Family of seven sleep in Garda station Mod note post one

PlaneSpeeking

KrustyUCC wrote: »

Suppose they will claim that he was only just invited to the communion

"Being a good daddy though we're not together".

I need a bucket now!!!

KrustyUCC

Sure the daughter would love him to be there for the family occassion even if 'mammy and daddy' were no longer together

ELM327

SirChenjin wrote: »

+1 to every word of this post. It has become an industry, and the word 'homeless' has become almost meaningless in the process.
First we had Erica Fleming and her 'forever home' requirements, and now this.
It does a disservice to all in our society who actually need help, and who are working hard but often barely able to make ends meet.

And it is abhorrent, to me and indeed to many others that a young woman (and she is far from alone in doing this) rakes in an extremely generous amount of money per week/ month/ year without ever having contributed in any way, shape or form to the pot from which that money seemingly endlessly flows.

I don't know what the solution is. I don't believe anyone in the Dail will be brave enough to take on this issue and highlight it for what it is. An absolute disgrace.

The solution is simple, and has been there for the last 20+ years.
I'm the last person to praise the clintons for anything but their introduction of a welfare state with 5 years lifetime limit on welfare payments was a brilliant idea. We should do that here.
I'm currently a floating voter, disillusioned with FF after their ridiculous stance on the 8th. I'd vote for anyone who tackles this issue and introduces lifetime limits on social welfare. Even make it 15 years to begin with. If you can't find a job in 15 years then you are either dangerous to yourself or others, or someone who should be in a home as you clearly can't take care of yourself.


NOTE: These term limits would not apply to illness benefit or pensions of course.

ELM327

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

"Being a good daddy though we're not together".

I need a bucket now!!!

nuthin but snakes hun
its just u and dem angles now xoxoxo

ELM327

ELM327 wrote: »

Yes but a) it will show them the impact of reducing "income" via taxation and show that everyone contributes, and notionally increase the tax take figures.


Ever wonder why police/teachers etc are paid from the public purse and pay tax?

I need more coffee

But police, Garda, etc go out to work for that money.

Maybe I’m not grasping the concept but if you give someone €100 then tell them that from tomorrow on they will be taxed on the money given to them but after the tax they will still have €100. Are you not just increasing the gross via social welfare just for the sake of taking the difference back via revenue? What’s the purpose? If the recipient still gets €100 the passing of the tax from one dept to another would mean diddly squat in their head.

I’m confused.

PlaneSpeeking

SirChenjin wrote: »

+1 to every word of this post. It has become an industry, and the word 'homeless' has become almost meaningless in the process.
First we had Erica Fleming and her 'forever home' requirements, and now this.
It does a disservice to all in our society who actually need help, and who are working hard but often barely able to make ends meet.

And it is abhorrent, to me and indeed to many others that a young woman (and she is far from alone in doing this) rakes in an extremely generous amount of money per week/ month/ year without ever having contributed in any way, shape or form to the pot from which that money seemingly endlessly flows.

I don't know what the solution is. I don't believe anyone in the Dail will be brave enough to take on this issue and highlight it for what it is. An absolute disgrace.

+1

I cry every time I see the Sally Army ads for the homeless and the lonely and think that these vultures like Flynn and his ilk are p**sing all over genuinely poor folk.

Posters are spot on - it's an industry and anyone from it sayinn they want to end homelessness is like someone from Philip Morris wanting people to quit smoking.

PlaneSpeeking

ELM327 wrote: »

nuthin but snakes hun
its just u and dem angles now xoxoxo

#gerlpower
#needmygirlies

22michael44

ELM327 wrote: »

The solution is simple, and has been there for the last 20+ years.
I'm the last person to praise the clintons for anything but their introduction of a welfare state with 5 years lifetime limit on welfare payments was a brilliant idea. We should do that here.
I'm currently a floating voter, disillusioned with FF after their ridiculous stance on the 8th. I'd vote for anyone who tackles this issue and introduces lifetime limits on social welfare. Even make it 15 years to begin with. If you can't find a job in 15 years then you are either dangerous to yourself or others, or someone who should be in a home as you clearly can't take care of yourself.


NOTE: These term limits would not apply to illness benefit or pensions of course.

in a home? as in some kind of restricted home? i'm sure that won't cost the taxpayers anything

ELM327

22michael44 wrote: »

in a home? as in some kind of restricted home? i'm sure that won't cost the taxpayers anything

No comment to the actual detail, no?

22michael44

ELM327 wrote: »

No comment to the actual detail, no?

that is detail. but i'd also say that 'excluding illness benefit' is more complex than you seem to think as well.
if you were jobless for long enough it would be a matter of convincing your GP that you have some form of anxiety. it's vague enough and it's not the kind of thing where your GP can say 'you're lying, you don't have anxiety!'

i don't think it's all that practical if you start examining it.

ELM327

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

I need more coffee

But police, Garda, etc go out to work for that money.

Maybe I’m not grasping the concept but if you give someone €100 then tell them that from tomorrow on they will be taxed on the money given to them but after the tax they will still have €100. Are you not just increasing the gross via social welfare just for the sake of taking the difference back via revenue? What’s the purpose? If the recipient still gets €100 the passing of the tax from one dept to another would mean diddly squat in their head.

I’m confused.

Forget the fact they work for the money for a second.
Imagine they are voluntary gardai, and they get a larger SW payment for their volunteering.
They still don't get the full amount. In effect, where X is their salary and the effective tax rate is 30% they get (x-(x*0.3)) as a salary.

In effect, if you told them their net salary was now the gross and it was tax exempt - it would not make a difference t their takehome.


It's the same for SW payments. Lets say the dole is €198. Well now lets make it 120% of 198, and taxable. So if in the future tax or USC are increased then it affects everyone.


FYI - jobseekers benefit (the one based on PRSI) is taxable already. Jobseekers allowance (the one not based on PRSI but on means test) is not taxable.

PlaneSpeeking

ELM327 wrote: »

Forget the fact they work for the money for a second.
Imagine they are voluntary gardai, and they get a larger SW payment for their volunteering.
They still don't get the full amount. In effect, where X is their salary and the effective tax rate is 30% they get (x-(x*0.3)) as a salary.

In effect, if you told them their net salary was now the gross and it was tax exempt - it would not make a difference t their takehome.


It's the same for SW payments. Lets say the dole is €198. Well now lets make it 120% of 198, and taxable. So if in the future tax or USC are increased then it affects everyone.


FYI - jobseekers benefit (the one based on PRSI) is taxable already. Jobseekers allowance (the one not based on PRSI but on means test) is not taxable.

The miniscule workplace pension my dad gets is taxable.

Blazer

Feisar wrote: »

So folks, what's the plan to effect change?

I've two ideas, one extreme, one mold:

Everyone stay in bed on Monday morning, grind the country to a halt. To hell with protesting of a rainy Saturday or Sunday. Best way is stay at home.

Second option is to completely stop buying any non essentials so as to cut down on VAT income.

Option three which will do nothing is speak/write to your TD.

Now if social welfare is removed there will be a social backlash, crime will go through the roof. Basically we pay the benefits to keep these bottom of the barrel humans where they are and not in our homes. (I know there is crime here but nothing like countries with no welfare system)

I said it before . Hurt the media where it hurts.
Eg newtalk in the morning, every worker switch over from it for a week and see how their advertisers start panicking.
Then pick another station or newpaper. Once their income stream is affected then they won’t be long losing their left wing nonsense

forgodssake

ELM327 wrote: »

nuthin but snakes hun
its just u and dem angles now xoxoxo

Fit to snap I sware .

BPKS

Another thing about the homeless industry.

These various charities bought numerous properties during the bust. (Around the same time that the Vulture Funds did). These were purchased with resources provided to them by the state.

These apartments and houses are now rented to homeless people, for which the charities receive state aid for providing this accommodation to homeless people. These tenants are also entitled for HAP - the charities then get the HAP for these properties.

So essentially the state are providing 3 different payments to these charities for a single property.

PlaneSpeeking

BPKS wrote: »

Another thing about the homeless industry.

These various charities bought numerous properties during the bust. (Around the same time that the Vulture Funds did). These were purchased with resources provided to them by the state.

These apartments and houses are now rented to homeless people, for which the charities receive state aid for providing this accommodation to homeless people. These tenants are also entitled for HAP - the charities then get the HAP for these properties.

So essentially the state are providing 3 different payments to these charities for a single property.

I didn't know that ?!! FFS! What a great scam that is.

SirChenjin

ELM327 wrote: »

The solution is simple, and has been there for the last 20+ years.
I'm the last person to praise the clintons for anything but their introduction of a welfare state with 5 years lifetime limit on welfare payments was a brilliant idea. We should do that here.

Just to clarify my post re solution - We can of course surmise and discuss what should be done BUT I don't believe that anyone in government will take on the reforms required of the social welfare system, and indeed other areas including the 'homeless industry'.

22michael44

forgodssake wrote: »

Fit to snap I sware .

lol @ uneducated people

PlaneSpeeking

22michael44 wrote: »

lol @ uneducated people

Lol @ people who don't get the joke.

forgodssake

You should not be allowed access to social welfare unless you have worked for a certain period of time and have contributed to the pot .
Children’s allowance should be capped at 3 children .
Social media accounts need to investigated regularly especially the idiotic ones who have public settings .
Financial rewards should be given to those who report fraudulent use of welfare money and criminal activity .
Reduce welfare payments and include free school uniforms and books instead .

Lollipops23

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Yeah on the Coors, Waterford crystal, ten grand cars etc etc.

She bought the Waterford off a friend's nana so didn't pay VAT.

PlaneSpeeking

forgodssake wrote: »

You should not be allowed access to social welfare unless you have worked for a certain period of time and have contributed to the pot .
Children’s allowance should be capped at 3 children .
Social media accounts need to investigated regularly especially the idiotic ones who have public settings .
Financial rewards should be given to those who report fraudulent use of welfare money and criminal activity .
Reduce welfare payments and include free school uniforms and books instead .

UK welfare investigators do this - recently several weddings were on FB that led to the prosecution of "lone parents".

And several insurance claims cancelled and the fraudulent claimers similarly prosecuted after "very disabled" people posted on FB about marathons and bungee jumping!!!

zeebre12

The thing is people will say we must provide for and educate the children so they don't fall into the same situation Margaret Cash has. They'd want to be stupid to get a good job when you can get 52k for popping out a few kids and sitting on your arse.

PlaneSpeeking

zeebre12 wrote: »

The thing is people will say we must provide for and educate the children so they don't fall into the same situation Margaret Cash has. They'd want to be stupid to get a good job when you can get 52k for popping out a few kids and sitting on your arse.

Plus I would bet my left eyeball that she is not the first generation to get that king of wedge for acting like that.

Softly softly has not worked - it's time for a crackdown.

ELM327

22michael44 wrote: »

that is detail. but i'd also say that 'excluding illness benefit' is more complex than you seem to think as well.
if you were jobless for long enough it would be a matter of convincing your GP that you have some form of anxiety. it's vague enough and it's not the kind of thing where your GP can say 'you're lying, you don't have anxiety!'

i don't think it's all that practical if you start examining it.

I suffer from asbergers and severe social anxiety amongst other issues, which I have mentioned openly on these boards in the past.

These are not reasons not to work.

PlaneSpeeking

ELM327 wrote: »

I suffer from asbergers and severe social anxiety amongst other issues, which I have mentioned openly on these boards in the past.

These are not reasons not to work.

I have GAD and it flares up now and then. Definitely not a reason not to work. Neither is my dodgy hip - boatload of painkillers and job done.

Be well ELM.

22michael44

ELM327 wrote: »

I suffer from asbergers and severe social anxiety amongst other issues, which I have mentioned openly on these boards in the past.

These are not reasons not to work.

i'm glad to hear it doesn't affect your ability to work. people can get - and have gotten - illness benefit for anxiety though. that's my point here. let's not turn it into another martyrdom contest.

PlaneSpeeking

Ugh there are some purely twisted people in this world.

ELM327

22michael44 wrote: »

i'm glad to hear it doesn't affect your ability to work. people can get - and have gotten - illness benefit for anxiety though. that's my point here. let's not turn it into another martyrdom contest.

No one turns it into a martyrdom contest (whatever that may be)
You stated that anxiety is a reason to qualify for illness benefit. And it shouldnt be.


I know people get it now, but they shouldnt!

na1

vectorvictor wrote: »

  Alot of posters on here claim they are the "poor me" and "fools" for working to earn their 50k a year with mortgage etc.. With the level of state supports available I have to agree. They are fools. They made their choice of working to feed their lifestyle whilst this woman found an alternative path. Right?moral? productive? She won't be loosing sleep.

If somebody steals money from your pocket, does it make you a fool?