Wealthy DCU Econimist targets Social Wel Recipients in Budget

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.