unacceptable level of irregular social welfare payments

pinkyeye

Eric Cartman wrote: »

The only thing ive campaigned against is waste and fraud , why are you defending this, why do so many people cherry pick genuine examples of welfare need to use as a sheild to hide the wasters behind.

If I implemented the fraud standards and measures I wanted to it would dramatically cut costs and the genuine cases wouldnt see any negative impact

Except for having their pets taken away and having the humiliation of having to use food vouchers?

Get up the yard. :rolleyes:

Eric Cartman

pinkyeye wrote: »

Except for having their pets taken away and having the humiliation of having to use food vouchers?

Get up the yard. :rolleyes:

only people on JSA would have to be 'humiliated'
it might encourage them to get a job.

Eric Cartman

Eric Cartman wrote: »

....

This thread is about fraud, but I think the defeinition of fraud is too low.....

Is dodging BIK fraud in your opinion?

Eric Cartman

Augeo wrote: »

Is dodging BIK fraud in your opinion?

tax avoidance is not fraud, and i know what youre at. Im doing naathin.

Viscount Aggro

I know a guy who recently had a party, a double celebration.
50th birthday, and 30 years on the dole.
I kid you not.

CinemaGuy45

Viscount Aggro wrote: »

I know a guy who recently had a party, a double celebration.
50th birthday, and 30 years on the dole.
I kid you not.

Did you stay till the end or leave early?

Viscount Aggro

He gets a burger allowance too.
Because he is separated, gets to bring his kids for lunch once a week.
The Social pays for it.

Eric Cartman

Viscount Aggro wrote: »

I know a guy who recently had a party, a double celebration.
50th birthday, and 30 years on the dole.
I kid you not.

and see everyone has a story like that. Most of the people getting mad at me here either took the piss when they were younger, their brother/sister/da/ma/ childhood best friend/ drinking buddy/ neighbour / cousin did it or they themselves are doing it. For them they arent seeing that its me having a go at people absusing funds meant for the less fortunate, its a personal attack on them or somebody they see as a grand lad, if it was only their mate/relative taking the piss it wouldnt be worth going after, but what they don't realise is theres thousands of them at it and it leaves us unable to provide for those who really need it.

for 16 billion a year we would be able to lower working peoples taxes to a more manageable level and provide a welfare system that cares for those who really need it. We have to eliminate waste in administration and in recipiency of this money in order to achieve an effective system.

James Brown

Eric Cartman wrote: »

and see everyone has a story like that. Most of the people getting mad at me here either took the piss when they were younger, their brother/sister/da/ma/ childhood best friend/ drinking buddy/ neighbour / cousin did it or they themselves are doing it. For them they arent seeing that its me having a go at people absusing funds meant for the less fortunate, its a personal attack on them or somebody they see as a grand lad, if it was only their mate/relative taking the piss it wouldnt be worth going after, but what they don't realise is theres thousands of them at it and it leaves us unable to provide for those who really need it.

for 16 billion a year we would be able to lower working peoples taxes to a more manageable level and provide a welfare system that cares for those who really need it. We have to eliminate waste in administration and in recipiency of this money in order to achieve an effective system.

Who is defending fraudsters? I don't see anyone saying it's grand.
Everybody wants it to only go to those who need.
Who are you arguing with exactly? Seems like you just want to give out about everyone on welfare.

Graces7

Eric Cartman wrote: »

tax avoidance is not fraud, and i know what youre at. Im doing naathin.

Of course it is fraud

Pot kettle black...

end of the road

Eric Cartman wrote: »

only people on JSA would have to be 'humiliated'
it might encourage them to get a job.

it is very unlikely to encourage them to get a job as they are already working to get one, or one doesn't exist for them to get as the country may be in full employment, or they are one of the small few who could never be employed.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

and see everyone has a story like that. Most of the people getting mad at me here either took the piss when they were younger, their brother/sister/da/ma/ childhood best friend/ drinking buddy/ neighbour / cousin did it or they themselves are doing it. For them they arent seeing that its me having a go at people absusing funds meant for the less fortunate, its a personal attack on them or somebody they see as a grand lad, if it was only their mate/relative taking the piss it wouldnt be worth going after, but what they don't realise is theres thousands of them at it and it leaves us unable to provide for those who really need it.

for 16 billion a year we would be able to lower working peoples taxes to a more manageable level and provide a welfare system that cares for those who really need it. We have to eliminate waste in administration and in recipiency of this money in order to achieve an effective system.

lowering taxes is not viable if we want to have high quality public services down the line. unless we vastly increase the population, which people don't want.
yes we need to cut out waste and duplication and the best way for that is natural wastage, IE where there genuinely are to many people in a roll, don't replace them when they retire until a certain number is reached.

fritzelly

One big difference between Ireland and most of Europe (UK excluded) is they help people who have lost their job with guaranteed minimum amounts based on your work life (above what you get in Ireland) and give the bare minimum to those who have never worked
In Ireland you get the same as someone who has never worked for 20 years even if you have worked 40 years
EU countries have the right idea

Geuze

fritzelly wrote: »

One big difference between Ireland and most of Europe (UK excluded) is they help people who have lost their job with guaranteed minimum amounts based on your work life (above what you get in Ireland) and give the bare minimum to those who have never worked
In Ireland you get the same as someone who has never worked for 20 years even if you have worked 40 years
EU countries have the right idea

YES.

What you are referring to is known as earnings-related benefits, whereas we have flat-rate benefits.

Take Germany.

JSB = 60-67% of your former net wage for 12 months.

JSA = approx 100 pw after 12 months

weldoninhio

Graces7 wrote: »

Of course it is fraud

Pot kettle black...

Tax avoidance is 100% legal.

Boggles

Geuze wrote: »

YES.

What you are referring to is known as earnings-related benefits, whereas we have flat-rate benefits.

Take Germany.

JSB = 60-67% of your former net wage for 12 months.

JSA = approx 100 pw after 12 months

That's cash.

Social Protection in Germany takes care of the rent and most bills on top of that as well as numerous other allowances based on circumstances.

Doctor Jimbob

weldoninhio wrote: »

Tax avoidance is 100% legal.

As is claiming benefits but that doesn't seem to stop a fair few on here giving out about it.

weldoninhio

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

As is claiming benefits but that doesn't seem to stop a fair few on here giving out about it.

No one has ever given out about genuine cases. It's the ones defrauding (illegal) the system that people give out about. How come no matter how many times people say this, you'll always have someone that completely ignores it??

Eric Cartman

weldoninhio wrote: »

No one has ever given out about genuine cases. It's the ones defrauding (illegal) the system that people give out about. How come no matter how many times people say this, you'll always have someone that completely ignores it??

Its always the same

Me : “im sick of johnno spending all his dole on cans and fags”
These people : “heres billy who has no legs and 4 kinds of cancer, how dare you try take away his welfare”

Doctor Jimbob

weldoninhio wrote: »

No one has ever given out about genuine cases. It's the ones defrauding (illegal) the system that people give out about. How come no matter how many times people say this, you'll always have someone that completely ignores it??

People say they're only giving out about illegal cases, but then you have posts complaining about people having too many kids and collecting the associated benefits, and people on disability for reasons they personally disagree with. It's blatantly obvious that a few on this thread dislike the concept of welfare entirely, despite claiming to only have an issue with fraud.

iamwhoiam

fritzelly wrote: »

One big difference between Ireland and most of Europe (UK excluded) is they help people who have lost their job with guaranteed minimum amounts based on your work life (above what you get in Ireland) and give the bare minimum to those who have never worked
In Ireland you get the same as someone who has never worked for 20 years even if you have worked 40 years
EU countries have the right idea

There is actually a huge anomaly where someone who worked for 20 years can end up getting less than a person who had never worked

Lets say you find yourself out of a job in 2019 . You worked full time for 20 years but due to some circumstance you worked only for 6 months in 2017
Maybe a sick child or a sick parent needed you so you cannot sign on as you are not available for work

So in 2019 your credits for 20 years do not matter a jot only your credits from 2017 now matter for your claim
So you find yourself getting a reduced rate and in fact that rate is less than the person who had never worked a day

This happened a relative of mine and he pointed this out to the Minister and the TDs and nothing was done about this gaping hole in the system

Boggles

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Me : “im sick of johnno spending all his dole on cans and fags”

Ah sure, on the bright side. Most of that is tax it's coming straight back.

Graces7

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Its always the same

Me : “im sick of johnno spending all his dole on cans and fags”
These people : “heres billy who has no legs and 4 kinds of cancer, how dare you try take away his welfare”

How someone chooses to spend their welfare is their choice entirely. Nothing to do with anyone but them. It is their money after all.

Graces7

[QUOTE=weldoninhio;111412425No] one has ever given out about genuine cases. It's the ones defrauding (illegal) the system that people give out about. How come no matter how many times people say this, you'll always have someone that completely ignores it??[/QUOTE]

But that, ie if they are genuine or not, is not your call to make. It really isn't. Nor is any accusation that they are defrauding.

There is a simple to access procedure for reporting welfare fraud. Trial and judgement by posts on the internet says more re the poster than it does re the recipients.

ELM327

weldoninhio wrote: »

Tax avoidance is 100% legal.

That's an important distinction that most lefty liberals dont get


Tax avoidance: declaring only relevant earnings and using legitimate expenses to offset where possible
Tax evasion: not declaring all earnings that are required


Two very different things.
I've done both and paid the penalty on the second when I pushed the line a little too far. Which is the way it should be. Without rules and boundaries we descend into anarchy where everything is free for those who couldnt be arsed working, the country is broke, and borrowing to sustain this.... oh wait, welcome to 2019 in Ireland.

Eric Cartman

Graces7 wrote: »

How someone chooses to spend their welfare is their choice entirely. Nothing to do with anyone but them. It is their money after all.

Its my money forcefully removed from me and misapropriated to them.

Lillyfae

Boggles wrote: »

That's cash.

Social Protection in Germany takes care of the rent and most bills on top of that as well as numerous other allowances based on circumstances.

I don't think that's true. 70% is what you get as far as I'm aware and all of your own payments come out of that. No rent allowance or HAP rubbish, and you would have to keep evidence of a set number of applications to show your career advisor.

EDIT: The 70% would be per month per year of work so eg if you worked for 10 years and became unemployed, you would be paid 70% of your most recent salary for 10 months.

Boggles

Lillyfae wrote: »

I don't think that's true

It is.

https://www.steuergo.de/en/rechner/arbeitslosengeld_II

B0jangles

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Its my money birthday cake forcefully removed from me and misapropriated to them.

- Eric, at his 6th birthday party.



The terrible moment a lifelong social and philosophical theory was born.

end of the road

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Its my money forcefully removed from me and misapropriated to them.

if they are been given the money legally then it is not being misapropriated.
also, once someone receives money then it becomes theirs and is no longer yours.

Lillyfae

Boggles wrote: »

It is.

https://www.steuergo.de/en/rechner/arbeitslosengeld_II

Apologies, I was indeed incorrect- but judging by what I've bolded below there are caveats, not least what your previous salary is worth.

Unemployment benefit II consists of benefits to secure livelihoods and costs for accommodation and heating. In addition to the benefits to secure livelihoods, which are calculated from different standard rates for the individual members of a community of needs, there may also be entitlement to so-called excess requirements and additional surcharges.

Housing costs will be paid in an appropriate amount. This means that the members of a community, the size of the flat and the rent will be used to determine whether the housing costs are really reasonable or whether the applicant lives in an apartment that is too large and too expensive. Then the office can even order a change of dwelling, or reduce the housing costs.

If the heating costs already include the costs for hot water production, a flat rate is usually deducted. According to the Federal Employment Agency, however, this percentage varies from municipality to municipality. It is usually deducted from your application if the hot water in your household is billed via the heating system. In our computer, we deduct 18 percent of the heating costs for the hot water preparation. The costs of further energy consumption, for example for cooking or electrical appliances, must also be covered by the standard rate.