Hitman3000 Registered User
#166

Senature
What's interesting to me is that the one parent family plus dependent child payments, along with Christmas bonus look very low. In contrast child benefit and HAP look very high.



What I actually find curious us how Stephen Kearon could give a HAP figure as her accommodation situation has changed several times. Although I do like how he has given once off payments such as the BTS A. as a weekly amount I guess it helps drum up the outrage he is hoping for. Further I find it amusing that Mr Kearon makes so much of the social welfare system eventhough he supports a party which is responsible for much of the largesse he even ran as a FF candidate .

Blazer Registered User
#167

PirateShampoo said:
Do they yeah, I was a welfare kid to a single mother, I started work on building sites at 17 and I've worked the majority of days ever since. That was 20 years ago. Same can be said about my siblings.


Cash into the hand or do you pay prsi, paye etc .
The building trade is notorious for cash into cash for employees.

jay0109 Registered User
#168

sbsquarepants said:
What would you need to earn to take home 51K? 80 or 85K maybe??

Do you not think there's maybe something a bit askew with a system which rewards work shy leeches more or less the same as it does doctors or engineers?


97k excluding pension contributions etc

1 person has thanked this post
One eyed Jack Registered User
#169

Senature said:
Yes the benefit should be for the child, which I why I suggested that the savings from reducing and capping the payments be put towards actually free education, and free or subsidised healthcare and childcare.



The State isn’t actually saving anything then, but merely diverting funds from children who need it, to provide for services for other parents lifestyle choices? Who are you suggesting education and healthcare be subsidised for exactly other than children who need it? And if they need subsidised education and healthcare, they obviously need the child benefit too rather than having it capped, and they receive no benefit, and therefore their welfare, health and education suffers. Childcare is the parents responsibility, and subsidising the cost of childcare is still costing the State money, and providing for childcare alone which is the parents personal responsibility would swallow up the savings the State will have made by capping child benefit.


In relation to working while having children, childcare is by far the most significant expense for parents, often much more significant than college. Many people don't consider that if a parent gives up work to care for a child or children, that household is likely to lose upwards of 20k per year. Once a child is in school, either childcare costs are reduced, and/or there are improved opportunities for employment, so the household should be under a lot less financial pressure.



It’s not. Childcare is only an expense in the first place if parents choose to outsource childcare, and then it’s only as expensive as the parents themselves choose to pay. We didn’t pay anything for outsourcing childcare for example, and in that same vein, children attending third level education is only as expensive as parents want it to be. There’s a world of a difference in terms of the financial cost of placing a child in a crèche funded by the State, and the cost of providing for a child’s third level education by the time you also factor in funding their accommodation and so on. If parents are already struggling to provide for their children’s early education, they’re in for a rude awakening if they haven’t accounted for their children’s third level education. For people on on low incomes who are dependent upon child benefit, a third level education for their children is but a pipe dream.

Once a child is in school, childcare costs aren’t reduced, they are only transferred - the State still has to provide funding for education, and as fantastic as they are, teachers don’t act in loco parentis providing education to children for free. They still have to be paid. In terms of parents who choose to leave employment to care for their children, they are saving the State far more than €20k per year in terms of what the State would have to pay for childcare otherwise.

Whether parents choose to leave employment to care for their children or not is entirely their responsibility. It’s certainly not as simple as the household losing out on €20k per year when they are saving €20k per year in terms of not having to pay for childcare, as well as the many other intangible benefits to children, and to the State that people who choose to work in the home are providing.

I don’t enjoy the sort of doublethink employed by people who want to encourage more women into the workplace, and more men to take up working in the home as they argue the great benefits to children and to society of a parent working in the home. I don’t expect that to become a reality any time soon in Irish society though given that 98% of people working in the home are women (or 450,000 women, to put a figure on that percentage).


Regarding capping the payments, the notion that someone just gets handed 500 or more per month, every month, without question seems crazy to me. Of course kids cost more than child benefit pays, but I just think it's wrong to just hand out cash at that kind of level. It's enabling people to be dependent, which can't really be good for them in the long run, or be setting a good example for their kids.



You’re arguing that funding for child benefit is enabling people to become dependent, while arguing that the savings should instead fund subsidised childcare? That to me at least just sounds like enabling people to become dependent upon subsidised childcare as opposed to funding childcare for their children themselves! People aren’t handed €500 or more per month, every month without question either btw. People with four or more children to support might be though, but that money is intended for their children, not for them personally. It’s their children are dependent upon the payment, not their parents.

Now for what it’s worth, I agree with you that being dependent upon the State for anything is not good for anyone, but whether or not parents are setting a good example for their children depends upon a number of factors, not just what their parents receive in financial assistance from the State, or whether or not their parents expect that the State should be providing for their subsidised childcare, healthcare and education, or their parents attitudes to employment and unemployment, or people living in poverty, or people who are less fortunate than they are.

You’re still arguing basically that the State shouldn’t fund the lifestyle choices of people you perceive to be morally bankrupt, while ignoring just how morally bankrupt your argument actually is! I’ve never supported the Welfare State, but at least I’m consistent in the fact that I believe that nobody should have their lifestyle choices funded or subsidised by the State, because as you quite rightly pointed out - it enables people to become dependent, rather than fostering independence and taking personal responsibility for their own lifestyle choices, such as choosing to have children they simply cannot afford in the first place, and choosing to place those children in childcare which they also cannot afford without it being subsidised by the State.


There is also an element of whether you have 8 kids or 2 kids, your rent and heating bill for the house will be roughly the same. And you'll have hand me downs for most clothes, school uniforms, sports gear, toys, some school books etc.



I don’t get what you mean here tbh. It varies wildly from one household to another depending upon their circumstances. I’m aware of parents who have four and five children in two bedroom apartments, and parents who live in four and five bedroom houses who have two children. The amount they pay in rent and other costs clearly isn’t the same, and hand-me-downs are generally a thing of the past. More people now are dependent upon the charity of other people who provide them with items for their children like clothes, bedding, books and toys, things which many parents cannot afford for their children. I’ve worked with many of those families, and the idea that they and their children are living an extravagant lifestyle is the stuff of fantasy and rabble rousing nonsense.

One eyed Jack Registered User
#170

KrustyUCC said:
I have seen these figures posted a lot on FB over the last few days and it has also been posted on the Claire Byrne live thread

Does anybody know if these figures are accurate?

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=463447&d=1539177500



Nobody can tell you whether or not the figures are accurate without knowing Ms. Cash’s personal circumstances and what she is or isn’t entitled to, what she qualifies for, what she is claiming for, what she is or isn’t receiving in cash into her hand, or what is being paid for her by either the council or the DEASP, the HSE, or anyone else involved in her particular case.

One eyed Jack Registered User
#171

Senature said:
HAP however, is a ridiculous payment that should only be in place for under a year while someone is waiting to be housed by the council. That figure just illustrates how crazily expensive that system is and how we need long term viable social housing in place.



HAP is generally paid to private landlords on behalf of the council for people who are already in private accommodation, as a way to encourage people into private accommodation because the council simply doesn’t have any properties available. People who are employed may also qualify for HAP. It was introduced as a way to save councils the cost of having to build new houses, and so that’s why the payment isn’t dependent upon the length of time people are waiting to be housed by the council. We do of course need long term viable social housing, but Governments aren’t known for that kind of foresight, they can barely see past the next election.

ELM327 Registered User
#172

KrustyUCC said:
I have seen these figures posted a lot on FB over the last few days and it has also been posted on the Claire Byrne live thread

Does anybody know if these figures are accurate?

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=463447&d=1539177500

Yes they are accurate and it shows the benefit of not working and pumping out children instead.
You'd have to earn above 90k to bring home 51k net into your hand.

1 person has thanked this post
marieholmfan Registered User
#173

ELM327 said:
Yes they are accurate and it shows the benefit of not working and pumping out children instead.


Vastly more important work for the future of the Irish nation than working as a 'Fund Accountant' or a 'Software Engineer'. To cite only two ridiculous non-jobs.

super_furry Registered User
#174

Be better off cutting pensions after the age of 75 and offering a free trip to Dignitas.

One eyed Jack Registered User
#175

ELM327 said:
Yes they are accurate and it shows the benefit of not working and pumping out children instead.



How can you possibly say that it’s accurate when you simply have no way of actually knowing whether it is or not?


You'd have to earn above 90k to bring home 51k net into your hand.



What has that got to do with anything?

One eyed Jack Registered User
#176

marieholmfan said:
Vastly more important work for the future of the Irish nation than working as a 'Fund Accountant' or a 'Software Engineer'. To cite only two ridiculous non-jobs



Shhh, my employer doesn’t know that

1 person has thanked this post
ELM327 Registered User
#177

marieholmfan said:
Vastly more important work for the future of the Irish nation than working as a 'Fund Accountant' or a 'Software Engineer'. To cite only two ridiculous non-jobs.

Well let me ask you these two questions:
1 - Which of the aforementioned can exist without funding from the other?
2 - What use is a population grown in an environment where paid employment is not the norm, but handouts and life in bed is?

ELM327 Registered User
#178

One eyed Jack said:
How can you possibly say that it’s accurate when you simply have no way of actually knowing whether it is or not?


The figures were discussed at length here some weeks back and verified as accurate. There was a megathread on it.

One eyed Jack said:

What has that got to do with anything?



The amount one has to earn in order to get what ms cash gets for free.

Riskymove Registered User
#179

ELM327 said:
The figures were discussed at length here some weeks back and verified as accurate. There was a megathread on it.



I think the point is that the figures for each scheme may be correct but as others say we don't know what she actually gets

As she is in emergency accommodation for example, she is not going to be in receipt of HAP and unlikely to be getting fuel allowance

marieholmfan Registered User
#180

ELM327 said:
Well let me ask you these two questions:
1 - Which of the aforementioned can exist without funding from the other?
2 - What use is a population grown in an environment where paid employment is not the norm, but handouts and life in bed is?

The mother of course exists independent of the 'Fund accountant'.
The survival of the Irish race is facilitated by spending time in bed not by ridiculous 'careers' and 'paid employment'.

Want to share your thoughts?

Login here to discuss!