Wealthy DCU Econimist targets Social Wel Recipients in Budget

cleremy jarkson

Why can't everyone just remove every single unnecessary bit of household expenditure like they did before the boom? Remember when something like a 2 litre bottle of coke was something for christmas time only? Just because we're used to a higher standard of living than that doesn't entitle us to keep it unless we can afford it.

So, surely if social welfare was cut by 10- 15%, people would still be able to get by, so long as the strip every single luxury from their lives (eg. cigarettes, alcohol, sweets, new clothes just because you don't want people to notice that you've been wearing the same clothes for a year, any sort of unnecessary consumer goods, cinema, sky digital, unaffordable christmas presents, bottled water, selling an unnecesarily good car)? I was only a kid before the boom kicked off but even I remember things being far far leaner back then when my folks were on the scratcher. Ya got to do what's necessary.

And yeah, I know bankers, politicians etc get away with it but that's life to be honest....there's 450000 unemployed (who also cost the state more than just their 196 a week) and maybe a couple of hundred fat cats...we can go chase them down and take all their money if it makes people happy (which I'd be quite glad to see) but it will do very little to add to the public coffers.

Cavehill Red

Which is why I said earlier that slashing social welfare to nil still wouldn't make as much of an impact as reneging on the guarantees our government gave to the toxic banks.
If balancing the budget is the main thing, nothing but nothing will make anywhere near the impact that will.
It's not our debt and we shouldn't pay it.

fonecrusher1

Im hearing lots of talk on radio shows about single persons SW payments being cut by up to 25/30%. Now most of this is just rumour mill rubbish but all i'l say is, if the dole is cut by that much, there will be riots.
If SW is being screwed by whichever scum is doing it, thats up to the government to stop. Punish everyone for their inability to accurately means test people & there will be trouble ahead.

I know someone who is on the standard 196euro a week, he lost his job a year ago. He lives in a houseshare & uses every cent he recieves to get by. He is actively looking for work. Cut his payments by 30/40 euros & he's basically fcuked.

There are lots of people out there who are living at home & using their supplement to buy dvds, spend time in the pub, buy the latest trendy runners & generally take the piss. Year after year.

Cut out the fraud, don't punish the vast majority who really do need whatever they get.

K-9

How the feck did this thread end up about single parents?

Anyway, he's a well paid DCU Economist targeting SW recipients.

I'm sure he'll be happy to take a cut in pay from the taxpayer as well.

Cavehill Red

K-9 wrote: »

How the feck did this thread end up about single parents?

Anyway, he's a well paid DCU Economist targeting SW recipients.

I'm sure he'll be happy to take a cut in pay from the taxpayer as well.

Some people seem to think that single mothers on welfare are the cause of all evil in life apparently.
As for the DCU economist, I can only repeat what I said earlier - I await with eagerness his proposals to reform pay structures in third-level institutions to adequately remunerate those who actually teach and remove payment from those who do little but administrate, 'research' and take sabbaticals for hundreds of thousands of euro annually.

ascanbe

If the great heist that is the Anglo bailout/Nama isn't stopped, we'll just be squabbling over crumbs until the inevitable collapse/loss of economic soveriegnty comes.

Echospace

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Some people seem to think that single mothers on welfare are the cause of all evil in life apparently.
As for the DCU economist, I can only repeat what I said earlier - I await with eagerness his proposals to reform pay structures in third-level institutions to adequately remunerate those who actually teach and remove payment from those who do little but administrate, 'research' and take sabbaticals for hundreds of thousands of euro annually.

Nobody is saying the single mothers themselves are the problem, it's the system in place allowing them to receive that amount of money. If I was entitled to that money, I would also claim it in the blink of an eye.

However, as a socio-economic group, they are extracting the largest amount of money out of the state's social welfare budget.

Most people who lose their job are only entitled to claim jobseekers allowance, medical card and POSSIBLY family income supplement. - Maybe €10k/year

Sick people are entitled to disability benefit/medical card. - Maybe €10k/year

OAPS are entitled to the state pension/fuel allowance/medical card. - Maybe €12k/year

Single mothers are entitled to lone parents allowance/child benefit/early childcare supplement/medical card/fuel allowance/rent allowance/back to school allowance/etc amounting to figures in the region of €35,000/year for a single mother with 2 children.

It has to be addressed.

Cavehill Red

Hold on, we just had two pages of that guff.
It doesn't add up to anything close to 34K for a mother with 3 kids, as the previous lad claimed, so it certainly doesn't add up to 35K for a mother with 2 kids.
As a socio-economic group, the people extracting the largest amount of money off the state are AIB and Anglo creditors, needless to say.

K-9

Echospace wrote: »

However, as a socio-economic group, they are extracting the largest amount of money out of the state's social welfare budget.

Most people who lose their job are only entitled to claim jobseekers allowance, medical card and POSSIBLY family income supplement. - Maybe €10k/year

Sick people are entitled to disability benefit/medical card. - Maybe €10k/year

OAPS are entitled to the state pension/fuel allowance/medical card. - Maybe €12k/year

Single mothers are entitled to lone parents allowance/child benefit/early childcare supplement/medical card/fuel allowance/rent allowance/back to school allowance/etc amounting to figures in the region of €35,000/year for a single mother with 2 children.

It has to be addressed.

What? Married parents aren't a socio economic group? Aren't THE biggest drain on SW?

Aren't entitled to Unemployment Benefit/Allowance, Dependent Allowances, Child Benefit, Medical Cards for all the family, Fuel Allowance, Rent/Mortgage Interest Allowance, Back to School Allowance etc.?

PS. Early Childcare Supplement, which was universal i.e. available to all parents up to the age of 5 or so is gone.

I am not going to add anything to this debate but i have to say i love your thread title!!!! the fact that it says WEALTHY economist. Would it have made any difference if a POOR economist had said it.

seaniedearg

just reading the starting post on this one,

what?

an employee who is getting paid in the public sector wants the legs broken under the ones most impacted by the current crisis so that he can keep updating his car ever 2 years....:eek:

janey mack, get outta dat garden

Wompa1

All social welfare should be looked at. Not everything has come down in price but lately the supermarkets have started becoming cheaper finally. You could get a weeks shopping for under 60 euro if your frugel.

We should probably do what they did in England and cut child allowance for the wealthiest. Maybe up the tax of the top 5% but nothing too big. Just until things are fixed...I wouldn't approve of that long term.

Look into the way universities are being funded. I'd suspect they can be quite a drain too.

Crack down on illegal immigrants in the country.

Bring in a system in that criminals risk losing their social welfare benefits.

Long term benefit seekers could do some community work

The only ones I'd really spare would be people on disabilities and OAPs

Just my opinion...

Oh a good one also might be charging money to people requiring emergency services when found to be caused by drunken behaviour. I'd say we're spending quite a bit on that..I heard an extreme example of this in the states where some village didn't have a fire service so they leveraged a fire service from a village a while away. To cover them they needed each house to pay 70 dollars a year.

Some owner forgot to pay and when his house was on fire they let it burn down until the neighbours house caught on fire, they only helped then because the neighbour had paid the 70..

gurramok

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Hold on, we just had two pages of that guff.
It doesn't add up to anything close to 34K for a mother with 3 kids, as the previous lad claimed, so it certainly doesn't add up to 35K for a mother with 2 kids.

Yes it does, you were shown that at post 90. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68439440&postcount=90

An it ain't about just single mothers. Its about where its financially better off to be on welfare for parents single or married, that was proven to you.

Todays rumour mill from the Indo say 1% hike in income taxes and a 10% cut in child benefit. http://www.independent.ie/national-news/income-tax-child-benefit-to-be-hit-in-budget-2373706.html

I think that brings the lower rate to 27% when all the levies are included?

Wompa1

gurramok wrote: »

They father kids?



Its not a claim, its real figures from our Welfare govt dept. As you are too lazy to look at the sources, here you go..

mother of 3 kids is entitled to

Personal Rate of 196x52 = 10,192
Qualifying Child 29.80x52 x 3kids = 4,649
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/social-welfare/social-welfare-payments/social-welfare-payments-to-families-and-children/one_parent_family_payment

Fuel Allowance = 20x32 (http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/social-welfare/social-welfare-payments/extra-social-welfare-benefits/fuel_allowance)

Rent Allowance in DCC = 1100x12 = 13,200((http://www.welfare.ie/EN/Schemes/SupplementaryWelfareAllowance/Pages/RentSupplement.aspx )

Child Benefit of 487x12 = 5,844 (http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/social-welfare/social-welfare-payments/social-welfare-payments-to-families-and-children/child_benefit )


Grand total of €34,525.

Game, Set and Match.;)

Did they also get more at X-mas?...was this included?

gurramok

Wompa1 wrote: »

Did they also get more at X-mas?...was this included?

Oh yeh, forgot about the Xmas bonus for welfare recipients. I never got a Xmas bonus in my job;)

R P McMurphy

I blame the Africans because they just leave their childrens' buggys on buses because they can't be bothered to take them off and then just get a new ones from the government

thebigbiffo

i've 2 kids. I will gladly take a hit in childrens allowance as long as every other area of social welfare is similarly cut back on. both myself and my wife work - i dont believe this makes me any less entitled to the payment in the context of what people get for NOT working or being professional sprog makers.

every cuts made needs to be equal across all levels.

Cavehill Red

Cavehill Red wrote: »

The public sector protected jobs scam is one. Why can't people be sacked?..............Social welfare benefits do need to be addressed, but we do currently have half a million people on the dole..and it's especially unfair when there is little or no work out there for the unemployed.

Do you not see how ridiculous these comments are?

i_love_toast

greendom wrote: »

Nice one - criminalise the needy in society, just what is required.

The needy in society??more like the f*cking greedy!

Although it looks like a completely fascist way of doing it would be 99% effective. At the end of the day finger printing for personal information is completely common in this day in age for requiring foreign visas etc.
It would save the government billions from welfare rats double claiming, claiming from NI, false identification etc...

However it would probably cost around 100m to install....

fonecrusher1

thebigbiffo wrote: »

i've 2 kids. I will gladly take a hit in childrens allowance as long as every other area of social welfare is similarly cut back on. both myself and my wife work - i dont believe this makes me any less entitled to the payment in the context of what people get for NOT working or being professional sprog makers.

every cuts made needs to be equal across all levels.

There are plenty of married people with kids in this country who are both working or have one person working on a good wage who put their childrens allowance into the holiday to France savings account. Its just wrong.
That is just money going down the drain that should be redirected into the pockets of those who need it.

The completely disproportionate amount of public sector workers is also strangling the country. Can't get rid of any of them now unfortunately as that would create more unemployment. Pay cut the sh!t out of them.;)

There is going to have to be something done about the level of dole fraud in this country. We're a walkover for getting free money. Must be costing taxpayers millions every year.
Means testing procedure should be overhauled to enable those who need the benefits most get more than those who live at home with parents/longterm scroungers & catch out double dole thieves/people from outside of ireland illegally claiming.

Dyr

Welfare should always be mean tested. Those c**ts used children's allowance and the like in the last few elections top woo the middle class vote. It should never have happened and it's going to have to change now.

Son Of A Vidic

teddy_303 wrote: »

Mr Mac an Bhaird warned that we must make cuts to social welfare if necessary, or we risk losing sovereign control of the State.

What sovereign control? Lenihan the puppet, has been taking it 'up the ass' from foreign bankers and investors since this crisis began.

greendom

i_love_toast wrote: »

The needy in society??more like the f*cking greedy!

Although it looks like a completely fascist way of doing it would be 99% effective. At the end of the day finger printing for personal information is completely common in this day in age for requiring foreign visas etc.
It would save the government billions from welfare rats double claiming, claiming from NI, false identification etc...

However it would probably cost around 100m to install....

"The f*cking greedy" come off it :eek: I might have understood but argued the case nonetheless if you'd said lazy but greedy? If you were to form a queue with the most greedy at the front of it, social welfare claimants would be a long way down the line after bankers, property developers, TDS etc etc etc.

Helix

welfare shouldnt come in the form of money anyway

it should come in the form of non-transferrable vouchers specifically for the purpose written on them, that can only be used on items related to the purpose for which theyre issued

everyone still gets their benefits then, but this way theyre actually spent on what theyre supposed to be spent on

greendom

Helix wrote: »

welfare shouldnt come in the form of money anyway

it should come in the form of non-transferrable vouchers specifically for the purpose written on them, that can only be used on items related to the purpose for which theyre issued

everyone still gets their benefits then, but this way theyre actually spent on what theyre supposed to be spent on

More degradation heaped on those needing help. And who's to decide what they should or should not be spend their money on ?

Helix

greendom wrote: »

More degradation heaped on those needing help. And who's to decide what they should or should not be spend their money on ?

its not degredation

if youre getting, for example, money for your kids school uniform, it should be spent only on your kids school uniform

youre forgetting its not THEIR money in the first place, its free money theyre getting in handouts

im all for giving people MORE by way of benefits, but tying them solely to the labeled usage by making them vouchers.

i dont see how its degrading? it means the money is used for its earmarked reason, not so unemployed joe can go out on the beer on friday night on the taxpayers buck - thats a luxury he can pay for himself when hes back working, hes not entitled to it if he cant afford it

Echospace

Bambi wrote: »

Welfare should always be mean tested. Those c**ts used children's allowance and the like in the last few elections top woo the middle class vote. It should never have happened and it's going to have to change now.

I don't understand why people think the "middle class" private sector tax-payers shouldn't receive children's allowance, but the social welfare never worked a day in their lives class deserve it? It's bs.

Echospace

Helix wrote: »

its not degredation

if youre getting, for example, money for your kids school uniform, it should be spent only on your kids school uniform

youre forgetting its not THEIR money in the first place, its free money theyre getting in handouts

im all for giving people MORE by way of benefits, but tying them solely to the labeled usage by making them vouchers.

i dont see how its degrading? it means the money is used for its earmarked reason, not so unemployed joe can go out on the beer on friday night on the taxpayers buck - thats a luxury he can pay for himself when hes back working, hes not entitled to it if he cant afford it

Refund every cent of my PRSI and I'd agree with you.

I didn't stipulate conditions for use of my PRSI to the government when handing it over, they shouldn't stipulate conditions of use for social welfare when handing it back.

Helix

Echospace wrote: »

I didn't stipulate conditions for use of my PRSI to the government when handing it over, they shouldn't stipulate conditions of use for social welfare when handing it back.

and that should be changed

thebigbiffo

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

There are plenty of married people with kids in this country who are both working or have one person working on a good wage who put their childrens allowance into the holiday to France savings account. Its just wrong.
That is just money going down the drain that should be redirected into the pockets of those who need it.

The completely disproportionate amount of public sector workers is also strangling the country. Can't get rid of any of them now unfortunately as that would create more unemployment. Pay cut the sh!t out of them.;)

There is going to have to be something done about the level of dole fraud in this country. We're a walkover for getting free money. Must be costing taxpayers millions every year.
Means testing procedure should be overhauled to enable those who need the benefits most get more than those who live at home with parents/longterm scroungers & catch out double dole thieves/people from outside of ireland illegally claiming.

in general i agree with you. but unless there are overhalls of all areas of social welfare from the bottom up i have a problem with one of the only rebates on my tax money i get being reduced to line the pockets of some young fella who lives at home with his ma and works the occasional day for cash. i've no problem with genuine social welfare - i feel i pay my bit and the childrens allowance is a fraction of that back. cut it if need be - but cut it in line with everybody else who's handed money by the gov

fonecrusher1

thebigbiffo wrote: »

in general i agree with you. but unless there are overhalls of all areas of social welfare from the bottom up i have a problem with one of the only rebates on my tax money i get being reduced to line the pockets of some young fella who lives at home with his ma and works the occasional day for cash. i've no problem with genuine social welfare - i feel i pay my bit and the childrens allowance is a fraction of that back. cut it if need be - but cut it in line with everybody else who's handed money by the gov

And this is exactly why means testing for SW needs to be tightened up.

- Married couple with kids. Both parents working - zero child allowance (its not needed)

- Dole claimants living at parents home - knock 30% off that standard weekly allowance. People on the dole & not living at home actually use their supplement for what its intended. (otherwise sorry, your getting your dinners/washing/electricity/heating for free)

- Longterm dole recipients (claiming 8 yrs+) - Work for Dole scheme immediately. (because its about time you got off your holes.;))

- some sort of procedure in place to catch out double dolers & people not living here thieving SW.

Thats just for starters.^

K-9

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

And this is exactly why means testing for SW needs to be tightened up.

- Married couple with kids. Both parents working - zero child allowance (its not needed)

- Dole claimants living at parents home - knock 30% off that standard weekly allowance. People on the dole & not living at home actually use their supplement for what its intended. (otherwise sorry, your getting your dinners/washing/electricity/heating for free)

- Longterm dole recipients (claiming 8 yrs+) - Work for Dole scheme immediately. (because its about time you got off your holes.;))

- some sort of procedure in place to catch out double dolers & people not living here thieving SW.

Thats just for starters.^

Taking the children allowance of families that have both parents working makes no sense, particularly if it is kept by families on welfare.

The working family has substantial childcare costs, the family on welfare doesn't, nor indeed does a family with a stay at home parent.

Cavehill Red

gurramok wrote: »

Yes it does, you were shown that at post 90. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68439440&postcount=90

And you were shown you couldn't add up properly.

gurramok wrote: »

An it ain't about just single mothers. Its about where its financially better off to be on welfare for parents single or married, that was proven to you.

Again, you're mistaken. I already showed you that there are step up payments in place to encourage people to take low paying jobs. In fact your response when I proved that to you was 'Do you expect them to stay in low paying jobs all their lives?' which frankly made no sense.

gurramok wrote: »

Todays rumour mill from the Indo say 1% hike in income taxes and a 10% cut in child benefit. http://www.independent.ie/national-news/income-tax-child-benefit-to-be-hit-in-budget-2373706.html

More kite-flying by Fianna Fail. By the time the budget comes round, we'll have been so brutalised by rumour that we'll take what's given us. That's the tried and tested methodology here.

gurramok wrote: »

I think that brings the lower rate to 27% when all the levies are included?

Still low compared to much of Europe and low compared to where it should have been, had we not gone down the property tax route as a nation instead.
I don't object to the income tax levels going up if I can see an improvement in services. I'll pay 40% basic rate for Scandinavian services.
I object to paying higher levels of tax when it's going to Fianna Fail's Galway tent pals who punted in bogey banks and lost, though.

fonecrusher1

K-9 wrote: »

Taking the children allowance of families that have both parents working makes no sense, particularly if it is kept by families on welfare.

The working family has substantial childcare costs, the family on welfare doesn't, nor indeed does a family with a stay at home parent.

All im saying is there has to be a line drawn for families who have 2 working parents. Say both father & mother earning over 30,000 a year or something?

Or families with one parent working where the money earner makes more than 60,000 a year.

For god sake they don't need the child allowance. Its money going in the wrong direction & into the wrong pockets. Well off folks just use it to save for that 40 inch lcd tv they've had their eye on.:rolleyes:

Fighting Irish

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

There are plenty of married people with kids in this country who are both working or have one person working on a good wage who put their childrens allowance into the holiday to France savings account. Its just wrong.

So all the people who you think deserve the child benefit spend none of it on any luxuries at all?

Cavehill Red

Cameron is capping it on the basis of income.
Where Britain goes, our leaders blindly follow.