What would you do if you were minister for social protection

Kinski

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I take it you're not familiar with Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) systems. Benefits are automatically loaded onto the card and it can be used in most shops that accept cards for non-alcoholic beverages and food items (not pre-made food, i.e. ready meals etc.)

In a recent case in New Hampshire, a female store clerk was caught out by the difference between an EBT card with food stamps on it, and a debit one. She refused to sell cigarettes to a man who produced one of the latter type, asking "Do you think myself, that lady and that gentlemen should pay for your cigarettes?" The customer simply responded "Yes."

As it happens, he was in the right. EBT debit cards have cash on them, and the store promptly fired the lady in question.

BailMeOut

Good loser wrote: »

Post 29 reports welfare spending comes to €21 bn per year.

This means welfare takes 61.7% of total tax revenue.

Totally unsustainable.

There should be a fixed permanent limit on the % of tax revenue spent on SW.

Doesn't most of that €21bn get spent, i.e. goes directly into the economy and could be considered a massive government stimulus. A good chunk of it is also coming right back to us via VAT and excise taxes. Not a reason to keep doing what we are doing but there are some upsides to all of this.

FreudianSlippers

Kinski wrote: »

In a recent case in New Hampshire, a female store clerk was caught out by the difference between an EBT card with food stamps on it, and a debit one. She refused to sell cigarettes to a man who produced one of the latter type, asking "Do you think myself, that lady and that gentlemen should pay for your cigarettes?" The customer simply responded "Yes."

As it happens, he was in the right. EBT debit cards have cash on them, and the store promptly fired the lady in question.

That's because there is a subtle difference between "food" EBT cards and "cash" EBT cards. The system is usually automated and IIRC that clerk was in the wrong 100%.

Food EBT cards are given to all people below the poverty line or on "welfare" whereas Cash EBT cards work on a voucher style system where you have paid into the pot through social security. It only makes sense not to punish those who worked and contributed and prohibit those who are non-contributing members of society.

Degsy

Free abortions..fewer kids from unfit parents.

poeticseraphim

Degsy wrote: »

Free abortions..fewer kids from unfit parents.

Well well...get that past youth defense...

Abortion should be legal and free...you will need a free health service though for medical support...

Hey it works in China and Russia has more abortions than live births...

Or we could give free contraceptive pill prescriptions and condoms with mandatory family planning courses in schools, not just one day in transition year.

Although abortion would be cheaper.

It is amazing what comes out on this forum sometimes.....i respect humanity less and less.

Good loser

BailMeOut wrote: »

Doesn't most of that €21bn get spent, i.e. goes directly into the economy and could be considered a massive government stimulus. A good chunk of it is also coming right back to us via VAT and excise taxes. Not a reason to keep doing what we are doing but there are some upsides to all of this.

Probably correct though quite a few people on welfare spend a good deal of money on foreign holidays. I know such a guy went to the Masters this year for a week!

The 'good' arising from the stimulus is diminished/destroyed by the fact that the money is borrowed. It will/has to lead to reduced welfare spend down the road (next year?).

Also if it was that simple (not accusing you) increasing SW would be good for the economy.

woodoo

Good loser wrote: »

. I know such a guy went to the Masters this year for a week!

:eek: i'd give my left testicle to get to the masters :mad:

WumBuster

If some of the people on these boards had their way we'd be back in the dark ages and have a nation of social recluses living in cold damp apartments surviving on frozen peas. Or they'd be out begging to pay the rent. It's called a standard a of living, a human right. If the current minimum amount to receive each week per person to survive on without having resort to poverty is 188 euro per week, Im happy for people to get it rather than having people on the streets or commiting crimes to get it.

Dont get me wrong i dont condone long term unemployment, but taxes go to a whole lot other beneficial things for society and maintaining a high standard of living. healthcare, education, enviroment ,public works, roads etc.

and you know what, if you just stopped everyones dole in the morning, what would happen? Most of these people spend the money back into the local economy whether it be the weekly shopping or the local boozer. You're just going to end up with more people out of work. I think people should just calm down, be happy that they have a job, are contributing to a first world society and are earning more than 188 euro a week.

BTW Im on the back to education for the last 2 years (188 a week) and I have never even been able to contemplate going on any sort of holiday on that money.And its not that i dont think Im not entitled to any kind of social life either, its just not feasible.

Degsy

Do we really need to spend 300 million a year on asylum seeker provision and a further 700 million a year on overseas aid?

golfwallah

Whatever you think of Minister Joan Burton, you have to give her credit to her frankness and courage in speaking her mind.

Given her background as an accountant and experience of working in Africa, her statements appear to me to be well grounded in using common sense to bring welfare payments back to a more affordable level - for example, her comments of last Friday, as reported in the Sunday Independent today (click link for full details):

Re reducing double and triple SW payments (already well flagged in the Programme for Government): "We must maintain core payments but where we make reductions we could make them in addition to payments".

Universal Child Benefit: She favours reducing costs through taxation as opposed to costly means testing (but change required to build links between the Welfare and Tax systems).

I believe she has the balls to make things happen and wish her every success in overcoming the difficulties in bringing about these objectives. Time will tell!:)

Mr. teddywinkles

Do ppl on here not notice that when we had nearly full employment the welfare bill was 15.4 billion in 2007. Now roughly 20 billion but i think thats been reduce again by cuts.
So thats a rise of roughly 5 billion. A lot yes but considering the stats and how many is unemployed now, not much in the grand scheme.
Where is this extra 15 billion odd in the deficit coming from and dont say more ppl in country more public services needed because ppl are leaving by the boat load?

digzy

much simpler would be to tax all income, irrespective of whether it's earned or derived from the state.

is it really fair that a married couple (one working) with a mortgage and a kid, taking in about 40-50k p/a pay tax while the couple on the dole a few kids get their benefit, med card, prescriptions,rent allowance etc which could tot up to 50k yet pay nothing?

while i'd concur with most posters here, we've to remember it's politicians making these decisions, who're more concerned with re-election than the wider economy unfortunately.

Welease

digzy wrote: »

while i'd concur with most posters here, we've to remember it's politicians making these decisions, who're more concerned with re-election than the wider economy unfortunately.

Which one could argue is because the electorate (at large) also care little for the wider economy, and will vote in those who benefit them personally the most (either geographically or economically).
We could almost guarantee that if Quinn Snr. ran for election in border counties, he likely would be elected.. it's pointless to blame politicians when we are the ones who decide the calibre of people we want to run this country (Wallace, Lowry etc etc.)

RoverZT

I would put a few more working in the health levy refund section.

I'm waiting 8 months for the tax back, that I should never have been paying.

Useless shower.

waltermc

gobblet wrote: »

I work in an area where about 60% of people are on the dole.
They are always telling me about their next holiday to spain and I see them out buying copious amounts of alcohol.
I work fuill time and i can't afford a holiday but i am paying for these people to go on holidays!
I say bring back the voucher system where they can only spend their allowance of essentials and not holidays and alcohol.

The dole should be an emergency payment from the state for essentials until an individual gets a jobs and not be payments for them to live it up.

This makes me sick.There is a family living near my mother in law and its pretty big. The husband and wife have many kids and get alot of money in child benefit along with other welfare payments and they are always seen in the best of clothes and never do without. I am aware of many people who use the dole to pay their bills and introducing a voucher system would be devastating for them.

My son was brought in for a pathways to work interview with his local welfare office. The minute they saw his cv they told they were not in a position to help him find work and despite his efforts and lots of interviews and applications for jobs he has nothing and nobody will help him.

He was even sent for interviews on TUS Programmes which was a waste of time

waltermc

digzy wrote: »

much simpler would be to tax all income, irrespective of whether it's earned or derived from the state.

is it really fair that a married couple (one working) with a mortgage and a kid, taking in about 40-50k p/a pay tax while the couple on the dole a few kids get their benefit, med card, prescriptions,rent allowance etc which could tot up to 50k yet pay nothing?

while i'd concur with most posters here, we've to remember it's politicians making these decisions, who're more concerned with re-election than the wider economy unfortunately.

I agree with you on the taxing of all income no matter where it comes from. I have always made it clear that if revenue where to take off €2 from every welfare recipient each week that would generate alot of income tax revenue.

They also need to start taxing the artists and remove the artists exemption

golfwallah

From report in today's Independent, it looks like Minister Joan Burton can't answer questions about how much will be saved by her proposal to tax child benefits for parents earning over €100,000.

It seems there are 113,500 people with earnings over €100,000 but no one knows how many of them receive child benefit (because it's not currently possible for Revenue and Social Welfare systems to share data).

I would have thought this stuff was basic for a Minister who is 17 months in the job and also comes from an accounting background.

Maybe there is some truth in Micheal Martin's remarks that her comments "suggest gesture politics".:mad:

Welease

golfwallah wrote: »

From report in today's Independent, it looks like Minister Joan Burton can't answer questions about how much will be saved by her proposal to tax child benefits for parents earning over €100,000.

It seems there are 113,500 people with earnings over €100,000 but no one knows how many of them receive child benefit (because it's not currently possible for Revenue and Social Welfare systems to share data).

I would have thought this stuff was basic for a Minister who is 17 months in the job and also comes from an accounting background.

Maybe there is some truth in Micheal Martin's remarks that her comments "suggest gesture politics".:mad:

In fairness to her, what is she supposed to do if the systems are not linked and noone can provide her with the information?

golfwallah

Welease wrote: »

In fairness to her, what is she supposed to do if the systems are not linked and noone can provide her with the information?

I agree with the principle of taxing child benefit, but ministers should have their facts available before they go shooting off at the mouth.

It’s not a good sign to make proposals, when she hasn’t a clue of the cost / benefit. Remember un-costed system development = capital expenditure = more borrowings.

I would prefer if she did her impact assessments on the downstream costs before she made her announcements.

I would also prefer to see a bit more caution by ministers making promises - to quote Abraham Lincoln “We must not promise what we ought not, lest we be called on to perform what we cannot”.

Welease

golfwallah wrote: »

I agree with the principle of taxing child benefit, but ministers should have their facts available before they go shooting off at the mouth.

It’s not a good sign to make proposals, when she hasn’t a clue of the cost / benefit. Remember un-costed system development = capital expenditure = more borrowings.

I would prefer if she did her impact assessments on the downstream costs before she made her announcements.

I would also prefer to see a bit more caution by ministers making promises - to quote Abraham Lincoln “We must not promise what we ought not, lest we be called on to perform what we cannot”.

Agreed, but I understood the proposals to be very high level and more indications of potential rather than specific plans..
If she kept quiet for months on end while we costed out the development/integration of Revenue/SW and other systems and sought approval etc., people would be up in arms about her silence. At this stage, I don't believe any promises were being made (not that it would stop them from being forgotten if it suited her later on ). She's somewhat damned if she does and damned if she doesn't.

It's a proposal that few seem to have any direct issues with (there may be indirect issues if the integration of systems cost more than savings), and many want to see happen urgently.. But a legacy of Mr. Martin's government is that we hand out money from one department, but other departments have no access to this to see if any tax could be applied or saving made. My personal opinion is.. if anyone should STFU it should be him He being the most guilty of gesture politics.. given we are cleaning up his mess...

golfwallah

Welease wrote: »

Agreed, but I understood the proposals to be very high level and more indications of potential rather than specific plans..
If she kept quiet for months on end while we costed out the development/integration of Revenue/SW and other systems and sought approval etc., people would be up in arms about her silence. At this stage, I don't believe any promises were being made (not that it would stop them from being forgotten if it suited her later on ). She's somewhat damned if she does and damned if she doesn't.

It's a proposal that few seem to have any direct issues with (there may be indirect issues if the integration of systems cost more than savings), and many want to see happen urgently.. But a legacy of Mr. Martin's government is that we hand out money from one department, but other departments have no access to this to see if any tax could be applied or saving made. My personal opinion is.. if anyone should STFU it should be him He being the most guilty of gesture politics.. given we are cleaning up his mess...

Sure, these are very high level proposals ....... i.e. wishful thinking or "gesture politics", whatever you want to call it.

I think, at this stage, we'd all like to see a little less talk and a little more action from the Minister in power right now.

After all, they've been in office since March last year and we need to see more in terms of concrete results on the stuff in the programme for government, such as replacement of multiple allowances with a single welfare payment, etc.

FGR

Have mentioned this in another thread but I believe that all social benefit entitlements should remain as they are however be subject to a maximum ceiling.

That is so say that no one can claim so many benefits that the annual cost would exceed what one would earn in one year on the minimum wage.

So take rent relief, medical card, bus pass, tv licence, lone parents allowance and all other such payments..as soon as one hits the equivalent earning of minimum wage (or less, mind) then said person cannot apply for additional allowances/reliefs.

Will stop the people who are claiming serious amounts of cash/allowances..