Man gets €840 a week on welfare

FloatingVoter

You won't be choosing to avail of the state pension. You'll get it no matter what. I wish your private pension well. And the other investments. The fact that you feel no need for a safety net does not mean that everybody has been as lucky or been granted the same talents as you have. Empathy is a lesser known skill. Develop it - it can be exploited and monetised. Without leaving you feeling empty inside.

Sociopath2

FloatingVoter wrote: »

You won't be choosing to avail of the state pension. You'll get it no matter what. I wish your private pension well. And the other investments. The fact that you feel no need for a safety net does not mean that everybody has been as lucky or been granted the same talents as you have. Empathy is a lesser known skill. Develop it - it can be exploited and monetised. Without leaving you feeling empty inside.

I'm a sociopath, empathy is going to be a problem, sorry.

on a more serious note, read my previous posts. Everyone should get the help they need, not what they feel they are entitled to. There's a big difference between the two.

Too many people are dependent on the state and it doesn't need to be that way. With a little forethought I've put myself in a position where I'm not. No luck or special talents involved.

FloatingVoter

Sociopath2 wrote: »

I'm a sociopath, empathy is going to be a problem, sorry.

on a more serious note, read my previous posts. Everyone should get the help they need, not what they feel they are entitled to. There's a big difference between the two.

Too many people are dependent on the state and it doesn't need to be that way. With a little forethought I've put myself in a position where I'm not. No luck or special talents involved.

Everybody feels they're entitled to something more than they have. Thats for granted and its in our human nature. We'd still be up a tree tossing bananas about if it weren't. I'll assume you're a mid to high net earner - say €70-100k. You think you can do the job of the guy making €100-150k. Guess what ? You can. But he got there first so tough lumps - you have to wait or knock him off his perch. That's life.

Now to the serious business of deciding what people need would involve food, shelter and clothing. €190 pw will cover that. Hysterical tabloid rubbish about dole millionaires is beneath my interest. I can make up lies too. If I worked for a tabloid, perhaps I'd print them. I'm pretty sure I once manipulated statistics for a few months. So excuse my lack of faith in science.
People throw in child benefit, rent allowance, and any other allowance they can find online. They produce a calculator, use the addition skills they learned in junior infants and apply all that to the first drunk they see wandering out of a pub on Monday morning. Maybe even bring along a photographer. They call this journalism and claim they are a contributive member of society. I call it horse**** and them and their ilk rabble rousers.

Sociopath2

FloatingVoter wrote: »

Everybody feels they're entitled to something more than they have. Thats for granted and its in our human nature. We'd still be up a tree tossing bananas about if it weren't. I'll assume you're a mid to high net earner - say €70-100k. You think you can do the job of the guy making €100-150k. Guess what ? You can. But he got there first so tough lumps - you have to wait or knock him off his perch. That's life.

Now to the serious business of deciding what people need would involve food, shelter and clothing. €190 pw will cover that. Hysterical tabloid rubbish about dole millionaires is beneath my interest. I can make up lies too. If I worked for a tabloid, perhaps I'd print them. I'm pretty sure I once manipulated statistics for a few months. So excuse my lack of faith in science.
People throw in child benefit, rent allowance, and any other allowance they can find online. They produce a calculator, use the addition skills they learned in junior infants and apply all that to the first drunk they see wandering out of a pub on Monday morning. Maybe even bring along a photographer. They call this journalism and claim they are a contributive member of society. I call it horse**** and them and their ilk rabble rousers.

What has poor tabloid journalism got to do with the current state of the SW system? Whether poor quality articles are written or not it will still need reform. We spend too much on it, in the wrong areas ad on the wrong incentives.

Not everyone feels entitled to more than they have. A lot of us are motivated to go out and earn the things we want. I don't expect handouts or a free ride. I'm not entitled to anything more than what I'm willing to work for.

FloatingVoter

Sociopath2 wrote: »

What has poor tabloid journalism got to do with the current state of the SW system? Whether poor quality articles are written or not it will still need reform. We spend too much on it, in the wrong areas ad on the wrong incentives.

Poor tabloid journalism has got a lot to answer for in terms of the quality of debate about the social welfare system. By tabloid I'm including the broadsheets as well.
Politicians are led by the media. Their advisers are partly led and partly of the media. The crap that starts with cheap stunts by minor hacks winds up on national TV and feeds into the Dail.
Do we need a quality informed debate about this thing...sure. Do we need to be having it because someone "allegedly" is getting a grand a week to go on the piss ? I'm busy. The thread will be resurrected again next week with another Shock Horror story.
We've had brave politicians in the past ... people who led - Noel Browne comes to mind. Civil servants who were more than robots - TK Whitaker. Now it's a case of react to the headline. They don't even read the article.

Sociopath2

FloatingVoter wrote: »

Poor tabloid journalism has got a lot to answer for in terms of the quality of debate about the social welfare system. By tabloid I'm including the broadsheets as well.
Politicians are led by the media. Their advisers are partly led and partly of the media. The crap that starts with cheap stunts by minor hacks winds up on national TV and feeds into the Dail.
Do we need a quality informed debate about this thing...sure. Do we need to be having it because someone "allegedly" is getting a grand a week to go on the piss ? I'm busy. The thread will be resurrected again next week with a nother Shock Horror story.
We've had brave politicians in the past ... people who led - Noel Browne comes to mind. Civil servants who were more than robots - TK Whitaker. Now it's a case of react to the headline. They don't even read the article.

It's an irrelevant side issue. No one wants to tackle the real problem.

If an election is coming up, promising to maintain or increase the payments of those dependent on the state is an easy way to buy votes with someone else's money. There's no appetite to address the problems in the SW system.

FloatingVoter

Sociopath2 wrote: »

It's an irrelevant side issue. No one wants to tackle the real problem.

If an election is coming up, promising to maintain or increase the payments of those dependent on the state is an easy way to buy votes with someone else's money. There's no appetite to address the problems in the SW system.

Someone else's money includes the VAT that SW recipients spend on food, booze, fags etc. There will be a giveaway budget as is standard pre-election. Expect the taxpayer to be funding the aging civil service (the highest drain on the economy). Money needs to be flung at the black pit of the HSE as they will need pencils and consultants to aid in sharpening them. They may even hire a nurse or two.
A committee to look into tax dodging by banks will need to formed - that'll need lunch money.
And yes on top of all that - a single mum (code for a witch in these parts:rolleyes:) might get €5 extra a week in the hope she'll vote Labour. I'll survive.

Sociopath2

FloatingVoter wrote: »

Someone else's money includes the VAT that SW recipients spend on food, booze, fags etc. There will be a giveaway budget as is standard pre-election. Expect the taxpayer to be funding the aging civil service (the highest drain on the economy). Money needs to be flung at the black pit of the HSE as they will need pencils and consultants to aid in sharpening them. They may even hire a nurse or two.
A committee to look into tax dodging by banks will need to formed - that'll need lunch money.
And yes on top of all that - a single mum (code for a witch in these parts:rolleyes:) might get €5 extra a week in the hope she'll vote Labour. I'll survive.

€5 a vote is pretty cheap. More than enough people are willing to sell their vote for that and then complain about gangsters getting into government.

I have a neighbour who thinks our local FF councillor is great because he got medical cards for her son and his family. It never occurs to her that the reason her son needs a medical card is because his business closed and he can't find work due to the circumstances that FF brought about.

People are too easily bought, they rarely if ever see the bigger picture. The SW system needs reform but no one is willing to see anything taken from them, even if it's better in the long run. As long as some people are happy with the crumbs the government throws them, things won't change.

FloatingVoter

There are a lot more people (votes) struggling to survive in this country than there are poeple at the top. Every 5 years the single mum in Coolock gets to be just as important as the flash trash in the IFSC.
We did the non-regulated banks for the lads with the letters after their name and the shiny suits. They lost the cash because they were children unable to balance a chequebook. Watching them wither and squirm before Dail committees would be fun if I thought they were reduced to €190 pw. They deserve that income. Unemployment for life. But justice does not come so easy.
Social Welfare is not the cause of this countries ills. It is a result of them.

RobYourBuilder

Not many people have any issue with the lad who is on the basic enough welfare stipend he receives each week. But 8 or 900 blip a week is too much. It needs to be capped.

bjork

The problem is he's disadvantaged and the state should give him more money.
Imagine only to be able to get drunk enough to lie in the middle of the road only once a week.
That's depraved. More money and another house for the chap should fix things.

Shiraz 4.99

TheTorment wrote: »

I hate these Social Welfare threads normally but this is just outrageous.

Why the fùck do I bother getting up to go to work everyday? I'm thinking it is just to pay for the likes of him.

No do gooder could possibly defend this....

Challenge accepted

Here in Mothers United Against Anything Conceived as Fun we embrace every family & the miracles that are their children.
Every blossom should be given a chance to grow & . . . . . ah f*ck it, I'd sterilize the workshy leech & make him work 40 hours a week for half that.
Any further breeches of the law forfeits a child for adoption.
How'd you like them apples.

Grayson

Sociopath2 wrote: »

What has poor tabloid journalism got to do with the current state of the SW system? Whether poor quality articles are written or not it will still need reform. We spend too much on it, in the wrong areas ad on the wrong incentives.

Not everyone feels entitled to more than they have. A lot of us are motivated to go out and earn the things we want. I don't expect handouts or a free ride. I'm not entitled to anything more than what I'm willing to work for.

I believe it's because the social welfare system isn't actually that bad.
take crime for example. Crime has been on the decrease in decades but most people feel that it's the other way around. It's because of how the human brain assesses risk/danger. We see news stories in the paper and they get hyped up in our heads. the fact that the papers are hyping them up too just makes it appear even worse.

Likewise every single western country has overestimated the number of emigrants./Muslims in their country. They also over estimate how many are on social welfare.

When it comes to native born citizens on welfare people over estimate the number of "Scroungers" too. Realistically it's only a couple of percent of the people who are on the dole. However we all see skangers hanging around the city centre, drinking and fighting, and so we over estimate the total that are affected.

That's not to say that there aren't areas that need reform or that we shouldn't clamp down on actual abuse. Cutting down on fraud would help cut back on costs. Some areas (such as childcare so that a woman has the opportunity to return to work rather than finding it to be financially prohibitive) could actually use more spending.

Idbatterim

The fact that you feel no need for a safety net does not mean that everybody has been as lucky or been granted the same talents as you have

Or simply put in a bit of effort...

Some areas (such as childcare so that a woman has the opportunity to return to work rather than finding it to be financially prohibitive) could actually use more spending.

totally agree, this is one of the top priority areas for funding IMO... Reducing anti business, anti employment levels of income tax at the marginal rate is another one (with rates like that, they wonder why there was a jobs crisis, well thats one large factor)...

Shrap

FloatingVoter wrote: »

Someone else's money includes the VAT that SW recipients spend on food, booze, fags etc. There will be a giveaway budget as is standard pre-election. Expect the taxpayer to be funding the aging civil service (the highest drain on the economy). Money needs to be flung at the black pit of the HSE as they will need pencils and consultants to aid in sharpening them. They may even hire a nurse or two.
A committee to look into tax dodging by banks will need to formed - that'll need lunch money.
And yes on top of all that - a single mum (code for a witch in these parts:rolleyes:) might get €5 extra a week in the hope she'll vote Labour. I'll survive.

This witch agrees with you totally. I've never sold out my vote for a fiver in my life, and wouldn't for fifty either. I'm not that stupid.

RobYourBuilder wrote: »

Not many people have any issue with the lad who is on the basic enough welfare stipend he receives each week. But 8 or 900 blip a week is too much. It needs to be capped.

It IS capped.

The hysterical article hasn't explained how, with 8 dependent children and one other adult, his SW jumped from what it should be at approx 550, to 850. Believe me, if I knew (or anyone else on SW knew) how that was done, I wouldn't be too shy about trying it myself.

Am personally making ends meet on 250 per week with 2 teenage kids (not including child benefit). Just applied for HEAR (higher education application route) for my eldest, so had to get details of my total allowance for 2013, which worked out at just over 13,000. On that, I ran a car, paid my bills, fed and clothed my children, heated the house, paid for school "administration fees" and books. Nowadays I have to factor in the property tax and the water tax as well. I'm no witch. I do my damnest to survive.

Shrap

Sociopath2 wrote: »

No one on welfare is willing to take a cut on any payment but reform will mean some get more and a lot more will get less. People should get the help they need, not what they feel they are entitled to.

Any suggestions about where I should take a cut, having laid out my finances to you? Maybe I should cut back on the heating? Or the car....yeah, living in rural Ireland with no car = SW for life. I've no intention of being on it for life, but if you cut me back further, I'll lose every opportunity to better myself and my family. Maybe I should just do without the electricity (higher rate in rural Ireland), the bottled gas to cook with (higher rate in rural Ireland) or just chance driving around a banger till I get caught for no NCT/tax? Where do you think I should take the cut eh?

Grayson

Idbatterim wrote: »

Or simply put in a bit of effort...

totally agree, this is one of the top priority areas for funding IMO... Reducing anti business, anti employment levels of income tax at the marginal rate is another one (with rates like that, they wonder why there was a jobs crisis, well thats one large factor)...

The taxes in Ireland aren't that prohibitive. they are roughly in line with most European countries. However I do think increasing tax credits or raising the threshold for the lower level tax bracket would be wise. Everyone, including the higher earners would benefit by the same amount. However the poorest people would feel the most effect. If you earn 250 a week an extra 10 makes a difference. If you earn 800 a week the extra 10 would technically make a difference but it wouldn't be as noticeable.

Sociopath2

Shrap wrote: »

Any suggestions about where I should take a cut, having laid out my finances to you? Maybe I should cut back on the heating? Or the car....yeah, living in rural Ireland with no car = SW for life. I've no intention of being on it for life, but if you cut me back further, I'll lose every opportunity to better myself and my family. Maybe I should just do without the electricity (higher rate in rural Ireland), the bottled gas to cook with (higher rate in rural Ireland) or just chance driving around a banger till I get caught for no NCT/tax? Where do you think I should take the cut eh?

This kind of hysterics is exactly what I'm talking about. Your only options are giving up electricity, gas or not taxing the car?

What if your payment was cut but more money was put into programs to support you getting back to work?

SW is a poverty trap. You'll always struggle on it. Maintaining or increasing basic payments won't help anyone, just keep them in the trap longer. Spend that money giving the people who have some get up and go the support the need to get an education, get a job or start a business.

Deise Vu

Shrap wrote: »

Any suggestions about where I should take a cut, having laid out my finances to you? Maybe I should cut back on the heating? Or the car....yeah, living in rural Ireland with no car = SW for life. I've no intention of being on it for life, but if you cut me back further, I'll lose every opportunity to better myself and my family. Maybe I should just do without the electricity (higher rate in rural Ireland), the bottled gas to cook with (higher rate in rural Ireland) or just chance driving around a banger till I get caught for no NCT/tax? Where do you think I should take the cut eh?

You either don't know your 'entitlements' or you are a bit forgetful. Here is the calculation for Family Income Supplement:

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/reference/worksheets/worksheet_how_to_calculate_your_family_income_supplement.html

Getting away from you and back on topic. The family income supplement 'basic income' for a family with 8 children is €1,298 per week (With FIS paying 60% of the difference between current income and the 'basic'). If our friends SW is €550 his FIS would be another €449 per week which is actually €1 short of a grand a week. And FIS ignores child benefit (see note 3 for calculating income). At around €120 a pop for 8 that is €11.5K per annum on top of €52K. €63.5K!!!! I think my career may be taking a different path.

Shrap

Sociopath2 wrote: »

This kind of hysterics is exactly what I'm talking about. Your only options are giving up electricity, gas or not taxing the car?

What if your payment was cut but more money was put into programs to support you getting back to work?

SW is a poverty trap. You'll always struggle on it. Maintaining or increasing basic payments won't help anyone, just keep them in the trap longer. Spend that money giving the people who have some get up and go the support the need to get an education, get a job or start a business.

That's already being done, just not to a high enough standard or in a timely fashion. I'll give you an example. I'll be on Job seekers this year instead of one parent family allowance because my youngest has reached 13. I was lucky to have children this old by this year because the new rules are that when the youngest reaches 7, then a lone parent will be forced onto job seekers and required to do either courses or take up jobs.

Now don't get me wrong, I would love to be working (and am in fact self-financing a workshop to enable me to be self-employed), but my house is solid fuel heating and my youngest has an SEBD which requires ongoing intervention from the HSE and his school. He has no disability, so no allowances will be made for this. Whatever about my 13 yr old coming home to an empty house from school, lighting the range, keeping it going and not any more attending his counselling if I have a job, how is a 7 yr old going to do that? The vast majority of all council houses in my whole side of the county have solid fuel heating and no support to change over to a more automatic system. Child care is non-existent. Courses are an hour away, each way. Ditto for jobs.

SW is of course a poverty trap, but you do not encourage people out of the trap by first cutting their SW and then 10 years down the road (or never), providing the services needed to help a lone parent get out of the trap. That just impedes a lone parent from making sure their kids get the educational/social opportunities and home life they need.

Shrap

Deise Vu wrote: »

You either don't know your 'entitlements' or you are a bit forgetful. Here is the calculation for Family Income Supplement:

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/reference/worksheets/worksheet_how_to_calculate_your_family_income_supplement.html

Getting away from you and back on topic. The family income supplement 'basic income' for a family with 8 children is €1,298 per week (With FIS paying 60% of the difference between current income and the 'basic'). If our friends SW is €550 his FIS would be another €449 per week which is actually €1 short of a grand a week. And FIS ignores child benefit (see note 3 for calculating income). At around €120 a pop for 8 that is €11.5K per annum on top of €52K. €63.5K!!!! I think my career may be taking a different path.

So in other words, this particular father of 8 has a job? Ok, clearly the level of FIS supplements are a whole different argument to cutting the basic SW rates then, yes?

And indeed I do know my entitlements, but I cannot be on FIS unless I have a full time job (above, I think, 19 hrs per week).

Sociopath2

Shrap wrote: »

That's already being done, just not to a high enough standard or in a timely fashion. I'll give you an example. I'll be on Job seekers this year instead of one parent family allowance because my youngest has reached 13. I was lucky to have children this old by this year because the new rules are that when the youngest reaches 7, then a lone parent will be forced onto job seekers and required to do either courses or take up jobs.

Now don't get me wrong, I would love to be working (and am in fact self-financing a workshop to enable me to be self-employed), but my house is solid fuel heating and my youngest has an SEBD which requires ongoing intervention from the HSE and his school. He has no disability, so no allowances will be made for this. Whatever about my 13 yr old coming home to an empty house from school, lighting the range, keeping it going and not any more attending his counselling if I have a job, how is a 7 yr old going to do that? The vast majority of all council houses in my whole side of the county have solid fuel heating and no support to change over to a more automatic system. Child care is non-existent. Courses are an hour away, each way. Ditto for jobs.

SW is of course a poverty trap, but you do not encourage people out of the trap by first cutting their SW and then 10 years down the road (or never), providing the services needed to help a lone parent get out of the trap. That just impedes a lone parent from making sure their kids get the educational/social opportunities and home life they need.

If there's so little resources where you live, why are you there?

Shrap

Sociopath2 wrote: »

If there's so little resources where you live, why are you there?

I own my house. I'm one of the lucky ones. Besides, we can't all live in cities or there'd be nobody in the rural areas. Anyhow, I am doing my level best to become employed (self-employed) but as a parent these things are somewhat dependent on your dependent children's needs. As the primary care-giver, my priority is giving appropriate care, not dragging my ass into a macdonald's job while my kids are looking after themselves at home during their formative years.

Sociopath2

Shrap wrote: »

I own my house. I'm one of the lucky ones. Besides, we can't all live in cities or there'd be nobody in the rural areas. Anyhow, I am doing my level best to become employed (self-employed) but as a parent these things are somewhat dependent on your dependent children's needs. As the primary care-giver, my priority is giving appropriate care, not dragging my ass into a macdonald's job while my kids are looking after themselves at home during their formative years.

So you want to be funded to stay at home, in the location you choose, that you admit yourself has no resources available, so you can be with your children all the time?

The whole point of encouraging people to live in cities is that it is easier to deliver resources to people concentrated in one area.

You need to sell your house and move somewhere there's jobs, education and childcare available. A lot of people are in your situation and most of them do what they have to work. If McDonald's is all you aim for its all you'll get.

I don't think you are willing to make any hard decisions and put the effort in. You'd prefer to have the state fund your family's existence for the next, what, 10 years until the kids are finished school.

Complaining about how little you have to live on when you didn't mention you own your house is a bit disingenuous.

There's a serious sense of entitlement about you.

eviltwin

Sociopath2 wrote: »

So you want to be funded to stay at home, in the location you choose, that you admit yourself has no resources available, so you can be with your children all the time?

The whole point of encouraging people to live in cities is that it is easier to deliver resources to people concentrated in one area.

You need to sell your house and move somewhere there's jobs, education and childcare available. A lot of people are in your situation and most of them do what they have to work. If McDonald's is all you aim for its all you'll get.

I don't think you are willing to make any hard decisions and put the effort in. You'd prefer to have the state fund your family's existence for the next, what, 10 years until the kids are finished school.

Complaining about how little you have to live on when you didn't mention you own your house is a bit disingenuous.

There's a serious sense of entitlement about you.

Its not easy to sell up and move on, if Shrap is living in a rural area then its unlikely he/she be able to afford to buy in a city location. The bank won't give you any money if you are on welfare. Then there is childcare which is a massive expense. You're idea sounds logical on paper but when applied to real life people its often not practical.

Shrap

Sociopath2 wrote: »

So you want to be funded to stay at home, in the location you choose, that you admit yourself has no resources available, so you can be with your children all the time?

The whole point of encouraging people to live in cities is that it is easier to deliver resources to people concentrated in one area.

You need to sell your house and move somewhere there's jobs, education and childcare available. A lot of people are in your situation and most of them do what they have to work. If McDonald's is all you aim for its all you'll get.

I don't think you are willing to make any hard decisions and put the effort in. You'd prefer to have the state fund your family's existence for the next, what, 10 years until the kids are finished school.

Complaining about how little you have to live on when you didn't mention you own your house is a bit disingenuous.

There's a serious sense of entitlement about you.

I haven't complained once, I think you'll find. I am very grateful for the support I need (not want - I don't want to be on SW). You're mental if you think selling up and moving to a city would be in any way better for either my children or the economy, when I have invested every penny I can into bettering our future here and am diligently and determinedly building my career so I can get off to a running start when I can apply for the back to work scheme this year. As self-employed, I will not qualify for FIS, which is where the bigger bucks are, but it is a better career move to continue on my extremely low income and try to match it with money I have earned by myself (as the SW income drops in relation to this).

I think the "sense of entitlement" you see is what you want to see, and smacks of your low opinion of people on SW as sponging, however any of us ended up on it. Which is a bit disingenuous really, isn't it?

Sociopath2

Shrap wrote: »

I haven't complained once, I think you'll find. I am very grateful for the support I need (not want - I don't want to be on SW). You're mental if you think selling up and moving to a city would be in any way better for either my children or the economy, when I have invested every penny I can into bettering our future here and am diligently and determinedly building my career so I can get off to a running start when I can apply for the back to work scheme this year. As self-employed, I will not qualify for FIS, which is where the bigger bucks are, but it is a better career move to continue on my extremely low income and try to match it with money I have earned by myself (as the SW income drops in relation to this).

I think the "sense of entitlement" you see is what you want to see, and smacks of your low opinion of people on SW as sponging, however any of us ended up on it. Which is a bit disingenuous really, isn't it?

What kind of self employment are you going to establish in the middle of nowhere, that will be able to generate a sufficient income to take you off SW?

Sociopath2

eviltwin wrote: »

Its not easy to sell up and move on, if Shrap is living in a rural area then its unlikely he/she be able to afford to buy in a city location. The bank won't give you any money if you are on welfare. Then there is childcare which is a massive expense. You're idea sounds logical on paper but when applied to real life people its often not practical.

It's not easy, there's a difference. Very few people are willing to make hard choices that will benefit them in the long run. No need to buy in a city, the idea is get closer to resources. Renting would work just fine.

Shrap

Sociopath2 wrote: »

What kind of self employment are you going to establish in the middle of nowhere, that will be able to generate a sufficient income to take you off SW?

That's a good question, and thanks for asking. Certainly not one that within the next 5 years would enable me to support my family fully (which is a problem that I shall have to overcome, seeing as the back to work allowance only lasts 3 years). I am a very good artist, who is cornering a market on small scale mass produced concrete garden ornaments (all originals). I needed to find an outlet for my skills at carving that would be cheap and easy to reproduce, and I have the techniques and commitment, but as I am still working off the kitchen table (having run out of money to finish the workshop), unfortunately I'm not yet able to produce the larger (higher earning) pieces that will be my mainstay.

Of course it's something of a catch 22 that I can't officially earn anything until I am self-employed, and can't be self-employed without starting the BTW scheme which is a 3 year scheme, so at the moment, I am building up a line of molds and casts with which I can go into production (and selling) when I figure I have enough made to supply a number of garden centres/shops all of a shot, so as to hit the ground running. I will need the BTW scheme grant to buy equipment for the workshop like a vibrating table and a better cement mixer, so cannot apply to it to finish the building of the workshop unfortunately. The timing wouldn't be right.

I am sitting here literally watching paint and cement dry at the moment But perhaps I'd be more use to you personally if I worked in Macdonalds?

Sociopath2

Shrap wrote: »

That's a good question, and thanks for asking. Certainly not one that within the next 5 years would enable me to support my family fully (which is a problem that I shall have to overcome, seeing as the back to work allowance only lasts 3 years). I am a very good artist, who is cornering a market on small scale mass produced concrete garden ornaments (all originals). I needed to find an outlet for my skills at carving that would be cheap and easy to reproduce, and I have the techniques and commitment, but as I am still working off the kitchen table (having run out of money to finish the workshop), unfortunately I'm not yet able to produce the larger (higher earning) pieces that will be my mainstay.

Of course it's something of a catch 22 that I can't officially earn anything until I am self-employed, and can't be self-employed without starting the BTW scheme which is a 3 year scheme, so at the moment, I am building up a line of molds and casts with which I can go into production (and selling) when I figure I have enough made to supply a number of garden centres/shops all of a shot, so as to hit the ground running.

I am sitting here literally watching paint and cement dry at the moment

Small scale mass produced? OK, you sound like you know what you're talking about.

Do you actually have a business plan for this?