Man gets €840 a week on welfare

worded

8 kids - Perhaps that's why he gets so drunk all the time.
He should be given at least a free mini bus to bring his family around.

Cee-Jay-Cee

K4t wrote: »

This. The reason the welfare payment he receives is so high is because he is supporting 8 children. You can make all the other 'assumptions' you like but as long as those 8 children are under his care and relying on him the state is obliged and correct to provide money for the care of those children.
No it's not. Looking after the weakest in our society is a sign of evolution. The fittest always do survive but there is no greater sign of a humane and just society than in how it helps the weakest in that society. It's not always going to be perfect or equal in how we help the weakest and it might not always seem fair to those who have to help out through their taxes, but it is always a worthwhile endeavour.

We don't know the full story here but we do know the man has 8 children. If he is using that welfare money to support all of those children and himself then he is not living anything close to an extravagant lifestyle as far as the state is concerned. How many people here would swap their lives for his and his 8 children tomorrow? And more importantly, ask yourself why would you like to see their lives become worse off than they are now? That family has been given welfare calculated according to their means and we have to hope that those 8 kids receive an education whereby they won't see anything desirable in living off the state for life. But they are entitled to some kind of standard of living or else that education will not mean a damn thing to them.

All very well and half logical except it's completely unfair. If Me and my wife decided we were going to have 6 more children on top of the two we already have do you think social welfare would top up my wages accordingly? No they fcuking wouldn't. If I earned what he does I'd lose half it in tax/PRSI/USC and pension levy yet a complete and utter waster is given the equivalent of €1600 a week net pay for doing absolutely nothing but commit crime and being a nuisance to society.

You can be sure He's getting rent allowance, free medical, heating allowance and you can be absolutely sure that his children pay for no books or clothing/uniform at school and are availing of free lunches and meals which are provided by dept of education for children from disadvantaged backgrounds. Also his weekly income probably doesn't include the €1000+ the family get for children's allowance each month so there is no reasonable excuse for him getting so much money every week. It's a fcuking joke.

The state already provide free education, so it should be up to the parents to provide everything else for their spawn. I have no problem with the family receiving income support but not to the tune of over €800 a week.

syklops

super_furry wrote: »

Anyone want to try raise eight kids I'm Dublin on €43600 a year? I wouldn't!

A private sector employee would have to earn 61000 a year to get 840 a week in take home pay. And we still don't know whether childrens allowance is included.

Edit: The "Emergency Tax" I got charged last week pi$$es me off even more now. My emergency tax is buy this guys scotch.

Iwasfrozen

sup_dude wrote: »

I would imagine it is. So why would you add to it by basically marking out those on SW as seperate from others in society? Are people on SW not allowed any sort of dignity?

Not really, no.

Look obviously there should be welfare for unemployed but this is taking the mick. No one on welfare should ever earn minimum wage under any circumstance. Regardless of ability to work, number of stamps, capacity to work or no. of children.

Ave Sodalis

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Not really, no.

Look obviously there should be welfare for unemployed but this is taking the mick. No one on welfare should ever earn minimum wage under any circumstance. Regardless of ability to work, number of stamps, capacity to work or no. of children.

This is taking the mick, nobody here is denying that. It is unfair to punish everyone for the actions of a few. I also think children should be supported and adults who cannot work should not have to live below minimum wage. It may not be their fault they can't work so why should they have to be punished for it? Did you have that mindset before newspapers started publishing articles? No matter, I remember your posting style with regard to this topic. You think work is the most important thing in the world and takes precedent over most things in life and as much as it annoys you that some people don't prioritize their work over the rest of their life, those who are on SW are the scum of the earth and deserve to struggle to get by. Unless of course, your attitude changed since I've seen you last post on this.

Galwayguy35

sup_dude wrote: »

This is taking the mick, nobody here is denying that. It is unfair to punish everyone for the actions of a few. I also think children should be supported and adults who cannot work should not have to live below minimum wage. It may not be their fault they can't work so why should they have to be punished for it? Did you have that mindset before newspapers started publishing articles? No matter, I remember your posting style with regard to this topic. You think work is the most important thing in the world and takes precedent over most things in life and as much as it annoys you that some people don't prioritize their work over the rest of their life, those who are on SW are the scum of the earth and deserve to struggle to get by. Unless of course, your attitude changed since I've seen you last post on this.

There's a big difference between people on SW who lost their jobs through no fault of their own or people who for health reasons cannot work and those who have no intention of working a day in their lives.

If SW inspectors go near travellers to see if scamming is going on then the racism card is played so it's seen as just not worth the hassle.

chrysagon

That money over a few months would have paid for a decent vascetomy!!!

Desolation Of Smug

sup_dude wrote: »

This is taking the mick, nobody here is denying that. It is unfair to punish everyone for the actions of a few. I also think children should be supported and adults who cannot work should not have to live below minimum wage. It may not be their fault they can't work so why should they have to be punished for it? Did you have that mindset before newspapers started publishing articles? No matter, I remember your posting style with regard to this topic. You think work is the most important thing in the world and takes precedent over most things in life and as much as it annoys you that some people don't prioritize their work over the rest of their life, those who are on SW are the scum of the earth and deserve to struggle to get by. Unless of course, your attitude changed since I've seen you last post on this.

I wonder how "few"? Thousands? Maybe tens of thousands? The CSO says 178,000 long term unemployed. That's a hefty old "few" right there. In fact, it isn't a "few" by any stretch of the imagination. If 178,000 people turned out for a protest, would that be "a few people"?

boobar

Smidge wrote: »

He ISN'T getting handouts galore. Where are people getting this from? Talk about sensationalism :rolleyes:
He is getting the basic rate of SW.
That's it.

If you feel you would be better off, give up work and have 7 more kids

Surely you can see that not having this capped means that it is a disincentive to work. It's not sensationalism, many people feel the way I do.

The old argument keeps getting trotted out, sure give up work and have a load of kids is a weak one.

I still stand over my point that it's unfair to have skilled hardworking professionals financially worse off by working than those that are unemployed.

Ave Sodalis

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

There's a big difference between people on SW who lost their jobs through no fault of their own or people who for health reasons cannot work and those who have no intention of working a day in their lives.

If SW inspectors go near travellers to see if scamming is going on then the racism card is played so it's seen as just not worth the hassle.

That's what I'm saying. However, any of the ideas are punishing all.

Desolation Of Smug wrote: »

I wonder how "few"? Thousands? Maybe tens of thousands? The CSO says 178,000 long term unemployed. That's a hefty old "few" right there. In fact, it isn't a "few" by any stretch of the imagination. If 178,000 people turned out for a protest, would that be "a few people"?

Few I meant those who are the frauds that people want to get rid of the social welfare because of. How many of that figure you have there are there for the easy life?

Grayson

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

There's a big difference between people on SW who lost their jobs through no fault of their own or people who for health reasons cannot work and those who have no intention of working a day in their lives.

If SW inspectors go near travellers to see if scamming is going on then the racism card is played so it's seen as just not worth the hassle.

there is a difference. Not financially but ethically/morally. I do think it's wrong that someone can not work a day and never intend to work a day.

But what are we going to do about it. The guy in the OP has 8 kids. taking money from him will punish them. The worse their lifestyle is, the less likely they are to succeed in life.

Although there's a big part of me who wants to see him get less money I'm afraid i have to utter a phrase i really, really hate. "Won't somebody think of the children!"

Grayson

sup_dude wrote: »

That's what I'm saying. However, any of the ideas are punishing all.



Few I meant those who are the frauds that people want to get rid of the social welfare because of. How many of that figure you have there are there for the easy life?

In both the UK and ireland it's estimated that only a few are on the dole due to abuse. A good example is during the boom there were only something like 3-4% unemployed. Of those only something like 5% were deemed unemployable. those guys are probably still on the dole. As bad as that is, they do only account for a small part of the population.

pol12

K4t wrote: »

This. The reason the welfare payment he receives is so high is because he is supporting 8 children. You can make all the other 'assumptions' you like but as long as those 8 children are under his care and relying on him the state is obliged and correct to provide money for the care of those children.
No it's not. Looking after the weakest in our society is a sign of evolution. The fittest always do survive but there is no greater sign of a humane and just society than in how it helps the weakest in that society. It's not always going to be perfect or equal in how we help the weakest and it might not always seem fair to those who have to help out through their taxes, but it is always a worthwhile endeavour.

We don't know the full story here but we do know the man has 8 children. If he is using that welfare money to support all of those children and himself then he is not living anything close to an extravagant lifestyle as far as the state is concerned. How many people here would swap their lives for his and his 8 children tomorrow? And more importantly, ask yourself why would you like to see their lives become worse off than they are now? That family has been given welfare calculated according to their means and we have to hope that those 8 kids receive an education whereby they won't see anything desirable in living off the state for life. But they are entitled to some kind of standard of living or else that education will not mean a damn thing to them.

He is not the weakest. He is the sneakiest and he and his likes have people like you fooled into supporting them. 8 more of them coming looking for handouts in years to come.8 kids for each of them.64 more for the next generation of dole dossers ..it's time to stop this handout culture..

Dan_Solo

Grayson wrote: »

there is a difference. Not financially but ethically/morally. I do think it's wrong that someone can not work a day and never intend to work a day.

But what are we going to do about it. The guy in the OP has 8 kids. taking money from him will punish them. The worse their lifestyle is, the less likely they are to succeed in life.

Although there's a big part of me who wants to see him get less money I'm afraid i have to utter a phrase i really, really hate. "Won't somebody think of the children!"

The fact is it's better and cheaper for this man to get 840 a week for 10 people than to have them all in direct state care. UK figures say £100,000 to £200,000 PER CHILD per year.
http://www.thewhocarestrust.org.uk/pages/the-statistics.html
Again, UK figures, but this is what the care system produces. 10 times more likely to go to prison. 6 times less likely to make it to university. Sure, traveller stats aren't any better (probably worse with regards to uni) but that's for 84 a week for, not 3000.

Dan_Solo

pol12 wrote: »

8 more of them coming looking for handouts in years to come.8 kids for each of them.64 more for the next generation of dole dossers

And yet there's still only 30,000 travellers in Ireland. I reckon this McDonagh lad's maths are better than yours.

Iwasfrozen

sup_dude wrote: »

This is taking the mick, nobody here is denying that. It is unfair to punish everyone for the actions of a few. I also think children should be supported and adults who cannot work should not have to live below minimum wage. It may not be their fault they can't work so why should they have to be punished for it? Did you have that mindset before newspapers started publishing articles? No matter, I remember your posting style with regard to this topic. You think work is the most important thing in the world and takes precedent over most things in life and as much as it annoys you that some people don't prioritize their work over the rest of their life, those who are on SW are the scum of the earth and deserve to struggle to get by. Unless of course, your attitude changed since I've seen you last post on this.

Children hould be supported, by their parents but if I have children the amount of money I earn doesn't automatically go up. The amount extra money a person can earn from welfare by having children should be capped after two children. This should act as a disincentive towards having children by those who can't afford to have them.

Now I know you're going to say "but how is he supposed to raise all those children on no more than minimum wage" Well there are people out there raising large families on minimum wage but if he finds he can't handle it he has an incentive to go out and earn a job that pays higher than minimum wage. At the moment he has no incentive to work as he'll never earn that much money on the market.

As for those who are unable to work due to sickness or injury, no they should never earn more than minimum wage. why should they? Minimum wage is sufficient to live on. No one is being punished they're just not being given more than a person working minimum wage.

Newspapers started publishing articles long before my birth so the obvious answer to that question is no.

pol12

Dan_Solo wrote: »

And yet there's still only 30,000 travellers in Ireland. I reckon this McDonagh lad's maths are better than yours.

I'm not specifically talking travellers, I'm saying as long we have kids brought up in a culture where they have more from a parent on welfare,than those who work, their choice will be welfare and the rot continues. If you can't afford kids,don't have them and this state can't afford what it has already.

Cuddlesworth

How much to live privately in Rathfarnham with enough space for 8 children and two full time at home carers? 100K a year with careful budgeting?

evo2000

Dan_Solo wrote: »

And yet there's still only 30,000 travellers in Ireland. I reckon this McDonagh lad's maths are better than yours.

half 9 in the morning and your on here talking ****e... jesus you dont have much to be doing!

Deise Vu

Dan_Solo wrote: »

The fact is it's better and cheaper for this man to get 840 a week for 10 people than to have them all in direct state care. UK figures say £100,000 to £200,000 PER CHILD per year.
http://www.thewhocarestrust.org.uk/pages/the-statistics.html
Again, UK figures, but this is what the care system produces. 10 times more likely to go to prison. 6 times less likely to make it to university. Sure, traveller stats aren't any better (probably worse with regards to uni) but that's for 84 a week for, not 3000.

Now I get you! He is doing us a favour in looking after the kids he decided to have.

And, with parental guidance and support, the kids will observe how daddy's downward spiral into lawbreaking and drunkeness was fuelled by his low self-esteem issues caused by his social welfare largesse dependancy and they will all become fine upstanding, well educated adults.

I suppose it's obvious when you think about it really. Thanks for that.

Man of peace

There needs to be a cut off point after two maybe three kids tops for the the long term unemployed which might just might encourage a few of them to get up from the front of the tv and try and find paid work or do some sort of civic work like painting walls or sweeping streets.

OldNotWIse

Deise Vu wrote: »

Now I get you! He is doing us a favour in looking after the kids he decided to have.

And, with parental guidance and support, the kids will observe how daddy's downward spiral into lawbreaking and drunkeness was fuelled by his low self-esteem issues caused by his social welfare largesse dependancy and they will all become fine upstanding, well educated adults.

I suppose it's obvious when you think about it really. Thanks for that.

No no! Did you not know they will all grow up to be workers and pay our pensions?

Because...you know.....It's impossible that they'd somehow be guided by their own parent's work ethic and grow up to be a burden on the State :rolleyes:

fran oconnor

Smidge wrote: »

Do you have children?

Yes, one child by choice that I and my partner work very hard to keep her fed in a warm home.

fran oconnor

Dan_Solo wrote: »

How do you "make someone go out and work"? Who's job are you going to take to do this because the fact is there aren't enough to go round.

Is there not, I think you'll find there is jobs and things are picking up in that department. Like I said earlier in the thread, There has to be a better way of doing this. Handing someone that kind of money for nothing is criminal imho.

sbsquarepants

fran oconnor wrote: »

Yes, one child by choice that I and my partner work very hard to keep her fed in a worm home.

What? You mean like a compost bin?

fran oconnor

OldNotWIse wrote: »

No no! Did you not know they will all grow up to be workers and pay our pensions?

Because...you know.....It's impossible that they'd somehow be guided by their own parent's work ethic and grow up to be a burden on the State :rolleyes:

Exactly, its not like the kids are going to be pointed in the direction of work. There is a reason why so many people coming from these back rounds end up as they do.

Dan_Solo

evo2000 wrote: »

half 9 in the morning and your on here talking ****e... jesus you dont have much to be doing!

I like the way you went straight to insults instead of rebutting the post. That'll convince everyone you're clever enough to form a counterargument, won't it?

fran oconnor

sbsquarepants wrote: »

What? You mean like a compost bin?

Doh haha

Dan_Solo

Deise Vu wrote: »

Now I get you! He is doing us a favour in looking after the kids he decided to have.

And, with parental guidance and support, the kids will observe how daddy's downward spiral into lawbreaking and drunkeness was fuelled by his low self-esteem issues caused by his social welfare largesse dependancy and they will all become fine upstanding, well educated adults.

I suppose it's obvious when you think about it really. Thanks for that.

Oh, you couldn't argue with the facts presented so you went into sarcasm mode. Well I'm convinced!
Who said they'd all turn out like model citizens? In fact I said the opposite already.

eviltwin

fran oconnor wrote: »

Exactly, its not like the kids are going to be pointed in the direction of work. There is a reason why so many people coming from these back rounds end up as they do.

I feel very sorry for the kids. If you ask any child what they want to be when they grow up they will tell you something, none say "I want to live on welfare". These kids are disadvantaged from the start because they don't have a good record of school attendance and they are doubly disadvantaged by not having parents who can help with their education. What is really telling about the community is if you read the PP reports on Travellers and education they seem to lay most of the blame at the Gov and the settled society rather than focus on the culture that doesn't place a high value on education. As usual its always everyone else's fault.