Possible social welfare cuts in Ireland?

gurramok · 01-06-2010 6:42pm

CoalBucket wrote: »

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.

Funny way of thinking that you don't really care how your taxes are distributed by condoning high welfare in the cases we are talking about.

CoalBucket wrote: »

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.

You presented statements purporting to show 80& of single mothers are not living in poverty, not figures. I supported the official figures I supplied by showing how much they get.

CoalBucket wrote: »

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.

23k is not reduced to 18k. Its 21k from the starting block for a non-working single mother. It doesn't get reduced. Those you choose to ignore.

CoalBucket · 01-06-2010 6:45pm

ntlbell wrote: »

90k

what are you talking about man

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

My apologies

CoalBucket · 01-06-2010 7:12pm

gurramok wrote: »

Funny way of thinking that you don't really care how your taxes are distributed by condoning high welfare in the cases we are talking about.

I do care about where my taxes are spent. I also care about society as a whole and I also think that there should be an adequate social welfare system. I don't think that social welfare is over paid. I think reforming welfare can't just be about cutting social welfare budgets and must have regard to the very human challenges facing people who rely on income support.

gurramok wrote: »

You presented statements purporting to show 80& of single mothers are not living in poverty, not figures. I supported the official figures I supplied by showing how much they get.

I presented a report to show that 20% of lone parents are in consistant poverty and an additional 18% were in threat of poverty.

You presented figures of 18k for a lone parent with 3 children and claimed this was enough for them to go on winter holidays and wear designer gear. Do you honestly think that 18k is a huge amount for a 4 person family to live on ?

gurramok wrote: »

23k is not reduced to 18k. Its 21k from the starting block for a non-working single mother. It doesn't get reduced. Those you choose to ignore.

You said the original figure was 20k

gurramok wrote: »

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.

The remaining balance is 3k. That 3 k is a contributory payment (That means that the state make a contribution to the payment i.e. 60%).

So If 60% = 3k then 40% = 2k

So If the remaining 2k has to be paid by the welfare recipient.

20k - 2k = 18k

Obviously the figures have been rounded but they are a reasonable estimation based on your figures.

K-9 · 01-06-2010 7:19pm

The payments are high, no doubt about it. But these proposals aren't about significant savings as:

1. The child dependent allowance is €29.80
2. It will be phased in over 6 years or so.
3. It doesn't apply to married or cohabitating couples which are probably more than 90k.
4. It doesn't apply to other state payments like Child Benefit, FIS, Medical card eligibility etc.

If this was about real savings, a child benefit cut would save 100's of millions eg., I'd be all for it. It is selective picking of a minority of welfare recipients that makes the Govt. look like they are doing something, when they are doing SFA to cut the welfare bill.

gurramok · 01-06-2010 7:23pm

CoalBucket wrote: »

I do care about where my taxes are spent. I also care about society as a whole and I also think that there should be an adequate social welfare system. I don't think that social welfare is over paid. I think reforming welfare can't just be about cutting social welfare budgets and must have regard to the very human challenges facing people who rely on income support.

So you obviously think it is either adequate or not high enough:eek:

CoalBucket wrote: »

I presented a report to show that 20% of lone parents are in consistant poverty and an additional 18% were in threat of poverty.

You presented figures of 18k for a lone parent with 3 children and claimed this was enough for them to go on winter holidays and wear designer gear. Do you honestly think that 18k is a huge amount for a 4 person family to live on ?

21K in the hand yes, thats 1,750 per month in the hand where medical bills are free and also accommodation.

CoalBucket wrote: »

You said the original figure was 20k

The remaining balance is 3k. That 3 k is a contributory payment (That means that the state make a contribution to the payment i.e. 60%).

So If 60% = 3k then 40% = 2k

So If the remaining 2k has to be paid by the welfare recipient.

20k - 2k = 18k

Obviously the figures have been rounded but they are a reasonable estimation based on your figures.

20,716 rounded up to 21k.

Where does it say those additional allowances are contributory?

CoalBucket · 01-06-2010 7:50pm

gurramok wrote: »

So you obviously think it is either adequate or not high enough:eek:21K in the hand yes, thats 1,750 per month in the hand where medical bills are free and also accommodation.

The figure is 18k as I have already shown. But for your purposes lets say it's 19k. That is 365 a week or 90 per person. Just enough for the sun holidays, designer clothes and ps3.

gurramok wrote: »

20,716 rounded up to 21k.

The actual figure is 19,193.66 or €369 per week or €92.27 per person per week.

Even If you used your figure of 20,716 it would be €99.59 per person per week. I wouldn't be booking the holidays just yet if I was them and i'd cancel the account at River Island.

gurramok wrote: »

Where does it say those additional allowances are contributory?

The same place you got your figures from.

gurramok · 01-06-2010 8:11pm

CoalBucket wrote: »

The figure is 18k as I have already shown. But for your purposes lets say it's 19k. That is 365 a week or 90 per person. Just enough for the sun holidays, designer clothes and ps3.

The actual figure is 19,193.66 or €369 per week or €92.27 per person per week.

Even If you used your figure of 20,716 it would be €99.59 per person per week. I wouldn't be booking the holidays just yet if I was them and i'd cancel the account at River Island.

The same place you got your figures from.

Yet again, how did you get your new figure of 19,193.66?

I asked you where you got 3k as a reduction and you refuse to say where from.

Are you making all this up?

CoalBucket · 01-06-2010 8:19pm

gurramok wrote: »

Yet again, how did you get your new figure of 19,193.66?

I asked you where you got 3k as a reduction and you refuse to say where from.

Are you making all this up?

I said a 2k reduction as the 3 k you added on is contributory as I have already explained 2 posts previously. The 3k is 60% so 40% is 2k. I have explained the figures repeatedly.

Lets ignore any reduction is 99 a week per person enough for a 4 person family to live on.

And more importantly is it enough for winter sun holidays, designer clothes and ps3s which you claim andcontinuosly ignore addressing.

ntlbell · 01-06-2010 8:25pm

CoalBucket wrote: »

I said a 2k reduction as the 3 k you added on is contributory as I have already explained 2 posts previously. The 3k is 60% so 40% is 2k. I have explained the figures repeatedly.

Lets ignore any reduction is 99 a week per person enough for a 4 person family to live on.

And more importantly is it enough for winter sun holidays, designer clothes and ps3s which you claim andcontinuosly ignore addressing.

Are you seriously suggesting over 1700 a month is not enough for a 4 person family? who has no medical/accommodation bills?

Could you do out a little budget there and show us where you would spend the money?

gurramok · 01-06-2010 8:44pm

CoalBucket wrote: »

I said a 2k reduction as the 3 k you added on is contributory as I have already explained 2 posts previously. The 3k is 60% so 40% is 2k. I have explained the figures repeatedly.

Lets ignore any reduction is 99 a week per person enough for a 4 person family to live on.

And more importantly is it enough for winter sun holidays, designer clothes and ps3s which you claim andcontinuosly ignore addressing.

I ask YET again, provide a link where that 2k reduction is contributory and show us how you got the magic number of 19,193.66.

Show us the maths and source your link for those maths. Otherwise its hearsay.

CoalBucket · 01-06-2010 8:47pm

ntlbell wrote: »

Are you seriously suggesting over 1700 a month is not enough for a 4 person family? who has no medical/accommodation bills?

Could you do out a little budget there and show us where you would spend the money?

It is adequate to maintain a reasonable standard of living. What the majority of people on this thread are suggesting is that lone parents are living the high life.

I know it's not enough for winter sun holidays, designer clothes or ps3s.

As for doing out a budget. Thanks for the homework but you're grand

CoalBucket · 01-06-2010 8:50pm

gurramok wrote: »

I ask YET again, provide a link where that 2k reduction is contributory and show us how you got the magic number of 19,193.66.

Show us the maths and source your link for those maths. Otherwise its hearsay.

I have shown you repeatedly and I will not show you again.

You obviously don't know what hearsay means. But then again that is just a refelction of your entire arguement.

You still ignoring how they can afford the winter sun holidays, designer gear and ps3s on YOUR figure of 22k ?

ntlbell · 01-06-2010 8:51pm

CoalBucket wrote: »

It is adequate to maintain a reasonable standard of living. What the majority of people on this thread are suggesting is that lone parents are living the high life.

I know it's not enough for winter sun holidays, designer clothes or ps3s.

As for doing out a budget. Thanks for the homework but you're grand

So you think it's adequate, but you have no idea of the sort of budget it would require to manage such a sized familiy?

and based on that your then even tho you dont know the costs are assuming there's no money for a console...300e out of that 20grand, or money for say designer jeans/tops that we haven't even put a price on?

I hope your job doesn't involve giving out estimates

ntlbell · 01-06-2010 8:54pm

CoalBucket wrote: »

You still ignoring how they can afford the winter sun holidays, designer gear and ps3s on YOUR figure of 22k ?

Maybe they take out loans from the credit union and use there part of the 22k to service the debt?

just a shot in the dark!

gurramok · 01-06-2010 8:56pm

CoalBucket wrote: »

I have shown you repeatedly and I will not show you again.

You obviously don't know what hearsay means. But then again that is just a refelction of your entire arguement.

No you have not shown us how you got those figures. I asked what allowances are contributory and how you plucked 19,193.66 out of the air.

I believe in this forum, you provide sources and backup to how you obtain figures.

Coalbucket wrote:

You still ignoring how they can afford the winter sun holidays, designer gear and ps3s on YOUR figure of 22k ?

No, they can well afford it on that money in the hand considering they do not pay accommodation or medical costs.

CoalBucket · 01-06-2010 9:01pm

ntlbell wrote: »

So you think it's adequate, but you have no idea of the sort of budget it would require to manage such a sized familiy?

and based on that your then even tho you dont know the costs are assuming there's no money for a console...300e out of that 20grand, or money for say designer jeans/tops that we haven't even put a price on?

I hope your job doesn't involve giving out estimates

We have a quantity surveyor for that

But seriously though I have a partner and a child. We both work and have above average salaries. I have than more of an idea of what it takes to pay for a family.

If the previous poster thinks that lone parents are on sun holidays with designer clothes he must think on my familys salaries that I lounge around on my gold throne all day eating cavier and swilling champagne.

ntlbell · 01-06-2010 9:14pm

CoalBucket wrote: »

We have a quantity surveyor for that

But seriously though I have a partner and a child. We both work and have above average salaries. I have than more of an idea of what it takes to pay for a family.

If the previous poster thinks that lone parents are on sun holidays with designer clothes he must think on my familys salaries that I lounge around on my gold throne all day eating cavier and swilling champagne.

But a lot of your outgoings are probably things like

rent or a mortgage.

health insurance for you, your partner and your child.

if you own a house

life insurance

content insurance

running cars/insurance/tax/maintenance

doctors bills for you and your child

i'd say you totted it all up it's a fair whack of your pay packets

If your kid is in school

books/uniforms/etc

when you look at the amount of disposable income after all the outgoings for a lot of people on avg or slightly above average, the person on SW will probably have more disposable income than them.

CoalBucket · 01-06-2010 9:17pm

gurramok wrote: »

No you have not shown us how you got those figures. I asked what allowances are contributory and how you plucked 19,193.66 out of the air.

gurramok wrote: »

I believe in this forum, you provide sources and backup to how you obtain figures.

I have provided the sources, and produced the figures. Read the posts.
Take out a calculator if neccessary.

Take your original figure, take that from 23k.
That will give you the extra contributory figures (call it fig A).
The contributory figures are 60%. The remainder to be paid is 40%.
Divide fig a by 6 and multiply by 4. (The multiply button is the x)
That will give you fig B.
Take Fig B from your original figure and hey presto €19,193.66

You provided the link to the data for the figures yourself. Read your own sources.

gurramok wrote: »

No, they can well afford it on that money in the hand considering they do not pay accommodation or medical costs.

Why didn't you just admit that you exagerated with the winter sun holidays, designer gear and ps3s instead of embarrassing yourself even further with that comment.

CoalBucket · 01-06-2010 9:22pm

ntlbell wrote: »

But a lot of your outgoings are probably things like

rent or a mortgage.

health insurance for you, your partner and your child.

if you own a house

life insurance

content insurance

running cars/insurance/tax/maintenance

doctors bills for you and your child

i'd say you totted it all up it's a fair whack of your pay packets

If your kid is in school

books/uniforms/etc

when you look at the amount of disposable income after all the outgoings for a lot of people on avg or slightly above average, the person on SW will probably have more disposable income than them.

Well I have one child but you would not be left with a huge amount of disposable income with 3 children.

I am not disputing some disposable income is left over, but come on winter sun holidays etc etc.

gurramok · 01-06-2010 9:24pm

CoalBucket wrote: »

I have provided the sources, and produced the figures. Read the posts.
Take out a calculator if neccessary.

Take your original figure, take that from 23k.
That will give you the extra contributory figures (call it fig A).
The contributory figures are 60%. The remainder to be paid is 40%.
Divide fig a by 6 and multiply by 4. (The multiply button is the x)
That will give you fig B.
Take Fig B from your original figure and hey presto €19,193.66

You provided the link to the data for the figures yourself. Read your own sources.

Point out where off the web and what those contributory allowances are as I cannot find them

CoalBucket wrote: »

Why didn't you just admit that you exagerated with the winter sun holidays, designer gear and ps3s instead of embarrassing yourself even further with that comment.

Eh no. If poverty is designated as a single mother with 3kids who gets 35k net plus medical bills paid, god help us.

ntlbell · 01-06-2010 9:26pm

CoalBucket wrote: »

Well I have one child but you would not be left with a huge amount of disposable income with 3 children.

I am not disputing some disposable income is left over, but come on winter sun holidays etc etc.

Why not?

What do you have to pay for out of your 1700e a month?

ESB?
Food. You would be suprised using lidl/aldi how well fed 4 people could be on very little
GAS?
Clothes every X
??

I think if you crunch the numbers you'll be pretty shocked at what you could be left over.

CoalBucket · 01-06-2010 9:31pm

gurramok wrote: »

Eh no. If poverty is designated as a single mother with 3kids who gets 35k net plus medical bills paid, god help us.

That is not how poverty is defined. Do you really want that explained to you again.

TBH I have had enough of explaining and clarifying for someone who stands by the stance that it is of the opinion that single mothers are scammers who enjoy winter sun holidays, designer clothes and ps3s.

gurramok · 01-06-2010 9:48pm

CoalBucket wrote: »

That is not how poverty is defined. Do you really want that explained to you again.

TBH I have had enough of explaining and clarifying for someone who stands by the stance that it is of the opinion that single mothers are scammers who enjoy winter sun holidays, designer clothes and ps3s.

They can with 21k+ in their pocket. You accept 21k net is poverty. Oh dear.

Look, i'm still waiting as you have not provided the following..

Point out where off the web and what those contributory allowances are as I cannot find them

CoalBucket · 01-06-2010 9:53pm

gurramok wrote: »

They can with 21k+ in their pocket. You accept 21k net is poverty. Oh dear.

Look, i'm still waiting as you have not provided the following..

Point out where off the web and what those contributory allowances are as I cannot find them

I did not say 21k is in poverty. Stop putting words in my mouth and start explaining the words from your own. That is not how poverty is measured, if you read the source correctly you would know that. You seem to have a problem with reading sources.

gurramok · 01-06-2010 9:57pm

CoalBucket wrote: »

I did not say 21k is in poverty. Stop putting words in my mouth and start explaining the words from your own. That is not how poverty is measured, if you read the source correctly you would know that. You seem to have a problem with reading sources.

You're only source is a definition of poverty. It does not provide any figures to support it.

I've provided figures to prove that the subjects are not in poverty like 21k and you reject them without any source of figures of your own.

K-9 · 01-06-2010 10:06pm

So what things should people not be able to afford under welfare?

Games consoles, broadband, sky etc.

They shouldn't save either so no Santa presents?

ntlbell · 01-06-2010 10:10pm

K-9 wrote: »

So what things should people not be able to afford under welfare?

Games consoles, broadband, sky etc.

They shouldn't save either so no Santa presents?

I think something small at xmas is acceptable.

CoalBucket · 01-06-2010 10:11pm

gurramok wrote: »

You're only source is a definition of poverty. It does not provide any figures to support it.

I've provided figures to prove that the subjects are not in poverty like 21k and you reject them without any source of figures of your own.

I've given sources and figures repeatedly. Look back through the thread.

The figures are in the source provided about 60 comments back. Again you need to READ THE SOURCE supplied. It's call informing yourself. If you informed yourself a bit more you might not make off the cuff remarks like " single mother scammers, going on winter sun holidays, buying designer clothes and with ps3s at home "

TBH I've had enough explaining and providing sources and figures for someone who make comments like " single mother scammers, going on winter sun holidays, buying designer clothes and with ps3s at home "

I bid you farewell with your right wing views. I'll leave with your words of
" single mother scammers, going on winter sun holidays, buying designer clothes and with ps3s at home " ringing in my ears

CoalBucket · 01-06-2010 10:12pm

K-9 wrote: »

So what things should people not be able to afford under welfare?

Games consoles, broadband, sky etc.

They shouldn't save either so no Santa presents?

Santas presents don't cost anything they are made by the elves in the north pole

ntlbell · 01-06-2010 10:12pm

CoalBucket wrote: »

I've given sources and figures repeatedly. Look back through the thread.

The figures are in the source provided about 60 comments back. Again you need to READ THE SOURCE supplied. It's call informing yourself. If you informed yourself a bit more you might not make off the cuff remarks like " single mother scammers, going on winter sun holidays, buying designer clothes and with ps3s at home "

TBH I've had enough explaining and providing sources and figures for someone who make comments like " single mother scammers, going on winter sun holidays, buying designer clothes and with ps3s at home "

I bid you farewell with your right wing views. I'll leave with your words of
" single mother scammers, going on winter sun holidays, buying designer clothes and with ps3s at home " ringing in my ears

did you crunch them numbers yet? no?

CoalBucket · 01-06-2010 10:15pm

ntlbell wrote: »

did you crunch them numbers yet? no?

Ah no, I was busy responding to requests for info already provided

gurramok · 01-06-2010 10:16pm

CoalBucket wrote: »

I've given sources and figures repeatedly. Look back through the thread.

The figures are in the source provided about 60 comments back. Again you need to READ THE SOURCE supplied. It's call informing yourself. If you informed yourself a bit more you might not make off the cuff remarks like " single mother scammers, going on winter sun holidays, buying designer clothes and with ps3s at home "

TBH I've had enough explaining and providing sources and figures for someone who make comments like " single mother scammers, going on winter sun holidays, buying designer clothes and with ps3s at home "

I bid you farewell with your right wing views. I'll leave with your words of
" single mother scammers, going on winter sun holidays, buying designer clothes and with ps3s at home " ringing in my ears

Where? You never supplied the source for your magical figures and magical 'contributory allowances'.

I've asked you repeatedly how you got your figures but you will not state where you got them. Now you say its '60 comments back'. Well my friend, it ain't there.

CoalBucket · 01-06-2010 10:18pm

For the last time it is in the source you provided. !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Here is something you might understand

" single mother scammers, going on winter sun holidays, buying designer clothes and with ps3s at home "

gurramok · 01-06-2010 10:21pm

CoalBucket wrote: »

For the last time it is in the source you provided. !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Here is something you might understand]

It ain't in the source I provided. Why are you so afraid to highlight it?

Hiding something?

CoalBucket · 01-06-2010 10:23pm

gurramok wrote: »

It ain't in the source I provided. Why are you so afraid to highlight it?

Hiding something?

Hiding something ? Lmao I will not educate the ignorant " single mother scammers, going on winter sun holidays, buying designer clothes and with ps3s at home "

Scarab80 · 01-06-2010 10:28pm

Jesus lads, here are some figures....

gurramok · 01-06-2010 10:29pm

CoalBucket wrote: »

Hiding something ? Lmao I will not educate the ignorant " single mother scammers, going on winter sun holidays, buying designer clothes and with ps3s at home "

23k net without paying for accommodation and medical can get you all that.

Go on, reveal your source.

K-9 · 01-06-2010 10:33pm

CoalBucket wrote: »

Santas presents don't cost anything they are made by the elves in the north pole

Is a McDonalds allowed, or a trip to the cinema?

CoalBucket · 01-06-2010 10:33pm

gurramok wrote: »

23k net without paying for accommodation and medical can get you all that.

Go on, reveal your source.

I'm so trying not to swear. I BROKE THE FIGURES DOWN FOR YOU ALREADY.

Even you have admitted that your figure of 23k includes extra supplements.
You also admit when you took away those figures you got 21,733

Why do you persist with 23k ????

My new signature will now be

" single mother scammers, going on winter sun holidays, buying designer clothes and with ps3s at home "

Regards," single mother scammers, going on winter sun holidays, buying designer clothes and with ps3s at home "

CoalBucket · 01-06-2010 10:35pm

K-9 wrote: »

Is a McDonalds allowed, or a trip to the cinema?

McDonalds is not allowed but Supermacs or Abrekebabra are. But only the meal deals

K-9 · 01-06-2010 10:36pm

Scarab80 wrote: »

Jesus lads, here are some figures....

Is that a one income couple? I assume it is, in the interest of fairness now.

If you really want to be shocked, run the welfare figures for a married couple and compare.

Scarab80 · 01-06-2010 10:38pm

K-9 wrote: »

Is that a one income couple? I assume it is, in the interest of fairness now.

Yup, though it wouldn't make a difference at those income levels, apart from maybe an extra PAYE credit.

CoalBucket · 01-06-2010 10:40pm

K-9 wrote: »

Is that a one income couple? I assume it is, in the interest of fairness now.

If you really want to be shocked, run the welfare figures for a married couple and compare.

Are they not on the same sheet ?

gurramok · 01-06-2010 10:44pm

CoalBucket wrote: »

I'm so trying not to swear. I BROKE THE FIGURES DOWN FOR YOU ALREADY.

Even you have admitted that your figure of 23k includes extra supplements.
You also admit when you took away those figures you got 21,733

Why do you persist with 23k ????

Is this an admittance that you accept 21.7k(courtesy of the listed chart) or 21k instead of your 18k(or €19,193.66 as previously)?

Still waiting how you found 'contributory allowances' & how you found €19,193.66.

Scarab80 · 01-06-2010 10:46pm

CoalBucket wrote: »

Are they not on the same sheet ?

It's lone parent, then the other two are married couples with one income. Figures would be the same if it was a lone parent working as they would get the equivalent of a married allowance.

CoalBucket · 01-06-2010 10:51pm

gurramok wrote: »

Is this an admittance that you accept 21.7k(courtesy of the listed chart) or 21k instead of your 18k(or €19,193.66 as previously)?

Still waiting how you found 'contributory allowances' & how you found €19,193.66.

No it's an example of you attempting to justify your outrageous comments by sticking to a 23k, despite that even you acknowledge your figure of 21k. Yet you still stand by your comment.

For outrageous comment read " single mother scammers, going on winter sun holidays, buying designer clothes and with ps3s at home "

Regards,

" single mother scammers, going on winter sun holidays, buying designer clothes and with ps3s at home "

And to be honest if the figure was 25k it would not justify that comment

K-9 · 01-06-2010 10:53pm

Scarab80 wrote: »

Yup, though it wouldn't make a difference at those income levels, apart from maybe an extra PAYE credit.

Ran them myself, they give the home carers tax credit and its a fair enough comparison alright, no childcare costs in all cases.

The problem is you aren't comparing like with like. I did a rough calculation earlier showing a single parent would need to earn 24k Gross to get the same household income as a SP on welfare. When I think of it, they'd need to earn more than that, to offset childcare costs.

Married couples get 196+130+(29.80*3) = 416.
Fuel Allowance = 10 You don't get it for 52 weeks
Rent Supplement (1100/4.33) = 254. (4.33 reflects the 52 week year, not 48 weeks)
Child Benefit = 487/4.33 = 112

Total = €792 per week in Welfare payments!

gurramok · 01-06-2010 10:54pm

CoalBucket wrote: »

No it's an example of you attempting to justify your outrageous comments by sticking to a 23k, despite that even you acknowledge your figure of 21k. Yet you still stand by your comment.

Despite it been listed in a chart above where my figure of 20.7k before allowances is given, you still reject it!

CoalBucket · 01-06-2010 10:59pm

gurramok wrote: »

Despite it been listed in a chart above where my figure of 20.7k before allowances is given, you still reject it!

I'll accept that figure as it is from a neutral source purely on the condition that you accept that your figure of 23k is incorrect and admit that your comment was outrageous and unjustified, and you won't do it again

Well ok not the won't do it again bit

K-9 · 01-06-2010 11:01pm

They'd need a Gross Income of €51,000 to match what a married couple could get on Welfare.

Actually, it could even be worse than that. If both are working and have childcare costs for 3 children, God love them. Not up on childcare costs in Dublin since 2000, when my young lad was there. Taking a conservative figure of €200 a week, out of take home pay, they'd need a household income of about 63/64k.

Why aren't these cuts universal?

Possible social welfare cuts in Ireland?

Comments