Why long term social welfare should be cut in the Budget

Status
Not open for further replies.
Gordon Gekko said:
I have savings so I could afford to do that.

But in any event, I'm talking about unrealistic aspirations. If an architect can't find work because there is no construction activity, then he/she should be compelled to work in an unrelated sector.
Click to expand...

Are you saying you're so wealthy that you wouldn't draw JSB if you were unemployed for a couple of months?

I don't disagree in principle with the point about changing careers/industries if necessary, that's just common sense, but you've made what appear to be very strident statements and I'm trying to work them out to see if I agree with you (as I quite often do) or not.

You haven't really answered the question I posed you, you've sidestepped it by referencing your own savings.

So I'll try again. Do you think that from the moment a person becomes unemployed they should simply apply for and take whatever job they can get, so as to get off social welfare, rather than trying to find a job that is in the field they have trained and worked in? Do you see any drawbacks / costs to a labour market (and society) where everyone has that mindset?
 
Gordon Gekko said:
should be compelled to work in an unrelated sector.
Click to expand...

How do you compel employers to hire staff that they may not want?
Are you implying that there are more job vacancies than applicants for work?
The last time anything close to that occurred we had large scale immigration, wage increases and a property boom.
We are a bit away from that at the moment I think.
 
Last edited:
At least we seem to have moved on from "the dole" to a more person-centered discussion of "social welfare" payments or payments from the state to individuals and organisations.

Starting at the top, politicians, public and civil servants are overpaid and there are too many of them. Too many of them are double jobbing and are receiving two payments. Let these parasite choose which job they wish to do and pay them the rate for the job e.g. county registrars refer work to themselves wearing their other hats as the county sheriffs.

Once all of that, including the monster of a HSE which is going to kill us all eventually, is sorted, then and only then address the people at the bottom of the state payments ladder. Maybe start with farmers, the single biggest sucker on the hind tit of subsisdies and grants from the EU and the state. For years they paid no tax and no PRSI yet they qualified magically to a full state pension, while Sean & Sheila PAYE worker were put through hoops to prove their qualification.
 
One simple way to rebalance things would be to only pay the Xmas "bonus" to JSB recipients, and not to JSA people.

What we actually do is pay it to JSA, not JSB.
 
It's not that simple get a job in another area if you are well qualified in a different career as I found out. Employers are not too inclined to just take a chance on someone who may turn out to be a great employee but if they want particular skills which might be as simple as able to operate a till they don't care if you know how to build or design a house if you don't have the experience they want.

At this stage you need to have done training courses and have qualifications to be all sorts of things that we did years ago straight out of school so unless you intend to retrain it is definitely not simple to just switch to another job. Whether it is a good use of state money either to retrain an architect for example as a doctor's receptionist I don't know. The doc is still not that likely to hire them as they know full well the architect will be gone as soon as they get a job in their area of expertise.

Only way to hop sideways like that I think is if you know someone that will give you a job when you don't have the relevant experience or qualifications.
 
The discussion is getting bogged down by the “I hate skivers” posts.

If people never worked, their payments would not be made out of the Social Insurance Fund.

So let’s put them aside to examine the merits or otherwise of Brendan’s proposal.

Just a few things…

  • Would the PRSI rate for employees, employers and the self-employed have to increase
  • How would this personalized scheme be introduced? Would it start with new entrants to the workforce after a certain date, let’s say January 1 2018?
  • Say, John enters the workforce on that date. He is in low paid employment for 15 years, then he goes to night school becomes better qualified gets a promotion or moves to a better paying job. Later on he or his wife takes a two year time out to care for a chronically ill child. The Carers Benefit, which is paid out of his or his her Social Insurance Fund, has reduced his or her pension pot.
    Could either increase their PRSI contributions to compensate for the years John was on low pay and the years that either he or his wife acted as a carer?
  • Would there be an option to take part of the OAP has as a lump sum?
  • What about tax relief? There is no relief for PRSI payments, but there is relief at the marginal rate for payments, including AVCs, made into a private pension scheme.
  • Would the Social Insurance Fund be ringfenced ad infinitum for the purpose of social insurance payments?
  • How would this scheme operate with other countries with which Ireland has DTAs or other agreements?
 

First off, I am not wealthy; far from it.

I do not believe that a social welfare recipient should be forced out of his/her sphere immediately.
 
Gordon Gekko said:
A proverbial beggar who's picking and choosing in terms of potential jobs is a fraudster.
Click to expand...

I can't agree with that at all Gordon.

If I had a choice of earning €20,000 a year in a job and €20,000 on social welfare, I would choose social welfare. I don't see anything fraudulent in it.

It's our fault for having such generous social welfare.

If a woman living with the father of her children claims to be a single parent, that is fraud.

Brendan
 
Sophrosyne said:
Would the PRSI rate for employees, employers and the self-employed have to increase
Click to expand...

Hi Sop

Absolutely. There is no way that 4% of a self-employed' salary pays for their pension.

And this is one of the advantages. If they uppped the 4% to 10% tomorrow, there would be uproar. If they put it into a fund in that person's name, there would be some understanding of it.

Brendan
 

Hi Brendan,

We are in agreement.

That's why the system needs to be more robust.

Working should always be the more attractive argument. I note in today's Sindo that people on the housing list are turning down properties because they don't like the colour of the carpet.

Gordon
 
Brendan Burgess said:
If I had a choice of earning €20,000 a year in a job and €20,000 on social welfare, I would choose social welfare. I don't see anything fraudulent in it.
Click to expand...

Brendan,

That is quite the revealing statement. It shows that you yourself are not immune to that behavior which you label as 'irresponsible'.
If your job paid only €20,000 and your welfare benefits would equal €20,000, then you yourself would choose the welfare option.

On the other hand, it is my view that given that above scenario, more people would still opt for the employment option rather than the welfare option.
It is my view that most people have a sense of responsibility, a sense of dignity, and a sense of foresight that earning your own income provides.
Of course, there are those who choose to play the system, exploit it for what it is worth etc, but they are the tiny minority. Little did I think that, faced with the scenario of working or the welfare culture, that you yourself would opt for the welfare culture.
 

Therefore, a lot more money would flow into the Social Insurance Fund. That is why I asked:
  • Would the Social Insurance Fund be ringfenced ad infinitum for the purpose of social insurance payments?
To agree with this proposal, I think I would need a cast iron guarantee written into the legislation that the present or any future government could not use the Social Insurance Fund for any other purpose.
 
The chart below shows that there are some 850,000+ 'taxpayer units' working for incomes of €20,000 or less. Many of whom no doubt receive supplementary income in the form of social welfare, but nonetheless, it shows how people in the main are prepared to work.


 
Last edited:
TheBigShort said:
How do you compel employers to hire staff that they may not want?
Are you implying that there are more job vacancies than applicants for work?
Click to expand...
We have a major skills shortage in my sector, mainly due to the effective dismantling of the engineering trades by the department of education in the late 90's and the inability of FAS to realise that the sector was changing utterly and what was good training in 1985 was completely useless in 1995.
So, during the recession we took on out of work construction tradesmen (and yes, unfortunately they are all men). While construction trades are less skillful and require less technical knowledge a few of the guys did really well, particularly a couple of plumbers.
Intelligent skilled people are hard to find. Add in a work ethic and they are a very rare creature. If they have a technical background then within 3-4 years they can be retrained. It worked out quite well for all concerned.

My daughter has a part time job teaching swimming. She's in that bracket. You do know that teenagers and college students with part time jobs, as well as part time workers from middle to high income households make up the vast bulk of that group, right?
 
Purple said:
Intelligent skilled people are hard to find.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, and if it's intelligent skilled people that the labour market is looking for, then there is going to be a lag in employment until they are found.
The notion being peddled earlier that those who are unemployed should just be compelled to work is nonsense.


Absolutely, reaffirming my point above that most people would rather be at work rather than choose the welfare 'culture'.
 
TheBigShort said:
The notion being peddled earlier that those who are unemployed should just be compelled to work is nonsense.
Click to expand...
Why? I'd like to see a system where for the first 2 years your benefits were linked to your income, and therefore what you paid in, and after that were lower than at present. Once that two year period was up then you either have to be in full time education or take whatever job your are offered.

TheBigShort said:
Absolutely, reaffirming my point above that most people would rather be at work rather than choose the welfare 'culture'.
Click to expand...
Nobody is disagreeing with that. The issue is how to deal with the minority who would rather not work and would rather be on welfare.
 
TheBigShort said:
The notion being peddled earlier that those who are unemployed should just be compelled to work is nonsense.
Click to expand...
Why? Surely everyone should be expected to contribute something even if only for a short period of time before getting back on track.

From my observations, if people were compelled to work to some degree,I think the short and long term numbers on the dole would fall dramatically. I see lots of people claiming dole who also do a few days work on the side. The occasional 1 or 2 gets caught, receives a warning and signs off.
A tough stance on the dole would clear the air
 

Isn't that the case already? I know my brother gets letters from welfare for job interviews etc. Unbeknownst to me, he was working six weeks in the run up to Christmas last year and periodically when factory orders are up. But it is not permanent or full-time. He also had to upgrade or renew his fork lift licence. He hasn't worked since Easter however, the next time he is offered a job, if he turns it down, he will be means tested. He has no mortgage, kids have flown nest, wife is full-time employed. Having worked continuously for 30yrs he was made redundant. Any work he gets is intermittent and short-term. He is on full employment benefits at the moment, based on passed contributions. That will be cut soon if he doesn't take up next job offer. He will take it up as he would rather be working.

Purple said:
Nobody is disagreeing with that. The issue is how to deal with the minority who would rather not work and would rather be on welfare.
Click to expand...

That is fine. My point is that this minority, once dealt with (say cutting welfare by €100) , whilst saving the State a not insignificant sum of money, will in the overall scheme of things be simply tinkering around the edges.
In other words, the €19bn welfare bill will still be sitting there so that next year, the same issue arises again.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Menu
Log in
Register