Reductions in social welfare payments

The_Conductor

Christmas bonus payment abolished.

lolli

smccarrick wrote: »

Christmas bonus payment abolished.

Sorry forgot that one

Do Wan

smccarrick wrote: »

Christmas bonus payment abolished.

what is this? a free week at xmas

christ no wonder the country is in the shi*ter

we even get holidays onthe dole, no other country in the world has it, and we wonder why we're so fuc*ed

aare

lolli wrote: »

50% cut for 20 year olds and under. No change for the rest.

I hate this kind of cut...as someone who had no home to realistically go TO between the ages of 14 and 20 I know, too well, the reality of just how easily innocent young people can get caught between the wheels...most notably, young people who are already victims of either tragedy, or one kind of abuse, or another, unless they stipulate the possibility of exemptions for anyone without a realistic family home and supports.

...and the fact that a young person has no family support is likely to make it far LESS likely that they can find work than the average in times like these.

I suspect dropping the double week in December is strategic, leaving the way open to restore it with a flourish for budget 2010 as a relatively inexpensive vote catcher or use restoring it now, or in the future, as a palliative against greater cuts.

greendom

What about the reduction in rent allowance ?

jakey4000

Does anyone know the exact changes to the rent supplement?

All I can see in the budget is
"Changes to rent supplement eligibility and payment regime"

I'm trying to find exact numbers. Like what will the new rent caps be?

How has the eligibility be changed?

I can't find this info on the budget website.

snubbleste

jakey4000 wrote: »

Does anyone know the exact changes to the rent supplement?
All I can see in the budget is
"Changes to rent supplement eligibility and payment regime" I'm trying to find exact numbers. Like what will the new rent caps be? How has the eligibility be changed? I can't find this info on the budget website.

Exact details won't come out for a few days

Swamps

lolli wrote: »

50% cut for 20 year olds and under. No change for the rest.

Are you sure? I tought it was only going to be applied to those "Under" 20? but not including people aged 20.

any confirmation on this?

aare

http://www.budget.gov.ie/2009SupApril09/SummaryofSupplementaryBudgetMeasuresPolicyChanges.html#SocialWelfare

The personal rate of Jobseeker’s Allowance and basic Supplementary Allowance will be reduced for new claimants under 20 years of age to €100 per week from the first week of May 2009. The Qualified Adult rate payable to a Jobseeker’s Allowance/ basic Supplementary Welfare Allowance claimant aged under 20 years will also be €100 per week. These reduced personal and Qualified Adult rates of payment will not apply where a claimant is entitled to an increase for a Qualified Child.

Exact wording is best I think?

Swamps

aare wrote: »

http://www.budget.gov.ie/2009SupApril09/SummaryofSupplementaryBudgetMeasuresPolicyChanges.html#SocialWelfare


Exact wording is best I think?

Thanks for that, I was just reading on the RTE Website earlier and wasnt sure what they meant exactly with the age thing, it was stating under 20's in most of their news storys but the ministers speech was worded different so was a bit confusing. The real feed is alot better to understand though yeah.

So i assume now its only 18-19 year olds who will have thier allowance halved.

Thanks again

Lucas10101

aare wrote: »

http://www.budget.gov.ie/2009SupApril09/SummaryofSupplementaryBudgetMeasuresPolicyChanges.html#SocialWelfare


Exact wording is best I think?

So let me get this straight--

New Claimants + Existing Claimants UNDER 20 will get €100...or is it only New Claimants?

Thanks in advance for the reply.

aare

Lucas10101 wrote: »

So let me get this straight--

New Claimants + Existing Claimants UNDER 20 will get €100...or is it only New Claimants?

Thanks in advance for the reply.

It is worded "only new claimants"...but, having heard the speech too, my gut says "don't count on it"...it could be a slight misprint...

snubbleste

The rate of JA that will be paid to new claimants under the age of 20 is being reduced from €204.30 per week to €100 per week, with effect from the first week of May 2009.
When a person on the reduced rate of JA reaches the age of 20, if they still qualify for the Jobseeker’s Allowance they will be entitled to the full adult rate.

This and other details are set out at http://www.welfare.ie/EN/Press/PressReleases/2009/Pages/pr070409.aspx

c4cat

hellboy99 wrote: »

It's little enough as it is, and as for you saying get rid of the double week for Xmas that's not right, families on welfare depend on that.

If the government want to reduce welfare payments then they may start by reducing the cost of living first.

They have got rid of the double week this coming christmas

The_Conductor

While I appreciate the difficulties that families on welfare have- the net result of the budget yesterday mean that the average worker is paying an additional 4 weeks after tax salary to the government. I don't think anyone is going to be doing any shopping this Christmas......:(

The particularly galling thing is the reduction in Mortgage Interest Relief- and the abolition of it altogether after 7 years. If they were doing this- it should have been done across the board- instead- investors still get indefinite relief- while the ordinary Joe Soaps get clobbered.

Lucas10101

snubbleste wrote: »

This and other details are set out at http://www.welfare.ie/EN/Press/PressReleases/2009/Pages/pr070409.aspx

I'm still confused. The word "New" is still there!!! :mad:

Does this mean everyone under twenty, including existing under 20's will be reduced to 100 or is it just new claimants????

Plus, the education thing. I'm on a gap year from University, so technically still in education, would this qualify me to retain the 204 euro. I'm 19.

snubbleste

Lucas10101 wrote: »

I'm still confused. The word "New" is still there!!! :mad:
Does this mean everyone under twenty, including existing under 20's will be reduced to 100 or is it just new claimants????
Plus, the education thing. I'm on a gap year from University, so technically still in education, would this qualify me to retain the 204 euro. I'm 19.

It's clear, new claimants from the first week of May under 20 will get €102

How can you be in education and on a gap year?

greendom

On the Pat Kenny show this morning they made it clear that the reduction in dole for under 20s would only apply to new claimants after 29th April. So the dole offices will be even busier for the rest of the month

Teadrinker

greendom wrote: »

On the Pat Kenny show this morning they made it clear that the reduction in dole for under 20s would only apply to new claimants after 29th April. So the dole offices will be even busier for the rest of the month

Okay, anyone know what will happen in case below?

Someone who will turn 20 towards the end of the year, got Jobseekers Allowance for last August and changed to Fas course which is due to end in middle of June this year. Now I understand if they hadn't been doing the Fas course and were claiming Jobseekers Allowance they would get to keep the 204 Euro, not being new claimants. But in the new scenario, when they finish the Fas course in June and if they don't get a job (which is likely as the course was in childcare and the cuts will hit childcare badly) when they go back to Jobseekers Allowance will it be treated as a new claim and will they be down to the new 100 Euro rate until they turn 20?

The_Conductor

Teadrinker wrote: »

Okay, anyone know what will happen in case below?

Someone who will turn 20 towards the end of the year, got Jobseekers Allowance for last August and changed to Fas course which is due to end in middle of June this year. Now I understand if they hadn't been doing the Fas course and were claiming Jobseekers Allowance they would get to keep the 204 Euro, not being new claimants. But in the new scenario, when they finish the Fas course in June and if they don't get a job (which is likely as the course was in childcare and the cuts will hit childcare badly) when they go back to Jobseekers Allowance will it be treated as a new claim and will they be down to the new 100 Euro rate until they turn 20?

Getting a job in childcare is not as unlikely as you imagine. Part of the budget was the provision of a years pre-school education for the under 5s by the private sector. The staffing and resources to provide this are not in place- there will be recruitment in the sector.

Teadrinker

smccarrick wrote: »

Getting a job in childcare is not as unlikely as you imagine. Part of the budget was the provision of a years pre-school education for the under 5s by the private sector. The staffing and resources to provide this are not in place- there will be recruitment in the sector.

You're right! Thank you.

Purpleangel

mickeym wrote: »

I totally sympatise with anyone who has lost their job and who now have to rely on social welfare payments as unfortuntely they are being tarred with the same brush as long term unemployed people who just wren't bothered looking for a job (or even worse, working on the side whilst claiming benefits).

But what i find most annoying, and what no government seems brave enough to tackle, is the growing problem of 'lone parents'. IMO it is way too easy to get pregnant and live on social welfare while the childs apparently absent father lives with the mother and child in a house obtained via rent allowance, a father who pays nothing to the child as the taxpayers are supporting the child and mother with the
benefits avaiable to them. The family can then use the father's wages to live as they please while the taxpayer picks up the neccessities.

At the start of your post you spoke about people being tarred with the same brush and then went on to contradictingly do the same.

I am what you call a lone parent. I bring up four children on my own. The reason I am in a one parent family is because my ex husband decided that the sanctity of marriage wasnt for him and had an affair. Now if I could have forseen that I wouldnt be in this situation but alas I did not.

Yes I am relying on the state to support me and my children because the same year I found out about the affair, I lost my business and my house.

I also know how lucky I am to have the benefits I have and spend every cent of it wisely. If or when my maintainance order is dealt with then I will be able to have my benefit adjusted accordingly. Though I do wonder, did you know that a single parent gets only €26 per child per week?

I seem to have wandered off but perhaps you should take your own advice and not tar all of us "lone" parents with that same brush.

The_Conductor

Purpleangel wrote: »

At the start of your post you spoke about people being tarred with the same brush and then went on to contradictingly do the same.

I am what you call a lone parent. I bring up four children on my own. The reason I am in a one parent family is because my ex husband decided that the sanctity of marriage wasnt for him and had an affair. Now if I could have forseen that I wouldnt be in this situation but alas I did not.

Yes I am relying on the state to support me and my children because the same year I found out about the affair, I lost my business and my house.

I also know how lucky I am to have the benefits I have and spend every cent of it wisely. If or when my maintainance order is dealt with then I will be able to have my benefit adjusted accordingly. Though I do wonder, did you know that a single parent gets only €26 per child per week?

I seem to have wandered off but perhaps you should take your own advice and not tar all of us "lone" parents with that same brush.

Surely the answer to this is to invest additional resources in chasing fathers (or occasionally mothers) to ensure that provision of adequate maintenance payments are made? It should not be the case that people expect to rely on the state to dig them out, or tide them over, while the logical and just deductions are made from the salaries of errant parents?

Purpleangel

smccarrick wrote: »

Surely the answer to this is to invest additional resources in chasing fathers (or occasionally mothers) to ensure that provision of adequate maintenance payments are made? It should not be the case that people expect to rely on the state to dig them out, or tide them over, while the logical and just deductions are made from the salaries of errant parents?

Yes I totally agree with you. The absent parent should not be given the opportunity to walk away.

I would encourage and welcome a system that would take the mone directly from their wages. Though I do know that in some cases it is safer for parent and child/ren if they get a clean break where the partner was viciously violent.

As for parents who just simply walk away, thats a different story. My ex moved to the UK because a friend of his told him he wouldnt have to pay. Unfortunately, and I have been told by my solicitor and the community welfare officer that even if I get a judgement it will be next to impossible for them to implement it while he lives in a different country.

I was told that my best bet was to appeal to his better nature, when it comes to him giving me money, he doesnt have one.

The_Conductor

Purpleangel wrote: »

Yes I totally agree with you. The absent parent should not be given the opportunity to walk away.

I would encourage and welcome a system that would take the mone directly from their wages. Though I do know that in some cases it is safer for parent and child/ren if they get a clean break where the partner was viciously violent.

As for parents who just simply walk away, thats a different story. My ex moved to the UK because a friend of his told him he wouldnt have to pay. Unfortunately, and I have been told by my solicitor and the community welfare officer that even if I get a judgement it will be next to impossible for them to implement it while he lives in a different country.

I was told that my best bet was to appeal to his better nature, when it comes to him giving me money, he doesnt have one.

Thats a problem with the lack of an effective system for chasing errant parents. Surely it makes more sense to protest against the current system for one parent families- than it does to try to justify additional social welfare payments? The social welfare system allows people to abdicate responsibility for their own a actions, and indeed their own children- this is wrong.

Appealing to someone's better nature to try to get them to fulfill their responsibilities- is horse manure. So too is expecting the state to pick up the tab for childcare etc however.

mickeym

Purpleangel - - - If you re-read my thread you will note that i have said 'apparently' absent fathers. I know many people who are happily shacked up with their boyfriends (who have jobs and are well able to support the child) yet are claiming to be struggling lone parents. In your case a genuine incident happened which left you to bring up 4 children as a genuine lone parent and, as with the people who have recently lost their jobs and are genuinly looking for jobs, you are one of those people i do feel sorry for because unfortunately there are way too many people out there that have been let away with scamming off the taxpayers for years and nothing as done about it (another example is border towns where people were working in the North and claiming benefits in the south). Why were such scams not better policed when we were not in a recession??? And now that we're struggling with the economy i think one of the first things that needs to be addressed are these types of goings on.
I'd never begrudge a single penny of tax i pay for genuine cases that need help but it's annoys the hell out of me when i see people who are falsely claiming beniefits having a better lifestyle then i can afford while working 40hours or more a week!!

marti8

Breaktown wrote: »

I can't get rent allowance because the landlord won't accept it. :rolleyes:

You should move, without a doubt. There are plenty of flats and apartments out there. Rent allownace will save you buckets....

marti8

irishbrain wrote: »

I have heard reports tonight that the Standard Social Welfare Payment is due to be decreased to €134.60 p/w and will save over 4 billon in revenue for the year.

Funny, funny (not).....All I can seriously say is that they better not try it, as an earlier poster said there would be riots on the streets, WITHOUT A DOUBT. I hope the Garda have been getting their riot training in, they might need it yet.....petrol bombs illuminating the night skies of Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Galway (and everywhere in between) I KID YOU NOT.


There would be huge social chaos, people simply would not stand for that. I know I wouldn't. Oh, I've just found out that a molotov cocktail works better if you add washing up liquid or sugar?.....sweet (no pun intended) What's the saying: Be Prepared?

The c**ts (forgive my Latin) cut their own salaries by 10% but cut dole for the under 20's by 50%?!!!!! F**k them. I'm not under 20 but I don't have to be to recognise an injustice. If they try a similar move with the over 20's there will be trouble.

Yes, savings have to be made.....how about they start at the top and work their way down but not to a ground zero...people have the right to deserve a decent standard of living whether on the dole or working.

marti8

ntlbell wrote: »

What else is there to add?

If you take the weekly dole for a single person.

Add in rent allowance

clothes allowance

heating allowance

medical card

I'm not sure what else one can claim it works out about 23-25k a year

This is crazy.

The whole welfare system needs reform.

A single person who gets the vast majority of things paid for them does not need 200e+ a week, it should be the bare minimum to survive.

no ntl
no phone
no sky
no broadband

the bare minimum to survive until you find a job

if you haven't found some form of work after 6 months it's reduced again.

A course offered, refuse it and you lose your dole.

reviewed again after 12 months, reduced etc

it's currently a free for all and a bloody disgrace imo

And why exactly should social welfare only allow for the bare minimum? Everyone, whether working or unemployed deserves a decent standard of living. Very obviously you are not in reciept of social welfare because if you were you wouldn't be saying what you are.....Huh, how about instead of cutting dole we have a redistribution of wealth....now there's an idea.....

The_Conductor

Its a simple fact of life- everyone's take-home pay and disposable income will be further reduced- bringing year to date reductions to an average of 16% when the increased levies kick in on the first of May. They intend to increase taxes by another 5 billion in the 2010 and 2011 budgets, and cut spending by 11 billion. With the bailout of the banking sector- by the end of this year 24% of our gross tax take will be going straight out the door on interest payments on our national debt.

Yes- unemployed people and social welfare recipients will be on the streets marching- and there will be mass social unrest. But have no doubt about it- they will simply be there with every other member of the public- there is no one sector being unfairly targetted in whats proposed for the December budget. The lower paid and middle income people simply got targetted early- as they are an easy touch.

marti8

ntlbell wrote: »

You can use a phone in your local social welfare office free of charge.

You can access the internet for free in your local library.

A free buss pass is a great idea.

Hmmmmm, I wonder how many miles the lines for the free phone and free internet would stretch?...........How many unemployed now about 450,000 isn't it? Yeah, wow, great idea....:rolleyes:

The_Conductor

And why exactly should social welfare only allow for the bare minimum? Everyone, whether working or unemployed deserves a decent standard of living. Very obviously you are not in reciept of social welfare because if you were you wouldn't be saying what you are.....Huh, how about instead of cutting dole we have a redistribution of wealth....now there's an idea

Its irrelevant.
Certainly people do deserve a reasonable standard of living.
At present, however, social welfare recipients enjoy (which is of course the incorrect term) a standard of living significantly above someone on the average industrial wage. That person on the average industrial wage will by the 1st of May, have had a 16% fall in their take-home pay year todate, and a further 15-20% reduction come the December budget. Someone working now needs to earn a gross salary of just under 41k- to match dole, rent-allowance and medical card allowances (totally ignoring the myriad of other benefits that someone might be claiming).

Its not nice- but people have to have realistic expectations. Social welfare recipients were left be (other than the Christmas present payments) this time round. They will be targetted- along with everyone else next time. There has already been a statement concerning alcohol and tobacco- and why these will not be increased- the simple fact of the matter is that people will just bugger up to Newry- as is currently happening.

Its not going to be nice- and its not a case of the employed sniping at the unemployed- the people in the wrong here are the politicians who have really bolloxed everything up for everyone.

marti8

smccarrick wrote: »

Its a simple fact of life- everyone's take-home pay and disposable income will be further reduced- bringing year to date reductions to an average of 16% when the increased levies kick in on the first of May. They intend to increase taxes by another 5 billion in the 2010 and 2011 budgets, and cut spending by 11 billion. With the bailout of the banking sector- by the end of this year 24% of our gross tax take will be going straight out the door on interest payments on our national debt.

Yes- unemployed people and social welfare recipients will be on the streets marching- and there will be mass social unrest. But have no doubt about it- they will simply be there with every other member of the public- there is no one sector being unfairly targetted in whats proposed for the December budget. The lower paid and middle income people simply got targetted early- as they are an easy touch.

A substantial reduction in social welfare payments for people already at the lower economic spectrum of our society is not fair, so no, I have to disagree that " there is no one sector being unfairly targetted"......There will be a lot of trouble should they try.

marti8

smccarrick wrote: »

Its irrelevant.
Certainly people do deserve a reasonable standard of living.
At present, however, social welfare recipients enjoy (which is of course the incorrect term) a standard of living significantly above someone on the average industrial wage. That person on the average industrial wage will by the 1st of May, have had a 16% fall in their take-home pay year todate, and a further 15-20% reduction come the December budget. Someone working now needs to earn a gross salary of just under 41k- to match dole, rent-allowance and medical card allowances (totally ignoring the myriad of other benefits that someone might be claiming).

Its not nice- but people have to have realistic expectations. Social welfare recipients were left be (other than the Christmas present payments) this time round. They will be targetted- along with everyone else next time. There has already been a statement concerning alcohol and tobacco- and why these will not be increased- the simple fact of the matter is that people will just bugger up to Newry- as is currently happening.

Its not going to be nice- and its not a case of the employed sniping at the unemployed- the people in the wrong here are the politicians who have really bolloxed everything up for everyone.

Social welfare recipients have just had the the Xmas bonus wiped out.....they, I include myself and my spouse, have also had a reduction in rent allowance. More is probably to come, the question is how much of a reduction? They will just about by the skin of their teeth get away with a few % anymore and there will be riots on the street until they reconsider.

The_Conductor

marti8 wrote: »

A substantial reduction in social welfare payments for people already at the lower economic spectrum of our society is not fair, so no, I have to disagree that " there is no one sector being unfairly targetted"......There will be a lot of trouble should they try.

Thats the thing though- its no longer social welfare recipients who are at the lower economic spectrum of our society- its anyone who is actually gainfully employed on a gross salary of less than 40k. On average they now have less disposable income- and far greater debts, than an average social welfare recipient.

I know you are fighting your corner- but your corner is not the isolated deprived corner it used to be- in comparison to those in the workforce. Living conditions and disposable incomes have plummeted for workers- while debts have risen- the inverse is not the case for social welfare recipients. The fairest thing of all would be to treat all citizens in an equitable manner. This has not happened. The burden for the financial mess the country now finds itself in, has, to-date, largely fallen on the lower and middle income groups. It has not affected those on social welfare benefits, or those on higher incomes, to the same extent as it has the average PAYE employee. It will though.

marti8

smccarrick wrote: »

Thats the thing though- its no longer social welfare recipients who are at the lower economic spectrum of our society- its anyone who is actually gainfully employed on a gross salary of less than 40k. On average they now have less disposable income- and far greater debts, than an average social welfare recipient.

I know you are fighting your corner- but your corner is not the isolated deprived corner it used to be- in comparison to those in the workforce. Living conditions and disposable incomes have plummeted for workers- while debts have risen- the inverse is not the case for social welfare recipients. The fairest thing of all would be to treat all citizens in an equitable manner. This has not happened. The burden for the financial mess the country now finds itself in, has, to-date, largely fallen on the lower and middle income groups. It has not affected those on social welfare benefits, or those on higher incomes, to the same extent as it has the average PAYE employee. It will though.

No, the most equitable thing would be a redistribution of wealth..............
I haven't done the math on whether someone on under 40k a year is in a better or worse position than someone on social welfare but I can assure you that in our case we get much less than 40k a year or even 30k or even 25k...........

As I said, they (our sorry excuse for a government) can work from the top down.

The_Conductor

marti8 wrote: »

Social welfare recipients have just had the the Xmas bonus wiped out.....they, I include myself and my spouse, have also had a reduction in rent allowance. More is probably to come, the question is how much of a reduction? They will just about by the skin of their teeth get away with a few % anymore and there will be riots on the street until they reconsider.

Funny thing is, and now this is funny - more like shocking I guess - in a roundabout way, I'm in reciept of a social welafre payment and my wife, who is a mature student is my dependant, about a year ago we got a bank loan which is in double figures (no, I don't mean 10cent..lol) and a few weeks ago we got another bank loan from the same bank for a couple of thousand.....now we don't even work yet had no problems whatsoever getting loans, if the government go mental (I should probably say suicidal) and reduce social welfare we will probably be in a position whereby we will have to basically default on our outstanding loan payments as we simply will not be able to pay it.........Anyway, that's a side issue.

That is funny. Both my wife and I are working fulltime. We are trying desperately to get a regular bankloan to consolidate credit card debt and pay household expenses- and have been trying for months- to no avail. The negative equity position of our apartment mean we do not qualify for a loan (yet they are happy to increase our credit card max). I have no idea where we will be vis-a-vis housing in a years time (and we own our apartment). If we were forced to sell- we'd get possibly 100k less than we paid- money we will be trying to pay back for the next 28 years.

We have never gotten a social welfare christmas bonus, or indeed a bonus at Christmas time of any type or description. We don't expect it. Sometimes its February or March before we manage to buy each other the Christmas presents we suggested to each other, sometimes we don't. Its how we manage.

I know it might seem strange- but its not unusual for people on the average industrial wage to actually be jealous of those on social welfare in the current climate. It just doesn't make economic sense to work- when the government takes so much of it straight off you, and your next door neighbour on social welfare has a significantly higher standard of living than you have.

The_Conductor

marti8 wrote: »

No, the most equitable thing would be a redistribution of wealth..............
I haven't done the math on whether someone on under 40k a year is in a better or worse position than someone on social welfare but I can assure you that in our case we get much less than 40k a year or even 30k or even 25k...........

As I said, they (our sorry excuse for a government) can work from the top down.

Someone on a gross salary of 41k, when tax, PRSI, income levy and health insurance are deducted will after the May1 increases kick in, have a net salary of roughly 20,500- or roughly 1,700 per month. From this an average of EUR960 per month will be paid towards the provision of housing- leaving 740 for all household bills, living expenses, health, education etc (which works out at 185 a week- roughly 20 Euro less than the dole). If they have children- this will thankfully be supplemented with Children's Allowance- but they are living on a shoestring.

marti8

smccarrick wrote: »

That is funny. Both my wife and I are working fulltime. We are trying desperately to get a regular bankloan to consolidate credit card debt and pay household expenses- and have been trying for months- to no avail. The negative equity position of our apartment mean we do not qualify for a loan (yet they are happy to increase our credit card max). I have no idea where we will be vis-a-vis housing in a years time (and we own our apartment). If we were forced to sell- we'd get possibly 100k less than we paid- money we will be trying to pay back for the next 28 years.

We have never gotten a social welfare christmas bonus, or indeed a bonus at Christmas time of any type or description. We don't expect it. Sometimes its February or March before we manage to buy each other the Christmas presents we suggested to each other, sometimes we don't. Its how we manage.

I know it might seem strange- but its not unusual for people on the average industrial wage to actually be jealous of those on social welfare in the current climate. It just doesn't make economic sense to work- when the government takes so much of it straight off you, and your next door neighbour on social welfare has a significantly higher standard of living than you have.

No offence is intended but maybe the problem isn't so much how salaries are in relation to social welfare payments maybe it is what each group does with that money? We don't have a car, we have bikes (the pedal type)...."get on y'er bike"...lol....we don't own our own home (us irish are home owner obsessed.....unlike in say Germany where the figure for home ownership is about 20% I think) , we have low limits on our credit cards and almost never eat out and seldom socialise (i.e: pubbing and clubbing it etc) We watch our money carefully, pay our bils on time etc etc. I do a p/t degree course by distance with a UK uni that sets us back €800 a year.

Now, many working people have mortgages to pay (I recently read somewhere that actually renting, even for life!, could make more sense - although like every other home owner hungry Irish person that doesn't sound too appealing to me no matter what they say) most working people own at least one car even though they may not need a car, huge credit card debt - even though in the first place they may have survived perfectly comfortably without credit crads, home insurance, car insurance etc etc etc.....plus one kid is enough for eveyone, yeah, lets do what the Chinese do....one and then you're out .....

Anyway, none of this may make sense, haven't really thought it through, just the musings of one of the unwashed masses.........:)

scorpioishere

Social welfare should not be reduced but cut off because so many irish people are abusing it.

marti8

scorpioishere wrote: »

Social welfare should not be reduced but cut off because so many irish people are abusing it.

Ah, haven't we met?....lol Em, yeah that is a great idea, cut off social welfare for everyone because SOME abuse it. Well thought through,.......again.

marti8

smccarrick wrote: »

Someone on a gross salary of 41k, when tax, PRSI, income levy and health insurance are deducted will after the May1 increases kick in, have a net salary of roughly 20,500- or roughly 1,700 per month. From this an average of EUR960 per month will be paid towards the provision of housing- leaving 740 for all household bills, living expenses, health, education etc (which works out at 185 a week- roughly 20 Euro less than the dole). If they have children- this will thankfully be supplemented with Children's Allowance- but they are living on a shoestring.

If what you are saying is correct then you have every right to be aggrieved. That is crazy.

How come home repayments are SO high....it makes more sense to rent, medium term at least but then that isn't an option if someone has a mortgage. Our rent is approx €610 per month.

The_Conductor

marti8 wrote: »

No offence is intended but maybe the problem isn't so much how much salaries are in relation to social welfare payments maybe it is what each group does with that money? We don't have a car, we have bikes (the pedal type)...."get on y'er bike"...lol....

We have one 6 year old car, which we need to get to and from work- as there is not public transport for the hours we work.

marti8 wrote: »

we don't own our own home (us irish are home owner obsessed.....unlike in say Germany where the figure for home ownership is about 20% I think) ,

Our mortgage is less than it would cost us to rent- and who in the country predicted negative equity to be the millstone it is?

marti8 wrote: »

we have low limits on our credit cards and almost never eat out and seldom socialise (i.e: pubbing and clubbing it etc) We watch our money carefully, pay our bils on time etc etc. I do a p/t degree course by distance with a UK uni that sets us back €800 a year.

Our higher limits on our credit cards were as a result of unforseen illness etc. We do occasionally eat out (wife's birthday for example)- but not frequently. Neither of us smoke or drink. We watch our money carefully and pay our bills on time. Occasionally things can get hairy- and you might have to do strange things like pay bills with money withdrawn from your credit card- even on one occasion the mortgage. Its impossible to make provisions for every possible eventuality- it becomes a case of prioritising. We've gotten rid of the phone and NTL. I got a free satellite dish on Freecycle and a decoder in Argos in Belfast- so the wife is happy. Its simply not the case that people aren't watching every little penny- we are all in the same boat.

marti8 wrote: »

Now, many working people have mortgages to pay (I recently read somewhere that actually renting, even for life!, could make more sense - although like every other home owner hungry Irish person that doesn't sound too appealing no matter what they say) car even though they may not need a car, huge credit card debt - even though in the first place they may have survived perfectly comfortably without credit crads, home insurance, car insurance etc etc etc.....plus one kid is enough for eveyone, yeah, lets do what the Chinese do....one and then you're out .....

Irish society was designed around the use of private transport, accommodation in strange towns miles away from where people work (and with few or no facilities of any meaningful type), hellishly expensive childcare- which meant most working couples put off having children into their late 30s (and now- perhaps altogether) etc. People did not qualify for accommadation because they were working- so they had to either rent or buy (and in most cases it was cheaper to rent). So- a lot of the choices people made (and continue to make) are not necessarily of their own volition.

marti8 wrote: »

Anyway, none of this may make sense, haven't really thought it through, just the musings of one of the unwashed masses.........:)

Irish society is screwed. Its irrelevant whether you are employed or unemployed- a social welfare recipient or a PAYE employee. All our standards of living are going to drop significantly. Our national debt is going to double (with the establishment of the NAMA) to Italian proportions- over a quarter of all tax income the government get is going to go straight towards servicing this humengous mountain of debt.

Whether or not we like to admit it or not- we are back where we were in the 1980s again- only this time the public at large have debts of their own valued at well over 200% of our national GDP (and climbing)- whereas in the 1980s the government was bankrupt- but private individuals owed very little in a personal capacity.

marti8

smccarrick wrote: »

We have one 6 year old car, which we need to get to and from work- as there is not public transport for the hours we work.



Our mortgage is less than it would cost us to rent- and who in the country predicted negative equity to be the millstone it is?



Our higher limits on our credit cards were as a result of unforseen illness etc. We do occasionally eat out (wife's birthday for example)- but not frequently. Neither of us smoke or drink. We watch our money carefully and pay our bills on time. Occasionally things can get hairy- and you might have to do strange things like pay bills with money withdrawn from your credit card- even on one occasion the mortgage. Its impossible to make provisions for every possible eventuality- it becomes a case of prioritising. We've gotten rid of the phone and NTL. I got a free satellite dish on Freecycle and a decoder in Argos in Belfast- so the wife is happy. Its simply not the case that people aren't watching every little penny- we are all in the same boat.



Irish society was designed around the use of private transport, accommodation in strange towns miles away from where people work (and with few or no facilities of any meaningful type), hellishly expensive childcare- which meant most working couples put off having children into their late 30s (and now- perhaps altogether) etc. People did not qualify for accommadation because they were working- so they had to either rent or buy (and in most cases it was cheaper to rent). So- a lot of the choices people made (and continue to make) are not necessarily of their own volition.



Irish society is screwed. Its irrelevant whether you are employed or unemployed- a social welfare recipient or a PAYE employee. All our standards of living are going to drop significantly. Our national debt is going to double (with the establishment of the NAMA) to Italian proportions- over a quarter of all tax income the government get is going to go straight towards servicing this humengous mountain of debt.

Whether or not we like to admit it or not- we are back where we were in the 1980s again- only this time the public at large have debts of their own valued at well over 200% of our national GDP (and climbing)- whereas in the 1980s the government was bankrupt- but private individuals owed very little in a personal capacity.

Of course if you need a car you need a car, theres no two ways about that. We don't luckily.

Yes, definetly living standards are gonna drop. But it should be proportional to ones income. But our a**wipe government needs to start at the top. Drastically cut TD's salaries and expenses (I wonder how much a hotel room for any one of the myriad of a**wipe ministers we have costs per night.....I heard the late Seamus Brennans room in Rome cost over €1600 A NIGHT, http://www.independent.ie/national-news/the-dail-diaspora-83641650-a-night-and-cheap-at-the-political-price-1315053.html (I could get them hotel rooms for under €100 a night!), close the Seanad - we don't need it, drastically cut back on the NDP (forget about a metro for Dublin for one thing - a crazy idea especially now), restart the passports for sale scheme, reintroduce 3rd level fees for those who can afford it, as I suggested in another thread restrict the right for non-nationals to claim social welfare after 2 years of having worked unless they have "real" connections to Ireland, e.g: own a house here, (yes, it is a highly controversial issue) - currently there are approx.42,000 nationals from the "new" EU States on the dole - CSO figures for March or at a minimum increase the 2 year qualifying period to say, 5 or 6 or even higher...., reform the public service, possibly cut defence force numbers - we're a small country how many soldiers do we really need?!, scrap the government and presidential jet (travel commercially - Ryanair do good deals to Brussels, Cowen could get a bus from there......:))..............there are many, many creative ways to save money.

The very last thing they should touch is social welfare.

marti8

smccarrick wrote: »

Someone on a gross salary of 41k, when tax, PRSI, income levy and health insurance are deducted will after the May1 increases kick in, have a net salary of roughly 20,500- or roughly 1,700 per month. From this an average of EUR960 per month will be paid towards the provision of housing- leaving 740 for all household bills, living expenses, health, education etc (which works out at 185 a week- roughly 20 Euro less than the dole). If they have children- this will thankfully be supplemented with Children's Allowance- but they are living on a shoestring.

But surely then when you have a couple and very many working people are either married or co-habiting, the actual average net ammount is €41,000? The social welfare for a couple is much, much less than that........If they need to make cuts and I agree they have to then they can start at the top and work their way down.....

damomeasa

So it seems the rent allowance cap is being reduced by 10% and it's being cut by €5 per week. Am I right in thinking that it was cut by €5 on december, and cut by the same amount the year before? This would mean that the amount that people on rent allowance have had to contribute to their rent has risen by over 300% in less than 18 months.

The_Conductor

marti8 wrote: »

But surely then when you have a couple and very many working people are either married or co-habiting, the actual average net ammount is €41,000? The social welfare for a couple is much, much less than that........If they need to make cuts and I agree they have to then they can start at the top and work their way down.....

In cases where you have both members of a couple married or cohabiting (which certainly is very common)- its more probable than not that one or possibly both of the couple have lost their jobs- and its also probable that they have a mortgage vastly larger than the example that I gave where their monthly mortgage outgoings could be just lower than 2k. (There are several unfortunate examples of this on the Accommodation & Property forum here on Boards- and its also collaborated by the number of people in severe financial difficulty who have approached MABS and subsequently the HSE seeking mortgage interest assistance).

The *net* amount of income, i.e. after tax income, would of course be double for a working couple- however their disposable income- after accommodation costs are accounted for, more often than not are not much higher than they would be for a single person. This is in keeping with the experiences of MABS staff who have several budget templates available for those experiencing severe problems- particularly after the recent budget.

I agree with you that cuts should be implemented by starting at the top and working your way down. There is no justifiable reason why the Irish taoiseach deserves to be better paid that the US or French presidents. Hell- even the average cost of a TD is higher than the salary of the US or French presidents. We have far too many TDs and senators, representing interest groups and constituencies- when they should be taking care of the country as a whole.

On a related subject- its simply too expensive to employ people in this country. We have a minimum wage set at an artificially high level, and employer PRSI levels that actively discourage employment. Were we to slash the minimum wage, bring absolutely everyone into the tax net, and simultaneously abolish (or severly reduce) employers PRSI- there would all of a sudden be lots of lower paid, but productive jobs out there that people would most probably be thrilled to do. Even simple service industry jobs that are currently under threat- would be safeguarded.

We are on a downward cycle at the moment- people have less money, and are spending less, meaning there is less of a multiplier effect, meaning jobs are lost, meaning fewer people paying more tax, meaning less money, meaning even less spent........ We are digging ourselves into a deeper and deeper hole the more we do to try to 'rescue' sacred elephants, like BOI and AIB. It would be far easier to nationalise them- perhaps even use them as some sort of local employment agencies which could provide useful paid job experiences for people- which would stand to them as the economy improves.

As for severly restricting the civil defence forces and slashing public sector numbers- a better approach would be to cut their salary scales (instead of introducing a pension levy) to reflect the value of their defined benefit salaries to them. This way- there could be a cost associated with the pensions for current pensioners as well as current contributors- tackling both aspects of the current problem, income and expenditure.

Costs are coming down in Ireland (gas by 12% and electricity by 10% on the first of May as an example, and general bills by 4.5% on a rolling annual basis todate). This allows us to cut salaries and via this means, the cost of employing additional people- keeping people in gainful employment rather than reliant on social welfare. The argument in recent years which led to the increase in social welfare levels to where they are- is that they should be pegged to the cost associated with the average industrial wage. Surely the inverse of this is- as the average industrial wage that the social welfare levels are pegged to, falls- that a commensurate reduction should be made to the social welfare disbursements? It would maintain the linkage with the average industrial wage, and comparative purchasing power with those they were comparing the recipients to? Its logical- but people can't stomach a reduction- despite the fact that workers are now paying the price (the recent budget has reduced the average workers wage by 9%- the equivalence of working an additional 4 weeks for the government in tax, before you start to earn for yourself on an annual basis- and the previous levy and other reductions have reduced salaries by an average of another 7%- an average reduction of 16% year-to-date).

We really need to sit down and think this out. As it stands- it is more lucrative for the average person to claim social welfare benefits and entitlements, than it is for them to accept an average paid job. Our average paid jobs are also far too costly when compared to our international competitors- which is why we are loosing jobs left-right-and-centre...... We cannot afford to pay people what they are currently earning, and we cannot afford to pay social welfare recipients what they are currently entitled to. That is the knux of the problem.

marti8

smccarrick wrote: »

In cases where you have both members of a couple married or cohabiting (which certainly is very common)- its more probable than not that one or possibly both of the couple have lost their jobs- and its also probable that they have a mortgage vastly larger than the example that I gave where their monthly mortgage outgoings could be just lower than 2k. (There are several unfortunate examples of this on the Accommodation & Property forum here on Boards- and its also collaborated by the number of people in severe financial difficulty who have approached MABS and subsequently the HSE seeking mortgage interest assistance).

The *net* amount of income, i.e. after tax income, would of course be double for a working couple- however their disposable income- after accommodation costs are accounted for, more often than not are not much higher than they would be for a single person. This is in keeping with the experiences of MABS staff who have several budget templates available for those experiencing severe problems- particularly after the recent budget.

I agree with you that cuts should be implemented by starting at the top and working your way down. There is no justifiable reason why the Irish taoiseach deserves to be better paid that the US or French presidents. Hell- even the average cost of a TD is higher than the salary of the US or French presidents. We have far too many TDs and senators, representing interest groups and constituencies- when they should be taking care of the country as a whole.

On a related subject- its simply too expensive to employ people in this country. We have a minimum wage set at an artificially high level, and employer PRSI levels that actively discourage employment. Were we to slash the minimum wage, bring absolutely everyone into the tax net, and simultaneously abolish (or severly reduce) employers PRSI- there would all of a sudden be lots of lower paid, but productive jobs out there that people would most probably be thrilled to do. Even simple service industry jobs that are currently under threat- would be safeguarded.

We are on a downward cycle at the moment- people have less money, and are spending less, meaning there is less of a multiplier effect, meaning jobs are lost, meaning fewer people paying more tax, meaning less money, meaning even less spent........ We are digging ourselves into a deeper and deeper hole the more we do to try to 'rescue' sacred elephants, like BOI and AIB. It would be far easier to nationalise them- perhaps even use them as some sort of local employment agencies which could provide useful paid job experiences for people- which would stand to them as the economy improves.

As for severly restricting the civil defence forces and slashing public sector numbers- a better approach would be to cut their salary scales (instead of introducing a pension levy) to reflect the value of their defined benefit salaries to them. This way- there could be a cost associated with the pensions for current pensioners as well as current contributors- tackling both aspects of the current problem, income and expenditure.

Costs are coming down in Ireland (gas by 12% and electricity by 10% on the first of May as an example, and general bills by 4.5% on a rolling annual basis todate). This allows us to cut salaries and via this means, the cost of employing additional people- keeping people in gainful employment rather than reliant on social welfare. The argument in recent years which led to the increase in social welfare levels to where they are- is that they should be pegged to the cost associated with the average industrial wage. Surely the inverse of this is- as the average industrial wage that the social welfare levels are pegged to, falls- that a commensurate reduction should be made to the social welfare disbursements? It would maintain the linkage with the average industrial wage, and comparative purchasing power with those they were comparing the recipients to? Its logical- but people can't stomach a reduction- despite the fact that workers are now paying the price (the recent budget has reduced the average workers wage by 9%- the equivalence of working an additional 4 weeks for the government in tax, before you start to earn for yourself on an annual basis- and the previous levy and other reductions have reduced salaries by an average of another 7%- an average reduction of 16% year-to-date).

We really need to sit down and think this out. As it stands- it is more lucrative for the average person to claim social welfare benefits and entitlements, than it is for them to accept an average paid job. Our average paid jobs are also far too costly when compared to our international competitors- which is why we are loosing jobs left-right-and-centre...... We cannot afford to pay people what they are currently earning, and we cannot afford to pay social welfare recipients what they are currently entitled to. That is the knux of the problem.

If you take a couple on minimum wage their gross pay for a 40 hour week is approx. €690 p.w......I know they are going to be taxed on that now, they hadn't been before.....I'm not sure what that tax is, whether it is the standard lower band or not...but even if it is....that couple will still earn more than a couple on social welfare will recieve from the State.

Taxing those on minimum wage was a retrograde move, imho. Taxing those who say earn over say €150,000 would have been a more equitable way to go. Yes, I know that the richer in our society have seen their tax increase also but if those who are on the minimum wage have now got to pay tax obviously it didn't go up high enough in the higher band in the first instance. This is simply my opinion. Ireland already has one of the highest inequalities in wealth in western Europe!

Also the government could change the higher tax bands, it might be a bit creative but why not have a few tax bands and not just 2?! The more you earn the more you pay. Why shouldn't someone on a million a year pay more in tax than someone on €200,000 a year and so on and so on? It might be thinking outside the box but that is what we need to do these days.

Social welfare needs to be protected, it is the "safety net", they can try to reduce it but if they try to reduce it by too much their will most definetly be public anger and violence on our streets...about that I have no doubt.

Despite what the government say if they really had introduced an equitible and fair emergency budget then those on minimum wage and those on social welfare especially would have been protected the most and those who would have been "hit" the hardest would have been the higher earners, that didn't happen.

I know sweet f'all about taxation but I know an equitible system when I see it and we do not have one. Lenihan muttered something about "each according to their ability [to pay]" and then goes and cuts dole for the under 20's in half. Now, if that's not taking the p*ss I don't know what is...

p.s: I'm leftwing....

The_Conductor

marti8 wrote: »

If you take a couple on minimum wage their gross pay for a 40 hour week is approx. €690 p.w......I know they are going to be taxed on that now, they hadn't been before.....I'm not sure what that tax is, whether it is the standard lower band or not...but even if it is....that couple will still earn more than a couple on social welfare will recieve from the State.

690 per week gross (610 after income levy, PRSI and other assorted deductions). 580 after VHI scheme B deduction (as they have no medical card. 530 after EUR25 a week for transport to and from work.


Versus

410 in dole
130 in rent allowance
Medical card
Other allowances.

They do *not* earn more than a couple on social welfare would receive from the state.

marti8 wrote: »

Taxing those on minimum wage was a retrograde move, imho. Taxing those who say earn over say €150,000 would have been a more equitable way to go. Yes, I know that the richer in our society have seen their tax increase also but if those who are on the minimum wage have now got to pay tax obviously it didn't go up high enough in the higher band in the first instance. This is simply my opinion. Ireland already has one of the highest inequalities in wealth in western Europe!

People on over 150k pay a 6% income levy on top of all other deductions. People on 20k pay a 2% income levy. Taxes are structured to charge a higher percentile to those who can afford it- than to those who cannot. The recent budget, while putting burden on everyone, proportionally put a higher burden on higher earners, than on lower. Its not a justifiable argument that if the lower paid have to pay tax, that obviously the higher paid aren't paying enough. Surely the equitable approach is to have everyone make a contribution, according to their means? A six percent increase for someone on a 150k salary can hurt just as much as a 2% increase on a person on 20k. These levies are to be commuted into the tax regime come the 2010 budget in December- with the probability of a third tax band being introduced for the low paid.

How do you make out that Ireland has one of the highest inequalities in wealth in Western Europe? The top 10% of earners contribute over 40% of all tax. What would you propose doing?

marti8 wrote: »

Also the government could change the higher tax bands, it might be a bit creative but why not have a few tax bands and not just 2?! The more you earn the more you pay. Why shouldn't someone on a million a year pay more in tax than someone on €200,000 a year and so on and so on? It might be thinking outside the box but that is what we need to do these days.

A new lower tax band is proposed for December- and when the income levies are commuted into the pre-existing bands- it looks like a 50%, 25% and 15% arrangement. People on a million a year pay far more than those on 200k a year already- where are you coming from with your supposition that they don't?

marti8 wrote: »

Social welfare needs to be protected, it is the "safety net", they can try to reduce it but if they try to reduce it by too much their will most definetly be public anger and violence on our streets...about that I have no doubt.

Why does social welfare need to be protected over and above the living standards of the average working man or woman. Surely if your argument is that there should be equity or equality- the inverse of this is in a falling economy the pain should be equally shared? A fall of 20% in the average take-home-pay (which is highly probable) should result in a commensurate 20% fall in entitlements? The argument for having the highest social welfare entitlements in the OECD, was that we could afford to link it to the average industrial wage. It suited to argue this in the good times, when we had the money to pay this- by the self same argument- the fall in the average industrial wage should be mirrored in the social welfare entitlements (not budget- entitlements).

Why should people be threatening public anger and violence? The people who have been hammered thus far is the couple on a single wage of between 40 and 60k who have kids under the age of 5. They are being hammered mentally- with a monthly reduction in their net income of over 600 a month- not the unemployed.

marti8 wrote: »

Despite what the government say if they really had introduced an equitible and fair emergency budget then those on minimum wage and those on social welfare especially would have been protected the most and those who would have been "hit" the hardest would have been the higher earners, that didn't happen.

Everyone got hit. Those on lower incomes and social welfare got hit by the smallest percentile. Those on higher incomes got hit by the greatest amount. Have a read of the reforms on the Department of Finance's website. Protecting the lower paid and those on social welfare in December- would be a simple 5% reduction (as deflation is going to above this level, and it would be imposed in retrospect). Parity and solidarity with all workers would be a 20-30% cut. There will be a cut- because quite simply we cannot borrow sufficient money to disburse in the manner we have been doing.

marti8 wrote: »

I know sweet f'all about taxation but I know an equitible system when I see it and we do not have one. Lenihan muttered something about "each according to their ability [to pay]" and then goes and cuts dole for the under 20's in half. Now, if that's not taking the p*ss I don't know what is...

p.s: I'm leftwing....

Each according to their ability to pay? Most people under the age of 20 are living in the family home, and at most making a token contribution towards the household bills. They do not have the burden of running a household. Any who do, have a range of other entitlements open to them. Why should the state fund the breakup of families? In bygone years families cared for each other- including the elderly. Now there is an automatic assumption that- sure we'll dump them in a nursing home or the state will pay for a carer for them. Why is this? Why do people expect a free safety net? If you want a safety net- at very least be honest- and acknowledge there is a cost associated with providing the safety net. The Nordic model accepts this- even the low paid are hammered with 60% punitive tax rates. They get their cradle to the grave care though. If you want to mollycoddle people- accept there is a price to pay for it.

damomeasa

smccarrick wrote: »

690 per week gross (610 after income levy, PRSI and other assorted deductions). 580 after VHI scheme B deduction (as they have no medical card. 530 after EUR25 a week for transport to and from work.


Versus

410 in dole
130 in rent allowance
Medical card
Other allowances.

I do believe if a couple are both collecting social welfare, one will only receive half payment. You cannot co-habit and have both parties getting full payments.