Welfare faces significant cutbacks

Kev_ps3

Éamon Ó Cuív has said his department is facing significant cutbacks in the budget which will affect a number of benefits.

What do you think he means by 'signficant'? 5, 10, 20, 50% cut?
Im guessing it not going to be 1/2%.

Denzil2222

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

What do you think he means by 'signficant'? 5, 10, 20, 50% cut?
Im guessing it not going to be 1/2%.

I think the cuts will be bigger than last year(so much for turning a coner) I think the under 21s dole will be cut to €75 perweek. Everyone else will get a €12 perweek cut.

RichardAnd

I'd agree with the above poster. It will be a heavier cut than last year but it won't be a huge cut (like 30% or so).

padma

I don't agree with the two posters above. I think it will be brought down about a tenner or under across the board. Enough people start thinking like this, gives them the opportunity to cut it that far without thinking of the consequences it wwill have on people's lives.

Count Dooku

padma wrote: »

I don't agree with the two posters above. I think it will be brought down about a tenner or under across the board. Enough people start thinking like this, gives them the opportunity to cut it that far without thinking of the consequences it wwill have on people's lives.

There is money to pay together welfare benefits and PS payroll bill
If government will not cut benefits, then IMF will do it

Dempo1

There will be cuts no doubt but i suspect major cuts in other areas such as child benefit, children's allowance, rent allowances etc all come under welfare benefits. I suspect the dole rate will come down about 5% with greater cuts for younger people, particularly those living at home. Either way i think these cuts are going to drive many people over the edge with a particular impact on those struggling with mortgage payments etc.

scorpioishere

I would love the cut to be 100%

padma

The IMF are not in Ireland at the minute. There are many more alternatives to gaining the finances which aren't been discussed at the table. Yet have been discussed here on Boards a lot.

drunkmonkey

There going to have to change the terms around minimum wage if under 21's are going to go down to 75pw, I think we need a tiered minimum wage. I have no idea how it would work without some age groups getting shafted.

padma

scorpioishere wrote: »

I would love the cut to be 100%

Then be prepared to live in a house with security fences and a massive bill for 24 hour security.

Dempo1

scorpioishere wrote: »

I would love the cut to be 100%

I would have expected as much given your location is Ballsbridge, shocking attitude to have.

scorpioishere

Dempo1 wrote: »

I would have expected as much given your location is Ballsbridge, shocking attitude to have.

Of course it will be shocking for those who depends on other tax payers to survive.

dlofnep

scorpioishere wrote: »

I would love the cut to be 100%

So you'd be in favour of people being made homeless, and children starving?

Nice attitude to have.

Jesus Wept

scorpioishere wrote: »

I would love the cut to be 100%

padma wrote: »

Then be prepared to live in a house with security fences and a massive bill for 24 hour security.

Pretty much what I was going to say.
If you fancy having your head caved in over a loaf of bread, then be my guest.

-Trek-

scorpioishere wrote: »

I would love the cut to be 100%

I do love this type of response, and it is the height of absolute ignorance, its amazing the amount of people that don't realise that at some stage in there lives they will receive state benefit in some shape or form - be it dole, child allowance or even health care and there only the quick examples off the top of my head, think about it.

Back on topic, my guess is a 10% cut across the board and probably some serious tightening up of the criteria for qualifying for some benefits.

RichardAnd

scorpioishere wrote: »

I would love the cut to be 100%

A typical comment by some one who is clearly not in need to social welfare. I think if you lost your job, you might change your mind very quickly.

scorpioishere

Oh the children are well off here in this country, they won't be starving. Compared to other countries i have visited before people who doesn't work doesn't get any social welfare. This encourages them to find job and do any jobs which won't be the case here in Ireland as some people are too posh to serve in a shop. Another thing are people think twice before having a baby, if they can afford to raise the child they will otherwise 1 kid is enough for them or 2. Unfortunately here in ireland people makes babies like rabbits and who pays for everything, the tax payer. Now when these cuts are coming they get stressed out and find it shocking. Try to depend on yourself and not on others.

TT09

scorpioishere wrote: »

Oh the children are well off here in this country, they won't be starving. Compared to other countries i have visited before people who doesn't work doesn't get any social welfare. This encourages them to find job and do any jobs which won't be the case here in Ireland as some people are too posh to serve in a shop. Another thing are people think twice before having a baby, if they can afford to raise the child they will otherwise 1 kid is enough for them or 2. Unfortunately here in ireland people makes babies like rabbits and who pays for everything, the tax payer. Now when these cuts are coming they get stressed out and find it shocking. Try to depend on yourself and not on others.

Grow up

amacachi

10% across the board would be the height of what I could imagine, probably be closer to 5% though.

ninty9er

I was at the event where it was said. He mentioned it in terms of trimming, not naming a figure. Though he did say that €40 would be a medium sized cut of the credit stops flowing and €70 would be about the size of it of the IMF were to do it. I'd expect €12-€15 off the full rate of JA and tiered reductions below that.

Another interesting fact. If all people at Social Protection earning above €100k had their salaries reduced to that it would give the department just ONE MINUTE spending power.

RichardAnd

scorpioishere wrote: »

Oh the children are well off here in this country, they won't be starving. Compared to other countries i have visited before people who doesn't work doesn't get any social welfare. This encourages them to find job and do any jobs which won't be the case here in Ireland as some people are too posh to serve in a shop. Another thing are people think twice before having a baby, if they can afford to raise the child they will otherwise 1 kid is enough for them or 2. Unfortunately here in ireland people makes babies like rabbits and who pays for everything, the tax payer. Now when these cuts are coming they get stressed out and find it shocking. Try to depend on yourself and not on others.

First of all, let me say that I agree with you 100% in that people should not have children if they can't afford them. It's perfectly possible to avoid having children by using the best contraception of all; not having sex.

However, your comment about serving in a shop is rather facile. Many shops simply aren't hiring. Others won't hire people on the dole because many of the unemployed (though certainly not the majority) suffer from over-qualification. On top of this, we have thousands of men with nothing but building experience and forgive me, but I'm dubious of how much "re-skilling" can help people like this.

padma

scorpioishere wrote: »

Oh the children are well off here in this country, they won't be starving. Compared to other countries i have visited before people who doesn't work doesn't get any social welfare. This encourages them to find job and do any jobs which won't be the case here in Ireland as some people are too posh to serve in a shop. Another thing are people think twice before having a baby, if they can afford to raise the child they will otherwise 1 kid is enough for them or 2. Unfortunately here in ireland people makes babies like rabbits and who pays for everything, the tax payer. Now when these cuts are coming they get stressed out and find it shocking. Try to depend on yourself and not on others.

So, by your standards we should become a third world country, increase the gap between rich and poor. Then turn in to China because of economical reasons?

There are plenty of Irish people working in shops. For someone from Ballsbridge and seeming very high and mighty and holier than thou where do you get your ideas from? Do you really actually think like this? Be truthful now.

HarryPotter41

scorpioishere wrote: »

Oh the children are well off here in this country, they won't be starving. Compared to other countries i have visited before people who doesn't work doesn't get any social welfare. This encourages them to find job and do any jobs which won't be the case here in Ireland as some people are too posh to serve in a shop. Another thing are people think twice before having a baby, if they can afford to raise the child they will otherwise 1 kid is enough for them or 2. Unfortunately here in ireland people makes babies like rabbits and who pays for everything, the tax payer. Now when these cuts are coming they get stressed out and find it shocking. Try to depend on yourself and not on others.

How you manage to get into Ballsbridge with such appalling English?

amacachi

ninty9er wrote: »

Another interesting fact. If all people at Social Protection earning above €100k had their salaries reduced to that it would give the department just ONE MINUTE spending power.

Sorry, could you rephrase that, I don't understand it.

snubbleste

Tbh I would'nt be surprised if I saw jobseekers being reduced to 2006 levels of €165.80 which is 'significant', with the cost of living excuse being used be it true or not. All other benefits to be reduced accordingly except OAP.
Also there will be tighter eligibility being applied to all current and new applicants.

Hopefully rent supplement levels will be slashed heavily as they are distorting the real market rents.

ninty9er

amacachi wrote: »

Sorry, could you rephrase that, I don't understand it.

Basically:
It would save approx €250k a year if the top earners at the department all had their salaries reduced to €100k. The department spends between €200k to €220k every minute it's operating.

padma

What about reducing their salaries to 40,000 a year. 10,000 grand more than the average industrial wage? And every other PS worker out there.

300% more than a single person on the dole

amacachi

ninty9er wrote: »

Basically:
It would save approx €250k a year if the top earners at the department all had their salaries reduced to €100k. The department spends between €200k to €220k every minute it's operating.

Ah right. Still worth doing. :pac:

ei.sdraob

padma wrote: »

Then be prepared to live in a house with security fences and a massive bill for 24 hour security.

I see a business opportunity in selling large dog breeds

snubbleste

ninty9er wrote: »

Basically:
It would save approx €250k a year if the top earners at the department all had their salaries reduced to €100k. The department spends between €200k to €220k every minute it's operating.

Let our servant know!
eamonn . ocuiv @ oireachtas . ie

ninty9er

You have a very poor grasp of what "every other public sector worker out there" earns.

Dempo1

HarryPotter41 wrote: »

How you manage to get into Ballsbridge with such appalling English?

My sentiments exactly, i am appalled at this posters comments and attitude. I accept there are abuses in the system but this posters narrow minded view on reality is shocking. I know of many, many professionals, including i might add some from Bolloxbridge who are now depending on welfare through no fault of theirs as a result of job loss, redundancies etc.

The comment about our children being wealthy defies belief, extraordinary stuff from someone who should clearly consider studying fascism or perhaps they are already avid supporters of this warped mentality.

ninty9er

snubbleste wrote: »

Let our servant know!
eamonn . ocuiv @ oireachtas . ie

He already knows. He was the one that said it.

padma

ninty9er wrote: »

You have a very poor grasp of what "every other public sector worker out there" earns.

Sorry, I meant the high earners.

lornakg

I have no problem with people who are on jobseekers benifit as they are only claiming back what they put in but i do have a problem with 18 yr olds thinking its their right to sign on and get 'free money' just because they've turned 18.
Anyone who has not worked and payed into the system should not be allowed claim.
Younger people living at home should have their money cut. If their parents are on social welfare, they are paid 29pw per child so why should it be increased to 100 pw when that 'child' turns 18. Everyone on JA should be made work at least 20 hrs a wk or do training in order to qualify for a payment.
Why should the workers be taxed to the hilt to give the younger crowd, who have never worked and probably never will, money for beer and fags!!
Before everyone goes mad, I am not objecting to people who have worked and paid into the system been paid when they fall on hard times.

padma

I suppose scorpioishere thinks that if they cut the dole by 100% he will pay less tax. If there is no social backbone in the country he can live it large.

HarryPotter41

Dempo1 wrote: »

My sentiments exactly, i am appalled at this posters comments and attitude. I accept there are abuses in the system but this posters narrow minded view on reality is shocking. I know of many, many professionals, including i might add some from Bolloxbridge who are now depending on welfare through no fault of theirs as a result of job loss, redundancies etc.

The comment about our children being wealthy defies belief, extraordinary stuff from someone who should clearly consider studying fascism or perhaps they are already avid supporters of this warped mentality.

Possibly the whole system needs tweaking and certainly the people who didn't work in 20 years especially during the boom times need to be seriously harassed, take out the abuses of the system.

mikemac

RichardAnd wrote: »

First of all, let me say that I agree with you 100% in that people should not have children if they can't afford them.

I don't want to take your quote out of context, this isn't realy aimed at you Richard.

I see a lot of similar posts here
Hundreds died every year in road accidents, even more in suicide. And many permanently disabled in accidents so they can't work.
Do you not know a single widow or widower at all?

It seems the having children you can't afford line is thrown around a lot here. At the same time there are people who lose their partner, the breadwinner I suppose and suddenly left alone

Realy, I think there is so much fraud out there that the genuine cases get lumped in with them

And to answer the OP, probably €15 off JSA and howls of protest from Fr. Sean Healy
Not sure about JSB, I mean there are people who have paid taxes for years and years, it's there to support them now. They aren't signing on when they get their 18th birthday card

Denzil2222

What are your views on this payment ? Should it be cut or abolished or left alone ?

snubbleste

Unfortunately, currently there exists a viable career option for a young woman to become a single mother and have a taxpayer-funded guaranteed income for the future.

gurramok

Denzil2222 wrote: »

What are your views on this payment ? Should it be cut or abolished or left alone ?

Severely cut for those who keep having babies while claiming it.

padma

I suppose you got to think a lone parent, is not one person, but two people. Therefore a bigger apt is needed. Electricity bills are larger. Food is more expensive.Clothes are needed for two rather than 1 and we all know kids need new clothes continuously. So abolishing it altogether does increase hardship, maybe to the point of being close to destitution. So on that basis abolishing is not an option. Cutting it may be on the table, but by a few small euro. Child allowance should be abolished for Couples earning over 80,000 a year.

gurramok

padma wrote: »

I suppose you got to think a lone parent, is not one person, but two people. Therefore a bigger apt is needed. Electricity bills are larger. Food is more expensive.Clothes are needed for two rather than 1 and we all know kids need new clothes continuously. So abolishing it altogether does increase hardship, maybe to the point of being close to destitution. So on that basis abolishing is not an option. Cutting it may be on the table, but by a few small euro. Child allowance should be abolished for Couples earning over 80,000 a year.

Have you seen the figures on which they earn? Accommodation is free for the renter type of single mother.http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66188084&postcount=337

Jesus Wept

ninty9er wrote: »

Basically:
It would save approx €250k a year if the top earners at the department all had their salaries reduced to €100k. The department spends between €200k to €220k every minute it's operating.

Waste is waste, regardless of where it is.

lornakg wrote: »

Everyone on JA should be made work at least 20 hrs a wk or do training in order to qualify for a payment.
Why should the workers be taxed to the hilt to give the younger crowd, who have never worked and probably never will, money for beer and fags!!
Before everyone goes mad, I am not objecting to people who have worked and paid into the system been paid when they fall on hard times.

Work where exactly? There are not enough jobs.
If we were in full employement, this idea could be entertained.

johnnyskeleton

snubbleste wrote: »

Tbh I would'nt be surprised if I saw jobseekers being reduced to 2006 levels of €165.80 which is 'significant', with the cost of living excuse being used be it true or not. All other benefits to be reduced accordingly except OAP.
Also there will be tighter eligibility being applied to all current and new applicants.

Hopefully rent supplement levels will be slashed heavily as they are distorting the real market rents.

Exactly. The government will struggle to suggest that a % cut is justified, as too many people are singing from the "poor can't pay" hymn sheet.

But 2006 was the height of government receipts which have been decreasing rapidly since then. Arguably we still cannot afford 2006 levels of welfare. However, inflation wise we are at a level that we were at between 2006 and 2007 so €165 is worth more or less today what it was worth in 2006.

That is the minimum cut that can be made. Arguably, further cuts should be made to people who are on long term jobseekers (benefit/allowance?), maybe reducing down to €100 for people who are more than 3 years unemployed. Additional payments for children should also be on a downward gradient i.e. you should get less (not more) for a second child than for the first.

HarryPotter41

The-Rigger wrote: »

Waste is waste, regardless of where it is.



Work where exactly? There are not enough jobs.
If we were in full employement, this idea could be entertained.

Work where?? All the voluntary organisations who need help ie those dealing with mental and physical disabilities, young people, elderly would love some extra help. There are community centres all over the country under utilised because they have no one to keep them open during the day. Plenty of building belonging to clubs etc that need repair, freshening up. The list is endless.

southsiderosie

ninty9er wrote: »

Another interesting fact. If all people at Social Protection earning above €100k had their salaries reduced to that it would give the department just ONE MINUTE spending power.

Given their levels of job protection, I do not think anyone in the public service should be making more than 100K a year. And I would add TDs to that list, since they not only receive huge in-kind benefits, but have gold-plated pensions as well.

Denzil2222 wrote: »

What are your views on this payment ? Should it be cut or abolished or left alone ?

Why is so much emphasis put on lone parent allowance and not on mandatory child support from the non-custodial parent? No child is the product of a "lone parent".

-Trek-

Whatever the argument is about cutting welfare, they (the government) should be far more concerned about the amount of jobs that are haemorrhaging out of the country. If the jobs are there people will work, simple. The long term benefiters are always going to be there and I'd rather see them receive benefits than turning to crime to make money (even though there are some who do both).

padma

gurramok wrote: »

Have you seen the figures on which they earn? Accommodation is free for the renter type of single mother.http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66188084&postcount=337

Interesting graph for a single mother with three children. Are they fully rent free? Do they not have to pay x amount a week towards the rent? Isn't fuel allowance means tested? Would the 13000 a year for rent only be applicable in the Dublin area? due to higher than average rent costs for a three/four bedroom home? Would it be a case that this is a person waiting to be approved for a council house? Which if they refuse they could lose their current rent allowance?

So, the only real way of cutting the rent allowance bill is start shortening the waiting list for a house, get people in to the hundreds of thousands of empty housing stock and start saving money for the long term?

HarryPotter41

Trekmad wrote: »

Whatever the argument is about cutting welfare, they (the government) should be far more concerned about the amount of jobs that are haemorrhaging out of the country. If the jobs are there people will work, simple. The long term benefiters are always going to be there and I'd rather see them receive benefits than turning to crime to make money (even though there are some who do both).

Yes, nothing pleases me more than seeing the same people outside the bookie office spending their dole for the last 20 years, but at least it keeps them from crime. Good lord.

lornakg

HarryPotter41 wrote: »

Work where?? All the voluntary organisations who need help ie those dealing with mental and physical disabilities, young people, elderly would love some extra help. There are community centres all over the country under utilised because they have no one to keep them open during the day. Plenty of building belonging to clubs etc that need repair, freshening up. The list is endless.

My sentiments exactly... What this would also do is, those who are actually working and claiming would have to stop defrauding the system cos they would not be available to do the work alloted to them by social welfare and then their welfare payment, that they don't need could be stopped.