highest number of houses with nobody working

generalmental

Voltex wrote: »

...at least three times in the last 6 months I have been told by people who I was interviewing that they were better off on the dole. The rationale that follows is that the welfare system in this state has created a barrier between a capable person to work and the opportunity to work.

People will always chose the situation that best suits them..and not for one minute do I blame or accuse the folks that turned me down in favour of welfare...but we do need to look at the systems in place.

Ever stop and think maybe the wages on offer was not enough for people to live on.

ardmacha

Ever stop and think maybe the wages on offer was not enough for people to live on.

With the minimum wage laws, this seems unlikely. More likely the wages do not support the lifestyle people wish to have.

robp

maninasia wrote: »

What's a normal job? It's just a job at the end of the day, even if it requires a certain level of experience and qualifications and responsibility.

What's the point of offering more training places if there are not enough consultant jobs or money to support them already to go around in the current system. Activate your brain man!

Your correct a shortage of consultants is a separate issue but a lack of training NCHD positions is a major problem in its own right. If Irish NCHD positions have no training attached they are undesirable dead end jobs. This is why we export top notch medical graduates and import second rate NCHDs. Foreign born NCHDs commit a greatly disproportionate amount malpractice. The consultant shortage is being alleviated by a gradual increase and an increase in their working hours. I think it hasn't happened as smoothly as ideal but still.

maninasia wrote: »

The situation for education and teaching is similar. Religion is tolerated to a massive degree, when it has no place in the education system. One size fits all education is also extremely outdated in the 21st century.

You say that education should be flexible and not a one-size fits all model and then claim that religion has no place in education.
Its true the leaving cert is fairly rigid but there are so many subjects to choose from and there is the option of the leaving cert applied.

Icepick

It's because Ireland has the highest number of households with a single parent.

maninasia

robp wrote: »

You say that education should be flexible and not a one-size fits all model and then claim that religion has no place in education.
Its true the leaving cert is fairly rigid but there are so many subjects to choose from and there is the option of the leaving cert applied.

Again you've missed my point regards whats best for patients rather than doctors. More doctors, more available specialists...patients need access to quality care early not too little of the best care too late.

Religion is a personal thing it doesn't belong in the field of education in my opinion. If somebody wants to send their kids to a school to get a religious education fine, but don't expect taxpayers to pay for that. The state should fund non religious schools only.

Also apart from the issue of indoctrination religious classes take away time where students could be learning something useful instead like a European or Asian language or more in depth maths classes. Maybe they could also be replaced by 'civics, politics and economics' classes whereby Irish students would have exposure to the different ways societies and governments and perhaps cultures operate around the world.

The leaving cert should have more project focused work included (is this leaving cert applied?) , that said I don't pretend to be up to the minute as regards the current way it is run.

goz83

red

maninasia wrote: »

Religion is a personal thing it doesn't belong in the field of education in my opinion

I'm not particularly religious, but I do like my kids to be exposed to the catholic religion at school. It is educational, just not in the sense that you are talking about. For me, religion was always a bit of a break from the otherwise hard graft study at school.

Also apart from the issue of indoctrination religious classes take away time where students could be learning something useful

As above, it is a break from the normal work at school and is usually only a few minutes out of the day. I would argue that the religion class is one where a basic level of morality and respect is drilled into the kids heads, especially in schools that get the less well behaved kids. It's that, or stun guns

The leaving cert should have more project focused work included (is this leaving cert applied?).

Yeah the LCA is continuous assessment, rather than one big exam per subject. However, it does not carry the same weight as a proper leaving cert. I'm not putting the LCA down...I don't have either.

Thread is a bit OT now

Icepick

Icepick wrote: »

It's because Ireland has the highest number of households with a single parent.

If they are not on welfare does it matter to this thread, In the vast majority of loan parent households, the parent works I think it is something like 80% of loan parents have some sort of job, however it might not be a full time job.

Almach

Almach wrote: »

With the minimum wage laws, this seems unlikely. More likely the wages do not support the lifestyle people wish to have.

So what life style do you think people should be contented with.

creedp

mariaalice wrote: »

So what life style do you think people should be contented with.

Its not just a cash related lifestyle decison though .. why would you commit to work a full time job and all the hassle with having to go to work, commuting, childcare, etc unless there is a significant premium for doing so. Minimum wage rate does not provide this premium when you have chldren. Simple as that. If we want people caught in this category to enter the workforce we we either reform welfare or increase minimum wage rates. Otherwise we will have to accept status quo that a signifiant number of families will intentionally remain outside the workforce for perfectly understandable rational reasons.

As a worker would you change a job for a small wage increase if the workload/responsibility/cost of going to work increased such that your disposable income is actually reduced? Why do you think people on welfare should think any differently? Currently, persons on welfare with young families are thinking rationally.

opiniated

Sleepy wrote: »

The numbers on long-term welfare with Sky Satellite dishes, cars, regular trips to the pub, smoking 20 a day and going on sun holidays would suggest otherwise.

Link?

SpaceTime wrote: »

I think when you compare 'traditional services' like Health and Education which have massive legacy issues to modern Irish public services e.g. take the NCT or something like that, and it's like night and day.

One's modern and efficient and accountable the other's a heaving mess of religious institutions that are getting big cheques to provide outsourced services.

The HSE and Department of Education have, in reality, major problems with control over how money is spent.
You've massive control by religious charities and then you've got massive control by very powerful professionals and endless vested interests (including community lobbying) that is never dealt with.

If you take something like the hospital system. We do actually need to centralise very specialist services into major centres of excellence with outreach centres in the local hospitals that can do on-going maintenence e.g. deliver chemotherapy in a small hospital that's been planned by say Cork University Hospital or Vincents or whatever. But, instead that's fought against and everyone wants a full cancer treatment facility in every local hospital which is just not possible if you want to actually get cured of cancer as the technology and expertise involved is too specialist and expensive.

Consultants' salaries are too high as are a lot of other medical professionals across the whole system. The issue with that is that the HSE sees itself as competing with economic bubble economies like Australia which is vastly overpaying public health professionals and pulling people out of public systems in Ireland and Britain at the moment. There's nothing we can do about that but we should start recognising continental qualifications in medicine and encouraging some of those people in.

We should also look at locking medical graduates into the health system on contract for say 4 or 5 years.

There's also a huge problem with the whole way that professional development and career paths are handled here for doctors, nurses and other professionals in the health system (although to a lesser extent in more modern professions).

The doctors are treated like slaves as juniors and given no proper development path and they are all aiming at this lucrative jackpot of becoming 'the consultant' who gets paid a fortune for a short period of their career.

We need to have it run much more like a normal employment system i.e. you get position and title as you move up through the profession and have normal and reasonable hours. We would then have a load of specialists who were not at consultant level of pay.

Consultants' pay also needs to come down big time.

There are also significant problems with control and monitoring of spending in the Irish health system because there appears to be no integrated accounts system that can show you the entire health system i.e. all HSE, the independent (but fully funded) hospitals, the charities that are outsourced services to, the commercial companies that are outsourced to etc etc.

We need a hell of a lot more detail on how spending happens.

There also seems to be a lot of issues in the system with administrators being promoted to management on the basis of seniority (time served) rather than brining in professional management or at the very least insisting that those people do a masters in management to get a promotion.

The result is that we've administration, not management and that tends to create status-quo lock-in.

....

Education suffers from fragmentation because of religious divides and gender divides.
We have too many schools because we have the whole thing divided up into various flavours of catholic school based on what religious order set them up, various protestant schools, educate together then emerged as a response to the complete lack of secular education and it keeps fragmenting more and more.

Every school has overheads notably : buildings, heating and very expensive management overheads in terms of school principals and vice principals.

That spend means that we cannot deliver education in rural schools, we can't employ enough teachers and our class sizes go up and results go down.

I would propose that we do this:

1) Merge the school management systems in areas so that one principal and vice principal runs a group of schools in a given suburb/town rather than having say 6 or 7 principals. The existing principals could simply be retired out and not replaced.

2) Begin merging the schools using existing buildings i.e. put all the juniors into one, all the seniors into another etc and share the other facilities between them.

3) As time goes on, create single campus schools.

Religious education would just have to be provided for outside of school hours. Maybe they could have after-school classes or whatever for people who want to use the space.

....

We aren't being radical in Ireland at all. We've allowed a victorian health care and a victorian education system that was created by charitable religious organisations to become the public system without almost any reform at all!

I'm not on some kind of anti-religious agenda here, but I think that you can provide cost effective, excellent public services but you cannot do them on the basis of having a different school for every religious order and all this endless fragmentation. Religious education really needs to be left up to the parents and religious organisations to deal with out of hours. If they want to, perhaps the schools could be made available as classroom space for preparing for communions etc etc on the weekends or in the evenings.

---

Illustration of fragmentation:

Scotland : (Soruce: Scottish Govt website)
Primary 2,153
Secondary 376
Special 193
Population : 5.295 million

Republic of Ireland
Primary: 3,300 (Schooldays.ie)
Secondary: 723
Special : unknown (couldn't find stats quickly)
Population: 4.589 million

Ireland does have a bit of a baby boom at the moment, but that should be taken up by larger schools, not more fragmentation and overheads.

Babybooms also disappear so you will end up with empty schools, too many principals etc instead of just expanded complexes with more space and reduced class sizes when it passes.

---

We need to benchmark what we are actually doing against countries like France, Germany, Belgium, the UK etc.
From what I can see Ireland's operating in a bubble where we see these things as totally normal because we were all brought up in them. It's even worse if you're a health or education professional as you're an insider and brought up through the system.

Something has to change though as we cannot continue to deliver overpriced, poor quality services because we just cave in to ever vested interest that we encounter.

Injecting a good dose of democracy and accountability into the health and education systems would be a start. I'd like to see for example, a town / county education budget being allocated by a Local Education Authority that had to balance its books and be accountable to the local population directly. E.g. a mix of elected parents, teachers and local directly elected reps.

Health really needs to be coordinated as a hub and spoke system from the big regional centres of excellence at the hospital level and from community clinics at the local level.

.....

The other VERY big one is that we need to completely shake up local governments.

I'd propose :

Maybe 6 county councils replacing all the existing ones and based on population / geographical spread not just random historical grounds. Each would have a council and a direct-elected regional mayor.

Towns and areas of cities of similar size to a large town could simply have a directly elected mayor + a very small council to keep an eye on him/her.

Keep the existing county structure for sign posting, the GAA, and anything tourism / historical related but they should be as relevant to local government as the historical provinces are i.e. they're just historical references..


Sorry for the very long post, but I just think we keep demanding more spending on these daft systems that just burn it instead of reforming the systems to make them deliver effective services.

Money won't fix these problems and it definitely didn't fix them during the the boom/bubble era when it was no object!

Some interesting suggestions. However, I note that nowhere in your post do you mention the elephant in the room - that elephant being the quality of the consultants/teachers/etc.

It's a case of passing an exam, obtaining a position - and having job security for life!
I doubt if anyone reading this doesn't know of a consultant/teacher/hospital manager whose performance is below par.

We need to do more with less money, it's true.
However, without rewards and demotions depending on the quality of service offered, no mere cost-cutting exercise will prove effective.
It's as simple as that.

notharrypotter wrote: »

I think this is a good idea but you may be overestimating the number of schools an most smaller towns so savings are likely to be minimal.
Most small to medium towns would have 2=> 3 primary schools and a similar number of secondary schools.
Or do you equate a Principal = a Principal regardless of Primary qualification vs. Secondary qualification?


Now if you are proposing some "Administrator" with zero professional knowledge of education then that's another problem => too many bean counters already involved.




Some clarification please

All junior infants in one, and senior infants in another while first class is in a third?
This could get interesting very quickly.

Any parent with school going children more than a year apart will testify to the absurdness of this kind of proposal.

Looks good on paper or as a part of some political manifesto but sucks in the real world.

The practicalities of amalgamating smaller rural schools are not simple either.

For a start many of the smaller schools have Teacher-Principals so no saving here.

Many rural schools were sited based on the parish and how far it was practicable to travel.

In more remote areas has the number of enrolments is falling (so too in the centre of some of our larger urban areas).

However there is not that many of conveniently located groupings to permit wholesale consolidation.



There is enough "Management" layers in Irish Government already.
Plans are amended on a regular basis to facilitate development based on special interest as oppose to real need.

Some proper mechanism of oversight and transparency where decision making is concerned would prove more useful.

Well said!

creedp

creedp wrote: »

Its not just a cash related lifestyle decision though .. why would you commit to work a full time job and all the hassle with having to go to work, commuting, childcare, etc unless there is a significant premium for doing so. Minimum wage rate does not provide this premium when you have children. Simple as that. If we want people caught in this category to enter the workforce we we either reform welfare or increase minimum wage rates. Otherwise we will have to accept status quo that a significant number of families will intentionally remain outside the workforce for perfectly understandable rational reasons.

As a worker would you change a job for a small wage increase if the workload/responsibility/cost of going to work increased such that your disposable income is actually reduced? Why do you think people on welfare should think any differently? Currently, persons on welfare with young families are thinking rationally.

I agree with you, however reform of social welfare is about much more than cutting the rates of individual social welfare payments. There are very few full time permanent jobs that pay minimum wage, minimum wage jobs tend to be in areas that often offer 0 hours contracts or contracts that are less than full hours, contracts where the hours of work change form week to week, so it not just about the minimum wage the whole area is extremely complex, it not a simple matter of minimum wages verses welfare.

creedp

mariaalice wrote: »

I agree with you, however reform of social welfare is about much more than cutting the rates of individual social welfare payments. There are very few full time permanent jobs that pay minimum wage, minimum wage jobs then to be in areas that often offer 0 hours contracts or contracts that are less than full hours, contracts where the hours of work change form week to week, so it not just about the minimum wage the whole area is extremely complex, it not a simple matter of minimum wages verses welfare.

Fully agree with you which is why I referred to reform rather than simply cut welfare. I referred to the mimimum wage as the extreme example but would agree the problem exists at wage rates well in excess of minimum wage rates. Root and branch review of social welfare system required. First though we need to identify what it is we want welfare to deliver and if we really do want peole to be incentivised to work then design the welfare system around that objective. Otherwise the status quo will continue and even if welfare rates are reduced there will still be people who are better off on welfare than taking up low paid employment. This should not happen is a well designed system, especially for long term recipients.

Count Dooku

opiniated wrote: »

Link?

According to data from OECD, Ireland is only country where net replacement rate for certain categories higher than 100% (i.e. unemploed person will get more than working)
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/60/51/49971098.xlsx
and it even without taking into account cost of childcare and driving to work
So why they cannot afford Sky subscription?

I think you can interpret the OECD in a lots of ways. Assuming what you say is true then it is shows we need wholesaled reform of the welfare system, however that is going to cost money and maybe cost more money that welfare costs at the moment.

In Ireland the choice has been to give people a some what generous social welfare payment ( in comparison to other OECD countries ) but not provide comprehensive social support, for example subsidised child care or subsidised school meals or free GP care.

Other countries have take the opposite rout and provide lower social welfare payments, however they provide greater social supports such as subsidised child care and school meals etc.

I am in favour of greater social supports such as subsidised school meals etc and lower cash payment in the welfare system, because it puts ever child on an equal footing and it is a fairer system, everyone benefits in such a system both the working and nonworking.

opiniated

@ Count Dooku:

Sleepy wrote: »

The numbers on long-term welfare with Sky Satellite dishes, cars, regular trips to the pub, smoking 20 a day and going on sun holidays would suggest otherwise.

In reply to this, I also for a link to verify what was stated.

You replied with this:

Count Dooku wrote: »

According to data from OECD, Ireland is only country where net replacement rate for certain categories higher than 100% (i.e. unemploed person will get more than working)
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/60/51/49971098.xlsx
and it even without taking into account cost of childcare and driving to work
So why they cannot afford Sky subscription?

Since I merely requested verification of something that was stated as a fact, I don't see why you expect me to answer questions about what long-term welfare recipients can, or cannot, afford?

I'll browse that link later, thanks - but I don't see how that particular OECD data can verify how many long-term welfare recipients have "Sky Satellite dishes, cars, regular trips to the pub, smoking 20 a day and going on sun holidays."?

creedp

creedp wrote: »

Fully agree with you which is why I referred to reform rather than simply cut welfare. I referred to the minimum wage as the extreme example but would agree the problem exists at wage rates well in excess of minimum wage rates. Root and branch review of social welfare system required. First though we need to identify what it is we want welfare to deliver and if we really do want peole to be incentivised to work then design the welfare system around that objective. Otherwise the status quo will continue and even if welfare rates are reduced there will still be people who are better off on welfare than taking up low paid employment. This should not happen is a well designed system, especially for long term recipients.

Just on that point, if someone with dependant takes up low paid employment they will be entitled to family income supplements, is that welfare? or is it a subsidy to employers?.

Count Dooku

opiniated wrote: »

@ Count Dooku:



In reply to this, I also for a link to verify what was stated.

You replied with this:



Since I merely requested verification of something that was stated as a fact, I don't see why you expect me to answer questions about what long-term welfare recipients can, or cannot, afford?

I'll browse that link later, thanks - but I don't see how that particular OECD data can verify how many long-term welfare recipients have "Sky Satellite dishes, cars, regular trips to the pub, smoking 20 a day and going on sun holidays."?

is it really matter how many do actually have satellite dishes, because the most important is how many of them can afford it

creedp

mariaalice wrote: »

Just on that point, if someone with dependant takes up low paid employment they will be entitled to family income supplements, is that welfare? or is it a subsidy to employers?.

It could be construed as a social welfare payment if its objective is to incentivise a person to remain in the workforce/take up a low paid job or an employer subsidy if its objective is to provide low cost employees for employers. Depending on your ideology take your pick. Reducing welfare benefits or increasing wages should achieve the same outcome - which is politically/economically more palitable? I suppose one way of looking at it is that it make it easier for workers with children to take up/remain in a job without making the cost of employing young single persons more expensive for the employer.

Idbatterim

Link?

brilliant point, yes I'm sure a link to the exact statistic exists :rolleyes: but because it doesnt, your entirely right, because it cant be exactly ascertained just how much of this goes on, it must not go on :rolleyes:

"Sky Satellite dishes, cars, regular trips to the pub, smoking 20 a day and going on sun holidays."?

Im not saying welfare could probably pay for all of the above on a frequent basis, but if people are doing nixers alongside receiving welfare, it definitely could...

Actually could I have a link to substantiate this doesn't go on?

Idbatterim

Idbatterim wrote: »

brilliant point, yes I'm sure a link to the exact statistic exists :rolleyes: but because it doesn't, your entirely right, because it cant be exactly ascertained just how much of this goes on, it must not go on :rolleyes:

"Sky Satellite dishes, cars, regular trips to the pub, smoking 20 a day and going on sun holidays."?

I'm not saying welfare could probably pay for all of the above on a frequent basis, but if people are doing nixer's alongside receiving welfare, it definitely could...

Actually could I have a link to substantiate this doesn't go on?

I am sure there are people on welfare doing nixer's, however we do not need welfare reform to get at people or punish people, we need welfare reform to make he system more flexible and farer for all and to eliminate welfare traps that interfere with some one taking up employment.

opiniated

Count Dooku wrote: »

is it really matter how many do actually have satellite dishes, because the most important is how many of them can afford it

I'm not the one making definitive statements - I'm just looking for verification!

Idbatterim wrote: »

brilliant point, yes I'm sure a link to the exact statistic exists :rolleyes: but because it doesnt, your entirely right, because it cant be exactly ascertained just how much of this goes on, it must not go on :rolleyes:

"Sky Satellite dishes, cars, regular trips to the pub, smoking 20 a day and going on sun holidays."?

Im not saying welfare could probably pay for all of the above on a frequent basis, but if people are doing nixers alongside receiving welfare, it definitely could...

Actually could I have a link to substantiate this doesn't go on?

Where did I say it doesn't go on?
I've neither stated that it doesn't go on, nor that it does.
I'm merely interested in what proportion of people on long term social welfare can afford all of the above, since it appears that quite a few people appear to believe that there are a lot of people on long-term welfare who have a lot of disposable income.

I've read similar statements to the one I queried several times on Boards - but I have yet to find any quantifiable data on the subject, hence I'm interested in knowing the basis on which these opinions are formed.

I do seem to have irritated people, though!:p:D

Count Dooku

opiniated wrote: »

I'm not the one making definitive statements - I'm just looking for verification!

If you disagree, then you should provide proof that welfare recipients cannot afford it

Icepick

mariaalice wrote: »

If they are not on welfare does it matter to this thread, In the vast majority of loan parent households, the parent works I think it is something like 80% of loan parents have some sort of job, however it might not be a full time job.

• There are over 215,000 one-parent families in Ireland today – 25.8 per cent of all families with children (Census 2011)
• 92,326 people are currently receiving the One-Parent Family Payment (December 2010)"

http://www.onefamily.ie/about-us/facts-figures/

Icepick

Icepick wrote: »

• There are over 215,000 one-parent families in Ireland today – 25.8 per cent of all families with children (Census 2011)
• 92,326 people are currently receiving the One-Parent Family Payment (December 2010)"

http://www.onefamily.ie/about-us/facts-figures/

You can receive one parent payment and have a job or family income supplement as I said it might not be a full time job,

opiniated

Count Dooku wrote: »

If you disagree, then you should provide proof that welfare recipients cannot afford it

Nice try!

The onus is clearly on the poster who alleged that people on long-term social welfare can afford these items!
Like I said - I'm not the one making definitive statements. Hence there is no onus whatsoever to either prove, or disprove, the statement in question!

skafish

Count Dooku wrote: »

is it really matter how many do actually have satellite dishes, because the most important is how many of them can afford it

Or rather how many of them the rest of us can pay for

Sleepy

opinionated - as you very well know, there is no data to support my assertion. A drive through any council estate or any interaction with the cradle to grave welfare recipients would provide plenty of anecdotal evidence to support the veracity of the statement, however.

opiniated

Oh, I wouldn't question the satellite dishes part at all - though how many people pay for a satellite service, as opposed to free-to-view services is a big question.
There's also the issue if installation.
When someone moves house, sky don't take the dish down, because it's cheaper to just install a new one, for example.
So, it's impossible to quantify how many people on welfare have a paid satellite service/paid for the installation.
For that matter, people living on a Council estate aren't necessarily on welfare, either. They may also have purchased their house without renting from the Council at any point.

However, I may have misunderstood you, but this post suggests that you (like many others) believe that there are a substantial number of people on welfare who have sufficient disposable income to afford the following.

Originally Posted by Sleepy
The numbers on long-term welfare with Sky Satellite dishes, cars, regular trips to the pub, smoking 20 a day and going on sun holidays would suggest otherwise.

Whereas I've no doubt that there are people on welfare who have satellite dishes, and may smoke, or drink, or drive a car - I doubt very much that are are many, if any, who can afford most, or all, of the above.
I'm equally certain that some people on welfare do "nixers" or have an alternative source of income. But I would argue that that's a matter for the Dept. of Social protection to eliminate, rather than taking the view that all welfare payments are too high.

TLDR? I would question the apparently commonly held belief on Boards that people live a life of luxury on €180-odd euros (Sorry, I don't know the exact figure) a week.

I certainly couldn't do it!

spank_inferno

Its €188 per week (I would have thought that common knowledge).

There are as you must surely know a large amount of other benefits.
Ranging from free heath care, subsidised or free housing to free home fuel & free school uniforms / books.

Just the above are worth many thousands per year.

opiniated

spank_inferno wrote: »

Its €188 per week (I would have thought that common knowledge).

There are as you must surely know a large amount of other benefits.
Ranging from free heath care, subsidised or free housing to free home fuel & free school uniforms / books.

Just the above are worth many thousands per year.

Let's take a look at that. From Citizens advice:
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/health/entitlement_to_health_services/medical_card.html

Income

Under 70s: income

Lone parents with dependants are assessed under the income limits for couples.
Weekly income limit (gross, less tax, Universal Social Charge and PRSI)
Category Aged under 66 Aged 66-69 Single person living alone €184 €201.50 Single person living with family €164 €173.50 Married or cohabiting couple (or lone parent with dependent children) €266.50 €298

According to these income limits, free medical care certainly isn't available to all SW recipients.

A couple with one child are entitled to €342.60 SW.
Income threshold for medical card is €266.50 + €38 = €304.50

Subsidised Housing is a fair point. Free housing? Never heard of such a thing! Any chance of a link?

Fuel allowance is €20 per week. The price of a bag of coal. So, hardly enough to provide for a persons heating needs, in fairness.

Free school uniforms and books?
The Back to school clothing and footwear allowance is €100 for 4-11 year olds, €200 for 12-22 years old.

I've a lad started secondary school this year.
Here's what I spent - and I'm sure there are more expensive uniforms out there.

M&S grey trousers. €20
2 Shirts. €11
Crested Jumper - non-generic €38
Crested blazer - non-generic €70
PE tracksuit (crested) €40
Black leather shoes €65
Football boots €79
Indoor PE trainers €40


Total €363 - and that's using generic items, where possible.
As I said, there are more expensive uniforms out there.
So, the "free" uniform is a half price uniform, give or take a few euro, depending on how many generic items can be purchased.

I have a neighbour who received a grant of €70 for her daughters books.
11 Subjects at approx. €35 per textbook = €385
Add in schoolbag, TD equipment, hardbacks, calculators etc, and you can easily add another €100.
Then there's locker rental, printing charges, charges for diaries, insurance, etc - around another €100

That's the best part of €950 I spent.
I know for a fact that my neighbour who is on welfare had to spend the same. She got €200 clothing allowance, and €70 towards books. Total €270.
So, subsidised uniforms and books, yes - but certainly not free.

Excluding subsidised rents, which, from the brief look I've had at them, appear to vary in rates across the Country, according to where you live, making it impossible to reach a conclusive average without a great deal of research, the end result is:

Free medical services? Not for single people, or couples with up to two children.

Free fuel? €20 pw over 16? weeks (I think it was reduced to 16 weeks in the last budget?) €320

Free school uniforms and books? State contribution between €170 and €270 depending on the age of the child.

So, excluding rent allowance (which not every welfare recipient is in receipt of, either,) three of the four items you mentioned are worth between €490 and €590 annually for the majority of welfare recipients.
Less for those without children. Hardly a fortune!

Godge

opiniated wrote: »

Oh, I wouldn't question the satellite dishes part at all - though how many people pay for a satellite service, as opposed to free-to-view services is a big question.
There's also the issue if installation.
When someone moves house, sky don't take the dish down, because it's cheaper to just install a new one, for example.
So, it's impossible to quantify how many people on welfare have a paid satellite service/paid for the installation.
For that matter, people living on a Council estate aren't necessarily on welfare, either. They may also have purchased their house without renting from the Council at any point.

However, I may have misunderstood you, but this post suggests that you (like many others) believe that there are a substantial number of people on welfare who have sufficient disposable income to afford the following.

Whereas I've no doubt that there are people on welfare who have satellite dishes, and may smoke, or drink, or drive a car - I doubt very much that are are many, if any, who can afford most, or all, of the above.
I'm equally certain that some people on welfare do "nixers" or have an alternative source of income. But I would argue that that's a matter for the Dept. of Social protection to eliminate, rather than taking the view that all welfare payments are too high.

TLDR? I would question the apparently commonly held belief on Boards that people live a life of luxury on €180-odd euros (Sorry, I don't know the exact figure) a week.

I certainly couldn't do it!

Firstly, it is not just the €188, it is all the add-ons and supplemental benefits ranging from fuel allowance to student grants.

spank_inferno wrote: »

Its €188 per week (I would have thought that common knowledge).

There are as you must surely know a large amount of other benefits.
Ranging from free heath care, subsidised or free housing to free home fuel & free school uniforms / books.

Just the above are worth many thousands per year.

To illustrate one example.

A couple with three kids, one earner, public servant, living in West Cork, two in college with income of 62k.

Don't qualify for the grant.

Non-adjacent grant plus student fee is €16,830 for the two kids.

On the last 20k of that income they pay 41% paye, 4% PRSI, 6.5% superannuation, pension levy of 10%, meaning they earn after deductions about €7,700, leaving them with another €9,130 to make up out of their income up to 42k for their two children living away from home in college. Granted they get tax relief of €400 on the student fee which means that they need €8,730.

Now on their income up to 42k, they pay 20% PAYE, 4% PRSI, 6.5% superannuation and 10% pension levy which means that in order to have the €8,730 in their pocket, the relevant gross earnings are €14,672. So taking away the €14,672 from the €42k they are left with gross earnings of €27,328.

This compares for an income of €19,431 where there is a married couple on social welfare with two kids. This is before you take into account the other myriad of allowances that the social welfare recipient claims.

This means that a person earning 62k with two kids at college living away from home is actually less than €8,000 better off a year than a person sitting around on social welfare. That is before you take into account other benefits as mentioned by others and before you take into account any costs associated with working? Would you seriously defend that as reasonable?

You see the point you (and many others) are missing is that it is not being said that welfare recipients are living in the lap of luxury. What is being said is that welfare recipients are able to maintain as good a lifestyle as those who are working (or very close to it). This diminishes the value of work and contributes to a culture of benefit entitlement which will do significant damage to this country in the longer run.

SCOOP 64

Dont think any one on the dole would turn down a job worth €62000 a year.

opiniated

I have every sympathy with the family who are trying to get their kids through college.

I don't believe that cutting social welfare will lead to any improvement in their circumstances, though.

Looking at the pattern of Government spending since 2008, it's all about cutting those on average, or below average income.

The protected cronies/golden circle/ well above average income crew remain protected at the expense of the majority.
The majority, meanwhile, are so busy with in-fighting between public vs private sector, and employed vs unemployed, that we don't even whimper when Government ministers intervene to prevent information becoming public that we would normally be entitled to, or when the Central bank excuses the goings on revealed by the anglo tapes by saying they will not be making a complaint to the Gardai, etc.

I get that people are angry at the loss in their living standards.
I understand that people are sickened by the tax they pay. I am, too!
But while we're all busy being enraged by one another, imo the greatest wealth and power grab ever is being enacted under our noses, and instead of demanding accountability, we're busy attacking one another, and thus actually helping the real villians, by detracting attention from them.:mad:

BOHSBOHS

opiniated ,

did you read the HSE guidelines on medical cards?

if your income is derived solely from social welfare allowances or benefits or HSE allowances you should be granted a medical card even though your payment is in excess of the income guidelines for your age and situation.

so they can get a medical card then .. oops

Icepick

mariaalice wrote: »

You can receive one parent payment and have a job or family income supplement as I said it might not be a full time job,

Yes, you can have a part-time job. But a lot of the ones in labour force but unemployed would also be on job seeker's.

Idbatterim

opinionated - as you very well know, there is no data to support my assertion. A drive through any council estate or any interaction with the cradle to grave welfare recipients would provide plenty of anecdotal evidence to support the veracity of the statement, however.

I agree with this, not being totally oblivious and a pair of eyes in my head tells me this! What we are on about are the career welfarers though (who are obviously a smallish % of the CURRENT claimants), its up to the government to do something about them and then you have the people who it simply doesnt pay to work or doesnt pay enough, again the governments fault... So much for reform :rolleyes: would have been interesting to see if FG had received a majority, no bloody surprise to see Labour resisting reform at every turn...

skafish

Godge wrote: »

To illustrate one example.

A couple with three kids, one earner, public servant, living in West Cork, two in college with income of 62k.

Don't qualify for the grant.

Non-adjacent grant plus student fee is €16,830 for the two kids.

On the last 20k of that income they pay 41% paye, 4% PRSI, 6.5% superannuation, pension levy of 10%, meaning they earn after deductions about €7,700, leaving them with another €9,130 to make up out of their income up to 42k for their two children living away from home in college. Granted they get tax relief of €400 on the student fee which means that they need €8,730.

Now on their income up to 42k, they pay 20% PAYE, 4% PRSI, 6.5% superannuation a nd 10% pension levy which means that in order to have the €8,730 in their pocket, the relevant gross earnings are €14,672. So taking away the €14,672 from the €42k they are left with gross earnings of €27,328.

This compares for an income of €19,431 where there is a married couple on social welfare with two kids. This is before you take into account the other myriad of allowances that the social welfare recipient claims.

This means that a person earning 62k with two kids at college living away from home is actually less than €8,000 better off a year than a person sitting around on social welfare. That is before you take into account other benefits as mentioned by others and before you take into account any costs associated with working? Would you seriously defend that as reasonable?

You see the point you (and many others) are missing is that it is not being said that welfare recipients are living in the lap of luxury. What is being said is that welfare recipients are able to maintain as good a lifestyle as those who are working (or very close to it). This diminishes the value of work and contributes to a culture of benefit entitlement which will do significant damage to this country in the longer run.

Thanks for the perfect example, Godge. Isn't amazing that the scenario you describe, with somebody on a relatively high salary doin their best to look after their kids and give them the best start in life they can is screwed so much by the system they are very little better off than somebody on SW?

I reckon that the SW system needs a complete overhaul, but also that the entire tax system needs to be reviewed.

Geuze

Godge,

very good post.

A vivid illustration of the lack of work incentives in Irl, and the anomalies in the welfare system.

(Did you forget the USC tax??)

Sleepy

opinionated, as spank inferno points out, the welfare payment comes with a lot of other benefits.

Taking my own circumstances were I unemployed, rent allowance for Dublin (less personal contribution of €35) and the job seekers allowance for 2 adults and 2 children would be worth a total of 29,229.20.

That's the after tax value of one member of a married couple earning roughly €34,000 (or about €38,000 if they're co-habiting). Not large salaries I'll grant you but fairly normal ones for a lot of people.

Add in the value of a medical card, back to school allowances, supplementary welfare allowance and subtract the costs of keeping a job e.g. commuting, maintaining a work wardrobe, office socialising etc. and it's very easy to see how some people are better off on welfare than those whose taxes are paying to support them.

Obviously, different circumstances can work out better or worse. For example, I wouldn't like to be trying to survive on welfare if I'd taken out a celtic tiger mortgage to pay for a house but a welfare system is there to keep you alive when you can't support yourself, not to pay a mortgage for you.

Sleepy

Sleepy wrote: »

opinionated, as spank inferno points out, the welfare payment comes with a lot of other benefits.

Taking my own circumstances were I unemployed, rent allowance for Dublin (less personal contribution of €35) and the job seekers allowance for 2 adults and 2 children would be worth a total of 29,229.20.

That's the after tax value of one member of a married couple earning roughly €34,000 (or about €38,000 if they're co-habiting). Not large salaries I'll grant you but fairly normal ones for a lot of people.

Add in the value of a medical card, back to school allowances, supplementary welfare allowance and subtract the costs of keeping a job e.g. commuting, maintaining a work wardrobe, office socialising etc. and it's very easy to see how some people are better off on welfare than those whose taxes are paying to support them.

Obviously, different circumstances can work out better or worse. For example, I wouldn't like to be trying to survive on welfare if I'd taken out a celtic tiger mortgage to pay for a house but a welfare system is there to keep you alive when you can't support yourself, not to pay a mortgage for you.

That absolutely true, but the thing is over your life time things change, if you are working you might get a pay increase or a promotion, children grow up, rent allowance changes and you are only talking about Dublin, and so on. So by taking a snap shot of one moment in people lives you are only comparing that moment not life on welfare verse low paid work.


No one is saying we do not need welfare reform, it just the lazy stereotypes( although stereotypes do have a bases in reality or else we would not know them as stereotypes ) are annoying and can sometime have the appearance of just whining.

To be best off in a lot of ways in this society you need be a working loan parent ( double tax credits ) with a low to moderate income and with children in college. The full grant for two children in college is worth a lot of money. Back in the day of promotion in the HSE I know a loan parent who refused promotion because she knew the income would put her over the level for the grant, People will always do want is in the best interest of their family.

Godge

Geuze wrote: »

Godge,

very good post.

A vivid illustration of the lack of work incentives in Irl, and the anomalies in the welfare system.

(Did you forget the USC tax??)

Yes, I left out the USC which makes the comparison even more stark.

What is even starker is that a person on €62k in the public service could probably be managing a large social welfare office and dealing with all of the issues that arise.

I also didn't account for rent allowance which the social welfare recipient gets.

What is clear is that the highly progressive tax system together with the generous welfare benefits plus ancillaries creates a situation where there is little incentive to work beyond your own ambitions.

Godge

SCOOP 64 wrote: »

Dont think any one on the dole would turn down a job worth €62000 a year.

Sorry, I have given a clear financial example of a couple with neither working and two children away at college where it would be financial madness in the short term to take a job worth €62k a year.

Godge

mariaalice wrote: »

That absolutely true, but the thing is over your life time thing change, if you are working you might get a pay increase or a promotion, children grow up, rent allowance changes and you are only talking about Dublin, and so on. So by taking a snap shot of one moment in people lives you are only comparing that moment not life on welfare verse low paid work.


No one is saying we do not need welfare reform, it just the lazy stereotypes( although stereotypes do have sine bases in reality or else we would not know them as stereotypes ) are annoying and can sometime have the appearance of just whining.

To be best off in a lot of ways in this society you need be a working loan parent with a low to moderate income and with children in college. The full grant for two children in college is worth a lot of money. Back in the day of promotion in the HSE I know a loan parent who refused promotion because she knew the income would put her over the level for the grant, People will always do want is in the best interest of their family.

These problems have been in the system for years. If we cannot reduce taxes on work - income tax, usc, prsi - then we have to cut social welfare. We will never get people to work otherwise.

Cut it how exactly? and how come when there was a 4.5% unemployment rate during the Celtic tiger years people worked... if they were better off on welfare.

SCOOP 64

Godge wrote: »

Sorry, I have given a clear financial example of a couple with neither working and two children away at college where it would be financial madness in the short term to take a job worth €62k a year.

Every would like to afford to take the kids to collage,if €62000 does not cover it its more then social welfare that needs looking at.
If every person on the dole today was offered €62000, 300,000 maybe more would be off the register overnight, thus may be reducing employee taxes (but i doubt that).
As there was only 4% unemployed under so call boom times,now 13%, most of these people were workers and never been on the dole in there lives who were made redundant thought no fault of there own, and are looking for work and are now struggling with there insanity being at home all day and finding it hard just to pay basic bills,and would take a job at a hell of lot less then €62000.
we need job created for the unskilled worker until then unemployment will remain high, so will employee taxes.
we can argue all day long, but no matter how many examples you give ,for the foreseeable future we will be paying high taxes, and i cant see the dole money being cut, child benefit may be, because this is the highest social welfare payment in the country,because every family gets its regardless of the pay,but then this will hit the people in employment also. USC should be cut or gone altogiver,but we will see in next budget.

Godge

SCOOP 64 wrote: »

Every would like to afford to take the kids to collage,if €62000 does not cover it its more then social welfare that needs looking at.
If every person on the dole today was offered €62000, 300,000 maybe more would be off the register overnight, thus may be reducing employee taxes (but i doubt that).
As there was only 4% unemployed under so call boom times,now 13%, most of these people were workers and never been on the dole in there lives who were made redundant thought no fault of there own, and are looking for work and are now struggling with there insanity being at home all day and finding it hard just to pay basic bills,and would take a job at a hell of lot less then €62000.
we need job created for the unskilled worker until then unemployment will remain high, so will employee taxes.
we can argue all day long, but no matter how many examples you give ,for the foreseeable future we will be paying high taxes, and i cant see the dole money being cut, child benefit may be, because this is the highest social welfare payment in the country,because every family gets its regardless of the pay,but then this will hit the people in employment also. USC should be cut or gone altogiver,but we will see in next budget.

I don't think that people get the actual big sums involved.

Income Tax brings in €15.7 bn in 2013.
Social Welfare expenditure is €20.25 bn.

That is not sustainable. Now I have shown that at current income tax levels a person on 62k with a few commitments is reduced to social welfare levels.

We all accept that that is wrong. We cannot raise any more income tax - it would be ridiculous if someone who was working a business 60-70 hours a week and earning 80k was reduced to social welfare levels which is what would happen if we increased income tax.

We have no alternative but to do something about the huge welfare bill.

opiniated

BOHSBOHS wrote: »

opiniated ,

did you read the HSE guidelines on medical cards?

if your income is derived solely from social welfare allowances or benefits or HSE allowances you should be granted a medical card even though your payment is in excess of the income guidelines for your age and situation.

so they can get a medical card then .. oops

Someone better point that out to the staff who decide the claims, then.
I could name you two people who have lost their medical card in the last 6 months, one a construction worker, in good health - one an elderly gentleman in his 80s, with terminal cancer.:eek:
That elderly gentleman has also lost his living alone allowance, because he has moved to a house next door to his niece, since he requires a lot of care.
The thing is, since he put his address down as c/o his niece, the dept automatically cut his living alone allowance.

Godge wrote: »

Sorry, I have given a clear financial example of a couple with neither working and two children away at college where it would be financial madness in the short term to take a job worth €62k a year.

That is a crazy system. But I would argue that the threshold for the grant needs to be looked at, rather than welfare slashed.
Bear in mind that welfare payments tend to get spent in the local economy, so a reduction there will impact on employment in the SMEs, thus leading to more unemployment, which will adversely affect the welfare bill.

Godge wrote: »

These problems have been in the system for years. If we cannot reduce taxes on work - income tax, usc, prsi - then we have to cut social welfare. We will never get people to work otherwise.

Just as a matter of interest, where do you expect people to find these jobs?
There are certainly people who make a career out of welfare, but the increase in unemployment since 2008 is hardly because 9% of the working population suddenly decided that they were better off on welfare!

Godge

opiniated wrote: »

Someone better point that out to the staff who decide the claims, then.
I could name you two people who have lost their medical card in the last 6 months, one a construction worker, in good health - one an elderly gentleman in his 80s, with terminal cancer.:eek:
That elderly gentleman has also lost his living alone allowance, because he has moved to a house next door to his niece, since he requires a lot of care.
The thing is, since he put his address down as c/o his niece, the dept automatically cut his living alone allowance.

If HE put his address down as c/o his niece, then HE was the one who informed the HSE/social welfare that he wasn't living alone. Should anyone be surprised that he then lost the allowance?

It is amazing the number of times that social welfare/HSE get blamed when somebody loses or doesn't get a benefit/entitlement when the person is the one who didn't give the full information or fill out the form properly.

The old adage about process improvement is that no matter how often you do it, if there is rubbish in at the start of the process, there is rubbish out at the end.

opiniated wrote: »

That is a crazy system. But I would argue that the threshold for the grant needs to be looked at, rather than welfare slashed.
Bear in mind that welfare payments tend to get spent in the local economy, so a reduction there will impact on employment in the SMEs, thus leading to more unemployment, which will adversely affect the welfare bill.

Change the threshold for the grant rather than cutting welfare, should have expected this answer. The point I was making which sailed over your head is if the benefits and entitlements are so high, you cannot make work more worthwhile and you cannot make the disincentive go away.

If you change the threshold for the grants system, you need more income tax from someone else higher up the income tree to pay for it. The problem is, if you have benefits that kick in at above-average incomes, they are impossible to pay for as you are looking for too much in income tax especially when a government has also got to pay for schools, hospitals, gardai, nurses and teachers unless you think we can do without those?

One more point on this. The use of the words "slashing welfare" is pejorative. To "slash" is to "cut or reduce drastically". Nobody is advocating that. A 10% reduction in our total social welfare bill is not "slashing" and can be achieved in a number of ways that impact to a lesser extent that 10% on those in need.

opiniated wrote: »

Just as a matter of interest, where do you expect people to find these jobs?
There are certainly people who make a career out of welfare, but the increase in unemployment since 2008 is hardly because 9% of the working population suddenly decided that they were better off on welfare!

I have heard a number of times on this and other threads about poor graduates who can't get jobs. Where are the young entrepreneurs who go out and create jobs? Have we become a country where nobody is self-reliant and sits back and waits for the government to create them a job?

323

Godge wrote: »

Sorry, I have given a clear financial example of a couple with neither working and two children away at college where it would be financial madness in the short term to take a job worth €62k a year.

Thanks for your example earlier. Spot on as personally know one person who was on more than the figure above that and quit working recently.
Why? two kids coming to college age and a third in two years time.

Farmer Pudsey

323 wrote: »

Thanks for your example earlier. Spot on as personally know one person who was on more than the figure above that and quit working recently.
Why? two kids coming to college age and a third in two years time.

I am aware of a few cases like this as well. It is unlikely that someone in the public service would give up a job because of college grants. However it is more likely to happen in the private sector.

The other danger is because all income is included in the grant application it encourages students on the higher grant not to look for work as if they earn above next threshold then they may lose as much as they earn on part time work. This destroys work ethic and encourages laziness and is of no benefit to these people

Joan Burton and Eamon Gilmore recently made a big deal about no one at work being finiancly worse of if they took up work. They fail to take into to account the actual cost of going to work. For a young couple with children it may cost 15K+ a year and for any worker in the region of 5K+ per year minimum.