How poor are the poor, really?

weiss

i get about 23,000 euros p.a working in IT job, there I said it, was that hard?

i've no car, no loans or mortgage, family and probably won't unless i move from this sh1thole, ireland.

why stay? to pay for a welfare state? a worthless public sector that i get no benefit from?

would you say i'm rich? hardly...

cavedave

weiss i get about 23,000 euros p.a working in IT job

so you make about 440 a week. Is that after taxes?
If you were unemployed you'd get what 200 + 50 rent allowance. And possibly some extras as well (medical card etc). So your working 40 hours a week for say 200 extra euro. Or about 5 euros an hour?

weiss

i look at it as 100 euro more per week, after paying rent, theres about 350 left for anything else.

i would consider myself luckier than some to be honest, for example those on minimum wage in menial jobs taking home less than 340 per week.

if they were to pay 100 euro for rent, that would leave them 240...not really worth working.

gurramok

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Then why would he start a thread moaning about things being tight on €75k+?

Thats 4k after tax a month. I think the poster is not disclosing the real reasons why things are tight on that high a wage.

There are plenty of people who earn half that and are doing ok hence i sense some dishonesty as the poster has not stated why things are tight mathematically.

Soldie wrote: »

With respect, that is nobody's business but the OP's.

Again, refer to above. Most people would love to have 4k after tax a month to have a comfortable lifestyle yet the OP will not disclose why money is so tight despite whinging at everyone earning below him having it so good.

Something is amiss, its damn obvious.

Soldie

gurramok wrote: »

Thats 4k after tax a month. I think the poster is not disclosing the real reasons why things are tight on that high a wage.

There are plenty of people who earn half that and are doing ok hence i sense some dishonesty as the poster has not stated why things are tight mathematically.

Well, it's all relative, isn't it? I don't make much money, but I don't spend a lot, either. If I had dependants or other financial obligations, then I suppose I'd need more. I don't think the OP posted this thread for people to conduct a biopsy on his finances (and to conclude that he's living beyond his means), but rather to highlight the valid point that the government seem to continuously target middle-income workers, as though it's an infinite pool of wealth that can be tapped into. Now, that can be done without discussing his personal finances which, in any case, he's not obliged to share with us, of course.

AARRRGH

A lot of the people who are 'struggling' are only doing so because they have ridiculous lifestyles where they have an expensive mortgage, huge flatscreen TV's, two new cars, expensive holidays, expensive clothes, etc.

Basically, they buy whatever they want, whenever they want.

These people probably have a lot of credit card debt too, because their sex and the city lifestyle is expensive. It pains them to think they are going to have to give some of it up.

These people want it all, because they think they are wealthy, when in fact they were always just one or two months pay cheque away from a cliff.

Reality is now hitting them, and it is scary.

gurramok

Soldie wrote: »

Well, it's all relative, isn't it? I don't make much money, but I don't spend a lot, either. If I had dependants or other financial obligations, then I suppose I'd need more. I don't think the OP posted this thread for people to conduct a biopsy of his finances (and to conclude that he's living beyond his means), but rather to highlight the valid point that the government seem to continuously target middle-income workers, as though it's an infinite pool of wealth that can be tapped into. Now, that can be done without discussing his personal finances which, in any case, he's not obliged to share with us, of course.

Have a look at the post below. The OP has no right to moan about people earning below him as he has not disclosed any facts regarding his situation.

I agree with the below, the OP must be living beyond their means to be tight on 75k+ and is either too ashamed to say anything about bad decisions or just you know what!

A prudent earner on 75k+ would have no qualms about a paycut nor a tax rise as they know they are still doing well in life on 60k.

If you were to do a poll on boards if people were doing well or badly on 75k+, you will not need Mystic Meg to know the answer.

AARRRGH wrote: »

A lot of the people who are 'struggling' are only doing so because they have ridiculous lifestyles where they have an expensive mortgage, huge flatscreen TV's, two new cars, expensive holidays, expensive clothes, etc.

Basically, they buy whatever they want, whenever they want.

These people probably have a lot of credit card debt too, because their sex and the city lifestyle is expensive. It pains them to think they are going to have to give some of it up.

These people want it all, because they think they are wealthy, when in fact they were always just one or two months pay cheque away from a cliff.

Reality is now hitting them, and it is scary.

Blangis

Soldie wrote: »

I don't think the OP posted this thread for people to conduct a biopsy of his finances (and to conclude that he's living beyond his means), but rather to highlight the valid point that the government seem to continuously target middle-income workers, as though it's an infinite pool of wealth that can be tapped into. Now, that can be done without discussing his personal finances which, in any case, he's not obliged to share with us, of course.

Exactly. And I don't want this thread to be derailed into what does and does not constitute a modest lifestyle. This is as far as I will go:

I live in a 3 bed semi-detached house in the Dublin suburbs. It is relatively close to the city centre, but not an especially nice house. I have seen bigger houses on council estates. I drive an old car that I paid for with cash when I had it. It is the only car we have.

I rarely go out to pubs (twice this year) or restaurants (three times this year, all for special occasions). I have no credit card debt and don't buy aspirational, designer items of any kind. My partner and I have been away once in the last nine months - for a long weekend in Edinburgh, where we flew Ryanair and got a special offer on the hotel.

I call that a modest lifestyle, and don't see an enormous amount of fat to be trimmed there.

AARRRGH

Yet you can't survive on 4k cash every month?

Give me a break!

Where is all your money going?

Blangis

AARRRGH wrote: »

Yet you can't survive on 4k cash every month?

Give me a break!

I never said that is what I take home, or that I couldn't survive on what I take home.

I said that the assumption that people like me live lavish lifestyles is incorrect.

And I said that the policy of always targeting me and people like me when money is needed is unfair, and that "fairness" is a word that never seems to be used when it comes to us.

Why do I have to keep repeating it?

gurramok

Blangis wrote: »

I never said that is what I take home, or that I couldn't survive on what I take home.

I said that the assumption that people like me live lavish lifestyles is incorrect.

And I said that the policy of always targeting me and people like me when money is needed is unfair, and that "fairness" is a word that never seems to be used when it comes to us.

Why do I have to keep repeating it?

You're changing the goalposts now to it being 'not fair'

You stated your tax liability and it was worked out you take home at least 4000 per month, if not more.

I am in the 4% levy bracket so assumed to be in some way sitting pretty. Before the current levies, my mortgage and other household bills and so on consumed 80% of my take home pay. The current levies bring this up to about 92%, leaving me very little to save for emergencies, retirement, kids' education etc. When the next tax increases come in, I will have nothing left. I live in a modest 3 bed house in an unspectacular suburb of Dublin which I bought last summer for much more than it was worth, but which I had no choice but to buy at the time, due to various reasons. In short, my family and I are far from well off and just get by, month to month.

Its mathematically impossible for you to be struggling unless you are in severe debt. Your pay is not an issue nor the tax increases, its the debt that is the issue but you will not state this and yet you say the following about people earning way below you:

There is almost no margin of safety for us, but we are the people that everybody turns on at a time like this. The govt and the angry populace turn on us because they assume that we live some kind of dream existence and are able to pay and pay and pay, and that no cuts are too deep for us.

But the fact is that we are basically slaves. We work for rich people and large companies and make much more money for them than we will ever see in our lives. Then big chunks of what we are paid are taken off us to give to the people who are considered to be more deserving than us, and we are supposed to feel in some way privileged, or lucky, and in a weird way guilty for whatever we have. Well, the fact is that most of us don't have that much at all, and the only reason that you don't hear us moaning or see us protesting is because we are far too busy working for everybody else, and scared to do anything that might jeopardise our ability to look after our families.

So what I want to know is what the position is really like for all of the so-called deserving poor. I saw something on this site about a guy who was receiving benefits worth about 48,000 a year because he has four kids. This is equivalent to a six figure salary before tax, yet he is considered to be deserving and I am one of the bad guys that is supposed to be milked dry and worked into the ground so that he can be taken care of?

So who are the deserving poor? Fintan O'Toole came on Questions & Answers and went on about cleaners on 400 per week being the poor. But how many of these really exist? I worked in minimum wage jobs in my teens & twenties and the only other people I saw in these jobs were people like me - dossers, students and people who were travelling; basically, middle class kids who were taking some time out before beginning their life of slavery. The few cleaners from inner city Dublin that I came across were receiving plenty of benefits, knew every scam in the book, and had partners who were tradesmen that were bringing in very good money. None of them were relying on only their minimum wage. So how many people are really trying to raise families on 400 per week and nothing more? I would say they are few and far between.

My bet is that the average value of a so-called poor person's yearly income and benefits is equivalent to a pre-tax salary of 40-50,000 euros per annum. So what makes them so f*cking deserving?

You are having a go at welfare cheats who are a tiny minority yet you cannot see where your income is disappearing to.

otwb

AARRRGH wrote: »

Yet you can't survive on 4k cash every month?

Give me a break!

Where is all your money going?

The man is probably paying a mortgage. The point of the thread appears to have been derailed - so what does constitute poverty? If we take the 60% median income that was quoted earlier then you have a single person taking home €220 per week or €953 per month.

+ allowances for gas/esb
+ rent allowance/social housing
+ medical card

A worker on a decent income of 40k takes home in the region of 2200 p.m after tax

- mortgage/rent 1000
- esb/gas bill 150
- VHI 70
- visit to doctor 25 (averaging for 6 visits per year)

Leaving our worker with €955 per month.

Problem is example A is deemed as being in poverty, example B is seen as a well paid worker. They both have the same standard of living.

AARRRGH

Blangis wrote: »

I never said that is what I take home, or that I couldn't survive on what I take home.

I said that the assumption that people like me live lavish lifestyles is incorrect.

And I said that the policy of always targeting me and people like me when money is needed is unfair, and that "fairness" is a word that never seems to be used when it comes to us.

Why do I have to keep repeating it?

Well, everything you have suggested so far states you have a very high income and are seriously struggling.

From what you've written, it looks like the problem is you overstretched yourself by taking out a mortgage you can't afford.

There's only one person you should be angry with about that.

*Hands Blangis a mirror*

I have a lot of sympathy for people who are stressed and unhappy, but very little for those who don't understand the concept of personal responsibility.

Yes, it sucks that we all have to pay more tax, but only you are to blame for taking out a mortgage at the peak of the boom.

Sorry.

Blangis

gurramok wrote: »

Its mathematically impossible for you to be struggling unless you are in severe debt.

You're the guy who said that spending 80% of my take home pay was living beyond my means, right? I'm not sure mathematics is your strong suit.

Once again (with feeling): I didn't say I was struggling. I said I was living a modest lifestyle.

AARRRGH

Blangis wrote: »

Once again (with feeling): I didn't say I was struggling. I said I was living a modest lifestyle.

I think you need to re-read your first post. While you may not have used the exact word "struggling", you pretty strongly suggested you are struggling, i.e. you are scraping by month to month.

gurramok

otwb wrote: »

The man is probably paying a mortgage. The point of the thread appears to have been derailed - so what does constitute poverty? If we take the 60% median income that was quoted earlier then you have a single person taking home €220 per week or €953 per month.

+ allowances for gas/esb
+ rent allowance/social housing
+ medical card

A worker on a decent income of 40k takes home in the region of 2200 p.m after tax

- mortgage/rent 1000
- esb/gas bill 150
- VHI 70
- visit to doctor 25 (averaging for 6 visits per year)

Leaving our worker with €955 per month.

Problem is example A is deemed as being in poverty, example B is seen as a well paid worker. They both have the same standard of living.

You see, the point of what type of poverty it is. Is it a slave to the debt?
Thats was missing and what the OP will not state where 80% of his take home pay disappears while moaning about people like cleaners.

There is a difference between a high earner having a modest lifestyle whilst struggling to a low earner having a sh1tty lifestyle whilst struggling.

Blangis wrote:

You're the guy who said that spending 80% of my take home pay was living beyond my means, right? I'm not sure mathematics is your strong suit.

Once again (with feeling): I didn't say I was struggling. I said I was living a modest lifestyle.

leaving me very little to save for emergencies, retirement, kids' education etc. When the next tax increases come in, I will have nothing left

The above is struggling.

otwb

gurramok wrote: »

You see, the point of what type of poverty it is. Is it a slave to the debt?
Thats was missing and what the OP will not state where 80% of his take home pay disappears while moaning about people like cleaners.

There is a difference between a high earner having a modest lifestyle whilst struggling to a low earner having a sh1tty lifestyle whilst struggling.

The above is struggling.

No the OP's question is what was poverty? There are plenty of workers in the country who are living at a standard equal to, or below, that of someone on welfare.

If you do not qualify for housing/medical cards etc based on income then you have no option but to buy these. Thats life. But it is difficult to compare your life after working 45 hours a week to someone with an equivalent standard of living who is not working.

If taxes go up, then its the workers who will be hit. Not the protected people on welfare. The OP's personal circumstances are not relevant to the question that he asked in the first place.

gurramok

otwb wrote: »

No the OP's question is what was poverty? There are plenty of workers in the country who are living at a standard equal to, or below, that of someone on welfare.

If you do not qualify for housing/medical cards etc based on income then you have no option but to buy these. Thats life. But it is difficult to compare your life after working 45 hours a week to someone with an equivalent standard of living who is not working.

If taxes go up, then its the workers who will be hit. Not the protected people on welfare. The OP's personal circumstances are not relevant to the question that he asked in the first place.

The question was 'how poor are the poor, really?'

Of course, some on welfare have it good, some have a house paid for but the downside is those houses are in dodgy areas while everyone else who works normally does not buy in a dodgy area. Its a trade-in where money pays.

The OP circumstances are relevant as the maths do not add up while claiming to be struggling and then berating cleaners and welfare claimants at the same time.

Lolabugs

EF wrote: »

I agree with you that social welfare in this country is very generous and should be decreased at least in line with the reduced cost of living in this country.

Is it just me or has anyone else yet to encounter this so called "reduced cost of living in this country" :mad:

gurramok

Lolabugs wrote: »

Is it just me or has anyone else yet to encounter this so called "reduced cost of living in this country" :mad:

You are right. They are using the falling price of ESB, Gas and mortgage payments as evidence.

Of course whats left out is that the first two went sky high with 30%+ increases last year and the latter is only temporary until interest rates go back up and it does not affect fixed rate holders.

Plus, watch the barrel of oil going up and the ESB, Gas and fuel will skyrocket again. And not forgetting tax rises!!

Still, basic food prices and services are still pricey hence the continued invasion of Northern Ireland daily.

Actually the above affects those on welfare more as they have less disposable income.

bigstar

Threads like this really piss me off. OP your not the only one feeling the pain, the reason the middle class were hit is because they can afford it. Yes its hard but the people like your cleaner friends tradesman husband are unemployed, so they cant even pay a 2% levy.
everyones hurting right now not just you. everyone wants someone else to carry the burden, its really pissing me off.

Dr Galen

unfortunatley many in the middle income bracket actually can't afford it. The reasons behind that fact, be they, high mortgage payments,debts,kids etc are a totally different debate. The fact is that many people who reisde in this middle class are stretched. Whether we sympathise with their investment decisions etc or not, it's hard to disagree that they have been targetted, above other members of society.

gurramok

Mystik Monkey wrote: »

unfortunatley many in the middle income bracket actually can't afford it. The reasons behind that fact, be they, high mortgage payments,debts,kids etc are a totally different debate. The fact is that many people who reisde in this middle class are stretched. Whether we sympathise with their investment decisions etc or not, it's hard to disagree that they have been targetted, above other members of society.

Thats not our problem.

Do you expect the govt to trawl through everyone's financial decisions to decide who will get taxed or not?

They have ways out, sell that house, sell that expensive car, cut back on needless expenses etc. The real poor don't have that choice.

If they were let off the taxes and if that is the case, the prudent will continue to pay for the imprudent and thats not how a society functions.

Dr Galen

gurramok wrote: »

Thats not our problem.

Do you expect the govt to trawl through everyone's financial decisions to decide who will get taxed or not?

They have ways out, sell that house, sell that expensive car, cut back on needless expenses etc. The real poor don't have that choice.

If they were let off the taxes and if that is the case, the prudent will continue to pay for the imprudent and thats not how a society functions.

Gurramok, I was more making a point about some of the other posts in this thread, rather than society in general. I totally agree that those who were prudent in the good times end up paying for those who went a bit mad.

Using your logic though regarding it not being "our problem", well then I could say it's not my problem that someone is poor and it's up them to do something to get out of being poor........

Now tbh I wouldn't dream of thinking this. I fully understand that many factors are involved in creating these situations. I'd much rather though that welfare targetted getting these people out of the poverty trap than just keeping them there. That way, those people who aren't sponging, and want to better themselves and make their own way in the world, are given every assistance to do so. We'd also quickly weed out the lazy freeloaders too.

As for those incapable of supporting themselves, because of disability etc, the state has a moral responsisbility to take care of these people. Certainly, we need to make sure that we're not just throwing money at things, but doing good and whats needed. Thats something that I fear sucessive Irish governements have been able to do

fly_agaric

otwb wrote:

The man is probably paying a mortgage. The point of the thread appears to have been derailed - so what does constitute poverty? If we take the 60% median income that was quoted earlier then you have a single person taking home €220 per week or €953 per month.

+ allowances for gas/esb
+ rent allowance/social housing
+ medical card

A worker on a decent income of 40k takes home in the region of 2200 p.m after tax

- mortgage/rent 1000
- esb/gas bill 150
- VHI 70
- visit to doctor 25 (averaging for 6 visits per year)

Leaving our worker with €955 per month.

Problem is example A is deemed as being in poverty, example B is seen as a well paid worker. They both have the same standard of living.

erm, they don't actually pay your entire rent - these are "allowances" are they not? And most people on social welfare don't get help with the esb & gas afaik. You seem to be distorting things to suit your argument (assuming that if you are on social welfare you pay zero for a place to live & energy to power it).


Also - while the medical card is good - its not as good as being in vhi if time is of the essence. And you don't need to be earning too much at all to cease to qualify for it.

The middle & upper middle class did get a$$-r4ped in the budget but its still better (...much better) than depending totally on the state or working for below the median wage.

The whole thing is unfair but in this case the poor (they're not africa/asia poor so there's lots of fat for trimming so I won't have to hurt as much!) are another handy scapegoat/whipping boy. Like the public sector except less deserving.

weiss

And most people on social welfare don't get help with the esb & gas afaik

That depends.

if you qualify for disability benefit, you have a percentage of your ESB bills paid for.
You also get a free pass for CIE transport.(telephone & computer also AFAIK)
Qualifying for disability benefit doesn't necessarily mean you're disabled.

There is a fuel allowance for most people on welfare.

If you've been on welfare for X amount of months, you're entitled to Back to education or back to work allowance.

If its back to education, you may be eligible for grant scheme, this can be anything from 2000 - 4000 euro per year.

I remember in the 90's watching certain people work their ass off, while paying taxes, and also those on welfare but working on the side.

Collecting welfare and working was by far the best way to make money..just an observation.

Corruption in this country really does pay.

weiss

As a side note, since there is a back to work allowance, i see no reason for long term unemployed to continue using the excuse that minimum wage doesn't pay to work, since they would be allowed to keep 100% of their dole for the first year (tax free of course) and still receive a wage.

Some people are simply taking the p1ss out of the system.

fly_agaric

weiss wrote: »

That depends.

if you qualify for disability benefit, you have a percentage of your ESB paid for.
You also get a free pass for CIE transport.(telephone & computer also AFAIK)

Was unaware of this - thought it was just the OAPs that got these sorts of fringe-benefits.

weiss wrote: »

Qualifying for disability benefit doesn't necessarily mean you're disabled....Collecting welfare and working was by far the best way to make money..just an observation.

We've moved beyond the poor & rich (deserving or undeserving depending on your opinion) into the realm of scam artists. Most people with any morals say they don't deserve benefits they gain by cheating.

weiss

We've moved beyond the poor & rich (deserving or undeserving depending on your opinion) into the realm of scam artists. Most people with any morals say they don't deserve benefits they gain by cheating.

Just to be clear, I've not scammed the state at all, ever.

But I have observed many do it over the years because its so easy, and because its so common here in Ireland, It didn't bother me...well, it does, but there isn't much I can do on my own to change it.

When you look at the corruption of our top leaders, you start to question your morals on being honest, hard working, contributing to society..you see that its all really BS at the end of the day.

The way I see it, politicians here are only good for a couple of things, talking BS and spending Tax payers money.(usually to benefit themselves)

weiss

By the way, if you're an alcoholic and depressed (as a result of drinking), you would qualify for disability benefit.

Now forgive me for saying, but I don't see how a choice to drink is a disability.

And if its a "disease" like many claim, why aren't monkeys drinking dutch gold and smoking grass all day watching tv or playing the xbox?

Sorry for going OT, but i'm obviously referring to healthy young people who are capable of working but choose the "rock n roll" lifestyle because there is no pressure to get work.

I'm not attacking genuinely disabled people, of course not.