''Exceptional Needs'' Payments from Community Welfare Officer

dublinman1990

I would agree Eamon Gilmore's assertion that the rules about Community Welfare Officers should be reformed from post 1995 levels.

Let me tell you a background about these officers.

They are there to help people who have greatest difficulty in the dire need of financial when in a financial or domestic emergency. There are based in your local HSE centres around the country.

The majority of the applicants are dealt with who apply for Supplementary Welfare Allowances.

They provide other important payments we all know, as the Clothing And Footwear Allowance and Mortgage Interest Supplement.

An example of one is located in Eamon Gilmore's Constituency in York Road in Dun Laoghaire. (And we all remember the famous rant he made in the Dail against the previous government about one officer being sick there and the place being closed thereafter).

They provide us with great help towards me because they gave money to my mum to help repair the boiler because she is on a disability allowance. The payment is known as a heating supplement.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/social_welfare_payments/supplementary_welfare_schemes/diet_and_heating_supplements.html

The boiler was not working for a period of a few months, she went there to get the cheque to pay for the repairs. There is no maximum limit for the heating supplement payment.

If anyone else did this before, I am hoping they will say it is a great help.

The website link should give us more detail with regard to the other payments aside from the three examples already being listed.

The opening hours are a complete farce IMO. They are only open for 3 days a week from Mondays To Wednesdays from 10am to 11:30am in my local office. I'd suppose it is the same for the other offices.

They should be open for longer hours and even add a extra day or two to complement the level of demand.

They are plenty of people who are make appointments with it, or they can just go to get themselves a ticket to queue for the payments.

Any feedback would be most welcome.

Sleepy

Feedback? How about why are my taxes paying for your mother's boiler repairs?

If she's unemployed/pensioned is she:

a) living in social housing - ergo Council's responsibility to pay
b) living in private rented accommodation - ergo Landlord's responsibility to pay

or, as I suspect is the case,

c) living in a privately owned home that she can no longer afford to maintain but doesn't want to sell it and rent somewhere she can afford to live out of the equity released where maintenance would be the landlords issue / downsize to something that leaves her enough extra capital to maintain that property etc.

Godge

Sleepy wrote: »

Feedback? How about why are my taxes paying for your mother's boiler repairs?

If she's unemployed/pensioned is she:

a) living in social housing - ergo Council's responsibility to pay
b) living in private rented accommodation - ergo Landlord's responsibility to pay

or, as I suspect is the case,

c) living in a privately owned home that she can no longer afford to maintain but doesn't want to sell it and rent somewhere she can afford to live out of the equity released where maintenance would be the landlords issue / downsize to something that leaves her enough extra capital to maintain that property etc.

You don't know the half of it.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/social_welfare_payments/supplementary_welfare_schemes/


Have a look at this range of supplementary social welfare payments that your tax is covering, all of which are payable in addition to basic social welfare rates. As I cannot find any mention of the communion allowance, I assume that this is not the full list and there are others. The mind does tend to boggle a bit.

vamos!

I understand a lot of these payments and do think that some such as money for flooding repairs, funerals and other unforeseen and unplanned events can be needed. I do not understand a payment for buggies. Babies usually give 9 months notice of their arrival! A cooker packing up in a house full of children needs to be replaced but there is no way I can comprehend the state (ergo taxpayers) funding the furnishing of a house for people setting up home for the first time or a furnishings payments. Can all of these items not generally be gotten from SVdeP where needed or inherited from friends and family until you have saved to replace them? Likewise electrical goods. Houses need fridges and cookers but microwaves, dishwashers and tumble dryers are optional that should be saved for. What are we creating if we provide everything? How can the recipients of everything (not one off emergencies) ever learn to be self sufficient and manage money? How can they have pride in themselves and ensure that their children grow up to respect the notion of hard work and striving to provide for one's family?

n97 mini

vamos! wrote: »

I understand a lot of these payments and do think that some such as money for flooding repairs, funerals and other unforeseen and unplanned events can be needed.

That's why the rest of us put away a few quid when we can. It's called rainy day money. If my washing machine breaks down no-one else will pay for it.

not yet

Attacking the vulnerable....when will it ever stop.

[Jackass]

More examples of people who are bitter about not being in absolute financial ruin during this Economic melt down with no understanding of what people have lost and how their ability to earn income is gone and their "rainy day" money has long since been stretched and evaporated.

I'M NOT RUINED! WHY AM I PAYING TAX? WHAT DO I GET OUT OF THIS? WHAT ABOUT ME ME ME!!??

Good loser

[Jackass] wrote: »

More examples of people who are bitter about not being in absolute financial ruin during this Economic melt down with no understanding of what people have lost and how their ability to earn income is gone and their "rainy day" money has long since been stretched and evaporated.

I'M NOT RUINED! WHY AM I PAYING TAX? WHAT DO I GET OUT OF THIS? WHAT ABOUT ME ME ME!!??

You would prefer us to pay up and shut up?

It seems perfectly reasonable to me to question this spending by a bankrupt state.

[Jackass]

Oh I agree, you SHOULD question everything...but someone asking "why am I paying for your mothers boiler?" for example is a bit ignorant.

While I do think that our social welfare policy was a complete joke during the boom and paying for votes, I think it's a bit harsh to be so cynical of people who need assistance during the biggest economic meltdown in the history of the state with comments like that, when circumstances can't be accounted for, when people look for emergency assistance. Death of the main breadwinner and unsustainable debts may be one example. And the solution of "sell your house" is quite comical, given the current climate of negative equity and stale property market.

Debtocracy

Sleepy wrote: »

Feedback? How about why are my taxes paying for your mother's boiler repairs?

I’m very sorry that you lost .01 cent paying for that disabled woman’s boiler. Never mind as money tends to flow upwards quickly and you may one day get some of it back.

Godge

[Jackass] wrote: »

More examples of people who are bitter about not being in absolute financial ruin during this Economic melt down with no understanding of what people have lost and how their ability to earn income is gone and their "rainy day" money has long since been stretched and evaporated.

I'M NOT RUINED! WHY AM I PAYING TAX? WHAT DO I GET OUT OF THIS? WHAT ABOUT ME ME ME!!??

Neighbour of mine, his boiler broke last October, he is still at work, finding it difficult to get by, too much income to get supplementary welfare, had to wait three weeks until he got paid to fix boiler.

He hasn't had a holiday abroad in three years, while everyone I know on social welfare had one last year. The thing is, people who are working, both public sector and private sector have taken a severe adjustment over the last two to three years. It hasn't happened to those on social welfare and even when it is proposed to cut the most outrageous bits of social welfare, the usual crying and whinging starts.

skafish

Sleepy wrote: »

Feedback? How about why are my taxes paying for your mother's boiler repairs?

If she's unemployed/pensioned is she:

a) living in social housing - ergo Council's responsibility to pay
b) living in private rented accommodation - ergo Landlord's responsibility to pay

or, as I suspect is the case,

c) living in a privately owned home that she can no longer afford to maintain but doesn't want to sell it and rent somewhere she can afford to live out of the equity released where maintenance would be the landlords issue / downsize to something that leaves her enough extra capital to maintain that property etc.

Personally, I don't have too much of an issue with my taxes being used to help a (presumably) elderly lady keep her house warm.
Its probably cheaper to fix her boiler than have her get sick and end up in hospital as well.

HOWEVER, I have a huge problem with other uses of the Exceptional needs payment... like as has been discussed in another thread, communion dresses, new furniture etc.

IMO, fixing the boiler of sombody who cant afford it themselves at the moment is exactly what this money should be used for, not the other sh1te.

Annasopra

Godge wrote: »

Neighbour of mine, his boiler broke last October, he is still at work, finding it difficult to get by, too much income to get supplementary welfare, had to wait three weeks until he got paid to fix boiler.

He hasn't had a holiday abroad in three years, while everyone I know on social welfare had one last year. The thing is, people who are working, both public sector and private sector have taken a severe adjustment over the last two to three years. It hasn't happened to those on social welfare and even when it is proposed to cut the most outrageous bits of social welfare, the usual crying and whinging starts.

I could have sworn social welfare rates were actually reduced in the last 3 years.

[Jackass]

Godge wrote: »

It hasn't happened to those on social welfare and even when it is proposed to cut the most outrageous bits of social welfare, the usual crying and whinging starts.

Are you serious?

Social welfare, not job seekers benefit, has been completely wiped out. Mature students, for example, people who have lost their jobs and are looking to retrain and reskill to get off social welfare and contribute to the Economy again, can study for up to 25 hours a week, and are given a grand total of 1,200 for the entire year to live off with zero other entitlements, and try finding a part-time job in this climate - unskilled labour that everybody can do, and the smallest job area out there, it's the most difficult job class to find.

How would one of these people fix their boiler?

Or should they not look to better themselves and contribute to the economy and stay on jobseekers benefit rather than going back to college?

Such hatred and despise towards the people hit hardest. These aren't people who were on the dole during the boom, these are hard working people who's situation crumbled worse than others. Blame the Government, blame the banks, blame the E.U., blame the Public sector black hole of silly money still being paid, but don't blame your neighbour for struggling so bad. It's soul destroying to see so many thanks for comments like "should we just shut up and pay up" when talking about an elderly ladies boiler being fixed....

Sweet jesus.....humanity...

Good loser

[Jackass] wrote: »

Are you serious?

Social welfare, not job seekers benefit, has been completely wiped out. Mature students, for example, people who have lost their jobs and are looking to retrain and reskill to get off social welfare and contribute to the Economy again, can study for up to 25 hours a week, and are given a grand total of 1,200 for the entire year to live off with zero other entitlements, and try finding a part-time job in this climate - unskilled labour that everybody can do, and the smallest job area out there, it's the most difficult job class to find.

How would one of these people fix their boiler?

Or should they not look to better themselves and contribute to the economy and stay on jobseekers benefit rather than going back to college?

Such hatred and despise towards the people hit hardest. These aren't people who were on the dole during the boom, these are hard working people who's situation crumbled worse than others. Blame the Government, blame the banks, blame the E.U., blame the Public sector black hole of silly money still being paid, but don't blame your neighbour for struggling so bad. It's soul destroying to see so many thanks for comments like "should we just shut up and pay up" when talking about an elderly ladies boiler being fixed....

Sweet jesus.....humanity...

We didn't come down in the last shower. Perhaps the people who criticise aspects of social welfare and the overall spend are more compassionate that those who blindly support all expenditures. Certainly they are more far sighted.

Your statement in bold above for example is absurd. Also absurd is the overall spend on social welfare in the context of a bankrupt state.

Joan Burton apparently is proud that she limited the reduction in social welfare by €300m this year. I would call it failing to do her job. Keeping the communion payment at €100 is typical of the mickey mouse way she operates.

Rigour needs to be applied to the smallest element of State spending. In all SW issues if any measure is proposed the opponents should have the courage to nominate an alternative saving within the SW budget.

Godge

[Jackass] wrote: »

Are you serious?

Social welfare, not job seekers benefit, has been completely wiped out. Mature students, for example, people who have lost their jobs and are looking to retrain and reskill to get off social welfare and contribute to the Economy again, can study for up to 25 hours a week, and are given a grand total of 1,200 for the entire year to live off with zero other entitlements, and try finding a part-time job in this climate - unskilled labour that everybody can do, and the smallest job area out there, it's the most difficult job class to find.

How would one of these people fix their boiler?

Or should they not look to better themselves and contribute to the economy and stay on jobseekers benefit rather than going back to college?

Such hatred and despise towards the people hit hardest. These aren't people who were on the dole during the boom, these are hard working people who's situation crumbled worse than others. Blame the Government, blame the banks, blame the E.U., blame the Public sector black hole of silly money still being paid, but don't blame your neighbour for struggling so bad. It's soul destroying to see so many thanks for comments like "should we just shut up and pay up" when talking about an elderly ladies boiler being fixed....

Sweet jesus.....humanity...

The social welfare bill has gone up since the crisis began, so have public service pensions. Public service pay has gone down, and anyone paying income tax has been hit hard but then again, most social welfare benefits are not taxed.

We have the most generous social welfare system in the world, we cannot afford it, that is the clear conclusion.

johnnyskeleton

I thought that the basic payments were high because of all these expenses, that extra basic payments were made for children because children need even more protection and that there were also some standard payments such as winter fuel etc.

Now, given thatthe basic payments already take into account the cost of all these expenses, are the supplimentary things not a form of double payment? Moreover, a person not claiming all these extras will presumably face the same issues as the person who does.

It seems to be something open to a lot of abuse. For example, if you need a new heater, instead of giving you the money, could they buy the heater and then spread the cost over a few months taken out at say 2-3 euro per week? This would IMO reduce the unfairness to those that dont claim it while at the same time reducing the perception of abuse in the system. It also ensures that those with a genuine emergency can get sorted there and then and the cost is spread interest free.

Annasopra

Godge wrote: »

We have the most generous social welfare system in the world

What evidence have you for this?

Nermal

mango salsa wrote: »

I could have sworn social welfare rates were actually reduced in the last 3 years.

They were increased vastly above inflation in the previous 15. There's a long way down to go.

Sleepy

If so many people who take an active enough interest in the Irish economy to partake in this forum still can't tell the difference between income and wealth, what hope is there!

Why is it that so many are so quick to discount the PPR as the valuable asset that it it? At what point does someone's home become considered to be part of their wealth? Should the working poor continue to pay taxes towards the subsidising of the lives of those with significantly more wealth than themselves with benefits they themselves can't avail of?

Godge

mango salsa wrote: »

What evidence have you for this?

Plenty, even the Department of Social Protection admit it. Buried deep in a report on expenditure is the following gem in relation to one-parent provision, if you remember the change to a cut-off at age 14 generated huge protests and complaints yet it is still high by international norms:

"International Comparisons
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]The changes outlined in the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2010, will bring Ireland‟s support for lone parents more in line with international provisions – where there is a general movement away from long-term and passive income support.
Ireland‟s new age 14 cut-off point remains higher than that in other western countries:
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman] [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]United Kingdom: Lone parents are obliged to seek work when their youngest child reaches the age of 7.
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman] [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Northern Ireland: There is a work obligation when the youngest child reaches the age of 7. Lone parents with a youngest child aged 12 or under have the right to restrict the hours that they are available to work when claiming the Jobseeker‟ Allowance (i.e. they are not expected to work outside the child‟ normal school hours). If in employment, lone parents must be working 16 hours or more per week in order to claim a childcare tax credit (the maximum help available varies – e.g. £140.00 per week for one child in registered childcare).
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman] [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Canada: There is a work obligation when the youngest child reaches the age of 6.
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman] [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]The Netherlands, Australia and New Zealand: There is a work obligation when the youngest child reaches the age of 5.
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman] [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Finland: There is a work obligation when the youngest child reaches the age of 4.
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman] [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Germany, Italy, Sweden and Norway: There is a work obligation when the youngest child reaches the age of 3. "
[/FONT][/FONT]

http://www.welfare.ie/EN/Policy/CorporatePublications/Finance/exp_rev/Documents/Comprehensive_Review_of_Expenditure_2011.pdf

There is the link to check it yourself.

Bannasidhe

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I thought that the basic payments were high because of all these expenses, that extra basic payments were made for children because children need even more protection and that there were also some standard payments such as winter fuel etc.

Now, given thatthe basic payments already take into account the cost of all these expenses, are the supplimentary things not a form of double payment? Moreover, a person not claiming all these extras will presumably face the same issues as the person who does.

It seems to be something open to a lot of abuse. For example, if you need a new heater, instead of giving you the money, could they buy the heater and then spread the cost over a few months taken out at say 2-3 euro per week? This would IMO reduce the unfairness to those that dont claim it while at the same time reducing the perception of abuse in the system. It also ensures that those with a genuine emergency can get sorted there and then and the cost is spread interest free.

The weekly rate for a dependent child is 29.80 - http://www.welfare.ie/EN/Topics/Budget/Bud12/Pages/bud12s21.aspx - if that is for a baby it has to cover food, nappies, endless laundry etc - all the costs associated with a small child. No doubt many here feel that is more then enough. However, it is the same rate for a 16 year old. Now, when my son was 16 he was 6 foot tall and eating me out of house and home ( no, I was not claiming SW before anyone asks :rolleyes:) and there is no way I could have fed, clothed, bought school books and uniforms, provided packed lunches etc on 29.80 a week.
Does anyone honestly believe one can support a child, never mind a teenager, on 29.80 a week unless there are 'exceptional' payments? At the current child rate the need for extra payments is built into the system.


Yes, people on SW also get Child Benefit - but so do those on 100,000/200,000 + k a year so the State obviously doesn't view CB as for children in 'need' but does expect those in need to use it to cover household costs while those in financially comfortable positions can just pop it into a bank account.

Bannasidhe

Godge wrote: »

Plenty, even the Department of Social Protection admit it. Buried deep in a report on expenditure is the following gem in relation to one-parent provision, if you remember the change to a cut-off at age 14 generated huge protests and complaints yet it is still high by international norms:

"International Comparisons
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]The changes outlined in the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2010, will bring Ireland‟s support for lone parents more in line with international provisions – where there is a general movement away from long-term and passive income support.
Ireland‟s new age 14 cut-off point remains higher than that in other western countries:
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman] [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]United Kingdom: Lone parents are obliged to seek work when their youngest child reaches the age of 7.
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman] [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Northern Ireland: There is a work obligation when the youngest child reaches the age of 7. Lone parents with a youngest child aged 12 or under have the right to restrict the hours that they are available to work when claiming the Jobseeker‟ Allowance (i.e. they are not expected to work outside the child‟ normal school hours). If in employment, lone parents must be working 16 hours or more per week in order to claim a childcare tax credit (the maximum help available varies – e.g. £140.00 per week for one child in registered childcare).
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman] [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Canada: There is a work obligation when the youngest child reaches the age of 6.
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman] [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]The Netherlands, Australia and New Zealand: There is a work obligation when the youngest child reaches the age of 5.
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman] [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Finland: There is a work obligation when the youngest child reaches the age of 4.
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman] [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Germany, Italy, Sweden and Norway: There is a work obligation when the youngest child reaches the age of 3. "
[/FONT][/FONT]

http://www.welfare.ie/EN/Policy/CorporatePublications/Finance/exp_rev/Documents/Comprehensive_Review_of_Expenditure_2011.pdf

There is the link to check it yourself.

Do you have a link which shows comparable costs of childcare? Level of childcare provision etc?

Head The Wall

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The weekly rate for a dependent child is 29.80 - http://www.welfare.ie/EN/Topics/Budget/Bud12/Pages/bud12s21.aspx - if that is for a baby it has to cover food, nappies, endless laundry etc - all the costs associated with a small child. No doubt many here feel that is more then enough. However, it is the same rate for a 16 year old. Now, when my son was 16 he was 6 foot tall and eating me out of house and home ( no, I was not claiming SW before anyone asks :rolleyes:) and there is no way I could have fed, clothed, bought school books and uniforms, provided packed lunches etc on 29.80 a week.
Does anyone honestly believe one can support a child, never mind a teenager, on 29.80 a week unless there are 'exceptional' payments? At the current child rate the need for extra payments is built into the system.


Yes, people on SW also get Child Benefit - but so do those on 100,000/200,000 + k a year so the State obviously doesn't view CB as for children in 'need' but does expect those in need to use it to cover household costs while those in financially comfortable positions can just pop it into a bank account.

Welfare should "assist" not fully support the raising of a child.

Bannasidhe

Head The Wall wrote: »

Welfare should "assist" not fully support the raising of a child.

Mon 09 Sep 2010
The €250,000 child
THE COSTS associated with having a child start almost at the moment of conception, or at least within a couple of weeks of it. When education, childcare, food, clothes, holidays, toys, pocket money, presents, doctors’ bills and all the stuff that children require – and acquire – over the course of their young lives is factored in, they will cost their parents well in excess of €200,000 before they get to 18.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/features/2010/0913/1224278755577.html

Even if we remove doctor's fees (medical cards), holidays, pocket money, presents and posit that it costs 100,000 to raise a child to age 16 - that would mean an income of 6250 p.a or 120.19 pw. When we subtract the 29.80 the State deems sufficient to meet the weekly costs of raising a child we are left with a sortfall of 90.39 a week.

Given that apart from JSB - which is dependent on PRSI contributions and is payable for only a year at which point the recipient is transferred to the means tested JSA - most SW are means tested how exactly do you expect people to provide for their children when the State has determined their income is already so low as to qualify them for welfare? Where is that extra 90 a week to come from? Or even an extra 45 a week when a person has no income beyond welfare?

And before anyone jumps in with -'people shouldn't have children they can't afford' etc etc can I point out that Lone Parents - also means tested- is paid to divorced, widowed and separated parents not just people who had children outside of marriage - perhaps those people should have planned better eh? Plus I doubt if the majority of those in currently in receipt of JSA who have dependent children planned on loosing their jobs and becoming reliant on the State.

I would also add - we need those children as they will be the ones paying the taxes etc in 20/30/40 years to fund the State, pay off our debts and fund our pensions.

spank_inferno

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I would also add - we need those children as they will be the ones paying the taxes etc in 20/30/40 years to fund the State, pay off our debts and fund our pensions.

I suppose we should be thanking you so!

Your right though, it is not easy to raise a child.
However being a parent is not supposed to be easy, the state is not there to make it so.

Bannasidhe

spank_inferno wrote: »

I suppose we should be thanking you so!

Your right though, it is not easy to raise a child.
However being a parent is not supposed to be easy, the state is not there to make it so.

It's my grandchildren you should thank - they are the ones who will be paying out in 20 years.

The point of welfare is to provide the minimum needed. The figures show when it comes to providing an adequate level of support for children the State pays seriously below the minimum required even by conservative standards and makes up the shortfall via 'exceptional' needs payments.

My point is that given the level of welfare rates per dependent child are so low, would it not make more sense to increase the rate per child and reduce the amount of exceptional need payments?

As it stands HSE are paying exceptional needs via community welfare with a whole layer of bureaucracy in place to service that while the Dept of Social Protection pays Lone Parent, JSA etc with another layer of bureaucracy. It's really an insanely inefficient system which benefits those who know how to 'work it' but saves a few bob as those who do not know how to play the system never claim these exceptional needs payments even when they could really do need the extra help.

We need a one stop shop, a level of payments for dependent children that reflects the actual costs and less dependency on exceptional needs payments for everyday items like children's clothes. A clothing allowance is required at the moment as people getting under 30 euro a week can just afford food for the child never mind clothes they will grow out of in weeks.

murphaph

Bannasidhe wrote: »

A clothing allowance is required at the moment as people getting under 30 euro a week can just afford food for the child never mind clothes they will grow out of in weeks.

Surely the likes of clothing can be obtained for nothing second hand from charities, rather than bought new at taxpayers' expense?

Godge

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The weekly rate for a dependent child is 29.80 - http://www.welfare.ie/EN/Topics/Budget/Bud12/Pages/bud12s21.aspx - if that is for a baby it has to cover food, nappies, endless laundry etc - all the costs associated with a small child. No doubt many here feel that is more then enough. However, it is the same rate for a 16 year old. Now, when my son was 16 he was 6 foot tall and eating me out of house and home ( no, I was not claiming SW before anyone asks :rolleyes:) and there is no way I could have fed, clothed, bought school books and uniforms, provided packed lunches etc on 29.80 a week.
Does anyone honestly believe one can support a child, never mind a teenager, on 29.80 a week unless there are 'exceptional' payments? At the current child rate the need for extra payments is built into the system.


Yes, people on SW also get Child Benefit - but so do those on 100,000/200,000 + k a year so the State obviously doesn't view CB as for children in 'need' but does expect those in need to use it to cover household costs while those in financially comfortable positions can just pop it into a bank account.

Child Benefit is €140 per month. Dividing by four gives €35 per week. Adding back to €29.80 gives €64.80 per week. Yes, I could feed and clothe a teenager for €64.80 per week. School uniform and books are taken care of by the back-to-school allowance (another of the supplementary welfare allowances). Now, the child would not be wearing Abercrombie and Finch or sporting the latest iphone but I know many people on low wages supporting teenage children who would be overjoyed if they could say they had €64.80 a week to feed and clothe the child.

You also need to remember that say, if you were a family with one teenage child, both parents on social welfare (one JSB plus dependent adult plus dependent child), that you would be eligible for another €98.04 per week in terms of family income supplement, a figure that goes up by another €57.60 for the second child and €60.60 for the third child.

So when you add the child dependent allowance to the child benefit and the family income supplement, the family has €162.84 per week for that teenage son. I think that is a lot more than the €29.80 you mention. It is certainly more than many working people have to spend on their teenage children.


P.S. hadn't seen your second post that put the cost of raising a child at €120.19 per week. Given that we are handing over at least €162.84 per week in various social welfare payments (not counting communion payments, back-to-school payments and other emergency payments) according to your figure of €120.19, there is scope for a cutback of at least €40 per week in F.I.S. and/or child benefit.

Bannasidhe

murphaph wrote: »

Surely the likes of clothing can be obtained for nothing second hand from charities, rather than bought new at taxpayers' expense?

Yes, they can. And children grow and are active and messy so clothes, regardless of where they are bought, need to be constantly replaced. Even if the clothes cost no more then a fiver for a complete outfit - how many outfits does the average toddler for example need for a week? One? Two? Three?

Lets look at a fairly 'average' family (not on SW BTW):

My granddaughter is 5 1/2 - she has a school uniform and tracksuit plus she needs clothes to change in to when she gets home. As she is extremely neat and tidy she could wear the same after school clothes 2 days in a row - so lets say she 'needs' uniform/tracksuit plus 4 outfits plus knickers and vests - (should underware be bought in charity shops also?:eek:). She is growing, but not shooting up, so her clothes fit her for about 3 months before they need replacing. So at a very conservative fiver per outfit, changing her clothes every 2 days and not allowing for her to get 'dirty' that's 20 euro every 3 months for clothes not including underware or factoring in school holidays when a clean outfit would be needed every day.

Her 2 year old brother is a pig pen who wipes everything on his clothes, is a fast growing active lad and still wears nappies. He also has a huge appetite. He needs either 2 outfits a day or a constantly going washing machine :rolleyes:) which he grows out of within a month (currently wearing 'aged 4' clothes) and no - he's not fat, he's tall. So his basic clothing costs per month at our charity shop fiver an outfit is between 25-50 per month - or 30 plus increased electricity costs to pay for the clothes washing.

Plus - has Ireland now come to the point where the children of the unemployed should not be allowed any new clothes? Not even from Pennies?

Godge

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Do you have a link which shows comparable costs of childcare? Level of childcare provision etc?

The exchange of comments arose because I made a statement that our social welfare system was the best in the world and that nobody could produce a comparison from a reputable international organisation to show differently. I was asked to justify my statement which I did.

Now you are trying to move the goalposts when really, when it comes to figures, I wish someone would provide a link to anything that shows our social welfare system is anything other than very generous.