Possible social welfare cuts in Ireland?

Scarab80

thebman wrote: »

I have said on other threads that the best way to get an accurate reading on cost of living (which would reveal a true poverty line) would be to have a welfare card (like a laser/credit card) where the welfare payments go on that card and the government can then build accurate statistics about what welfare recipients are spending their money on.

With the widespread use of such cards, shops would not even notice who was using a welfare card over a laser/credit card and so no shame would be made of using such a card.

Great idea!, although you would have to limit the amount of cash withdrawals. I don't suppose there is any chance that your real name is Eamon O'Cuiv?

gurramok

CoalBucket wrote: »

Have you read some of the posts about the single mothers shopping in river island with their ps3s 20 odd K disposable income and winter sun holidays.

They can easily afford it on 23k in the hand without havig to pay for Rent or Medical bills. Have more kids and that amount gets higher.

CoalBucket

QUOTE=gurramok;66167439]LOL. I grew up in Finglas South and now i'm an ardent right-winger for objecting to welfare abuse!![/QUOTE]

Even if you were only justifying a crack down on social welfare fraud you are advocating a cutting of the payments for everyone !

Firstly as already stated class has nothing to do with political opinion.

You originally were of the opinion that it was people on the dole who were scamming the system until the long term unemployed figure was pointed out to you.

gurramok wrote: »

Coalbucket, my OH is unemployed. I stated this if you search my posts from about December on this forum. What I object to is the widespread scamming going on by the careerists, not those who recently lost their jobs after paying PRSI for years.

Once that was pointed out you changed to single mothers.

gurramok wrote: »

I never said the majority of dole recipients are careerists. Perhaps someone else? Single mothers on the baby production line are more prevalent to be scammers.

QUOTE=gurramok;66167439]I explained this, you have no comeback on it.[/QUOTE]

I provided the link and the source of the survey. This is the method that poverty is measured across the EU. Whether you think it is a fair method of measuring or not is irrelevant.

QUOTE=gurramok;66167439]I know two single mothers who buy expensive clothes. My OH is unemployed and by god she is angry at them as she gets feck all by not having a few kids.[/QUOTE]

And I know plenty of single mothers who do not wear designer clothes and who without the assistance of the state would be homeless with their children. If you know of benefit fraud report it rather than trying to justify it as a reason for cutting the people who actually need it.

QUOTE=gurramok;66167439]No you did not. You quoted an agency saying 80%+ of single parents are NOT living in poverty but neglect to study the origin of the definition of poverty.[/QUOTE]

Again I provided the link and the source of the survey. And as already stated that "Agency" is immalgimated into the department of family and social affairs. I also provided the source of their statistics. This is the method that poverty is measured across the EU. Whether you think it is a fair method of measuring or not is irrelevant.


QUOTE=gurramok;66167439]Read my post again. The total reaches 33k net before include FIS is included. Oh, I forgot to add SWA as well. Here's the link AGAIN. http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/social-welfare/social-welfare-payments/social-welfare-payments-to-families-and-children[/QUOTE]

Having clearly read your post how about you try reading my reply which provided the qualification standards for such benefits. Which by the way uses the same site that you provided. If you had read past the first page of the benefits you would have seen the qualification basis.

gurramok

CoalBucket wrote: »

You originally were of the opinion that it was people on the dole who were scamming the system until the long term unemployed figure was pointed out to you.

Where did say that?

CoalBucket wrote: »

And I know plenty of single mothers who do not wear designer clothes and who without the assistance of the state would be homeless with their children. If you know of benefit fraud report it rather than trying to justify it as a reason for cutting the people who actually need it.

Buying expensive clothes is not fraud, its taxpayers money they get for claiming to be single mothers with kids.

CoalBucket wrote: »

I provided the link and the source of the survey. This is the method that poverty is measured across the EU. Whether you think it is a fair method of measuring or not is irrelevant.

Again I provided the link and the source of the survey. And as already stated that "Agency" is immalgimated into the department of family and social affairs. I also provided the source of their statistics. This is the method that poverty is measured across the EU. Whether you think it is a fair method of measuring or not is irrelevant.

Its quite obvious you think 33k net IS living in poverty.

CoalBucket wrote: »

Having clearly read your post how about you try reading my reply which provided the qualification standards for such benefits. Which by the way uses the same site that you provided. If you had read past the first page of the benefits you would have seen the qualification basis.

Yeh, NOT working. ZERO income outside welfare.

CoalBucket

gurramok wrote: »

Where did say that?

The theme of the thread is the cutting in social welfare which you have repeatedly demonstrated that you are in favour of. Either that or you think that the payments which you are complaining about should be maintained.

gurramok wrote: »

Buying expensive clothes is not fraud, its taxpayers money they get for claiming to be single mothers with kids.

How do they afford expensive clothes. Are you saying every lone parent can afford to buy expensive clothes or just the one or two that you know ?

gurramok wrote: »

Its quite obvious you think 33k net IS living in poverty.

Obviously you do not have children and you are not aware of the costs. Again I'll repeat the department of social and family affairs and combat poverty show 20% of lone parents are in consistent poverty. Is this not true. And again what your opinion is on how they calculate poverty is irrelevant, i'm pretty sure they know better that you.

gurramok wrote: »

Yeh, NOT working. ZERO income outside welfare.

What you are forgetting is the F.I.S. fuel allowances, back to school allowances etc are contributions not full payments. The remainder has to be paid by the beneficiary. Your figure of 33k has been pulled from the sky and does not take into account the outgoings to maintaining a 4 person family.

gurramok

CoalBucket wrote: »

The theme of the thread is the cutting in social welfare which you have repeatedly demonstrated that you are in favour of. Either that or you think that the payments which you are complaining about should be maintained.

I did not say target the majority of Dole recipients.

CoalBucket wrote: »

How do they afford expensive clothes. Are you saying every lone parent can afford to buy expensive clothes or just the one or two that you know ?

Money talks.

CoalBucket wrote: »

Obviously you do not have children and you are not aware of the costs. Again I'll repeat the department of social and family affairs and combat poverty show 20% of lone parents are in consistent poverty. Is this not true. And again what your opinion is on how they calculate poverty is irrelevant, i'm pretty sure they know better that you.

The benefits speak for themselves and that says they VAST majority are NOT living in poverty.

CoalBucket wrote: »

What you are forgetting is the F.I.S. fuel allowances, back to school allowances etc are contributions not full payments. The remainder has to be paid by the beneficiary. Your figure of 33k has been pulled from the sky and does not take into account the outgoings to maintaining a 4 person family.

Pulled from the sky? I gave you accurate calculations of how that was obtained.

stupidusername

Gus99 wrote: »

I don't actually see the necessity of two different forms of payment. I think there should be a a standard minimum payment (let us say for argument €100), which would then be scaled upwards by the amount of PRSI contributions you made in the last (say) "z" months, lets say 36 months The overall payment would be capped at (lets just say) €400. This figure would reduce the longer the person stays unemployed (say towards €200 in the first 9-12 months, or less if limited PRSI contributions), because "z" will reduce over time.

So to answer your particular position, you might get some small upscaling from the basic €100 based on your previous PRSI contributions. But in general, somebody straight out of college and never having paid any tax should only get a basic amount, even if it means they have to live at home while unemployed

Thats just how I think it should work at a very, very high level - and please dont get hung up on the figures I used, and yes, there will be exceptions etc etc

This idea I don't get. I don't get why the parents should 'have to' support someone that is after finishing college. This idea is crazy. Typical government type rule though - you're an adult when it suits them, but when it doesn't you're expected to depend on your parents even though you're well into your twenties? MAD!

CoalBucket

gurramok wrote: »

I did not say target the majority of Dole recipients.

Ok I'll explain it again, everybody will be cut under the current proposals. you have showed your support for the current proposals. Whether you now want to water down that opinion is irrelevant, I'm sure the government will look at your proposal and choose your option.

gurramok wrote: »

Money talks.

Lmfao. Is that the best you can do ?. FAIL.

gurramok wrote: »

The benefits speak for themselves and that says they VAST majority are NOT living in poverty.

Is 20 % in poverty and an additional 17% at risk of poverty an acceptable figure. Maybe it is in your right wing opinion. But for those of us with a thought for society as a whole rather than just ourselves, it is not.

gurramok wrote: »

Pulled from the sky? I gave you accurate calculations of how that was obtained.

Yes and chose to ignore that the remainder had to be made up from the original social welfare payments and therefore did not balance the figure. I hope you are not an accountant.

stupidusername

CoalBucket wrote: »

Ok I'll explain it again, everybody will be cut under the current proposals. you have showed your support for the current proposals. Whether you now want to water down that opinion is irrelevant, I'm sure the government will look at your proposal and choose your option.
.

Where did you get this idea? Not everyone on the dole is going to be cut.

Scarab80

CoalBucket wrote: »

Obviously you do not have children and you are not aware of the costs. Again I'll repeat the department of social and family affairs and combat poverty show 20% of lone parents are in consistent poverty. Is this not true. And again what your opinion is on how they calculate poverty is irrelevant, i'm pretty sure they know better that you.

You can't just say that the method of calculation is irrelevant, especially when combining that with a statement about the cost of raising children. The method of poverty calculation makes no determination about the cost of living, only on relative wealth.

If you want to say that lone parent familys are considerable less wealthy than the average family that is fine, however because of the way we calculate the figures we can make no determination on households in poverty as it is commonly known.

Consider applying the poverty calculations to a country like Monaco, it is feasable that you could have someone earning over 100k defined as being in poverty.

If you wanted to determine if someone was in poverty (normal meaning) it would be preferable to calculate the amount of their income and compare that to the cost of living and raising children, as posters have previously done.

CoalBucket

stupidusername wrote: »

Where did you get this idea? Not everyone on the dole is going to be cut.

I stand corrected. In my anxiousness to post a reply I mad the error as the conversation was about lone parents which have been described as "scammers"

gurramok

CoalBucket wrote: »

Ok I'll explain it again, everybody will be cut under the current proposals. you have showed your support for the current proposals. Whether you now want to water down that opinion is irrelevant, I'm sure the government will look at your proposal and choose your option.

Lets hope

CoalBucket wrote: »

Lmfao. Is that the best you can do ?. FAIL.

Nope. Their NET pay pays for the fancy clothes.

CoalBucket wrote: »

Is 20 % in poverty and an additional 17% at risk of poverty an acceptable figure. Maybe it is in your right wing opinion. But for those of us with a thought for society as a whole rather than just ourselves, it is not.

Again, did you even look at the definition of poverty/poverty risk?

It includes
Without heating at some stage in the last year - unlikely
Unable to afford a morning, afternoon or evening out in the last fortnight- Wow, I have not been able to afford this!!
Unable to afford two pairs of strong shoes - Are we talking Nike Air here??
Unable to afford a roast once a week - they can afford this
Unable to afford a meal with meat, chicken or fish every second day- they can afford this
Unable to afford new (not second-hand) clothes - Pennys have cheap good quality clothes, no need for River Island
Unable to afford a warm waterproof coat - they can afford this
Unable to afford to keep the home adequately warmthey can afford this
Unable to afford to replace any worn out furniture - Ah here. Furniture is bloody expensive, 3 piece suite is a 100o quid, I cant afford that!!
Unable to afford to have family or friends for a drink or meal once a month - I can;t afford this either, R'nt bills for a fmaily can run well over a hundred quid.
Unable to afford to buy presents for family or friends at least once a year - Yeh, we discussed this. Hopefully console games are not listed here

CoalBucket wrote: »

Yes and chose to ignore that the remainder had to be made up from the original social welfare payments and therefore did not balance the figure. I hope you are not an accountant.

Explain. How does this affect the net 23k before those extra allowances?

CoalBucket

Scarab80 wrote: »

You can't just say that the method of calculation is irrelevant, especially when combining that with a statement about the cost of raising children. The method of poverty calculation makes no determination about the cost of living, only on relative wealth.

If you want to say that lone parent familys are considerable less wealthy than the average family that is fine, however because of the way we calculate the figures we can make no determination on households in poverty as it is commonly known.

Consider applying the poverty calculations to a country like Monaco, it is feasable that you could have someone earning over 100k defined as being in poverty.

If you wanted to determine if someone was in poverty (normal meaning) it would be preferable to calculate the amount of their income and compare that to the cost of living and raising children, as posters have previously done.

I agree that a better method of calculating the figure could be reached but this is the international recognised method and the method used by the CSO, Department of Social and Family affairs and the EU.

With reference to dismissing the posters calculation, I think it is totally reasonable to dismiss the figure when the figure ignores the outgoings.

Especially when the figure is incorrectly used to demonstrate that lone parents have money to spend on winter sun holidays, designer clothes, ps3 etc. which is laughable if it wasn't so ignorant of reality.

Scarab80

CoalBucket wrote: »

I agree that a better method of calculating the figure could be reached but this is the international recognised method and the method used by the CSO, Department of Social and Family affairs and the EU.

With reference to dismissing the posters calculation, I think it is totally reasonable to dismiss the figure when the figure ignores the outgoings.

Especially when the figure is incorrectly used to demonstrate that lone parents have money to spend on winter sun holidays, designer clothes, ps3 etc. which is laughable if it wasn't so ignorant of reality.

I agree, an income figure means nothing until it is combined with outgoings. Find some figures on the costs of raising three young children / running a four member household and you are in business.

Otherwise you are just talking in circles, which seems to happen so often around here.

CoalBucket

gurramok wrote: »

Lets hope

At least you are now willing to admit your right wing views.

gurramok wrote: »

Nope. Their NET pay pays for the fancy clothes.

Again no proof just ill-informed opinion.

gurramok wrote: »

Again, did you even look at the definition of poverty/poverty risk?

It includes
Without heating at some stage in the last year - unlikely
Unable to afford a morning, afternoon or evening out in the last fortnight- Wow, I have not been able to afford this!!
Unable to afford two pairs of strong shoes - Are we talking Nike Air here??
Unable to afford a roast once a week - they can afford this
Unable to afford a meal with meat, chicken or fish every second day- they can afford this
Unable to afford new (not second-hand) clothes - Pennys have cheap good quality clothes, no need for River Island
Unable to afford a warm waterproof coat - they can afford this
Unable to afford to keep the home adequately warmthey can afford this
Unable to afford to replace any worn out furniture - Ah here. Furniture is bloody expensive, 3 piece suite is a 100o quid, I cant afford that!!
Unable to afford to have family or friends for a drink or meal once a month - I can;t afford this either, R'nt bills for a fmaily can run well over a hundred quid.
Unable to afford to buy presents for family or friends at least once a year - Yeh, we discussed this. Hopefully console games are not listed here

Again it is the internationally recognised measurement.
Do you think you know better than the CSO, Department of Social and Family affairs and the EU.

They conducted a survey not just ran an opinion through their head and guessed incorrectly. Your opinions have no basis.



Explain. How does this affect the net 23k before those extra allowances?[/QUOTE]

The 23k includes all the additional allowances. Check your own post

"A Dublin single mother with 3 kids gets 487(child benefit)x12 + 286x52 = 20,716. Add in FIS, Fuel allowance & Back to School & Footwear allowance and you get 23k."

That 3k is 60% of the total meaning the remaining 40% has to come from the original total of 20,716. That means another 2k comes off the 20k. Leaving 18k for one parent to feed, clothe, and generally all the expenses that come with 3 kids.

That is €346 a week. You try raising 3 kids and yourself on that. Hardly enough for designer gear, winter holidays and ps3s as you claim.

Just to give you an idea of the cost of raising one child.

http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/surviving-the-recession/raising-children-can-be-extremely-expensive-1634030.html

lmimmfn

CoalBucket wrote: »

Again it is the internationally recognised measurement.
Do you think you know better than the CSO, Department of Social and Family affairs and the EU.

Well its absolute crap, theres several things on that list i cant afford and im working( yes i save, not the point, i spend on average 250euro weekly ex rent and bills, 60euro on petrol for work, 30 euro for work lunches and 20 euro on handy food because i work late, thats 140euro in total that i need to survive the week, if i was on the dole id have 70euro a week for bills )

The whole thing is an absolute joke, its amazing how our friends in the uk survive on 30% of what the dole is here yet we're all borderline poverty stricken on the dole.

Ive a mate who gleans a nice 700euro a week legitimately from social welfare, sweet, dunno why we bother working

CoalBucket wrote: »

That is €346 a week. You try raising 3 kids and yourself on that. Hardly enough for designer gear, winter holidays and ps3s as you claim.

so free rent, free medical for all your kids, clothing allowance and the other benefits dont count for anything?, if a single mother is on 40k a year then why bother? 10k is gone on tax, 1700 on medical prescriptions, were down at 28300euro now, 8000euro on rent, so now were on 20300, im sure clothing allowance and the other benefits would make up the rest of it so its 18k meaning if youre a single mother with a few kids youre just stupid working, besides child care because youre not at home probably costs another few k a year

K-9

gurramok wrote: »

So, 80% are not in poverty. You see, you can dress it that way too.

Put 48k into http://taxcalc.eu/ and you get the net take home pay which pays for everything for a worker.

A Dublin single mother with 3 kids gets 487(child benefit)x12 + 286x52 = 20,716. Add in FIS, Fuel allowance & Back to School & Footwear allowance and you get 23k.

Add in Rent of 1100 a month (which is what she gets) and you get a grand total of 35k.

Put that 35k into Karls tax calculator and you get 48k gross.

That ain't poverty sir.

Why are you using a single mans wages? He obviously doesn't have kids.

41k is more comparable, though even that isn't right as they'd get FIS. I'm wrong, it is less again.

A single mother on 35k would get about 30k net plus FIS of about €3,500 a year.

So, in comparable circumstances, 35k gross would do, not near 48k.
Family Income Supplement-Information from CitizensInformation.ie

Edit: Actually they don't need near that. You are counting child benefit, but they get that if working. They don't get FIS if not working. FIS does not kick in if working less than 19 hours a week.

You'd need to discount the Child Benefit of about €5,800.

So, we are down to needing a Net wage of about €23,000 as FIS will make up the difference.

Put that in your calculator, giving them the married credit as they qualify for a double tax credit, we get €24,200 Gross, nearly half what you quoted originally, 48k. FIS would be about €6,700. Net wage, 23k and Child Benefit of about €5,800.

So, in comparable circumstances a single parent would need a wage of 24k, not 47k. It is unfair and disingenuous to compare a single mans wages as obviously a single man on 48k does not have any where near the same expenses as a single parent.

Sorry for being a stickler for these figures but a poster on the AH thread you and me are on estimated the Gross figure as 80k, you have it as 47k, but I've shown it is actually 24k, 30% of the original claim on that thread. Really, for people to get it that wrong is mind blowing. That poster was 70% out, you are about 50% out, doubling the wage required. Astounding.

gurramok

CoalBucket wrote: »

At least you are now willing to admit your right wing views.

So lets see here. If one opposes high welfare where such welfare recipients receive more than a worker, one is right-wing? LOL

CoalBucket wrote: »

Again no proof just ill-informed opinion.

Figures speak for themselves.

CoalBucket wrote: »

Again it is the internationally recognised measurement.
Do you think you know better than the CSO, Department of Social and Family affairs and the EU.

They conducted a survey not just ran an opinion through their head and guessed incorrectly. Your opinions have no basis.

Yes, BS as the previous poster said. In that case i'm in poverty too.

CoalBucket wrote: »

The 23k includes all the additional allowances. Check your own post

"A Dublin single mother with 3 kids gets 487(child benefit)x12 + 286x52 = 20,716. Add in FIS, Fuel allowance & Back to School & Footwear allowance and you get 23k."

That 3k is 60% of the total meaning the remaining 40% has to come from the original total of 20,716. That means another 2k comes off the 20k. Leaving 18k for one parent to feed, clothe, and generally all the expenses that come with 3 kids.

That is €346 a week. You try raising 3 kids and yourself on that. Hardly enough for designer gear, winter holidays and ps3s as you claim.

Just to give you an idea of the cost of raising one child.

http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/surviving-the-recession/raising-children-can-be-extremely-expensive-1634030.html

You don't get FIS when not working so discount it. Perhaps they get SWA?

K-9 wrote:

Why are you using a single mans wages? He obviously doesn't have kids.

Its to highlight how having a kid you'd be much better off than not having one. It does not much diffference, w working person would get just child benefit and maybe FIS if on very low income, it would only dent a few thousand in that 23k figure.

K-9 wrote:

41k is more comparable, though even that isn't right as they'd get FIS. I'm wrong, it is less again.

A single mother on 35k would get about 30k net plus FIS of about €3,500 a year.

Where did you get 41k or that 35k or that €3,500 from? Non-workers don't get FIS, right?

K-9 wrote:

So, in comparable circumstances, 35k gross would do, not near 48k.
Family Income Supplement-Information from CitizensInformation.ie

Edit: Actually they don't need near that. You are counting child benefit, but they get that if working. They don't get FIS if not working. FIS does not kick in if working less than 19 hours a week.

You'd need to discount the Child Benefit of about €5,800.

So, we are down to needing a Net wage of about €23,000 as FIS will make up the difference.

Put that in your calculator, giving them the married credit as they qualify for a double tax credit, we get €24,200 Gross, nearly half what you quoted originally, 48k. FIS would be about €6,700. Net wage, 23k and Child Benefit of about €5,800.

So, in comparable circumstances a single parent would need a wage of 24k, not 47k. It is unfair and disingenuous to compare a single mans wages as obviously a single man on 48k does not have any where near the same expenses as a single parent.

Sorry for being a stickler for these figures but a poster on the AH thread you and me are on estimated the Gross figure as 80k, you have it as 47k, but I've shown it is actually 24k, 30% of the original claim on that thread. Really, for people to get it that wrong is mind blowing. That poster was 70% out, you are about 50% out, doubling the wage required. Astounding.

You've lost me completely. Where did you get 35k initially and why are you including married people when we are talking about single people with or without kids.?

You've mentioned FIS several times when it does not apply to a non-working single mother. The 48k figure stands until you clarify where you are getting your figures from.

murphaph

CoalBucket wrote: »

Again it is the internationally recognised measurement. Do you think you know better than the CSO, Department of Social and Family affairs and the EU.

YES! These are the same jokers who believe their pay levels should be maintained at Celtic Tiger levels despite a collapse in tax revenues and massive private sector unemployment. What the fcuk would these people in their ivory towers know about poverty?

In fact, I reckon more private sector employees on low pay are living in genuine poverty than people living on LPA etc. They are just too proud to go begging with the hand out.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

KaiLee

WalterMitty wrote: »

I think theres a scheme where they will pay interest on your mortgage for a year or two. Maybe this could be expanded. Some people may never be able to get work earning enough to clear their debts so they will have to sell up their house to clear all or most of their debts. if they have neg equity there should be a scheme to help them walk away from their unaffordable debts but it must be a last resort like UK's bankruptcy laws.

Rent allowance also covers people who have mortgages I believe?

stupidusername

KaiLee wrote: »

Rent allowance also covers people who have mortgages I believe?

No it doesn't.

KaiLee

stupidusername wrote: »

This idea I don't get. I don't get why the parents should 'have to' support someone that is after finishing college. This idea is crazy. Typical government type rule though - you're an adult when it suits them, but when it doesn't you're expected to depend on your parents even though you're well into your twenties? MAD!

Now this makes me sick. My own brother was made redundant about a year ago and recieved no pay. Then he decided to up his skills by returning to college a while as he could not find work. He then fell ill and had to take some time out... He was thinking of moving home to my parents to make things easier on him. But at 25 years of age, living, working and studying since he left school he was told he would be means tested by my fathers income!!! My own mother is of poor health and her medical bills cost from 300 to 3000 a month!!! and thats with insurance. My father basically lost his pension and got major pay cut..... and they expect our parents to look after there children!!! Now thats BS!

KaiLee

stupidusername wrote: »

No it doesn't.

My apologies I should of researched it before posting, I did think there was a supplement for this. But most people I would hope have payment protection or insurance?

Scarab80

KaiLee wrote: »

My apologies I should of researched it before posting, I did think there was a supplement for this. But most people I would hope have payment protection or insurance?

There is a supplement for it, it's just not covered under rent allowance (obviously enough)

KaiLee

Scarab80 wrote: »

There is a supplement for it, it's just not covered under rent allowance (obviously enough)

Ah yes obviously. Sorry about that not had my coffee!

cynder

KaiLee wrote: »

My apologies I should of researched it before posting, I did think there was a supplement for this. But most people I would hope have payment protection or insurance?

We had the mortgage payment protection (still do) and needed to use it when my husband got cancer, he only took 4 months off work should have taken at least 6, the only thing is with the payment protection is that it only last 1 year.

KaiLee

grindelwald wrote: »

We had the mortgage payment protection (still do) and needed to use it when my husband got cancer, he only took 4 months off work should have taken at least 6, the only thing is with the payment protection is that it only last 1 year.

yup I know there are clauses on it too. One of my previous employers refused to sign the form for me and I couldnt make use of it and ended up refunding it instead. Sorry to hear that for you, thats alot ot deal with!

cynder

KaiLee wrote: »

yup I know there are clauses on it too. One of my previous employers refused to sign the form for me and I couldnt make use of it and ended up refunding it instead. Sorry to hear that for you, thats alot ot deal with!

I pity the one who are on chemo for 1+ years and think the payment protection should be incresed to 2-3 years insted of just 1 year.

Employers can be a bit of a pain when they refuse to fill in paper work.:mad:

As i see it it could be way worse.

CoalBucket

murphaph wrote: »

YES! These are the same jokers who believe their pay levels should be maintained at Celtic Tiger levels despite a collapse in tax revenues and massive private sector unemployment. What the fcuk would these people in their ivory towers know about poverty?

In fact, I reckon more private sector employees on low pay are living in genuine poverty than people living on LPA etc. They are just too proud to go begging with the hand out.

These are the figures from the department of social and family affairs.

CoalBucket

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yet again nobody has any objection to fraud being removed from the system. The current government proposals are to cut all lone parents allowances not just the fraudulent ones.

The reason the poster was described as right wing is because his views on all lone parents were that they should be cut. He also believes that lone parents go on sun holidays, wear designer clothes and but ps3s. Read the posts.

Scarab80

CoalBucket wrote: »

Yet again nobody has any objection to fraud being removed from the system. The current government proposals are to cut all lone parents allowances not just the fraudulent ones.

The resaon the poster was described as right wing is because his views on all lone parents were that they should be cut. He also believes that lone parents go on sun holidays, wear designer clothes and but ps3s. Read the posts.

The reason that the government has to cut all lone parents is because it is so difficult / if not impossible to tell the fradulent from the genuine. One way they might attack this is to reduce the benefits for lone parents without fathers on birth certificates. Probably be difficult to get through politically but it would disincentive this kind of fraud and also children have a right to know who their parents are, though i suspect that most do, it's only the state that doesn't.

cynder

I knew a single mother who wore designer clothes, got drunk 4 nigts out of 7, got high 4 nights out of 7, went on holidays without the kids.

The kids however wore primark/second hand clothes they got fed from a 2 burner camping stove and grill. ( the mother didn't even have a proper cooker 4 hobs, grill and oven). The house was always a tip and the kids were always dirty.

must say the mother did an open university course and moved to the uk and became a social worker - what a joke, if they only knew what she was like over here.

CoalBucket

gurramok wrote: »

So lets see here. If one opposes high welfare where such welfare recipients receive more than a worker, one is right-wing? LOL

So now you are saying your arguement is against high social welfare payments rather that "single mother scammers"

Lets see what your previous arguement was..........

gurramok wrote: »

LOL. I grew up in Finglas South and now i'm an ardent right-winger for objecting to welfare abuse!!

So is it the high social welfare payments or the single mother scammers that you are using to justify your figures for reducing lone parent allowance ?

If you are going to have an opinion (no matter how erroneous) at least stick to one arguement.

And yes before you deny looking for social welfare claims to be reduce universally lets look at my question and your response..................

CoalBucket wrote: »

Ok I'll explain it again, everybody will be cut under the current proposals. you have showed your support for the current proposals. Whether you now want to water down that opinion is irrelevant, I'm sure the government will look at your proposal and choose your option.

And your response.

gurramok wrote: »

Lets hope

gurramok wrote: »

Again, did you even look at the definition of poverty/poverty risk?

Yes I did look at the definition of poverty and the basis of calculation. The measurement below is only one portion of the calculation. Yet again you choose to ignore the facts presented to you and just choose the ones that you can spin to support your ill conceived arguement/s.

Here is the link. Have a good look instead of just using the portions that have been posted by someone else.

http://www.combatpoverty.ie/povertyinireland/measuringpoverty.htm

gurramok wrote: »

It includes
Without heating at some stage in the last year - unlikely
Unable to afford a morning, afternoon or evening out in the last fortnight- Wow, I have not been able to afford this!!
Unable to afford two pairs of strong shoes - Are we talking Nike Air here??
Unable to afford a roast once a week - they can afford this
Unable to afford a meal with meat, chicken or fish every second day- they can afford this
Unable to afford new (not second-hand) clothes - Pennys have cheap good quality clothes, no need for River Island
Unable to afford a warm waterproof coat - they can afford this
Unable to afford to keep the home adequately warmthey can afford this
Unable to afford to replace any worn out furniture - Ah here. Furniture is bloody expensive, 3 piece suite is a 100o quid, I cant afford that!!
Unable to afford to have family or friends for a drink or meal once a month - I can;t afford this either, R'nt bills for a fmaily can run well over a hundred quid.
Unable to afford to buy presents for family or friends at least once a year - Yeh, we discussed this. Hopefully console games are not listed here

I have highlighted the "It includes" portion to demonstrate the other factors to measure poverty you intentionally chose to ignore.

With reference to your "figures" I have previously demonstrated the errors in you calculations. In fact more have been highlighted by another poster. I will not go over the calculation again. Refer to the previous posts.

CoalBucket

Scarab80 wrote: »

The reason that the government has to cut all lone parents is because it is so difficult / if not impossible to tell the fradulent from the genuine. One way they might attack this is to reduce the benefits for lone parents without fathers on birth certificates. Probably be difficult to get through politically but it would disincentive this kind of fraud and also children have a right to know who their parents are, though i suspect that most do, it's only the state that doesn't.

Whilst I agree that fraud must be stamped out, reducing the payment for everybody is not the solution.

Your proposal about the birth certs is a good idea.

The only problem is the governments idea is a money saving exercise dressed up as social policy. Your proposal would address the social policy but would not reduce costs which is the governments ultimate aim.

The be all and end all is they need the money to bail out the banks and they are attempting to make economic policy look like social policy.
If the government were that concerned about socil policy they would have reduced the payments in the boom.

RichardAnd

CoalBucket wrote: »

If the government were that concerned about socil policy they would have reduced the payments in the boom.

Agreed. But they didn't touch social welfare so that they would not loose votes which keeps them in power. As long as we have a populist government we will have these problems.

ntlbell

CoalBucket wrote: »

Yet again nobody has any objection to fraud being removed from the system. The current government proposals are to cut all lone parents allowances not just the fraudulent ones.

The reason the poster was described as right wing is because his views on all lone parents were that they should be cut. He also believes that lone parents go on sun holidays, wear designer clothes and but ps3s. Read the posts.

How is someone who feels people on SW lone parents or otherwise are being overpaid as right wing?

Are you suggesting 90k lone parents, in these houses there is no consoles, they all buy there clothes from pennys and don't take holidays?

It's kind of a cute idea, but it's not bedded in reality.

I'm sure there is plenty of very financially responsible parents who don't do the above. but unfortunate they're still being overpaid, regardless of how they spend or don't spend the money, this needs to be cut.

gurramok

CoalBucket wrote: »

So now you are saying your arguement is against high social welfare payments rather that "single mother scammers"

Lets see what your previous arguement was..........

So is it the high social welfare payments or the single mother scammers that you are using to justify your figures for reducing lone parent allowance ?

If you are going to have an opinion (no matter how erroneous) at least stick to one arguement.

High welfare encourages scammers. It maybe news to you but not the rest of us who pay our taxes.

CoalBucket wrote: »

Yes I did look at the definition of poverty and the basis of calculation. The measurement below is only one portion of the calculation. Yet again you choose to ignore the facts presented to you and just choose the ones that you can spin to support your ill conceived arguement/s.

Here is the link. Have a good look instead of just using the portions that have been posted by someone else.

http://www.combatpoverty.ie/povertyinireland/measuringpoverty.htm

I have highlighted the "It includes" portion to demonstrate the other factors to measure poverty you intentionally chose to ignore.

Which is it now? Relative Income Poverty, Relative Deprivation or Consistent Poverty based on your NEW link?

Make up your mind.

CoalBucket wrote: »

With reference to your "figures" I have previously demonstrated the errors in you calculations. In fact more have been highlighted by another poster. I will not go over the calculation again. Refer to the previous posts.

What errors. You chose not to respond to errors highlighting that FIS is not included in the welfare income of a non-working single mother.

Still waiting for an explanation how you got the following..

CoalBucket wrote: »

That 3k is 60% of the total meaning the remaining 40% has to come from the original total of 20,716. That means another 2k comes off the 20k. Leaving 18k for one parent to feed, clothe, and generally all the expenses that come with 3 kids.

Well, can you explain or are you just making up numbers??

confuseddotcom

No we were forced out of our jobs ......
:rolleyes::rolleyes:

And getting into debt is hardly a willing option, okay it's by choice, but I reckon, it's not something any-one would bestow lovingly upon themselves in the first place lol !! ) Forgive me if I'm wrong I could be totally off-the-mark here, but is Ireland currently as "sound" as other EU Countries?? Plus you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but personally I would imagine I would find it much easier to survive in the UK than here if it's any little bit easier to conduct some scrap of a more decent life-style than a Social Welfare one in Ireland. ( Can I just say I'm getting by and just about managing okay on Social Welfare okay myself at the moment, and I do realise that cuts need to be made some-how some-where, in order for the country to survive economically. But admittedly, I'd be devastated if I had to try and re-shuffle things after say .... okay the €185-ish mark to be flexible, but after below that I'd really be seriously worried about my own situation and needs. )

Nobody's "pawning off" here which seems to be what's suggested. Problems come about the exact say way they did in good times, maybe it's just that with the way things are now; folk are getting irked easier if they are led to believe/think they have to shoulder some of the burden/problems which is not the case at all. Personally, I accept I have to sort out my own financial situation. I hope that others in same circumstances feel the same too ......

zootroid wrote: »

You must take responsibility for your own choices though. Even though you are in debt, you weren't forced into debt. You can't expect to earn at least 2500 a month forever, you have to live within your means and save for a rainy day. You are getting a hell of a lot more money on the dole than most other EU countries, and yet you complain about being made responsible for the governments mistakes. I am thankful that I'm not unemployed in the UK, as I would find it a lot harder to survive there than I do here.

The government has made mistakes, which are having an effect on everyone. And we are now borrowing 20 billion a year, which is just madness. So cuts have to be made everywhere, social welfare, the public sector wage bill, the only place I wouldn't cut is capital expenditure. The alternative to not cutting anything is not being able to borrow money in the future, and having such a large percentage of our tax revenues going to simply pay the interest on what we borrow today.

By the way, I'm on the dole myself. But I'm probably lucky in the sense that I have no debts and I have nobody relying on me.

K-9

gurramok wrote: »

So lets see here. If one opposes high welfare where such welfare recipients receive more than a worker, one is right-wing? LOL



Figures speak for themselves.



Yes, BS as the previous poster said. In that case i'm in poverty too.




You don't get FIS when not working so discount it. Perhaps they get SWA?



Its to highlight how having a kid you'd be much better off than not having one. It does not much diffference, w working person would get just child benefit and maybe FIS if on very low income, it would only dent a few thousand in that 23k figure.



Where did you get 41k or that 35k or that €3,500 from? Non-workers don't get FIS, right?



You've lost me completely. Where did you get 35k initially and why are you including married people when we are talking about single people with or without kids.?

You've mentioned FIS several times when it does not apply to a non-working single mother. The 48k figure stands until you clarify where you are getting your figures from.

I'm making a simple like for like comparison. A single man on 48k would be far better of than a single parent on 48k due to eh, being single and eh, not having a child. That is why you should include the child to compare like with like. If you want to use a single mans wages, compare it to what a single man gets from welfare.

Now, Single parent earning €24,200. Put it into your tax calculator. You have to tick the married box as single parents get double the single mans credits, like a married couple. It works out at 23k Net.

Add FIS of €6,700 and Child Benefit of €5,800 and you get €35,500 Net.

So, in a like for like comparison, which is important because a single man will not have the same expenditure, a Gross wage of 24k is needed, not 47k, not 60k, not 80k.

gurramok

K-9 wrote: »

Now, Single parent earning €24,200. Put it into your tax calculator. You have to tick the married box as single parents get double the single mans credits, like a married couple. It works out at 23k Net.

Add FIS of €6,700 and Child Benefit of €5,800 and you get €35,500 Net.

So, in a like for like comparison, which is important because a single man will not have the same expenditure, a Gross wage of 24k is needed, not 47k, not 60k, not 80k.

Where did you get 24k gross from?

Are you basing it on a working single parent earning 24k gross? That working single parent will have to pay a sizeable mortgage or rent out of his/her wages.

FIS is for working parents is it not?

How does all your figures affect the following.."A Dublin single mother with 3 kids gets 487(child benefit)x12 + 286x52 = 20,716. " For a mother not working of course.

I get those figures from the citizensinfo,ie website so forgive me if i'm confused how 21k in the hand before other small allowances are added contrasts with what you are coming up with.

K-9

The benefits aren't at issue. The 47k or whatever you are having yourself is. A single man on 47k does not have to pay childcare and the costs of bringing up a child so it isn't a fair comparison.

My figures are there and can be checked.

gurramok wrote: »

Where did you get 24k gross from?

Are you basing it on a working single parent earning 24k gross? That working single parent will have to pay a sizeable mortgage or rent out of his/her wages.

That is why you add the FIS and Child Benefit which brings it up to the €35,500, roughly what the total welfare figure is.

gurramok wrote:

FIS is for working parents is it not?

Yep, it is why I added it in to have a fair comparison.

gurramok wrote:

How does all your figures affect the following.."A Dublin single mother with 3 kids gets 487(child benefit)x12 + 286x52 = 20,716. " For a mother not working of course.

I get those figures from the citizensinfo,ie website so forgive me if i'm confused how 21k in the hand before other small allowances are added contrasts with what you are coming up with.

It doesn't. It shows that figures like 80k and even 47k are unfair comparisons. I prefer accurate figures than hyperbole and ill informed nonsense of 80k, 60k or whatever you are having yourself.

gurramok

Ah that clears it up. At least you can see it ain't worthwhile for a single parent to work unless they were a high earner. Working parents lone or not are screwed.

Still disgrace how 23k into the hand in this case is ridicoulously high.

If a single woman without kids got unemployed tomorrow, she'd be better off having a kid while on welfare to get disprortionately higher benefits as her rent supplement would be doubled(from RS list for Dublin, single parent with a kid gets more than a single man or woman would as she is treated like a couple's claim) and pushed higher on a housing list...

and of course there are no checks to stop her having more kids as its financially more viable than having to work a single day in her life.

If the father was living with her on the sly and works(this happens alot), they will never get married as its not economically viable to do so.

K-9

gurramok wrote: »

Ah that clears it up. At least you can see it ain't worthwhile for a single parent to work unless they were a high earner. Working parents lone or not are screwed.

Still disgrace how 23k into the hand in this case is ridicoulously high.

If a single woman without kids got unemployed tomorrow, she'd be better off having a kid while on welfare to get disprortionately higher benefits as her rent supplement would be doubled(from RS list for Dublin, single parent with a kid gets more than a single man or woman would as she is treated like a couple's claim) and pushed higher on a housing list...

and of course there are no checks to stop her having more kids as its financially more viable than having to work a single day in her life.

If the father was living with her on the sly and works(this happens alot), they will never get married as its not economically viable to do so.

Oh yeah, the amount of people who know of the father living with them fraudulently, but never bother doing anything about it, like reporting them. That annoys me just as much.

ntlbell

K-9 wrote: »

Oh yeah, the amount of people who know of the father living with them fraudulently, but never bother doing anything about it, like reporting them. That annoys me just as much.

It's a very difficult thing to prove.

As the father is allowed to stay so many nights a week IIRC

Plus the father will be allowed to visit etc

social arrive...he's visiting..

around the clock surveillance ?

It was one of his nights to stay

blah blah

CoalBucket

gurramok wrote: »

High welfare encourages scammers. It maybe news to you but not the rest of us who pay our taxes.

I pay my taxes and will not have that questioned by you. I was recently unemployed and I am now employed again. I was employed continuously for the previous 12 years as an Engineer. So I have paid a lot of tax and continue to pay my tax. You know nothing about what I pay. If you want to make this personal, go ahead.

gurramok wrote: »

Which is it now? Relative Income Poverty, Relative Deprivation or Consistent Poverty based on your NEW link?

Do you not like the facts being presented to you or should we all just spout mindless diatribe ignorant of the facts. By the way it was the same link everytime you just have to read past page 1. Or is that too much work for you before you form an opinion.

gurramok wrote: »

Well, can you explain or are you just making up numbers??

Yes you originally said the figure was 23k but increased to 35k when added on rent allowance. When explained to you that the extra benefits where only a proportion and that the 23 was then reduced to 18k you chose to ignore it. Read your own posts so I can save myself explaining them to you.

CoalBucket

ntlbell wrote: »

How is someone who feels people on SW lone parents or otherwise are being overpaid as right wing?

Are you suggesting 90k lone parents, in these houses there is no consoles, they all buy there clothes from pennys and don't take holidays?

It's kind of a cute idea, but it's not bedded in reality.

I'm sure there is plenty of very financially responsible parents who don't do the above. but unfortunate they're still being overpaid, regardless of how they spend or don't spend the money, this needs to be cut.

Firstly read the rest of the posts, not just which opinion he has decided in whichever post. The "single mother scammers with their designer gear, winter sun holidays and ps3s" is hardly centre right commentary !

Who are the 90K lone parents ?

ntlbell

CoalBucket wrote: »

Firstly read the rest of the posts, not just which opinion he has decided in whichever post. The "single mother scammers with their designer gear, winter sun holidays and ps3s" is hardly centre right commentary !

Who are the 90K lone parents ?

what do you mean who are they?

CoalBucket

ntlbell wrote: »

what do you mean who are they?

Simple enough question. Let me re-phrase it, in what circumstances would a lone parent be in receipt of 90k a year from the state, unless they are a TD ?

ntlbell

CoalBucket wrote: »

Simple enough question. Let me re-phrase it, in what circumstances would a lone parent be in receipt of 90k a year from the state, unless they are a TD ?

90k

what are you talking about man

there is 90k people in receipt of it, i didn't say they were on 90k :rolleyes: