Social Welfare State

ei.sdraob

@ kickoutthejams

we posted at the same time

see my post right before yours where i did some number crunching

once you see them figures would you not agree that the current tax/welfare regime is crazy

as i said "an epic fail" for the social welfare state

Lockstep

Like I said, systems are always fallible, I'm much grander with a system where the occasional person gets too much than a system like the Japanese where people starve to death because the welfare state is too harsh.

Fuzzballs

@ Kernel

We are allowing the underclasses to flourish! Sure they are all just delighted to be flourishing in the wonderful working class suburbs all over the country.

I mean come on man. Maybe you should crack out your copy of mein kampf, get a soap box and start your new fascist party. Its unreal what you are saying. Your next step would be a mass sterilization program of anybody on social welfare. Lets get that poison into their water supply asap. So the real people in the middle and upper classes can get on with the job of re population. And you talk about an unfair social welfare state. How about somebody getting 200 euro a week and with 3 children. Getting the same child benefits every month as a millionaire. Really really worth having the children isnt it. You sir are an idiot.

AlekSmart

It`s all fine and Jim Dandy pointing out that the "System" is wrong and it`s nobodys fault if it`s being manipulated etc etc...:)

However like most "Systems" DSFA plc is comprised of 3 essential elements.
1.The contributors. ie: Those who fund it.
2.The Administrators. ie: Those who give out what 1 contributes.
3.The Claimants.ie: Those who accept from 2 what 1 contributes.

What appears to be causing most blood-pressure problems is the increasing number of class 1`s who when attempting to secure payment from 2 the monies they have paid in are finding that the scale and extent of such payments is well below somebody who has never been a 1,but has had a long and fruitful interaction with 2 for,in some cases,years.

However as a society we now are so totally dependent on DSFA money to keep the lid on things it`s no surprise that even the so-called Expert only recommended a 5% cut in DSFA benefits.....

These people have read the reports and projections of what will happen IF DSFA customers are denied their "entitlements"en masse so there is an element of trying to keep the Elephant-in-the Room happy no matter what.

At this point it`s all pretty academic as the decisions have been made regarding where Éire teo will be positioned in the coming decade,so don`t go getting all expectant of a recovery....just make sure your children get a couple of basic Languages under their belts.....French,German,Italian or even Spanish at a pinch......you can pretty much forget about Péig for the remainder of this century...

Spudmonkey

Wheely wrote: »

You want to do away with the entire system not overhaul it. I never defended the perfection of the system but you want to abolish welfare as a concept.

Where have I ever said abolish the welfare system? I may have suggested a work for your welfare but I know the government would never implement such a thing so I abandoned the idea.

Wheely wrote: »

People too lazy to work/poor people, there's a massive overlap between our two categorisations you must admit. How many of these people who are too lazy to work live in Blackrock.

Who I would consider most deserving are those who are disabled or those who have recently lost their jobs and are struggling to pay their mortgages, these are who I would consider the newly poor. If you think there is a massive overlap between these people and those who are too lazy to work, you need to re-draw that venn-diagram! Where they live is irrelevant!

Wheely wrote: »

Also call it what you will I was really focusing on your advocacy for a return to the stocks, hmm wikipedia definition

Read that definition there of the stocks again. God I'm so sorry I attacked your lack of acumen in the realms of empathy and social policy!!!!

Fine if you think I attacked the poor poster report me.

That was posted on AH, where many comments tend to be OTT, as I have not been banned I can only assume that you are the only one offended...

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Welcome to practice over theory.
Of course there will always be discrepancies and injustices that occur, there is no such thing as an infallible system.

Outlining previous points you have made is not exactly relevant to the discussion at hand but it is certainly not "attacking" you.

Can you prove that they exist in sufficient numbers to guarantee your proposed massive rehaul of the system? (in a time when job cuts are occuring left right and centre, suggesting that maybe there are many unempoyed people because of the economy, rather than because of laziness)

Which is what most of us do. I don't really see why you are bringing this up.

There is no such thing as an infallible system, it does not mean that a system cannot be improved on. There have been many accounts in the papers over the last few months of welfare fraud and how the current level of welfare payout does not encourage people to re-enter the workforce. I know there may not be jobs at the moment but we have still heard cases where jobs have been turned down. This is indicative of a problem with the system the way it currently is.

I fail to see how any previous posts I may have made on;

- the cutting/abolishment of the minimum wage
- Brian Lenihan's performance in interviews
- "nauseously" patting myself on the back for saving
- condeming those who bought during the bubble

may serve any purpose in this thread, unless they were quoted in such a fashion so as to discredit me or any argument I had to make. Ergo I see this as an attack on the poster and not on the post.

This is all I have to say, I am not getting involved in any more p1ssing competitions with Wheelie or anyone else.

Additionally, there are many people on here who are not in a position to see their weekly paycheck ravaged by government taxes which are wastefully spent. This may be a reason as to my "radical" "opinions".

dvpower

ei.sdraob wrote: »

marriage tax credit.

The tax credit for married persons is exactly equal to that that of two single persons. There are some some specific rules about how married people can choose to be taxed (and share their credits), but a working married couple are no better off than their unmarried equivalents. I think there was a marriage tax free allowance many many moons ago.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

single parent tax credit

There is a single parent tax credit, I presume designed to help single parents into the workforce. Is it fair? I don't know, but how you can suggest that a tax credit for single parents would encourage people to marry and have kids is beyond me.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

hence a single person who starts a business is worse off than a married person who is average on wage when it comes to being income taxed

hence what? I'm failing to draw the same conclusion.

ei.sdraob

i confronted the father of the family in the parallel thread in AH

he is clearly scamming the system

i even did the maths on the figures he provided

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61545841&postcount=243

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61546085&postcount=251

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61546769&postcount=262

its actually scary how fecked up the welfare system is

dvpower wrote: »

hence what? I'm failing to draw the same conclusion.

teh tax/welfare system is designed to encourage family formation and making chidren while penalizing new enterprises thats the conclusion

socialist/communist utopia at its best

.

Lockstep

Spudmonkey wrote: »

There is no such thing as an infallible system, it does not mean that a system cannot be improved on. There have been many accounts in the papers over the last few months of welfare fraud and how the current level of welfare payout does not encourage people to re-enter the workforce. I know there may not be jobs at the moment but we have still heard cases where jobs have been turned down. This is indicative of a problem with the system the way it currently is.

There have been cases, sure. However, unless I see some more concrete evidence, I remain sceptical, seeing as newspapers will logically pick extreme cases (sensationalism sells etc)

Spudmonkey wrote: »

I fail to see how any previous posts I may have made on;

- the cutting/abolishment of the minimum wage
- Brian Lenihan's performance in interviews
- "nauseously" patting myself on the back for saving
- condeming those who bought during the bubble

may serve any purpose in this thread, unless they were quoted in such a fashion so as to discredit me or any argument I had to make. Ergo I see this as an attack on the poster and not on the post.

I certainly wouldn't classify it as an attack (unless you are extremly reliant on other people's opinions)
I'd see your viewpoints in this thread as fairly consistent with the above views, off topic; maybe, but not an attack.

Spudmonkey wrote: »

Additionally, there are many people on here who are not in a position to see their weekly paycheck ravaged by government taxes which are wastefully spent. This may be a reason as to my "radical" "opinions".

A fairly common argument; nearly all of us are facing job cuts, levys etc.
I only know a few people on Boards who are unemployed, mostly because they post in the Work and Jobs section looking for help with CVs etc.

Wheely

Spudmonkey wrote: »

Where have I ever said abolish the welfare system? I may have suggested a work for your welfare but I know the government would never implement such a thing so I abandoned the idea.".

"
I mean I'm sure getting rid of the dole completely would solve a lot of problems, but thats not likely to happen "

"Why bother with the minimum wage at all? Why does the state have to get involved and effectively become a union. Can an employer and an employee not come to an agreement between themselves as to what is an acceptable rate of pay?? "

"There is no choice in cutting the dole. It has to be done, there is no way around it without not cutting it. Except for maybe abolishing it completely for the long term un-employed... Thats one way of reducing it! "

Right you said all tohse things they are direct quotes so your accusations of my unjustified pre-conceived notions are bull. Also comments you made about social welfare in the past be they on this thread or not are relevant to the discussion at hand.

Spudmonkey wrote: »

Who I would consider most deserving are those who are disabled or those who have recently lost their jobs and are struggling to pay their mortgages, these are who I would consider the newly poor. If you think there is a massive overlap between these people and those who are too lazy to work, you need to re-draw that venn-diagram! Where they live is irrelevant!

First time you've used the term "newly poor" so not my fault if i didn't take into account that you were using "poor" as a synonym for "newly poor". So in your eyes only the "newly poor" and those who are disabled deserve welfare is that what you're implying?

And while you say I need to re-draw my, ahem, "Venn Diagram" I was merely pointing out that the people you identify as "too lazy to work" are invariably POOR. And they invariably live in POOR, deprieved areas. You may think you just have a problem with those who leech off the state, those who are too lazy to work and that it's ONLY these people you have a problem with regardless of where they came from or where they live so in your eyes where they live doesn't matter. Regardless of this inherent neutrality in your loathing, the fact remains that the people at whom you direct it are invariably poor and live in poor areas. To say "I only hate the scummers the leeches the lazy ones I dont care where they live" echoes Anatole France's timeless satire "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread."

Spudmonkey wrote: »

That was posted on AH, where many comments tend to be OTT, as I have not been banned I can only assume that you are the only one offended...

Whether or ont I was offended is not the issue. Tongue in cheek/ OTT whatever, it sits perfectly with your more serious opinions on welfare policy and is illustrative of your attitude towards welfare recepients. I don't care if you were banned or not. It's relevant to the opinions you express on this thread, which is discussing a social welfare state. Sorry mate. You said it!

Spudmonkey wrote: »

There is no such thing as an infallible system, it does not mean that a system cannot be improved on. There have been many accounts in the papers over the last few months of welfare fraud and how the current level of welfare payout does not encourage people to re-enter the workforce. I know there may not be jobs at the moment but we have still heard cases where jobs have been turned down. This is indicative of a problem with the system the way it currently is....

Time and time and time again you go on about cases where you've heard of jobs being turned down cos its a better deal on welfare thus vindicating savage cuts/abolition of the system. Its hearsay anecdotal weak evidence and even if it were true would not justify what you advocate. The notion that if welfare were abolished all those lazy feckers would just get up and get jobs is crap. They would starve. They would die. They would deal drugs and take drugs and kill each other and rob and entire areas of our society would rot. And not because they are "bad" or "evil" or "lazy" etc etc etc. There is no such thing as a one word explanation for problems as complex as crime poverty, social exclusion, welfare. Try reading a book or two on these topics, honestly, the endgame of implementation of policies you advocate is a far less healthy society than the one in which we now live.

Spudmonkey wrote: »

I fail to see how any previous posts I may have made on;

- the cutting/abolishment of the minimum wage
- Brian Lenihan's performance in interviews
- "nauseously" patting myself on the back for saving
- condeming those who bought during the bubble

may serve any purpose in this thread, unless they were quoted in such a fashion so as to discredit me or any argument I had to make. Ergo I see this as an attack on the poster and not on the post.

This is all I have to say, I am not getting involved in any more p1ssing competitions with Wheelie or anyone else.

Additionally, there are many people on here who are not in a position to see their weekly paycheck ravaged by government taxes which are wastefully spent. This may be a reason as to my "radical" "opinions".

Scrwe it maybe I did attack the poster as oposed ot the post, kickoutthejams doesn't seem to think I did but maybe were both wrong. If I did, I honestly don't care, I don't regret one thing I've posted in relation to you or your posts.

And it's a debate not a pissing contest, though to debase it as such is a smart move, who cares if you lose a pissing contest right?

While not paying taxes at the moment I have in the past and will be again in the very near future. Who knows maybe I'll turn "radical" too eh :rolleyes:

ei.sdraob

kickoutthejams wrote: »

There have been cases, sure. However, unless I see some more concrete evidence, I remain sceptical, seeing as newspapers will logically pick extreme cases (sensationalism sells etc)

how is this for sensational

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61546769&postcount=262

if this is not a failure of the Welfare state then i dont know what is

the maths is done by the figures provided by Mr Sponger himself

Exibit A - Ger's Harte Family (from indo)
* 8 bed house paid by council until recently in clare
* 6 kids and whatever welfare (~1000)
* sick wife at home requiring healthcare
* dole @ €482 * 52 = €25,064
* free full medical healthcare courtesy of state

Exibit B - Honest Family
* 8 bed in clare (@€;600K cheapest 8bed i could find in clare none in same area) that works out at mortgage payment of €2000 a month
* 6 kids and whatever welfare (~1000)
* sick wife at home requiring healthcare
* VHI Family Plan for 2 adults + 6 kids = €2,684 a year

the man would need a after tax income of €29,748 (€2,684 + €2000 + €25,064)

thats means Honest Man needs to hold a fulltime job of €37,000 before tax to pay for family + healthcare + mortgage




So Ger gets the same benefits for doing nothing as

as Honest Man who is working full time for €37000 a year

Spudmonkey

Wheely wrote: »

Right you said all tohse things they are direct quotes so your accusations of my unjustified pre-conceived notions are bull. Also comments you made about social welfare in the past be they on this thread or not are relevant to the discussion at hand.

Spindoctor now are we? The two actually referencing the dole are both with regard to the abolishment of the dole for long term scroungers. This is something that has been suggested by many others as well. I fail to see how my opinion differs from anyone else who wants to see the dole removed from those not willing to work. I have never said remove the dole completely as this would be taking it away from those made recently un-employed. In fact I can supply with more of my posts which highlight this.

The second has nothing to do with the dole, it's the minimum wage and I fail to see its significance here.

Wheely wrote: »

First time you've used the term "newly poor" so not my fault if i didn't take into account that you were using "poor" as a synonym for "newly poor". So in your eyes only the "newly poor" and those who are disabled deserve welfare is that what you're implying?

And while you say I need to re-draw my, ahem, "Venn Diagram" I was merely pointing out that the people you identify as "too lazy to work" are invariably POOR. And they invariably live in POOR, deprieved areas. You may think you just have a problem with those who leech off the state, those who are too lazy to work and that it's ONLY these people you have a problem with regardless of where they came from or where they live so in your eyes where they live doesn't matter. Regardless of this inherent neutrality in your loathing, the fact remains that the people at whom you direct it are invariably poor and live in poor areas. To say "I only hate the scummers the leeches the lazy ones I dont care where they live" echoes Anatole France's timeless satire "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread."

What I refer to them as doesn't matter, I am talking about the same segment of people and it is radically different to yours. For some reason you think that work is below some people who live in "working class" estates? How many Polish came this country over the last few years and found employment? Do you honestly think that these jobs couldn't have been filled by some of these people on the dole? Are they unable to work for some reason? Why is it below them? Are they not able to provide for themselves?

Wheely wrote: »

Time and time and time again you go on about cases where you've heard of jobs being turned down cos its a better deal on welfare thus vindicating savage cuts/abolition of the system. Its hearsay anecdotal weak evidence and even if it were true would not justify what you advocate. The notion that if welfare were abolished all those lazy feckers would just get up and get jobs is crap. They would starve. They would die. They would deal drugs and take drugs and kill each other and rob and entire areas of our society would rot. And not because they are "bad" or "evil" or "lazy" etc etc etc. There is no such thing as a one word explanation for problems as complex as crime poverty, social exclusion, welfare. Try reading a book or two on these topics, honestly, the endgame of implementation of policies you advocate is a far less healthy society than the one in which we now live.

Ok if the anecdotal evidence is not enough for you, have a look at any of the ei.sdroab's posts on this thread or on the equivalent thread in AH on how is possible to fair better on the dole and how much more a family would have to be earning in order to be on the equivalent level of welfare. Does this not strike you as odd? That someone on welfare can have a more comfortable level of lifestyle than someone working?

Frankly I thought welfare was something to keep you above the breadline, not provide you with an alternative lifestyle which is what it certainly seems to provide.

Anyway it is not because of some extreme right wing mentality that I want to see welfare abolished, it is because there is no way of maintaining the current level of public spending.

Wheely wrote: »

And it's a debate not a pissing contest, though to debase it as such is a smart move, who cares if you lose a pissing contest right?

While not paying taxes at the moment I have in the past and will be again in the very near future. Who knows maybe I'll turn "radical" too eh :rolleyes:

It's a debate? Your idea of a debate seems to be "You eat you boiled eggs upside down a la the Blefuscudians, therefore you are an idiot and everything you say should be ignored". But you are right, its not a pissing contest either, it seems to have turned into a "nauseating" backslapping competition between yourself and kickoutthejams.

So you aren't paying taxes? Have you ever paid taxes you can't reclaim? Wait till you see a third of your wages flushed down the toilet. Again we'll see if I'm "radical"

Lockstep

Spudmonkey wrote: »

It's a debate? Your idea of a debate seems to be "You eat you boiled eggs upside down a la the Blefuscudians, therefore you are an idiot and everything you say should be ignored". But you are right, its not a pissing contest either, it seems to have turned into a "nauseating" backslapping competition between yourself and kickoutthejams.

You were complaining about being "attacked", I pointed out this wasn't the case and you feel this is nauseating backslapping?
Ok....

Spudmonkey

kickoutthejams wrote: »

You were complaining about being "attacked", I pointed out this wasn't the case and you feel this is nauseating backslapping?
Ok....

Well apparently posting on a thread about peoples financial situation is considered nauseating backslapping, I was merely returning it. I can see how it is considered an over the top comment to use.

No offense intended.

oscarBravo

Can we put away the handbags and get back on topic?

Devilman

Luckily honest man can get help

From http://www.welfare.ie/EN/Schemes/BirthChildrenAndFamilies/ChildRelatedPayments/Pages/fis.aspx


FIS income limits in 2009:
From January 2009, if you have: And your family income is less than:
One child €500
Two children €590
Three children €685
Four children €800
Five children €920
Six children €1,030
Seven children €1,160
Eight children €1,250

Assessible earnings are gross pay minus tax, employee PRSI, Health Contribution, income levy and superannuation. So eample B can earn €29748 p.a after tax and still be paid 60% of the difference between that and €53560 p.a. Giving him an income of €44035.20 p.a. (Child Benefit and Early Childcare Allowance are not assessed as income)

Also example B is entitled to claim for Medical card for himself and his family, as after tax and mortgage payments are taken into account he has an income of less than €703 pw - Married couple with 6 children (FIS is not taken into account for Medical Card applications)

http://www.hse.ie/eng/Find_a_Service/entitlements/Medical_Cards/MCGPVCincomeguidelines.pdf

ei.sdraob

Devilman wrote: »

Luckily honest man can get help

From http://www.welfare.ie/EN/Schemes/BirthChildrenAndFamilies/ChildRelatedPayments/Pages/fis.aspx


FIS income limits in 2009:
From January 2009, if you have: And your family income is less than:
One child €500
Two children €590
Three children €685
Four children €800
Five children €920
Six children €1,030
Seven children €1,160
Eight children €1,250

Assessible earnings are gross pay minus tax, employee PRSI, Health Contribution, income levy and superannuation. So eample B can earn €29748 p.a after tax and still be paid 60% of the difference between that and €53560 p.a. Giving him an income of €44035.20 p.a. (Child Benefit and Early Childcare Allowance are not assessed as income)

Also example B is entitled to claim for Medical card for himself and his family, as after tax and mortgage payments are taken into account he has an income of less than €703 pw - Married couple with 6 children (FIS is not taken into account for Medical Card applications)

http://www.hse.ie/eng/Find_a_Service/entitlements/Medical_Cards/MCGPVCincomeguidelines.pdf

i left out the children's allowance out of calculations as you get it whether you are poor or rich so Example A and Example B be equal

i dont know whether B and his family are entitled to the same level of free healthcare as A even if they do an one leaves out VHI the figures are still crazy

the "scrounger" mentioned in the thread that the wife is "depressed" hence why medical is so important and I added VHI family cover plan to calculations for Example B

even if you take out the medical and housing costs out of the picture then the Example A (Gers family) are still much better of on the dole than working one :mad:


also see this
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61546085&postcount=251


1. Ger quit a 3 jobs with total of 25K p/a before tax in 2004
2. Ger and his family have been on dole (excluding rent, children's + any other allowances) since 2004, currently amounting to 25K welfare with no tax on that!


the guy makes more from the dole than he did from working 3 jobs! no wonder he went on welfare!!

and then they have the cheek to ask the council to continue paying for their 8 bed house

which would cost someone Honest 2K a month in mortgage repayments to pay for (and remember interest rates are rock bottom low now and will only go up)


so to summaries according to my calculations here we have a clear case of welfare abuse and failure of welfare state

where a family of 8 is better of on welfare than working at a respectable job



here are my calculations

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61545558&postcount=232
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61546085&postcount=251
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61546769&postcount=262


all figures are based on what the father provided himself in that thread, who knows whats being left out

Kernel

Fuzzballs wrote: »

@ Kernel

We are allowing the underclasses to flourish! Sure they are all just delighted to be flourishing in the wonderful working class suburbs all over the country.

Whether they are delighted or not, I can't say - they don't seem to be delighted judging by the amount of anti-social behaviour and drug abuse they indulge in. But, yes, I stand by the statement that our system is allowing them to flourish beyond natural means that market forces should dictate. As has already been pointed out, no need to worry about creche fees, schooling fees etc. that us productive workers worry about.

Fuzzballs wrote: »

I mean come on man. Maybe you should crack out your copy of mein kampf, get a soap box and start your new fascist party. Its unreal what you are saying.

I was wondering when someone would bring German National Socialism into the equation. It was inevitable, you understand, due to any reference to social Darwinism. The sacred cows of the politically correct liberal left have caused enough problems in this country, it's time we confronted them head on rather than pussy-foot about.

Fuzzballs wrote: »

Your next step would be a mass sterilization program of anybody on social welfare. Lets get that poison into their water supply asap. So the real people in the middle and upper classes can get on with the job of re population.

The numbers game stands. The minority of productive workers cannot fund the underclasses and theresultant skewing demographic of Ireland anymore. They aren't even a part of the State in my eyes; they don't contribute to it, and they do not respect it, or it's laws. How do you suggest we tackle the problem?

Fuzzballs wrote: »

And you talk about an unfair social welfare state. How about somebody getting 200 euro a week and with 3 children. Getting the same child benefits every month as a millionaire. Really really worth having the children isnt it.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. If you mean a worker on €200 getting paid the same child benefit, then it's part of my criticism of social welfare anyway. That somebody who works to provide for their offspring (as it is their responsibility to do) should be worse off than a layabout.

Fuzzballs wrote: »

You sir are an idiot.

Now now, no need for personal insults. However, perhaps you could display your rapier-like intellect and tell us all how to solve the problems of growing numbers of degenerates in Irish society?

EDIT: Also, to address the point a couple of people have raised, I have in fact engaged in voluntary work with underprivileged and have dealings with them on an ongoing basis. It gives a warm fuzzy feeling to help people - but I call a spade a spade, and I look around and see the country of my birth going down the toilet.

Devilman

You miss my point as does example A

If A was earning 25k p.a he would be entitled to claim FIS up to the weekly limit for 6 children (giving an annual income of 42k after tax (which is a better income than dole + rent for a family of 8)).

Also example B can claim FIS too as on 37000 p.a before tax as he also earns less than the weekly income limit for FIS (he ends up with 44000p.a after tax - giving him 14k p.a more than net earnings)

example B is entitled to same level of free health care as A.

ei.sdraob

Kernel wrote: »

but I call a spade a spade, and I look around and see the country of my birth going down the toilet.

I am with you Kernel

I understand the need for welfare especially if one looses a Job

but as has been seen from the recently publicized case of the Harte family, and by working with figures provided by Ger Harte himself

it is clear beyond doubt that here we have a case where it is more profitable for a man to sit at home and claim welfare for his wife and kids than go out and work a full week at a 37K+ job

and thats exactly what he did for 5 years!


i can understand it being hard to find 37K + jobs nowadays, but between 2004 and 2008 there were plenty of jobs paying that at the peak of the boom, who knows he could have got a job in the Public sector at least and still have a nice secure job now


The welfare state has come to a point where its better for one to stay at home and claim welfare than engage in productive employment/enterprise

its rotten to the core i tell ya :mad:

Devilman wrote: »

You miss my point as does example A

If A was earning 25k p.a he would be entitled to claim FIS up to the weekly limit for 6 children (giving an annual income of 42k after tax (which is a better income than dole + rent for a family of 8)).

Also example B can claim FIS too as on 37000 p.a before tax as he also earns less than the weekly income limit for FIS (he ends up with 44000p.a after tax - giving him 14k p.a more than net earnings)

example B is entitled to same level of free health care as A.

can you put your figures in the same table format as i did for a clear comparison between example A and B? include housing and medical costs, and assume both families are same size and circumstance, and also mention the childrens allowance which would be the same for both

Spudmonkey

Kernel wrote: »

However, perhaps you could display your rapier-like intellect and tell us all how to solve the problems of growing numbers of degenerates in Irish society?

Surely you mean the poor? :rolleyes:

Kernel

Spudmonkey wrote: »

Surely you mean the poor? :rolleyes:

No, not the poor. There are many poor people who are working and paying mortgages with little or no disposable income left over. They are contributing to our society. It's more about mentality than it is about income. It's the mentality that makes the 'underclass' to me, not the wealth.

ei.sdraob

here are all the figures again


all figures are based on information supplied by Ger Harte himself in the AH thread, not the newspapers (that would pain a very ugly picture) and doesnt include any cars or plasma tvs or laptops....


Specimen A1 ( Harte Family of the Indo fame in 2004)
* income from working 3 jobs = 440/week => 22880/year before tax

* FIS @ 44/week => 2288 a year with no tax on this

* Child benefit at the time 850/month => 10200/year no tax on this

* Family of 2 adults and 5 children at time living in council house

* medical ? i presume they were on medical cards then


Specimen A2 (Harte Family in 2009)

* dole 482/week => 25064/year no tax on this!

* Child benefit 1144/month => 13728

* they moved out of council house, they then were getting rent allowance to pay for a house, but were recently refused it as they decided to move into 8 bed (€440,000) house for a family of 8, have they not heard of bunking up? they also bred child #6 in meantime

* Free healthcare



are they or are they not better off on welfare financially and it frees up time that would have spend being employed as a productive member of society?

thats the question


/

Devilman

family b


income after tax - 29748
FIS (6 children) 60% dff 53560 minus 29748 - 14287.20

medical card ( weekly income limit for family of 8 after housing and tax = €703)

final income 44035.20 p.a



family a (based on figures provided while working 25k p.a)



income after tax - 23846
FIS (6 children) 60% dff 53560 minus 23846 - 17828.40

medical card ( weekly income limit for family of 8 after housing and tax = €703)

final income = 41674.40 p.a




family a (social welfare)


income - 25064
rent allowance for family with 6 children co.clare @ 172pw x 52 = 8944

final income = 34008p.a



Childrens allowance in all 3 cases = €1132

by the way FIS is a WEEKLY payment based on weekly income not an annualy payment.
It is 60% the difference between weekly net wage and €1030 (based on family with 6 children)

ei.sdraob

Devilman wrote: »

family b


income after tax - 29748
FIS (6 children) 60% dff 53560 minus 29748 - 14287.20

medical card ( weekly income limit for family of 8 after housing and tax = €703)

final income 44035.20 p.a



family a (based on figures provided while working 25k p.a)



income after tax - 23846
FIS (6 children) 60% dff 53560 minus 23846 - 17828.40

medical card ( weekly income limit for family of 8 after housing and tax = €703)

final income = 41674.40 p.a




family a (social welfare)


income - 25064
rent allowance for family with 6 children co.clare @ 172pw x 52 = 8944

final income = 34008p.a



Childrens allowance in all 3 cases = €1132

by the way FIS is a WEEKLY payment based on weekly income not an annualy payment.
It is 60% the difference between weekly net wage and €1030 (based on family with 6 children)

thanks good stuff

so basically Family B is 10K better of for working in a fulltime job compared to family A who are at home

That effectively means Honest Man B is on a salary of 10K!!!!


lets not forget that

Family A (scroungers) wanted the state to provide them with a free 8bed house

thats how this story started and why it backfired so spectacularly

Spudmonkey

Kernel wrote: »

No, not the poor. There are many poor people who are working and paying mortgages with little or no disposable income left over. They are contributing to our society. It's more about mentality than it is about income. It's the mentality that makes the 'underclass' to me, not the wealth.

+1, Great answer

deadhead13

Kernel wrote: »

The numbers game stands. The minority of productive workers cannot fund the underclasses and theresultant skewing demographic of Ireland anymore.

What are you talking about? I'm assuming this underclass you are refering to are among the long term unemployed. They make up 0.6% of the population. Productive workers are hardly in the minority.

As for this growing hoard of "degenerates" pushing your country down the toilet, are there more of them then last year, more than 10 years ago, more than 20 years? Have you any actual facts to back up your hysterical and sweeping statements? Or are we just supposed to take your word for it?

Wheely

Spudmonkey wrote: »

Spindoctor now are we? The two actually referencing the dole are both with regard to the abolishment of the dole for long term scroungers. This is something that has been suggested by many others as well. I fail to see how my opinion differs from anyone else who wants to see the dole removed from those not willing to work. I have never said remove the dole completely as this would be taking it away from those made recently un-employed. In fact I can supply with more of my posts which highlight this.

The second has nothing to do with the dole, it's the minimum wage and I fail to see its significance here.

Fine I'm spin-doctoring, I completely mis-quoted you. Whatever. You never said those things. But you did.

Spudmonkey wrote: »

What I refer to them as doesn't matter, I am talking about the same segment of people and it is radically different to yours. For some reason you think that work is below some people who live in "working class" estates? How many Polish came this country over the last few years and found employment? Do you honestly think that these jobs couldn't have been filled by some of these people on the dole? Are they unable to work for some reason? Why is it below them? Are they not able to provide for themselves?

I can't make this point anymore clearly than I already have. Either the logic is lost on you or you're pretending it is. What I said is that the people you refer to as leeches, lazy, scum, degenerates are invariably poor and deprived and come from poor and deprived areas.

Nowhere have I ever said work was below anyone. Its a crude tactic to try and attribute and argument to me just cos it's easier to discredit than the one I actually made. Very crude indeed. Never did I say anyone was unable to work or provide for themselves. I merely pointed out that the issues being discussed here are more complex than you think they are. It seems TOO complex for you to grasp. "Is work below them? Are they unable to work? Scummers! Leeches!" Yup. That's where the answers lie.

Spudmonkey wrote: »

Ok if the anecdotal evidence is not enough for you, have a look at any of the ei.sdroab's posts on this thread or on the equivalent thread in AH on how is possible to fair better on the dole and how much more a family would have to be earning in order to be on the equivalent level of welfare. Does this not strike you as odd? That someone on welfare can have a more comfortable level of lifestyle than someone working?

Jeez I'm forced to quote myself for you now?

"Its hearsay anecdotal weak evidence and even if it were true would not justify what you advocate. The notion that if welfare were abolished all those lazy feckers would just get up and get jobs is crap. They would starve. They would die. They would deal drugs and take drugs and kill each other and rob and entire areas of our society would rot. And not because they are "bad" or "evil" or "lazy" etc etc etc. There is no such thing as a one word explanation for problems as complex as crime poverty, social exclusion, welfare. Try reading a book or two on these topics, honestly, the endgame of implementation of policies you advocate is a far less healthy society than the one in which we now live."

Read the substantive part of the post. I'd already qualified that even were abuses in the system proved it doesn't justify abolition thereof for long-term unemployed, scum/degenerates as you call them. Spoon-feeding you like this is exhausting.

Spudmonkey wrote: »

Frankly I thought welfare was something to keep you above the breadline, not provide you with an alternative lifestyle which is what it certainly seems to provide.

Frankly you're wrong. And what do you mean by above the breadline? I don't think you're using that word in its correct context. Shock, horror!:eek:

Spudmonkey wrote: »

Anyway it is not because of some extreme right wing mentality that I want to see welfare abolished, it is because there is no way of maintaining the current level of public spending.

Well that's a load of bull anyway. You say its not ideological it's a public expenditure issue yet when people bring up the biggest drain on the public exchequer, i.e the banking guarantee/bailout, you tell them they're preoccupied with such things and to move on to stop ranting about the banks and developers. Pull the other one, it's got bells on it.

Spudmonkey wrote: »

It's a debate? Your idea of a debate seems to be "You eat you boiled eggs upside down a la the Blefuscudians, therefore you are an idiot and everything you say should be ignored". But you are right, its not a pissing contest either, it seems to have turned into a "nauseating" backslapping competition between yourself and kickoutthejams.

NO. My idea of a debate is taking exactly what you say, showing it up for the ill-thought out, ideologically-driven nasty turgid crap it is and posting it online. It's actually quite easy with you. Sorry, post where I used that fantastic upside down egg logic to annihilate one of your points.

Spudmonkey wrote: »

So you aren't paying taxes? Have you ever paid taxes you can't reclaim? Wait till you see a third of your wages flushed down the toilet. Again we'll see if I'm "radical"

Don't condescend to me because you have a problem with taxation. I'll pay my taxes when I have to and I won't come out with the rancid tripe you do. Why do you keep putting the word "radical" in inverted commas?

Wheely

Kernel wrote: »

Whether they are delighted or not, I can't say - they don't seem to be delighted judging by the amount of anti-social behaviour and drug abuse they indulge in. But, yes, I stand by the statement that our system is allowing them to flourish beyond natural means that market forces should dictate. As has already been pointed out, no need to worry about creche fees, schooling fees etc. that us productive workers worry about.

Ok I'd like some examples from you where "natural means dictated by market forces" resulted in a "flourishing" of those you would class as degenerate.

Also they don't seem to be delighted given they're anti-social behavior and drug abuse? Social science at its best.

Kernel wrote: »

I was wondering when someone would bring German National Socialism into the equation. It was inevitable, you understand, due to any reference to social Darwinism. The sacred cows of the politically correct liberal left have caused enough problems in this country, it's time we confronted them head on rather than pussy-foot about.

Interesting. German National Socialism. Why not Nazism? Negative connotations I suppose......:rolleyes:

So are you the opposite to the politically correct liberal left/ What does that make you? The politically incorrect conservative right? Why don't you tell me some of your "sacred cows" and we'll assess their contribution to the global society over the last 100 years or so?

Kernel wrote: »

The numbers game stands. The minority of productive workers cannot fund the underclasses and theresultant skewing demographic of Ireland anymore. They aren't even a part of the State in my eyes; they don't contribute to it, and they do not respect it, or it's laws. How do you suggest we tackle the problem?

Who is or is not part of the State in YOUR EYES means SFA to anyone else other than yourself. And maybe spudmonkey and co. That is governemd by Article 2 of our Constitution and it reads

"It is the entitlement and birthright of every person born in the island of Ireland, which includes its islands and seas, to be part of the Irish Nation. That is also the entitlement of all persons otherwise qualified in accordance with law to be citizens of Ireland. Furthermore, the Irish nation cherishes its special affinity with people of Irish ancestry living abroad who share its cultural identity and heritage."

Your criteria for what constitutes contribution to, respect for th State or it's laws mean nothing anywhere. Get over it.

Kernel wrote: »

I'm not sure what you're saying here. If you mean a worker on €200 getting paid the same child benefit, then it's part of my criticism of social welfare anyway. That somebody who works to provide for their offspring (as it is their responsibility to do) should be worse off than a layabout.

Lovely.

Kernel wrote: »

Now now, no need for personal insults. However, perhaps you could display your rapier-like intellect and tell us all how to solve the problems of growing numbers of degenerates in Irish society?

Would you cinisider Sean Fitzpatrick a degenerate? Breifne O Brien. Micheal Lynne. Pat Neary. Charlie Haughey? Larry Goodman? Or just lads in tracksuits. Jusr seeing as "respect for our laws" was such a huge precondition to being "part of the state" in your all-seeing eyes.

You're right, it probably does take a rapier-like intellect to sove the problems of Irish society. But it only takes the intellect of a seven-year old to see your ways are not it.

Kernel wrote: »

It gives a warm fuzzy feeling to help people - but I call a spade a spade, and I look around and see the country of my birth going down the toilet.

If you ever have anything to do with policy formulation in this country, then yeah. You're right. Down the toilet we go.

Spudmonkey

Wheely wrote: »

Fine I'm spin-doctoring, I completely mis-quoted you. Whatever. You never said those things. But you did.

I'm sure what I quoted is what you posted, however context is everything. When taken out of the context of the thread in which they were posted, they don't back up your accusations of me wanting to have welfare abolished.

Wheely wrote: »

What I said is that the people you refer to as leeches, lazy, scum, degenerates are invariably poor and deprived and come from poor and deprived areas.

Wow, what a generalisation. So you think that every person who scams the system are from poor areas? Even this "far right extremist" didn't say that. I don't care what class a persons from, if they scam the welfare system, the scam the welfare system.

If you do want to talk about those from deprived areas, is there any reason why those who are able bodied and not on welfare are not able to work? I actually work with some so I know that some do, I fail to see why others can't. The only answer you have given to this is that this seems to be very complex, which I read as "you don't know!"

Wheely wrote: »

The notion that if welfare were abolished all those lazy feckers would just get up and get jobs is crap. They would starve. They would die. They would deal drugs and take drugs and kill each other and rob and entire areas of our society would rot. And not because they are "bad" or "evil" or "lazy" etc etc etc. There is no such thing as a one word explanation for problems as complex as crime poverty, social exclusion, welfare. Try reading a book or two on these topics, honestly, the endgame of implementation of policies you advocate is a far less healthy society than the one in which we now live." I'd already qualified that even were abuses in the system proved it doesn't justify abolition thereof for long-term unemployed, scum/degenerates as you call them.

Now I think they are bad? and evil? etc etc etc... I'm not looking for one word explanations but it does seem that when you are asked a question you don't know the answer to, the usual response is there are too many factors, your questions are far too simple, bla bla bla...

You abolish welfare to these people and crime increases, and they start killing each other and society rots? What people are you abolishing welfare for? I thought it was the poor (well what you consider the poor, whoever the hell they are), do you think they are really capable of such atrocities? What it really seems to me is that you want to pay these people off so that society doesn't descend into chaos.

Wheely wrote: »

Frankly you're wrong. And what do you mean by above the breadline? I don't think you're using that word in its correct context. Shock, horror!:eek:

From wikipedia as you think its such a reputible source...

A social welfare provision refers to any program which seeks to provide a guaranteed minimum level of income, service or other support for the population of a country as a whole, or for specific groups such as the poor, elderly, and disabled people.

Might I highlight the term minimum in the above paragraph, as I've said before the current level of welfare is far from minimum...

Wheely wrote: »

Well that's a load of bull anyway. You say its not ideological it's a public expenditure issue yet when people bring up the biggest drain on the public exchequer, i.e the banking guarantee/bailout, you tell them they're preoccupied with such things and to move on to stop ranting about the banks and developers. Pull the other one, it's got bells on it.

Again bla bla bla, completely unrelated to this thread but anything to try and discredit someone eh... Even though it is off topic, I don't advocate what the bankers did or how they are being bailed out, however I was listening to plenty people who had bought into the Celtic Tiger and were only too willing to pawn the blame off elsewhere. This is neither here not there but does highlight your willingness to veer of topic in order to attempt to discredit someone.

Wheely wrote: »

Don't condescend to me because you have a problem with taxation. I'll pay my taxes when I have to and I won't come out with the rancid tripe you do. Why do you keep putting the word "radical" in inverted commas?

Me condescending? The irony of it all... I normally put sarcastic comments in inverted commas, I assume you think my ideas and opinions are too "radical" (sarcasm)

Wheely wrote: »

NO. My idea of a debate is taking exactly what you say, showing it up for the ill-thought out, ideologically-driven nasty turgid crap it is and posting it online. It's actually quite easy with you. Sorry, post where I used that fantastic upside down egg logic to annihilate one of your points.

Excuse me but your idea of a debate is using someone's previous posts, mixing them up in you head and then attacking someone with them. If you are to do this, use posts that are relevant and the portray a person's actual beliefs, not what you want them to mean.

As well as that in your "debates" (sarcasm), you verbally attack those you are having a discussion with..

I can't make this point anymore clearly than I already have. Either the logic is lost on you or you're pretending it is.

Jeez I'm forced to quote myself for you now?

Spoon-feeding you like this is exhausting.

showing it up for the ill-thought out, ideologically-driven nasty turgid crap

And those were just the ones from this post. This is why I found the condescending comment ironic.

Frankly Wheely, I couldn't be bothered waiting for a reply, you have shown to me that you don't want to engage in a proper debate. It's obvious that we are not going to agree, so I can only say we can agree to disagree. I'm not going to bother waiting for your next post which I'll assume to be just ar5e gravy of the highest kind. I've come to expect nothing less. You will forgive me if I don't partake in your petty squabbling anymore, I have more important things to do.... like counting the number of pixels on my monitor!

Kama

I was wondering when someone would bring German National Socialism into the equation. It was inevitable, you understand, due to any reference to social Darwinism.

More the general trend of talking about a part of a nations society as 'scum' or 'leeches', saying 'they aren't part of our country', and so on. Once you start lumping a group of people together, saying they are all the same, and denigrating them...well, it's a pretty ugly direction.

If you do want to talk about those from deprived areas, is there any reason why those who are able bodied and not on welfare are not able to work?

Because the economy cannot currently absorb the number of people who need jobs. So even if someone tries to find one, they may well not be able to. Even more so if they are from the wrong area, what you postcode is skews the chance of you being hired. And if you've been unemployed for a while, it's much harder to get hired, those blank spots on your employment history stand out.

I actually work with some so I know that some do, I fail to see why others can't.

Over-simplistic model: there are 5 jobs, and 10 people. 5 people are now employed, and 5 are not, and cannot be. If there aren't enough jobs, then not everyone can get a job. If there is competition for jobs, then some people win, some lose. If you lose a lot in the job market, it becomes less likely, statistically, that you'll win again. And presuming we live in a perfect individualist meritocracy, you get the added bonus of knowing it's all your fault, which leads to higher rates of depression etc.

Just for the record, I'm broadly pro-population control, I just don't think cutting childrens allowance is going to magically make there be less kids, it just means that one's who are born will have a worse upbringing. People don't tend to breed for the financial incentive or a life of welfare; one easy explanation for higher birthrates is you've more time on your hands, and sex is a fairly cheap form of entertainment.