**MOD NOTE UPDATED**Limerick woman complains about living in 3 bed house with 4 kids

micropig

Felexicon wrote: »

It was great went to Spain for 10 days. No plans for this year yet. How about yourself?

Just a trip to disneyland for me last year


Now I'm sending some of my illegitimate children to Oz, so I'll be entitled to a trip there next year

Thanks tax payers:pac:

Dubit10

toexpress wrote: »

Well the question is why should the tax payer have to support her? She got a free house and now it's not good enough? I mean honestly, I am not gone on my house, I'd much rather live in D.4 but sadly I can't afford to so I continue to pay my mortgage and live with the things I dislike. What's so special about this woman?

Except its not free is it. She pays rent.

Felexicon

IvySlayer wrote: »

She wouldn't of been attacked if she'd have shut up, lived within her means and had children only when she was in a financial state to do so.

Maybe she was within her means when she had the kids and her circumstances changed

toexpress

Born to Die wrote: »

I am not disagreeing with the posters on the thread that are against the apparent cheek of this woman, I have a problem with fact her life is being dissected on an internet forum. IMO she has been used by the Limerick Leader,who knew the outrage that would ensue once they printed this story.

Our society has built this type of lifestyle, the ghettoes that were built to house people but just served to segregate people. If you can't work you have an entitlement to a basic standard of living in this country. The hard liners would have you believe that if you don't have a job you should not have a right to some degree comfort in your life.

Many people have been excluded solely because of the address they live at. This is a fact.

The flaws in the system encourage people to take, if you are born into this the chances are it is all you will know. The vitriol directed at this woman is to me just a symptom of the ever expanding divide that is permeated throughout the new Ireland, those that work lay blame at those that don't.

In the boom 110K people were still receiving benefits, this would be the starting point to understand why, lifestyle choice or as I suspect for a percentage, exclusion.

So what you are saying is that the problem is one that exists in respect of the long term unemployed? And that you think addressing this issue will in fact begin a resolution to the problem?

Well there can be no doubt about that but at the same time you have to understand that there is bound to be vitriol directed towards this woman, and rightly so. Yes she is entitled to a level of comfort, as are we all. It's pretty uncomfortable to work a full week and have no money left at the end of it. It's pretty uncomfortable to worry about money every day, to worry about keeping the roof over your head and that of your children. There are people living in this situation every day and this woman, who seems to give all the impression of living a nice life for herself is complaining and moaning because her kids have to share a room in the house she gets for half nothing?

I fail to see why you are shocked at this. I can't claim to be on the breadline but I do run a business and I pay a tax bill and I wonder why I have to so this woman can have a bigger house for her expanding family when she has no tangible means of supporting them off her own back. It's bound to cause anger.

As to the Limerick Leader using her, well, she let herself be used didn't she? Her arrogance at her belief that she is entitled to a bigger house was bound to get backs up, she got what she wanted, attention. I suspect it's not the attention that she wanted, there aren't to many people saying poor you.

micropig

Felexicon wrote: »

Maybe she was within her means when she had the kids and her circumstances changed

I think you need to recap on the article

bamboozle

Felexicon wrote: »

But again the arguement here is against the system and not the individual.
If you were placed in a situation like this would you not do all you can to get the most for your children even if that meant asking more from the state. I know I would. We have no idea why this woman isn't working or requires state benifits. Its all too easy to say she is a lazy sponger but that may not be the case

she is a product of the system that is the issue. Furthermore, she has gone public to raise her issues and as such has opened herself to public scrutiny.

whether the person in question is unable/unfit/unwilling to work or just a lazy sponger is a moot point, what is pertinent is that the welfare system which we are paying for through our taxes is a disgrace and too generous as can clearly be seen from the trips to disneyland Paris & Portugal this lady has made.

toexpress

Dubit10 wrote: »

Except its not free is it. She pays rent.

A token rent, she is not paying market rent for a three bed house as no council tenant does. It's the same with someone on the rent allowance, they make a contribution to the rent but it's a nominal thing.

It's not like those of us paying a mortgage which would be considerably more than a few quid every week

Dubit10

hightower1 wrote: »

Serina and her ilk embody some of the most major problems of this country ATM.

No they are not, not by a distance. What about the banks, the TD's salary, the high paid civil servents, the rich refusing to pay their fair share, scammers from abroad defrauding our social welfare system etc...

mikom

Dubit10 wrote: »

Except its not free is it. She pays rent.

To reiterate....

Local authority rents are based on your "ability" to pay, so if your income is "low", your rent will be low
She is probably paying something equivalent in price to a Supermacs meal deal a week....... or the price of a round of drinks in the Disneyland Paris hotel

What a trooper.

IvySlayer

Felexicon wrote: »

Maybe she was within her means when she had the kids and her circumstances changed

She's pregnant.

Again.

In a house that's already, according to her, overcrowded.

toexpress

Dubit10 wrote: »

No they are not, not by a distance. What about the banks, the TD's salary, the high paid civil servents, the rich refusing to pay their fair share, scammers from abroad defrauding our social welfare system etc...

Certainly the banks etc are to blame but you can't get away from the fact that this woman is the very sort that will drain the system dry.

Does anyone know if she works? If not why not?

Dubit10

toexpress wrote: »

A token rent, she is not paying market rent for a three bed house as no council tenant does. It's the same with someone on the rent allowance, they make a contribution to the rent but it's a nominal thing.
It's not like those of us paying a mortgage which would be considerably more than a few quid every week

So you except its not free. BTW i know several people in social housing and they pay over 100 euro a week rent. Hardly token rent that.

micropig

No household charge
Fuel allowance
Medical card
Domiciliary allowance
Discretionary payments, communion etc covered
Low rent

Disadvantaged my arse

IvySlayer

micropig wrote: »

No household charge
Fuel allowance
Medical card
Domiciliary allowance
Discretionary payments, communion etc covered
Low rent

Disadvantaged my arse

The article doesn't say she lives with her husband, if not, lone rent allowance can be added.

poldebruin

Dubit10 wrote: »

So you except its not free. BTW i know several people in social housing and they pay over 100 euro a week rent. Hardly token rent that.

~In this case all of her income comes from the state. She is paying the (modest) rent with the states money. So in effect it is free

micropig

toexpress wrote: »

Does anyone know if she works? If not why not?

I believe her excuse for not having a job, is she is waiting to go to college in September
Surely she should get any job and be working towards saving for this, as she will need to support her children while she is studying...ah no wait

hairyprincess

bamboozle wrote: »

she is a product of the system that is the issue. Furthermore, she has gone public to raise her issues and as such has opened herself to public scrutiny.

whether the person in question is unable/unfit/unwilling to work or just a lazy sponger is a moot point, what is pertinent is that the welfare system which we are paying for through our taxes is a disgrace and too generous as can clearly be seen from the trips to disneyland Paris & Portugal this lady has made.

Yes the welfare system is a joke. Absolutely.

But what this lady spends her money has got nothing to do with anyone else.

micropig

hairyprincess wrote: »

Yes the welfare system is a joke. Absolutely.

But what this lady spends her money has got nothing to do with anyone else.

It does when they're paying for it and shes on demanding entitlement to a bigger house

mikom

hairyprincess wrote: »

Yes the welfare system is a joke. Absolutely.

But what this lady spends her money has got nothing to do with anyone else.

Money spent towards a trip to Disneyland Paris instead of addressing a supposed carbon monoxide problem in her home affects her children and the taxpayer who will be paying for their impaired brain functions.


Her brain function must be impaired if this is how she prioritises her/our funds

poldebruin

hairyprincess wrote: »

Yes the welfare system is a joke. Absolutely.

But what this lady spends her money has got nothing to do with anyone else.

I try to put myself into other people's shoes to see an argument from the other side, but I can't resolve myself with this attitiude.

The two statements you have made are linked. The system is a joke because it can (in circumstances) enable people to a lifestyle that is superior to those that work (funded , in part, by those same people.)

hairyprincess

micropig wrote: »

It does when they're paying for it and shes on demanding entitlement to a bigger house

Whatever about the bigger house. It is none of anyone elses concern how she spends her money. How do you know who is paying for the holiday? It could have been a gift, she could have won it.

mikom wrote: »

Money spent towards a trip to Disneyland Paris instead of addressing a supposed carbon monoxide problem in her home affects her children and the taxpayer who will be paying for their impaired brain functions.


Her brain function must be impaired if this is how she prioritises her/our funds

It is down to her landlord to rectify such problems.

micropig

hairyprincess wrote: »

Whatever about the bigger house. It is none of anyone elses concern. How do you know who is paying for the holiday? It could have been a gift, she could have won it.



It is down to her landlord to rectify such problems.

Fix carbon monoxide poisoning which could kill my children or go to Disneyland

decisions, decisions

bamboozle

hairyprincess wrote: »

Yes the welfare system is a joke. Absolutely.

But what this lady spends her money has got nothing to do with anyone else.

Completely disagree. When her income is financed by the tax payers of this state and her lifestyle is financed by the tax payers of this state is has everything to do with us.

hairyprincess

poldebruin wrote: »

I try to put myself into other people's shoes to see an argument from the other side, but I can't resolve myself with this attitiude.

The two statements you have made are linked. The system is a joke because it can (in circumstances) enable people to a lifestyle that is superior to those that work (funded , in part, by those same people.)

Yes I agree. But it is the Government peoples anger should be directed towards, not one woman.

About five years ago I went back to work after a period of unemployment. Along with my wages which were pretty good, I also received back to work allowance. It was completely unnecessary and I would say I was probably earning more than most others who were higher up the ladder then me in the company.

allibastor

hairyprincess wrote: »

Whatever about the bigger house. It is none of anyone elses concern how she spends her money. How do you know who is paying for the holiday? It could have been a gift, she could have won it.



It is down to her landlord to rectify such problems.

to be fair, if it is such an imminent problem she could have fixed it herself and then reclaimed the money from the landlord with a valid receipt. i have done this many times for things that needed a quick fix.

conorhal

token101 wrote: »

Passing judgement, no. She's entitled to have as many kids as her body can handle. It becomes a problem though when she expects others to fund that. Saying she should stop leeching off taxpayers, that's a right as a taxpayer. Similar to the way people criticise politicians and anyone else who is paid by the general public. Except at least they work for a living, she just keeps popping out kids and leeching and bleeding the system dry. You think it's right that the state seemingly can't afford SNAs and hospital beds, yet this woman can take holidays as a welfare recipient and 'earn' more than many workers? Leaving aside the monetary aspect, is that right in principle? Should we all just sit there and say, 'Ah sure she's not the only one and there's not that many at it really'? Well there wasn't that many corrupt politicians either and people called them on it. This parasite is no different in the view of most people.

Then you're absolutely going to loose your lunch when you read this.

I know a couple that have spent 16k so far this year on IVF treatment, so far heartbreakingly unsuccessful, and they don't know if they can afford to go another cycle (emotionally or financially).
So you can imagine that it raised her eyebrows to find herself sitting in the clinic with two couples who's treatment was being paid for by the social welfare.
It's one thing to support a family that have fallen on hard times, it's another to be paying for IVF treatments for people that have no decernable ability to support the child that the social are effectively buying for them. It's a farce and another example why people on this thread are so angry about the way the welfare state is run.

hairyprincess

micropig wrote: »

Fix carbon monoxide poisoning which could kill my children or go to Disneyland

decisions, decisions

It is down to her landlord to fix such issues. He is responsible for providing a safe, habitable home for his tenants.

mikom

mikom wrote: »

Money spent towards a trip to Disneyland Paris instead of addressing a supposed carbon monoxide problem in her home affects her children and the taxpayer who will be paying for their impaired brain functions.


Her brain function must be impaired if this is how she prioritises her/our funds

hairyprincess wrote: »

It is down to her landlord to rectify such problems.

No, no, a million times no.
If the local authority are dragging their heels on a supposed carbon monoxide problem and you really give a shite about your kids then you do this..............

Take the lump of taxpayers money that paid for the trip to Disneyland Paris and spend it on alternative heating arrangements (oil filled electric rads possibly) or else spend it on something to excange the air in the room until the supposed problem is rectified.

But shur when nanny is not there to hold your hand.........

El Weirdo

mikom wrote: »

To reiterate....

Local authority rents are based on your "ability" to pay, so if your income is "low", your rent will be low
She is probably paying something equivalent in price to a Supermacs meal deal a week....... or the price of a round of drinks in the Disneyland Paris hotel

What a trooper.

No. You don't really know much about social housing rents, do you?

As I explained earlier in the thread, if this woman is in receipt of ~€600 (as has been claimed in this thread) then she is almost certainly paying towards the upper limit of her council's rent scale.

This could be over €100 p/w.

hairyprincess

allibastor wrote: »

to be fair, if it is such an imminent problem she could have fixed it herself and then reclaimed the money from the landlord with a valid receipt. i have done this many times for things that needed a quick fix.

I doubt the council would allow that. But I am open to correction

micropig

hairyprincess wrote: »

I doubt the council would allow that. But I am open to correction

House unfit?
Move children etc to mothers house, refuse to move in, cry to local papers about being homeless

Council offer new house

Thwip!

hairyprincess wrote: »

Yes the welfare system is a joke. Absolutely.

But what this lady spends her money has got nothing to do with anyone else.

When we're working our asses off and paying tax on our earnings which a portion of which is then given to a person like this then it has got everything to do with the people who are paying for this lark

hairyprincess wrote: »

Whatever about the bigger house. It is none of anyone elses concern how she spends her money. How do you know who is paying for the holiday? It could have been a gift, she could have won it.



It is down to her landlord to rectify such problems.

her customer review suggests that it was neither of these

as originally posted in post 648 of this thread

Magic Vacations

23 January

Disneyland Paris Question: Have you travelled with Ryanair to Paris Beauvais? Would you recommend it?

Reply:
Serinna Corbett
we went from dublin , flight was 6 in the morning travelled from limerick there , took ages to get to the hotel from the airport , but for the price it was well worth it cheaper than a holiday in the sun and the kids enjoyed it

mikom

El Weirdo wrote: »

No. You don't really know much about social housing rents, do you?

As I explained earlier in the thread, if this woman is in receipt of ~€600 (as has been claimed in this thread) then she is almost certainly paying towards the upper limit of her council's rent scale.

This could be over €100 p/w.

€600 earned or €600 benefits.

mikom

hairyprincess wrote: »

How do you know who is paying for the holiday? It could have been a gift, she could have won it.

Seriously......

A gift is right.

allibastor

hairyprincess wrote: »

I doubt the council would allow that. But I am open to correction

they do not have to allow it, but in a case where there is a justifiable problem and she has asked to have it addressed with no response she is entitled to repair damage on her own money. whether the council pay back or not is a case for them, but if my kids were living with a potential killer such as this i would have it fixed regardless of getting money back or not.

hairyprincess

jpcarlow wrote: »

When we're working our asses off and paying tax on our earnings which a portion of which is then given to a person like this then it has got everything to do with the people who are paying for this lark


her customer review suggests that it was neither of these

as originally posted in post 648 of this thread

*jumps up and down waving to jp*

How interesting is it that the posts you have made in this thread have been in reply to only me. Do I know you? :cool:

El Weirdo

mikom wrote: »

€600 earned or €600 benefits.

But you were saying that she has all these benefits and is only paying a few quid out of it to her rent.

Disingenuous to say the least.

howamidifferent

hairyprincess wrote: »

It could have been a gift, she could have won it.

/facepalm/

It was....from us taxpayers...:mad:

mikom

El Weirdo wrote: »

But you were saying that she has all these benefits and is only paying a few quid out of it to her rent.

Disingenuous to say the least.

My point was... and I hope someone in the know can clarify this....


Does the over €100 p/w charge (if she is paying that) take into account whether the €600 income is from employment or €600 straight from benefits.
Does €600 straight from benefits mean that it reduces the supposed rent of €100 to say €70, €50.......

I'm not trying to cod anyone here.
There's enough of that going around.

cofy

Felexicon wrote: »

Its a witch hunt though. Maybe the woman didn't realise what would come of it or she did and feels so strongly about the situation that she is willing to put up with the public backlash. Who are we to say what she should think is the best situation for her and her kids

If it was a witch hunt I would have mentioned the follow up article in the Limerick Leader, but as I have not seen that yet and therefore, do not know how much input into that she had. Surely she realised the backlash that came after the Limerick Leader, but still she did not stop there, she then went on 4fm and Limerick Live 95fm.

Thwip!

hairyprincess wrote: »

*jumps up and down waving to jp*

How interesting is it that the posts you have made in this thread have been in reply to only me. Do I know you? :cool:

it could be that so far you have made the points i feel i am able to argue and debate about. It could be that i am but one of many who are refuting your arguments and why you're paying special attention to me (while flattering) is entirely irrelevant to what i'm trying to put across

also i'm doubtful we know each other, unless you frequent maynooth or carlow.

Felexicon

howamidifferent wrote: »

/facepalm/

It was....from us taxpayers...:mad:

So nobody on Social Welfare should go on holiday?

El Weirdo

mikom wrote: »

My point was... and I hope someone in the know can clarify this....


Does the over €100 p/w charge (if she is paying that) take into account whether the €600 income is from employment or €600 straight from benefits.
Does €600 straight from benefits mean that it reduces the supposed rent of €100 to say €70, €50.......

It doesn't matter where the €600 comes from. Employment or benefits, it's classed as the household's income.

Here's the link to Galway City Council's calculation of rents. All local authorities and voluntary housing bodies have different formulas for calculating their rents (some more convoluted than others), but they all have to conform to a general standard set down by the DoEHLG (to which I can't find a link, I'm afraid).

mikom wrote: »

I'm not trying to cod anyone here.
There's enough of that going around.

I understand that. I just think that throwaway statements like "she's paying the equivalent of a Supermacs meal in rent" doesn't really go anywhere to help prevent the abuse like we had earlier in the thread. All it does is rile people up and makes them go on misinformed, ignorant rants.

golden lane

like most countries in the eu........benifits are not being paid for by tax intake.....it is being borrowed.....and has to be paid back with interest.......economics of the madmen !!!!!!!!!

mikom

El Weirdo wrote: »

It doesn't matter where the €600 comes from. Employment or benefits, it's classed as the household's income.

Here's the link to Galway City Council's calculation of rents. All local authorities and voluntary housing bodies have different formulas for calculating their rents (some more convoluted than others), but they all have to conform to a general standard set down by the DoEHLG (to which I can't find a link, I'm afraid).

Interesting to note

Allowances are made for dependant children, currently €4.80 per child.

Income not included in Assessable Income:

• Child Benefit
• Orphans Allowance
• Fuel Allowance
• Scholarships
• Allowances for domiciliary care of handicapped children
• Allowances payable for fostering children
• Allowances received from any charitable organisations
• Lump Sum compensation payments
• Allowances for Infectious Diseases
• Back-to-Work Allowance
• Community Employment Programmes

So would I be right in thinking that this lady is having her rent based on a dole payment only.
what would be average for her situation?

bamboozle

Felexicon wrote: »

So nobody on Social Welfare should go on holiday?

Social Welfare should cover the basics. Foreign holidays do not fall into this category.

a country with a current annual funding deficit of €14billion cannot afford a social welfare system where claimants receive enough cash to go on foreign holidays, nor do the tax paying, hard working citizens of said country deserve to have their taxes wasted.

El Weirdo

mikom wrote: »

Interesting to note

Allowances are made for dependant children, currently €4.80 per child.

Income not included in Assessable Income:

• Child Benefit
• Orphans Allowance
• Fuel Allowance
• Scholarships
• Allowances for domiciliary care of handicapped children
• Allowances payable for fostering children
• Allowances received from any charitable organisations
• Lump Sum compensation payments
• Allowances for Infectious Diseases
• Back-to-Work Allowance
• Community Employment Programmes

The dependent children is pretty high actually, AFAIK. In a place I worked in, it was €1 per child, per week. But then again, the rent was calculated on all income after the first €25. As I said, all housing bodies are different.

It all (as a general rule) works out at approx 15% of total household income, up to a certain maximum (again, different in each housing body).

True, if you are earning over €1000 a week, you'll still only pay whatever the maximum rent is, but to go out on a limb, I'd say there's very few people in social housing earning that kind of money. Especially now.

Daisy M

Felexicon wrote: »

So nobody on Social Welfare should go on holiday?

If people on social welfare can afford to go on holidays paying for them using social welfare then that is not acceptable. The IMF has control of our finances we face austerity for the foreseeable future and you really think its ok that the exchequer funds holidays for welfare recipients? Services in this country are been cut, our healthcare system is under immense pressure, people with disabilities are been forgotten do you have any idea how bad things are? The government is borrowering money to keep us afloat things have to change and every euro couunts especially if it is a borrowered euro with huge interest rates attached.

cloud493

I thought the idea of social welfare was to make you sure you can cover the basic needs. food, warmth, etc. Not holidays.

mikom

El Weirdo wrote: »

The dependent children is pretty high actually, AFAIK. In a place I worked in, it was €1 per child, per week. But then again, the rent was calculated on all income after the first €25. As I said, all housing bodies are different.

It all (as a general rule) works out at approx 15% of total household income, up to a certain maximum (again, different in each housing body).

True, if you are earning over €1000 a week, you'll still only pay whatever the maximum rent is, but to go out on a limb, I'd say there's very few people in social housing earning that kind of money. Especially now.

So what would you say she is receiving in social welfare a week outside the exempted payments like child benefit?