Welfare fraud

Tim Robbins

Another few thousand cases!

I don't know anyone who has reported fraud or anyone who has been found out. Are the media being accurate with all this?

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2013/0308/breaking30.html

Anybody know someone who reported or who was reported on?

wolfpawnat

I know a girl who got caught with the OPFP with the child's father living with her, she moved to a new area and within weeks he was living with her again. :rolleyes:

I know someone who also is getting v high maintenance off her ex and I would love to know if she is declaring it as the figures REALLY are not adding up.

With the way things are I think it is essential for all potential fraud to be investigated.

monkeypants

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Anybody know someone who reported or who was reported on?

No, but I'll bet the figure €600m came into it somewhere.

thebman

I know someone who I suspect was reported.

Their dole got cut off because they should have been on back to education allowance and not job seekers and then they had to drop out of college because they couldn't afford it so they got told they were entitled to nothing!

So they are living with their parents, the state refuses to help them at all and to top it off the person that reported did so because their father wouldn't sell them a plot of land to try to force their hand. They did the same to this persons brother but they were doing nothing wrong so got it suspended for a month or two then got it back.

The other person is stressed out of their mind with debt collectors coming after them with no way back to jobseekers until they are out of work and college courses for 12 months. Can't even go for job bridge jobs or on education courses in the mean time.

I think the figures are a con and they are doing anything to refuse people welfare to meet the targets where as before this they would have bent rules to fill the cracks in the existing system.

My friend is visibly suffering from depression and has applied for countless jobs but has heard nothing back.

wolfpawnat

thebman wrote: »

I think the figures are a con and they are doing anything to refuse people welfare to meet the targets where as before this they would have bent rules to fill the cracks in the existing system.

This is something I think is happening too. My partner got a medical card because he was in college, but since it was a second degree he had no grant. We actually have a letter from the state, nulling said card because...........he had no income! I shít you not! They need to reduce the numbers and rather than doing it legitimately, they are going to do it as swiftly as possible and will hurt innocent people to do it.

There is nothing wrong with looking into a person's finances, but if they are clean leave them alone. I hate it when you see those who were lazy during the boom being left alone and now all the new claimants that have recently lost their jobs are being persecuted unjustly.

jimmycrackcorm

thebman wrote: »

I know someone who I suspect was reported.

Their dole got cut off because they should have been on back to education allowance and not job seekers and then they had to drop out of college because they couldn't afford it so they got told they were entitled to nothing!

So they are living with their parents, the state refuses to help them at all and to top it off the person that reported did so because their father wouldn't sell them a plot of land to try to force their hand. They did the same to this persons brother but they were doing nothing wrong so got it suspended for a month or two then got it back.

The other person is stressed out of their mind with debt collectors coming after them with no way back to jobseekers until they are out of work and college courses for 12 months. Can't even go for job bridge jobs or on education courses in the mean time.

I think the figures are a con and they are doing anything to refuse people welfare to meet the targets where as before this they would have bent rules to fill the cracks in the existing system.

My friend is visibly suffering from depression and has applied for countless jobs but has heard nothing back.

So basically your friend was fraudulently claiming the dole while undertaking and education? Also I'm curious why their father would sell this piece of land to help fund their child's education. Instead you seem to blame the state for your friend being depressed.

Rightwing

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

So basically your friend was fraudulently claiming the dole while undertaking and education? Also I'm curious why their father would sell this piece of land to help fund their child's education. Instead you seem to blame the state for your friend being depressed.

I wouldn't report a welfare fraud until I see the fraud of politics cleaned up.

And I'm very much against welfare in it's current format.

thebman

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

So basically your friend was fraudulently claiming the dole while undertaking and education? Also I'm curious why their father would sell this piece of land to help fund their child's education. Instead you seem to blame the state for your friend being depressed.

That completely ignores the point that the person didn't know what they were supposed to be claiming because the system is too complex.

The department should have worked with them to help resolve the issue rather than cut them off as these are peoples lives.

They were trying to sell the land but it got into a legal dispute with the people they were trying to sell it to and the whole thing got held up because the people buying the land started messing about. It was at that point that they decided to get out of the sale because of the messing about which is why I suspect this person reported them.

avalon68

thebman wrote: »

That completely ignores the point that the person didn't know what they were supposed to be claiming because the system is too complex.

Ah now....seriously. If you can manage to go to college I think you can manage to find out what you are entitled to claim. Personally, I feel he should have to pay back what was fraudulently claimed.

carpejugulum

sickening sense of entitlement ITT

Tim Robbins

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I don't know anyone who has reported fraud or anyone who has been found out. Are the media being accurate with all this?

I can't imagine it is something people would discuss - either reporting or being reported.

I have no particular problem with suspected fraud being reported.

Is there any potential punishment if someone makes a malicious report?

Godge

wolfpawnat wrote: »

This is something I think is happening too. My partner got a medical card because he was in college, but since it was a second degree he had no grant. We actually have a letter from the state, nulling said card because...........he had no income! I shít you not! They need to reduce the numbers and rather than doing it legitimately, they are going to do it as swiftly as possible and will hurt innocent people to do it.

There is nothing wrong with looking into a person's finances, but if they are clean leave them alone. I hate it when you see those who were lazy during the boom being left alone and now all the new claimants that have recently lost their jobs are being persecuted unjustly.

I have children over 21 in college, working part-time jobs to support themselves, not entiteld to a medical card or anything. Why should someone get a medical card just because they are in college?

Godge

thebman wrote: »

That completely ignores the point that the person didn't know what they were supposed to be claiming because the system is too complex.

The department should have worked with them to help resolve the issue rather than cut them off as these are peoples lives.

They were trying to sell the land but it got into a legal dispute with the people they were trying to sell it to and the whole thing got held up because the people buying the land started messing about. It was at that point that they decided to get out of the sale because of the messing about which is why I suspect this person reported them.

People with wealth in the form of land that is saleable claiming welfare illegally.

No wonder the ordinary working person is completely fed up with the welfare system and their taxes being milked.

wolfpawnat

Godge wrote: »

I have children over 21 in college, working part-time jobs to support themselves, not entiteld to a medical card or anything. Why should someone get a medical card just because they are in college?

Because he doesn't have a job (his course does not allow it with it's long hours and the requirement the students do work experience during time they are not in college) and as a result he has 0 income, so 0 income means unable to pay for basic healthcare, surely that is a basic human right? If he has to go to the doctor he has to go to his pension aged mother for 50e. The reason I stated he was in college was to explain that he is not in employment or on JSA

creedp

Godge wrote: »

I have children over 21 in college, working part-time jobs to support themselves, not entiteld to a medical card or anything. Why should someone get a medical card just because they are in college?

That is the reason people in full time education up to 25 years of age are assessed on the basis of their family's income. Otherwise students from well off families would qualify for medical card as they have no income in their own right while young people on low income wouldn't. Problem with all hard cut off points of course is that some deserving people also fall outside the net.

Godge

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Because he doesn't have a job (his course does not allow it with it's long hours and the requirement the students do work experience during time they are not in college) and as a result he has 0 income, so 0 income means unable to pay for basic healthcare, surely that is a basic human right? If he has to go to the doctor he has to go to his pension aged mother for 50e. The reason I stated he was in college was to explain that he is not in employment or on JSA

Lots of courses have long hours and work experience but only people on grants and social welfare (or people from South Dublin) don't work part-time while in college.

If you are from an ordinary working family, you must work part-time, you use the college doctor (either cheap or free - which college is charging 50 euro?), you do without but they just get on with it.

wolfpawnat

Godge wrote: »

Lots of courses have long hours and work experience but only people on grants and social welfare (or people from South Dublin) don't work part-time while in college.

If you are from an ordinary working family, you must work part-time, you use the college doctor (either cheap or free - which college is charging 50 euro?), you do without but they just get on with it.

He has no holidays (they HAVE to do work experience, it is part of their course) and has to study nights and weekends as he has 8-5 lectures (minus hour for lunch) so no there is no time for him to get a job. Also UCD doctor has a 2/3 week waiting list so unless it is an STD, you sorta need to go see a doctor sooner than that. He has no SW, he has no grants and he is not from South Dub.

We survive on my very measily SW payment for us and our son, €217 a week for three people. Since he lives with us and I never claimed otherwise, we have to pay for all medical visits as "His father should be working" in an economic downturn where there are no jobs, him being on the dole seems more acceptable to people than trying to better himself. :rolleyes: He lost his job in the bust, and had to retrain. So no aid from anyone other than the credit union for the loan to do so.

antoobrien

Godge wrote: »

People with wealth in the form of land that is saleable claiming welfare illegally.

As usual the lack of differentiation between "wealth" and "income". One can have 20 acres of farmland but if you have to sell 1 acre at a time (approx 5-10k) in order to pay bills then there's no "wealth" attached to owning that land.

creedp

antoobrien wrote: »

As usual the lack of differentiation between "wealth" and "income". One can have 20 acres of farmland but if you have to sell 1 acre at a time (approx 5-10k) in order to pay bills then there's no "wealth" attached to owning that land.

While I don't disagree with you .. I would say the same applies to non-farm assets including cash in bank. I'm open to correction but can't you have up to €60k in the bank and qualify for a medical card? That money is only assessed in terms of it interest earning ability. For me that's a disgrace.. you get a medical card because you can't afford the pay the GP without causing you undue hardship and yet you can have €60k in the bank. The same applies with houses .. again I think its actually possible to own a house and a holiday home and write the 2 mortgage off against your income for the purposes of a medical card. Complete madness!

Godge

antoobrien wrote: »

As usual the lack of differentiation between "wealth" and "income". One can have 20 acres of farmland but if you have to sell 1 acre at a time (approx 5-10k) in order to pay bills then there's no "wealth" attached to owning that land.

Wealth is accumulated income.

If you have 20 acres of farmland worth 200k (at 10k per acre) separate from your house with off-farm income of €30k per year, then you are wealthier than someone with income of €35k per year as you have a bank of €200k in stored income.

The same applies to other forms of wealth such as shares, second houses and apartments, cash etc.

Income is an indicator of future wealth, not wealth now.

We Irish have a very strange attitude to wealth, particularly wealth in the form of land and property.

antoobrien

Godge wrote: »

Wealth is accumulated income.

If you have 20 acres of farmland worth 200k (at 10k per acre) separate from your house with off-farm income of €30k per year, then you are wealthier than someone with income of €35k per year as you have a bank of €200k in stored income.

In that case, a dwelling is on average 175k stored income, and before anyone gets welfare they should be forced to sell that asset.

Neither dwellings nor land are stored income or wealth, they are potential income dependent on several factors e.g. finding a buyer or a reasonable price. It does not always make sense to release the value of land.

Describing land as "stored income" totally ignores the potential for current income from the land. I know farmers that rent their land to their neighbours, allowing them both to prosper, while not burdening one/both with debt in order to pay to buy the land

I'll give you a verifiable real world example, there's a field beside a golf club in Galway, where the farmer is leasing a small plot of land to the club. I think the field is 5 acres, so it's worth 50k based on the going rate of agricultural land. The farmer leases a small corner, perhaps 100sq. meters to the local golf club for a nominal fee - which helps to pay for harvesting silage, buying feed and such.

Now under your theory that's 50k "stored income", but that discounts the income that could be made from say renting the land to his neighbour (which would be more in the long term).

It makes sense for the golf club to try to buy the field, it'll cut out an expense and give room for expansion, but it doesn't make sense for the farmer to sell because he's getting a his costs subsidised, and getting more or less the same income from the field.

For him, taking the "stored" value of the field does not make sense - in fact, in most cases it currently makes less sense for landowners to sell land, especially if it's to try to fund short term income.

creedp

antoobrien wrote: »

It makes sense for the golf club to try to buy the field, it'll cut out an expense and give room for expansion, but it doesn't make sense for the farmer to sell because he's getting a his costs subsidised, and getting more or less the same income from the field.

For him, taking the "stored" value of the field does not make sense - in fact, in most cases it currently makes less sense for landowners to sell land, especially if it's to try to fund short term income.

That's fine and dandy but at the end of the day when it suits him the farmer can sell the filed and realise probably a lot more that €50k. The point is then why should he get a social benefit because he no/low income when someone with no assets but with a slightly higher income get nothing?

antoobrien

creedp wrote: »

That's fine and dandy but at the end of the day when it suits him the farmer can sell the filed and realise probably a lot more that €50k. The point is then why should he get a social benefit because he no/low income when someone with no assets but with a slightly higher income get nothing?

That's conditional on one of his neighbour(s) being willing & able to buy, the land may well be sold far less than that figure as the land will be useless to anybody else (e.g. me) without also buying the farmhouse (planning regulations making it highly unlikely to be useful for housing) - meaning that the farmer will have to move.

There's 31 acres of farmland on sale near my family home, but none of the neighbours can afford to pay 300k for it. Does that make it 300k of "stored income" for the family that own it when it can't be disposed of?

Bringing it back to the person mentioned, it appears that they were reported because they were claiming back to education after they had dropped out of college, combined with a 1 year restriction before they can get a new SW payment. It has nothing to do with a means test of the value of the land, or the other person mentioned would have also lost his entitlements due to the notional stored income.

Godge

antoobrien wrote: »

In that case, a dwelling is on average 175k stored income, and before anyone gets welfare they should be forced to sell that asset.

Neither dwellings nor land are stored income or wealth, they are potential income dependent on several factors e.g. finding a buyer or a reasonable price. It does not always make sense to release the value of land.

Describing land as "stored income" totally ignores the potential for current income from the land. I know farmers that rent their land to their neighbours, allowing them both to prosper, while not burdening one/both with debt in order to pay to buy the land

I'll give you a verifiable real world example, there's a field beside a golf club in Galway, where the farmer is leasing a small plot of land to the club. I think the field is 5 acres, so it's worth 50k based on the going rate of agricultural land. The farmer leases a small corner, perhaps 100sq. meters to the local golf club for a nominal fee - which helps to pay for harvesting silage, buying feed and such.

Now under your theory that's 50k "stored income", but that discounts the income that could be made from say renting the land to his neighbour (which would be more in the long term).

It makes sense for the golf club to try to buy the field, it'll cut out an expense and give room for expansion, but it doesn't make sense for the farmer to sell because he's getting a his costs subsidised, and getting more or less the same income from the field.

For him, taking the "stored" value of the field does not make sense - in fact, in most cases it currently makes less sense for landowners to sell land, especially if it's to try to fund short term income.

In the example you give, the farmer rents out the land cheaply to the golf club and gets a low income in return which probably qualifies him for grants he otherwise wouldn't have got, leaving him no worse off. By the circular route, the taxpayer subsidises the rich wealthy land-owning members of the golf club - still not an example that persuades me.

In an equal and fair society the ability to acquire wealth has to be available to all. Some wealth, in the form of land is fixed and immutable (except for the Netherlands which reclaims it from the sea) and the principles of equality mean that there should be a way for land to come on the market. Taxing the holding of land for non-productive purposes is one way of ensuring this equality. Therefore a farmer who does not farm his land will have to sell it to pay the tax. A developer who does not develop his zoned site will have to sell it to pay the tax. This creates the ability for others to acquire the wealth and ensures that our society does not become an unequal and unfair one where the holders of land, property and wealth do not change and perpetuate themselves and their families into eternity.

Too often it seems to me that Irish independence wasn't about creating a free republic, it was just about replacing British landowners with Irish landowners, the only difference for the ordinary guy starting from the bottom was the nationality of those with wealth trying to screw him.

Essentially what I am arguing is that without a tax on imputed income from wealth, you do not have a fair society that allows all the ability to acquire wealth. If that is the society we choose, at least let us admit to that and not hide behind arguments that it is only income that should be taxed.

Godge

antoobrien wrote: »

That's conditional on one of his neighbour(s) being willing & able to buy, the land may well be sold far less than that figure as the land will be useless to anybody else (e.g. me) without also buying the farmhouse (planning regulations making it highly unlikely to be useful for housing) - meaning that the farmer will have to move.

There's 31 acres of farmland on sale near my family home, but none of the neighbours can afford to pay 300k for it. Does that make it 300k of "stored income" for the family that own it when it can't be disposed of?

.

There is plenty of farmland sold without selling the farmhouse on it. It would only be if there was unusual access issues or other legal problems that would prevent it.

As for the 31 acres of 300k of "stored income", the example just means it is not 300k, it is closer to 200k of "stored income" i.e. a price that someone is willing to pay.

creedp

antoobrien wrote: »

That's conditional on one of his neighbour(s) being willing & able to buy, the land may well be sold far less than that figure as the land will be useless to anybody else (e.g. me) without also buying the farmhouse (planning regulations making it highly unlikely to be useful for housing) - meaning that the farmer will have to move.

There's 31 acres of farmland on sale near my family home, but none of the neighbours can afford to pay 300k for it. Does that make it 300k of "stored income" for the family that own it when it can't be disposed of?

Bringing it back to the person mentioned, it appears that they were reported because they were claiming back to education after they had dropped out of college, combined with a 1 year restriction before they can get a new SW payment. It has nothing to do with a means test of the value of the land, or the other person mentioned would have also lost his entitlements due to the notional stored income.

I think the issue here is one of equality in how people are treated from a social benefits perspective. Is it OK for the family of a farmer/any other asset holder to benefit from social payments/benefits even though the parent(s) are sitting on valuable assets that can be sold or transferred to the family at any point simply because the asset is not currently realising a high enough income while the family of a low paid worker with no assets can't qualify for these benefits because the family inocme is currently above a threshold?

sarumite

I may be missing something here? Is the argument that say a taxi driver has a car worth 10k, then s/he can sell the car thus releasing the 10K? However once the car is sold, the taxi driver no longer has the means to earn an income thus putting them into a situation whereby they may need to claim some sort of SW.

antoobrien

creedp wrote: »

I think the issue here is one of equality in how people are treated from a social benefits perspective. Is it OK for the family of a farmer/any other asset holder to benefit from social payments/benefits even though the parent(s) are sitting on valuable assets that can be sold or transferred to the family at any point simply because the asset is not currently realising a high enough income while the family of a low paid worker with no assets can't qualify for these benefits because the family inocme is currently above a threshold?

Same question for somebody living in a house/apartment?

creedp

creedp wrote: »

I think the issue here is one of equality in how people are treated from a social benefits perspective. Is it OK for the family of a farmer/any other asset holder to benefit from social payments/benefits even though the parent(s) are sitting on valuable assets that can be sold or transferred to the family at any point simply because the asset is not currently realising a high enough income while the family of a low paid worker with no assets can't qualify for these benefits because the family inocme is currently above a threshold?

Are you not contradicting yourself here - if their income is above a threshold can they be called low income?

(disclaimer - I'm a farmers son and got a grant to go to college.)

Chris_5339762

Of course farmland is stored income. If noone is willing to pay €300k for it, drop the price until people can afford it.

Its the same as me having money in the bank.

antoobrien

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

Of course farmland is stored income. If noone is willing to pay €300k for it, drop the price until people can afford it.

Its the same as me having money in the bank.

Back to the 31 acres above (near the Galway city boundary). Zoned as agricultural land, it's useless to anybody but the neighbours.

Despite the fact that it can't be sold it's somehow stored income? Doesn't make sense Chris, not in the slightest.

creedp

Deleted User wrote: »

Are you not contradicting yourself here - if their income is above a threshold can they be called low income?

(disclaimer - I'm a farmers son and got a grant to go to college.)

So am I and also got one (call me hypocritical)!! Doesn't mean to say I don't think it can lead to inequity, particularly where arrangements such as income from asset being artifically/deliberately depressed in the year a grant is being sought. Or farm being handed over to offspring to qualify for the non-con pension!

In relation to the apparent contradiction I just want to clarify that a low income person with no assets can be just above a pretty low threshold while the person with a valuable asset which is under utilised/income deliberately reduced for the reference year can qualify for grants, etc even though income is only marginally less. Q is though who is wealthier and does this result in unacceptable inequality?

Godge

sarumite wrote: »

I may be missing something here? Is the argument that say a taxi driver has a car worth 10k, then s/he can sell the car thus releasing the 10K? However once the car is sold, the taxi driver no longer has the means to earn an income thus putting them into a situation whereby they may need to claim some sort of SW.

A taxi is a depreciating asset, agricultural land is rarely a depreciating asset.

Consider this. Taxi driver or someone else has business assets of 50k and income of 30k p.a. Employee has income of 30k p.a.

Next day, Taxi driver and employee share euromillions jackpot and give up work. Both are now wealthy men but the taxi driver is worth half the euromillions jackpot plus 50k while the employee is only worth half the euromillions jackpot. So the taxi driver is wealthier.

Step back one day and take away the euromillions jackpot and the taxi driver is still wealthier.

sarumite

Godge wrote: »

A taxi is a depreciating asset, agricultural land is rarely a depreciating asset.

Consider this. Taxi driver or someone else has business assets of 50k and income of 30k p.a. Employee has income of 30k p.a.

Next day, Taxi driver and employee share euromillions jackpot and give up work. Both are now wealthy men but the taxi driver is worth half the euromillions jackpot plus 50k while the employee is only worth half the euromillions jackpot. So the taxi driver is wealthier.

Step back one day and take away the euromillions jackpot and the taxi driver is still wealthier.

And if the taxi driver or someone else has to sell the asset, they have an income of €0 whereas the employee still has an income of 30k. That is the problem. Wealth and income are two different things. A business asset has some similarities to a pensions in that neither of them are "income" until the person stops working.

Godge

sarumite wrote: »

And if the taxi driver or someone else has to sell the asset, they have an income of €0 whereas the employee still has an income of 30k. That is the problem. Wealth and income are two different things. A business asset has some similarities to a pensions in that neither of them are "income" until the person stops working.

Hmmm, there are lots of people on here who suggest public service pay should be lower to account for the better pensions which means they ascribe a value to the pension but they don't to a business asset.

antoobrien

Godge wrote: »

Hmmm, there are lots of people on here who suggest public service pay should be lower to account for the better pensions which means they ascribe a value to the pension but they don't to a business asset.

If a person makes income off land it is because they have either sold it - thereby removing it as a future source of income - or exploited it, which requires work & capital. There is no guarantee that the work and capital will return income. Just take a look at all the ghost estates around the country.

On the other hand a pension is very long term savings scheme that is designed to provide a certain amount of income when it becomes available to the pension holder (or their dependents).

Besides it has been proven that the benefits from PS pensions & job security are far lower than the portion contributed by the PS worker.

sarumite

Godge wrote: »

Hmmm, there are lots of people on here who suggest public service pay should be lower to account for the better pensions which means they ascribe a value to the pension but they don't to a business asset.

Don't be ridiculous. No one has even suggested that there is not value to a business asset. However many business assets are not liquid assets as they are necessary for the running of the business, thus the asset is not saleable as the person relys on it to generate an income. Much like a pension lump sum, the monetary value of the assets of a farm (or taxi ) can only be attained after the farmer (or taxi driver) has stopped working.

Scortho

wolfpawnat wrote: »

He has no holidays (they HAVE to do work experience, it is part of their course) and has to study nights and weekends as he has 8-5 lectures (minus hour for lunch) so no there is no time for him to get a job. Also UCD doctor has a 2/3 week waiting list so unless it is an STD, you sorta need to go see a doctor sooner than that. He has no SW, he has no grants and he is not from South Dub.

We survive on my very measily SW payment for us and our son, €217 a week for three people. Since he lives with us and I never claimed otherwise, we have to pay for all medical visits as "His father should be working" in an economic downturn where there are no jobs, him being on the dole seems more acceptable to people than trying to better himself. :rolleyes: He lost his job in the bust, and had to retrain. So no aid from anyone other than the credit union for the loan to do so.

What a load of codswollop. Im sorry im in the same situation college wise with pharmacy. Ive a mix of lectures and labs from 9-5 Monday to friday. I commute to college so I leave at half 7 and am rarely home before half eight at night.
Theres a thing called the weekends where i work two 12 hour shifts. And guess what I survive. You study after the lectures are over and after work. I even have time to go out with friends once a week. Why do I work? I dont want to be relying on my parents to put me through college. Im 21 for christ sake, a big boy now. I cant be living of hand outs from them. If i wasnt working, Id be going to the credit union and taking out a loan to pay my college registration fee.
The doctor in tcd is the same. If you want to make an appointment theres a two-three week waiting period. there is also a walk in service but you'd need to queue an hour- an hour and a half beforehand to guarantee getting seen. Harsh but the reality of free gp care.
On the no aid issue, your child actually is getting a significant support to many of the tax payers who have posted in this thread. Look at the cost of his education here in Ireland and compare that to the cost of his education in either England or the United States. Significantly cheaper in Ireland even though we're bankrupt. Personally as a student, Id rather see the ending of the registration charge and in exchange a graduate tax instead.

nice_guy80

I still don't see why the Child Welfare payments aren't made in a non-cash form

ie some sort of voucher system or electronic card which can only be spent on food, clothing or other items.

I still maintain the biggest fraud in the welfare system is by parents who mis-spend their child welfare payments.

goose2005

Godge wrote: »

Too often it seems to me that Irish independence wasn't about creating a free republic, it was just about replacing British landowners with Irish landowners, the only difference for the ordinary guy starting from the bottom was the nationality of those with wealth trying to screw him.

It goes back earlier than that, the Land League talked about "the land for the people" but it wasn't all the people - just the peasant proprietors. The labourers got nothing.

sarumite wrote: »

I may be missing something here? Is the argument that say a taxi driver has a car worth 10k, then s/he can sell the car thus releasing the 10K? However once the car is sold, the taxi driver no longer has the means to earn an income thus putting them into a situation whereby they may need to claim some sort of SW.

Maybe if the driver inherited the car and paid little or no tax on it. And even though his taxi firm lost money every year the government handed him a big wedge because sure taxis are mainstays of the economy.

Godge wrote: »

Lots of courses have long hours and work experience but only people on grants and social welfare (or people from South Dublin) don't work part-time while in college.

Or people who can't find part-time work, because there isn't any.

If you are from an ordinary working family, you must work part-time, you use the college doctor (either cheap or free - which college is charging 50 euro?), you do without but they just get on with it.

College doctors may have long waiting lists.

stoneill

What has any of the above shíte got to do with welfare fraud?
We know the stuff the OP is talking about, the people who have no visible means of income yet are in the pub and bookies every day.
The single mother with kids from different blokes and living with HSE rent in the same type house that you have paid for over 20 years.
The bloke with the medical card off down the doctor every week claiming ill health and poverty but still gets sky sports.
The van load of labourers who stop off at the sign on centre.
You seen them, they need reporting, not the student who's dad owns a farm, or a taxi driver trying to earn a crust.

AlekSmart

stoneill wrote: »

What has any of the above shíte got to do with welfare fraud?

We know the stuff the OP is talking about, the people who have no visible means of income yet are in the pub and bookies every day.

The single mother with kids from different blokes and living with HSE rent in the same type house that you have paid for over 20 years.

The bloke with the medical card off down the doctor every week claiming ill health and poverty but still gets sky sports.

The van load of labourers who stop off at the sign on centre.

You seen them, they need reporting,not the student who's dad owns a farm, or a taxi driver trying to earn a crust.

All quite true,even if many would suggest,overstated.

There is however another element to the greater equation which involves Public Order.

With the DSP having assumed the role over the past decade of a dei-facto employer,it must now maintain the standards it developed.

As long as it's customers continue to enjoy the existing levels of cash and subsidiary benefit,then they will not be congregating outside Dáil Eireann with ill intent.

Many people pose questions on Boards and elsewhere about how placid and undemonstrative we Irish are,but the reality is that,in the main,we don't actually have much to demonstrate about.

However,should Government Policy change and stricter operational accounting policies be applied to the DSP,then things could change ?

StillWaters

nice_guy80 wrote: »

I still don't see why the Child Welfare payments aren't made in a non-cash form

ie some sort of voucher system or electronic card which can only be spent on food, clothing or other items.

I still maintain the biggest fraud in the welfare system is by parents who mis-spend their child welfare payments.

I think that's a very good point. A huge part of the problem is over the past 10 years there was a massive shift to cash based payments instead of invetment in social infrastructure. The Early Childcare Payment and big increases in child benefit instead of State subsidised childcare and free school meals for example. And now it is very difficult to row back from without creatin a very peed off electorate.

Re the OP I know of a lot of people who were caught for double claiming and have 1000s of euro to pay back. They weren't reported, they were caught when systems and departments finally started talking to each other.

morlock_

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Another few thousand cases!

I don't know anyone who has reported fraud or anyone who has been found out. Are the media being accurate with all this?

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2013/0308/breaking30.html

Anybody know someone who reported or who was reported on?

Even with the reports, Fraud is acceptable in Ireland, it was built on fraud and criminality. That's why it faces current financial problems with those responsible, living it up on some sandy warm beach drinking pina coladas and banging hookers in the evening at your expense...

These bankers stole billions from the country which generations of Irish will pay for and not one of them is locked up. It's even a criminal offense to complain about it.

Back in the 80s and 90s, it was perfectly normal for people to work cash in hand and collect benefits, I don't see how anything has changed and I don't expect it to unless you want a mass exodus from rural areas not seen since the days of the famine.

People realised long ago that unless you're working for the government in some way or have attained qualifications necessary to obtain well paid job in private sector, you will be better off on the dole with some work on the side .

In Ireland, if you 'do the right thing' you get penalised for it. Working hard doesn't pay because the more you make, the more the government thinks it's entitled to.

For example, I worked with some people who were personally millionaires from the construction boom, they have kids and are entitled to collect child benefits, which they naturally do.

Because I'm single and don't have kids, I get taxed to the balls, how can this be?
I am subsidising this system which is being exploited to the fullest and after a long think, I will join in exploiting it too very soon until the country gets it's act together.

The harder you work in Ireland, the more an employer / government take advantage of you so why bother? Just become part of the criminal network, it pays to be a crook in Ireland, very well in fact as some bankers will attest to.

StillWaters

morlock_ wrote: »

Even with the reports, Fraud is acceptable in Ireland, it was built on fraud and criminality.....
In Ireland, if you 'do the right thing' you get penalised for it. Working hard doesn't pay because the more you make, the more the government thinks it's entitled to.....

Because I'm single and don't have kids, I get taxed to the balls, how can this be.

Can you explain how the State was built on fraud?

The more you earn, the more tax you pay. Good luck finding an economy where this doesnt apply.

You are not taxed to the balls, it might feel like it, noone likes paying tax, but we remain a relatively low tax economy.

morlock_

StillWaters wrote: »

Can you explain how the State was built on fraud?

Corruption.
Whether it be dishonest business practices, bribery, embezzlement, cronyism, fraud...Ireland has it all.

Take Charlie Haughey and Bertie Ahern for example.
They were hardly honest, hard working men of integrity but they were highly successful in Ireland and Irish people loved them, no doubt some still do remember them fondly.

There's an old Chinese proverb that exemplifies the effect their behaviour had on the rest of the country: "A fish rots from the head down"

If anyone is responsible for the level of corruption in this country, it's people like that as our leadership.

The more you earn, the more tax you pay. Good luck finding an economy where this doesnt apply.

I'm not moving anywhere. I'm leaving my job and signing on, then I'll be looking at ways to make money on the side and take it easy like a lot of others.

I have old friends that would have just stayed on the dole for years even during the boom, working some odd jobs. Nothing official, just cash in hand.

There isn't a huge disparity between living conditions. The extra income I make has to pay for what they get subsidised such as medical bills or rent.

Certainly I would have more disposable money, but nothing to reflect the amount of energy/effort invested in what I do. It's just not worth it here in Ireland.

With the extra income I make, I'll never afford a house but those on the council list might actually get one before I do and I'll be paying for it in taxes!!!

You are not taxed to the balls, it might feel like it, noone likes paying tax, but we remain a relatively low tax economy.

After income tax, there's VAT on goods and services so I'd be skeptical of Ireland being a low tax economy. It's certainly low for foreign companies to setup here and make profits, but not for the average person working.

Some of the married men I work with pay less tax than I do because they have children and despite their millions in the bank are still entitled to collect child benefits...do you think that's a fair system? That I be expected to subsidise a benefit they clearly don't need?

I know children are important for the future but I don't see why it's necessary to tax me more to subsidise a welfare system which many people exploit so instead of moaning about it, I plan on joining them.

Why am I expected to pay more tax because I'm single?
It's almost like you're punished in Ireland for being single and having no kids, I doubt it's the "same everywhere"

StillWaters

You really should move somewhere you know. Living here on this small island seems to have jaded you and you still appear from your posts to be young. Go explore and make somethinng of yourself before giving into that ugly mindset.

thebman

StillWaters wrote: »

Can you explain how the State was built on fraud?

The more you earn, the more tax you pay. Good luck finding an economy where this doesnt apply.

You are not taxed to the balls, it might feel like it, noone likes paying tax, but we remain a relatively low tax economy.

Single people in this country are taxed to the balls compared to families and at the end of the day, its all relative.

Article in the Irish Times yesterday about it based on OECD statistics.

Can't find the article on their website (I read it in the paper) but it looks like the stats came from here:
http://www.oecd.org/ireland/taxingwagescountrynoteforireland.htm

StillWaters

thebman wrote: »

Single people in this country are taxed to the balls compared to families and at the end of the day, its all relative.

Article in the Irish Times yesterday about it based on OECD statistics.

Can't find the article on their website (I read it in the paper) but it looks like the stats came from here:
http://www.oecd.org/ireland/taxingwagescountrynoteforireland.htm

They really arent. Did you read that link?

thebman

StillWaters wrote: »

They really arent. Did you read that link?

Yes they are. Single people are, single parent families aren't...

Families in general in this country are over subsidized compared to the OECD average.

Count Dooku

StillWaters wrote: »

You are not taxed to the balls, it might feel like it, noone likes paying tax, but we remain a relatively low tax economy.

Yep, there are 9 countries in the world where taxes are higher
http://www.cnbc.com/id/47290212/page/2
But if you will take in account crap services what people are getting for their taxes, Ireland become definitely place where people taxed to the balls