Hitman3000 Registered User
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
Cash into the hand or do you pay prsi, paye etc .
The building trade is notorious for cash into cash for employees.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Be better off cutting pensions after the age of 75 and offering a free trip to Dignitas.
How can you possibly say that it’s accurate when you simply have no way of actually knowing whether it is or not?
What has that got to do with anything?
Shhh, my employer doesn’t know that
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 amount one has to earn in order to get what ms cash gets for free.
Riskymove Registered User
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
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'.