Opportunities to reduce the cost of Social Welfare

edanto

Inspired by comments like this:

I have a friend who works in a social welfare office, and he tells me of people who are walking away every week with more money than he is earning - just from the dole and from rent allowance. Some people living with higher rents are getting over €400 a week!

and the knowledge that social welfare is such a huge proportion of our annual spend... I'd like to know if anyone could refer me to a detailed breakdown of what exactly our social welfare budget is spent on.

Say there are .5m people unemployed (overestimate) , each getting €400 pw (overestimate) , which is roughly €20k pa .... that still only adds up to €10bn (and ignores pensions etc) and the total spend is double that, at €21bn, according to this link - http://www.budget.gov.ie/2009SupApril09/en/FinancialStatement.html#SocialWelfare

Where can we get more details on the social welfare cost breakdown? Can anyone find anything like that on the government websites?

turgon

Well there's obviously more to social welfare than job-seekers allowance.

www.welfare.ie is the official site, you might have to do some searching though.

"Over the last decade, we have been able to provide very significant increases in welfare payments. For example, the payment of Child Benefit has increased from less than €44 to €166 per month. The State contributory pension has gone from around €113 to more than €230 per week. And the weekly rate of long-term job seekers allowance was raised from €93 to €204. These payments compare very well internationally, particularly with payments in Britain and Northern Ireland."

Vote buying much?

gwhiz

I have no idea about being able to access the break down of Social Welfare costs but if anyone knows, let me know should make for interesting reading.

Edando, your friend is correct. There are people out there earning more through the social welfare system. May I add that the casualties of the recession who have no choice but to be on the dole are not the problem here. It's the long term spongers that are bleeding the carcass dry. The ones who never have or intend to work that have caused this recession in the 1st place. Also, the amount of "asylum seekers" claiming benefits, rents, clothes, bills etc is costing the taxpayer dearly but I am not even going to go down that road or I will probably be slated for being racist (which I sincerely am not!).

One prime example of social welfare fraud/sponging is:

A lone parent with three children is on €282 per week. This increases by about €30 per week in Winter when you add on the fuel allowance. She rents out a house for €1,200 per month of which the welfare pay her €1,100 towards her rent. Her landlord is actually her boyfriend and he is registered as living at this mother's address but actually lives with her. He works full time and is on a good wage so in summary his mortage is being paid every month by the social welfare. I am told he gives her €300 per week housekeeping and he pays all the bills. She also goes to the relieving officer with her bills and get money off these even though they have already been paid by her so called "landlord"... so that gives her €600 euro per week to live on after her bills and rent are paid for.... She is also getting approx €500 per month child benefit, childcare supplement and back to school clothing & footwear allowance plus medical card....
SO WHY TF am I working and paying taxes ??? (oh yeah... to pay for this girls lifestyle... I forgot) Talk about disillusionment, this country has turned into the biggest crap hole in Europe to live in!
I AM ANNOYED.... :mad:
REVOLT...

Mr.Micro

Here we go again scape goat people who are unfortunate enough to be on benefit regardless of what type. It always comes back to this, when much of the blame such be placed at the door of our incompetent politicians and an inept management of our country's fiscal policy and not continually target those receiving benefit. Its a fraction of what was thown at the banks and few questions asked in the last 6 -9 months and probably a lot more to come. That's the real waste of money in the over all big picture.

CDfm

gwhiz wrote: »

Edando, your friend is correct. There are people out there earning more through the social welfare system. May I add that the casualties of the recession who have no choice but to be on the dole are not the problem here. It's the long term spongers that are bleeding the carcass dry. The ones who never have or intend to work that have caused this recession in the 1st place. Also, the amount of "asylum seekers" claiming benefits, rents, clothes, bills etc is costing the taxpayer dearly but I am not even going to go down that road or I will probably be slated for being racist (which I sincerely am not!).

I always though during the boom the government overspent and issues like single parents and asylum seekers had money thrown at them on the basis of our "wealth". these issues were supported by all politicians not just FF.

It was like benchmarking -it wasnt real and they were spending monopoly money.

So what we are going through now is real and what the IMF are saying about cutting spending is real. These are the areas that have to be cut.

We might say the money pit that is the health service needs to be taken out and shot.

mikemac

Interesting point about benchmarking.

I do remember some radio show where it was said the dole was linked to average industrial wage.

Well, not officially linked but the goal was they it would be close to a percentage of.
30% I think, I've no idea what the current figure, probably higher.

But that's only only benefit and there are multiple schemes that many can qualify for.

AlekSmart

Here we go again scape goat people who are unfortunate enough to be on benefit regardless of what type

It`s not

scapegoating

.
If any of that is going on it`s more focused on the few Judges and associated well paid folks who appear collectively to be responsible for it all....

The reality is a huge and growing pool of RECIPIENTS being paid from a rapidly dwindling pool of CONTRIBUTORS.

How the fluich we are going to square that circle beats the crap outs me ??? :P

CDfm

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Here we go again scape goat people who are unfortunate enough to be on benefit regardless of what type. It always comes back to this, when much of the blame such be placed at the door of our incompetent politicians and an inept management of our country's fiscal policy and not continually target those receiving benefit.

It might be so - but if we cannot afford the benefit structure then it has to be.

I often wonder what use were our senior civil servants in preventing this catastrophe. The Dept of Finance seems totally inept as does the Banking Regulator and had no knowledge of the risks the banks were taking -which is their job.

How many archaeologists does the country now employ and how useful are they to us now.

Its a fraction of what was thown at the banks and few questions asked in the last 6 -9 months and probably a lot more to come. That's the real waste of money in the over all big picture.

like it or not a financial meltdown would be catastrophic.

PCPhoto

CDfm wrote: »

I always though during the boom the government overspent and issues like single parents and asylum seekers had money thrown at them on the basis of our "wealth". these issues were supported by all politicians not just FF.

It was like benchmarking -it wasnt real and they were spending monopoly money.

So what we are going through now is real and what the IMF are saying about cutting spending is real. These are the areas that have to be cut.

We might say the money pit that is the health service needs to be taken out and shot.

Sorry if this is going off topic - but isnt benchmarking supposed to work both ways.... if so ...why are there drops in private sector pay and little or no drops in public sector pay?

CDfm

PCPhoto wrote: »

Sorry if this is going off topic - but isnt benchmarking supposed to work both ways.... if so ...why are there drops in private sector pay and little or no drops in public sector pay?

it should but it doesnt.

billy the squid

Don't know why people moan about bailing out banks when we have been bailing out farmers for years. people rich enough to own vast tracts of land but can't seem to be able to feed themselves.

There are 6,000 department of agriculture employees for 100,000 farmers. the civil service is overpopulated.

As for social welfare, the social welfare employee cited in the original post is talking bollox. The social welfare do not hand out rent allowance, the HSE do, so his claim that he hands over more than he earns to people on social welfare is a lie.

Childrens allownance is a big wast of money. It was brought in a t a time when the husband would drink what he earned. the allowance was considered to be "the woman's money."

Now that women are able to earn their own money then there is little to no need for it.

CDfm

billy the squid wrote: »

There are 6,000 department of agriculture employees for 100,000 farmers. the civil service is overpopulated.

Very cosy and friendly

As for social welfare, the social welfare employee cited in the original post is talking bollox. The social welfare do not hand out rent allowance, the HSE do, so his claim that he hands over more than he earns to people on social welfare is a lie.

Its still a benefit and comes from taxes

Childrens allownance is a big wast of money. It was brought in a t a time when the husband would drink what he earned. the allowance was considered to be "the woman's money."

It does and its also paid to people with kids outside the state

Now that women are able to earn their own money then there is little to no need for it.

It should be reformed.

Mr.Micro

CDfm wrote: »

It might be so - but if we cannot afford the benefit structure then it has to be.


like it or not a financial meltdown would be catastrophic.

The point of fact is that none of this was tackled when the incompetent Government was raking in billions over the last 10 years and its only now that people start when we are in a deep hole. It is something that needs to be looked at calmly and fairly.

As regards a financial meltdown, it might be argued we are having that in some form at least. What is paid in benefit is still a fraction of what has been doled out to the banks and will still leave a hole of 38Billion plus in our economy and no guarantee that the banks will come good.

CDfm

Mr.Micro wrote: »

The point of fact is that none of this was tackled when the incompetent Government was raking in billions over the last 10 years and its only now that people start when we are in a deep hole. It is something that needs to be looked at calmly and fairly.

And the money is gone -spent and no longer exists. There are also financial commitments in public service pay and pensions. The government is us and an expression of our will as a country. Governmement spending is money we put in to the "begging bowl" and pay out for the want of a better expression.

Anything paid out has to be borrowed or raised by taxes and has to be repaid from taxes.

As regards a financial meltdown, it might be argued we are having that in some form at least. What is paid in benefit is still a fraction of what has been doled out to the banks and will still leave a hole of 38Billion plus in our economy and no guarantee that the banks will come good.

As opposed to what exactly -economic freefall - leaving the Euro and our own currency.

gwhiz

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Here we go again scape goat people who are unfortunate enough to be on benefit regardless of what type. It always comes back to this, when much of the blame such be placed at the door of our incompetent politicians and an inept management of our country's fiscal policy and not continually target those receiving benefit. Its a fraction of what was thown at the banks and few questions asked in the last 6 -9 months and probably a lot more to come. That's the real waste of money in the over all big picture.

I agree with what you are saying and of course ALL the blame lies with the a**holes who are supposedly running this country but during the so called "Celtic Tiger" when there was plenty of work, there was still a huge social welfare bill and the example I gave is of someone who hasn't worked a day in her life because the system is wide open to fraud. If the government had ploughed more more into policing the system and preventing this from happening in the first place and if Mary Robinson hadn't opened the flood gates to "asylum seekers", maybe we wouldn't be in this sh*t heap now.

CDfm

gwhiz wrote: »

I agree with what you are saying and of course ALL the blame lies with the a**holes who are supposedly running this country but during the so called "Celtic Tiger" when there was plenty of work, there was still a huge social welfare bill and the example I gave is of someone who hasn't worked a day in her life because the system is wide open to fraud. If the government had ploughed more more into policing the system and preventing this from happening in the first place and if Mary Robinson hadn't opened the flood gates to "asylum seekers", maybe we wouldn't be in this sh*t heap now.

So can we redraw these boundaries and slim down what we do.

One question though - whose political policies of the major political parties allow us to do this.

Name the polictians that will make these cuts and changes?

gwhiz

billy the squid wrote: »

Don't know why people moan about bailing out banks when we have been bailing out farmers for years. people rich enough to own vast tracts of land but can't seem to be able to feed themselves.

There are 6,000 department of agriculture employees for 100,000 farmers. the civil service is overpopulated.

As for social welfare, the social welfare employee cited in the original post is talking bollox. The social welfare do not hand out rent allowance, the HSE do, so his claim that he hands over more than he earns to people on social welfare is a lie.

Childrens allownance is a big wast of money. It was brought in a t a time when the husband would drink what he earned. the allowance was considered to be "the woman's money."

Now that women are able to earn their own money then there is little to no need for it.

Rent allowance cheques are from the Social Welfare otherwise it would not state at the top of the cheque "Department of Social & Family Affairs". The HSE (your local Health Centre) handle the claim but the Social Welfare issue the cheque.

Children's allowance supposedly is for "Children"... not for men to drink or women to buy designer shoes.

CDfm

gwhiz wrote: »

Rent allowance cheques are from the Social Welfare otherwise it would not state at the top of the cheque "Department of Social & Family Affairs". The HSE (your local Health Centre) handle the claim but the Social Welfare issue the cheque.

Children's allowance supposedly is for "Children"... not for men to drink or women to buy designer shoes.

but it still comes from the exchequer no matter what you call it they are money

turgon

billy the squid wrote: »

Childrens allownance is a big wast of money. It was brought in a t a time when the husband would drink what he earned. the allowance was considered to be "the woman's money."

But the children, billy_the_squid! THE CHILDREN!

gwhiz

Another financial co*k up by the "governmnent" is all the talk about taxing/means testing Child Benefit... I have no idea how many families in Ireland that are in receipt of this benefit (maybe google and find out) but this would be an administration nightmare and the savings from these cutbacks but be eaten up in admistration costs. Where is the sense in this ???

Also, in the mini budget the government scrapped the Back to Work Allowance Scheme. The way this scheme works is if you go back to work full time, you receive 70% of your dole for 1st year, 50% for 2nd year and 25% (I think) for the 3rd year. Another senseless decision made by a pack of morons who don't know their ass from their elbow...

Also, why will the government not open up the CE employment schemes to everyone on the live register. You have to be on the dole for ONE year before they will consider you while plebnty of these jobs are lying idle on th FAS website. It is only 20 hours per week and about 30 more than the dole and they run for anything up to three years depending on where you are working. I know plenty of people who have recently lost their jobs and would be willing to do one of these schemes.

Financial meltdown is on our doorstop !!

turgon

gwhiz wrote: »

Also, in the mini budget the government scrapped the Back to Work Allowance Scheme. The way this scheme works is if you go back to work full time, you receive 70% of your dole for 1st year, 50% for 2nd year and 25% (I think) for the 3rd year. Another senseless decision made by a pack of morons who don't know their ass from their elbow...

Why is this allowance needed, if all these jobseekers are apparently dying to go back to work anyway? Or wait....

shindig-jp

[QUOTE "asylum seekers", maybe we wouldn't be in this sh*t heap now.[/QUOTE]

http://is.gd/1nbU2



I like this ... An affluent country taking the piss out of the Irish ... When a people can make more money out of recording it and the Irish still don't understand ... it's even more laughable ..and deserve it . Yes you sitting behind the desk .... I go chop your dollar ...

Time Magazine

edanto wrote: »

Where can we get more details on the social welfare cost breakdown? Can anyone find anything like that on the government websites?

You can get a fairly rough guide from around p.95 of the Dept's 2007 Annual Report:

Pensions: 4,905m
Dole/Employment schemes/etc.: 6,458m
Child benefit: 2,855m
Poverty related: 902m
"Operational capabilities": 212m
Total = €15.3bn

These were 2007 figures. The budget for 2009 is due to be about €19.6bn as far as I know, so I guess the bulk of how that's going to be spent can be gleaned from the above.

Time Magazine

Also looking at the latest Live Register Figures, there are in total about 18,500 men and about 6,500 women who have been on the Register for at least 3 years. That's 25,000 people, less than 0.6% of the population.

Jobseeker's Allowance is at maximum €204.30. So let's take €200, by 25,000 people, by 52 weeks a year, which means the long-term unemployed are costing us about €260m a year. That's a lot of money. But on the other hand, it's about €1 per person per week, or only about 1.3% of the expected deficit this year. Even if we halved it for all of those long-term unemployed, we'd still have another 99.35% of the deficit to go.

gwhiz

turgon wrote: »

Why is this allowance needed, if all these jobseekers are apparently dying to go back to work anyway? Or wait....

It's called an "incentive" scheme..... never hear of that ???

turgon

gwhiz wrote: »

It's called an "incentive" scheme..... never hear of that ???

So are you conceding that there is otherwise little incentive for people to go back to work? Are you conceding that staying on welfare is, to many, as good an option as getting a job? Are you conceding then that welfare disincentives people from working?

deadhead13

turgon wrote: »

So are you conceding that there is otherwise little incentive for people to go back to work? Are you conceding that staying on welfare is, to many, as good an option as getting a job? Are you conceding then that welfare disincentives people from working?

During the boom years, where welfare payments were more or less the same as now, Ireland had an unemployment rate of about 4.5%. Which doesn't really tally with your disincentive theory.

The basic welfare payment is 204euros which is 168euros less than the weekly rate of minimum wage jobs and over 500euros less than the average industrial wage. Only 4.5% of Irish jobs pays minimum wage. The vast majority of people have a work ethic and would choose to work rather than claim welfare. A minority wouldn't and these are the same people who chose not to work during the boom.

Fishtits

I think the benchmarking exercise was excellent.

It just needs to be an ongoing event. Lets have another one now...

As for social welfare, back in the 80's I worked three days a week as a college lecturer, was paid on an hourly basis, quite handsomely. Also claimed for the days I wasn't working.

Net result was a healthy income.

Quiet shocking considering that I'd signed off a permanent & pensionable position prior...

old boy

all foregin nationals on social welfare to be payed at their national rate, not ours, all ex pats who reside here to have to noteifye of all payments, ie some people from the uk have our social welfare payments, plus they have uk payments, + a private pension from the likes of london bus etc, which is payed into a credit card or similar

Spudmonkey

deadhead13 wrote: »

The basic welfare payment is 204euros which is 168euros less than the weekly rate of minimum wage jobs and over 500euros less than the average industrial wage. Only 4.5% of Irish jobs pays minimum wage. The vast majority of people have a work ethic and would choose to work rather than claim welfare. A minority wouldn't and these are the same people who chose not to work during the boom.

204euros does not take into account possible rent relief. Add on rent relief and then compare to the weekly rate of minimum wage.

dresden8

Spudmonkey wrote: »

204euros does not take into account possible rent relief. Add on rent relief and then compare to the weekly rate of minimum wage.

And medical card. Anyone with kids is regularly at the doctor. Real savings there.

Spudmonkey

Of course... In fact, there may be a few other things as well. I don't know the ins and outs of social welfare, but I'm sure if you take a single mother on the dole and single mother on the minimum wage, there may not be much in the difference.

I don't know why food stamps, etc, aren't given out? Make sure the money is spent on the proper things.

deadhead13

Spudmonkey wrote: »

204euros does not take into account possible rent relief. Add on rent relief and then compare to the weekly rate of minimum wage.

Yet people still choose to work for the minimum wage, which was my point.

Spudmonkey

Yes but they are people with a working ethos, give someone without that ethos a choice between a job where they earn marginally more than welfare and see what they pick.

I'm not saying that there are jobs out there to be had, but I have heard cases where they have been turned down.

deadhead13

They are very much in the minority. I fully accept that cuts in welfare need to be made, purely on the grounds that the state can no longer afford to sustain the current levels. But not as a means to incentivise people to get back to work because no such incentive is needed for the majority.

sovtek

The best way to reduce Social Welfare is to create jobs. I think welfare for banks is the fish to fry right now...not social welfare...the latter isn't responsible for the mess right now.

irish_bob

sovtek wrote: »

The best way to reduce Social Welfare is to create jobs. I think welfare for banks is the fish to fry right now...not social welfare...the latter isn't responsible for the mess right now.

nor were they ( long terms unemployed ) responsible for the boom yet enjoyed the fruits of it , why should they now be exempt from the bust , besides as has been stated numerous times on several threads , we are in a deflationary period