Entitlement Culture killing the will to work in Ireland

sarumite

Idbatterim wrote: »

getting rid of Labour is the first step to ending this! If we had FG and a coalition of like minded independents that is. It seems the only party that are prepared to do anything about welfare is FG, correct me if I'm wrong...

Certainly, I can see that point being valid on an Irish economy forum. However, a government also legislates on social reform which are also important. Personally I think FG are totally backwards in terms of their social policies. Having Labour in government means that FG can't just dig its heals in avoid making changes the Catholic church doesn't like.

K-9

Proustian wrote: »

While one sympathises with anyone who loses a job, the mindset of others is often breathtaking.

In this thread http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057139784 the OP says if she moves to ireland she will "get" rent allowance of €240 per week and a further €300 form the social welfare. If it's true shame on the Irish welfare system which encourages this sort of "welfare tourism".

More revealing, and the whole tone of the thread (even one moderator who issues dire warning to anyone who might even question it) is the assumption that this is normal and should not even be questioned.

It seems that the attitude still prevails in Ireland that the governments money is unlimited and up for grabs for anyone, and not really anyone's money. The sooner the attitude changes to understand that the government has no money, and it is our money it is spending, the better for Ireland.

However, as many politicians seem to have the same attitude, it's unlikely to change any time soon and welfare dependency will continue to be not only encouraged but made so financially rewarding that foreigners are attracted to Ireland to "get" rent allowances and "get" welfare payments, then, perhaps, the country is doomed, financially.

Why do Irish people put up with this sort of thing , which seems to be tacitly encouraged even by some boards monitors.

Perceived issues with moderation of other forums on boards isn't for the Irish Economy section of boards, either pm the mod involved to clarify any perceptions or start a thread in Feedback.

A Scoundrel

golfwallah wrote: »

@ A Scoundrel:
Sure, there is a correlation between the economic downturn and growth in welfare payments but it can’t all be explained by this factor – even Minister Burton admits this (that welfare as a lifestyle choice is an issue) – with headlines like “One in seven people on social welfare in Ireland have never worked”:

The fact that a significant proportion of the unemployed have never worked does not mean they choose it as a lifestyle. That figure incorporates new graduates and other young people who simply happened to live in the wrong place at the wrong time, it says nothing of their personal motivations.

It’s the size of the social welfare budget and how it is being paid for (through high taxes today and borrowings to be repaid by our children and grand children tomorrow) that should concern us most:
http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1026476.shtml

Welfare is a very broad term. You've been discussing the unemployed. It's worth bearing in mind that Jobseeker's Allowance is 15% of the welfare budget. The biggest beneficiaries of the welfare budget are OAPs, not jobseekers.

pwurple

A Scoundrel wrote: »

Welfare is a very broad term. You've been discussing the unemployed. It's worth bearing in mind that Jobseeker's Allowance is 15% of the welfare budget. The biggest beneficiaries of the welfare budget are OAPs, not jobseekers.

The % of OAPs is only going to get bigger. Our demographics suggest that the largest group was born in the baby boom of the 80's? Currently in their 30's, trying to have children themselves (who in 30 years would be contributing tax to support their parents), but are being effectively being discouraged from doing so by current policy.

I'm a working pregnant woman, who, despite paying PRSI at the highest rate for the last 15 years, just had my maternity benefit cut (mid-pregnancy), while those who have never paid PRSI, or paid the minimum amount, just had their benefit increased. What kind of completely messed up policy is that? What is my PRSI even for? I will now work out with less net income for the length of my maternity leave than someone who has not paid tax, because I will go out and work the rest of the year, and the benefit is taxed. It's utterly stupid policies like this which make working taxpayers think about chucking in jobs, because they will do better without one.

srsly78

What's this "highest rate" of prsi? Pretty much everyone pays the same flat rate. Only exceptions come into it with regard to what your employer pays or not. If it makes you feel any better I know some people in receipt of a pension (<65) that also pay prsi.

Icepick

srsly78 wrote: »

What's this "highest rate" of prsi? Pretty much everyone pays the same flat rate. Only exceptions come into it with regard to what your employer pays or not. If it makes you feel any better I know some people in receipt of a pension (<65) that also pay prsi.

How much you pay should matter.
It's obscene that you can pay much more in PRSI than someone else and be entitled to much less.

pwurple

srsly78 wrote: »

What's this "highest rate" of prsi? Pretty much everyone pays the same flat rate. Only exceptions come into it with regard to what your employer pays or not. If it makes you feel any better I know some people in receipt of a pension (<65) that also pay prsi.

PRSI classes and rates available here:
http://www.welfare.ie/en/Pages/Summary-of-PRSI-Classes-2014.aspx

Yeah, I don't think there are many pregnant pensioners.

Geuze

pwurple wrote: »

I'm a working pregnant woman, who, despite paying PRSI at the highest rate for the last 15 years, just had my maternity benefit cut (mid-pregnancy), while those who have never paid PRSI, or paid the minimum amount, just had their benefit increased. What kind of completely messed up policy is that? What is my PRSI even for? I will now work out with less net income for the length of my maternity leave than someone who has not paid tax, because I will go out and work the rest of the year, and the benefit is taxed. It's utterly stupid policies like this which make working taxpayers think about chucking in jobs, because they will do better without one.

I agree.

Welfare should be for workers.

You work more and paid more PRSI, you should get a bigger un payment or State pension.

You never paid PRSI means you should get lower payments (or none).

Geuze

srsly78 wrote: »

What's this "highest rate" of prsi? Pretty much everyone pays the same flat rate. Only exceptions come into it with regard to what your employer pays or not. If it makes you feel any better I know some people in receipt of a pension (<65) that also pay prsi.

Class A rate = 4%, paid by most workers

Class D rate = 0.9%, I think. That's paid by public servants hired pre-April 1995.

Idbatterim

I'm a working pregnant woman, who, despite paying PRSI at the highest rate for the last 15 years, just had my maternity benefit cut (mid-pregnancy), while those who have never paid PRSI, or paid the minimum amount, just had their benefit increased. What kind of completely messed up policy is that?

Thats "fairness" Irish style, pathetic! When the politicians come knocking, I want answers to questions like these! A welfare cap would certainly make the leeches think twice about having more kids, as in theory they would have less for themselves... Any chance of real and meaningful reform being forced from the outside is long gone and I cant see it happening from the inside... With an election looming I can only see cuts by stealth, i.e. leaving rates as are and letting inflation devalue them. I see Labour are already pledging to cut the property tax in a FF esque cast the next wide and far vote steal ploy...

srsly78

Icepick wrote: »

How much you pay should matter.
It's obscene that you can pay much more in PRSI than someone else and be entitled to much less.

How does the last poster get less? The only people getting screwed are the self-employed, who pay the same prsi but can't claim many of the benefits (they can claim maternity however).

Why complain about a flat rate of tax? The alternative would be a progressive rate where "high earners" would pay even more - as with income tax.

K-9

We don't pay enough PRSI here at all, so while I can see the point about those paying a lower rate or none at all, it's a rather moot one for me.

A Scoundrel

pwurple wrote: »

The % of OAPs is only going to get bigger. Our demographics suggest that the largest group was born in the baby boom of the 80's?

No. The Irish baby boom is only coming to an end at present. I was born at the start of the baby boom, and many of my generation are paying for the excesses of our compatriots - not through dole money (a mere 15% of the welfare budget) but through the sense of the greedy, unabashed entitlement of our elders, who blankly refuse pay cuts, redundancy, and pension (welfare) cuts at the expense of younger generations.

Believe me, we the under 30's are the generation who understand austerity.

I graduated in an age of economic turmoil and mass unemployment across the European continent. No older workers can remember the Great Depression. The under 30s are the first generation in over a century to be worse off than our parents, and we know all about it.

I'm a working pregnant woman, who, despite paying PRSI at the highest rate for the last 15 years, just had my maternity benefit cut (mid-pregnancy), while those who have never paid PRSI, or paid the minimum amount, just had their benefit increased.

Ireland is a Republic. Maybe you disapprove of Republicanism by its literal meaning, but it essentially pertains to equality among children.It means that whether I am born to a layabout or to a hard working economic hero, I will be given the same start in life insofar as the State has a voice to say so.

I am, frankly, appalled that a prospective mother would take any other approach, whereby a child of non working parents would be punished, or seen as less deserving of state revenues than a child lucky enough to be born of working parents.

Your child is being born into a working family. That's an enormous economic advantage. Do you even realize this? Don't feel so sorry for your unborn child, think of all the ways he or she will benefit from having working parents: your child is one of the lucky ones.

Stop wishing you could take away from the less fortunate.

vwhead

this post sickens me im 19 and unemployed since i left school last june and id say ive applied for more jobs and got more nos than the OP has had hot dinners and yet im referred to as scum because im on the dole ? Firstly not everyone on social welfare are scum i come from a good background and unfortunatly entered my working life in the worst time possible as like many other people out there!

I dont spend my money on drink! since i left school i have got my full lisence all paid for buy myself from day i booked theory test i have got a forklift cert, safepass course and bought a car and insuring it myself on my own policy with no help from mammy and daddy so please tel me how i spend MY money smoking and getting pissed just because im unemployed true no fault of my own because i was still in primary school when the country was at the hieght of the celtic tiger.


what right do you have telling me what i can spend my money and cant spend my money on ? Its funny how you say we are taking your hard earned money and spending it on what we want and living 'luxery lifestyles' when the goverment are the people who are actually taking your money off you ( you also have no right to tel them what to spend your hard earned money on like your saying) if they didnt line there own pockets with it and put more into creating employment then we would all be better off!


Id hate to see your kids or family member become unemployed and have to go on social welfare because they have no choice i reckon you better tell them now that your going to think of them as scum!


Yes there is scum in all walks of life but people who tar everyone with the same brush just because they are in a better position and feel they need to jack off by doing it are the worst scum! If your that bothered about people on social welfare and have nothing else to do why dont do something to help everyone instead of being a prick!

or how about leave your job go back to full time education for a few years and when your finished that let us no how easy it is to find a job in your new profession as thats the harsh reality that alot of young people who are just starting off there working lifes have to face take it or leave it like the rest of us!!

AlekSmart

A Scoundrel wrote: »

No. The Irish baby boom is only coming to an end at present. I was born at the start of the baby boom, and many of my generation are paying for the excesses of our compatriots - not through dole money (a mere 15% of the welfare budget) but through the sense of the greedy, unabashed entitlement of our elders, who blankly refuse pay cuts, redundancy, and pension (welfare) cuts at the expense of younger generations.

Believe me, we the under 30's are the generation who understand austerity.

I graduated in an age of economic turmoil and mass unemployment across the European continent. No older workers can remember the Great Depression. The under 30s are the first generation in over a century to be worse off than our parents, and we know all about it.

Ireland is a Republic. Maybe you disapprove of Republicanism by its literal meaning, but it essentially pertains to equality among children.It means that whether I am born to a layabout or to a hard working economic hero, I will be given the same start in life insofar as the State has a voice to say so.

I am, frankly, appalled that a prospective mother would take any other approach, whereby a child of non working parents would be punished, or seen as less deserving of state revenues than a child lucky enough to be born of working parents.

Your child is being born into a working family. That's an enormous economic advantage. Do you even realize this? Don't feel so sorry for your unborn child, think of all the ways he or she will benefit from having working parents: your child is one of the lucky ones.

Stop wishing you could take away from the less fortunate.

I am,equally frankly,appalled at a most un-republican attempt at twisting pwurple's opinion into something that it's not,at least to my reading.

I'm a working pregnant woman, who, despite paying PRSI at the highest rate for the last 15 years, just had my maternity benefit cut (mid-pregnancy), while those who have never paid PRSI, or paid the minimum amount, just had their benefit increased. What kind of completely messed up policy is that? What is my PRSI even for? I will now work out with less net income for the length of my maternity leave than someone who has not paid tax, because I will go out and work the rest of the year, and the benefit is taxed. It's utterly stupid policies like this which make working taxpayers think about chucking in jobs, because they will do better without one.

Two reasonable questions,posed from a highly pertinent perspective,only to be slapped down with an unsustainable accusatory tag-line...

Stop wishing you could take away from the less fortunate

Posing valid questions relating to the nature of ,supposedly PAY Related,Social Insurance benefits,does not equate to suggesting that ANYBODY have deserved,funded or otherwise earned benefits taken away.

It is somewhat glib,and not a little patronizing to make claims such as this...

Your child is being born into a working family. That's an enormous economic advantage. Do you even realize this? Don't feel so sorry for your unborn child, think of all the ways he or she will benefit from having working parents: your child is one of the lucky ones.

Recent reports such as this,appear to at least recognize that the supposed"enormous ecomomic advantage" of working may not be actually as universal as portrayed.

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/some-75-of-mortgage-arrears-cases-involve-employed-people-1.1675022

I believe pwurple asks valid questions,and ones not easily answered in modern Irelands prevailing atmosphere.

sin_city

From reading the last few posts, one thing that entitlements have done in Ireland is make everyone feel like they are worse off than everyone else.

Firstly, the fact that you live in a country where you get a decent amount of money for doing nothing(unless you have kids where you get more for something you did) is a huge bonus that no one seems to appreciate.
People were starving and dying in the depression in the last century and indeed during our own great famine less than 200 years ago.

It’s pointless to highlight individual cases, as everyone just likes to feel sorry for themselves.
Only comparing yourself to someone else in Ireland is a joke…..compare yourself to someone in your situation in most other countries in the world….you don’t know how good you have it.

Save your dole money if you’re a young person living at one and set up something yourself….or save for a ticket to somewhere else where you can get work.

If you get homesick and can’t leave home, then at least appreciate you are one of the few on this planet that has the luxury and choosing this as an option.
People all over the world are so much worse off than you.

pwurple

srsly78 wrote: »

How does the last poster get less? The only people getting screwed are the self-employed, who pay the same prsi but can't claim many of the benefits (they can claim maternity however).

How do I get less? Well, the mat benefit is €230 per week for 6 months. But it's taxed. So because I go out and earn for the rest of the year, I pay tax on that €230.... which Miss No Contributions does not. So I end up getting 230 minus tax, while she gets 230 tax-free.

The self-employed ALSO get screwed. Big time.

As do landlords... who now pay PRSI on rent. When is a rental property ever going to claim jobseekers?


Just because multiple groups are getting screwed over by regressive ill-thought out policy, introduced only in the last 2 budgets, does not make it ok.

pwurple

A Scoundrel wrote: »

I am, frankly, appalled that a prospective mother would take any other approach, whereby a child of non working parents would be punished, or seen as less deserving of state revenues than a child lucky enough to be born of working parents.

But it's ok that my child is less deserving somehow? Why should I get less net mat benefit than someone else, when I am the one paying tax, and they are not? Explain how that is fair to me please, because I don't see it.

You can't even argue I had any kind of time to save for this, it was brought in in January 2014. I'm due the start of march, and I can't legally work anymore after mid-feb. Changing the rules mid-pregnancy is utterly abhorant. I know the argument will be, don't have children if you can't afford them, but what was I supposed to do, abort the child at 28 weeks when the rules changed under my feet?

golfwallah

vwhead wrote: »

this post sickens me im 19 and unemployed since i left school last june and id say ive applied for more jobs and got more nos than the OP has had hot dinners and yet im referred to as scum because im on the dole ? Firstly not everyone on social welfare are scum i come from a good background and unfortunatly entered my working life in the worst time possible as like many other people out there!

I dont spend my money on drink! since i left school i have got my full lisence all paid for buy myself from day i booked theory test i have got a forklift cert, safepass course and bought a car and insuring it myself on my own policy with no help from mammy and daddy so please tel me how i spend MY money smoking and getting pissed just because im unemployed true no fault of my own because i was still in primary school when the country was at the hieght of the celtic tiger.


what right do you have telling me what i can spend my money and cant spend my money on ? Its funny how you say we are taking your hard earned money and spending it on what we want and living 'luxery lifestyles' when the goverment are the people who are actually taking your money off you ( you also have no right to tel them what to spend your hard earned money on like your saying) if they didnt line there own pockets with it and put more into creating employment then we would all be better off!


Id hate to see your kids or family member become unemployed and have to go on social welfare because they have no choice i reckon you better tell them now that your going to think of them as scum!


Yes there is scum in all walks of life but people who tar everyone with the same brush just because they are in a better position and feel they need to jack off by doing it are the worst scum! If your that bothered about people on social welfare and have nothing else to do why dont do something to help everyone instead of being a prick!

or how about leave your job go back to full time education for a few years and when your finished that let us no how easy it is to find a job in your new profession as thats the harsh reality that alot of young people who are just starting off there working lifes have to face take it or leave it like the rest of us!!

I’m afraid you’re missing the point, which is about out of work people drifting into a career choice of social welfare as opposed to finding other solutions.

I sympathise with anyone who finds themselves unemployed and greatly appreciate the frustration involved. But there are options to get yourself out of your predicament, if only you set about finding them in a positive manner.

None of these options may be easy but they are there if you look for them. And the only post on this thread so far to contain the word “scum” has been your own. How about calmly taking a realistic look at your skill sets / experience and how these are a match for what is in demand out there in the labour market?

No it may not be fair, but it’s nigh on impossible to change the world – that’s life. We can only change ourselves.

So, figure out how you can improve on the skill sets / experience you have to offer (through further training / education), so you can get a job at home or plan to go elsewhere to where there is a demand for your skills / competencies.

At the end of the day, the answer in your own hands – not government or anyone else. And I’m not saying this in a vacuum – I emigrated myself for 5 years and continuously engaged in further education / training to keep pace with changing work requirements.

You've got to seize the initiative yourself if you want to get more control over your life – not easy, I know – and I guess I’m only reflecting back what you know yourself anyway!

OldNotWIse

pwurple wrote: »

How do I get less? Well, the mat benefit is €230 per week for 6 months. But it's taxed. So because I go out and earn for the rest of the year, I pay tax on that €230.... which Miss No Contributions does not. So I end up getting 230 minus tax, while she gets 230 tax-free.

The self-employed ALSO get screwed. Big time.

As do landlords... who now pay PRSI on rent. When is a rental property ever going to claim jobseekers?


Just because multiple groups are getting screwed over by regressive ill-thought out policy, introduced only in the last 2 budgets, does not make it ok.

Maybe they are factoring in the idea that if she hasn't contributed she likely hasn't earned a lot so will have less disposable income? Or the fact that some employers top it up? Not saying its right or wrong, and I dont really know the thinking behind it tbh.

Edit: I'm genuinley not being smart but the point about you being deserving of more because you pay more tax is not really a logical one. The whole point of a social assistance system is to help those who are less well off and more vulnerable - its not some kind of pot that we all contribute into and then take back a proportionate dividend. I could argue that I dont want my tax paying maternity or child benefit at all beacuse I may not want children but thats not how the system works. You're not entitled to more just because you contribute more.

pwurple

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Maybe they are factoring in the idea that if she hasn't contributed she likely hasn't earned a lot so will have less disposable income? Or the fact that some employers top it up? Not saying its right or wrong, and I dont really know the thinking behind it tbh.

Net disposable income is usually calculated monthly though, is it not? Mine will be less for the duration of the time that I am recovering from childbirth, with a newborn to look after. Yes, some employers do top it up, mainly for public servants it seems. However, they are not required to, and mine does not. Making the assumption that they do for policy decisions is incorrect.

Edit: I'm genuinley not being smart but the point about you being deserving of more because you pay more tax is not really a logical one.

I'm not saying I deserve more, I'm asking why I deserve less? Why was mine cut, and others raised?

You're not entitled to more just because you contribute more.

I have no issue with paying tax on wages. Of course I understand services that I use need to be provided, and people need to be looked after. I even support property tax (although as usual the implementation is messed up), I thought private rates should never have been removed in the first place. However, PRSI is being eroded into just another income tax, which is not what it was ever intended to be.

PRSI has always been pay-related social insurance. A fund you pay into, and once you have accumulated a certain amount, you gain the ability to claim certain benefits. From the welfare website: To get Jobseeker’s Benefit you must have enough social insurance (PRSI) contributions. This was also the case for various other benefits. Why is this system being diluted down?

srsly78

How was it cut? You are just paying tax on it, that doesn't mean it was cut. For tax purposes your annual income and tax credits are considered - it's not just a month by month thing.

Similarly with JSB vs JSA - one is means tested. Also similarly with contributory pension vs non-contributory.

pwurple

srsly78 wrote: »

How was it cut? You are just paying tax on it, that doesn't mean it was cut.

It was cut in the last budget from 262 to 230 for PRSI payers. I'll refer you to the budget documents as a source. Non PRSI payers got an increase.

Making it taxable was done the previous year.

OldNotWIse

pwurple wrote: »

Net disposable income is usually calculated monthly though, is it not? Mine will be less for the duration of the time that I am recovering from childbirth, with a newborn to look after. Yes, some employers do top it up, mainly for public servants it seems. However, they are not required to, and mine does not. Making the assumption that they do for policy decisions is incorrect.


I'm not saying I deserve more, I'm asking why I deserve less? Why was mine cut, and others raised?




I have no issue with paying tax on wages. Of course I understand services that I use need to be provided, and people need to be looked after. I even support property tax (although as usual the implementation is messed up), I thought private rates should never have been removed in the first place. However, PRSI is being eroded into just another income tax, which is not what it was ever intended to be.

PRSI has always been pay-related social insurance. A fund you pay into, and once you have accumulated a certain amount, you gain the ability to claim certain benefits. From the welfare website: To get Jobseeker’s Benefit you must have enough social insurance (PRSI) contributions. This was also the case for various other benefits. Why is this system being diluted down?

I was talking about the fact that you would have had a greater disposable income prior to claiming maternity benefit, not just what you have going forward.

If you dont have enough credit contributions for Jobseekers benefit you can still claim jobseeker's allowance. It's means tested - which means you only get it if you are poor enough to qualify - not something I would be envious or resentful of to be honest.

You argue that people who pay less should get less (or, that those who pay more should be more insulated from cuts) - you do realise that on the flip side of that coin is a monthly payment known as children's allowance - that everyone who has children gets, regardless of means or net disposable income or contributions. If we all adopted the mé fein approach, childless couples could well be up in arms about this.

pwurple

OldNotWIse wrote: »

If we all adopted the mé fein approach, childless couples could well be up in arms about this.

Makes no sense. I don't know any adults who have not themselves BEEN a child. No-one is born fully grown.

They have already received child benefit.

OldNotWIse

pwurple wrote: »

Makes no sense. I don't know any adults who have not themselves BEEN a child. No-one is born fully grown.

They have already received child benefit.

Really? Everyone who is an adult now received child benefit? Are you sure?

srsly78

pwurple wrote: »

It was cut in the last budget from 262 to 230 for PRSI payers. I'll refer you to the budget documents as a source. Non PRSI payers got an increase.

Making it taxable was done the previous year.

It says here they just standardised it: http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/social_welfare_payments/social_welfare_payments_to_families_and_children/maternity_benefit.html

Godge

OldNotWIse wrote: »

.

Edit: I'm genuinley not being smart but the point about you being deserving of more because you pay more tax is not really a logical one. The whole point of a social assistance system is to help those who are less well off and more vulnerable - its not some kind of pot that we all contribute into and then take back a proportionate dividend. I could argue that I dont want my tax paying maternity or child benefit at all beacuse I may not want children but thats not how the system works. You're not entitled to more just because you contribute more.

There is a difference between social insurance payments and social welfare payments.

There is a good argument that social insurance payments should be higher because they reflect the fact that an individual has paid in a certain amount of contributions into the social insurance fund and therefore deserves to get something back for that contribution.

The payments into the social insurance fund (PRSI) are separate and additional to the income tax payments that person makes to fund the social welfare payment to the person who had made no contributions as well as funding the provision of public services.

Godge

pwurple wrote: »

Makes no sense. I don't know any adults who have not themselves BEEN a child. No-one is born fully grown.

They have already received child benefit.

Not necessarily. Child benefit was introduced in 1944 and initially wasn't a universal benefit. It also didn't apply up to 18 at first. There are therefore a lot of people aged over 70 who never got child benefit.

Interesting that, given the stick pensioners get?

A Scoundrel

pwurple wrote: »

But it's ok that my child is less deserving somehow?

How is your child "less deserving" or, in other words, a net 'victim'?.

Your foetus and the foetus in a non-morking mother's uterus are equals, even if you don't like that; the State will help each family to raise each child in a uniform manner, in the sense that there is a minimum threshold under which no child will, in theory, be raised in poverty.

Guess what,and please read this twice: working people pay more tax than the unempoyed.

If you don't like that you're free to join the dole heap, but of course, you'd be financially worse off.

You can't even argue I had any kind of time to save for this, it was brought in in January 2014. I'm due the start of march, and I can't legally work anymore after mid-feb. Changing the rules mid-pregnancy is utterly abhorant. I know the argument will be, don't have children if you can't afford them, but what was I supposed to do, abort the child at 28 weeks when the rules changed under my feet?

You're losing a *maximum* of 30 quid, and you're talking about an abortion?

I think you're the one who needs to reflect on your argument, not I.

Farmer Pudsey

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I was talking about the fact that you would have had a greater disposable income prior to claiming maternity benefit, not just what you have going forward.

If you dont have enough credit contributions for Jobseekers benefit you can still claim jobseeker's allowance. It's means tested - which means you only get it if you are poor enough to qualify - not something I would be envious or resentful of to be honest.

You argue that people who pay less should get less (or, that those who pay more should be more insulated from cuts) - you do realise that on the flip side of that coin is a monthly payment known as children's allowance - that everyone who has children gets, regardless of means or net disposable income or contributions. If we all adopted the mé fein approach, childless couples could well be up in arms about this.

I do not think that this is the point working people are trying to get across. however over the last six years working people have suffered disporportionally to all other sectors. The cost of going to work is enormous as a report of the ERSI showed that was quashed as it showed up government policy. People on incomes over 33K in Ireland pay more tax than most other European Country's. Some posters mentioned about PRSI being low in Ireland while it may be USC and general taxation are high.

Over the last few budgets government has made small changes that effect workers. This discourages work. Last year it was the PRSI change that took 250 euro/year off workers. This year it was the taxation of benifits. The reality is that young working couples that want to have children are being squeezed, the cost of childcare and third level education is a substandical cost that workers have to factor in. Also we the large cost of health insurance/medical/dental charges means that workers see little on no benifit from the tax they pay. However because of a marginal taxation rate of 52% there ability to handle this even on good wages are find that the benifit of working has been seriously eroded.

Idbatterim

I'm genuinley not being smart but the point about you being deserving of more because you pay more tax is not really a logical one. The whole point of a social assistance system is to help those who are less well off and more vulnerable - its not some kind of pot that we all contribute into and then take back a proportionate dividend. I could argue that I dont want my tax paying maternity or child benefit at all beacuse I may not want children but thats not how the system works. You're not entitled to more just because you contribute more.

It is a logical one, some people will always be net benefactors and beneficiaries. I have an issue with the extent of it here Germany operates a system based on the more you pay in the more you get out (in the event of unemployment or state pensions) I'm sure many other countries operate similar. What beggars belief here, is the more you pay in, the less you are "entitled" to...

Idbatterim

I do not think that this is the point working people are trying to get across. however over the last six years working people have suffered disporportionally to all other sectors. The cost of going to work is enormous as a report of the ERSI showed that was quashed as it showed up government policy. People on incomes over 33K in Ireland pay more tax than most other European Country's. Some posters mentioned about PRSI being low in Ireland while it may be USC and general taxation are high.

My sympathy rate would rank as follows:

1. Recently Unemployed - Very sympathetic
2. Private Sector (depends obviously on individual circumstances)
3. Public Sector (limited to very limited sympathy)
5. Pensioners 0% No Sympathy
4. Long term Leeches 0% No Sympathy

Geuze

pwurple wrote: »

How do I get less? Well, the mat benefit is €230 per week for 6 months. But it's taxed. So because I go out and earn for the rest of the year, I pay tax on that €230.... which Miss No Contributions does not. So I end up getting 230 minus tax, while she gets 230 tax-free.

k.

Just to be clear - if you've never paid PRSI, then you will not get Maternity Benefit.

It seems that you may be suggesting that women who don't work at all, or who have no PRSI conts will get the MB payment.

They won't.

Geuze

pwurple wrote: »

But it's ok that my child is less deserving somehow? Why should I get less net mat benefit than someone else, when I am the one paying tax, and they are not? Explain how that is fair to me please, because I don't see it.

Maybe I'm wrong here, but it seems that you suggest that women who don't pay tax/PRSI will recieve MB, and you will get less MB??

iT is true that MB has been cut, yes.

But women who don't work or pay PRSI will not receive MB.

http://www.welfare.ie/en/Pages/mb.aspx

Geuze

pwurple wrote: »

How do I get less? Well, the mat benefit is €230 per week for 6 months. But it's taxed. So because I go out and earn for the rest of the year, I pay tax on that €230.... which Miss No Contributions does not. So I end up getting 230 minus tax, while she gets 230 tax-free.

I am on your side.

But please note that this statement is incorrect.

MB is based on PRSI conts.

OldNotWIse

Idbatterim wrote: »

It is a logical one, some people will always be net benefactors and beneficiaries. I have an issue with the extent of it here Germany operates a system based on the more you pay in the more you get out (in the event of unemployment or state pensions) I'm sure many other countries operate similar. What beggars belief here, is the more you pay in, the less you are "entitled" to...

I dont think it does beggar belief. A social assistance system is for helping the more vulnerable - its not there to reward high earners and more importantly, to treat the children of high earners more favourably than those born into poverty.

Idbatterim

I dont think it does beggar belief. A social assistance system is for helping the more vulnerable - its not there to reward high earners and more importantly, to treat the children of high earners more favourably than those born into poverty.

The government would be better off going a hand up, than a hand out. The current situation has two losers, A) Those who choose not to work and push out their offspring who do the same in a vicious circle those funding them. Again define vulnerable? is it a poor old OAP with no real overheads on E230+ per week? Is it 2 public servants on combined incomes of 100k, but with multiple unexpected pay cuts, paying back celtic tiger debts? Is it people who have never worked, hence "low income" with no debts?

Look we all know some have to pay in more and lifes not fair, that some will be major benefactors and other major net beneficiaries. Its the scale of it that I have a problem with.

OldNotWIse

Idbatterim wrote: »

The government would be better off going a hand up, than a hand out. The current situation has two losers, A) Those who choose not to work and push out their offspring who do the same in a vicious circle those funding them. Again define vulnerable? is it a poor old OAP with no real overheads on E230+ per week? Is it 2 public servants on combined incomes of 100k, but with multiple unexpected pay cuts, paying back celtic tiger debts? Is it people who have never worked, hence "low income" with no debts?

Look we all know some have to pay in more and lifes not fair, that some will be major benefactors and other major net beneficiaries. Its the scale of it that I have a problem with.

There are no black and white categories, there's no margin that has poor on one side and not poor on the other. I do not have any sympathy for those (and we all know them) who are essentially generations of welfare families.

As unpopular as this sounds, I have no real symapthy for people paying back "celtic tiger debts". Nobody put a gun to their heads and forced them to pay ridiculous money for dog boxes. Even now I am starting to hear the whispering again - "oh you wont get them at this price for long" (in re to south county dublin houses) - the fuuck?? Are we gonna make the same mistake again? People jumping on the property ladder like lunatics and looking down on those who rented who were "throwing their money away"?

I dont like looking at my payslip either, when I see how it's ravaged each week and how little I get back in benefit but at the end of the day I'd rather work and come out with 500 than not work and try to live on 188. At least that way I can pay my OAP parents mortgage (because yes some OAPs do have "overheads" and its their children, not the state that help them) and my college fees - so I wont always be on 500 a week. :rolleyes: (hopefully)!!

Farmer Pudsey

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I dont think it does beggar belief. A social assistance system is for helping the more vulnerable - its not there to reward high earners and more importantly, to treat the children of high earners more favourably than those born into poverty.

I think Sir William Beveridge who is considered the farther of the modern welfare system would be appauled by the way it has developed. It has failed his mission of it to ge rid of his five giants namely Want, Disease, Ignorance, Squalor, and Idleness. But he also had the theory that Welfare payments should be enough to keep body and soul togeather but low enough that any person on them would take the first job available

This is not the case now we have lifetime welfare recipents who make it a lifestyle choice. We have recipents who interest it is not to accept low paid employment. We also have the situtation that those that are on low paid work are often better of unemployed. His idea was to use it to empower workers nad take some of the day to day expense off them. He also taught that when you got old and unable to anylonger work the state should help you after a productive life

And lastly it is now seen as an entitlement rather than as a fall back system. Just look at the welfare threads on boards.

Idbatterim

There are no black and white categories, there's no margin that has poor on one side and not poor on the other. I do not have any sympathy for those (and we all know them) who are essentially generations of welfare families.

That was my point, exactly like you say, there are no black and white categories! My question is, why are lifers still being facilitated, just have them on virtually no cash after a certain period, preferably they wouldnt get a cent in cash and it would be vouchers, but I'm not sure of the practicalities of that...

OldNotWIse

Idbatterim wrote: »

That was my point, exactly like you say, there are no black and white categories! My question is, why are lifers still being facilitated, just have them on virtually no cash after a certain period, preferably they wouldnt get a cent in cash and it would be vouchers, but I'm not sure of the practicalities of that...

King crisps and Johnny Blue vouchers?:D

Proustian

It's not the entitlement culture, but the widespread tolerance of the culture which has, and is, bleeding the Irish taxpayers dry.

I once heard a show on Irish radio where a woman was complaining that she had three children and "they'll only give me a two bedroom house". No one on the show thought to question why she had decided to have three children when she appeared to have no means to support them, or or house them. The assumption throughout was that anyone can have as many children as they like, and then it's up to the rest of the taxpayers to pay for their house (with as many bedrooms as they desire), and to pay them cash every week for their living expenses, and all their household bills.

Irish people seem to tolerate this attitude, which is why the attitude exists and appears to flourish.

OldNotWIse

Proustian wrote: »

It's not the entitlement culture, but the widespread tolerance of the culture which has, and is, bleeding the Irish taxpayers dry.

I once heard a show on Irish radio where a woman was complaining that she had three children and "they'll only give me a two bedroom house". No one on the show thought to question why she had decided to have three children when she appeared to have no means to support them, or or house them. The assumption throughout was that anyone can have as many children as they like, and then it's up to the rest of the taxpayers to pay for their house (with as many bedrooms as they desire), and to pay them cash every week for their living expenses, and all their household bills.

Irish people seem to tolerate this attitude, which is why the attitude exists and appears to flourish.

We dont really have any choice. What are we supposed to do? Refuse to pay tax? Enda tends to rape my salary before I get it...

Proustian

OldNotWIse wrote: »

We dont really have any choice. What are we supposed to do? Refuse to pay tax? Enda tends to rape my salary before I get it...

Borrowing today is taxation tomorrow. All those borrowings which Ireland has incurred have to be paid back, plus interest. So just to pay the interest on the money it borrows today, the Irish government had to rake in more in taxes tomorrow.

It’s not Enda raping your salary, it’s all those people who voted for governments in the last 50 years which borrowed truly enormous amounts of cash to bribe the electorate to vote for them again.

It’s probably easier to try to blame the PM, but in reality he had little choice. Incidentally, this year the Irish government plans to borrow another €12bn, so the problem continues, with no indication that anything has changed, so its likely the problem is endemic, and not solvable, in Ireland.

The attitude towards the benefit culture, discussed above, is another symptom. In many places you can’t even discuss it without drawing gasps of horror from those who tolerate and encourage it, and this year that attitude is responsible, I think, for a social welfare bill of €19bn to the Irish people, and accounts for around 40% of government spending.

Much of it is unfunded pensions, where the promises of yesterday ( so easy to make when you haven’t got to pay for them) now have to be paid for, and Social Welfare, paying for the two bedroom house and giving the mother who was so scornful that “they’ll only give me a two bedroom house” and encouraging a system of payments which, effectively, prevents many helping themselves and who become long term dependants on the rest of us supporting them.

These are all decisions the Irish people have made in the sorts of governments they have elected, and there seems little sign that the Irish people will not continue to vote for governments which ensure the countries pauperisation into the future.

Paulzx

Proustian wrote: »

These are all decisions the Irish people have made in the sorts of governments they have elected, and there seems little sign that the Irish people will not continue to vote for governments which ensure the countries pauperisation into the future.

To be fair I don't think there are any political parties that have a public policy position that long term multi generational welfare claiming will be tackled and phased out. If a voter wishes to cast his vote for a candidate that is willing to tackle the handout culture he'll have to look long and far to find one.

These issues should have been tackled during the "boom". We were bringing thousands of people in from other countries to fill jobs here yet had an unemployment rate of around 4%. Whilst some of this was undoubtably made up of genuine cases there was absolutely no excuse to pay an 18-19 year old able bodied school leaver a dole payment when they could have walked into a job. The fact the job might be a so called menial job is irrellevant. Tough ****!!. If you don't want to do a low paid job get yourself educated or trained. Dole should not be an option in this case.

Idbatterim

It’s probably easier to try to blame the PM, but in reality he had little choice. Incidentally, this year the Irish government plans to borrow another €12bn, so the problem continues, with no indication that anything has changed, so its likely the problem is endemic, and not solvable, in Ireland.

Exactly this, like I said a few posts back, its a pity that instead of teetering at edge of the cliff around 2010, we didnt fall in. There would have had to be dramatic reform and changes. We just about managed to scrape by, there is no way I see reform of any type. I see FG freezing stuff and dont think that they will buy off some of the usual suspects in the forthcoming election, if they have enough support to know they will be the largest party without having to do this, it means they have power for several more years where they can just freeze it and let inflation devalue it (before another election). At this stage, I dont think there will be any more cuts where some of us would like to see them, some would be to close to the bone and too close to the election...

creedp

Idbatterim wrote: »

Exactly this, like I said a few posts back, its a pity that instead of teetering at edge of the cliff around 2010, we didnt fall in. There would have had to be dramatic reform and changes. We just about managed to scrape by, there is no way I see reform of any type. I see FG freezing stuff and dont think that they will buy off some of the usual suspects in the forthcoming election, if they have enough support to know they will be the largest party without having to do this, it means they have power for several more years where they can just freeze it and let inflation devalue it (before another election). At this stage, I dont think there will be any more cuts where some of us would like to see them, some would be to close to the bone and too close to the election...

I thought it was Labour's fault that FG is incapable of reform ..

Idbatterim

I thought it was Labour's fault that FG is incapable of reform ..

Yeah I do reckon that is quite a large part of it, Labour given how they have been decimated according to opinion polls, will fight and probably succeed in having any cuts they deem to be unpopular for them bypassed or massively scaled back, look at budget 2013, FG capitulated to their calls for a much reduced budget cuts, as a gesture of acknowledgement of the battering, mainly they have taken, despite being in bed with FG. But even without Labour, would FG sort it out, I dont know. Certainly no other existing party will that's a guarantee.

The attitude towards the benefit culture, discussed above, is another symptom. In many places you can’t even discuss it without drawing gasps of horror from those who tolerate and encourage it, and this year that attitude is responsible, I think, for a social welfare bill of €19bn to the Irish people, and accounts for around 40% of government spending.

The thing is though, for the leeches, who do they have support from? working people, pensioners. students? All you would have to do, is get the figures, and say this is whats being wasted, it could go on xyz, i.e. "insert far more worthy causes here", buy off other groups with it for all I care, morally though, the long term spongers and wasters are the last people I want getting it, they are the least deserving, hell Id give it to Kenny and Co before them if it were my choice!

OldNotWIse

Proustian wrote: »

Borrowing today is taxation tomorrow. All those borrowings which Ireland has incurred have to be paid back, plus interest. So just to pay the interest on the money it borrows today, the Irish government had to rake in more in taxes tomorrow.

It’s not Enda raping your salary, it’s all those people who voted for governments in the last 50 years which borrowed truly enormous amounts of cash to bribe the electorate to vote for them again.

It’s probably easier to try to blame the PM, but in reality he had little choice. Incidentally, this year the Irish government plans to borrow another €12bn, so the problem continues, with no indication that anything has changed, so its likely the problem is endemic, and not solvable, in Ireland.

The attitude towards the benefit culture, discussed above, is another symptom. In many places you can’t even discuss it without drawing gasps of horror from those who tolerate and encourage it, and this year that attitude is responsible, I think, for a social welfare bill of €19bn to the Irish people, and accounts for around 40% of government spending.

Much of it is unfunded pensions, where the promises of yesterday ( so easy to make when you haven’t got to pay for them) now have to be paid for, and Social Welfare, paying for the two bedroom house and giving the mother who was so scornful that “they’ll only give me a two bedroom house” and encouraging a system of payments which, effectively, prevents many helping themselves and who become long term dependants on the rest of us supporting them.

These are all decisions the Irish people have made in the sorts of governments they have elected, and there seems little sign that the Irish people will not continue to vote for governments which ensure the countries pauperisation into the future.

It's always been a case of best of a bad lot. I never voted FF or FG. Who do you suggest we vote for?