Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
Ireland is grappling with a series of challenges that are impacting our citizens’ quality of life. TheJournal.ie is examining solutions to these issues which have worked or are currently being trialled in other states and asking: Would It Work Here?
LITTER LEVELS ACROSS Ireland are undoubtedly on the rise.
Walking down a street in any city, town or village anywhere in the country will indicate this but hard data confirms it.
The latest survey results from IBAL (Irish Business Against Litter) found just 70% of the towns and cities surveyed were clean to European norms, compared to 85% two years ago.
Three urban areas were deemed to be seriously littered – Galvone in Limerick, Farranree in Cork and Dublin’s North Inner City.
Meanwhile in Galway, the latest IBAL survey described dumping across the city as a ‘critical environmental issue’ – just this week thousands of empty Buckfast bottles were found after the River Claddagh was drained as part of upgrade works.
Dublin City Centre and Limerick both slipped to join Galway as ‘moderately littered’ in the IBAL research.
And the problem doesn’t stop in cities or, indeed, at general litter such as food wrappers and cigarette butts.
Human excrement was found in a playground in Clonakilty in Co Cork this week. Disgusting, yes; unusual, perhaps not.
One mother told TheJournal.ie that this is something she has witnessed in her local playground in Dublin and at a rural area in Tipperary.
So what can be done about this?
The cleanest countries in the world tend to top leaderboards because of certain cultures and ways of life.
Japanese football fans made headlines for cleaning up rubbish in a stadium during the 2014 World Cup in Brazil.
In Japanese culture, it’s considered appropriate to clean up after yourself at public events such as concerts, festivals and sports games.
However, there are exceptions and it is not always just the cultural values of a place which dictate how clean it can be.
The island of Singapore has managed to transform itself from a swampy land mass to one of the cleanest places in the world.
How did it do it? Strict fines. Really strict fines.
A person can be fined, or even arrested, for littering, spitting or selling chewing gum.
Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew introduced the severe anti-litter laws in the 1960s and they are still in force today.
People can be fined up to $1,000 (€670) for dropping litter on their first conviction, going up to $5,000 (€3,355) for repeat offenders.
If you’re caught a third time you could even be made to wear a sign reading, “I am a litter lout.”
You can also be fined $100 (€67) for putting your chewed gum anywhere that’s not a bin and there’s a $100 fine for not flushing a public toilet. Yes, spot checks are carried out.
Would it work here?
We already have fines here so the problem isn’t a lack of laws. There is, however, a lack of implementation.
Littering in a public place is an offence in Ireland that can be subject to an on-the-spot fine of €150, or a maximum fine of €3,000 if convicted in a District Court.
If a person continues this after being convicted, they are guilty of a further offence and can be fined up to €600 for each day it continues.
In serious incidents, there is a maximum fine of up to €130,000 and a fine of up to €10,000 per day for continuing offences.
However, while we may have the legislation around littering, very few fines that are issued are actually paid.
In the years 2014 and 2015 Dublin council paid €670,000 and €640,000 respectively to collect illegally dumped litter but those who are fined for the offence simply aren’t coughing up.
Of the 6,259 fines issued across Dublin city between 2013 and 2015 – only 2,042 were paid in full with a further 77 fines being partially paid.
The issue is not limited to Dublin city, less than half of all fines issued in Cork city since 2012 have been paid.
What’s our problem?
So why do fines work in Singapore but not here? Ireland is not alone in this. Many countries struggle with litter, and our neighbours in the UK have similar issues.
Britain has carried out extensive research on the effectiveness – or ineffectiveness – of fines which found that people who have seen or heard about fines being issued through media reports are more likely to think they are effective.
A report on the Effectiveness of Enforcement on Behaviour Change stated:
Attitudes to enforcement are greatly shaped by the degree to which an individual sees them as a threat – and many do not think it is likely they will be fined for environmental offences.
It also stated that, “A fixed penalty notice should only be issued where there is enough evidence to support a prosecution, so in the event that it is not paid, an authority will be able to follow it up in court.”
Dublin councillor Ciaran Perry echoed this describing how the current system means the chance an an illegal dumper getting prosecuted is slim but said “illegal dumpers should fear getting caught”.
It doesn’t look like Ireland will clean up its act as long as people feel they are able to get away with it.
So would you support stricter fines for littering?
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
It shouldn’t be based on your age. It should be based on your employment history. Anyone can lose their job and find themselves in financial difficulty, even a 20 year old. The dole should start at a high rate for those who have been in employment. It can be reduced for every month you are on it to encourage you to find new employment quickly.
And nobody should be able to claim welfare from cradle to grave without having to contribute back to society unless they have some disability that prevents them from doing so. It’s a strange society we have where a waster can start claiming from the age of 18, having contributed nothing, yet a self employed person, who has fallen on hard times and has contributed thousands in prsi and tax, has to jump through hoops to get a little help.
You’re right Keith. It should depend on your contributions. Age should not be a factor. In France you get 75% of your salary for maybe a year and then you go down to the basic. If you have not paid in, then you can expect the minimum. If you have paid, then your welfare should be commensurate with your stamps. This must also include the self employed who are truly discriminated against.
They take into account your PRSI contributions NOT how much you’ve worked – that is a subtle distinction since PRSI only counts after 2013 now – after the massive recession started.
So say if you are 27 now, and worked since you were 16, you won’t automatically qualify for jack because you’ve been unemployed since 2013
The self employed do not pay the same rate of social insurance. They should not expect the same out of the system when they don’t put as much in a PAYE workers.
I agree! I am 23 but been paying taxes since I was 18. I claimed social for two months just before I was 19. I hadn’t paid a huge amount of tax so understood getting less made sense. Now, after four solid years in the workforce, if I were to lose my job, it wouldn’t seem fair to only take age into consideration.
After 4 solid years…no
Try 20 solid years
The article is about payments for those under twentyfour so unless you expect four year olds to be working your comment isnt really relevant
I am not sure that a 22 year old graduate out from doing a degree course in college or university has made any PRSI contributionsby the time they are looking for work. so I think that it would be unfair to penalise them rather give them a loan or a grant to help them on their feet. The fact is that an extra €50 on top of the €100 social welfare while holding down an intern JobBridge position is often not enough to make ends meet particularly if they come from a rural area and looking for work in the city. It should be means tested in order to encourage people to take up work or training and not become a barrier to seking employment?
Some got writedowns others got cutbacks.
During the last decade, the unemployment rate hovered around 4% for the 8 years before the crash in 2008. This means that 96% of people, a huge majority will work when there is work available.
Of that 4% chronic unemployed, many are not suitable for the types of employment that a modern economy offers. These would be people with minimal education looking for manual labour in factories, building sites and farms etc. Technology development has greatly reduced the numbers of these jobs and so people will struggle to find work in these areas now.
There are also many people out there who have borderline educational, social and psychiatric issues which will in practice exclude them from the jobs market. They may not have any formal medical diagnosis but every town and parish has these people that will never be able to hold down a job. It’s not possible to put an exact figure on these groups that can’t or are not capable of finding suitable work but let’s call it 2% for the sake of argument.
That would leave only 2% of the working population who remain on social welfare by choice. A fraction of these will also be caught in the poverty trap where the cost of child minding, travel etc and lost social welfare benefits would outweigh the earnings if they found employment. This is especially true with the attacks on wages and working conditions during the recession and the prevalence of minimum wage/minimal hours contracts now.
Ireland had one of the lowest unemployment rates in Europe during the boom and always had one of the highest emigration rates demonstrating our willingness to work whenever and wherever employment can be found.
Even if we assumed that the measured low of 4% unemployed were all unwilling to work (which is clearly not the case). 4% of the current total Labour Force of 2.2 million approximately equates to 88,000 people. It would take 88k people each claiming €200 per week in payments, 123 years before the total would match the €113 billion and counting that has been extorted from Ireland to pay for the bank bailout.
The true parasites don’t live at the bottom of the pyramid, they reside on the top in areas like finance and politics.
@Waddler – Sums it up perfectly…
Waddler you’re not allowed talk common sense on here, the country is literally swimming in good paying jobs, nobody is emigrating anymore, all school leavers are walking straight into the job they wanted and are qualified for with huge salaries and bonuses, all the emigrants have returned home to walk straight into a great job, so anyone currently claiming social welfare benefit is bone idle scrounger a blight on such a prosperous society.
Get a job get a job!.
The person coming from a good job is going to be in a stronger position in terms of savings and finding more work than someone with no history of employment. Why do they need higher benefits as well?
1) they contributed more
2) they could have a mortgage if so domestic bills also
3) they could have mouths to feed while someone younger ,the dole could just be their weekend spending money.
4) if a person has savings it means they were prudent and should not be held against them
Jo45, there is no provision for the self employed to increase contributions.So , this is unfair. No dole ,nothing. They should be able to topup and take all benefits.
Jo45
Most of the self employed I know, including myself when I was self employed would be happy to pay more if they could claim later. Don’t forget either that a lot of self employed also have staff so are paying employers PRSI
@joe 45
Prsi payments are a smaller % for self employed. That does not mean they pay less. When I became self employed I paid much more tax, I paid the same as my previous salary before taxes to the tax man. I was entitled to less as a result of more contributions to the state.
The system is not equal nor fair. It is obvious many people here have no idea on the system unaware of job seekers and job benefits differences.
It is discriminatory to base it on age
I’ll play so try 28 years solid
There should be NO dole payments for people who have not worked previously.
The problem with kids leaving school to go straight on the dole is that they become used to the free money, any subsequent job offer they may get, they only consider the pay in excess of their “free money”.
This only deepens the inter-generational welfare trap.
So what then John Doe all young people should depend on their parents to survive, have no semblance of a social life, many of these parents are barely able to keep a roof over their heads ffs, and once your children leave school they lose their children’s allowance, yeah way to go I’m alright how are you JACK?.
William there is a serious problem with welfare living as a lifestyle choice.
I am proud to live in a country where we look after the weakest members of our society and we should continue to do so.
The longer someone is in the welfare system it gets increasingly difficult to get out. The best remedy to this is not to entangle young people into this trap which essentially dooms them to poverty for life.
How to prevent this I’m not sure but making it difficult to initially receive this money would be a good start.
15 years ago there was loads of decent jobs not so today, some young people do like to keep their dignity, its not a case of beggars can’t be choosers, but slave labour like scambridge or unscrupulous employers offering the bare minimum wage jobs for hard work and long hours.
€100 is hardly a major incentive to remain on the dole?, if living at home most young people would have to pay Mammy for their keep which would leave them very little, but to some that paltry amount is enough for them to go on the lash for the whole w/end, in fact you’d be lucky to get change out of €60 for one night out, god help them if they got hooked on the fags?.
@ a boys
The bare minimum wage is simply the minimum wage. If you don’t like it you will find it is quite high compared to other countries.
As for people leaving Ireland if they are doing it for better wages they aren’t getting it on minimum wages. I know many left and are doing jobs they wouldn’t do here. They aren’t better off as a result.
I’m not suggesting for a second that anyone who needs money to live shouldn’t get it.
The requirement to get money (for all ages) should be prerequisite on one or more of the following:
Have worked previously,
Attend full time voluntary community work,
Attend supervised jobs club,
Have a disability preventing work,
In education after a long period of unemployment.
there were plenty of people, even at the time you mention when there was a job for anyone that wanted one, who looked forward to turning 18 so that they could get “their money”. With no intention of ever working. This needs to be tackled.
And not for the people who work and resent their taxes subsidising those who don’t. It needs to be tackled to improve the dignity and mental well being of these poor unfortunates who think that living on handouts and adding nothing to society is an enticing lifestyle.
No they don’t. In fact they pay more than employees with no rights to benefits.
Kal there are many employers in certain industries that are exploiting their staff and making them work unholy hours knowing full well that they’re paying them a lot less than their work and service deserves.
But tough sh!t it seems they will always do what they can get away with because if you don’t like it they know full well there will always someone else willing to be exploited and fill the void.
Some employers really are despicable human creatures.
John Doe there will always be a small minority who are not willing to work only these days they have a lot less as all dole rates were cut and in some cases slashed, I don’t think these lifetime dolers are something to get too worked up over as it was and will always be the same.
You’d swear Ireland was the only country in the world who has lifetime social welfare recipients?.
wether your 18 r 58 it shouldn’t matter were all adults you get the same treatment in the system at 18 as a 58 yr old and it doesn’t matter what your living conditions r i know a 17 year old has 2 kids and a mortgage so thats not an issue you can vote at 18 you are as important to society as the 58 year old equality for all no second class on the dole please
So what’s your solution for graduates, who have been unable to find paid employment due to a lack of experience, who are unable to move back in with their parents? They should starve on the streets? Or are you claiming it’s easy to get a job with no experience and a Bachelor’s Degree in this current climate? You want to tackle long-term unemployment in economically depressed areas, fine, I tend to agree, but in that case under-25s are not your problem. There’s very good, legitimate reasons to not have any P45s when you’re under 25 these days. I know more young people who have never been employed than ones who have, and not all of them can just run home to mammy and daddy and get everything handed to them. Which, by the way, is far more likely to create a welfare culture than being on your own claiming the dole will. At least if you’re living on your own in a city where there’s jobs available you can find work, and it teaches you to be independent. Young people need supports right now because the previous generation were careless with the economy, so throwing stones because we haven’t paid any PRSI contributions is a bit stupid when we also aren’t responsible for the bank runs or the unsustainable property bubble.
Anyone actively seeking employment should be entitled to the same allowance, regardless of their age. It’s these spongers who spend their days on the steps of a court that need to be cut to the minimum.
+1
This decision was instrumental in pushing hundreds of young people out of the country. It seems incomprehensible to me that there would be any, but a tiny minority, of young people under the age of 24 who wouldn’t want to work, who would be happy sitting on their Mother’s couch all day watching Murder She Wrote and doing nothing because they don’t have the money to go out with their friends at the weekend, or pay for sports gear or whatever.
The previous and current governments couldn’t give a s**t about young people in Ireland. Time and time again it’s young people who were targeted for cuts – all with the overriding drive to push them to emigrate while older voters (who are statistically much more wealthy any pretty much every other group) are looked after because they’ll vote.
It was a disgraceful decision and should be reversed. The damage it does to those it impacts and the country as a whole is untold.
I’m saving up to leave this country and I wouldn’t plan on returning.
As a comparison, the old Swedish system would work here – you get a basic payment (around €30/day) if you have not worked a year/never worked, if you have worked 1 year or more you get up to €1000/month (after tax – you pay tax on Social Welfare), which drops down as to around 70% of that until 450 days are reached (or 300 if you do not have kids). After that if you have not found work, you are put on paid community employment that does not compete with commercial work (so, no jobsbridge) based on your skillset.
The age based discrimination, regardless of contribution is exactly that – age based discrimination. An unemployed 18 year old and an unemployed 25 year old need the same basic needs to live on. If they have other circumstances, then they should be taken up outside of basic social security. Imagine if they cut welfare from 60 to 68 year olds on whatever logic they use here (they can live off their kids, they don’t need the money as much) – there would be an uproar, but here they expect the younger people to do what Irish people have been doing for years – shut up or get out.
This way, if you have paid in for a year, you are entitled to welfare regardless of age, but it discourages long term unemployment.
Kudos Alan Kennedy very well said, there will of course always be a certain few lifetime welfare recipients not wanting to work, there was lifetime dolers 40 years ago, 20 years ago as there is today and there will 40 years from now its a very small number of welfare claimants, to listen to some holier than thou’s on here you’d swear that everyone claiming SW are lazy scroungers who couldn’t be arsed to look for a job, don’t you know that this bastion of prosperity Ireland country has jobs galore enough to wipe out the whole live register?, not!.
And so what Paul Roche if Alan is still in Leeds – all that does is prove his point. It was fairly obvious that the point of cutting SW rates for under 24s was to force the mass emigration of our young people in order to get the numbers on the live register down, which of course impressed the ECB & IMF. Every time FG get into office their first targets are young adults. In the 80′s it was a case of taking medical cards from university students and increasing college fees, this time round it was to get rid of them.
Paul is nasty a troll. He’s best ignored.
Incapable of civility, Alan?
its because of this system that they are spongers and they are seeking work and some have done more work than you in there lifetime we cant jude what we dont know
All else being equal, should a 24 year old be paid less than a 28 year old for doing the same work? If we reject ageism in the workplace how can we justify it in our social supports?
Its only ageism when it discriminates against older people, the same way sexism can only discriminate against females and racism can only discriminate against non-whites.
But they aren’t working !! They are been paid to stay in bed. Less money they are given more likely they will get a job !!
I know of a 23year old has a job for 8.65 ph 38hours a week. By the time she travels and pays parking lunch etc she might be same off on the dole. But it will and does pay off in the long term
Ideally, it should be done in such a way that benefits those who have worked rather than those who are looking for a handout. A 24yr old that has worked and contributed to the system should obviously be entitled to the same among of social welfare as a 25 or 30 year old would be entitled to should they find themselves out of a job. A 24 yr old who has never worked a day in their lives, on the other hand, different ballgame. Minimum, subsistence level for these people.
They are not staying in bed! Most of the early twenties are catching flights to start a new life abroad!
Shane, that logic applies pretty consistently across demographics I would have thought. Why do you only feel it’s necessary to “encourage” the youth to engage in work with the threat of poverty but not the slightly older unemployed?
“Less money they are given more likely they will get a job !!”
It’s not that simple. Take a look at the Irish Times MRBI poll it’s on their website, look at the 18-24 age category, what they say their no1 issue is – JOBS AND THE ECONOMY – not social welfare or any similar thing like “helping the less well off ” -JOBS. The tiger era proved that most people will work if they are given the chance.
A 500euro dole rate might be a disincentive but 188 is nowhere near one, you can earn at least 300 just part time packing shelves for Gods sake. The small segment of lifers (a group under massive attack now, rightly so) should not be an excuse to punish people who’ve educated themselves and are desperate to start their careers.
€300 a week in a supermarket is more full time than part time tbh.
Ryan someone working full time on minimum wage will only be 140e better off than on the dole. When you factor in travel and costs associated with going to work then you can see why alot will chose not to work. It shouldn’t be raised
They should start with Tallaght. Why target the youth when we all know there are entire postal districts scamming the welfare?
George if they are getting flights they won’t be claiming
Ryan it’s the very reason people won’t do fast food jobs that might only get 250pw
Seems like the minimum wage should be raised so.
Here’s a conundrum, If mrX is getting rent allowance and starts a job he looses his rent allowance so the job he gets must pay at least €400 pw to just match the rent allowance he received (1 cent over 340 pw cohabiting or 188 single and you loose rent allowance) Catch is most people want to work but with the social housing shortage it makes it almost impossible for someone unemployed in private accommodation to find work that would match the rent allowance.
What a stupid comment Egg Head. There’s plenty of people in Dublin 24 who are working and not claiming benefits. Not everyone who’s claiming benefits here is a scrounger either, many just can’t get a job, despite their best efforts. And then there’s those of us who aren’t even entitled to any government help and have to just get by on our own.
Stop being stereotypical and basing all your opinions of a postcode on second-hand information.
Mrs shal, why assume it’s based on second hand info? I know quite a few lads out in D24 and the only ones not on the take are the ones who don’t work, the rest view the dole & RA as an entitlement whether employed or otherwise. It’s endemic out there with welfare treated like a community support scheme – employers give staff time off to sign on or collect their scratcher, and others are told to apply via Jobridge and the boss then pays cash in hand.
Everyone in Tallaght may not be at the same game, but there’s certainly a higher proportion of Tallaght scamming than you’ll find in any area further east.
Egg to the best of my knowledge there are both private and council estates in Tallaght. People living in council homes don’t get RA, and the majority of people in private housing are paying mortgages and couldn’t possibly live on “state hand outs” and pay a mortgage. You might as well be saying that their are whole counties in the country where the majority are “scamming” the state.
I think you’re getting it second hand because you’re claiming that the entire D24 postcode is scamming the welfare system, which is blatantly untrue. I’m from Dublin 24, and I’m not a scrounger. Neither are the vast majority of people I know. There’s welfare scammers and hard workers everywhere. And Fran’s right- Tallaght is massive, it’s not all bad because of a few dodgy estates(which still have some good people living in them).
It really should be means tested . ie is he a scrounger or is he a genuine guy who is actually looking for a job
You are AGGRESSIVELY means tested, you’ve to come to them with a career plan, you’ve to fill out a form called a UP90 explaining where (application by application) you looked for work, what the outcome was, then periodically are hauled in for reviews and asked “so whys it not working out? it’s been a year?” and if you start to drag on they just end up assigning you something to do with your time.
I’m not saying any of this is bad – I think it’s great, I used to hate paying tax and seeing people scrounge, but the system has got way more strict the last 5 years people don’t seem to realize.
Ryan, all of the things that you’ve described are true, but none of it amounts to means testing.
A means test comes with the jobseeking checks. They want bank statements, even your credit union. You have any kind of serious savings they won’t give you anything.
If you have an SUV from when you DID have money they’ll have no trouble telling you to sell it, downsize to a smaller car then get back to them when that’s done.
Ah, so you mean they won’t give you money if you don’t need it.
I’m not saying it’s a bad thing that they means test you – I’m merely refuting the idea that they don’t and need to start.
People seem totally unaware of :
1. What the rules are
2. How much more strict the system has got (it’s actually gone a little overboard with JS at least, in some areas)
People have notions of free transport, free houses, free bills…this is nowhere near reality
Eh the only means test I ever had was “you’re under 25″ and entitled to nothing. I had proof I’ve been living and working away from home for years but that didn’t matter.
They don’t take account of you living away from home – even the student grants ignore this, rather absurdly.
If you filled out a JA form you filled out a means test – it’s just part of the normal forms you get to fill out, if you didn’t fill it out that might be a reason you were rejected? or it may be your parents making more than the threshold (before a certain age they count you as one unit – even if you’ve been living away for years)
I wanted to apply for voluntary redundancy because I wasn’t making enough to live on in work. Before I did that I asked the social what I’d be entitled to. The only thing they could do was the dockets (which at the time I didn’t know were a thing), but at a rate for people under 25. My parents weren’t making enough money at all as they had also lost jobs/had hours cut. Had I no job at all I’d have had to move back with my parents who could barely support themselves. It’s a frustrating position to be in when you’re just out of college and a lot of companies weren’t taking on graduates.
Joanna – what is the docket?
I think accommodation should be taken into account. Ie living at home or not
It’s always baffled me why this is not taken into account – if it was it would discourage this stay at home until 35 thing, it would also be more progressive.
If you are living at home, ultimately you only need about €40-50 a week, what do you need? Something to contribute to home, maybe transport fare/petrol money? That’s really it…you’ve no shopping to do, no bills, no rent..
Accommodation is taken into account when assessing Job Seekers Allowance, but not Job Seekers Benefit.
However, the income of the people you are living with is relevant. So if you’re living with retired/umemployed parents, you’ll have less deducted from your allowance. But if you’re living with wealthy parents, you’ll be offered about a tenner a week.
Rather cruelly, they will assess you against a partner, but they won’t let you give your tax credits to that partner. So if your boyfriend/girlfiend is making ok money, and you’ve just finished college, and you’re living together, you will be offered pittance in JSA because you are jointly assessed (regardless of rent you might need to contribute), yet on the other side of the government the Revenue won’t let you be jointly assessed for tax, so you can’t take the Job Seekers tax credits.
Might not be able to be jointly assessed of just living together but if married or in a partnership you can transfer your tax credits
When I left school in the 80s Ryan if you were still living at home with your parents you’re entitlement was based on means testing. My brother used to get £1.75 a week!!! I had a part time job at the weekends when I was in school and was made permanent when I did my leaving cert. I don’t know why they changed the means testing for school leavers.
I should have read Ronans post before I wrote ^^^ which makes me look like an idiot! I don’t have kids so I’ll use that as my excuse.
Of course they should. They need every possible discouragement from becoming lifetime dole dependents – both for themselves and introducing this career doler cycle to their own children. Any thing that spurs people into standing on their own two feet has got to be good for society.
People under 24 should be on increased welfare if anything. They need to buy fashionable clothes and buy alcohol so they’re brave enough to talk to the opposite sex and get the ride.
We don’t know the circumstances of every individual under 24 to answer the poll yes or no…. Aren’t they means tested?
Not means tested that’s just the rule
Wow, didn’t know that, so if they’re out on their own they’re on the same as someone living with their parents rent free? Seems like it should be means tested… Anyway I dunno the circumstances
JA is means tested but the above rates are the Max for a given age bracker
I actually screen shot that, 100% with one one vote mine!!
Many congratulations!
I just voted and it’s a big green don’t know circle, I feel like Jon Snow now.
Thanks Neal it’s the little things that get you through the day.
You know nothing Jon snow
You cannot become Lord Commander of the Nights Watch by knowing nothing….
Spoiler Alert :P
Was delighted though when that happened. Can’t wait for episode 5.
Would you like a rubber medal?
Isn’t it mad how the small fella can speak to dragons? :-O
Mad Ted.
Wait til he’s forced to buy health insurance.
On the one hand I see what they were thinking with this. We had a generation who turned 18-21 right as the crash hit, and it was dragging on too long (partly because of growth killing austerity without any stimulus or economic reform) that some of these would be speeding towards their 30th birthday without ever having worked, and that’s a dangerous thing for a society when you have a huge chunk of the youth who don’t know what it’s like to get up and work, with their only experience of getting money being given in, for nothing in exchange…so I get that motive, I just think this was a bad way to execute it – not all of us live with mammy until 35 – how can someone live on €100 a week? My rent alone is 125 (no, not everyone gets rent allowance)
125 a week is fairly good considering some parts of Dublin its nearly 300 a week
All depends how many you’re sharing with, who the landlord is an that jazz, I’m not saying it’s a tough rent I’m saying it would swallow most of the 188 and on 100 you would not have a hope of living outside home – it just would not be possible even if you lived beside the tesco reductions section day and night
I was on the dole for a few weeks in 2007 between college and starting work. It was a ridiculous €211 a week and I partied big time with it. I lived at home, had no bills so it was way too much money to give me. So I believe that it should be reduced for under 24s, we already have one of the most generous welfare systems in the world.
So those of us who don’t want to p1ss it away have to be punished because you wasted it?
Not because I p1ssed it away, because €188 is too much money for a broke country to give on handouts. Dole was ridiculously inflated over the boom years and still is.
We are not a broke country and never were, we were a country with a budget deficit, as every country in the western world was for the last 10 years.
We have among the lowest social spending in the OECD the notion of our system being generous is fact free nonsense. There is always going to have to be a balance between paying people something that they can live on and trying to keep a gap between wages and welfare so there is an incentive, but €100 is a p1sstake, and €188 may be one thing or the other – but it’s certainly not generious
Broke country? I thought the recovery was in fill swing and this was the best small country to do business in?
How could you party big time with 200 euro you must of being drinkin dutch gold at home in your gaff.as for people livin at home with mammy and daddy I suppose it does make a differance as they would have no bills.
Never work automatic welfare. Self employed, pay your way, go bust, no welfare…
Tell me about it. It really winds me up. I’m self-employed and the amount of PRSI and tax I pay is sickening, yet if anything happens to my employment, I get nothing. Why am I paying to have social insurance when in fact, I have no entitlement to social insurance?!
This. This is where the biggest imbalance is.
The self employed DO NOT pay the same PRSI as everyone else. Their companies have not paid employer’s PRSI on their behalf.
I have been self employed and employed. When I was self employed I paid 4% PRSI. When I returned to the PAYE work force my contribution was 4% personal + 11% employers.
If I become unemployed tomorrow there will be 30% of my annual salary in the fund. If a contractor beside me becomes unemployed, there will be 8% of his/her annual salary in the fund.
It is not the same thing, that’s why less benefits are levied.
Again, Job Seekers Allowance does not equal Job Seekers Benefit. If you are self-employed, go bust, have no assets, you may well get full JSA. You are just not entitled to JSB.
I always ask the same thing. Would the self-employed be willing to pay 15% PRSI to match what is being contributed by and for PAYE workers? No? Didn’t think so.
Not to mention the fact that they’d be far better off buying a private unemployment insurance with that 11%, and get a much better deal than the government offers. But do they do that? No, they enjoy paying less tax, then complain when they don’t get the same benefits back.
Scarlett, you do not get unemployment benefit for your Class S contributions. But you do get:
- Maternity Benefit
- Adoptive Benefit
- Widow’s, Widower’s or Surviving Civil Partner’s (Contributory) Pension
- State Pension (Contributory)
Which amounts to lots of social insurance – maternity cover and state pension
Thanks Ronan. I’m pretty new to self-employment so I’m wading through piles of info!
Pay no mind to the youth its not like the future depends on it. The young people of this country got a raw raw deal they never experienced the perks of the Celtic tiger now they are expected to pay for it for the rest of their lives expected to immigrate expected to shut up and work for nothing live on nothing whilst watching the so called elders of the nation the wise ones cream off their backs whilst the other adults just bend over and do nothing. The main philosophy of the last century was to have the people in the same predicament fighting amongst themselves never ever questioning why they pit their anger against themselves but just a different name and face. Look up not to the side. The youth of Ireland need support not lazy minded scapegoating. A pint of milk cost the same for everyone.
Its very unfortunate that a lot of young people are on the dole and its the bankers fault. In my opinion from 18 people should be given €188 for a year, if after the year your still unemployed and show no signs of looking for work or training then it should be lowered to €100. Also long term unemployed people should be given the chance to retrain and if its not taken they lose their benefits. This country has too many scroungers at the minute
Stop talking sense, you! You’ll scare the politicians.
Young people in this country get screwed. You might be over 18 but you don’t get the same rights as older adults.
If you’re on the dole, you get less money. If you go to college, you’re given a grant that takes months to actually be sorted, or if your parents earn over the low income threshold, you get nothing, and in both cases, you aren’t even entitled to the dole if you haven’t got a job(despite the fact that college pays nothing and costs a huge amount).
Then people wonder why so many young people are emmigrating or staying at home until late into life. It’s ridiculous.
When young people are working they pay the full rate of tax, PRSI, USC etc, so why are they being robed of their entitlements, I guess its because they don’t vote in significant numbers and so the government feels they can shit all over them without any backlash, well its time our young people stand up and be counted come the next election, they could make a significant difference.
Was put in place to pay of Europe. Just another measure to save elite in Irish society. FG/LAB/FF policy. Take from the weakest. We accept it so we have to live with it..
A six foot 12 stone 20 year old probably needs more money than a 6 foot 12 stone 50 year old.
What? Does Joan Burton think that younger people eat less?
A man is a man no matter what his age.
Cutting their allowance is just another cheap government scam to save a few pence and make themselves look like they’re doing something.
Refuse them the dole then spin it into:
‘Great news…..the live register fell by 5,000 this month…. ergo….5,000 new jobs created.’
5,000 young Irish citizens starving and scrimping below the poverty line more like.
Government lies for a gullible electorate.
I only wish the reduced rate was around when i was 20. I spent a couple of years on the dole living at home. Realistically I used to give 30 quid a week to the mother, a few pound for fags during the week and quite comfortably lived of the rest for the week. I remember saving enough to buy a PS3 in only a few weeks. I know this is the treand as a number of my friends did the same. Why would you want to work when you can get by living at home with 150 quid a week after the mother is paid ?
I copped myself on and got trained to work, living out of home now and I am lucky to have 1.50 a week after all the bills are paid and I am convinced that if I got less when on the dole, I would have got up of my arse a lot sooner.
24 year old who has a degree and worked from the age of 16 becomes unemployed and is entitled to €144.
26 year old who hasn’t gone to college and never worked and has been on social welfare doing FAS courses is entitled to €188 and €238 while on course. This 26 year old has no intention if working.
Who is more entitled to a higher social welfare?
The 44 per cent that is voting no must be all Blue Shirts.
Or people who believe that everyone who can should contribute to society and not drain it for their lifetimes.
So this a poll to see do we agree on whether the dole should be cut for under 24. The people who left school at the time of a recession and the country was disaster. Some areas may have employment but not every where. Seems its to punish does that can’t find a job. Agreed that some don’t want to find a job. But what about does that do. Travel costs money and people have to travel for interviews. If you just cut it across the board some might not be even able to apply for a job or go for interviews. Not every one lives in the cities.
I think it should be based on individual circumstances, some 18-24 may not have parents of family to fall back on.
We have gardai, nurses,firemen,bankers, builders all under 24 so why treat them any different they keep the country going
Newly qualified nurses are treated differently Cian. They earn less then their peers for doing the same job….
lol
Vote Yes for Equality?
When I was 23 I was married with a mortgage (but no kids), I had been working summers since I was 15 and worked part time all the way through my degree (full time in summers), and worked full time while I was completing my masters. I would have been fairly pissed off to be getting 100 a week when my neighbour aged 26 on rent allowance and medical card who never worked or went to college sat back and got 188.
GAH!
A lot of people here are mixing up Job Seekers Allowance with Job Seekers Benefit.
Job Seekers Benefit is what you get, based on your stamps, when you become unemployed. Job Seekers Allowance is what you may get (means tested) when your benefit runs out, or if you’re not entitled to benefit.
This article is about Job Seekers Allowance, and as such has nothing to do with stamps. It is a subsistence payment for those with no/exhausted benefit.
Someone under 25 would still get full benefit if they’re entitled to it, but they can only get partial allowance. As such the allowance is unfairly discriminatory.
I’d much rather have allowance taper off over a few years to reduce the incentive for long term unemployment, instead of punishing those most likely to find themselves unemployed in bad times (the under 25s) for being unemployed.
I’d have job seekers allowance reduce by 10 euro for every 6 months you’re claiming continuously, allowing a reset if someone works (even casually, declared) for a period of 6 months, or perhaps allowing a bump up the scale if they take up seasonal christmas work, or take up training.
Thanks for clearing that up Rónán. I didn’t realise that those who paid into our system with their stamps would get full amount regardless of age.
It should be based on their circumstances, not their age.
typical freeloader always on about rights but never responsibilities
@Patjoejoe123: Thank God you are alive, that rock didn’t crush you and you managed to crawl out from underneath it. You were missing in action that last couple of days, we missed your oh so valuable input into the important articles over the last couple of days. Mind you it must have been a big rock as your fellow travellers in YFG also were trapped.
I’m still committed to the idea that (injuries, disability and illness aside) your social welfare cheque should be directly linked to how much volunteer work you do with charities, cleaning the environment while an organisation aids your job search
I think the dole should be at least €600 a week for everyone, increasing the longer you are on it by €100 a month and all foreign holidays, rent, new cars and expenses paid for too. Bit like being a TD but actually would cost far far less.
Red thumbs ahoy!.
Took on 2 male 23 years olds paying them 10 euro an hour . They did not like work or any responsibility . One left to go back on welfare .second tought he was worth 20 euro an hour and was entitled to it .
Agree with based on employment history as opposed to purely age alone.
However, even more unfair is the fact that when taking part in schemes such as jobbridge you will only receive €50 on top of the €100 or €144 (depending on age). People who take part in such schemes should automatically have their payment brought to €188 and the top up of €50 on top of that. These schemes are particularly targeted at these age groups yet we have situations where a young person doing a 40hour week internship is earning €150 or €194 per week (top up included) while someone making little effort to obtain a job will receive €188 for doing nothing at all…
Bloody sense of entitlement in this country I was brought up to be ashamed to be on the dole when I could be out working EARNING my living, this guy wants a kick in the hole
There needs to be a circumstantial review in place. The amount should be dependent on whether one has worked or not. By the time I was 24, I had been working ten years, three of those years full time. The cuts to payments didn’t come until after I had turned 24 but had it happened during the summer I spent manically looking for a full time job between college terms, I would have resented receiving the same amount of money as someone who had just left school after the LC and went straight on the Dole. I know those instances are in the minority, but it still would have rankled me.
I think that if your old enough to give your life for your country through the armed forces you should treated the same in other matters. If you were in the middle east like the Lebanon and kidnapped by Islamic extremists do you think they’d treat you any different if you were under 26. It’s a form of discrimination based on age.
Those who are on the dole for more than 12 months should be reduced
Everyone should get the same amount irrespective of age… But that amount should be less than €188
If only James McDaid was as active in chasing down a job for himself and getting off social welfare. That’s probably way down his to do list, seems to think it’s much easier to scrounge more by way of handouts from the state. Wrong attitude altogether.
Like most social welfare payments, these reductions are due to those who pull the p&ss, those who choose living on social welfare as a career choice, where it is a generational career choice, whose ambition in life is to get their corpo house etc. I know the pc brigade will red thumb me, but the fact is that is certain communities this is the culture. Young people who went to college or worked are the ones who lose out, they are the ones who will emigrate to being their talents to another country.
Those who signed on at 18 with no intention of working wont be the ones leaving and social welfare will just leave them be.
How about reducing politicians wages as they are well over flated as it is instead of screwing those who are disadvantage.
At the height of the crisis there was 15% unemployment. That means that 85 out of 100 who wanted a job, got a job. Here’s a newsflash: if you’re willing to work hard, study, move yown, acquire skills etc…you won’t be unemployed for long.
Tom that was before the banking crisis.
Just like everything should be tested. If you are getting 188 should be if you are living away from home you got rent food bills. But If living with a parent they may let it slide.
Welfare should be contribution based, ie payment proportional to PRSI paid
Absolutely Yes. The very last thing our social welfare system should be doing is encouraging a lifetime of welfare dependency by getting people hooked on free money (other people’s, namely hard-working taxpayers’, money) from a young age.
Again each circumstance is different. I’m working since I’m 16. Mtg at 23 so each case should be different
My take on it is you pay into the system you get something from the system.
What gets me is how they actually expect someone to live on €100 a week. Particularly if you’re a university graduate with loans. I think it’s to drive people back into their parents’ homes, but that involves employable graduates moving back to rural, economically depressed areas where they will not find work because they can’t afford to rent in a city. It also puts unfair burdens on parents, who have been under the financial burden of putting a child through university for the past four years. And while under-25s are getting reduced payments, people who were both fit to work and on social welfare prior to the recession (when we had full employment), whose parents were on social welfare, whose children will be on social welfare, who have no PRSI contributions at age 35 because they have no interest in working, are requesting larger council houses for the seven or eight children they expect tax payers to support. Now, I absolutely agree that it’s not completely fair to fully blame those people, we have created a ‘welfare culture’, claiming social welfare is seen as ‘normal’ in many areas, particularly where there’s poverty, decreased educational and job opportunities and high crime rates. But it’s still a much larger, and more permanent, issue than recent graduates who are looking for work in a country with job shortages.
The options on the poll are vague in my opinion. I believe that if a school leaver or a grad fresh out of college gets paid work and earns stamps for the required time ( Is it 18 mths now?) & loses their job they should get the full €188. They have been on the ladder and paid into the system so should be treated no differently based on age.
The biggest problem with the SW system is the ‘lifers’ who get the full whack, Rent Allowance, Fuel subsidy, Medical Card, etc. (and visit the local CWO to get help with bills or new appliance/buggy etc) and have never dreamed of working a day .
Dept and Govt policy is way too simplistic and targets folk based solely on age, ignoring the elephant in the room.
No. At that age they are more likely to be unemployed. I am 35. The Constitution refers to equal treatment. I think this policy smacks of Thatcherite “on yer bike” thinking. Many unemployed are that way because employers refuse to invest the time and money to retrain Irish longterm unemployed. Why would they when they can just fly in experienced workers from Poland or China?
have your say