At one point heroin addicts were classed as having a disability. I wonder did that come in around 1996 which would explain the jump in people claiming long term disability. As far as i know they don’t do this anymore.
Nationalising private debt while not giving bondholders even a slight haircut was incredibly immoral and just goes to show that the state were not looking out for its citizens best interests. This has been my point all along.
If we all turned 65 tomorrow we would be able to draw down a 22k pension?
We didn’t really have a choice . Morality had nothing to be with the call . It was take it or leave it . Big international finance don’t really do morality .
Which makes it all the more galling that they appeal the EU ruling on Apple taxes.
Again the government feel that serves Ireland’s interests . Time will tell .
I would allow council house inheritance if the occupiers are working to be honest.
No they either have to be honest or not. Working towards being honest is not good enough
Now you’re getting cranky just cause I asked you to justify yourself.
Can you point to anything at all to suggest that this is a serious problem, that it is costing the state a lot of money or that it is not already being dealt with?
If you can indeed find any evidence at all that this is actually a problem as you claim, can you find any well reasoned piece that supports cutting welfare as a way to deal with this problem?
It shouldn’t be hard to find some support for your two assertions. If you can’t, then maybe you’re talking shite and should shut you bag fat stupid mouth. If you can find some evidence we can have an actual debate.
How’s that kid?
Social Welfare costs the state circa €20-25bn a year.
Was my figure of between 4-5.5% effectively being deemed not employable/not available for employment etc not sufficient for you?
Where’s your evidence that they are available for work when all the evidence presented suggests otherwise.
His feelings is the evidence.
It makes up for near 50% of Government spending.
I think 5% unemployment being deemed full employment supports my case if anything. What evidence is there to suggest that there are jobs available where those people are and that they have the skills and wherewithal to do? What percentage of that 5% simply refuse to work perfectly acceptable jobs as @horsebox claims? Of that constituency, if they exist as Horsey claims, what does that cost us? What advantage would we gain from cutting them off?
You’ve been given ample evidence.
The number of Irish people who “can’t work” has risen dramatically in 2 decades. Why?
Why have the Irish government changed the definition of full employment here upwards?
I’ll give you a clue, and it’s the same reason why we have one of the highest number of houselands with single parents in the OECD despite still having high marriage rates and low divorce rates by OECD standards. It’s because our welfare is too generous and too open ended for a certain cohort.
What’s your point?
That some lads would not work to keep themselves warm.
How can a lad from India arrive and get a job in weeks in a service station.
Where is your evidence to support this?
A lad from India can arrive and within weeks have a job in a service station.