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

Is it time to cull the welfare state?

245

Comments

  • #32
    moonpurple
    Closed Accounts Posts: 852 ✭✭✭moonpurple


    ejmaztec wrote: »
    Firing squads down the dole office, mass sterilisation, Zyklon B, more Zyklon B, mass Easter crucifixions..........................................

    zyklon b was used in 1941 in germany to kill the german disabled, but they discontinued the practice and have a society widely admired today,


  • #33
    Tigger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,705 ✭✭✭✭Tigger


    Mrmoe wrote: »
    In stead of giving cash to welfare recipients a voucher system should be introduced. This will allow people to get the necessary items that they need to survive and removing the situation where people spend the money on spurious tems like drinking and smoking. If you don't like the situation and you want to buy luxuries then you will be forced to get a job.

    This might open a black market system where vouchers are traded for other luxury items but if it is well regulated this could be avoided. Using this method nobody can complain about the price of the dole being too high as all they are getting are their basic needs provided for with no frivilous spending.


    child welfare spent on childs stuff etc

    i'm always saying this in real life

    also only useable in the state so no more dolies (by this i mean the dole for life crew) buying all thier drink fags and tracksuits up north


  • #34
    Tigger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,705 ✭✭✭✭Tigger


    moonpurple wrote: »
    zyklon b was used in 1941 in germany to kill the german disabled, but they discontinued the practice and have a society widely admired today,

    brilliant


  • #35
    MikeC101
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,707 ✭✭✭MikeC101


    bonerm wrote: »
    Wow, he sounds brilliant! Who was he?

    I think his name was Brian.


  • #36
    moonpurple
    Closed Accounts Posts: 852 ✭✭✭moonpurple


    MaybeLogic wrote: »
    The last time I saw a proper cull was during the foot and mouth crisis, so I propose a helicopter hovering outside the welfare office, with a sniper taking out the doleheads as they make their monthly signing.

    doleheads? many doleheds today are third level educated, hard work isnt a gaurantee just now of employment


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    MaybeLogic
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,462 ✭✭✭MaybeLogic


    moonpurple wrote: »
    doleheads? many doleheds today are third level educated, hard work isnt a gaurantee just now of employment

    Ok. I'll take that on board.
    But I still advocate shooting them from a helicopter, regardless.


  • #38
    rossie1977
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,426 ✭✭✭✭rossie1977


    IrishManSaipan wrote: »

    I believe as a country, we have two choices. Either enter debt enslavement for eternity or stand on our own two feet.?

    ireland is never going to pay off its debt, not this century not ever

    the 78billion in your signature is just a tip of the iceberg, the real figure is nearly $2 trillion ($1.8 trillion to be exact)


  • #39
    moonpurple
    Closed Accounts Posts: 852 ✭✭✭moonpurple


    Cookie_Monster wrote: »
    the dole could be set so that it reduces 10% every year (or 6 months and so forth) you are on it.
    could do something similar with other "benefits".

    yes and special needs members of society could eventually just die from neglect and starvation,good on you, lets get em all


  • #40
    fishtastico
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 321 ✭✭fishtastico


    The solution is to sell Limerick


  • #41
    rossie1977
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,426 ✭✭✭✭rossie1977


    fishtastico wrote: »
    The solution is to sell Limerick

    i say sell mayo, they got gold, oil and gas there and mayo people are not irish anyway more a subhuman race (the fellas) :P the mayo girls can come live in roscommon :cool:


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Dudess
    Closed Accounts Posts: 37,214 ✭✭✭✭Dudess


    MaybeLogic wrote: »
    I agree. We need a cull.
    Enforced euthanasia after the age of 65 should keep the bills down to a managable level.
    That old? Are you crazy? It should be a Logan's Run type operation, with single mothers as top priority.


  • #43
    MaybeLogic
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,462 ✭✭✭MaybeLogic


    Dudess wrote: »
    That old? Are you crazy? It should be a Logan's Run type operation, with single mothers as top priority.

    Logan's Run?
    I'd be dead already. :(


  • #44
    Mrmoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,215 ✭✭✭Mrmoe


    Deleted User wrote: »
    This was brought up before and went nowhere.

    How do you decide what people can and can't buy? What stores can the vouchers be used in? What about the items that people need to get by?

    It's all good and well to be able to go to Tesco and get some food (though the govt. could never get away with that, as they wouldn't be 'supporting irish retailers') and whatever store did get thr govt. voucher deal would just up it's prices. Competition between stores would be crushed, meaning stores similar to those that were able to use vouchers would close up (equalling more unemployment) and there'd be a serious Hierarchial issue with stores that have govt. approval being at the top.


    There'd also be the moaning that people shouldn't be allowed buy luxury items. What if your TV breaks? You need a new one (and in Ireland a TV is an investment for the govt. anyway as they can suck the TV license money out of you for years to come) and what if you ruin your shoes?

    What about people who work in specialist areas and whose jobs would be considered to require luxury items. An out of work photographer damages his gear for example. Do we stop him from buying new cameras, lenses etc. as they're luxury items he can live without? He needs a camera to get work, so maybe we should let him have it?

    What about the Joe Soaps that want to get into photography? Do we not allow them cameras and tell them they aren't allowed learn about it until they get a job?

    (photography just came off the top of my head, im sure there are other examples).


    A voucher system wouldn't work and considering people would be embarrassed using vouchers in shops, etc. I doubt many people would go for it.

    Nice idea in theory, impossible in practice.

    I agree with certain points that you are making. The way things are at the moment the government is more likely to screw things up than to get an efficient voucher system operating. There might be a lot of loop holes in the system but I think it could be better than the system we currently have. You could even make it a reward based system. If you do a course or some other type of training you could be allowed additional vouchers.

    The type of vouchers I would envision would be fairly unrestricted vouchers with the exception that alcohol and tobacco products could not be purchased. These are luxury items as far as I am concerned. With regard to embarrassment , this can be a good thing. It might eventually drive them to go and find work.

    For people looking to take up a hobby they can do so if they budget their resources. What about all the people who work who would also like to take up photography but can't afford that snazzy new SLR digital camera? Should people who are unemployed get an automatic right to training or equipment that employed people do not?


  • #45
    greendom
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,382 ✭✭✭✭greendom


    Keep the Welfare State

    More equal societies always do better

    http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/non-fiction/article5859108.ece


  • #46
    Mike 1972
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,018 ✭✭✭Mike 1972


    Mrmoe wrote: »
    The type of vouchers I would envision would be fairly unrestricted vouchers with the exception that alcohol and tobacco products could not be purchased.

    Years ago there was a shop back home which used to accepty butter vouchers as payment for everything from lollipops to cider.


  • #47
    IrishManSaipan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 909 ✭✭✭IrishManSaipan


    rossie1977 wrote: »
    ireland is never going to pay off its debt, not this century not ever

    the 78billion in your signature is just a tip of the iceberg, the real figure is nearly $2 trillion ($1.8 trillion to be exact)

    Time to default and leave the EU.


  • #48
    Tigger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,705 ✭✭✭✭Tigger


    Deleted User wrote: »
    This was brought up before and went nowhere.

    How do you decide what people can and can't buy? What stores can the vouchers be used in? What about the items that people need to get by?

    It's all good and well to be able to go to Tesco and get some food (though the govt. could never get away with that, as they wouldn't be 'supporting irish retailers') and whatever store did get thr govt. voucher deal would just up it's prices. Competition between stores would be crushed, meaning stores similar to those that were able to use vouchers would close up (equalling more unemployment) and there'd be a serious Hierarchial issue with stores that have govt. approval being at the top.


    There'd also be the moaning that people shouldn't be allowed buy luxury items. What if your TV breaks? You need a new one (and in Ireland a TV is an investment for the govt. anyway as they can suck the TV license money out of you for years to come) and what if you ruin your shoes?

    What about people who work in specialist areas and whose jobs would be considered to require luxury items. An out of work photographer damages his gear for example. Do we stop him from buying new cameras, lenses etc. as they're luxury items he can live without? He needs a camera to get work, so maybe we should let him have it?

    What about the Joe Soaps that want to get into photography? Do we not allow them cameras and tell them they aren't allowed learn about it until they get a job?

    (photography just came off the top of my head, im sure there are other examples).


    A voucher system wouldn't work and considering people would be embarrassed using vouchers in shops, etc. I doubt many people would go for it.

    Nice idea in theory, impossible in practice.

    you go to the welfare and ask for a voucher to fix your gear
    and yes if you have no job you shouldn't get money to spend on faffing around with ca,eras
    however you should be able to go to camera tech education = teech a man to fish
    dole = give a man fish and chips for after his beers


  • #49
    cleremy jarkson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 542 ✭✭✭cleremy jarkson


    IrishManSaipan wrote: »
    Time to default and leave the EU.

    And switch to the punt I presume? We can't do this because our external debt's are in euro, so if we switch to a new Irish Punt we'll have to use this to purchase euro's first and then pay back the debt. Thing is though, if we do leave the euro, the Punt would likely be viewed as a very weak currency so paying back the debt will take far far longer.


  • #50
    Millicent
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,559 ✭✭✭Millicent


    IrishManSaipan wrote: »
    If a bird can get up the pole after just nine minutes, she can wait a further nine months to get back down it.

    Nine minutes to get up a pole? Is it an ostrich or something? I don't understand, why wouldn't it just fly?


  • #51
    IrishManSaipan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 909 ✭✭✭IrishManSaipan


    Millicent wrote: »
    Nine minutes to get up a pole? Is it an ostrich or something? I don't understand, why wouldn't it just fly?

    Hi Milli,

    I was referring to girls who avail of abortions after a drunken rumble the month before.

    Back on topic......


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    Millicent
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,559 ✭✭✭Millicent


    IrishManSaipan wrote: »
    Hi Milli,

    I was referring to girls who avail of abortions after a drunken rumble the month before.

    Back on topic......

    There's a topic?! *checks OP* Oh right yes, I for one am all in favour of repealing our welfare system. I've always wanted to live in a Dickensian novel. Been practising my Cockney. *Alright guv'na?*


  • #53
    IrishManSaipan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 909 ✭✭✭IrishManSaipan


    Millicent wrote: »
    There's a topic?! *checks OP* Oh right yes, I for one am all in favour of repealing our welfare system. I've always wanted to live in a Dickensian novel. Been practising my Cockney. *Alright guv'na?*

    The welfare state is dead, we are just flogging its dead carcase.

    Why should the working man get up each morning, subsidise the banker in the merc, the doler next door having his daily lie in and the hungover student who is sauntering home after p*ssing some of his grant money up against the wall?

    After all this hes lucky if he has the price of a beve.


  • #54
    kryogen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,953 ✭✭✭✭kryogen


    we could legalise abortion

    kill people when they reach the age of 65-70 depending on their financial status

    we could also sue England for repparations due to damages from our conflicts, and also we should invade the north, takeover and sell it back the england at a reasonable price

    kill everyone without a degree or a trade, turn dole offices into gas chambers etc.

    or we could find a more logical way


  • #55
    IrishManSaipan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 909 ✭✭✭IrishManSaipan


    kryogen wrote: »
    or we could find a more logical way

    I am open to suggestions.

    First off, we have to get real and admit the scale of the disaster we face as a nation. We have to cut out this "weakest in society" nonsense and start balancing the books. The weakest in society is the working man who is getting shafted in each hole, without a drop of lub to ease his discomfort.


  • #56
    Millicent
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,559 ✭✭✭Millicent


    IrishManSaipan wrote: »
    The welfare state is dead, we are just flogging its dead carcase.

    Why should the working man get up each morning, subsidise the banker in the merc, the doler next door having his daily lie in and the hungover student who is sauntering home after p*ssing some of his grant money up against the wall?

    After all this hes lucky if he has the price of a beve.

    Because (and the serious answer here), not all us students are "p*ssing some of our grant money up against the wall", because I was born intelligent but not privileged, because I work my arse off in part-time work to suplement myself to the detriment of my studies sometimes, because believe it or not, not all us students drink, because the alternative is to foster a culture of elitism where the rich class remains the ruling class, where nobody has the opportunity to elevate themselves above their caste, because babies need to be fed as do older children (and heck even teenagers and adults) and because poverty increases crime.

    How about, in times of prosperity, the government could have the foresight to maybe put away some of the incredible revenue they receive and not use it to line their own pockets and bulk up the earnings of their chums? So that when my boyfriend is made redundant or my mother is while she is being treated for breast cancer, they won't have idiots on internet fora questioning whether they should receive the money to feed and house themselves.

    By all means investigate the scammers but don't even suggest culling the benefits of those whose wellbeing the welfare system was designed to protect.


  • #57
    IrishManSaipan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 909 ✭✭✭IrishManSaipan


    Millicent wrote: »
    Because (and the serious answer here), not all us students are "p*ssing some of our grant money up against the wall", because I was born intelligent but not privileged, because I work my arse off in part-time work to suplement myself to the detriment of my studies sometimes, because believe it or not, not all us students drink, because the alternative is to foster a culture of elitism where the rich class remains the ruling class, where nobody has the opportunity to elevate themselves above their caste, because babies need to be fed as do older children (and heck even teenagers and adults) and because poverty increases crime.

    The government should lend you all you need. Upon graduating, you get a provision degree. Upon repaying your loan, you get a full degree.

    Millicent wrote: »
    How about, in times of prosperity, the government could have the foresight to maybe put away some of the incredible revenue they receive and not use it to line their own pockets and bulk up the earnings of their chums? So that when my boyfriend is made redundant or my mother is while she is being treated for breast cancer, they won't have idiots on internet fora questioning whether they should receive the money to feed and house themselves.

    You and your mother have my sympathies, breast cancer is a scourge.
    Millicent wrote: »
    By all means investigate the scammers but don't even suggest culling the benefits of those whose wellbeing the welfare system was designed to protect.

    Do you think the state has an infinte source of cash? Eventually the cash cow will run dry. We have two choices now, implement a more cost efficient social welafre scheme or bury our collective heads in the sand and face financial run.


  • #58
    Millicent
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,559 ✭✭✭Millicent


    IrishManSaipan wrote: »
    The government should lend you all you need. Upon graduating, you get a provision degree. Upon repaying your loan, you get a full degree.




    You and your mother have my sympathies, breast cancer is a scourge.



    Do you think the state has an infinte source of cash? Eventually the cash cow will run dry. We have two choices now, implement a more cost efficient social welafre scheme or bury our collective heads in the sand and face financial run.

    I appreciate the sympathies; it is a horrible situation.:)

    But to be honest, culling and overhauling the welfare system are two different things. Culling I have no time for. Overhauling I wholeheartedly approve of. And no, I am not so naive as to think the government has an infinite amount of money but they are the ones who steered the country into recession taking gambles with our money without bothering to come up with a contingency plan and without appearing to save any of the revenue they collected in the boom years.

    I have no time for welfare scroungers but they are an unfortunately inevitable economic fact. There should be systems in place, as I seem to recall there were in the eighties, where people should be given training and job opportunites through governmental avenues but unfortunately, there seems to be no sign of this. But there again is another example of government wastefulness: the body set up to tackle joblessness in this country were one of the same bodies which was wastefully spending tax money.

    I think it's to simple to say cull the welfare system. We need to cull the officials and the businessmen who we allowed to behave like Lords when money flooded the country.


  • #59
    IrishManSaipan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 909 ✭✭✭IrishManSaipan


    Millicent wrote: »
    I appreciate the sympathies; it is a horrible situation.:)

    Ive been through it myself. It takes iron will, but it can be beaten.
    Millicent wrote: »
    But to be honest, culling and overhauling the welfare system are two different things. Culling I have no time for. Overhauling I wholeheartedly approve of. And no, I am not so naive as to think the government has an infinite amount of money but they are the ones who steered the country into recession taking gambles with our money without bothering to come up with a contingency plan and without appearing to save any of the revenue they collected in the boom years.

    Cull was a rather poor choice of words. Slash/Cut/Reduce would have sufficed.

    We can play the blame game all day. That doesnt alter the fact that we are slowly creeping towards financial ruin. Now is the time for a contingency plan for the future.

    Millicent wrote: »
    I think it's to simple to say cull the welfare system. We need to cull the officials and the businessmen who we allowed to behave like Lords when money flooded the country.

    The money will eventually run dry, Milli. Sooner rather than later. The Department of Finance is expecting 34 billion in tax returns. My calculator says they wont break 29.


  • #60
    Mr Benevolent
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,456 ✭✭✭✭Mr Benevolent


    Great idea. Stop the government from pumping money into a failing economy. The economy shrinks further, more job losses and so on in an infinite loop. I suggest Economics 101, OP.

    More barstool education.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Run_to_da_hills
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,009 ✭✭✭✭Run_to_da_hills


    Is there an Irish version of this. :eek:

    Before and after the Bail outs :eek:


Advertisement