Social Welfare in Ireland - perception and implementation.

dashboard_hula

There are basically 3, no 4 topics on boards that are guaranteed a high view count and much teeth gnashing and rabblerabble:

1. Sinn Féin/NI
2. Social Welfare
3. Internal boards operations
4. Yore ma

Regarding SW, it's everywhere. I go into Politics, there's a thread regarding the welfare state and "scrounger" mentality. I go to State Benefits and someone opens their mouth to ask a question, they're immediately seen to be intending to defraud the state, and there's war. I go into AH, there's just chaos. It seems that the topic of Social Welfare as a concept, and the policies and procedures of the State system is an incredibly touchy subject at the moment. And it's only fair - Ireland has a high degree of dependence on state aid and assistance, and now that the states gone up the swanee, there's now a lot more attention focused on a) where the money is coming from and b) where it's going.

Personally, I can understand both sides of the debate on a broad level. There are single mums whose partners live with them, are paying a mortgage and planning a wedding with them and are claiming lone parent allowance. I have friends who are unemployed and who I sometimes feel I might as well cut out the middleman and pay their shagging dole myself. There are most probably people on disability benefit, and there's not a thing wrong with them. These examples do exist, however not in the scale to which I'd be led to believe by people who swing slightly to the right of Maggie Thatcher.

However, I also remember when I was unemployed for a short period of time; I needed something to keep me going between losing one job and getting the next. I remember when my brother was in a serious car crash and was out of work for 7 months, and needed assistance. And to be honest, the day when I'll have to walk into a SW office after working pretty much solidly since the age of 16 and signing on is fast approaching. And this time, I don't have a clear notion of where the next job is coming from.

My opinion is that the concept of social welfare and state assistance in and of itself is not bad or wrong. This is a choice that we made as a country when we finally got into the driver’s seat. I am firmly of the belief that the problem is not the system, it is compliance. I believe that the bureaucratic side of things is bloated and not fit for purpose. There should be more controls over assessments, more fraud teams, more stringent implementation of the rules. Alongside that, there has to be a fervent political effort to reduce the need for people to regard SW as a permanent income by lowering the cost of living and job creation to ensure that SW is used the way it's supposed to - as a helping hand for people who need it, until they don't need it anymore.

By no means do I mean to insult those who are on any kind of SW benefit. I'll be right behind you in the queue very soon. But to see the amount of raving that comes out of the woodwork sometimes when this topic is broached makes me wonder if some people genuinely have no idea how close they are to the same cliff edge as everyone else, or even have anything constructive to say. At the same time, it must be very hard to try to have a reasoned debate on the topic without people from the polar opposite point of view screaming at them that they're nothing but coldhearted bastards.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Freddie59

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That's it in a nutshell. There's also the 'disability/invalidity' allowance being claimed by people who's partners are in highly paid jobs. And they're on it for life. No means testing; no checks after it's granted. And a free bus pass. WTF?:eek: And many of these are Lourdes cases. Crippled prior to being granted the allowance; then a miraculous recovery afterwards. It's bloody stupid, when you consider the grueling that GENUINE dole cases receive.

Permabear wrote: »

Then there are the all myths—the free prams and cars for Nigerians, for instance.

Eh, as the song says: it ain't necessarily so - or it is fact in a lot of cases. There is WIDESPREAD abuse of HSE/SW 'handouts', regardless of skin colour or nationality. Not a myth, more common knowledge, to which the authorities turn a blind eye, or are too lazy to investigate.

Permabear wrote: »

Most people have only a subjective understanding of how widespread social welfare fraud actually is. However, reports such as that 1 in 5 people in West Belfast are claiming disability allowance only fuel the belief that the taxpayer is being ripped off left, right, and centre by an underclass of benefit fiddlers.

I don't think many people have an issue with bona fide claimants getting benefits, especially for a short duration when they have paid their PRSI. Unfortunately, people tend to paint all benefit claimants with the same brush—which is why threads on this topic tend to turn into a mess.

The problem now is that the abuse is so widespread. A chap I know was accompanying his elderly father on a bus journey recently. he and one other person were the only paying passengers - and the bus was full.

And we wonder why there is an €18bn deficit.:rolleyes:

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Rubik.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The number of people who have been unemployed for over a year has increased from 56,000 to 163,825 in the last 12 months. Cutting their unemployment benefits is not going to change this trend.

dashboard_hula

I remember one of the campaign issues during the UK general election was benefit fraud, or to be blunt - benefit laziness. One of the proposals put forward (and implemented too afaik) was that people who refused to apply for work, or accept a job placement when it was handed to them would have their benefits cut. There was also supposed to be measures put in place to ensure that their childcare/transport needs would also be supported, but that it was better for the person to be working and contributing to the exchequer, with the government providing ancillary support, than for the benefits to continue to be paid without an end in sight.

bmarley

All those on longterm benefits should be re-assessed on a regular basis and called in for interviews/training - this does not happen. In fact, things are made easier for them and instead of having to queue at the post office like those on short term benefits, these are paid into bank accounts. Likewise, those on disability/lone parents allowances should be re-assessed regularly so that their needs etc can be established. Rent allowance is costing this government a fortune with many families choosing to turn down social housing so that they can instead choose a property of their choice to rent and allow the state/tax payers to pay for.

DrFroggies

The unfortuate thing is that - hardcore 'scroungers' don't give a sh1t what anyone here or on the street or even within the system think...they're expert manipulators of the system and will continue to manipulate it regardless of changes. Hopefully better monitoring systems will come in though...sadly its the massive recently (since 2008) unemployed who could be considered long term at this stage but who were more than happy to work, pay taxes, contribute to society and would be again given the opportunity who suffer the ire of those still lucky enough to be employed.

Freddie59 wrote: »

Eh, as the song says: it ain't necessarily so - or it is fact in a lot of cases. There is WIDESPREAD abuse of HSE/SW 'handouts', regardless of skin colour or nationality. Not a myth, more common knowledge, to which the authorities turn a blind eye, or are too lazy to investigate.

The problem now is that the abuse is so widespread. A chap I know was accompanying his elderly father on a bus journey recently. he and one other person were the only paying passengers - and the bus was full.

And we wonder why there is an €18bn deficit.:rolleyes:

How widespread is it though? Is there a known percentage? And of the SW percentage of the deficit how much is established to be lost through SW fraud and how much is just people who got screwed when the jobs dissappeared?

If anyone has genuine facts and figures (rather than newspaper hyperbole) I'd love to see it. There do seem to be some glaring issues with the SW payments but how much?

Personally I get very uncomfortable with references like this:

Freddie59 wrote: »

Not a myth, more common knowledge, to which the authorities turn a blind eye

'Common Knowledge' assumptions have led to some unfortunate social episodes throughout history

dashboard_hula

DrFroggies wrote: »

sadly its the massive recently (since 2008) unemployed who could be considered long term at this stage but who were more than happy to work, pay taxes, contribute to society and would be again given the opportunity who suffer the ire of those still lucky enough to be employed.

I don't get this at all - I agree with what you're saying, I just don't understand why it's this group. There still seems to be a tolerant attitude towards people who placidly state that they "don't work", while those who have been laid off, graduated and haven't been able to enter the workplace and those who fight against literally thousands for each position are treated with disdain and outright hostility. What gives?

Argh, multiquotes how the hell do I do that again.

Freddie59 stated above that abuse was "widespread" and examples of the extremes that Permabear gave were rampant. Where's the backup? Where's the published reports? I'm not saying it's a completely incorrect remark but I absolutely hate the "I heard my cousins neighbour was given a new car" kind of argument.

DrFroggies

dashboard_hula wrote: »

I don't get this at all - I agree with what you're saying, I just don't understand why it's this group. There still seems to be a tolerant attitude towards people who placidly state that they "don't work", while those who have been laid off, graduated and haven't been able to enter the workplace and those who fight against literally thousands for each position are treated with disdain and outright hostility. What gives?

Well i don't think its that people are more tolerant of those who state that they "don't work" (or another common term for the 'scroungers')...i think the reason genuine unemployed people (those who are desperately trying to find work and get back on their feet) are more affected by the broad judgment on them is because the 'scroungers' don't care what people think of them (in fact some delight in the contempt people hold them in) whereas the genuine victims of the recession care deeply as they genuinely wish to be back contributing to society and (even more importantly) earning enough money to have a decent quality of life. The awful situation of being unable to earn enough to move your life forward (along with the confidence hit unemployment causes) is compounded by blanket assumptions, by some employed, that you're just not bothered. Career scroungers on the other hand don't give a sh1t what people think of them.

For people who've lost their positions in the workplace or those unable to enter in the first place - these judgements are a case of being kicked when you're already down...leaving many (who have the option) with the simple question in relation to their country 'should i stay or should i go!!' Not a nice situation.

dashboard_hula wrote: »

Freddie59 stated above that abuse was "widespread" and examples of the extremes that Permabear gave were rampant. Where's the backup? Where's the published reports? I'm not saying it's a completely incorrect remark but I absolutely hate the "I heard my cousins neighbour was given a new car" kind of argument.

Yeah it would be interesting to know how much exactly is quantifiable and how much is rumour.

Freddie59

dashboard_hula wrote: »

I don't get this at all - I agree with what you're saying, I just don't understand why it's this group. There still seems to be a tolerant attitude towards people who placidly state that they "don't work", while those who have been laid off, graduated and haven't been able to enter the workplace and those who fight against literally thousands for each position are treated with disdain and outright hostility. What gives?

Argh, multiquotes how the hell do I do that again.

Freddie59 stated above that abuse was "widespread" and examples of the extremes that Permabear gave were rampant. Where's the backup? Where's the published reports? I'm not saying it's a completely incorrect remark but I absolutely hate the "I heard my cousins neighbour was given a new car" kind of argument.

You're entitled to your opinion of course, but I have come across SEVERAL instances of this myself (along with others). Because a report:rolleyes:doesn't exist doesn't man it isn't happening. Did you, perchance, watch the RTE programme which concentrated on it last year? If not, you missed more evidence than any 'report' could produce.

Is uppose if anyone has access, an answer to the following would be interesting:

1. How much is paid out in ROI in 'invalidity' payments every year?

2. What are immigrants EXACTLY entitled to in comparison to, say, an indigenous Irish person?

3. How much has been spent accomodating immigrats in the past 13 years?

4. How can someone from a country with no direct travel connections to Ireland claim 'asylum'?

All pertinent questions which will, no doubt, raise the hackles of those who fight their cause.

Freddie59

DrFroggies wrote: »

How widespread is it though? Is there a known percentage?

A bus full of people with ONE paying passenger?:eek: I think that answers your question adequately.

Freddie59

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

should be given allowance for a SINGLE child. End of story. And -oh - make the live-in father pay as well.

Freddie59

DrFroggies wrote: »

'Common Knowledge' assumptions have led to some unfortunate social episodes throughout history

My friend, the dogs in the street know it - open your eyes and look around you.

dashboard_hula

@Freddie59 - think we both need to learn how to use multiquotes....

Your questions would indeed raise the hackles of those who fight the cause of "immigrants" because you're asking the wrong ones.
First, you don't differentiate between EU and non EU nationals. EU residents are permitted certain work and welfare freedoms in Ireland because the same rights are afforded to us in other EU countries. The amount certainly differs, but the right exists. Non EU nationals usually arrive in on work visas and apply to stay, in some cases as economic/political/refugees, but they're not entitled in the same way as EU nationals are, and are required to submit to more visibility as to their location (ie presenting @ garda stations etc).
(I'm open to correction here)
Single mothers should be given allowance for a single child - and what happens the others? Starve? You'd be better off promoting or arguing for better sexual education and contraception available, rather than trying to deny an existing child their benefit - once they're here, there's not really much you can do it about it.
At the same time though, I have a feeling that you would agree with the part of my argument that states that the problem isn't the concept of state assistance, it's the implementation and compliance. If more reporting was available as what exactly people were entitled to in each situtation, and the DSS was seen to be actioning those entitlements correctly, you wouldn't really have an issue with it.

As a matter of interest, there was an article in the Indo yesterday regarding EU nationals who were flown home due to destitution - ie they were not eligble to claim state benefits, and they weren't eligible for long term homeless assistance, so they were flown home - if I remember correctly more than 400 people (mostly from Romania) were sent home at a cost of €120,000. So it looks like there is some controls on the process - I just get irritated with the lack of concrete information available and the tendency to jump to the far end of the opinion spectrum at both ends.

ICE HOUSE

More needs to be done about welfare fraud in this country.
I know they have really stepped up recently but this should have been done years ago.

johnn

They need to at the very least half the dole in this country or maybe even do away with it altogether. I'm fed up with people on the dole rubbing their cushy lifestyles in my face, getting up a midday, spending their money on cans and smokes.... whilst i go out and do an honest days work. :rolleyes:

dashboard_hula

johnn wrote: »

They need to at the very least half the dole in this country or maybe even do away with it altogether. I'm fed up with people on the dole rubbing their cushy lifestyles in my face, getting up a midday, spending their money on cans and smokes.... whilst i go out and do an honest days work. :rolleyes:

With the greatest of respect, this is precisely the kind of argument that causes war when it comes to the topic of social welfare. I understand your frustration at the system, seeing as I'm the same boat as you. But in 6 weeks time, when I have to go in and sign on, do I become someone who's rubbing my cushy lifestyle in your face, spending my money on cans and smokes? Don't I deserve the benefit of the doubt that I'm searching for work and claiming state assistance while doing so, and have no intention of making it a permanent income?

johnn

dashboard_hula wrote: »

With the greatest of respect, this is precisely the kind of argument that causes war when it comes to the topic of social welfare. I understand your frustration at the system, seeing as I'm the same boat as you. But in 6 weeks time, when I have to go in and sign on, do I become someone who's rubbing my cushy lifestyle in your face, spending my money on cans and smokes? Don't I deserve the benefit of the doubt that I'm searching for work and claiming state assistance while doing so, and have no intention of making it a permanent income?

thats grand but the vast majority of them have no intention of finding work, unlike us honest workers. I still think the government should have brought that scheme in where the unemployed would have to sweep the streets to earn their keep, at least then we'd know they're up and not having a lie-on, or watching "This Morning".

Cut the dole and you'll find how miraculously nearly all of them will be back working.

dashboard_hula

Right, so how to you tell the difference between "us" honest worker and "those" cushy dole scroungers?
By looking at them? By asking for proof of job searches? By asking for proof of attempts at betterment - return to education, volunteering, training?
So once a person has satisfied all of the above criteria, they are seen as honest jobseekers?
I have no objection to the above, in fact I would presume that that is the least of the tabs that SW should be keeping on those on the dole.
However, cuts in the dole without a corresponding cut in the cost of living or a lot of housecleaning at the DSS compliance unit and you're going to have a load of people who simply cannot keep up with their already tight budget straight around to the community welfare officer, or homeless.

Freddie59

dashboard_hula wrote: »

@Freddie59 - think we both need to learn how to use multiquotes.....

Indeed!:D

dashboard_hula wrote: »

Your questions would indeed raise the hackles of those who fight the cause of "immigrants" because you're asking the wrong ones.
First, you don't differentiate between EU and non EU nationals. EU residents are permitted certain work and welfare freedoms in Ireland because the same rights are afforded to us in other EU countries. The amount certainly differs, but the right exists. Non EU nationals usually arrive in on work visas and apply to stay, in some cases as economic/political/refugees, but they're not entitled in the same way as EU nationals are, and are required to submit to more visibility as to their location (ie presenting @ garda stations etc).
(I'm open to correction here)

i take your point. But, again, I ask - what about 'asylum' seekers? Many of whom arrived here from countries with no direct travel to Ireland?

dashboard_hula wrote: »

Single mothers should be given allowance for a single child - and what happens the others? Starve? You'd be better off promoting or arguing for better sexual education and contraception available, rather than trying to deny an existing child their benefit - once they're here, there's not really much you can do it about it..

Anyone can make a mistake once. But above that? Why should MY tax Euros pay for these children? Many of them have made a career from it.

dashboard_hula wrote: »

At the same time though, I have a feeling that you would agree with the part of my argument that states that the problem isn't the concept of state assistance, it's the implementation and compliance. If more reporting was available as what exactly people were entitled to in each situtation, and the DSS was seen to be actioning those entitlements correctly, you wouldn't really have an issue with it..

Agreed. There is not even a central number (like the insurance fraud number) where you can report abusers confidentially.

dashboard_hula wrote: »

As a matter of interest, there was an article in the Indo yesterday regarding EU nationals who were flown home due to destitution - ie they were not eligble to claim state benefits, and they weren't eligible for long term homeless assistance, so they were flown home - if I remember correctly more than 400 people (mostly from Romania) were sent home at a cost of €120,000. So it looks like there is some controls on the process - I just get irritated with the lack of concrete information available and the tendency to jump to the far end of the opinion spectrum at both ends.

But beacuse the information doesn't exist, it doesn't mean it's not happening. They're not all urban myths, DH.

Freddie59

johnn wrote: »

They need to at the very least half the dole in this country or maybe even do away with it altogether. I'm fed up with people on the dole rubbing their cushy lifestyles in my face, getting up a midday, spending their money on cans and smokes.... whilst i go out and do an honest days work. :rolleyes:

Well put John.

Freddie59

ICE HOUSE wrote: »

More needs to be done about welfare fraud in this country.
I know they have really stepped up recently but this should have been done years ago.

+1 to that. As I said earlier, not even a central number for reporting abuse anonymously. And yet we can pay an average salary of E80,000 in the NCA for people to count bean tins in supermarkets.:rolleyes:

Spudmonkey

dashboard_hula wrote: »

However, cuts in the dole without a corresponding cut in the cost of living

You can't just wait for the cost of living to decrease. This is dependant on what people can afford. This won't fall until it is found people can afford less.

francie81

johnn wrote: »

They need to at the very least half the dole in this country or maybe even do away with it altogether. I'm fed up with people on the dole rubbing their cushy lifestyles in my face, getting up a midday, spending their money on cans and smokes.... whilst i go out and do an honest days work. :rolleyes:

I'll 2nd that it all comes down to government code of practice, maybe FG in power will be more ruthless in their actions when it comes to stringent social welfare policies.

DrFroggies

Freddie59 wrote: »

A bus full of people with ONE paying passenger?:eek: I think that answers your question adequately.

No of course it doesn't - Now unlike your friend i'd be reluctant to claim i was so invested in everyone elses behaviour (and keen-eyed to-boot) that i could claim to know who paid and how and who didn't...in a bus FULL of people???...but...i got on a bus the other day and from what i could see everyone on the bus...WAS PAYING :eek: so surely that means - by your own logic - that no one is scrounging and there are very few folk enjoying benefits of this order...doesn't it?

Not slagging you or your friend here, but gossip isn't what i meant by 'known percentage'

Freddie59 wrote: »

My friend, the dogs in the street know it - open your eyes and look around you.

No that's not good enough for me...i rarely form my opinions on what dogs know ...I agree though that anecdotal evidence shouldn't always be dismissed as 'just anecdotal' but (and i don't mean any offence here) really 'a chap I know' an unnamed 'RTE documentary' from last year and 'the dogs in the street' isn't really contributary in analysing this problem. Given that so many have such strong opinions on this issue there must be some quantifiable evidence to support this sort of mass scrounger culture claim.

johnn wrote: »

thats grand but the vast majority of them have no intention of finding work, unlike us honest workers. I still think the government should have brought that scheme in where the unemployed would have to sweep the streets to earn their keep, at least then we'd know they're up and not having a lie-on, or watching "This Morning".

Cut the dole and you'll find how miraculously nearly all of them will be back working.

'them' and 'us' are you serious? I laughed when i first read that but i actually think you might be serious (or maybe you aren't in which case i certainly like your slightly obtuse sense of humour). Just in case you are serious though, maybe it would clarify things for you to do a very simple equation:

• Write out the unemployment figure for pre-recession for Ireland
• Now write out the current unemployment figure for Ireland
• Subtract the pre-recession figure from the current figure
• And the percentage you get is the percentage of people who were happily/gainfully employed and are now unemployed through no fault of their own but because...Yes!!! There isn't employment out there for them.

Not exactly a 'vast majority' wouldn't you agree?

I could be wrong now but thats the way i work out the maths...saying that maybe 'This Morning' is just that addictive.:rolleyes:

By the way - what happens to the street cleaners when over 4 hundred thousand people descend on the streets with brushes - stealing their jobs!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Rubik.

johnn wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Over 300,000 people have lost their jobs in the last couple of years. So they gone from being honest workers like you, to lying in bed laughing at you because you have to get up for work? I think the above statement says a lot more about you than it does about them, John. As for the notion of getting rid of unemployment benefits to miraculously solve our unemployment problem - the estimates of future unemployment rates would suggest otherwise.

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Is there any evidence that minimum-wage rate job vacancies are going unfilled. Even at the height of the boom this sector only accounted for only around 4.5% of all jobs in the economy. The number of vacancies at this pay rate would miniscule in the grand scheme of things and is not the reason why we have an unemployment rate of 13.5%.

Zombrex

johnn wrote: »

thats grand but the vast majority of them have no intention of finding work, unlike us honest workers.

Er, how do you figure that?

If that was the case then the unemployment level wouldn't be rising, it would have been as high as it is now 4 years ago. Instead it was half the number it is now. So clearly the "vast majority" of people on the dole were working when there were jobs for them.

During the boom unemployment was down so low only the chronically unemployed (most people with mental and or drug alcohol problems) were unemployed. When the jobs dried up the unemployment figures rose.

johnn wrote: »

I still think the government should have brought that scheme in where the unemployed would have to sweep the streets to earn their keep, at least then we'd know they're up and not having a lie-on, or watching "This Morning".

You say that as if being unemployed is a luxury. It is if you are rich. It isn't if you are on the dole. It is a well established fact that depression rises in those who don't work and claim social welfare. Which is (again) probably why when there were jobs so few voluntarily stayed on the dole.

johnn wrote: »

Cut the dole and you'll find how miraculously nearly all of them will be back working.

Not if their ain't jobs for them. Again when there were jobs for people the unemployment levels fell to as low as they could actually be (taking into account the chronic unemployable who account for approx. 3% of the population).

It has risen to 13% because there is no jobs. the 10% difference are people who have already demonstrated they would work in jobs rather than claim the dole if their were jobs to work in.

http://www.cso.ie/statistics/sasunemprates.htm

mrsbyrne

Freddie59 wrote: »

+1 to that. As I said earlier, not even a central number for reporting abuse anonymously. And yet we can pay an average salary of E80,000 in the NCA for people to count bean tins in supermarkets.:rolleyes:

http://www.welfare.ie/EN/ContactUs/Pages/reportfraud.aspx
all you had to do was type "fraud" into the search bar on the dept. of social protection website. you can ring,write or go online. simples. knock yourself out.:D

Freddie59

mrsbyrne wrote: »

http://www.welfare.ie/EN/ContactUs/Pages/reportfraud.aspx
all you had to do was type "fraud" into the search bar on the dept. of social protection website. you can ring,write or go online. simples. knock yourself out.:D

Nice one. But why is it not publicised? On another front, some posters here question the validity of information supplied because 'no reports exist' to substantiate it.

Hmm. Institutional child abuse? No reports existed then either. And look what happened.;)

mrsbyrne

Freddie59 wrote: »

Nice one. But why is it not publicised? On another front, some posters here question the validity of information supplied because 'no reports exist' to substantiate it.

Hmm. Institutional child abuse? No reports existed then either. And look what happened.;)

http://www.welfare.ie/EN/Policy/ResearchSurveysAndStatistics/Pages/StatInfoReportsIndex.aspx
12 years of reports here. Im sure if you want to go back further than that they will probably have some, but in hard copy only:(still i guess 12 years is enough to be going on with.
Regarding the publiscising of the fraud info line, it is on the front page of the Departments website, i dont suppose they have any spare money for advertising on TV, radio, bus shelters etc. if they did you would have 2 full days on Joe Duffy Liveline of complaining about waste of taxpayers money etc...

Freddie59

mrsbyrne wrote: »

http://www.welfare.ie/EN/Policy/ResearchSurveysAndStatistics/Pages/StatInfoReportsIndex.aspx
12 years of reports here. Im sure if you want to go back further than that they will probably have some, but in hard copy only:(still i guess 12 years is enough to be going on with.
Regarding the publiscising of the fraud info line, it is on the front page of the Departments website, i dont suppose they have any spare money for advertising on TV, radio, bus shelters etc. if they did you would have 2 full days on Joe Duffy Liveline of complaining about waste of taxpayers money etc...

I doubt it somehow. And I'd say the returns would dwarf the expenditure. Regarding the reports; they were AFTER the event. No different to now really. And the dogs in the street ALSO knew that was going on.;)

mrsbyrne

Freddie59 wrote: »

I doubt it somehow. And I'd say the returns would dwarf the expenditure. Regarding the reports; they were AFTER the event. No different to now really. And the dogs in the street ALSO knew that was going on.;)

in reality my experience has been that members of the public who have genuine information regarding welfare fraud never need to be told how to impart this information to the appropriate authority. an anonymous letter to your local office will suffice and all information is followed up on.

freddie, theres no other way of making a report on something, other than "after the event"...unless you engage a clairvoyant...

Freddie59

mrsbyrne wrote: »

in reality my experience has been that members of the public who have genuine information regarding welfare fraud never need to be told how to impart this information to the appropriate authority. an anonymous letter to your local office will suffice and all information is followed up on.

freddie, theres no other way of making a report on something, other than "after the event"...unless you engage a clairvoyant...

The point I'm making is that there is a denial of what's going on around us. It doesn't mean it isn't happening. Regarding reporting, how is that going to make a difference to the countless of thousands of Lordes cases (legitimately) on "disabilty"? The system HAS to be changed.

And the authorities must realise that the expenditure will be dwarfed by the income generated. It's a no-brainer.

dashboard_hula

Freddie59 wrote: »

Nice one. But why is it not publicised? On another front, some posters here question the validity of information supplied because 'no reports exist' to substantiate it.

Hmm. Institutional child abuse? No reports existed then either. And look what happened.;)

Child abuse in schools, institutions and the Church existed and was hidden through a political lack of motivation to deal with it. The victims themselves were not empowered to face it and call for an accounting until years later. This cannot be compared to this situation. As the report above shows clearly, unemployment went from 4.4% to 13.3% within the space of 4 years.

Now, is your ire directed at those who remained unemployed during that period of time? Because that certainly is a topic that could be teased out a bit more. Or is it at the remaining 10% who have lost their jobs and are having difficulty re-entering the workplace? By the way, I doubt it's a case that people were handed their p45's in 2008 and promptly didn't stir their arse since. There's a lot of movement in those statistics, not the least of which are those in shakier industries, like construction, trades and services who work when they can get it, which might be 3 times for a period of a year or so in those 5 odd years.
So if your argument is directed at those people, then...what's the solution? Roar and yell at them until they get up and find that job that was lurking behind the couch all along?

Some posters have stated that the system has to be changed. I agree. How would you change it?

And bearing in mind that both myself and another very voluble poster on this thread are both from Waterford, it should be noted that we have one of the highest unemployment rates in the country (I'll find a number somewhere I swear, I was looking at it earlier), and while I'd agree that it most certainly does look like every time you turn around there's someone waving a dole cheque at you, perception again can sometimes misshape the actual issues.

DrFroggies

I think for some posters on this and other threads relating to this (or other hot-topic issues mentioned in the opening post) its really more about wanting things to be a certain way as it gives a direction to vent their frustrations.

If you can absolutely blame someone/group and demand they be stopped there's no need to confront the more complex reality...the move forward will be gradual and focus on more than one group and will require flexibility and sacrifice on all sections of society.

Given that there doesn't seem to be any desire for some posters (when certain issues arise on these threads) to become informed by factual information (rather than heresay) i think it could be assumed that pointing fingers or finding a fall-guy etc or plain old venting is deemed preferable to informing oneself on issues - or opening debate on why information is not more widely available.

Imagine going into a court and the prosecution claiming that - no evidence should be required and the defendant should be found guilty because even the dogs in the street know red-haired people have worse tempers than the rest of society...so...he/she is clearly guilty of violence!

Kind of contributes more to the problem than the solution methinks.

krd

Why is there a specific belief that social welfare claimants are the only scroungers about. The country is riddled with idle people scrounging money from the labour of others.

Take buy to let landlords. Many of whom bought properties with 100% mortgages. They just filled out a few forms and picked the property out. Now they sit back on their fat greasy arses and the money rolls. Well that was the plan - things are not so rosy now.

If we're going to start pointing out the social parasites, we have to look at them all.

A way of solving the unemployment/social welfare problem would be for the banks to lend enough money to everyone on the dole so they can become landlords. Then they wouldn't be scrounging off hard working people - they'd be respectable business people providing a service.

Easy peasy lemon squeezy.

Freddie59

dashboard_hula wrote: »

Child abuse in schools, institutions and the Church existed and was hidden through a political lack of motivation to deal with it. The victims themselves were not empowered to face it and call for an accounting until years later. This cannot be compared to this situation. As the report above shows clearly, unemployment went from 4.4% to 13.3% within the space of 4 years.

Now, is your ire directed at those who remained unemployed during that period of time? Because that certainly is a topic that could be teased out a bit more. Or is it at the remaining 10% who have lost their jobs and are having difficulty re-entering the workplace? By the way, I doubt it's a case that people were handed their p45's in 2008 and promptly didn't stir their arse since. There's a lot of movement in those statistics, not the least of which are those in shakier industries, like construction, trades and services who work when they can get it, which might be 3 times for a period of a year or so in those 5 odd years.
So if your argument is directed at those people, then...what's the solution? Roar and yell at them until they get up and find that job that was lurking behind the couch all along?

Some posters have stated that the system has to be changed. I agree. How would you change it?

And bearing in mind that both myself and another very voluble poster on this thread are both from Waterford, it should be noted that we have one of the highest unemployment rates in the country (I'll find a number somewhere I swear, I was looking at it earlier), and while I'd agree that it most certainly does look like every time you turn around there's someone waving a dole cheque at you, perception again can sometimes misshape the actual issues.

We indeed have the highest number. The fact is that it was widely known that the abuse was taking place. Everybody knew it - no-one discussed it. Different subject - same treatment.

The system does indeed need changing. Firstly, all these Lourdes 'disability' cases need to be checked and monitored - regularly. You have to be means tested for dole/jobseekers/etc. Yet once you get on the disability gravy train that's it - for evermore. FFS.:mad:

Secondly, there are a LOT of people on the dole not of their own making. But as for the mob who sign and work (and have done for years) they need to be cracked down on - hard.

Provide the requisite numbers of inspectors who themselves need to work hard - not see it a a cushy number.

Now....there's a start. Anyone any other suggestions?

Freddie59

krd wrote: »

Take buy to let landlords. Many of whom bought properties with 100% mortgages. They just filled out a few forms and picked the property out. Now they sit back on their fat greasy arses and the money rolls. Well that was the plan - things are not so rosy now.

DrFroggies

Yes better monitoring of cases/claims is vital in coming up with a more refined and healthier system.

As is accurate accessible information which would ease the personal burden on those legitimately signing on as it would make hyperbole a little more difficult to propagate.

Also a greater analysis of cost of living vs SW payments/min wage amounts would most likely provide a better picture of exactly what we as a society should expect of the system - in other words the argument should never be 'lower the SW payments so that people will be willing to work in lesser paid jobs etc, etc' it should be 'what is the least amount required to live on in modern Ireland' if the SW payment is noticeably above that then it would need to be significantly reduced if min wage is below that then it would need to be increased.

So to be clear - the question is not whether someone is receiving more money on social welfare than they would in a minimum wage position, the question is: Are they receiving enough to survive on? And if there are jobs offering less money (over a full working week) than required to adequately survive with some dignity, then, quite the opposite of lowering the dole, the action required is to raise the wage and when that places our competitiveness in jeopardy in terms of job creation/maintaining jobs etc, what is required is a review of living costs and looking at how we can lower this aspect of our social model.

In a social context i think a better understanding of the society which we endevour to create is crucial, we could return to the antique model (still prevalent in many 3rd World economies) of several families in one small flat/shanty/tenement getting by as best they can or whole impoverished sections of our cities - no go zones - for all but the brave but i suspect that a move in that direction would result in an overall collapse in our society. Or we can move toward a more disciplined yet encompassing model which carefully ensures that all sections of our society are taken care of and ALL sections are required to carry their weight as members of this society, this means the unemployed receiving only what is required to get them through their period of unemployment (with dignity) yet availing of opportunities to upskill, whilst also seeking employment and those in employment accepting that taxes and other costs required to ensure that welfare and retraining opportunities are available to those without employment are just part and parcel of living in such an advanced society and just as taxes etc are often reduced in times of plenty so they're increased in times of little - and vice versa for welfare.

I know which society i prefer.

Freddie59

DrFroggies wrote: »

Yes better monitoring of cases/claims is vital in coming up with a more refined and healthier system.

As is accurate accessible information which would ease the personal burden on those legitimately signing on as it would make hyperbole a little more difficult to propagate.

Also a greater analysis of cost of living vs SW payments/min wage amounts would most likely provide a better picture of exactly what we as a society should expect of the system - in other words the argument should never be 'lower the SW payments so that people will be willing to work in lesser paid jobs etc, etc' it should be 'what is the least amount required to live on in modern Ireland' if the SW payment is noticeably above that then it would need to be significantly reduced if min wage is below that then it would need to be increased.

So to be clear - the question is not whether someone is receiving more money on social welfare than they would in a minimum wage position, the question is: Are they receiving enough to survive on? And if there are jobs offering less money (over a full working week) than required to adequately survive with some dignity, then, quite the opposite of lowering the dole, the action required is to raise the wage and when that places our competitiveness in jeopardy in terms of job creation/maintaining jobs etc, what is required is a review of living costs and looking at how we can lower this aspect of our social model.

In a social context i think a better understanding of the society which we endevour to create is crucial, we could return to the antique model (still prevalent in many 3rd World economies) of several families in one small flat/shanty/tenement getting by as best they can or whole impoverished sections of our cities - no go zones - for all but the brave but i suspect that a move in that direction would result in an overall collapse in our society. Or we can move toward a more disciplined yet encompassing model which carefully ensures that all sections of our society are taken care of and ALL sections are required to carry their weight as members of this society, this means the unemployed receiving only what is required to get them through their period of unemployment (with dignity) yet availing of opportunities to upskill, whilst also seeking employment and those in employment accepting that taxes and other costs required to ensure that welfare and retraining opportunities are available to those without employment are just part and parcel of living in such an advanced society and just as taxes etc are often reduced in times of plenty so they're increased in times of little - and vice versa for welfare.

I know which society i prefer.

All very worthy, admirable aspirations and ideals. But, sadly, we are spending more than we raise in taxes. Something will give at some point. The genuine cases must be catered for. But the spongers, the unmarried mothers with several children, and the Lourdes invalidity cases must be sorted - and fast.

The sources of the 18Bn deficit are, in reality, SW, followed by the grossly incompetent and overstaffed HSE (and I'm not talking about the frontline staff here).

johnn

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

There's no need for this type of ignorant attitude :rolleyes:

Crucifix

johnn wrote: »

There's no need for this type of ignorant attitude :rolleyes:

What? Permabear said the opposite of that in his post

DrFroggies

Freddie59 wrote: »

All very worthy, admirable aspirations and ideals.

I would hope so...all essential virtues of a progressive society...otherwise whats the point in any of it

Freddie59 wrote: »

But, sadly, we are spending more than we raise in taxes. Something will give at some point. The genuine cases must be catered for. But the spongers, the unmarried mothers with several children, and the Lourdes invalidity cases must be sorted - and fast.

The sources of the 18Bn deficit are, in reality, SW, followed by the grossly incompetent and overstaffed HSE (and I'm not talking about the frontline staff here).

And to be honest - i'd love to believe that there really were a bunch of mischievous scoundrels sucking the economy dry who we could isolate...and remove their behaviour from the system and 'hey presto' deficit drops from 18bn to 2bn...but again not having any factual evidence about the actual amount of chancers draining the system...we can't know how much of an impact tackling them will have nor how much of an effect their removal will have on the deficit. I'd love there to be a big bad wolf that we could eliminate but its unlikely to be as simple as that.

As everyone here agrees the abusive element in the system will have to be removed (in as much as it can be) but like it or not taxes are as likely to be increased as an essential part of the process as SW payments are likely to be amended and HSE/Public Service expenditure reviewed.

A myopic view of where the problem lies is not going to change any of that.

Maybe it would be better to review our blaming mindset to one of social awareness (maybe something that would have helped us to suffer the trauma of the crash less). Stop looking for fall-guys as our sole/overriding preoccupation and look toward real solutions.

What do you think?

It's a lazy system. The government talks about social welfare, cuts in some areas, increases in other areas, but never properly deals with the means by which people qualify.

I have a cousin, single mother of two, was genuinely left in a bad position by her husband. Wanted to keep working, worked full time. Was struggling with her rent and went to social welfare to seek some help. Only needed a very small amount of money per month to see her through, but there wasn't any available path to getting it in her position. She ended up having to quit her job because she could only get the help she needed if she went on the dole. She wanted to work, but instead of getting a little bit of help from the social she had to quit her job and now has her entire life funded by welfare.

On the other hand, I have a friend (who I wont go into any details about) who completely unfairly gets a lot of money from welfare. Splashes the cash about but genuinely believes she "needs" it. Has no idea she doesn't deserve it. In fact, if she was reported nothing would happen, because her situation isn't accounted for in terms of qualifying for welfare. Her situation ticks all the boxes she needs to apply for welfare and doesn't have to lie on any forms. In the eyes of the government she deserves welfare, when in fact she's using that welfare to supplement an already funded lifestyle.

dashboard_hula

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/1021/fraud.pdf

I know it's probably nearly 2 years old, but this looks like a good start to seeing how the DFSA try to control welfare fraud, and the savings that have actually been made in the last 3 years through data control (argh it's the small things).

From the looks of the thread, it seems to boil down to anger and frustration with welfare fraud and benefit laziness rather than the concept of SW itself - and the point that I made in the OP was that genuinely directed anger at those who see fit to fleece while the fleecings good (Dr. Froggies "mischievious scoundrels") is spilling out and onto those in genuine need of state assistance.

But that's only a tiny, tiny part of the problems facing the SW system, true-or-false statement about his friend having to quit her job entirely to get any kind of help from the State unfortunately rings true, and is a testament to the misguidedness of some policies. There are very, very few people in this country would wouldn't prefer working, earning a living, and getting assistance from the State when necessary, than relying on a harp to give them an income and living in a state of constant boredom. Those who do prefer that....I don't know. A good slap maybe.

DrFroggies

dashboard_hula wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/1021/fraud.pdf

I know it's probably nearly 2 years old, but this looks like a good start to seeing how the DFSA try to control welfare fraud, and the savings that have actually been made in the last 3 years through data control (argh it's the small things).

From the looks of the thread, it seems to boil down to anger and frustration with welfare fraud and benefit laziness rather than the concept of SW itself - and the point that I made in the OP was that genuinely directed anger at those who see fit to fleece while the fleecings good (Dr. Froggies "mischievious scoundrels") is spilling out and onto those in genuine need of state assistance.

But that's only a tiny, tiny part of the problems facing the SW system, true-or-false statement about his friend having to quit her job entirely to get any kind of help from the State unfortunately rings true, and is a testament to the misguidedness of some policies. There are very, very few people in this country would wouldn't prefer working, earning a living, and getting assistance from the State when necessary, than relying on a harp to give them an income and living in a state of constant boredom. Those who do prefer that....I don't know. A good slap maybe.

Exactly! Tarninshing everyone with the same brush so to speak. And doing so is without any constructive merit in getting a handle on, or understanding of the issue/s involved. Misdirected anger is distracting (look at any number of threads on flash point issues and its very obvious) and we ultimately end up in circling tangents leading to collective self-perpetuating myths and battle lines, stereotyping posters (which actually hasn't happened too much in this thread...thankfully) and hugely important social issues.

Its good to talk...but its even better if we know what we're talking about;)

dashboard_hula

Well, I actually read the full fraud report last night (took me an hour, should've waited to read it until I was actually unemployed) and a couple of things sprung out.

1. Roisin Shortalls like a bull when she wants to be - fair play to her, she wasn't accepting crap for excuses when questioning senior DFSA officials.

2. There is a big gap between Government policy/legislation and DFSA practice. Quite a few issues (mandatory naming of fathers on birth certificates, national identity card with biometric facilities, cross checking SW recipients at border crossings/entry points) have the full support of the DFSA, however the backing legislation and/or government will to pursue them is not there. And you must be fair to government departments, their job is not to pioneer policy, it is to implement it. They need guidance from the relevant ministries.

3. It seems like the department has become accustomed to plugging holes short-term rather than long term solutions due to panicked demands from the public or the government. Case in point - a bunch of SW workers were seconded from their day jobs into a fraud inspectorate to cross check suspected claims...which led to a backlog of new claims...which led to an increase in fraud reports...which led to a backlog of new claims, and so ad infitinum. It seems that if there was a strong head up there who said "Get away from us for 12 months, and we'll have a,b,c,d delivered", it might give them the actual man hours needed to set up a proper system of fraud and cross system checks.

4. It seems that one definite solution to the issue is a national identification card, with photographic and biometric identifiers, which is to be used in every single area of civic life - voting, government assistance, tax, proof of ID etc. While I support the idea in theory, there could be an awful lot of civil rights concern over it.

I think this report is good for identifying the quantifiable problems which can be resolved with a bit of focus and political will, rather than the aforementioned rabblerabble approach. The points in the report regarding one parent family payment stops, and disability benefit compliance are very interesting.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Freddie59

DrFroggies wrote: »

Exactly! Tarninshing everyone with the same brush so to speak. And doing so is without any constructive merit in getting a handle on, or understanding of the issue/s involved. Misdirected anger is distracting (look at any number of threads on flash point issues and its very obvious) and we ultimately end up in circling tangents leading to collective self-perpetuating myths and battle lines, stereotyping posters (which actually hasn't happened too much in this thread...thankfully) and hugely important social issues.

Its good to talk...but its even better if we know what we're talking about;)

I think you're being a tad condescending there. Do you ACTUALLY believe you're 100% right? And that fraud is not going on in huge amounts? If so, you're quite out of touch.;) And remember, that report quotes the fraud they they IDENTIFIED - and it's only the tip of the iceberg.