Does the social welfare help people who help themselves?

steddyeddy

On the free fees thread and the right wing thread I have seen some illuminating opinions regarding free fees and the like. You may have already from my monotonous rants about the subject but social mobility is very important to me. I use the word social mobility rather than equality because the distinction is important.In this world no one will be born into equal circumstances and that won’t change for the perceivable future. What is possible however is that anyone no matter what their circumstances can use their skills, ability and/or intelligence to rise up to any level they want. If they are born into particularly sh1tty circumstances then I think it is up to our welfare system to give them the tools to help themselves. They shouldn’t be given a free ride in life but they should be given the help that they need to stand on their own two feet.

I started this thread because I don’t think that our welfare system does that. I totally support anyone who has lost their job receiving benefits but here when I see people like those involved in the court rape and othercriminals repeatedly offend and then claim social welfare my heart sinks. Notblowing my own horn (wish I could) but I work on a voluntary basis with victims of abuse. All of these young adults went through hell yet out of a group of six all of them are in college. One is doing medicine, two engineering and another is doing biochemistry (a man after my own heart). All of them are on back toeducation allowance but because they have no permanent homes or family homesthey have been cut off multiple times from back to education allowance. These guys are trying to make something of their lives and they’re being treated like criminals. Yet the criminals in our system go about claiming welfare continuously with no repercussions. This isn’t the personal problems forum so I’m notlooking for advice, just opinions. Do you think that social welfare actually helps those who need it to help themselves or do they keep people in a poverty trap and reward the criminals?

Mr Benevolent

How exactly would denying social welfare to criminals make them more law abiding?

steddyeddy

Confab wrote: »

How exactly would denying social welfare to criminals make them more law abiding?

I didn't say I'm in favour of denying them it. I'm saying that the social welfare is treating people who want a small bit of help in order to get out of poverty like criminals.

Uriel.

Confab wrote: »

How exactly would denying social welfare to criminals make them more law abiding?

It wouldn't

But it would seem with repeat offenders that social welfare supports don't stop them committing crimes so the state should save money and cut them off. As repeat offenders and career criminals giving them welfare provides nothing in return for the State.

Tombi!

Bit of both, TBH.

On one hand it really, really does help to keep the poverty trap going but I don't think it's entirely responsible.
I think a lot of it has to do with the sort of general attitude of "oh you're poor? Well we can't help you unless you do X". Even though it's really "You can also do Y and Z but we won't tell you about that".
At least that's the attitude I see when I set foot into a welfare office (not to me but in general)
General upbringing and how the person is also comes into play.

I've known people that came from well off backgrounds that dropped out of college and smoke hash and drink constantly. I know poor people who did fairly well in college.

Tombi!

Uriel. wrote: »

It wouldn't

But it would seem with repeat offenders that social welfare supports don't stop them committing crimes so the state should save money and cut them off. As repeat offenders and career criminals giving them welfare provides nothing in return for the State.

As opposed to saying "here's no money for food. Feel free to steal some food and wind up in jail"?
I know it's not as extreme as "nick some bread and milk and go to jail" but it's still going to create crime

gcgirl

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

As opposed to saying "here's no money for food. Feel free to steal some food and wind up in jail"?
I know it's not as extreme as "nick some bread and milk and go to jail" but it's still going to create crime

Exactly !

steddyeddy

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

Bit of both, TBH.

On one hand it really, really does help to keep the poverty trap going but I don't think it's entirely responsible.
I think a lot of it has to do with the sort of general attitude of "oh you're poor? Well we can't help you unless you do X". Even though it's really "You can also do Y and Z but we won't tell you about that".
At least that's the attitude I see when I set foot into a welfare office (not to me but in general)
General upbringing and how the person is also comes into play.

I've known people that came from well off backgrounds that dropped out of college and smoke hash and drink constantly. I know poor people who did fairly well in college.

Yes that's it really. You would think the social welfare would be happy with funding people to do degree courses rather than do nothing.

Tombi!

steddyeddy wrote: »

Yes that's it really. You would think the social welfare would be happy with funding people to do degree courses rather than do nothing.

I think (keyword being: think) that one of the reasons is that it'll create more paperwork and there's usually already a backlog of it and they don't have the staff.

One of them in my local office is a grump and always has an attitude on her no matter how polite people are. But at the end of the day I think it's less of a "we won't help you" and more of a "we don't have the staff to help".

steddyeddy

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

I think (keyword being: think) that one of the reasons is that it'll create more paperwork and there's usually already a backlog of it and they don't have the staff.

One of them in my local office is a grump and always has an attitude on her no matter how polite people are. But at the end of the day I think it's less of a "we won't help you" and more of a "we don't have the staff to help".

Well they cut off these students several times because they were suspiscous they wern't living at their home address even though they have no familes. As I said they're being treated like criminals. Aren't people like these the reason we have social welfare?

Uriel.

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

As opposed to saying "here's no money for food. Feel free to steal some food and wind up in jail"?
I know it's not as extreme as "nick some bread and milk and go to jail" but it's still going to create crime

Taking an individual career criminal stopping welfare won't make him steal more. He's already stealing above what he needs for food

catallus

Steddyeddy, it's nice to know that you do good work with young victims of abuse and that it can result in them turning their lives around. I think the problem you're outlining is that the state support structure is designed without taking into account individual circumstances and it is tough when a genuine person tries to pull themselves up but is kept down by a system that insists on blind equality.

3ndahalfof6

If it is free it is free, how can you blame someone from the top tear giving to the bottom tear, that is all. (well at least I did something for the back pass).

Tombi!

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well they cut off these students several times because they were suspiscous they wern't living at their home address even though they have no familes. As I said they're being treated like criminals. Aren't people like these the reason we have social welfare?

Define "they". That's the problem.
It's just like any job dealing with the public. It's so many backlogs and middle management and all sorts of random rules and regulations. So when I get a letter sent out with 14 days to reply, it usually comes to my house (in the city centre of Dublin no less) with about 2-3 days to respond.

I think it's just a lot of backlogs that cause massive problems like that students being cut off

3ndahalfof6

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

Define "they". That's the problem.
It's just like any job dealing with the public. It's so many backlogs and middle management and all sorts of random rules and regulations. So when I get a letter sent out with 14 days to reply, it usually comes to my house (in the city centre of Dublin no less) with about 2-3 days to respond.

I think it's just a lot of backlogs that cause massive problems like that students being cut off

More than one, that is all.

Lenin Skynard

Nope, social welfare is apparently turning people into rapists if I deciphered the OP correctly which I probably didn't.

catallus

A big problem as I see it is that if a person is availing of social welfare and they go to gaol they have a big lump sum waiting at the post-office when they get out.

3ndahalfof6

catallus wrote: »

A big problem as I see it is that if a person is availing of social welfare and they go to gaol they have a big lump sum waiting at the post-office when they get out.

75 cent a week, tis a big lump sum if your doing fiddy, that is all.

Pottler

Confab wrote: »

How exactly would denying social welfare to criminals make them more law abiding?

How about cut it off for a year every time they offend?. Takes the pi55 that you can rob, laze and fight, get your dole, and then cry for and get legal aid if you are a scumbag and get arrested. If you're a normal working person, you pay your own costs, get feck all and are taxed to the hilt as your thanks. Boils my blood.

Pottler

Lenin Skynard wrote: »

Nope, social welfare is apparently turning people into rapists if I deciphered the OP correctly which I probably didn't.

You didn't, and you're pi55ing up the wrong pole. Why slag steddy when he is actually a decent skin and makes a decent point? Pick some muppet who is on whinging about their TV not being wide enough. You're usually more copped on than this crappy post Lenin.

Odysseus

catallus wrote: »

A big problem as I see it is that if a person is availing of social welfare and they go to gaol they have a big lump sum waiting at the post-office when they get out.

A big problem you see?

As in you have actually seen this?

Because this can't happen, your payment can't just built up whilst you serve a sentence.

catallus

Yes it can! How is the post-office or the welfare office going to stop your payments? There's no communication between the courts or prison service and the social, unless somebody actually takes it upon themselves to do so.

Odysseus

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well they cut off these students several times because they were suspiscous they wern't living at their home address even though they have no familes. As I said they're being treated like criminals. Aren't people like these the reason we have social welfare?

Are these student claiming from the address where they actually reside?

3ndahalfof6

Pottler wrote: »

You didn't, and you're pi55ing up the wrong pole. Why slag steddy when he is actually a decent skin and makes a decent point? Pick some muppet who is on whinging about their TV not being wide enough. You're usually more copped on than this crappy post Lenin.

Me me me, pick on me, sad is life, we need to find someone to make feel smaller, lesser, back in your hole fooker, time to create the luv thread, I gave him/her a break, they just did not know, that is all.

Odysseus

catallus wrote: »

Yes it can! How is the post-office or the welfare office going to stop your payments? There's no communication between the courts or prison service and the social, unless somebody actually takes it upon themselves to do so.

How are they singing on whilst they are in prison? When a payment is not collected the post office informes SW. Payments not collected are logged, they cannot build up for months.

Again I ask have you actually seen this?

Pottler

3ndahalfof6 wrote: »

Me me me, pick on me, sad is life, we need to find someone to make feel smaller, lesser, back in your hole fooker, time to create the luv thread, I gave him/her a break, they just did not know, that is all.

You do know signing every cryptic(ie unintelligible) post with "that is all" sounds really knobby?

catallus

Yes I have seen lump-sums being collected by persons who were in prison. The payments build up and are payable to the claimant. It is not necessary to sign on continuously.

Pottler

Odysseus wrote: »

How are they singing on whilst they are in prison? When a payment is not collected the post office informes SW. Payments not collected are logged, they cannot build up for months.

Again I ask have you actually seen this?

Yes, I have. Their mate goes and collects it for them, and yes, I have seen it, and no, there's no system for combatting it, and yes, it is a dumb system. Even dumber in its treatment of the formerly self-employed, the truly vulnerable and the decent. It's a generally sh1tty system exploited by the sh1tty.

K-9

catallus wrote: »

A big problem as I see it is that if a person is availing of social welfare and they go to gaol they have a big lump sum waiting at the post-office when they get out.

Is that true? Mind boggling if it is, sure they get prison pay as well. I think there used to be a prison wives (sexist) allowance type thing years ago, think it might be allowed now under the Lone Parents Allowance, could be wrong though!

Other countries that cut your payment after each year unemployed seem to have it right. You get say 75% of your old wage in year one, 50% year 2 and eventually just get a basic minimum payment. Welfare should be helping people with retraining definitely and I don't count FAS as beneficial for many people, for some yes, but it isn't enough for many.

IrishExpat

Welfare, or any supports are just that - a means of getting by which may be either put to good use (upskilling, emigrating) or wasted.

I do believe that long-term (2+ years or more) dependence on it can condition recipients to not work or to stop seeking work under the lame argument that they're better off financially on state aid.

3ndahalfof6

Odysseus wrote: »

How are they singing on whilst they are in prison? When a payment is not collected the post office informes SW. Payments not collected are logged, they cannot build up for months.

Again I ask have you actually seen this?

To quell your frustration, it does not happen, imprisoned you recieve nothing, tis the way it should be and tis the way it is, nothing less nothing more, that is all.

Odysseus

catallus wrote: »

Yes I have seen lump-sums being collected by persons who were in prison. The payments build up and are payable to the claimant. It is not necessary to sign on continuously.

Nah, all the guys in the clinic have to sign back on after being released. Believe me if they could do it they would be doing it. I get to hear all the various scams.

What they can still do [I think, as it is now very hard to do] is have another person collect their payment from the PO, but they need their dole card for that. As I said it is a lot harder to do now, actually I haven't heard of anyone doing it in a while, but there is still a chance.

Now I have not claimed the dole in a long time, but we do have CWOs in the clinics so I'm not totally in the dark about it. If you get a lump sum in a PO it is for other reasons than leeting your payments build up.

Odysseus

Pottler wrote: »

Yes, I have. Their mate goes and collects it for them, and yes, I have seen it, and no, there's no system for combatting it, and yes, it is a dumb system. Even dumber in its treatment of the formerly self-employed, the truly vulnerable and the decent. It's a generally sh1tty system exploited by the sh1tty.

That is totally different to what is being claimed, I have noted that one myself.

However, as I said I'm not sure how many are getting away with that now, I agree it was very common, but their are more checks now. I haven't heard anyone talking about this in a while now.

Yes, I fully agree with you this should not be able to happen, but it is different to having payments build up while you are locked up.

catallus

Might be harder to do now, maybe procedure has changed, fair enough. But I used to work pretty close to people who could give me the ins-and-outs of how the payments could build up for at least six months.

Odysseus

K-9 wrote: »

Is that true? Mind boggling if it is, sure they get prison pay as well. I think there used to be a prison wives (sexist) allowance type thing years ago, think it might be allowed now under the Lone Parents Allowance, could be wrong though!

Would that be the old deserted wives allowance as it was called, I haven't heard that in years.

Odysseus

catallus wrote: »

Might be harder to do now, maybe procedure has changed, fair enough. But I used to work pretty close to people who could give me the ins-and-outs of how the payments could build up for at least six months.

The only way you could ever claim whilst in prison was to get someone to collect your payment and sign on for you weekly.

I think they where spoofing you, or maybe they where fed flase info.

I know people who where to ill to get to a PO and wiothin 10 days the payment was returned.

Now it is unusual for me to state I'm 100% right because I always acknowleged than none of us know everything, but on this I'm going 99.9999999%

Tombi!

As far as I know (at least happen to me a few times over the last couple of years), if you don't collect your money, it'l be there for 3 days (officially) but it's five days in my experience. Then it'll go back to the welfare and the one time I didn't get it in time (was too sick), I had to go down and state I missed it.

So I have no idea how it'll "build" up without someone claiming it every week or whatever.
Although I'm talking about Jobseeker's Allowance (the stuff you get even if you never worked)

steddyeddy

catallus wrote: »

Steddyeddy, it's nice to know that you do good work with young victims of abuse and that it can result in them turning their lives around. I think the problem you're outlining is that the state support structure is designed without taking into account individual circumstances and it is tough when a genuine person tries to pull themselves up but is kept down by a system that insists on blind equality.

Thank you. I doesnt always go to plan though unfortunatly. You hit te nail on the head regarding individual circumstances. Eg these kids where delayed with payment until they had to prive when they left home ect. So they had to track down old social workers ect and get form after form. They dont make it easy.

K-9

Odysseus wrote: »

Would that be the old deserted wives allowance as it was called, I haven't heard that in years.

Aye, the ould pc brigade sorted that out!;)

I presume your partner in prison means you qualify for LPA.

I'm not buying this prisoner SW thing, needs a little back up!