The silent poverty class

Tim Robbins

An article in the Irish Times today saying that someone on 65K is in poverty. This is because the mortgage is almost €1,400.

If someone is on 65K and that is the only family income, they are taking home what - close to 3K a month. So they have 1,600 after mortgage repayment.

Is that poverty?

They are saying things like we can't afford the 20 euro payment for parties the children go to. But I would never spend 20 euro on a child's birthday present. Even if I was on 100K a year. More like a fiver.

Call me a cynic but I am wondering are these people setting their expectations way too high - expecting the Celtic tiger lifestyle!

Obviously not because MABS are telling them things are tough. But they say they are still paying into a Pension. I stopped mine the last year.

A lot of people don't even have one.

Not nice but hardly poverty.

Discuss....

Riskymove

EDIT: longer article here: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/1017/1224325338822.html?via=mr

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Not nice but hardly poverty.

Discuss....

circumstances are everything - wife and 3 kid dependents vs single etc

the article says MABS indicate they have very little disposable income

€400 a week for 5 people
food
heating and elec
running a car
etc


take the mortgage cost out of the 36k take home and you get about 20k per annum for a family of 5.......probably little difference to a family on welfare

steve9859

What is wrong with washing the dishes by hand?

Tim Robbins

steve9859 wrote: »

What is wrong with washing the dishes by hand?

It's actually 75K if you include allowances. That's over 4K take home pay if only one person is working. 2.5K left after mortgage. And 3 kids means about 500 on child benefit. Meaning 3K for the 6 of them.
Hardly poverty. And as previous poster says who cares if the Dishwasher is broken.

I don't get it.

Farmer Pudsey

It is not so much poverty as this is what is known as the coping class. Two income families on low middle incomes or single icome families. It is not so much poverty as (and even at higher income) these invidulas have been squeezed. The recieve little or no support from the state other than CA pay a moderate amount of tax and any extra income is now taxes at 52%. They will be expected to pick up property tax and water rates in the near future. They pay all there own medical bill no medical card etc.

Over the last few years they have been forced to give up medical insurance, TV subscriptions, landline telephones, ESB and Oil/Gass bill have become an issue for them. Theymay not be able to replace car or go on holidays and it is starting to affect there ability to stay in the workforce.

Yes MABS and other definications of poverty would sometimes get your back up however it is there disposable income after work and general family costs is often very littleand they are under sever finiancial pressure.

Tim Robbins

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

It is not so much poverty as this is what is known as the coping class. Two income families on low middle incomes or single icome families. It is not so much poverty as (and even at higher income) these invidulas have been squeezed. The recieve little or no support from the state other than CA pay a moderate amount of tax and any extra income is now taxes at 52%. They will be expected to pick up property tax and water rates in the near future. They pay all there own medical bill no medical card etc.

Over the last few years they have been forced to give up medical insurance, TV subscriptions, landline telephones, ESB and Oil/Gass bill have become an issue for them. Theymay not be able to replace car or go on holidays and it is starting to affect there ability to stay in the workforce.

Yes MABS and other definications of poverty would sometimes get your back up however it is there disposable income after work and general family costs is often very littleand they are under sever finiancial pressure.

She is claiming poverty , can't pay bills and is off to the St Vincent De Paul because she has days where she eats corn flakes (it would probably be cheaper to just eat spuds).

If it was not for MABS agreeing with her I would this is a case of Public Sector whinging.

1,400 is a low mortgage for a house bought in boom (many are well over 2.5K). There people who think that poverty is when you can't pay 20 for other kids presents and there are people who think - get real.

McTigs

The story just does not add up. There must be something we're not being told cos the information given clearly does not add up to poverty. Daft article.

Tim Robbins

McTigs wrote: »

The story just does not add up. There must be something we're not being told cos the information given clearly does not add up to poverty. Daft article.

Yeah KAthy Sheridan is usually a good journo. Crap article this time around.

Farmer Pudsey

Tim Robbins wrote: »

She is claiming poverty , can't pay bills and is off to the St Vincent De Paul because she has days where she eats corn flakes (it would probably be cheaper to just eat spuds).

If it was not for MABS agreeing with her I would this is a case of Public Sector whinging.

1,400 is a low mortgage for a house bought in boom (many are well over 2.5K). There people who think that poverty is when you can't pay 20 for other kids presents and there are people who think - get real.

I am not commenting on the the guards wife story I am rather replying to the OP's initial post.

Dannyboy83

The point of the article was fine:
"Income is no longer a reliable measure of wealth, means testing is defunct"

However, the article was an absolute shambles.
I have less sympathy for that couple by article's end, than at at the beginning.

The salient point I took from the article is that the Gardaí are atrocious at money management and have excessive expectations.

Tim Robbins

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

The point of the article was fine:
"Income is no longer a reliable measure of wealth, means testing is defunct"

However, the article was an absolute shambles.
I have less sympathy for that couple by article's end, than at at the beginning.

The salient point I took from the article is that the Gardaí are atrocious at money management and have excessive expectations.

Sloppy journalism as well. I doubt many journo's are making 75K a year so surely they should be thinking....

And I just bought a house 3 bed semi. Price 265. Mortgage 235. Which is a repayment of almost 1,400 a month. I don't give 20 euros for birthday presents - maybe a fiver.

So, I don't see 1,400 as something that belonged to the Tiger.
In fact it's cheap for the boom. Journo never picked up on that either.

Gumbo

Tim Robbins wrote: »

They are saying things like we can't afford the 20 euro payment for parties the children go to. But I would never spend 20 euro on a child's birthday present. Even if I was on 100K a year. More like a fiver.

Ignoring the article for a moment, but remind me not to send you an invite to my babies party :P
But seriously, what kinf of present could you get for a fiver that wont be in the bin by the time the cake is cut?


And on a more serious note, 65k, even by PS standards is a good wage, its more than what me and my GF earn put together so i'd be happy with that, but i also agree that there are many many variables in each household also.

Tim Robbins

kceire wrote: »

Ignoring the article for a moment, but remind me not to send you an invite to my babies party :P
But seriously, what kinf of present could you get for a fiver that wont be in the bin by the time the cake is cut?

Just a little book or a Football. If its our party we usually say no presents as we have a lot of friends in neg equity and having them there means way more. Most presents for 20 will be in the bin as well.

This is ridiculous celtic tiger crap - which I was never into. You'd swear someone will be giving out that they can't afford to have a 30K wedding next or can't go their friend weddings in Italy - and going off to ask the SVP for money.

And on a more serious note, 65k, even by PS standards is a good wage, its more than what me and my GF earn put together so i'd be happy with that, but i also agree that there are many many variables in each household also.

It's 75K. The IT has lowered its standards.

I've been thinking about this for a bit, since I read the article a bit earlier today. 65k from one income minus a mortgage basically leaves them as well off as if they were both on the dole and residing in social housing. I understand both points of view - that they aren't exactly poor, but there is very little to no 'extra' money if you are in this situation. Essentially, you're just about surviving.

The question that intrigues me the most, is on the issue of whether it's fair that a family with at least one decent job should end up with the same as a family with none at the end of the month.

It just seems at this point, that the prolonged effects of this recession in Ireland - particularly the financial ties that many people now have to boom-price property - are leading us into an era of general poorness again. I don't mean that we'll all be starving, but I remember growing up in the 80's/early 90's there was a similar prevailing poorness where middle-income families just didn't really have the money to support the type of lifestyle we became accustomed to during the Tiger years.

****ed, so we are.



edit: P.s. 5 euro for a child's present? We're not quite that poor just yet.

Scofflaw

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

I've been thinking about this for a bit, since I read the article a bit earlier today. 65k from one income minus a mortgage basically leaves them as well off as if they were both on the dole and residing in social housing. I understand both points of view - that they aren't exactly poor, but there is very little to no 'extra' money if you are in this situation. Essentially, you're just about surviving.

The question that intrigues me the most, is on the issue of whether it's fair that a family with at least one decent job should end up with the same as a family with none at the end of the month.

It just seems at this point, that the prolonged effects of this recession in Ireland - particularly the financial ties that many people now have to boom-price property - are leading us into an era of general poorness again. I don't mean that we'll all be starving, but I remember growing up in the 80's/early 90's there was a similar prevailing poorness where middle-income families just didn't really have the money to support the type of lifestyle we became accustomed to during the Tiger years.

****ed, so we are.

Because we can't afford Tiger-era lifestyles...? Please tell me that's sarcasm!

concerned,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

If someone is in poverty for mortgage of 1.4K a month when they have an income of 75K - then we are saying that you need one person to be earning 95 - 100K, or two people to be earning 130K. Because if the second person is working and you have two children, you'll need to be earning at least 130K to pay for the childcare after tax.

This is absolutely ridiculous.

Maybe they are cash strapped if they have a mortgage repayment of 4K a month.

Otherwise, they are whingers who do not realise how much of a pension they have and do not want to lower themselves to have to go to a public hospital..

Tim Robbins

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

edit: P.s. 5 euro for a child's present? We're not quite that poor just yet.

What you mean that poor! This is ridiculous. You shouldn't even need to buy the kid a present. They only reason why anyone does that is because they cannot entertain the kids with their own imagination and feel the need to buy something so the kids are happy.

Scofflaw

Scofflaw wrote: »

Because we can't afford Tiger-era lifestyles...? Please tell me that's sarcasm!

concerned,
Scofflaw

Hah! No, I don't mean €100,000 wedding cakes. I'm talking about the general increase in discretionary income that was used to fund your usual family activities - holidays, club membership for kids, summer camps/gaeltacht; things that didn't seem as expensive a few years ago.

It was about 5-700 euro per child in College Fee's around 2003, now it's over 2k. Cash money up front.

munchkin_utd

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

I've been thinking about this for a bit, since I read the article a bit earlier today. 65k from one income minus a mortgage basically leaves them as well off as if they were both on the dole and residing in social housing. I understand both points of view - that they aren't exactly poor, but there is very little to no 'extra' money if you are in this situation. Essentially, you're just about surviving.

yup
188quid a week each tax free in the hand from the taxpayer works out just over 1600 a month (188*2*52/12 = 1629 a month actually!).
Rent paid by taxpayer.
Free medical card for you and all your kids paid by taxpayer.
Theres back to school allowances and whatnot
Because youre vunerable or marginalised or whatever, theres a magic pot of money for one off purchases from the social welfare office.

Earning 65grand a year and having 1600 a month after mortgage is no different cashwise from the dole except you are arguably better off as theres the other allowances and benefits that you get for not working that a working person does not get - but its you thats paying the tax to cover the benefits for someone else on the dole.

Joan Burton was on the radio there this morning and is planning to bring in book rental schemes and the likes over the coming years to try and have more benefit in kind than cash in hand which would benefit all people in need not just the (lucky?) unfortunates on the dole.

keppler

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Sloppy journalism as well. I doubt many journo's are making 75K a year so surely they should be thinking....

And I just bought a house 3 bed semi. Price 265. Mortgage 235. Which is a repayment of almost 1,400 a month. I don't give 20 euros for birthday presents - maybe a fiver.

So, I don't see 1,400 as something that belonged to the Tiger.
In fact it's cheap for the boom. Journo never picked up on that either.

There's no point in trying to compare your own mortgage repayment with another assuming that the same criteria apply. Remember their circumstance's are completely different to yours. They're 50'sh and moved house shortly before the bubble burst which means they had a house which they owned (or part owned with the bank). When they sold their old house they would no doubt have made a profit on the sale and threw that money (plus whatever quantity they had knocked off the capital of their original mortgage lump sum) toward the purchase of a new bigger home. All in all they could have bought a house worth 600 grand and still only have a mortgage repayment of 1400 quid. Oh and don't forget tracker mortgages;)
In general I agree with you though, this article is sloppy alright. It's missing so many details about the family's income that it has left me with more questions than it answers. I just cant help but feel that they completely over extended themselves and so have nobody to blame but the transport minister:rolleyes:
I'd say this family's biggest problem is negative equity. They cant sell their house now in return for a smaller cheaper one.

Idbatterim

Assuming what she said is true and its a big assumption and I have no sympathy! If I were in her position, corn flake days etc, especially if I had kids, Id go back to the bank, say this is what I can afford, be it 1100 or 1200 per month and thats it! what are they going to do about it? they have much bigger fish to fry...

Idbatterim

It was about 5-700 euro per child in College Fee's around 2003, now it's over 2k. Cash money up front.

Still bloody cheap when you factor in what the actual short term cost is, long term is a different story...

Tim Robbins

keppler wrote: »

There's no point in trying to compare your own mortgage repayment with another assuming that the same criteria apply. Remember their circumstance's are completely different to yours. They're 50'sh and moved house shortly before the bubble burst which means they had a house which they owned (or part owned with the bank). When they sold their old house they would no doubt have made a profit on the sale and threw that money (plus whatever quantity they had knocked off the capital of their original mortgage lump sum) toward the purchase of a new bigger home. All in all they could have bought a house worth 600 grand and still only have a mortgage repayment of 1400 quid. Oh and don't forget tracker mortgages;)
In general I agree with you though, this article is sloppy alright. It's missing so many details about the family's income that it has left me with more questions than it answers. I just cant help but feel that they completely over extended themselves and so have nobody to blame but the transport minister:rolleyes:
I'd say this family's biggest problem is negative equity. They cant sell their house now in return for a smaller cheaper one.

The point was the article is written as if they have a killer celtic tiger mortgage and they have a normal income. The article was written that they have to worry about things they shouldn't have to worry about (how they are going to get 20 euro for the next kiddies birthday and how are they going to fix the dishwasher).

They do not have a killer celtic tiger mortgage and they have an income twice the industrial average wage. They do not need to pay 20 euro for kiddies birthday parties and they do not need to use a dishwasher.

donalg1

Tim Robbins wrote: »

An article in the Irish Times today saying that someone on 65K is in poverty. This is because the mortgage is almost €1,400.

If someone is on 65K and that is the only family income, they are taking home what - close to 3K a month. So they have 1,600 after mortgage repayment.

Is that poverty?

They are saying things like we can't afford the 20 euro payment for parties the children go to. But I would never spend 20 euro on a child's birthday present. Even if I was on 100K a year. More like a fiver.

Call me a cynic but I am wondering are these people setting their expectations way too high - expecting the Celtic tiger lifestyle!

Obviously not because MABS are telling them things are tough. But they say they are still paying into a Pension. I stopped mine the last year.

A lot of people don't even have one.

Not nice but hardly poverty.

Discuss....

Does a Garda have the option to stop his pension, I know public servants dont have this option so I assume members of AGS dont either.

yosser hughes

The Irish Times have now removed the comments section from that article. Freedom of speech? Only when you agree with the tone of the article apparently There were some comments before the section was removed, almost all of the commenst were sceptical about the position these people are in and most people believe we are not being told the full story.

Gumbo

Tim Robbins wrote: »

What you mean that poor! This is ridiculous. You shouldn't even need to buy the kid a present. They only reason why anyone does that is because they cannot entertain the kids with their own imagination and feel the need to buy something so the kids are happy.

Presents nowadays are not just toys, they are learning tools that help with hand/eye cordination, memory and reactions etc

Doesnt have to be a PS3 or a gameboy FFS.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Otherwise, they are whingers who do not realise how much of a pension they have and do not want to lower themselves to have to go to a public hospital..

What pension are you on about, i thought the article was about a working garda?

Gumbo

donalg1 wrote: »

Does a Garda have the option to stop his pension, I know public servants dont have this option so I assume members of AGS dont either.

No, im 99.99% sure they have to pay the contributions and levy.

robp

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

I've been thinking about this for a bit, since I read the article a bit earlier today. 65k from one income minus a mortgage basically leaves them as well off as if they were both on the dole and residing in social housing. I understand both points of view - that they aren't exactly poor, but there is very little to no 'extra' money if you are in this situation. Essentially, you're just about surviving.

The question that intrigues me the most, is on the issue of whether it's fair that a family with at least one decent job should end up with the same as a family with none at the end of the month.

It just seems at this point, that the prolonged effects of this recession in Ireland - particularly the financial ties that many people now have to boom-price property - are leading us into an era of general poorness again. I don't mean that we'll all be starving, but I remember growing up in the 80's/early 90's there was a similar prevailing poorness where middle-income families just didn't really have the money to support the type of lifestyle we became accustomed to during the Tiger years.

Well, I hope it pushes towards a long term trend of renting not buying. I really am convinced it is more healthy for society in the long run.

Idbatterim

The Irish Times have now removed the comments section from that article. Freedom of speech? Only when you agree with the tone of the article apparently There were some comments before the section was removed, almost all of the comments were sceptical about the position these people are in and most people believe we are not being told the full story.

I didnt read the comments, but believe there were 110 when I glanced down!

munchkin_utd

ok,
a few posts up I mentioned they were as well off as being on the dole.

From re-examining the article and working out the numbers they MUST be doing something wrong.
Big sky tv contract, VHI A+++ (with extras), heat on all day and night, private school fees?
Their after tax/levies income is 3800 a month, less the relatively modest 1400 mortgage is 2400 cash in hand, plus a few untaxed childrens allowance.
The story, i.e. sums, doesnt add up.

My sister works in starbucks part time with her husband working in a warehouse doing stock control and have a rent bill similar to that mortgage and are able to stay afloat. YES, she has no kids - but she also cuts her cloth according to measure and lives simply yet comfortably and manages a couple of foreign holidays a year.

bbam

munchkin_utd wrote: »

yup
188quid a week each tax free in the hand from the taxpayer works out just over 1600 a month (188*2*52/12 = 1629 a month actually!).
Rent paid by taxpayer.
Free medical card for you and all your kids paid by taxpayer.
Theres back to school allowances and whatnot
Because youre vunerable or marginalised or whatever, theres a magic pot of money for one off purchases from the social welfare office.

Earning 65grand a year and having 1600 a month after mortgage is no different cashwise from the dole except you are arguably better off as theres the other allowances and benefits that you get for not working that a working person does not get - but its you thats paying the tax to cover the benefits for someone else on the dole.

Your not mentioning the expences of actually getting up of your hole and going to work...
Its very easy to spend €80-€100 a week on fuel going to work... the result is then that the folks on the dole who don't travel to work are probably better off when everything is taken into account..

Simple things... so many on the dole are hanging round in trackies from one end of the week to the other where working folks have to have decent clothes... It all adds up, slowly but surely and results in people not making any money out of going to work !!