Public Sector Cost-Cutting

**saint dog** · 08/12/2009, 10:45 AM

204 per week is too much maybe cut it to 190
i think it should be cut to suit peoples circumstances
by that i dont mean single parents etc are entitied to it
i mean if youve worked for so like and are unfortunate to now be out of work (like i was for a long time ) well fine you deserve your full amount (190) why , because you've paid tax for the years youve worked and now deserve it back due to been let go but if your out of work for 1 year 2 years 5 years and are still claiming job seekers benifit theres something wrong
i think the max anyone should get the full amount is 1year then it should be gradually cut .
i have a terrible gripe with people who i know who haven't worked a day in the last two years but yet can afford an 09 car , have rent mostly paid by the social
whilst me and many others on here pay taxs so than can live relatively comfortably .
rant over (for now)

**Fr Damo** · 08/12/2009, 11:42 AM

That's a bit simplistic saint dog, you'll need to do better than soundbytes in here.

How much is "too much"? How much would you cut? From where?

We should use the min wage as a guide or benchmark and work backwards. It's currently 8.65 an hour. If you work 39 hours a week about 340 euro a week. Now subtract your bus fare, travel to and from work or car pool, then subtract lunch and you are back near to the 204 quid you were getting on the rock and roll. What's worse is people are working say 30 hours at 8.65 and by the time they take out lunch, travel etc are worse than the dole and cannot claim any assistance.

Obvioulsy flawed.

The dole cannot equal 2 thirds of the minimium wage and it has been argued the minimium wage is too high anyway. Is it too crude to assume a formula for calcualting unemployment assistance based on the minimium wage?

**dahamsta** · 08/12/2009, 11:48 AM

Thank you saint god.

The minimum wage is too high generally, but it got there because of the cost of living. If the minimum wage is to be cut, it needs to be very, very gradual. It would be better if the ridiculous cost of living in Ireland was dealt with in any kind of serious way.

I said it at the time and I'll say it again: the killing off of the Groceries Order was a bad idea, and couldn't have been timed worse. It's like they were trying to kill it at exactly the wrong time.

adam

**bennocelt** · 08/12/2009, 12:40 PM

Originally Posted by osarusan

I'm glad you find humour in it.

Well the social is a joke alright, and didn't you see Prime time last night

**dahamsta** · 08/12/2009, 1:02 PM

Jokes go in Off Topic bennocelt. People try to have serious conversations in here, interspersed with intelligent wit. (That wasn't intelligent wit, in case it needs to be added.)

**John83** · 08/12/2009, 1:24 PM

Originally Posted by dahamsta

I said it at the time and I'll say it again: the killing off of the Groceries Order was a bad idea, and couldn't have been timed worse. It's like they were trying to kill it at exactly the wrong time.

The groceries order forced shops to sell food at no less than cost, right? What were the negatives to its abolition?

**Macy** · 08/12/2009, 1:25 PM

Originally Posted by dahamsta

It would be better if the ridiculous cost of living in Ireland was dealt with in any kind of serious way.

I'd start with our ridiculously regulated utilities that have made us go from having one of the cheapest costing utilities to one of the most expensive. Get the ESB, Bord Gais going back to break even positions, and if that drives the profiteers out, so feckin what?

Every area that has been opened up to competition, with a state appointed regulation working to the Governments policies, has increased costs to consumers and business, generally with reduced service levels.

Competitiveness needs to be improved, but the focus of that being wages, welfare rates and the public sector is ideological driven.

**dahamsta** · 08/12/2009, 1:34 PM

Originally Posted by John83

The groceries order forced shops to sell food at no less than cost, right? What were the negatives to its abolition?

Allowing the sale of products or services below costs unfairly weights competition in favour of big business. I have no problem with big business per se, in fact I do an embarassing level of shopping with them for someone that rails against them as often as I do. I do have a problem with unfair competition though.

Small business is dying a death in Ireland and although small business operators are certainly partially to blame for not competing when they should have, those days are long gone. We need to level the playing field, and not allowing below cost selling is a perfectly reasonable and fair way of doing that.

They're in a better position to compete on price already, and if they can't compete on quality on top of that, screw them.

**centre mid** · 08/12/2009, 2:31 PM

In order for large supermarkets to provide goods at low prices, it is usually the producer's margin that gets squeezed. Its killing off many decent Irish producers, even co-ops are struggling.

**NeilMcD** · 08/12/2009, 2:43 PM

Well said Dahamsta, a lot of this is ideological driven, and johns point above is a classic case of something in itselt not being a problem but the knock of effects of it and how it fits into the rest of society making it a problem. Extreme capitalists have a habit of painting things as relatively simple and try to use the common sense argument. One should always be weary of anybody who says anyting to do with economics is simple and deserves a simple solution. The public finances debate is another example of this.

**John83** · 08/12/2009, 3:21 PM

I had a question, not a point, Neil. I'd appreciate it if you didn't try to pin an ideology on me.

**NeilMcD** · 08/12/2009, 3:50 PM

Ok, I read it as a point disguised as a question mainly due to your previous posts on these issues also. Sorry If I misread that.

**mypost** · 08/12/2009, 4:59 PM

Originally Posted by saint dog

204 per week is too much maybe cut it to 190

me and many others on here pay taxs

If you were out of work, and were claiming JA/B, you'll recognise how crap trying to live on €204 p/w in this country is. Most people on it atm, are approaching 12 months if not longer on it, and have no means of finding a job, as there are no jobs available. No, they shouldn't have their allowance cut, but they will pay the heaviest price tomorrow, for the government's handling of the economy.

Found the Prime Time show last night suspicious, in the timing of it.

But when you're a taxpayer, you don't care about social welfare, and those on it are easy targets for the government, the public, and the media.

**NeilMcD** · 08/12/2009, 7:22 PM

I sometims find this country very frurstrating in ithat we seem to put emotions above scientific level headed approaches. We are certainly more latin than northern european in our behaviour towards societal aspects. The Frontline on the floods was a perfect example where the engineer barely got a chance to speak

**dahamsta** · 08/12/2009, 7:37 PM

Charlie Haughey was the test case of that theory, Bertie Ahern the proof.

Fianna Fail must laugh their holes off at the electorate in private.

**Fr Damo** · 09/12/2009, 7:56 AM

didn't Pee Flynn do just that once before a press conterence when he uttered something like " lets go out and talk to the fools ", think it was heard off Mic, but picked up nontheless.

**saint dog** · 09/12/2009, 7:56 AM

Originally Posted by mypost

If you were out of work, and were claiming JA/B, you'll recognise how crap trying to live on �204 p/w in this country is. Most people on it atm, are approaching 12 months if not longer on it, and have no means of finding a job, as there are no jobs available. No, they shouldn't have their allowance cut, but they will pay the heaviest price tomorrow, for the government's handling of the economy.

Found the Prime Time show last night suspicious, in the timing of it.

But when you're a taxpayer, you don't care about social welfare, and those on it are easy targets for the government, the public, and the media.

if you read what i said i stated i was on the 204 a week and still thought it was too much .
especially based on what minimun wage is .
while i have sympathy for you and others who find themselves now out of work , i dont for people who CLAIM to be looking for work whilst getting the dole for 2, 3 , 5 , 10 years its utter rubbish .
but i go back to what i said about if youve worked for so long well and good you deserve the full amount for a certain time but not for 10 years .
Primetime just showed how easy the system is being ripped apart by criminals (which is what they are ) i mean people were working and claiming on the same pps number for years and it going un-noticed
and thats before we even mention the foreigners ,
the laughable thing was people who robbed the state of 30k 60k whatever may or may not have to pay it back but even worse the social welfare continues to pay them after it been proved of their wrong doing , my jesus people like that must be just laughing their heads off
the only way around it would be somethinh like fingerprints

**NeilMcD** · 09/12/2009, 9:46 AM

http://www.independent.ie/national-n...p-1968036.html

Great article by Begg today.

**bennocelt** · 09/12/2009, 10:39 AM

Originally Posted by dahamsta

Jokes go in Off Topic bennocelt. People try to have serious conversations in here, interspersed with intelligent wit. (That wasn't intelligent wit, in case it needs to be added.)

But the point is that the social is a joke. Look at the border counties. Even one place (in Monaghan?) had a population of 800 but a signing on figure of 1400. Sure that's crazy stuff and proves the point that the social welfare is far too much. In the UK its only about 60 pounds.
And also one should factor in the 6% deflation, etc in the year, prices are down, rents are down (not that one pays them on welfare with rent relief), and the cost of living is down. So how is over 204 Euros a week acceptable in these times of debt?