Printable View
Can't work.Quote:
Originally Posted by jebus
1. The current set up of the dole, means you must have nothing to do in order to get it.
2. Doing community/charity work leaves the system wide open to further fraud, with undeclared "payments" made.
Unemployment is still very much a live issue in this country.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
Don't we have this already, back to work schemes?Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acornvilla
I can't see it working too easily, I know a guy getting close to 500 euro a week for sitting in a junior soccer club's club house (cos of the weather) for 19hrs a week. His duties include pitch marking, grass cuttting and litter duties. Why would he (And others no doubt such grave diggers and many other community posts) work for 10 hours to get the "basic "dole?
Before anyone asks, he has three kids under 16, wife unemployed, I wonder what would he be entitled to if he sat at home doing SFA?
Sometimes I have difficulty understanding your mindset mypost.
I know it's a bit whacked out an' all, but... change it?Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
September 2009: We're ordered to support the government's Lisbon Treaty for "jobs" and "economic recovery"
December 2009: "Our plan is working, we have turned the corner"
February 2010: Unemployment soars to 437,000 people, at a rate of 12.7%
No jobs, no recovery, no idea.
They do have an idea - to cut wages across the economy. They just haven't thought it through - wage cuts, and threats of further wage cuts (both further public sector cuts, and the threat to the minimum wages/ JLC's), reduce consumer confidence, which reduces consumer spending as they save, pay down debt or simply don't have enough. This - shock, horror - leads to job losses in retail and the service sector and the vicious cycle continues. ISME and IBEC campaigned for this situation, and the Government complied - remember that next time you have to suffer Mark Fielding whinging.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
The reason we have job losses in the hotels, retail and services sevtor is not down to the loss of spending power on it's own, but down to the cost of doing business here and in particular rents. Most of the retail parks, office blocks & fancy resturants that sprung up in the last five years are in buildings that have rents that are based on a price level and in turn profit margin that simply isn't and wasn't viable. Prices are falling and as painful as it is for business it'd good in the longer term of this countries recovery.
Landlords/developers (with the help of the banks/government/nama) need to wake up to this sharpish and I agree with mypost, they (FF / Greens) aren't adressing this at all.
I have no confidence in Fielding or Patrica Callen of the SFA
It's not so much that the landlords haven't caught on Damo, as it's that the landlords have mortgages to service.
That's Where the Government come in John and why I agree with mypost (for once!)Quote:
Landlords/developers (with the help of the banks/government/nama) need to wake up to this sharpish and I agree with mypost, they (FF / Greens) aren't adressing this at all.
I've argued a long time that the drivers of our "uncompetitiveness" are not wages, however the focus on them has left the other issues unaddressed. How many FF politicians have a nice property portfolio reliant on rent? Then we have their ideological driven regulation of other markets such as the utilities to attract competition, with no benefit to the consumer either commercial or domestic. And ISME, IBEC's and FF/Greens solution to this is to reduce minimum wage rates inparticular, and wages and social welfare in general, to increase our "competitiveness".Quote:
Originally Posted by Fr Damo
The VAT rate is starting to look like a damned yoyo.
Sound akin to slavery to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Acornvilla
If there is work to be done pay people a proper wage.
People pay their national insurance (or whatever it is called in Ireland, I'm UK) so why shoudl they be used as
forced labour?
But as I said it is slavery - work or starve.
It is immoral.
Also once employer realise they can get free labour, employment is likely to rise.
I reckon we'd save millions just by stopping the nonsense practice of doling out dosh to people, counting it, and then taking some of it back in tax. The administrative overhead has to be significant.
The civil servant that came up with the idea, doubtless to keep him- or herself in an overpaid and underworked job for the rest of their life, should be rewarded for their ingenuity, and then taxed at 99% for the rest of their life.
What are they going to do with VAT? As I understand it 21% VAT is going up to 23% as part of the IMF Deal. I know FG were saying they were going to cut the 13.5% to 10 or 12% to stimulate "hairdressers and small builders doing extensions" but is this article refering to that lower cut or something else? If it is related to FGs election manefesto it's old new and much ado about nothing.
BTW, raising the higher rate from 21% to 23% is going to do more harm than the good of a spin off of in cutting the lower rate from 13.5% to 10%. It will hit cash flow of small businesses
I don't get you - I know some benefits are taxable, but surely the amount of tax is dependent on other factors (single or jointly assessed, split of tax credits etc)? It would be far more complex to deduct at source, if I'm getting your issue right?Quote:
Originally Posted by dahamsta
What about hairdressers who don't do extensions? That discriminates against my barber (and me - not enought left to fit extensions to...)Quote:
Originally Posted by Fr Damo
I'd like to see both rates of VAT lowered - it's a horribly regressive tax that hammers somebody on benefit, who pays the same rate as high earners for the same goods and services. But I'm not holding my breath. It's too easy a tax for governments to play with.
I'm all for people volunteering while they're out of work (my mum is volunteering in a charity shop until something comes her way) but AFAIK one requirement for benfit is that you are available for work, and some jobsworths in the department regard volunteering as breaching that. I had a run-in with one of those jobsworths years ago over a chance to get a fortnight's work experience. Ridiculous. How would you monitor forced volunteering (there's an oxymoron) - it sounds like an expensive layer of bureaucracy, and would junior football clubs, Oxfam shops, active age groups etc etc want the hassle of filling in forms for volunteers?
I'm very sceptical about making people work for benefit, and these 10,000 internships that the government is going on about: if all they do is provide free or underpaid labour for businesses, they don't create jobs. When somebody reaches the end of their work for dole or intern scheme, instead of being offered a job, they get shipped out, back onto benefit, and the next batch of hopefuls is brought in.
Dahamsta, I'm not quite sure I get your point. Is it what Macy has said? That was what I took from it too.
Why? They have all the data right there. And they're accountants.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macy
No thanks, I pay my tax and PRSI and if I fall on hards times I've already paid for my dole money I owe the state nothing, especially not my slace labour and dignity.
I pay my tax and PRSI too, but because I'm self-employed I'm entitled to nothing if my business goes bust.
What's the justification for that, by the way? It sounds like a legal challenge waiting to happen on discriminatory grounds surely? (I know it's because you don't pay employer's PRSI, but I think you're legally obliged to be in the PRSI grouping you are in). Never understood that.
I don't think you'll get an official answer on that, but the general opinion seems to be that, and that we have "perks" like being able to put personal stuff through the books. Unfortunately the latter is the equivalent of any other kind of tax dodging, both types of people do it at varying levels, and both are liable if they're caught.
There's a discussion about in on AAM at the moment, the general consensus appears to be that most would prefer to pay extra for the security. Unfortunately the self-employed in Ireland suffer the same failing of the Irish in general, we bitch and moan but don't do anything about it*. Bring back Daniel O'Connell.
* I offered to host and manage a website, mailing list, etc, but no-one would take me up on it. I can't do everything.
For free?Quote:
Originally Posted by dahamsta
Wouldn't be much of an offer if not. :)
Here's the thread if any Foot.ie business(wo)men fancy charging in.
It would have long happened by now if there was a strong enough legal basis.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
As far as I'm aware, self employed PRSI was at a lower rate even before taking into account the lack of employers contribution. I think the self employed rate changed in one of Lenihans many budgets, still minus the employers contribution though.Quote:
Originally Posted by dahamsta
I'm torn on the issue to be honest. There is no doubt that in the construction sector, for example, people were effectively forced to sub contract when they were defacto employees. Revenue & Social Welfare were very slow to take action on this - as it didn't suit the people the Government were working for. IBEC and SFA were 100% opposed to more control on such issues during social partnership - the delays in deals were never about the money at those times.
However, I don't remember too many complaints from the self employed about the rates paid or cover during the boom. It was only when they needed to draw on social welfare after the crash that this became a live issue. So take the lower rates in the good times, and then crib about the lack of benefits in the bad?
I thinks that's awful mate, but just explaining about folk like me. How the self-employed are treated when they fall on hard times.Quote:
Originally Posted by dahamsta
[QUOTE]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macy
I knda agree TBH. These guys were forced to become contractors (we all know a few) and as a result were paid nicely and above what there going employee rate was.
There was nothing to stop the same contractors registering as boni fida companies and paying themselves as employees rather than taking drwaings as sole traders.
The thing is , and I make no apologies for this, many were not business men but tradesmen and not aware of it. More were greedy.
If they were getting 2k a week for 50 hours it should have been more than enought to form a small company, call that 2 ka week turnover and pay them selves a grand, employee PRSI, employeer PRSI and still have a profit at the year end for the "personal effects". This would have meant proper books and accounting and we have all seen the jeep with a dash board full of "paperwork" in between coffee cups and breakfast roll wrappers. i.e The cost of implementing this was perceived to be more than the benifit of social welfare if things went bad.
AgreedQuote:
However, I don't remember too many complaints from the self employed about the rates paid or cover during the boom. It was only when they needed to draw on social welfare after the crash that this became a live issue. So take the lower rates in the good times, and then crib about the lack of benefits in the bad?
You can't be an employee of your own company. You'd have to be a company director, in which case, no social security either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fr Damo
Singling out construction contractors sector is incredibly specific and not fair to the rest of us. It also ignores the fact that setting up a company at the time cost a minimum or €1k, and running a company still costs a minimum of the same, year on year.
I've been an employee of my own company for about 3 years. I've always had a problem with this policy.
Well it was me using that as example of a sector I do have some sympathy - they were sold down the river by the larger contractors/ companies. My opinion is the state should've been coming down hard and fast on the scam, and rather than setting up companies they should've been the employee's they basically were. Subcontracting is still causing issues, as witnessed recently with one of the motorway projects. It suited no one but the large companies who had the ear of Government - the subbies were screwed but were convinced they were quids in. But apologies for muddying the waters.Quote:
Originally Posted by dahamsta
I've no problem with self employed getting the same benefits, once they have made the same total contribution. If they were going in now looking to pay full employee plus the employer rates in PRSI, I think they'd have a very arguable case to start building up full stamps.
It's not just the construction sector, big pharma does it too, and I'd guess a lot of other multis. It's a nasty setup, but then so is the complete abuse of part-time workers. Both legal frameworks should be reformed.
I think I said earlier that both I and most of the other people on AAM that have commented have no problem paying the full whack. It's not about the money, it's about equal protection, and principle.
dahamsta, I've been paying tax and prsi since I was 17. Out of 20 years since I've had 4 years out of the tax net and for 2 of them I faced a tax bill when I came home as they said I wasn't due any tax credits because I'd undeclared income. The last 8 years I've been mainly out of Ireland and pay my tax at home and in my country of residence - obviously it's reduced on both. Earlier this month I was home with a client and went to check about moving home and what would happen if the job I'd been offered went withthe company. I was told that I'd be means tested, that I would wait up to 6 months for the first payment, though if I was a genuine hardship case I could go to the HSE. I thought it was just because I'd been paying a low tax and normal PRSI equivalent in my country of residence and a low tax rate in Ireland, now it's the same for others who contribute to the economy and society even more. It makes it ridiculous!
So I went for this job interview and I thought I absolutely blitzed it. Really positive interaction and engagement. Assured me they'd be in touch very shortly. Then the PFO arrived. I was disappointed but what can you do -all job offers are over subscribed these days. THEN I found out the guy who got the job was a member of an organisation who offered my potential employer a financial inducment to take him on instead of me....
http://www.independent.ie/sport/gael...e-2601989.html
You should be properly Irish, and play for the GAA.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lionel Ritchie
Talk about a receipe for corruption, at so many levels! Still, at least they're embracing pay for play.
It's a belter of a read. Once I got over my initial Marcel Marceau reaction -I've been splitting myself laughing at every re-read. It's the barefacedness (new word?) of it all. The sheer brass neck and the notion never dawning that it might just be immoral and illegal to induce discrimination on the basis of whether someone is "one of theirs" or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macy
Just one of my favourite quotes: "We're deep-rooted in our communities and, at a time of crisis such as the country is going through at present, we need to figure out a way of helping people in a practical way. This scheme wouldn't solve all the ills of the country, but it would do an awful lot for the 400 unemployed players -- and their clubs -- who benefited."
Father Ted stuff. Help people in the communities they're supposedly deep rooted in by shoving all but their members to the back of the jobs queue. Nice.
I'm far from expert on this, but is that even legal?
I'd have my doubts, and I'd hope someone will challenge them on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eminence Grise
There's no requirement for any job to be advertised.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eminence Grise
Its only a requirement if the company wish to claim government subsidies or apply for work permits and thes kind of 'unusual' situations.
But if a company wants to emply someone, it can hire them directly, advertise it internally/externally or headhunt a group of people and pick from them.
No problem with the GAA spending their money this way but laughable that they say its for the 'good of the community'
I never considered the legality of advertising positions. What I wondered was whether this scheme, which is basically a members’ club scheme, breaches employment law in that it creates an uneven and unfair situation where applicants cannot be measured on their abilities and suitability for the role. Whether the position is filled by confined or open competition doesn't make much difference.
I wonder too what would happen where a member of a trade union fails to get a position because a non-union GAA player brings the grant with him (or her; I presume the GAA wouldn't be so crass as to omit camogie and ladies' football - would they?) |Say, Mandate in the retail sector? I don’t see any union taking that on the chin.
LR, you’ve taken this far more philosophically and with better grace than I think many others would have.
I would have thought it would have technically been a bribe. I'd say there would be a good chance you could get a clever lawyer to build you a case on that. It'll be interesting to see what happens if the GAA go through with it.