Government to give 100% Christmas Social Welfare bonus

cyberianpan

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 18, 2006
Messages
16,347
Website
www.google.com
On RTE lunchtime radio it was announced that the Government is to give 100% Christmas Social Welfare bonus. The bonus s an extra week's "pay". This tradition started by Haughey 30 years ago was meant to give a variable bonus depending on state finances. For the past 8 years we've been booming so it has been 100%.

Hannifin now says we've to keep it at 100% as people feel entitled to it.

Does the government not realise how bad things are ? Are they planning to give 100% next year ?

Surely the smart thing would be to have given 80 or 90% ?

In any case why are we borrowing money to give money to people who don't work ?

cYp
 


irelandproud

Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Messages
34
About time she said it was been payed this year, i can tell you this if it wasnt paid you would see all hell break loose in this country, 1.3 million people are entilited to this bonus myself included, for most people this bonus is a godsend coming up to xmas when they have to buy presents and such.
 

irelandproud

Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Messages
34
oh here we go can we afford to pay this amount. listen the goverment can afford to bailout builderrs and bankers so they sure as hell can afford to pay social welfare people a measly xmas bonus, but of course most people on politics.ie dont give a rats ass about people on social welfare and will probaly never be on it.
 

evercloserunion

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Messages
804
The thing about giving money out around Christmas is that it goes straight back into the economy. A lot of shops like toy shops etc. are probably going to get a nasty shock this year as people tighten their belts and/or simply can't afford to do a lavish Christmas shop. This will at least relieve some of that.

As for the point about borrowing to give money to people who don't work, that argument carried a bit more weight back when the economy was booming and there was nearly always a job to be had (even then I wouldn't have bought it but you could understand where it was coming from). These days however, those who don't work make up a significant portion of the population, and they are not the lazy portion either; in fact, in most cases they are the people who have been carrying our economy for the last 10 years.
 

irelandproud

Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Messages
34
same people that are now on here complaining about it been paid have caused this country to be in the state it is and now they want to punish the poor people how genours of them.
 
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
22
On RTE lunchtime radio it was announced that the Government is to give 100% Christmas Social Welfare bonus. The bonus s an extra week's "pay". This tradition started by Haughey 30 years ago was meant to give a variable bonus depending on state finances. For the past 8 years we've been booming so it has been 100%.

Hannifin now says we've to keep it at 100% as people feel entitled to it.

Does the government not realise how bad things are ? Are they planning to give 100% next year ?

Surely the smart thing would be to have given 80 or 90% ?

In any case why are we borrowing money to give money to people who don't work ?

cYp
A seriously ridiculous post. Sometimes I wonder about the clueless world of many of the posters on here.

1. The payment is a vital necessity for those entitled to it. As someone who once received it I know from experience just how important it is.

2. It gets spent straight away, reclaiming much of it in VAT. To cut spending for 1.3 million people would have been economically crazy.

3. If it wasn't people would get into debt and the cost of running MABS would go up.

4. If your argument is about giving money to people who don't work, the same thing can be said about the pension, and about not charging fees to students. I notice how you preferred to target spending on people on social welfare rather than students. Are you arguing for the return of fees? There is at least some valid argument for charging fees. Fees are not spent in the economy. This payment is.
 

atlantic

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 25, 2008
Messages
649
A bonus is given to reward productivity.Why not call it christmas hardship payment.
 

evercloserunion

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Messages
804
A bonus is not necessarily to reward productivity, only in the context of the workplace, which as you may have noticed these people lack.
 
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
22
A bonus is given to reward productivity.Why not call it christmas hardship payment.
Incorrect. A bonus is simply an extra payment over and above the normal. Business uses it to describe extra payments, not necessarily based on productivity.
 

Clanrickard

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
32,837
Joined
Oct 14, 2008
Messages
7
On RTE lunchtime radio it was announced that the Government is to give 100% Christmas Social Welfare bonus. The bonus s an extra week's "pay". This tradition started by Haughey 30 years ago was meant to give a variable bonus depending on state finances. For the past 8 years we've been booming so it has been 100%.

Hannifin now says we've to keep it at 100% as people feel entitled to it.

Does the government not realise how bad things are ? Are they planning to give 100% next year ?

Surely the smart thing would be to have given 80 or 90% ?

In any case why are we borrowing money to give money to people who don't work ?

B][/I]
cYp
We live in a two-tier society mate, their isn't a job for everyone and those who don't work because the can't get it—must eat. A little bit extra at xmas might soothe them a bit so they can buy a few presents.
 

cyberianpan

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 18, 2006
Messages
16,347
Website
www.google.com
A seriously ridiculous post. Sometimes I wonder about the clueless world of many of the posters on here.
You do like to degenerate into abuse, would that explain why you keep changing your name, NDS/The Analyst ?

1. The payment is a vital necessity for those entitled to it. As someone who once received it I know from experience just how important it is.
If it is vital how come 8 years ago it wasn't 100% ?


2. It gets spent straight away, reclaiming much of it in VAT. To cut spending for 1.3 million people would have been economically crazy.


Then why don't we just print money and give it to everyone ?

3. If it wasn't people would get into debt and the cost of running MABS would go up.
So because people would spend money they don't have we need to give them money ?

4. If your argument is about giving money to people who don't work, the same thing can be said about the pension
Prime issue remains that this usen't be a 100% bonus (only for the past 8 years of boom has it been), now in our first bad year we are giving 100%. We are now turning extra spending of the boom years into permanent spending.

This should only have been paid at 90%.


cYp
 

peadarmc

Active member
Joined
Oct 23, 2008
Messages
178
The thing about giving money out around Christmas is that it goes straight back into the economy. A lot of shops like toy shops etc. are probably going to get a nasty shock this year as people tighten their belts and/or simply can't afford to do a lavish Christmas shop. This will at least relieve some of that.

As for the point about borrowing to give money to people who don't work, that argument carried a bit more weight back when the economy was booming and there was nearly always a job to be had (even then I wouldn't have bought it but you could understand where it was coming from). These days however, those who don't work make up a significant portion of the population, and they are not the lazy portion either; in fact, in most cases they are the people who have been carrying our economy for the last 10 years.
excellent post!
They can afford 1.6 Billion for the builders and afford to underwrite 400 Billion for the banks...why shouldnt these get a slice of that! whats good for the goose...etc! and i agree, most of it will go straight back into the economy which is vital!
 

myksav

Well-known member
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
23,381
A bonus is given to reward productivity.Why not call it christmas hardship payment.
At one stage, I think it was called that.
 

wysiwyg

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Messages
366
Basically the reason this was announced today, was that it was beginning to gather legs as a rumour that the payment was going to be cut.. and after the protests of last week, the last thing the Government wanted was hundreds of thousands of people.. who would have had time to go an protest.. on the streets again protesting about how the Budget was destroying the most vulnerable in society...

FF would have been cut to shreds over this..

Now matter how many people in SF and Labour talk about representing the "working class".. unemployed people tend to vote FF because they'd looked after them for the past 8 years, and the brand of clientelism that they favour means that they are "owed" come election time by many welfare recipients..

If they were to lose these.. they may as well shut up shop

That said, I am in agreement with the payment
 

Bakunin

Active member
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
116
A bonus is given to reward productivity.Why not call it christmas hardship payment.
Wrong.

bonus definition | Dictionary.com

But back to the issue - it's the usual story. As peadar pointed out, there's money for the W-uilders and money for the W-ankers, but yet again, the poor have to be satisfied with the crumbs from the rich man's table.

Expect to see civil disobedience within twelve months. The basic values and strength of society are going to be sorely tested.
 
Last edited:

myksav

Well-known member
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
23,381
So because people would spend money they don't have we need to give them money ?

Prime issue remains that this usen't be a 100% bonus (only for the past 8 years of boom has it been), now in our first bad year we are giving 100%. We are now turning extra spending of the boom years into permanent spending.

This should only have been paid at 90%.

cYp
A wee experiment for you, cYp. Live for the next two months on 200 euro a week, or the equivalent for your family status. That should carry you up to Christmas time. Just the 200, mind you, no tapping savings which few on welfare have.
If you have a morgage, pay that as normal but take 45 euro out of the 200 to pay 'rent'.

A few things may come out of such an experiment.
A clear insight on what someone on welfare goes through each winter.
If you have a good paid job, you'll have a nice sum of money aside by January.

Any time I qualified for that extra payment, it was a pleasant suprise when I got it. The first time it was 50%, second time it was 75%. The pleasant suprise was that it was always a discretionary payment, not a guaranteed one.

From your OP:
"In any case why are we borrowing money to give money to people who don't work ?"
Not all of the people on welfare "don't work", some of them can't work through disability.
Then there's the OAP's. Haven't thousands been screaming about "taking away" the medical card (if the income exceeds 700 euro per week)? And you want to take more away?

Of that extra payment, the Gov't will be getting 21.5% of it back anyway.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top