Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Wealthy DCU Econimist targets Social Wel Recipients in Budget

Options
135

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Freddie59
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,679 ✭✭✭Freddie59


    galwayrush wrote: »
    Many peoples pension funds have already been wiped out.No bail out for them.....

    Two weeks before the bank guarantee, Waterford Crystal (a national institution and huge tourism puller) went to the Government and asked for a LOAN of 25 million euro. I am just using WC as an example, so bear with me. The Government decreed that it sawa "bright future" for tghe company.:rolleyes: It also said it couldn't intervene, as it would be "anti-competitive".

    Yet, weeks later, it bails out several private entities (banks) at the stroke of a pen, costing the country BILLIONS OVERNIGHT. What a joke.

    An international private entity (a bank) took a risk loaning dosh to it's Irish counterpart, who in turn took risks loaning it to speculators (developers).

    It all goes tits up - and none of these get caught for a cent - and Irish citizens must pay for it?

    What's next? Refunding stakes in the bookies?:mad:


  • Options
    #63
    poppyvalley
    Closed Accounts Posts: 372 ✭✭poppyvalley


    Cavehill Red wrote: »
    Deposits were already protected up to a level of tens of thousands by existing legislation.

    In Iceland did'nt depositors lose their bank savings?


  • Options
    #64
    Cavehill Red
    Registered Users Posts: 6,109 ✭✭✭Cavehill Red


    poppyvalley wrote: »
    In Iceland did'nt depositors lose their bank savings?

    Depositors with foreign branches of Icelandic banks did. This is why the Dutch and British governments (which then guaranteed those deposits) are seeking to get them back from the Icelandic government currently.
    However, the Icelanders rightly believe that since it was the choice of British and Dutch entities (primarily local councils in England) to bank with Landsbanki etc in order to obtain better interest rates, they speculated and lost and it is not the Icelandic people's responsibility to bail them out.
    The Icelanders say that the British and Dutch repayments of such deposits are a matter for Britain and Holland. The Brits and Dutch, in the meantime, want the Icelanders to pay them back.
    However, the Icelandic krona devalued severely, which did erode savings. That couldn't have happened in Ireland because we're in the eurozone.
    The situation in Ireland is also different in that there was already a deposit guarantee scheme in place to cover deposits up to a figure of some tens of thousands of euro.


  • Options
    #65
    Helix
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,661 ✭✭✭✭Helix


    social welfare recipients shouldve been targetted before we hit recession

    its too late now


  • Options
    #66
    kincsem
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,013 ✭✭✭kincsem


    I would welcome the IMF.

    I've had enough of Fianna Fail; Bertie Ahern; Brian Cowan, and the other teachers and solicitors that run our country; government consultants; TD inflated expenses; public sector one-way benchmarking; planning application abuse; public enquiries / legal fees bonanza; no penalties for the rich and jail for the poor; lack of prosecution of child abuse protectors.

    IMF in by Christmas would be my Christmas present.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    My name is URL
    Registered Users Posts: 25,068 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    kincsem wrote: »
    I would welcome the IMF.

    I've had enough of Fianna Fail; Bertie Ahern; Brian Cowan, and the other teachers and solicitors that run our country; government consultants; TD inflated expenses; public sector one-way benchmarking; planning application abuse; public enquiries / legal fees bonanza; no penalties for the rich and jail for the poor; lack of prosecution of child abuse protectors.

    IMF in by Christmas would be my Christmas present.

    The IMF aren't going to fix the country if they take control of our fiscal obligations, all they'd be doing is making sure that debts are accrued.. the same bunch of muppets would still be in charge of the country, but with even less money to spend


  • Options
    #68
    kincsem
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,013 ✭✭✭kincsem


    Strange use of the word accrued. :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #69
    kincsem
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,013 ✭✭✭kincsem


    The government have accrued enough debt: accumulate; grow; mount up; build up; amass; increase; add.


  • Options
    #70
    My name is URL
    Registered Users Posts: 25,068 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    kincsem wrote: »
    Strange use of the word accrued. :rolleyes:

    Hey, I found this thesaurus and I'm going to.. usufruct it!


  • Options
    #71
    kincsem
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,013 ✭✭✭kincsem


    IMF Conditions

    Some of the conditions for structural adjustment can include:
    • Cutting expenditures, also known as Austerity.
    • Focusing economic output on direct export and resource extraction,
    • Devaluation of currencies,
    • Trade liberalization, or lifting import and export restrictions,
    • Increasing the stability of investment (by supplementing foreign direct investment with the opening of domestic stock markets),
    • Balancing budgets and not overspending,
    • Removing price controls and state subsidies,
    • Privatization, or divestiture of all or part of state-owned enterprises,
    • Enhancing the rights of foreign investors vis-a-vis national laws,
    • Improving governance and fighting corruption.
    These conditions have also been sometimes labeled as the Washington Consensus.

    I've coloured a few where we might be asked to improve.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    gurramok
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    Cavehill Red wrote: »
    Either way proves my point, that they are a lot worse off now than they were than they were working.

    They get more because they have more people to feed. Per capita, they get a lot less (20 odd euro per kid, compared to 200 odd per adult.)

    Because they've got more people to house? Again, per capita, they get less.

    You have indeed a strange way of defending parents with kids on welfare especially a single parent of 3 kids can amass 34k per year. Guess 34k is poverty:rolleyes::eek:


  • Options
    #73
    MagicSean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,897 ✭✭✭MagicSean


    This is what I cant understand. A scumbag can spend his whole life robbing and thieving and never pay one cent in income tax yet is eligible for social welfare benefits from the age of 18 til he dies. Another person could work for twenty years paying tax, set up his own business and if it should fail he is not entitled to anything at all.

    I dont think payments should be cut but I think there has to be serious reform very soon.


  • Options
    #74
    Cavehill Red
    Registered Users Posts: 6,109 ✭✭✭Cavehill Red


    gurramok wrote: »
    You have indeed a strange way of defending parents with kids on welfare especially a single parent of 3 kids can amass 34k per year. Guess 34k is poverty:rolleyes::eek:

    Actually, I've been pointing out that parents on welfare receive proportionately less than those without dependents, since they do not receive the same per capita payments, which suggests to me that the place to start cutting social welfare payments would be from those without dependents.


  • Options
    #75
    gurramok
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    Cavehill Red wrote: »
    Actually, I've been pointing out that parents on welfare receive proportionately less than those without dependents, since they do not receive the same per capita payments, which suggests to me that the place to start cutting social welfare payments would be from those without dependents.

    How do you make that out? Show us.


  • Options
    #76
    Cavehill Red
    Registered Users Posts: 6,109 ✭✭✭Cavehill Red


    gurramok wrote: »
    How do you make that out? Show us.

    Single person gets c. 196 euro per week.
    Single parent with child gets c. 225 per week.

    So one person gets 196 euro, but two mouths to feed get 225 euro, which is only 112 per head.


  • Options
    #77
    gurramok
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    Cavehill Red wrote: »
    Single person gets c. 196 euro per week.
    Single parent with child gets c. 225 per week.

    So one person gets 196 euro, but two mouths to feed get 225 euro, which is only 112 per head.

    What about child benefit of 162 pm, Rent Allowance of 1100 pm, back to school allowance & fuel allowance also? (and FSI if they work)


  • Options
    #78
    Cavehill Red
    Registered Users Posts: 6,109 ✭✭✭Cavehill Red


    gurramok wrote: »
    What about child benefit of 162 pm, Rent Allowance of 1100 pm, back to school allowance & fuel allowance also? (and FSI if they work)

    Child benefit is paid to working parents too.
    Rent allowance is paid to those without kids too. Bear in mind, people with children will need more bedrooms than those who don't.
    Back to school allowance and fuel allowance are pretty tiny, if I recall.
    It all still doesn't add up to anything close to a per capita parity.


  • Options
    #79
    gurramok
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    Cavehill Red wrote: »
    Child benefit is paid to working parents too.
    Rent allowance is paid to those without kids too. Bear in mind, people with children will need more bedrooms than those who don't.
    Back to school allowance and fuel allowance are pretty tiny, if I recall.
    It all still doesn't add up to anything close to a per capita parity.

    Rent Allowance is not paid based on per rooms, its paid based on how many humans are claiming.

    So a mother with 3 kids who gets 34k in take home pay from the welfare is justified in your view?


  • Options
    #80
    Cavehill Red
    Registered Users Posts: 6,109 ✭✭✭Cavehill Red


    gurramok wrote: »
    Rent Allowance is not paid based on per rooms, its paid based on how many humans are claiming.

    And more people need more rooms, which costs more money.
    And when you add up the benefits, it's less per capita than a single person's claim, as I said initially.
    gurramok wrote: »
    So a mother with 3 kids who gets 34k in take home pay from the welfare is justified in your view?

    Possibly. Possibly not. It depends on the individual. A mother with three disabled kids requiring assistance care? For sure. That woman in Britain who paid for a boob job with benefits money? Obviously not.
    I'd be interested to see where you get the 34K figure from though.


  • Options
    #81
    gurramok
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    Cavehill Red wrote: »
    And more people need more rooms, which costs more money.
    And when you add up the benefits, it's less per capita than a single person's claim, as I said initially.

    Does it cost 265 quid a week to feed a mother and baby? (with free accommodation and heating)

    And discounting any maintenance from a father(working or not) living with her on the sly.
    Cavehill Red wrote: »
    Possibly. Possibly not. It depends on the individual. A mother with three disabled kids requiring assistance care? For sure. That woman in Britain who paid for a boob job with benefits money? Obviously not.
    I'd be interested to see where you get the 34K figure from though.

    The vast majority of claimants are not disabled. The 34k figure was from the table I had showed you. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66188084&postcount=337 All figures sourced from welfare.ie


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Cavehill Red
    Registered Users Posts: 6,109 ✭✭✭Cavehill Red


    gurramok wrote: »
    Does it cost 265 quid a week to feed a mother and baby? (with free accommodation and heating)

    And discounting any maintenance from a father(working or not) living with her on the sly.

    Maintenance is included when assessing means. And if a single parent isn't really single, then they're committing fraud as previously discussed. Welfare fraud is a separate matter. There are laws against it and the answer is not to cut the benefits of those who are not committing fraud, but to prosecute those who are.
    If you don't think two people need 265 euro a week, do you believe 196 quid a week is too much to feed one person?
    gurramok wrote: »
    The vast majority of claimants are not disabled. The 34k figure was from the table I had showed you. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66188084&postcount=337 All figures sourced from welfare.ie

    Can you show me that on welfare.ie then?


  • Options
    #83
    gurramok
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    Cavehill Red wrote: »
    Maintenance is included when assessing means. And if a single parent isn't really single, then they're committing fraud as previously discussed. Welfare fraud is a separate matter. There are laws against it and the answer is not to cut the benefits of those who are not committing fraud, but to prosecute those who are.

    And its not clamped down on as its extremely difficult to prove. I was told this myself when I reported a 'couple' before.
    Cavehill Red wrote: »
    If you don't think two people need 265 euro a week, do you believe 196 quid a week is too much to feed one person?

    A baby has less need for food than an adult hence less money needed.
    Cavehill Red wrote: »
    Can you show me that on welfare.ie then?

    Easier to find on citizensinformation.ie

    http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/social-welfare/social-welfare-payments/social-welfare-payments-to-families-and-children

    Rent
    http://www.welfare.ie/EN/Schemes/SupplementaryWelfareAllowance/Pages/RentSupplement.aspx

    Surprised you never looked it up yourself before claiming to dispute the figures.


  • Options
    #84
    Cavehill Red
    Registered Users Posts: 6,109 ✭✭✭Cavehill Red


    gurramok wrote: »
    And its not clamped down on as its extremely difficult to prove. I was told this myself when I reported a 'couple' before.

    Which is, as I said, a reason for better policing rather than across the board cuts.
    gurramok wrote: »
    A baby has less need for food than an adult hence less money needed.

    And a 15 year old? Not all children are babies, you may be surprised to learn.
    I take it you now accept that benefits claimants with children receive less per capita than those without?


    gurramok wrote: »
    Easier to find on citizensinformation.ie

    http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/social-welfare/social-welfare-payments/social-welfare-payments-to-families-and-children

    Rent
    http://www.welfare.ie/EN/Schemes/SupplementaryWelfareAllowance/Pages/RentSupplement.aspx

    Surprised you never looked it up yourself before claiming to dispute the figures.

    I'm not seeing 34K on any of those links.


  • Options
    #85
    gurramok
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    Cavehill Red wrote: »
    And a 15 year old? Not all children are babies, you may be surprised to learn.
    I take it you now accept that benefits claimants with children receive less per capita than those without?

    No. They have fathers as well.
    Cavehill Red wrote: »
    I'm not seeing 34K on any of those links.

    They are there, add them all up like in the nice table I had shown you.


  • Options
    #86
    Cavehill Red
    Registered Users Posts: 6,109 ✭✭✭Cavehill Red


    gurramok wrote: »
    No. They have fathers as well.

    Don't benefits claimants without children have fathers too?
    What do fathers have to do with anything?
    gurramok wrote: »
    They are there, add them all up like in the nice table I had shown you.

    It's your claim. How about you show us how you add them up.


  • Options
    #87
    not yet
    Registered Users Posts: 7,008 ✭✭✭not yet


    Cut public sector wages 60% numbers by 50% job done.


  • Options
    #88
    My name is URL
    Registered Users Posts: 25,068 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    not yet wrote: »
    Cut public sector wages 60% numbers by 50% job done.

    Make 150,000 people redundant overnight? Would it not be better to make sure that every public sector worker is actually earning their wage?


  • Options
    #89
    ejmaztec
    Registered Users Posts: 24,004 ✭✭✭✭ejmaztec


    Cavehill Red wrote: »
    Which is, as I said, a reason for better policing rather than across the board cuts.

    With the Social Welfare coping with half a million unemployed, they wouldn't have the resources to police anything. They couldn't keep tabs on many people before the unemployment figure sky-rocketed.


  • Options
    #90
    gurramok
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    Cavehill Red wrote: »
    Don't benefits claimants without children have fathers too?
    What do fathers have to do with anything?

    They father kids?:confused:
    Cavehill Red wrote: »
    It's your claim. How about you show us how you add them up.

    Its not a claim, its real figures from our Welfare govt dept. As you are too lazy to look at the sources, here you go..

    mother of 3 kids is entitled to

    Personal Rate of 196x52 = 10,192
    Qualifying Child 29.80x52 x 3kids = 4,649
    http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/social-welfare/social-welfare-payments/social-welfare-payments-to-families-and-children/one_parent_family_payment

    Fuel Allowance = 20x32 (http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/social-welfare/social-welfare-payments/extra-social-welfare-benefits/fuel_allowance)

    Rent Allowance in DCC = 1100x12 = 13,200((http://www.welfare.ie/EN/Schemes/SupplementaryWelfareAllowance/Pages/RentSupplement.aspx )

    Child Benefit of 487x12 = 5,844 (http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/social-welfare/social-welfare-payments/social-welfare-payments-to-families-and-children/child_benefit )


    Grand total of €34,525.

    Game, Set and Match.;)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    KindOfIrish
    Registered Users Posts: 454 ✭✭KindOfIrish


    gurramok wrote: »

    mother of 3 kids is entitled to

    Personal Rate of 196x52 = 10,192
    Qualifying Child 29.80x52 x 3kids = 4,649
    http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/social-welfare/social-welfare-payments/social-welfare-payments-to-families-and-children/one_parent_family_payment

    Fuel Allowance = 20x32 (http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/social-welfare/social-welfare-payments/extra-social-welfare-benefits/fuel_allowance)

    Rent Allowance in DCC = 1100x12 = 13,200((http://www.welfare.ie/EN/Schemes/SupplementaryWelfareAllowance/Pages/RentSupplement.aspx )

    Child Benefit of 487x12 = 5,844 (http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/social-welfare/social-welfare-payments/social-welfare-payments-to-families-and-children/child_benefit )


    Grand total of €34,525.

    Game, Set and Match.;)
    I prefer this money spent for a mother with 3 kids during 12 months, than for a useless half-day trip of a minister to Donegal.


Advertisement