Open proposal for Social Welfare & Children's allowance

Prodigious

Extinction wrote: »

How much of it isn't being spent in Ireland? Do you also have a problem with Irish people (who get welfare) purchasing online from foreign business's or with them going to the European Championships last summer and spending their money in Poland? Perhaps it's not the dole your concerned about at all?

Well I believe the money that is being paid out by the state should be distributed in a manner so that it can only be spent within the Irish economy.

Extinction

Limericks wrote: »

\People claiming allowances are very important to the economy aswell as being a burden.

What about Joe down in the off license who will lose his job if the dole is cut for that area. Lets not stop there. What about Mary in the cinema?

You can see where I am coming from with this. The economy is a fragile ecosystem and social claimers do there bit to help aswell.

Thats exactly my point throughout the thread. I think food stamps would be harmful to the economy and I also don't see why anyone who is in the unfortunate position of having to claim welfare should be restricted in any way that they choose to spend that welfare.

Prodigious

Extinction wrote: »

Thats exactly my point throughout the thread. I think food stamps would be harmful to the economy and I also don't see why anyone who is in the unfortunate position of having to claim welfare should be restricted in any way that they choose to spend that welfare.

One who "has to claim welfare" surely needs it for necessities such as food and bills? In other words, they do not need it for alcohol and cigarettes? Or am I missing something?

aN.Droid

Extinction wrote: »

Thats exactly my point throughout the thread. I think food stamps would be harmful to the economy and I also don't see why anyone who is in the unfortunate position of having to claim welfare should be restricted in any way that they choose to spend that welfare.

Sorry, didn't meant to quote your post!

Methememb wrote: »

One who "has to claim welfare" surely needs it for necessities such as food and bills? In other words, they do not need it for alcohol and cigarettes? Or am I missing something?

Yes you are missing allot. Your view and "facts" don't take into account thousands of variables including protecting the jobs of people in the shops and the jobs down the line including the delivery drivers, the manufacturers, the accountant working for them, the lawyers working for them etc etc the list is a mile long.

Your suggestion is just not feasible.

Aint Eazy Being Cheezy

Methememb wrote: »

Well I believe the money that is being paid out by the state should be distributed in a manner so that it can only be spent within the Irish economy.

Nice idea but impossible to implement. I also think things get balanced out due to the amount of Irish who currently work abroad.
I know of 2 lads I worked with, electricians, one in Canada, one in Australia, who send money home to their parents to help with the mortgage. Im sure their not the only ones.

Extinction

Methememb wrote: »

One who "has to claim welfare" surely needs it for necessities such as food and bills? In other words, they do not need it for alcohol and cigarettes? Or am I missing something?

Ok, so lets bring in food stamps, how do we calculate how much a family needs, maybe means test them by number of adults and children. Next we need electricty stamps, solid fuel or heating oil stamps. Transport stamps so people can get from A to B for job interviews. Stamps for paper and ink so they can write CV's to apply for jobs. We will also need to increase the rent allowance because people will no longer have cash to pay the minimum amount they have to at present. Then there's all the other stuff like a telephone allowance and broadband allowance so you can access job sites and send CV's. Sure I could go on and on about all the different stamps you'd need to create, isn't it much simpler to tackle the abuse of the social welfare system by the few that are abusing it rather than view every recipient with suspicion?

Halloween Jack

There were butter vouchers in Ireland, many moons ago, they were rarely used to exchange for butter.

The retailers knew they were gettin paid for the voucher, regardless of what item it was used for.

Smokes were the main substitute. The scheme was discontinued because of this kind of stuff.

Extinction

Halloween Jack wrote: »

There were butter vouchers in Ireland, many moons ago, they were rarely used to exchange for butter.

The retailers knew they were gettin paid for the voucher, regardless of what item it was used for.

Smokes were the main substitute. The scheme was discontinued because of this kind of stuff.

Indeed I remember that well, thankfully that was the last time I was in receipt of social welfare and I remember saving them up to get smokes and even to get alcohol at christmas time. I don't know anyone who actually got butter with them.

the groutch

food stamps or other controlling of how welfare benefits are spent are a waste imo, people will always find a way around it.
there needs to be more focus imo on the detection of welfare fraud, and the means testing of benefits, especially children's allowance.

Farmer Pudsey

the groutch wrote: »

food stamps or other controlling of how welfare benefits are spent are a waste imo, people will always find a way around it.
there needs to be more focus imo on the detection of welfare fraud, and the means testing of benefits, especially children's allowance.

Means testing of CA is another red herring. At what level would it be set 100K or 130K or 70K. Take at 100K again how do you police it PAYE workers in general would lose it while self employed would work the system to remain within the means test. Look at the present 3rd level grants system you have the situtation where a a buisness owner can access the grant while his workers cannot. Also if you set the test too low it is a discentive to work. The same with taxing CA. If it is considered too high reduce it accross the board.

However when you look at it at present because there is no tax allowance associated with childern or childcare it is at or around the norm accross Europe for working family's while it is above the norm for welfare recipents. We have a big issue with the so called ''vulnerable'' in Ireland. The reality is that with the welfare sysyem we have there is little or no reason for poverty however it is the choices people make when spending there money that is the issue. If you decide to spend 70/week on cigerettes(pack a day) or alachol (16 pints in a pub or a sh#tload in a supermarket) or going to a resturant then complain about having no money you can harly complain about being hard done by.

Go to any shop by a school at around 9 in the morning and see the parents that buy snacks, drinks or fatty foods for there kids these are usually the same that are ''vulnerable''.

Halloween Jack

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

Means testing of CA is another red herring. At what level would it be set 100K or 130K or 70K. Take at 100K again how do you police it PAYE workers in general would lose it while self employed would work the system to remain within the means test. Look at the present 3rd level grants system you have the situtation where a a buisness owner can access the grant while his workers cannot. Also if you set the test too low it is a discentive to work. The same with taxing CA. If it is considered too high reduce it accross the board.

However when you look at it at present because there is no tax allowance associated with childern or childcare it is at or around the norm accross Europe for working family's while it is above the norm for welfare recipents. We have a big issue with the so called ''vulnerable'' in Ireland. The reality is that with the welfare sysyem we have there is little or no reason for poverty however it is the choices people make when spending there money that is the issue. If you decide to spend 70/week on cigerettes(pack a day) or alachol (16 pints in a pub or a sh#tload in a supermarket) or going to a resturant then complain about having no money you can harly complain about being hard done by.

Go to any shop by a school at around 9 in the morning and see the parents that by snacks, drinks or fatty foods for there kids these are usually the same that are ''vulnerable''.

This is one of the better posts Ive read on this issue round here.

Farmer Pudsey

I see Joan Bruton is out to help the vulnerable again by taxing CA. According to her calculations a High earner will lose 45% and a low earner will lose 11%. Yet when you look at PRSI and USC this will be 52-55% for middle/high earners and 30% for low earners while the vulnerable pocket the whole lot.

So for a family's on low/mid income it will mean a loss of 40-75 euro's/child/month. Another reason to jack the job and retire early. Also another incentive if you are self employed to reduce your income and pay less tax. Why go to work and pay childminding fees when you would be as well off at home.

Tea drinker

Limericks wrote: »

\People claiming allowances are very important to the economy aswell as being a burden.

What about Joe down in the off license who will lose his job if the dole is cut for that area. Lets not stop there. What about Mary in the cinema?

You can see where I am coming from with this. The economy is a fragile ecosystem and social claimers do there bit to help aswell.

You think taxpayers will do nothing with the money they assumedly do not get taxed as a result of decreasing allowances? The same argument has been used to defend PS pay. An allowance system is for bare necessities, I don't want to pay for cinema etc. I've got my own people to think about and plenty of deserving charities out there. Maybe I can be trusted with my little spare cash to stimulate the economy.

Extinction

I doubt lower taxes would follow a drop in social welfare payments and even if it did a lot of that extra income would probably just end up in bank savings accounts. Money in savings won't stimulate the economy. A person in receipt of a social welfare payment is likely to spend all of it every single week in their local economy.

If people could be trusted with their little spare cash to help stimulate the economy then they would be out spending now, instead those who do have savings are not spending.

sean200

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

I see Joan Bruton is out to help the vulnerable again by taxing CA. According to her calculations a High earner will lose 45% and a low earner will lose 11%. Yet when you look at PRSI and USC this will be 52-55% for middle/high earners and 30% for low earners while the vulnerable pocket the whole lot.

So for a family's on low/mid income it will mean a loss of 40-75 euro's/child/month. Another reason to jack the job and retire early. Also another incentive if you are self employed to reduce your income and pay less tax. Why go to work and pay childminding fees when you would be as well off at home.

If either FG or labour do this then not one working person with kids will vote for them
I am looking forward to the local elections in 2014 so I can watch them being wiped out

barrackali

If you are a high earner you don't need the money...that's the way I see it! My old man didn't touch our children's allowance for all the years we got it ffs.

The money needs to be targeted at those who need it, and that includes those who are working yet finding it hard to get by.

Farmer Pudsey

barrackali wrote: »

If you are a high earner you don't need the money...that's the way I see it! My old man didn't touch our children's allowance for all the years we got it ffs.

The money needs to be targeted at those who need it, and that includes those who are working yet finding it hard to get by.

Define a high earner
This bugs me if only so called high earners were hit then well and good everybody forgets that workers hit the high rate of tax faster than most other countries. So if taxing goes ahead just like colledge grants the coping class will be hit hard. For the government to save money these people will have to be hit.

But that is alright people can sit at home and be vulnerable.