ERSI: Cost of working 'too high'

Mel99

People who can't afford to have children shouldn't.

When I was working it used to make me sick to know that there were so many 'single' parents out there with more than 3 children. Many of them have partners that they haven't declared to the social welfare.

One I know owned a house worth far more than mine had a part-time job and a partner taking home over €500 a week for 17 years. Got caught out by an investigator taking photos of him in and out of the house for days signed some form saying she'd never claim again and that was the end of it. Just makes you sick how some people abuse the system.

My stepson once told me that his father and I were fools for working for a living. Him, his ex-girlfriend and their child are on the dole and it's looking like this is a lifestyle choice for them.

I think its a trap that many get into due to the fact that working expenses (transport, etc.) are so high - it's extremely difficult for people to start on the job market after being unemployed for any length. I'm off for three months now and spending most of my days networking, applying for jobs, going to seminars and the jobs club but if I had children it would be difficult to pay a sitter so I could do these things!

There are lots of government and non-profit programmes providing assistance to job seekers but some just don't want it bad enough or are not prepared to put in the time and effort it takes to keep positive and keep trying. Having said that the competition for the jobs that are available is extreme these days and it isn't easy to keep the head up some days, but I know the longer I'm out of work, the harder it will get.

Hannibal Smith

RaRaRasputin wrote: »

Hannibal Smith wrote: »

:mad:
[rant]
Are you serious? Have you seen what other european countries give re childcare? I have a friend in Finland, whichever of the parents decides to stay at home with the children gets a child home care allowance paid for the first 3 years of the child's life, and she can return to her job when the 3 years is up. In germany another friend of mine has completely free childcare, full time. I pay 715e for one child for 3 days a week! I'm sure the taxes in these countries are higher to finance these kinds of circumstances, but where the hell have all the taxes gone that this country raked in during the boom years? If this country was able to manage its finances at all, I'm sure something could be done.

Why should people lose out on having kids, if that's what they want? Plenty of us have sacrificed careers and all of our salaries to get this. It's such an immature attitude this anti-parent stuff people trott out and it's sad if any person should feel they can't have a child because of their financial situation. The basic of employment rights (maternity wise) is to protect a person's decision to have a child and to make sure they don't lose out because of that decision. That right should filter through all sections of society.

And while I'm on it...this whole 'i don't have kids, but child benefit comes out of my taxes' thing really gets on my wick! I'm not sick, I have my own private health insurance, but I still had portions of my wages put towards health care, for one example. We live in a state where we all give a portion of what we earn to help those lets fortunate, lets stop being greedy, self serving, penny pinching so and so's and get the hell over ourselves

[/rant]

Bla, bla, bla, here we go again. Someone dared to criticise the whole order of parenthood. You are right, there are many people who need support, and that is what we pay our taxes for. What pisses me off is that everyone goes crazy once you even approach any childcare issue. What is the need for 4 children or more? In times like this it is nothing but selfish nonsense. Sick and disabled people need equal support and so do those who lost their jobs and are trying to get back into the market....it's not all about children.

Childcare in this country should be better. End of. The same as health care should be better etc.

I never said or implied it was all about the children. I was responding to the childcare elementa post.

What right has anyone got to say how many children a person should have? It's not China. I don'tknow what social welfare benefits a sick or disabled person gets, but I'd bet its far more than child benefit. Which rebukes your theory that children are treated with any kind of social welfare priority

Ogham

Those ESRI figures are misleading.
The childcare part of it (according to ESRI) isn't that much - the report uses figures for transport and "meals away from home" and clothes - and tries to say that this "extra" expenditure is because of the job. It is more likely that a lot of the extra expenditure on these things is a choice. People eat out and buy new clothes because they are working and have the money :eek:

More figures here http://www.moneyguideireland.com/would-workers-be-better-off-on-the-dole-in-ireland.html

later12

Well the report in question has been called into question; but there is no doubt that there is a case to answer for the cost of returning to work for parents of young children.

But people seem to think this is a welfare issue; it is not. Childcare is so expensive in this country that even if you cut rent supplement or basic rates of payment fairly substantially, there will still be a financial disincentive to work. If you're being offered €8.65 and hour and your childminder is demanding €8.65 per hour... well, you do the maths. It isn't feasible.


You'll notice that when childcare costs are taken out of the equation, it's pretty evident that work pays. But until the childcare issue is resolved, there will always be a minority of parents who simply cannot afford to go back to work.

By the way, we really don't know the exact figures in terms of welfare recipients who are better off on welfare than in employment, so lets not get carried away.

Mel99

When I was working - it costs me €65 a week in petrol, 40 a week car park, tax €125 quarterly, €300 for insurance pa, 30 for mobile pm, and spent loads on things like seminars, newspapers, teas, lunches, clothes, and a few pints at the weekend. All those things are gone now that I'm on jobseeker's benefit so I have to agree with the previous poster in that there are many things that I would spend money on when I worked that I wouldn't or can't now.

later12

Mel99 wrote: »

When I was working - it costs me €65 a week in petrol, 40 a week car park, tax €125 quarterly, €300 for insurance pa, 30 for mobile pm, and spent loads on things like seminars, newspapers, teas, lunches, clothes, and a few pints at the weekend. All those things are gone now that I'm on jobseeker's benefit so I have to agree with the previous poster in that there are many things that I would spend money on when I worked that I wouldn't or can't now.

€125 per week in motoring & parking costs would not be a typical experience, though.

We shouldn't forget that the unemployed have costs that the employed do not: particularly in relation to extra energy usage during working hours, and travelling to and from interviews, which also requires that you wear work clothes. Believe it or not, the unemployed are also likely to eat lunch!

Mel99

Yes I realise the unemployed eat lunch, but now that I'm unemployed it would be a sandwich at home rather than a cafe. Getting to interviews does cost but you only need two outfits to get started and remember trawling through charity shops for interview gear. I lost a good bit of weight due to much more time exercising and bought a jacket in a charity shop for a fiver - Happy Days!

cherryghost

Reduce welfare AND reduce VAT

later12

Mel99 wrote: »

Yes I realise the unemployed eat lunch, but now that I'm unemployed it would be a sandwich at home rather than a cafe. Getting to interviews does cost but you only need two outfits to get started and remember trawling through charity shops for interview gear. I lost a good bit of weight due to much more time exercising and bought a jacket in a charity shop for a fiver - Happy Days!

That's quite true, but all of the above could apply to workers too. I regularly brought my own lunch to work when I had an office job, and now that I'm self employed and working at home, I have to say I don't really notice any difference in food or clothing costs.

I think there is an unfortunate tendency to create divisions; in reality the unemployed, the PAYE worker and the self employed all share the same sort of concerns, all pay taxes, and all have to meet their basic costs of existence.

Sandwlch

Rabidlamb wrote: »

Childcare is the real kicker, in many cases it can be more than the mortgage, especially for 2 kids.
Maybe if we didn't have to buy 40 miles from our parents we could use granny a few days a week.

Is it not the kids themselves that are the real kicker then? If you cant afford them, dont have them, and dont expect the state to pay for them just because you can't. State would make a big step to reduce the current expenditure it cannot afford in social welfare and children's allowances, and people can afford to work for less if they dont have to pay childcare, increasing our competitiveness and getting people back into jobs. Looks like kids are just a luxury like Mercs, holiday homes, and shopping trips to Paris that we need to realise we cannot afford anymore.

senordingdong

How ridiculous that the government are trying to bury this report.

Bannasidhe

Sandwlch wrote: »

Is it not the kids themselves that are the real kicker then? If you cant afford them, dont have them, and dont expect the state to pay for them just because you can't. State would make a big step to reduce the current expenditure it cannot afford in social welfare and children's allowances, and people can afford to work for less if they dont have to pay childcare, increasing our competitiveness and getting people back into jobs. Looks like kids are just a luxury like Mercs, holiday homes, and shopping trips to Paris that we need to realise we cannot afford anymore.

Are you trolling or do you really believe this?

Do you expect people to somehow dispose of their children because the job they thought was secure is gone?

My OH's brother has just been told he is being laid off by Pfizer's after 17 years with them - he has three sons aged 8, 10 and 12. Where should he send them now they are ' a luxury like Mercs, holiday homes, and shopping trips to Paris that we need to realise we cannot afford anymore'

My son has two children, he was employed by a large multinational gaming company but oh look what is this I see

CORK SUFFERED a jobs blow last night when US computer game company Blizzard Entertainment announced it is to lay off 200 staff at its operation in the city.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0301/1224312582983.html

Where do you suggest we deposit my grandchildren as we simply can no longer afford them?

Hannibal Smith

Sandwlch wrote: »

Rabidlamb wrote: »

Childcare is the real kicker, in many cases it can be more than the mortgage, especially for 2 kids.
Maybe if we didn't have to buy 40 miles from our parents we could use granny a few days a week.

Is it not the kids themselves that are the real kicker then? If you cant afford them, dont have them, and dont expect the state to pay for them just because you can't. State would make a big step to reduce the current expenditure it cannot afford in social welfare and children's allowances, and people can afford to work for less if they dont have to pay childcare, increasing our competitiveness and getting people back into jobs. Looks like kids are just a luxury like Mercs, holiday homes, and shopping trips to Paris that we need to realise we cannot afford anymore.

A child is nothing close to a material object or luxury. You've no right to own a merc, you've every right to have a child, and that right is constitutionally protected, and so it should be

If you forgo the merc, your circumstances may change and you could have one in the future.. If you forgo the child and your circumstances change you may not be able to conceive.

Children are not the drain on the economy...*feels all...'won't some one purlease think of the children* :P

Sandwlch

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Are you trolling or do you really believe this?

Do you expect people to somehow dispose of their children because the job they thought was secure is gone?

No, and of course not.

But we have a state structure that encourages many people to take on the financial burden of children beyond what is prudent, to not consider the cost at all, or, and I dont support this one, but it has been made, to have children as a means to enhanced state benefits. Childrens allowances, and social welfare payments for children artificially insulate people from the true cost of having them, leaving them, and the state, in very difficult circumstances when things go wrong. We hear much these days of the financial prudence of the Germans compared to the free borrowing/spending Irish. I dont think their birth rate there being approx half that of Ireland for many years is unrelated.

Sandwlch

Hannibal Smith wrote: »

you've every right to have a child

with the accompanying responsibility to consider your prospects of providing for it if you choose to have one.

steddyeddy

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Or, to look at it another way, forcing poor people to have children they don't want because they can't afford to 'get the boat' like wealthier people is like something out of a Dickens novel.

Im not anti abortion (I guess that makes me pro abortion) however abortion has to be brought in for the right reasons. It should be brought into law to give people the choice to do it if they want it. Bringing in abortion to lessen the welfare bill would put social pressure on those who are in a poorer situation to have the abortion against their wishes. Its the states duty to look after children irrespective of background as oppossed to abortion is a good option to cut the states welfare bill.

Monty Burnz

Sandwlch wrote: »

with the accompanying responsibility to consider your prospects of providing for it if you choose to have one.

Welcome to the 21st century - rights without responsibility. What could go wrong?

Pandora2

Sandwlch wrote: »

Is it not the kids themselves that are the real kicker then? If you cant afford them, dont have them, and dont expect the state to pay for them just because you can't. State would make a big step to reduce the current expenditure it cannot afford in social welfare and children's allowances, and people can afford to work for less if they dont have to pay childcare, increasing our competitiveness and getting people back into jobs. Looks like kids are just a luxury like Mercs, holiday homes, and shopping trips to Paris that we need to realise we cannot afford anymore.

Children = Merc/Holiday Home/Shopping trip to Paris, Janey Mac...you should print that on a flier and do a drop over likely areas of 'skanger' settlement, shure when they realise what they're missing by having kids......problem solved:rolleyes:

They can all leave their Merc parked up outside their holiday home and head off for a spot of luxury shopping...maybe they'll stay in Paris and become their problem!!

And just because the powers that be screwed us mercilessly and continue to do so, the normal course of our lives and the fundamental urge to procreate must be denied? Take that to its Nth degree......let's Means Test pregnancy, but bring your crystal ball, anyone's situation workwise can change in a heartbeat, as I found to my cost:( Will we take the kids from them once they are no longer earning and give them no excuse to hold out for a living wage?? I have a 16 year old here...any takers??

Let's go one further and sort out third level education, let's get back to the day's when only the children of professionals or the well off can aspire to third level;) 9 Honours in the Leaving Cert on my CV, in '83 I was handed two leaflets, my Careers teachers advice, become a civil servant or a secretary, no grants available no matter how bright you were:(

In my last gig, I had an intern, No.1 Haircut/crumpled cheap suit/more a ribbon than a tie and zero confidence...he had the look and he had the background...he hailed from one of the biggest ****holes in Limerick and yet this young man was working towards his Masters in politics ...he achieved his goal, by virtue of his access to a grant. All he needed was a bit of fine tuning, work on the appearance and most of all a confidence boost and repeated reassurance that his opinion was as valid and relevant as anyone else's no matter where he came from or who he called Mum! He got it on my watch (what I refer to as a real internship, he made **** coffee;)) 6 months later he was in the audience of Frontline savaging John Gormley in a most efficient and comprehensive manner! Now he is in another Country with a solid position within their Government...by a lot of contributors standards......he should never have been born!!

So now I'm off to have dinner with my girls and tell them about the possibility that I could trade them in for something useful as they are really the only luxury I have and as I'm unemployed, its unfortunate but, they are just too much of a drain on resources!!

steddyeddy

Do you know what I really have to say some of the things I read about certain classes is disgraceful.

Little My

Sandwlch wrote: »

No, and of course not.
...We hear much these days of the financial prudence of the Germans compared to the free borrowing/spending Irish. I dont think their birth rate there being approx half that of Ireland for many years is unrelated.

Ridiculous rubbish.

The low birth rate is a huge problem for Germany and they are trying to encourage people to have children, not the other way around.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/19/germany-children-birthrate-lowest

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/07/world/europe/german-lawmakers-spar-over-child-care-subsidy.html

steddyeddy

Pandora2 wrote: »

Children = Merc/Holiday Home/Shopping trip to Paris, Janey Mac...you should print that on a flier and do a drop over likely areas of 'skanger' settlement, shure when they realise what they're missing by having kids......problem solved:rolleyes:

They can all leave their Merc parked up outside their holiday home and head off for a spot of luxury shopping...maybe they'll stay in Paris and become their problem!!

And just because the powers that be screwed us mercilessly and continue to do so, the normal course of our lives and the fundamental urge to procreate must be denied? Take that to its Nth degree......let's Means Test pregnancy, but bring your crystal ball, anyone's situation workwise can change in a heartbeat, as I found to my cost:( Will we take the kids from them once they are no longer earning and give them no excuse to hold out for a living wage?? I have a 16 year old here...any takers??

Let's go one further and sort out third level education, let's get back to the day's when only the children of professionals or the well off can aspire to third level;) 9 Honours in the Leaving Cert on my CV, in '83 I was handed two leaflets, my Careers teachers advice, become a civil servant or a secretary, no grants available no matter how bright you were:(

In my last gig, I had an intern, No.1 Haircut/crumpled cheap suit/more a ribbon than a tie and zero confidence...he had the look and he had the background...he hailed from one of the biggest ****holes in Limerick and yet this young man was working towards his Masters in politics ...he achieved his goal, by virtue of his access to a grant. All he needed was a bit of fine tuning, work on the appearance and most of all a confidence boost and repeated reassurance that his opinion was as valid and relevant as anyone else's no matter where he came from or who he called Mum! He got it on my watch (what I refer to as a real internship, he made **** coffee;)) 6 months later he was in the audience of Prime Time savaging John Gormley in a most efficient and comprehensive manner! Now he is in another Country with a solid position within their Government...by a lot of contrubutors standards......he should never have been born!!

So now I'm off to have dinner with my girls and tell them about the possibility that I could trade them in for something useful as they are really the only luxury I have and as I'm unemployed, its unfortunate but, they are just too much of a drain on resources!!

Thanks so much Pandora its great to hear people do well despite the odds. Im sure with a great mother like you your children will do well.

steddyeddy

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Suggesting ways to reduce children born into creating poverty is not anti children. If anything it is for the benefit of children.
Children of poverty are likely to remain in poverty and be a drain and not contribute to the economy. The people who will pay for them will be the other children.
The idea that poorer people are more religious is funny. Lip service without living by religion. If they were they wouldn't get pregnant in the first place. Yes moral issues with abortion but not contraception.

No its not its a position born out of sheer ignorance willfull or otherwise. Anyone who gets pregnant is not religious is another gem that must get a few laughs at parties.

later12

senordingdong wrote: »

How ridiculous that the government are trying to bury this report.

How ridiculous that you choose to believe whatever you want to believe, even though not even the authors of the working paper are alleging any active Government involvement.

Believe what you want to believe. I'm pretty sure nobody with the above mindset is going to have his mind changed by facts.

Monty Burnz

later12 wrote: »

How ridiculous that you choose to believe whatever you want to believe, even though not even the authors of the working paper are alleging any active Government involvement.

I think that is exactly what Richard Tol is suggesting, no? And isn't exactly what he was implying when he resigned from the ESRI six months ago?

Ray Palmer

steddyeddy wrote: »

Im not anti abortion (I guess that makes me pro abortion) however abortion has to be brought in for the right reasons. It should be brought into law to give people the choice to do it if they want it. Bringing in abortion to lessen the welfare bill would put social pressure on those who are in a poorer situation to have the abortion against their wishes. Its the states duty to look after children irrespective of background as oppossed to abortion is a good option to cut the states welfare bill.

You are making up a reason for the abortion that was not suggested. It was about bringing in an option that would likely reduce the number of single parents. It simply would have an effect by being a choice. No suggestion of pressure to do so.
Single parents should not be encouraged as a choice to live off the state. I don't think many actually want to be like that anyway. A system designed to help those in need has become a trap and a major drain on taxes directly and indirectly.

K-9

later12 wrote: »

Well the report in question has been called into question; but there is no doubt that there is a case to answer for the cost of returning to work for parents of young children.

But people seem to think this is a welfare issue; it is not. Childcare is so expensive in this country that even if you cut rent supplement or basic rates of payment fairly substantially, there will still be a financial disincentive to work. If you're being offered €8.65 and hour and your childminder is demanding €8.65 per hour... well, you do the maths. It isn't feasible.


You'll notice that when childcare costs are taken out of the equation, it's pretty evident that work pays. But until the childcare issue is resolved, there will always be a minority of parents who simply cannot afford to go back to work.

By the way, we really don't know the exact figures in terms of welfare recipients who are better off on welfare than in employment, so lets not get carried away.

Hence the stupidity of FF increasing Child Benefit and introducing the Early Childcare Credit for every parent. Extra payments should have been by tax credits not universal payments.

senordingdong

Little My wrote: »

Ridiculous rubbish.

The low birth rate is a huge problem for Germany and they are trying to encourage people to have children, not the other way around.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/19/germany-children-birthrate-lowest

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/07/world/europe/german-lawmakers-spar-over-child-care-subsidy.html

Well then, since nobody else will point out the obvious solution, I guess I will have to....

We simply send all of our surplus children to Germany.

This will ease our states financial burden, and it will get the Germans spending again.

Atari Jaguar.

Bannasidhe

senordingdong wrote: »

Well then, since nobody else will point out the obvious solution, I guess I will have to....

We simply send all of our surplus children to Germany.

This will ease our states financial burden, and it will get the Germans spending again.

Atari Jaguar.

Or we could decide that Swift's A Modest Proposal For preventing the children of poor people in Ireland,from being a burden on their parents or country,and for making them beneficial to the publick is an idea whose time has come

I think it is agreed by all parties that this prodigious number of children in the arms, or on the backs, or at the heels of their mothers, and frequently of their fathers, is in the present deplorable state of the kingdom a very great additional grievance; and, therefore, whoever could find out a fair, cheap, and easy method of making these children sound, useful members of the commonwealth, would deserve so well of the public as to have his statue set up for a preserver of the nation.

But my intention is very far from being confined to provide only for the children of professed beggars; it is of a much greater extent, and shall take in the whole number of infants at a certain age who are born of parents in effect as little able to support them as those who demand our charity in the streets....

...I do therefore humbly offer it to publick consideration, that of the hundred and twenty thousand children, already computed, twenty thousand may be reserved for breed, whereof only one fourth part to be males; which is more than we allow to sheep, black cattle, or swine, and my reason is, that these children are seldom the fruits of marriage, a circumstance not much regarded by our savages, therefore, one male will be sufficient to serve four females. That the remaining hundred thousand may, at a year old, be offered in sale to the persons of quality and fortune, through the kingdom, always advising the mother to let them suck plentifully in the last month, so as to render them plump, and fat for a good table. A child will make two dishes at an entertainment for friends, and when the family dines alone, the fore or hind quarter will make a reasonable dish, and seasoned with a little pepper or salt, will be very good boiled on the fourth day, especially in winter.

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1080/1080-h/1080-h.htm

Pandora2

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Or we could decide that Swift's A Modest Proposal For preventing the children of poor people in Ireland,from being a burden on their parents or country,and for making them beneficial to the publick is an idea whose time has come

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1080/1080-h/1080-h.htm

:eek::eek::eek:

Off to smear the kids with Mayonnaise!!

OldNotWIse

Hannibal Smith wrote: »

A child is nothing close to a material object or luxury. You've no right to own a merc, you've every right to have a child, and that right is constitutionally protected, and so it should be

If you forgo the merc, your circumstances may change and you could have one in the future.. If you forgo the child and your circumstances change you may not be able to conceive.

Children are not the drain on the economy...*feels all...'won't some one purlease think of the children* :P

I dont have children, but hope to have them someday. I agree that people cannot "send back" their children when things get bad, and I feel sorry for people who had children when they were financially ok and are now experiencing difficulties - but it is actually not anyones "constitutional right" to have a child.

later12

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I think that is exactly what Richard Tol is suggesting, no? And isn't exactly what he was implying when he resigned from the ESRI six months ago?

Richard Tol was offered a full time academic chair in economics at the University of Sussex where he is one of the most senior academics, which would have been more attractive from any professional viewpoint than the adjunct Professorship that he previously enjoyed in a University setting. While he did have criticisms of the ESRI, he did not suggest that the Government affected the withdrawal of the working paper in question. Nobody, bar a few conspiracy theorists, have actually suggested that.

Bannasidhe

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I dont have children, but hope to have them someday. I agree that people cannot "send back" their children when things get bad, and I feel sorry for people who had children when they were financially ok and are now experiencing difficulties - but it is actually not anyones "constitutional right" to have a child.

It could be argued that it is:

ARTICLE 41
1 1° The State recognises the Family as the natural
primary and fundamental unit group of Society,

http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/eng/Youth_Zone/About_the_Constitution,_Flag,_Anthem_Harp/Constitution_of_Ireland_March_2012.pdf

either way it is a biological imperative and given the declining birth rates across Europe fast becoming an economic one


I am amused by the fact that many of those who complain about people having children they cannot afford are also the same people who bemoan the number of immigrants taking 'our' jobs - we'll they can't have it both ways. If our population is not replaced by births, it will have to be replaced by other means. Someone will have to pay for our old age and keep feeding the Bail Out debts. Will it be our children and grandchildren or immigrants 'taking our jobs'?

Germany is already heavily reliant on immigration.

daltonmd

I think that a lot of people here are trying to focus on things that simply cannot be changed.
The biggest problem with the SW system is, as it stands, once you get onto the system then it is impossible to get off.

Take a working man/women with 3 children who has lost their 35k per year job.

They enter the SW system and get unemployement benefit, mortgage supplement/rent allowance, medical card, back to school allowance and so on.

They are then offiered a 30k per year job, they lose everything. Add to that the high cost returning to work and you can see the issue.

What we need is a system that helps people get back to work. I personally do not blame anyone for choosing not to go to work - what do they do if a child gets ill? 50 euro to a doctor? X amount for medication?

If we need to look at fault then maybe we should ask whether wages are becoming too low? Is SW too high, as it stands and how we allocate it, then yes it is.

later12

daltonmd wrote: »

I think that a lot of people here are trying to focus on things that simply cannot be changed.
The biggest problem with the SW system is, as it stands, once you get onto the system then it is impossible to get off.

Take a working man/women with 3 children who has lost their 35k per year job.

They enter the SW system and get unemployement benefit, mortgage supplement/rent allowance, medical card, back to school allowance and so on.

They are then offiered a 30k per year job, they lose everything.

No they don't. They would still be entitled to FIS, and a medical card for 3 years if one parent had been long term unemployed. the system is designed to catch people like this and keep them out of a welfare trap. It doesn't catch everyone, but it's not right to say that they are going to be worse off or that it is impossible to get off welfare.

christmas2012

hondasam wrote: »

You are under the impression everyone who is working is earning big money when the reality is most are just getting by every week.
If I need to go to the doctor it costs me €60 and the dentist a lot more than that. How can you think just because someone works they can afford all these things?

Medical card doesnt cover everything,for example dentist appointments when getting your teeth done ,etc..

Pandora2

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I dont have children, but hope to have them someday. I agree that people cannot "send back" their children when things get bad, and I feel sorry for people who had children when they were financially ok and are now experiencing difficulties - but it is actually not anyones "constitutional right" to have a child.

More of a Human Right I would have thought:rolleyes:

Bannasidhe

daltonmd wrote: »

I think that a lot of people here are trying to focus on things that simply cannot be changed.
The biggest problem with the SW system is, as it stands, once you get onto the system then it is impossible to get off.

Take a working man/women with 3 children who has lost their 35k per year job.

They enter the SW system and get unemployement benefit, mortgage supplement/rent allowance, medical card, back to school allowance and so on.

They are then offiered a 30k per year job, they lose everything. Add to that the high cost returning to work and you can see the issue.

What we need is a system that helps people get back to work. I personally do not blame anyone for choosing not to go to work - what do they do if a child gets ill? 50 euro to a doctor? X amount for medication?

If we need to look at fault then maybe we should ask whether wages are becoming too low? Is SW too high, as it stands and how we allocate it, then yes it is.

Some fair points - but we also need to look at the cost of living, in particular the cost of raising children and ask questions about issues like why our 'free' education costs so much. If Primary education was indeed free, there would be no need for allowances such as Back to School. Why do schools need expensive tracksuits with the school crest on them? Why is there not a universal text book rental scheme as run in many other countries?

Why is the State willing to subsidise 3rd level students education via free fees (yes, I know the 'registration' fee makes a mockery of this), but not childcare?

If I recall correctly a child must not be left on their own until they are 13 or over (am open to correction on this). What exactly are working parents supposed to do with their children once the school day ends? Where are the After School Clubs?


How many childminders are working in the 'black' economy? Seriously, how many of you who have no option but to employ someone to mind your childen/collect then from school etc know if your childminder is registered as self-employed? Do they declare this income? Pay tax/PRSI? Do some of them sign on as well? Who would be willing to report their childminder for welfare fraud?

The system is set up to enable and encourage this kind of fraud. How is a person on minimum wage meant to afford to pay a child minder who is also entitled to minimum wage? Indeed, given that the childminder will possibly be working more hours then the parents (to allow the parent to travel to/from work) it is an impossible situation. The childminder may be willing to accept less then the minimum hourly rate for 'cash in hand'... or not.

Is the answer to say that childminders are not entitled to the minimum wage?
Or is it to give the parents some form of decent tax break - which requires them to supply PRSI etc details of the childminder to ensure they are not employing someone who is also claiming SW and that the childminder is tax compliant?

irelandrover

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Some fair points - but we also need to look at the cost of living, in particular the cost of raising children and ask questions about issues like why our 'free' education costs so much. If Primary education was indeed free, there would be no need for allowances such as Back to School. Why do schools need expensive tracksuits with the school crest on them? Why is there not a universal text book rental scheme as run in many other countries?

Why is the State willing to subsidise 3rd level students education via free fees (yes, I know the 'registration' fee makes a mockery of this), but not childcare?

If I recall correctly a child must not be left on their own until they are 13 or over (am open to correction on this). What exactly are working parents supposed to do with their children once the school day ends? Where are the After School Clubs?


How many childminders are working in the 'black' economy? Seriously, how many of you who have no option but to employ someone to mind your childen/collect then from school etc know if your childminder is registered as self-employed? Do they declare this income? Pay tax/PRSI? Do some of them sign on as well? Who would be willing to report their childminder for welfare fraud?

The system is set up to enable and encourage this kind of fraud. How is a person on minimum wage meant to afford to pay a child minder who is also entitled to minimum wage? Indeed, given that the childminder will possibly be working more hours then the parents (to allow the parent to travel to/from work) it is an impossible situation. The childminder may be willing to accept less then the minimum hourly rate for 'cash in hand'... or not.

Is the answer to say that childminders are not entitled to the minimum wage?
Or is it to give the parents some form of decent tax break - which requires them to supply PRSI etc details of the childminder to ensure they are not employing someone who is also claiming SW and that the childminder is tax compliant?

The part is bold is nothing to with the cost of returning to work but has to do with the cost of raising children since these costs exist whether or not you work.

I know I cam across on this thread as being anti-child. I am not. I hope to have children of my own in the future. However I am tired of parents whining about the costs of raising children when it was their own choice to have children,

Pandora2

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Some fair points - but we also need to look at the cost of living, in particular the cost of raising children and ask questions about issues like why our 'free' education costs so much. If Primary education was indeed free, there would be no need for allowances such as Back to School. Why do schools need expensive tracksuits with the school crest on them? Why is there not a universal text book rental scheme as run in many other countries?

Why is the State willing to subsidise 3rd level students education via free fees (yes, I know the 'registration' fee makes a mockery of this), but not childcare?

If I recall correctly a child must not be left on their own until they are 13 or over (am open to correction on this). What exactly are working parents supposed to do with their children once the school day ends? Where are the After School Clubs?


How many childminders are working in the 'black' economy? Seriously, how many of you who have no option but to employ someone to mind your childen/collect then from school etc know if your childminder is registered as self-employed? Do they declare this income? Pay tax/PRSI? Do some of them sign on as well? Who would be willing to report their childminder for welfare fraud?

The system is set up to enable and encourage this kind of fraud. How is a person on minimum wage meant to afford to pay a child minder who is also entitled to minimum wage? Indeed, given that the childminder will possibly be working more hours then the parents (to allow the parent to travel to/from work) it is an impossible situation. The childminder may be willing to accept less then the minimum hourly rate for 'cash in hand'... or not.

Is the answer to say that childminders are not entitled to the minimum wage?
Or is it to give the parents some form of decent tax break - which requires them to supply PRSI etc details of the childminder to ensure they are not employing someone who is also claiming SW and that the childminder is tax compliant?

As a clever lady once responded to me....Well said!! Point of info, there is no 'legal' age for a child to be left on their own...something that should be addressed imho.

daltonmd

later12 wrote: »

No they don't. They would still be entitled to FIS, and a medical card for 3 years if one parent had been long term unemployed. the system is designed to catch people like this and keep them out of a welfare trap. It doesn't catch everyone, but it's not right to say that they are going to be worse off or that it is impossible to get off welfare.

They may be entitled to a FIS payment of around 60 euro per week on top of 576 Euro ( I was simply using 30k as an example btw). I stand corrected on the medical card, they made a good change there.

I still stand by the fact that if you are trying to get back to work, particulary with children then it is very difficult.

It's easy while you're working to say - It doesn't pay to be on the dole - it's as easy to say it doesn't pay to return to work if you are on the other side.

It's not called "the welfare trap" for nothing.

mariaalice

The problem is very complicated....first off family income supplement should kick in from the first week someone take up work and second the medical card is the gateway to a lot of secondary benefits so it should be retained by family for at least a two years after the take up of employment.

The above if it was possible would solve a lot of the poverty tarp issues IMO

thebigbiffo

The Indo have a breakdown today which looks this.

Total welfare net income for one dependent adult and 4 children: €40,516

Net income for same family, one adult working at €28,000 p/a includes family income supp, child benefit and rent supplement in Dublin: €36,472 (after the average 10k cost of work described in the ESRI report).

I think it's fairly clear that, depending on your circumstances, you'd be a complete mental case to go back to work. and if you had a trade, you'd be on the pigs back working nixers on the black market.

Now, this isn't taking into account childcare and does cost in family income supp and rent supp. Can someone explain what these supplements are and how you're entitled to them? can i have some please?

It's impossible to argue with this - something major has to be done. and if that's completely killing SW for some or majorly slashing it for all them i'm right behind it. f'ucking retarded situation.

Bannasidhe

irelandrover wrote: »

The part is bold is nothing to with the cost of returning to work but has to do with the cost of raising children since these costs exist whether or not you work.

I know I cam across on this thread as being anti-child. I am not. I hope to have children of my own in the future. However I am tired of parents whining about the costs of raising children when it was their own choice to have children,

It very much is a returning to work issue for parents. In addition to paying for uniforms, text books etc - which parent's on SW and low incomes can claim allowances for - working parents also have to find someone to collect their child(ren) from school and mind them or get a job that allows them to finish in time to allow then to get to the school, take holiday/election/referendum days off, have a half day when required and pays them enough to be able to pay the childminder at least the minimum hourly rate. Those costs do not exist for parents who are not working outside the home/unemployed.

Now, let's consider the logistics of having children of different genders -
how does a parent organise to collect a 6 year old girl from the local girl's national school at 2:30 and her 8 year old brother from the local boy's national school half a mile away at precisely the same time?

The reality is that the government childcare policy (or is that an oxymoron?) seems based on the notion that women are still in the home and available to collect/mind their children and that every parent had a handy parent of their own available to fill in any gaps in childcare arrangement.

RaRaRasputin

Hannibal Smith wrote: »

Childcare in this country should be better. End of. The same as health care should be better etc.

I never said or implied it was all about the children. I was responding to the childcare elementa post.

What right has anyone got to say how many children a person should have? It's not China. I don'tknow what social welfare benefits a sick or disabled person gets, but I'd bet its far more than child benefit. Which rebukes your theory that children are treated with any kind of social welfare priority

You make an assumption and base your argument on it. Why don't you research the payment rate first to build a proper answer rather than coming up with a weak "i bet this is the case, so you are wrong" claim.
When somebody has an accident and is disabled afterwards and needs help, this person deserves it more than some parents who decide to have a fifth or sixth child though they can't finance even themselves. My parents only had me and my brother because they knew they'd struggle for money if they had more children and I'd do the same. Parents get child benefit, why should other people pay more than that for others' kids?

bbam

But if you slash SW when there are no jobs there all you do is grind genuine people into poverty along with the spongers.
The solution isn't as simple as slashing SW. Most of the 400,000 plus people unemployed are not there as a lifestyle choice, there are very few jobs there and fewer in rural areas where travel costs are the greatest.
I'm not declaring I have a solution, that's what we're paying the muppets in government for, but I do know that creating mass poverty is not the answer to anything.

daltonmd

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Some fair points - but we also need to look at the cost of living, in particular the cost of raising children and ask questions about issues like why our 'free' education costs so much. If Primary education was indeed free, there would be no need for allowances such as Back to School. Why do schools need expensive tracksuits with the school crest on them? Why is there not a universal text book rental scheme as run in many other countries?

Good points and you could apply it everywhere, doctors fees, solicitors fees, health insurance.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Why is the State willing to subsidise 3rd level students education via free fees (yes, I know the 'registration' fee makes a mockery of this), but not childcare?

I have added up (as a single working mother not on any benefits) that in the first 5 years of my childs life I spent 60k on childcare.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

If I recall correctly a child must not be left on their own until they are 13 or over (am open to correction on this). What exactly are working parents supposed to do with their children once the school day ends? Where are the After School Clubs?

The system is based on one parent staying at home - you should read stuff from Elizabeth Warren. She explains very clearly where the second working parents wages went during the boom - directly towards housing. As more women (as is the case) returned to work there was an increase in income.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

How many childminders are working in the 'black' economy? Seriously, how many of you who have no option but to employ someone to mind your childen/collect then from school etc know if your childminder is registered as self-employed? Do they declare this income? Pay tax/PRSI? Do some of them sign on as well? Who would be willing to report their childminder for welfare fraud?

It's a system created by the system.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The system is set up to enable and encourage this kind of fraud. How is a person on minimum wage meant to afford to pay a child minder who is also entitled to minimum wage? Indeed, given that the childminder will possibly be working more hours then the parents (to allow the parent to travel to/from work) it is an impossible situation. The childminder may be willing to accept less then the minimum hourly rate for 'cash in hand'... or not.

The hourly rate for a registered childminder is much less than the min wage - have a friend who does this, but last time I spoke to her it was around a fiver and hour. So they are working more for less.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Is the answer to say that childminders are not entitled to the minimum wage?
Or is it to give the parents some form of decent tax break - which requires them to supply PRSI etc details of the childminder to ensure they are not employing someone who is also claiming SW and that the childminder is tax compliant?

I lived in Germany for many years and the support for families having young children was second to none. You were encourage to stay home from work for at least 12 months, pre school, subsidised childcare, tax relief you name it. I actually wasn't financially worse off by taking that time out.

irelandrover

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It very much is a returning to work issue for parents. In addition to paying for uniforms, text books etc - which parent's on SW and low incomes can claim allowances for - working parents also have to find someone to collect their child(ren) from school and mind them or get a job that allows them to finish in time to allow then to get to the school, take holiday/election/referendum days off, have a half day when required and pays them enough to be able to pay the childminder at least the minimum hourly rate. Those costs do not exist for parents who are not working outside the home/unemployed.

Now, let's consider the logistics of having children of genders -
how does a parent organise to collect a 6 year old girl from the local girl's national school at 2:30 and her 8 year old brother from the local boy's national school half a mile away at precisely the same time?

The reality is that the government childcare policy (or is that an oxymoron?) seems based on the notion that women are still in the home and available to collect/mind their children and that every parent had a handy parent of their own available to fill in any gaps in childcare arrangement.

I specifically said the cost of uniforms and and books was not an issue preventing return to work. I mentioned nothing about collecting children from school. how much extra cost in the year does a school uniform cost for a working parent as opposed to a stay at home parent?

I agree it is difficult to arrange collection of children from school.

thebigbiffo

To people out there bitching about people bitching about the cost of kids, i'll give a run through of my situation.

My wife and I decided to have kids in 2006 and had a boy. a year later we'd another girl. everythign was grand, earning good money etc. Que late 2008 and we were both hit by reductions, taxes etc. My mother in law passed away so there was no childminder and all of a sudden we were 1300 p/m worse off.

We could more than afford to have kids at the time but circumstances have changed, and not all of them due to 'the current economic climate'.

There is no provision by the gov to aid working parents when faced with similar dilemmas - but if you're on the dole, everything's taken into account. My wife has prayed for redundancy - it's a mental situation and one that there is no political will to face.

daltonmd

RaRaRasputin wrote: »

You make an assumption and base your argument on it. Why don't you research the payment rate first to build a proper answer rather than coming up with a weak "i bet this is the case, so you are wrong" claim.
When somebody has an accident and is disabled afterwards and needs help, this person deserves it more than some parents who decide to have a fifth or sixth child though they can't finance even themselves. My parents only had me and my brother because they knew they'd struggle for money if they had more children and I'd do the same. Parents get child benefit, why should other people pay more than that for others' kids?

Yes and without the child benefit they received for 18 years then they would have been much worse off.


And your assumption is that everyone on the dole had children AFTER they signed on - that is not the case.


It's called social welfare and here is a definition.

"The well-being of the entire society. Social welfare is not the same as standard of living but is more concerned with the quality of life that includes factors such as the quality of the environment (air, soil, water), level of crime, extent of drug abuse, availability of essential social services, as well as religious and spiritual aspects of life."

daltonmd

irelandrover wrote: »

I specifically said the cost of uniforms and and books was not an issue preventing return to work. I mentioned nothing about collecting children from school. how much extra cost in the year does a school uniform cost for a working parent as opposed to a stay at home parent?

I agree it is difficult to arrange collection of children from school.

Not working receive a grant of 200 euro per child to 11 and 305 euro for 12 up.

Working - zero.