Construction worker guilty of hiding €135,000 in savings from social welfare

Beta Ray Bill

splinter65 wrote: »

Soo what your saying in a nutshell is that if you’ve worked for 28 years you should be able to retire and get state top up from the taxpayers minimum €203 + €134.70 for spouse + €37 for each kid per week, irregardless of savings, until retirement at 67 when it goes up to €248 +++?
Sweet! I’m 54 now. Can I get back money?

But he went back to work!?
I didn't want to lay around doing nothing.

Wibbs wrote: »

IIRC, though don't quote me on it K the limit is around 10,000 for jobseekers allowance? To me that's fair, but 100 plus grand? Eh no.

€100k over the course of 20/30 years is not a lot, it's saving an average of €4k per year, which is doable for most people.
If you're going to be penalised for saving it in the event you lose you job, whats the point in saving it?

I understand what you are saying though that maybe if it were a million or two, they could f**k off.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Eric Cartman wrote: »

yeah, and you should get that after youve run down your own personal savings. The social is supposed to be a safety net for those who cannot support themselves, not an alternative income source

No, it's an insurance fund you pay into in order to access in the event of a certain event happening.

If you pay health insurance and then get sick and have to spend time in hospital, the health insurance covers you. They can't just tell you to fund it yourself just because you can.

If you pay motor insurance and then have an accident, the motor insurance covers you. They can't just tell you to go fund it yourself just because you can.

maccored

if you have that kind of money in the bank you dont need to sign on

Pronto63

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

No, it's an insurance fund you pay into in order to access in the event of a certain event happening.

If you pay health insurance and then get sick and have to spend time in hospital, the health insurance covers you. They can't just tell you to fund it yourself just because you can.

If you pay motor insurance and then have an accident, the motor insurance covers you. They can't just tell you to go fund it yourself just because you can.

The fund you pay into is for Jobseekers Benefit (JB). You can have millions in the bank and it won't affect your JB claim.

JB only lasts for 9 months after that you claim Jobseekers Allowance (JA).

JA is designed to help those in dire financial straits who have no other means of support. The idea behind the means test is so that only those that really need it qualify for it. Even so you can still have €20,000 in savings and it doesn't affect your JA claim.

May 2009 - May 2010 he was out of work. 7 months of that would have been JB and 3 months JA.

Back in employment for 22 months till March 2012 when he signed on again up till October 2012 (8 months).

Were his contributions paid between May 2010 and March 2012 not enough to put him back on JB?

This guy is a worker and used the welfare only when he in the **** position of not having a job. He shouldn’t be the type of person they are prosecuting as an “example” to us all. I also don’t see in the report that they say he had claimed any extras like rent/mortgage allowance so sorry, I don’t believe he was taking the piss.

Mr. teddywinkles

Is it not the case if you have savings you get reduced dole neways. Every 10000 your reduced more. So technically your still entitled to get welfare. Also the fact he was going back to work to pay prsi and tax again neways so what's the problem

splinter65

Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »

Is it not the case if you have savings you get reduced dole neways. Every 10000 your reduced more. So technically your still entitled to get welfare. Also the fact he was going back to work to pay prsi and tax again neways so what's the problem

You can have 20000 and it not affect your JSA.
If you have 30000 you are deducted €10.
If you have 40000 you are deducted €30.
If you have more then you are deducted a further €4 for every €1000 you have.
So if you have say 60000 then you would be deducted €110 etc

smelly sock

Idbatterim wrote: »

small change! that waster margaret cash and many like her, are handed that figure in two years, for life, no questions asked!

No they are not.

splinter65

splinter65 wrote: »

You can have 20000 and it not affect your JSA.
If you have 30000 you are deducted €10.
If you have 40000 you are deducted €30.
If you have more then you are deducted a further €4 for every €1000 you have.
So if you have say 60000 then you would be deducted €110 etc

So if he had 100000 that’s 40 grand left to calculate. 40x4 is 160 so total deducted is more than JA?

splinter65

smelly sock wrote: »

No they are not.

Including child benefit Margaret cash as a lone parent/JSA will have had a minimum of €35000 by the end of 2019.
You would have to add fuel allowance at €22.50 per week for 7 months, BTSCFA, and HAP, to all that plus medical card.
She could also be in receipt of 1/2 rate Carers Allowance and DCA too, I don’t know.
I don’t know if her husband is living with her or not. If he is you can add another €7000 to that.
It’s a tragedy for Margaret and her kids that she lives the way she does. You can see from her angry tearful outbursts about being “robbed” by the government how unhappy she is despite having far more money coming in from the state then she actually needs. If anyone could suggest what can be done about this it would be interesting to hear.

pinkyeye

splinter65 wrote: »

Including child benefit Margaret cash as a lone parent/JSA will have had a minimum of €35000 by the end of 2019.
You would have to add fuel allowance at €22.50 per week for 7 months, BTSCFA, and HAP, to all that plus medical card.
She could also be in receipt of 1/2 rate Carers Allowance and DCA too, I don’t know.
I don’t know if her husband is living with her or not. If he is you can add another €7000 to that.
It’s a tragedy for Margaret and her kids that she lives the way she does. You can see from her angry tearful outbursts about being “robbed” by the government how unhappy she is despite having far more money coming in from the state then she actually needs. If anyone could suggest what can be done about this it would be interesting to hear.

What on earth has this to do with the OP???????

Portsalon

The court heard that when he applied for the benefit he had not told department about funds he had in two bank accounts.

Deliberate fraud.

He had ticked a box in his application saying he did not not have money in a bank or a credit union.

Deliberate Fraud

The court heard he signed a declaration that also included a warning that it was an offence to conceal information in a social welfare application.

Deliberate Fraud.


There is absolutely no difference morally or ethically between what he did and what Maria Bailey tried to do.

Sheeps

You are paying for his fraud.

Sheeps

Sheeps wrote: »

You are paying for his fraud.

So was he. Go figure

splinter65

pinkyeye wrote: »

What on earth has this to do with the OP???????

As you know I was responding to a series of posts speculating on the income of Margaret cash

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Pronto63 wrote: »

The fund you pay into is for Jobseekers Benefit (JB). You can have millions in the bank and it won't affect your JB claim.

JB only lasts for 9 months after that you claim Jobseekers Allowance (JA).

JA is designed to help those in dire financial straits who have no other means of support. The idea behind the means test is so that only those that really need it qualify for it. Even so you can still have €20,000 in savings and it doesn't affect your JA claim.

Yeah, I know all that - problem is when Eric insists on mentioning "the social" it's a bit difficult to know what he's talking about.

LillySV

Geuze wrote: »

Social Insurance should be increased, so JSB should rise

Social Assistance should not be increased.

JSB should be much higher than JSA.

What happened in last few years was that when the actual taxpayer lost their job, they had a safety net of 390 days to collect their jobseekers payment before having to consider a means tested payment ... that was brought back to 312 , then 234 days where it had stayed . That means you could pay stamps for 45 years and after all that get paid for 234 days/9 months. The current pack of bastards in govt also brought in rule where u cant claim illness benefit for 6 days if anything happens to ya.... so basically most people paying prsi for nothing as most be returned to work by then.

Meanwhile the money for wasters have increased, the child dependent rate that they claim had gone up, further incentivizing them to breed like rats.. the long term unemployed get fuel allowance for winter while the unemployed taxpayer does not ...the long term unemployed get hap to pay their rent and eventually in many cases, a free house.... the taxpayer.... nothing .... your seeing a trend here... pay tax get frig all, pay nothing get everything .... once that system is goin on, theres a lot who won’t bother to work.

Should be like most other countries ... taxpayer gets a percentage of their last salary when lose job which reduces to nothing eventually after 9-12 months. The long term unemployed should be made Work on schemes to aid their local community and get a minimum rate of payment which will incentivize them to find work