Made redundant, Premium or Standard Dole?

blanch152

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Self-employed people and entrepreneurs have largely been stigmatized by the state in favour of MNC's. You could start a business with little or no help from the state, employ staff that contribute taxes, and if your business failed, there was no dole or supports from the state.

Someone who loses their job also has a more difficult financial outlook as by virtue of getting paid they will have financial commitments such as a mortgage, car loan etc. But someone on the dole already is more likely to be receiving HAP or other financial assistance.

In normal (non-pandemic) circumstances, someone who loses their job is also more likely to get another one in a shorter period of time, they will be back contributing tax again, so it seems only fair that they get some higher benefit.

Out-of-date nonsense that has been debunked. The self-employed have a much better deal thanks to changes introduced by FG, one of the things I disagree with, as the tax advantages to being self-employed are significant.

blanch152

FuzzyThinking wrote: »

Almost everywhere else in Europe, including France (a country we would consider more socialist than here) for example, they have a much much larger payment available on the basis of insured contributions - usually a high % of your previous income (subject to a cap) for up to two years. The logic of is that you’ve paid (heavily) into a social insurance fund and that you’re entitled to genuine income protection for a period of time, not just a small payment to meet minimum means.

There’s a basic payment too if you’re long term unemployed, or don’t have any payments into the social insurance system.

The issue in Ireland at present is that if you become unemployed, you can hit the wall in terms of income drop and go into a cascade of problems, including potentially losing your home while you’re between jobs. It’s not much of a safety net. The same applies in the UK too.

Our PSRI system often just seems like another layer of income tax as, unlike in other EU countries, it doesn’t seem to be very insurance based, rather it’s just tax.

My concern here is that they don’t go down the route of making the underlying non insured dole a payment that is set too low. If you do that you’ll just drive people into poverty, Tory style.

If they’re genuinely going towards a European style system great. If it’s some Tory inspired welfare cut dressed up as a European style system, it could cause major issues.

Reorganising it a bit is long overdue though.

Hopefully employment levels bounce back very quickly here in the next couple of months. The figures at the moment are eye watering, but they’re entirely pandemic related.

If we move towards a European-style system, there is no escaping the reality that we have the highest JSA in Europe.

Wanderer78

TheValeyard wrote: »

The dole should be there if you need it. It shouldn't be a dirty thing. Its a fallback to help working people get back on their feet. I see zero issue in working people getting bit extra until they can find employment again. These people want to be contributing to society and earning an income, not sitting at home all day doing nothing.

the root causes of long term unemployment is actually very complex, sitting on the internets ridiculing people for such outcomes actually does a grand total of fcuk all in resolving these issues.

once again, reducing the public money supply by reducing pup payments will in fact reduce economic activities, and will force the supply out into the private sector supply, i.e. the credit supply, it ll be interesting to see who rushes for loans first!

ClosedAccountFuzzy

blanch152 wrote: »

If we move towards a European-style system, there is no escaping the reality that we have the highest JSA in Europe.

We also have some of the highest costs of living in Europe.
In 2019, only Luxembourg and Denmark have higher.

An EU comparison on just raw numbers isn't necessarily all that useful.

There are also differences in other areas like out of pocket expenses here for various services can be higher, and there are various convoluted systems here for claiming allowances which are not necessarily universally applied too.

It's a complex picture.

The aim should be to maximise our ability to get the right people into the right jobs and to up-skill people who've the wrong skills for the jobs market. We do some of that well, and some of it could do with a total revamp.

What I would really hate to see is a move towards what's going on in the UK, where you've had a vilification of welfare recipients and rather cruel regimes that are often hitting the most vulnerable in society.

You'll get square pegs that don't fit round holes, and just punishing them for being square pegs won't make them suddenly become round ones.

There's a reality to be faced that you have a % who are basically unemployable, and you can address that through better engagement with them in terms of trying to provide opportunity, but you still need the base net there. If you pull away all supports, you can start having dire impacts by creating social problems, causing major strain on mental health services, creating issues for their dependents and also money that's spent on social welfare very often is being spent locally back into the economy, so it's not just disappearing into a void. It's actually stimulating other aspects of the economy.

My view of it is that there'll always be a small % who just aren't going to be able to fit into a workplace scenario for various reasons. There are people with issues and I think often they don't fall into the category of having mental health issues, but you get things like mild learning issues, problems with ability to concentrate / focus, unnoticed physical issues, emotional issues and also just upbringings that lacked essential skills that are creating issues.

There are many reasons why someone may be long term unemployed, and they're not all down to laziness. In fact, when the economy's booming here you see we get quite rapidly to nearly full employment.

What annoys me about the UK system is that there's this notion out there that people are all trying to game the system for the pitence it pays out. The reality is the policies over there are often absolutely crucifying the people who need it most and those who'll play the system will continue to do so as they're quite savvy. So you end up with the horror stories of someone who's very dependent on the system for support suddenly having it pulled away and sometimes with tragic outcomes.

I'm all for a redesign of the system here and removal of poverty traps and ensuring people have access to up-skilling, enterprise supports and all of that but to be a decent society you need to be prepared to support your most vulnerable. The consequences of not doing so are you create a rather more unpleasant place to live for everyone.

jimgoose

They've been doing that in Germany for years, about time.

Montage of Feck

Housefree wrote: »

Artists getting a liveable wage now which will be the minimum wage, can see a lot of unemployed becoming artists

It's basically communism for the wealthy payed for by the proletariat....so just like regular communism.

brightspark

Allinall wrote: »

It's called Pay Related Social Insurance.

About time it was used as designed.

I think at one time in the past, higher earners did get an improved dole payment.

Long overdue.

Housefree

Housefree wrote: »

Artists getting a liveable wage now which will be the minimum wage, can see a lot of unemployed becoming artists

What is this livable wage?

Montage of Feck

Montage of Feck wrote: »

It's basically communism for the wealthy payed for by the proletariat....so just like regular communism.

A communist society is a moneyless society.

Geuze

German system

UB / JSB = 60% of former net wage for a year, 67% if married

After a year, Hartz IV = approx 100 per week.

Murph85

Geuze wrote: »

German system

UB / JSB = 60% of former net wage for a year, 67% if married

After a year, Hartz IV = approx 100 per week.

E100 a week! Explains why we need s marginal rate of fifty percent here over a pittance :rolleyes:

Geuze

Murph85 wrote: »

E100 a week! Explains why we need s marginal rate of fifty percent here over a pittance :rolleyes:

My apologies, it's 446 per adult per month, so 103 per week.