had to eventually sign on. Right off the bat he got lip about why he didn't sign on immediately and it didn't get any better from there. A 64 year old man who ended up on the dole because his job was taken away from him, made feel like some sort of criminal because if it.


  • Options
    #85
    Tony EH
    Registered Users Posts: 19,340 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    Signore Fancy Pants wrote: »
    They should also introduce a mandatory 104 day a year work programme for able bodied people who are in receipt of social welfare for 12+ months.

    Those who are, should be contributing to the upkeep or projects by their local county council. Failure to turn up, reduces your payment.

    Free money does not inspire the work shy to seek employment.

    All that would do is put the people who do this work now for a wage out of work.


  • Options
    #86
    Signore Fancy Pants
    Registered Users Posts: 3,686 ✭✭✭Signore Fancy Pants


    Tony EH wrote: »
    All that would do is put the people who do this work now for a wage out of work.

    Thats very far from the truth, very far.


  • Options
    #87
    Tony EH
    Registered Users Posts: 19,340 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    Signore Fancy Pants wrote: »
    Thats very far from the truth, very far.

    LOL

    "Job Bridge" would like a word... ;)


  • Options
    #88
    mrasgar
    Registered Users Posts: 20 ✭mrasgar


    Agree that it should be a 'safety net', so it should be enough money to live a basic life on (where you can manage to eat well, and live in a small/decent place).

    People who paid a lot in shouldn't get lots more money, instead they should cut some taxes for middle earners with that money.

    Some people won't have a very 'standard' life and need support if they're disabled, attacked, etc. and so their payments shouldn't be reduced and risk their become desperate and lose hope. Some people have recently moved to this country from abroad and won't have a long track of tax/PRSI payments

    A possible best-of-both worlds could be: for the first 12-18 months of unemployment, you get paid close to 100% of your previous year's average pay (with a cap of say 500/week) so that people don't lose homes etc, and then (when you have had enough time to downsize, if you can't find a similarly paid job again) the standard 'safety net' rate of perhaps 250/week.


  • Options
    #89
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Dempo1 wrote: »
    Fas CE schemes were certainly not used by private companies, I can't comment on Jobs Bridge. In defence of FAS and community empl schemes, they brought a sense of worth to participants and helped local communities. Jobs path only lined the pockets of Recruitment agencies, one not even registered in the state. 12% job activation, most not even lasting 12 months should be enough evidence it's not working.

    I was on two in my youth. Part time paid by the state positions. One 'job' hired myself and another chap part time rather than give one of us an actual job.
    Martin Murphy, chairman of JobBridge and managing director of Hewlett Packard Ireland was one of it's biggest users. He was basically running the scheme and availing of the cheap labour.
    I think the concept was sound but like most things it's easily abused.


  • Options
    #90
    Jane98
    Registered Users Posts: 570 ✭✭✭Jane98


    James Brown wrote: »
    The point of it is to allow people who can't get a job to finance their living expenses. If the government are to hand out jobs, great.

    You are right, that is the point of JSA. The problem is that a sizable portion have no intention of ever getting a job. As a secondary school teacher I can tell you that Welfare is a lifestyle choice that follows from one generation to the next. It never ceases to amaze me when I hear 12,13,14 year olds tell me they have no intention of working when they are older.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 14,344 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    McMurphy wrote: »
    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:


    Are you forgetting what country you're in? Where nothing is ever done in favour of those working?

    Decko will have his social welfare for life, and Joe who loses his job will be given 9 months to get sorted back at work or get down the welfare officer for a payment much lower than Decko is getting. Or if joe has more than 30k saved, he'll get nothing.


    Decko will be better off, I outright guarantee it.


Advertisement