Man gets €840 a week on welfare

Sociopath2

Tony EH wrote: »

There isn't any sense in answering ignorant statements.

Deflecting again Tony, if you're not bright enough to come up with an intelligent answer or understand the question put to you that's fine.

How about you venture an opinion on reforming social welfare beyond "it'll make it **** for everyone"?

Where do you stand on reducing core payments in favour of increasing incentives and support to get welfare recipients back into education or employment?

Caliden

Tony EH wrote: »

Bring down the cost of living to UK standards too and everybody will be on board for that.

:pac:

http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_countries_result.jsp?country1=United+Kingdom&country2=Ireland


Cost of living is already lower than the UK

Tony EH

Sociopath2 wrote: »

Deflecting again Tony, if you're not bright enough to come up with an intelligent answer or understand the question put to you that's fine.

Your posts are ignorant tripe frankly and I am not too inclined to bother wasting my time with you. Your replies to Shrap are nothing but a disgrace and a perfect example of where discourse with you leads. You come across as a bitter, ignorant and petty individual who wouldn't be interested in any real discussion anyway.

Sociopath2 wrote: »

How about you venture an opinion on reforming social welfare beyond "it'll make it **** for everyone"?

I'll refer you to my previous answer to you on this:

"If someone is saying "cut the welfare state", there isn't much room for doubt that that means anything other than making things ****e for everyone that has found themselves in need of said welfare state."

If you're incapable of understanding what is meant by the above then no amount of elaboration will help.

Sociopath2 wrote: »

Where do you stand on reducing core payments in favour of increasing incentives and support to get welfare recipients back into education or employment?

Reducing core payments will do nothing but make life on the dole harder for those unfortunate enough to find themselves there. The majority of whom are there through no fault of their own.

The ONLY thing that will reduce the numbers on social welfare is more job creation.

Sociopath2

Tony EH wrote: »

Your posts are ignorant tripe frankly and I am not too inclined to bother wasting my time with you. Your replies to Shrap are nothing but a disgrace and a perfect example of where discourse with you leads. You come across as a bitter, ignorant and petty individual who wouldn't be interested in any real discussion anyway.



I'll refer you to my previous answer to you on this:

"If someone is saying "cut the welfare state", there isn't much room for doubt that that means anything other than making things ****e for everyone that has found themselves in need of said welfare state."

If you're incapable of understanding what is meant by the above then no amount of elaboration will help.



Reducing core payments will do nothing but make life on the dole harder for those unfortunate enough to find themselves there. The majority of whom are there through no fault of their own.

The ONLY thing that will reduce the numbers on social welfare is more job creation.

That's a bit rich Tony considering some of your nonsense rants. Shouting and ranting won't make your nonsense any more true, any more than the best intentions in the world will make Shraps plan any more viable.

You seem to be quite bitter towards someone who is comfortable and won't be reliant on SW. That's what everyone should be aiming for. Don't get petty because of your own begrudgery.

Social welfare is spending money in the wrong areas and maintaining core payments as they are is facilitating it becoming a lifestyle instead of a transitory period for most.

Each payment has to be assessed on its own merits. Invalidity type pensions naturally shouldn't be cut as those recipients aren't likely to return to work, whereas job seekers/lone parents should and the savings directed into returning those people to the workforce.

Tony EH

Sociopath2 wrote: »

That's a bit rich Tony considering some of your nonsense rants. Shouting and ranting won't make your nonsense any more true, any more than the best intentions in the world will make Shraps plan any more viable.

You seem to be quite bitter towards someone who is comfortable and won't be reliant on SW. That's what everyone should be aiming for. Don't get petty because of your own begrudgery.

Fail.

And you wonder why people aren't bothered engaging with you.

:rolleyes:

Sociopath2

Tony EH wrote: »

Fail.

And you wonder why people aren't bothered engaging with you.

:rolleyes:

Fail? You're really do talk like a student.

You aren't engaging because you haven't anything substantial to add beyond the couple of pathetic posts you've made so far.

I would think I'm wasting my time trying to debate with you but it's amusing watching you struggle with it.

Playboy

Sociopath2 wrote: »

You aren't going to last long in business unless you toughen up a bit.

What I have just said to you is exactly what banks will say, what distributors and customers will say. Having done it I can tell you it's not easy.

You found business difficult? Gosh who could have seen that coming!? I thought constant whinging, hysterical ranting, arrogance and all round bad attitude would have made you a roaring success! And your branding .. Sociopath.. just so you know exactly what to expect! Genius! I say try again mate.. you must have been unlucky first time!

Sociopath2

Playboy wrote: »

You found business difficult? Gosh who could have seen that coming!? I thought constant whinging, hysterical ranting, arrogance and all round bad attitude would have made you a roaring success! And your branding .. Sociopath.. just so you know exactly what to expect! Genius! I say try again mate.. you must have been unlucky first time!

Upset about something?

Tony EH

Sociopath2 wrote: »

Fail? You're really do talk like a student.

You aren't engaging because you haven't anything substantial to add beyond the couple of pathetic posts you've made so far.

I would think I'm wasting my time trying to debate with you but it's amusing watching you struggle with it.

You haven't offered a single thing to "struggle" with.

Idbatterim

Social welfare is spending money in the wrong areas and maintaining core payments as they are is facilitating it becoming a lifestyle instead of a transitory period for most.

Each payment has to be assessed on its own merits. Invalidity type pensions naturally shouldn't be cut as those recipients aren't likely to return to work, whereas job seekers/lone parents should and the savings directed into returning those people to the workforce.

Exactly the debate here is pathetic, Labour or FF will simply say, we will increase welfare by X, some areas may be too generous, some too low. The major problem here is, is the rates are not decided on merit, logic or problem solving, they are decided by political benefit and expediency, I would argue that in some cases they biggest losers are those on welfare from the current system...

Our "system" here is pathetic in comparison to other European countries, IMO and I think it is difficult to discuss the system here in isolation, without having comparators, we are somewhere between a Greece and a Germany, i.e. not total joke, but not exactly fit for purpose...

Assuming most of those on the dole either want to work or would work if it made financial sense to, I will laugh if SF got in, the potential damage they would do, would be shafting those on welfare the most, if you actually believe that most want to actually work and cant get a job...

darkpagandeath

Caliden wrote: »

http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_countries_result.jsp?country1=United+Kingdom&country2=Ireland


Cost of living is already lower than the UK

Pointless Figures as it takes the whole country into consideration. Back ass of nowhere here is dirt cheap. So that brings the average down, Try living in Dublin and say it's cheaper than most of the UK...

For major cities in those countries you could get probably more relevant data by specifying cities itself.

Sociopath2

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Pointless Figures as it takes the whole country into consideration. Back ass of nowhere here is dirt cheap. So that brings the average down, Try living in Dublin and say it's cheaper than most of the UK...

Try living in London and say its cheaper than Dublin. Thats the thing about statistics, they are aggregates that reflect the broader picture.

cold_caller

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Pointless Figures as it takes the whole country into consideration. Back ass of nowhere here is dirt cheap. So that brings the average down, Try living in Dublin and say it's cheaper than most of the UK...

dublin is far cheaper than london on every level bar buying alcohol

darkpagandeath

Sociopath2 wrote: »

Try living in London and say its cheaper than Dublin. Thats the thing about statistics, they are aggregates that reflect the broader picture.

http://www.independent.ie/life/travel/travel-news/dublin-among-europes-top-20-most-expensive-cities-for-expats-30821875.html

Gives a slightly better picture.

Tony EH

cold_caller wrote: »

dublin is far cheaper than london on every level bar buying alcohol

I'm just back from a business trip to London and I can tell you that there are many things that are cheaper in London than there are here. Both eating out and beer etc can be much cheaper.

Using the tube was expensive. Much more expensive than I remember it to be, but considering that I was traveling from zone 4 to zone 1 every day, it probably did work out cheaper than if I was traveling that distance in Ireland.

fleet_admiral

Did you use an Oyster?

yabadabado

cold_caller wrote: »

dublin is far cheaper than london on every level bar buying alcohol

Likewise parts of England are far cheaper than Dublin.

RobYourBuilder

Shrap wrote:

It IS capped

That's patently false. Welfare is not capped.

Here's a family raking in €90k in welfare - http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/politics/call-for-welfare-pay-cap-as-couple-claim-90k-a-year-168808.html

Tony EH

fleet_admiral wrote: »

Did you use an Oyster?

Yes.

Shrap

RobYourBuilder wrote: »

That's patently false. Welfare is not capped.

Here's a family raking in €90k in welfare - http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/politics/call-for-welfare-pay-cap-as-couple-claim-90k-a-year-168808.html

Well I stand corrected, if that can be believed. FFS, the "Guardian’s pension for child taken in — €286" alone is more than I support 2 teens on in a week. I've been going wrong somewhere! :pac: Clearly I should be making a career of sponging, instead of being on normal SW and trying to start a career in actual work.

Call me Al

How can a family get €286.per week in child benefit when they have 4 kids?

edit... Or doesthis have to do with a "guardian pension for child taken in" whatever that is....?

Shrap

Call me Al wrote: »

How can a family get €286.per week in child benefit when they have 4 kids?

edit... Or doesthis have to do with a "guardian pension for child taken in" whatever that is....?

Well if you were to look at the link, you would see that this "guardian pension for child taken in" is only one out of a number of different claims they are entitled to, so it's nowhere near the full amount they're getting per week. I was using that ONE claim as a comparison to my own circumstances. Although I'll say it again, having never in my life met anyone on this kind of SW scam, I wonder about the credibility of the article.

It's got nothing to do with child benefit, which everyone with children gets.

gctest50

Shrap wrote: »

Well I stand corrected, if that can be believed. FFS, the "Guardian’s pension for child taken in — €286" alone is more than I support 2 teens on in a week. I've been going wrong somewhere! :pac: Clearly I should be making a career of sponging, instead of being on normal SW and trying to start a career in actual work.

dodgy journalism maybe

In 2015, the Guardian's Payment (Contributory) is paid at a standard rate of €161 per week and the maximum Guardian's Payment (Non-Contributory) is €161 per week.

www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/social_welfare_payments/death_related_benefits/guardians_payments.html

a lot cheaper n better than state care

Shrap

gctest50 wrote: »

dodgy journalism maybe

a lot cheaper n better than state care

That's for sure. And the first sentence is more than likely for sure too. Sensationalist "spongers spending my taxes" headlines - guaranteed a big sell and indeed, a thread up here on boards.

Call me Al

Shrap wrote: »

Well if you were to look at the link, you would see that this "guardian pension for child taken in" is only one out of a number of different claims they are entitled to, so it's nowhere near the full amount they're getting per week. I was using that ONE claim as a comparison to my own circumstances. Although I'll say it again, having never in my life met anyone on this kind of SW scam, I wonder about the credibility of the article.

It's got nothing to do with child benefit, which everyone with children gets.

Someone else used this example of a family on benefits in receipt of the obscene amount of €90k per year. All of these payments and not one of them means tested or capped. No family I know of with four children gets €288 PER WEEK in children's allowance, hence I ask does it have to do with the "guardian" payment that is listed? Is there a higher rate if a person takes in another child? Does anyone know how or why this figure is so high?
As a mother of 2 receiving a national basic standard 2x€135 per month it is a legitimate question I think!

Call me Al

And I would be interested to know, on a national basis, the number of families who are in receipt of this number of state payments.
I'm sure these figures are recorded somewhere, but probably not available publicly.

Shrap

Call me Al wrote: »

Someone else used this example of a family on benefits in receipt of the obscene amount of €90k per year. All of these payments and not one of them means tested or capped. No family I know of with four children gets €288 PER WEEK in children's allowance, hence I ask does it have to do with the "guardian" payment that is listed? Is there a higher rate if a person takes in another child? Does anyone know how or why this figure is so high?
As a mother of 2 receiving a national basic standard 2x€135 per month it is a legitimate question I think!

I don't know where you're getting your question about children's allowance from, unless you misinterpreted me. I'm in the same position as yourself as a mother of 2 on SW. I have absolutely NO IDEA how they're getting so much, unless they fostered a profoundly disabled child or something. Not a clue.

Shrap

Call me Al wrote: »

And I would be interested to know, on a national basis, the number of families who are in receipt of this number of state payments.
I'm sure these figures are recorded somewhere, but probably not available publicly.

D'ya know what? I would be interested too, because its these few families who are "managing" the system somehow, that paint the rest of us as spongers. Perhaps there are very valid reasons they're on so much, but the reporting is shoddy and band-wagon jumping by not going into any details. Such crap, when the likes of you and me get told we're not looking after our kids well enough by choosing to be on SW. As if you'd choose to be so insulted and so badly off

bjork

ADHD
Get ye the extra monies
They all have it

CollyFlower

I haven't read all comments on this (55 pages, f-that ).... That's outrageous! Really outrageous! I'm so speechless I could scream..... Really...... And don't say "it's our culture"....... These" travellers" are good at engineering things to suit their culture.... Apart from that I do think the benefits are too generous.