March for Child Benefit

Max Power1

Cork Boy wrote: »

I 100% agree those who dont need CB shouldnt get it.

Here's my alternative solution:

Take a number of civil servants and re-deploy them into the new office of means testing whereby ALL social welfare/benefits are means tested. Rather than have someone doing it in ech dept/office, we have a dedicated, trained, selected core team of testers. Far more effecient.

Oh, and actually prosecute welfare fraud.

OK. So who does the jobs that the civil servants were doing prior to redeployment? Or do we hire additional civil servants at an additional cost to the tax payer?

And who do we hire to prosecute welfare fraud? And at what cost?

Cork Boy

ntlbell wrote: »

I consider owning a car a luxry.

I consider taken out a loan for one stupidity

I consider two nights out a month a huge luxry.

There's 2.4k a month for your savings

or use it to get rid of the loan on the car and stop paying the bank interest.

again it's about perception.

I'll walk the six miles to work so shall I? I don't live on a bus route.

Ya it was really stupid of me to take out a loan for college for my accomodation for 4th year (part time job in years 1-3 paid me through), I should've sponged off mammy and daddy perhaps?

IT IS A MATTER OF PERCEPTION. I think you are resentful of people who are not on the breadline yet here you are on your internet (self declared luxury) posting away happy out

imokyrok

ntlbell wrote: »

I consider owning a car a luxry.

I consider taken out a loan for one stupidity

I consider two nights out a month a huge luxry.

There's 2.4k a month for your savings

or use it to get rid of the loan on the car and stop paying the bank interest.

again it's about perception.

If you live in a apartment in the city or on the dart then maybe a car is a luxury but most people need a car to get to work, do the shopping and take the children to school. It's just silly to say that a car is a luxury. An SUV or a merc is a luxury. A 10 year old fiat is a basic necessity.

Max Power1

Cork Boy wrote: »

I'll walk the six miles to work so shall I? I don't live on a bus route.

Ya it was really stupid of me to take out a loan for college for my accomodation for 4th year (part time job in years 1-3 paid me through), I should've sponged off mammy and daddy perhaps?

IT IS A MATTER OF PERCEPTION. I think you are resentful of people who are not on the breadline yet here you are on your internet (self declared luxury) posting away happy out

So you take out a loan when youre parents were in a position to pay? Yes i would consider that stupidity.

Internet is available at no cost in many public places.

Cork Boy

Max Power1 wrote: »

OK. So who does the jobs that the civil servants were doing prior to redeployment? Or do we hire additional civil servants at an additional cost to the tax payer?

And who do we hire to prosecute welfare fraud? And at what cost?

We are overstaffed in the civil service - no extra cost. Welfare fraud prosecution pays for itself too (look at the recent savings at the border areas - €300k after a small check up).

And the above is from my own experience. I was on work experience in the civil service and could do my weeks work in 1.5 days.

Max Power1

imokyrok wrote: »

If you live in a apartment in the city or on the dart then maybe a car is a luxury but most people need a car to get to work, do the shopping and take the children to school. It's just silly to say that a car is a luxury. An SUV or a merc is a luxury. A 10 year old fiat is a basic necessity.

I would agree that a car is not a luxury for some, but on the other hand it is not something that should be subsidised by the taxpayer either. IE its not a necessity to live, you could survive with out it (as I do)

Cork Boy

Max Power1 wrote: »

So you take out a loan when youre parents were in a position to pay? Yes i would consider that stupidity.

Internet is available at no cost in many public places.

When did i say my parents were in a position to pay? they helped out when they could but i pretty much put myself through college - with no grant either.

But you're right, further education is a stupid luxury

Cork Boy

PS Max - be honest - have you internet access at home?

ntlbell

Cork Boy wrote: »

I'll walk the six miles to work so shall I? I don't live on a bus route.

Ya it was really stupid of me to take out a loan for college for my accomodation for 4th year (part time job in years 1-3 paid me through), I should've sponged off mammy and daddy perhaps?

IT IS A MATTER OF PERCEPTION. I think you are resentful of people who are not on the breadline yet here you are on your internet (self declared luxury) posting away happy out

Why not? nice savings if you did and would be healthy prob saving the state money

i didn't say anything about a loan for college i said for the car. you could have walked till you saved up the money? i'm not here to tell you what to do or whats right and wrong, i'm giving my opinion of luxries. you don't agree that's fine. but dont take it as a personal attack.

I'm not on the breadline, \i'm in a very good job, have my own home, car, big screen tv and i'm very happy to give up the money the state gives me for my daughter that i don't need and for them to give it to someone else who does need it, should i ever be in the situation where i need it, i should be able to re-apply with my new circumstances.

again, you're attacking me now because you feel i am you, it's not the case.

open your eyes/ears you might learn something here.

Max Power1

Cork Boy wrote: »

We are overstaffed in the civil service - no extra cost. Welfare fraud prosecution pays for itself too (look at the recent savings at the border areas - €300k after a small check up).

And the above is from my own experience. I was on work experience in the civil service and could do my weeks work in 1.5 days.

Targeted areas for welfare prosecution pays for itself initially. Id say after an initial investigation it would not pay for itself (ie after you investigated border areas and also areas with lots of suspicious lone parents allowance in say ballymun/finglas/tallaght etc) the rest of the claimants may actually be legitimate!

I'd say the unions would object to your first claim. Maybe because you were on work experience they could only assign limited work loads to you because you couldnt be trained in time.

ntlbell

imokyrok wrote: »

If you live in a apartment in the city or on the dart then maybe a car is a luxury but most people need a car to get to work, do the shopping and take the children to school. It's just silly to say that a car is a luxury. An SUV or a merc is a luxury. A 10 year old fiat is a basic necessity.

for the majority a car is not essential

maybe we wouldn't have the conggestiona if less people we're driving there little prercious ones to school and made them walk might help with the obesity problem too.

Max Power1

Cork Boy wrote: »

PS Max - be honest - have you internet access at home?

No but that isnt what i said. If it was the case that I couldnt afford it, most mcdonalds have free wifi for example.

candy-gal1

so CB is not means tested then?! i always thought it was tbh!
well thats where it should start to cutting it from people who dont actually need it! doncha think?!
having kids isnt a career option, as some people think, its something you think long and hard about and which you do when u can afford it both financially and emotionally and it should be one of the things to do when youve achieved everythung else!

imokyrok

ntlbell wrote: »

So you have to make a personal call on it.

Do we purchase something we can't afford that will affect us for probably the rest of our lives and then ask the state for help.

rent.

or buy something more affordable?

it's not for me to decide what one should do, but i don't want to have to pay for your mistakes if you make one.

i didn't say buying a house i said over extending to buy one.

Lets be clear - there has been no such thing as an affordable house for many years now. I was lucky enough to get on the housing ladder before the boom but that was sheer luck. If I'd been born 10 years later I'd have been faced with the same mad prices other families have paid recently. And those families did so on the basis of careful calculations. Could they have foreseen that their net income was going to drop when the experience of everyone was a steady annual increase? Families now have to cope with decreased incomes and increased bills. Now even more will be taken from them. Any elastic can only stretch so far before it breaks.

Cork Boy

There will never be a shortage of work for a welfare fraud team.

And regards my work experience i should've pre-empted that be saying my position as a work experience student had nothing to do with my lack of work. 1/3 of my dept could've been shed.

Anyways folks, best debate i've had on here for a while but i'm off to training!

(Rugby boots €60, annual club membership €96, gum shield €5)

Max Power1

candy-gal1 wrote: »

so CB is not means tested then?! i always thought it was tbh!
well thats where it should start to cutting it from people who dont actually need it! doncha think?!
having kids isnt a career option, as some people think, its something you think long and hard about and which you do when u can afford it both financially and emotionally and it should be one of the things to do when youve achieved everythung else!

Theoretically it should be means tested, but the cost of same would make it not a viable idea, and would probably not make the savings that are needed.

Cork Boy

ntlbell wrote: »

for the majority a car is not essential

maybe we wouldn't have the conggestiona if less people we're driving there little prercious ones to school and made them walk might help with the obesity problem too.

Take out the word majority and replace with sizeable minority and I agree - especially about making the little feckers walk! Its not the most public transport friendly country in fairness.

ntlbell

imokyrok wrote: »

Lets be clear - there has been no such thing as an affordable house for many years now. I was lucky enough to get on the housing ladder before the boom but that was sheer luck. If I'd been born 10 years later I'd have been faced with the same mad prices other families have paid recently. And those families did so on the basis of careful calculations. Could they have foreseen that their net income was going to drop when the experience of everyone was a steady annual increase? Families now have to cope with decreased incomes and increased bills. Now even more will be taken from them. Any elastic can only stretch so far before it breaks.

If you can't afford a home then simply don't buy one and rent.

buy an apartment? move somewhere more affordable?

they obviously didn't use very good calcuations.

they more than likley calculated on the basis of 2 wages, those wages increasing, bonuses, got loans for a deposit and took out 30-40 year mortgages.

if they did the calcuations correctly there would have been two results, they wouldn't have been able to afford it, or they wouldn't be in the problems you see now

the truth is for the most part didn't do any calculations they asked the banks what could they get based on there salaries looked for a house maxed that out took a loan from parents or credit unions and over extended themselves.

it's that simple

imokyrok

ntlbell wrote: »

for the majority a car is not essential

maybe we wouldn't have the conggestiona if less people we're driving there little prercious ones to school and made them walk might help with the obesity problem too.

I take it you live in an area where your every need is on your doorstep. Many of us have to travel considerable distances to get to a supermarket or to the schools (in two different directions) because planners and councillors reneged on their agreements to include such facilities when they built their developments. And these days we can't even get a train into the city because the bridge fell down!

ntlbell

Cork Boy wrote: »

Take out the word majority and replace with sizeable minority and I agree - especially about making the little feckers walk! Its not the most public transport friendly country in fairness.

i can't really talk about outside of dublin as i'm not up on anywhere else.

but in dublin it's really not essential, not one bit.

ntlbell

imokyrok wrote: »

I take it you live in an area where your every need is on your doorstep. Many of us have to travel considerable distances to get to a supermarket or to the schools (in two different directions) because planners and councillors reneged on their agreements to include such facilities when they built their developments. And these days we can't even get a train into the city because the bridge fell down!

i made it my buisness to be in an area with everything on my doorstep.

i didn't let councillors plan my life i did, if your in a situation your not happy with then you are accountable for that, not me not the council and not the state.

imokyrok

ntlbell wrote: »

If you can't afford a home then simply don't buy one and rent.

buy an apartment? move somewhere more affordable?

they obviously didn't use very good calcuations.

they more than likley calculated on the basis of 2 wages, those wages increasing, bonuses, got loans for a deposit and took out 30-40 year mortgages.

if they did the calcuations correctly there would have been two results, they wouldn't have been able to afford it, or they wouldn't be in the problems you see now

the truth is for the most part didn't do any calculations they asked the banks what could they get based on there salaries looked for a house maxed that out took a loan from parents or credit unions and over extended themselves.

it's that simple

Simple - well it's certainly simplistic! You do your calculations based on projected net income. They didn't have a crystal ball to tell them that suddenly they would have their wages cut and their taxes hiked. They could afford it then - they are struggling now.

imokyrok

ntlbell wrote: »

i made it my buisness to be in an area with everything on my doorstep.

i didn't let councillors plan my life i did, if your in a situation your not happy with then you are accountable for that, not me not the council and not the state.

They most certainly are responsible - that's what we pay taxes for. That is what they are paid salaries for.

ntlbell

imokyrok wrote: »

Simple - well it's certainly simplistic! You do your calculations based on projected net income. They didn't have a crystal ball to tell them that suddenly they would have their wages cut and their taxes hiked. They could afford it then - they are struggling now.

no you don't make calculations on projected income because you have no idea what that is it's pie in the sky stuff and it's complete and utter stupidity of the highest order.

and because we don't have a crystal ball we have to be extra careful to make sure we can comofrtable afford the house shoulld certain situation arises

one gets sick

one is out of work

one wants to stay at home to mind the kids.

you have to put this into the calcuation not deal with it when it happens.

and uit's because people were using things like projected incomes etc two wages no deposits that they're having the problems now\1

it's not rocket science

ntlbell

imokyrok wrote: »

They most certainly are responsible - that's what we pay taxes for. That is what they are paid salaries for.

there not responsible for bad choices you make.

they didn't make you buy a hosue in a certain area

they don't choose where you live

YOU DO

imokyrok

ntlbell wrote: »

there not responsible for bad choices you make.

they didn't make you buy a hosue in a certain area

they don't choose where you live

YOU DO

They permit houses to be built and sold under false pretenses. When people buy property and are told that schools and community facilities have been allocated they have the responsibility to follow through on those promises. They don't and families are left high and dry. I'm bored with having a conversation with such a smug git so I'll say ciao.

ntlbell

imokyrok wrote: »

They permit houses to be built and sold under false pretenses. When people buy property and are told that schools and community facilities have been allocated they have the responsibility to follow through on those promises. They don't and families are left high and dry. I'm bored with having a conversation with such a smug git so I'll say ciao.

Prego.

Cork Boy

Sure lets all move up to dublin so.

They are responsible, its what planning is meant to be for!

I'm outta here, enjoy your concrete jungle

Max Power1

imokyrok wrote: »

y. I'm bored with having a conversation with such a smug git so I'll say ciao.

What a constructive and well thought out argument.

There hasnt been any viable reason not to tax child beenefit given here. (there was one other option, which could be done aswell - increase prosecution of welfare fraud). I cant see why this wasnt the way CB was brought in in the first place. Its seems inevitable that it will happen in the next budget anyway so it doesnt really matter.

irish_bob

ntlbell wrote: »

no, those middle class people in the MAJORITY of cases will have a choice to alter the lifestyle, the people i'm talking about don't have a choice.

they have to make choices like having meat for dinner or putting shoe's on thier kids feet for school.

not will we go to the beacon hospital or slum it out in the maher.

people complain the goverment are not in touch with reality.

i think the middle classes and their wannabe's are so out of touch it's unsettling.

i heard the same bull****e from that champagne socilist fergus finlay on radio yesterday , blathering on about how people on social wellfare will starve to death if thier are cuts , if someone on the dole in the north can survive on 60 pound a week shopping in eniskillen , then someone on the dole in cavan shopping in ENISKILLEN can surely survive on 204 , such is the generosity of our wellfare state , no one in ireland need be hungry apart from the homeless unless they are grossly mismanaging thier money