With the latest budget now done and dusted there's a certain cohort of workers who got very little from it. Yesterday I overheard some people having a conversation and one of the people was a bus driver with a national transport co. He said if he only worked 20 hours a week, his partner could stay doing her job in a supermarket for the same no of hours and he would then be able to get a medical card, free books certain cash payments and other benefits . It was obvious from the chat that he was not the woman's husband and some children were hers, some his. I've no problem at all with those who cannot work for good reason, but when people choose to take advantage of benefits over working then surely that's wrong? Is it as widespread as I'm led to believe, or is it all bravado talk?
Are we encouraging people to not work.
- Thread starter noproblem
- Start date
You would have to do some calculations to see where the threshold lies that working more than X hours would make you worse off. I imagine it it only applies to a small percentage of workers in specific circumstances. You will have gaps in every system and this is probably a tiny sliver of state expenditure.
What you're describing is not someone going on the dole for the craic - he is reducing his hours. Whether or not everyone should be encouraged to work full time is a debate in itself. I have no issue with anyone choosing to work part-time in order to get access to healthcare, educational material for their children, and maybe get to spend more time with their kids.
What you're describing is not someone going on the dole for the craic - he is reducing his hours. Whether or not everyone should be encouraged to work full time is a debate in itself. I have no issue with anyone choosing to work part-time in order to get access to healthcare, educational material for their children, and maybe get to spend more time with their kids.
The Horseman
Registered User
- Messages
- 688
There are some who see welfare as a career choice. Unfortunately we have got to a point were we can't call them out on it.
In my view we have gone too far with some of our welfare supports.
Remember the cost of work plays a huge part too. Seeing people decide to stay home to mind the kids is already a norm given the costs there. Add in travel costs, especially for jobs that might require out of hours travel, and things can become very weighted in one direction or another.
This sort of discussion also happens at both ends of the spectrum. I know lots of people who refuse to take on extra hours of work or extra duties because the margin costs make it not worth it.
This sort of discussion also happens at both ends of the spectrum. I know lots of people who refuse to take on extra hours of work or extra duties because the margin costs make it not worth it.
The Horseman
Registered User
- Messages
- 688
It should always pay to work over not working. Maybe if workers retained more of their income from taking on extra hours they would do the extra hours.
An overly generous welfare system can act as a deterrent to working or taking on extra hours.
Perhaps its time to reform the welfare system?
There is no getting past the fact that for some people, moving to full time work makes no sense. I've had that conversation with part time staff who have said openly to me, they'd be worse off if they were working full time. Some of that is social welfare related, some comes down to child minding and caring duties.
Bear in mind also that some of what you overheard is not means tested (school books are a case in point) so it makes no difference if you are full or part time.
Bear in mind also that some of what you overheard is not means tested (school books are a case in point) so it makes no difference if you are full or part time.
We of course have to help people that cannot work or need help that makes sense but if we remove incentive to work we have a real problem. The marginal rate for higher earners is 52%. Sinn Fein want to bring that up to 55% with a solidarity tax. Now keep in mind that basically means that anyone working overtime and/or relying on a year end bonus is disincentivised from working past a certain threshold. With those kinds of rates coming in why would anyone want to work longer or climb the ladder. We need to strike a balance but the concern is these taxes hit the lower to upper middle and not the rich as intended.
To have a situation over the last 12-24 months, where employers are complaining about being unable to fill vacancies on their staff, while we've people capable of working, but still on the live register, is fundamentally wrong. What's worse, is that the problem wasn't tackled.
Gordon Gekko
Registered User
- Messages
- 7,371
The State should provide more support for people who CAN’T work (e.g. people with intellectual disabilities).
But as for failed citizens who are gaming the system, i.e. those who CHOOSE not to work, they should be out on the streets in orange overalls picking up chewing gum and dog excrement.
We must make it less attractive to leech.
But as for failed citizens who are gaming the system, i.e. those who CHOOSE not to work, they should be out on the streets in orange overalls picking up chewing gum and dog excrement.
We must make it less attractive to leech.
Is it as widespread as a single conversation that you claim to have overheard, curiously been able to recount in detail, and have jumped to some conclusions about? Almost certainly not.
Gordon Gekko
Registered User
- Messages
- 7,371
That’s why the left and the likes of Sinn Fein/IRA are anti-cashless society.
In the US, the IRS is “in” their equivelent of Revolut.
We could also look to make it analagous to prostitution and criminalise the buyer of cash services.
Recall a group who were in the Aras on one of those community visits to meet and greet the President and his wife. While there, they noticed a neighbour doing some work for a contractor who had been engaged by the powers that be. Funny thing about this was, that very neighbour collects the dole every week without fail because he's unemployed. 
Sophrosyne
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,543
According to this “There are more people employed in Ireland than ever before. It is expected that over 2.5 million will be in employment in 2023."
Scroll to Your Guide to Budget 2023 PDF, page 6 under Labour Market.
Your information appears to be hearsay.
I don't know what the actual figures are out there but there is definitely a cohort that 'plays' the system nicely. After redundancy I did some voluntary work, well it was an education to say the least! While of course there are lots of genuinely unemployed/poor people there are also those that know every angle and dodge to get the max while either working/half working/doing nothing.
Now it can't be a huge number and it's the price we pay I presume for having such a good social welfare system and in some cases it's not that I don't blame them but because of the supports etc there is no hope of them ever getting a job that would give them the same net income so what's the alternative for them? You'd want to be kind of stupid to take a low paying job which meant losing things like medical card etc and also perhaps having to pay the bulk of your own rent, maybe childcare costs etc, many would be worse off.
I had to give up the voluntary work as it was honestly giving me rage due to a lot of scenarios I came across!
Now it can't be a huge number and it's the price we pay I presume for having such a good social welfare system and in some cases it's not that I don't blame them but because of the supports etc there is no hope of them ever getting a job that would give them the same net income so what's the alternative for them? You'd want to be kind of stupid to take a low paying job which meant losing things like medical card etc and also perhaps having to pay the bulk of your own rent, maybe childcare costs etc, many would be worse off.
I had to give up the voluntary work as it was honestly giving me rage due to a lot of scenarios I came across!
Last edited:
T McGibney
Registered User
- Messages
- 6,203
The issue as I understand it is that the various welfare systems combine to make it worthwhile for many people to work part-time (2-3 days per week max) in low-earning employment but not full time nor in in higher-earning employment.
NoRegretsCoyote
Registered User
- Messages
- 5,766
It's a long time since I looked at thresholds for these things. It can be very complex to look at the interaction of medical card entitlements, USC, HAP, etc and it is very hard to design a system with no poverty traps.
At a macro level the workforce today contains only about 11% of people who would rather be working more hours. It was as high as 25% in 2012 when the economy was on the floor. To me that tells a lot.
I think there is a small but material cohort who for all sorts of reasons are happy with low hours and the extra gross income from more hours is not worth it.
T McGibney
Registered User
- Messages
- 6,203
Just wondering where are you getting these figures?