BS
Just so we're absolutely clear:-
- I've absolutely no problem with somebody going on holidays if they pay for it out of their own resources;
- I've absolutely no problem with enhanced JSB for people who have made the appropriate PRSI contributions;
- I do have a problem with (means tested) welfare benefits being made available to recipients with meaningful savings (and I would certainly consider the cost of an overseas holiday to be meaningful); and
- I do have a problem with JSA being set at a level that would allows recipients to take overseas holidays or that otherwise allows for anything that bears any resemblance of a luxurious lifestyle.
Hopefully that is now crystal clear.
That's all very good and again, no inherent objection to what you are saying.
But, once again on AAM, it's the practicalities of what is proposed that needs scrutiny.
Assuming that the current system is unfair, hence the need to reform, then based on that notion of unfairness, using your bullet points, how does the notion of unfairness sit when;
Two workers, earning €50k become unemployed after 20yrs employment. One has €5,000 in savings, the other €15,000 in credit card debt from drinking, gambling, golf trips, expensive holidays etc.
Under the German style system, each is entitled to 60% of income for 1st 12 months.
But would the worker who saved €5000 be expected to use up what they have worked hard to earn before they get their entitlement?
How much per week would they be obliged to use? Equal to 60% of weekly wage? What if he uses less, being prudent, how long before welfare entitlement kicks in? What if he uses more than 60%, e.g. places €5,000 on red at the casino? Loses, no worries, welfare will kick in?
Would the debt worker be obliged to pay down debt? Is it fair that the State pays down his debt, but requires prudent saver to use own resources?
The list goes on, I appreciate the sentiment surrounding welfare entitlements, but like most social policy, it is hugely complex and almost impossible to suit everyone.