Construction worker guilty of hiding €135,000 in savings from social welfare

Beta Ray Bill

So I read the article below today and at first I was thinking to myself: "The absolute cheek of him, €135k in the bank on claiming the dole!"

But then after think about it for a bit, I then thought: "Well hang on a second, he's 48, probably been working since he was 16/17 as an apprentice. he probably had a good job and paid a lot of tax over the 20/30 years he was working. It's probably taken him the same amount of time to save the €135k in the first place, shouldn't he be entitled to the dole and job seekers allowance given he's worked his whole life?"

Think of it this way:
Person A and Person B are the same age, and have the exact same job with the same salary
Person A p**sed all their money away on cars/booze/women etc.
Person B saves up as much of their money as they can, and doesn't lead an extravagant life.
Then A and B both lose their jobs at the same time after 20 years employment.

In that scenario, A is entitled to dole and job seekers allowance and B is not despite the fact they've both earned the same money over the same amount of time.
IE: B is punished for being responsible

That's how I feel about the case in the article below.

How is that fair?
Like €135k is a fair bit of cash, but not if it took 20/30 years to save it.
Opinions?

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/construction-worker-guilty-of-hiding-135000-in-savings-from-social-welfare-inspectors-when-he-applied-for-dole-953016.html

Mod Note

No need to quote the entire article.

LillySV

Savings doesn’t affect ya if your claiming your stamps .... it only affects you if you have used up your stamps and goin for the long term jobseekers payment ... and if you on jobseekers for a long time then you should be getting incentivized to get off payment

Idbatterim

small change! that waster margaret cash and many like her, are handed that figure in two years, for life, no questions asked!

pinkyeye

That's a bit of a peculiar story because if you've been working just before you claim jobseekers it's jobseekers benefit you get and that's not means tested. I think it's only for 9 months now though.

If you're claiming jobseekers allowance that is means tested. So we're not really getting the full story here.

Eric Cartman

you shouldnt be getting the social until you have less than 1 payment worth of savings.

We also need to start means testing against personal injury claim money, far too many making false claims knowing the social wont cut them off for having 6 digit bank accounts if thats the reason.

dotsman

Eric Cartman wrote: »

you shouldnt be getting the social until you have less than 1 payment worth of savings.

And why is that?

SEPT 23 1989

The state loves making examples of easy targets

Eric Cartman

dotsman wrote: »

And why is that?

because you should be paying for your own existence and not mooching off the state if you have the money to feed yourself.....

pinkyeye

Eric Cartman wrote: »

you shouldnt be getting the social until you have less than 1 payment worth of savings.

We also need to start means testing against personal injury claim money, far too many making false claims knowing the social wont cut them off for having 6 digit bank accounts if thats the reason.

Bull****, if you've paid stamps for however many years then that's what they're for, you guarantee you some income when you can't work.

Eric Cartman

pinkyeye wrote: »

Bull****, if you've paid stamps for however many years then that's what they're for, you guarantee you some income when you can't work.

yeah, and you should get that after youve run down your own personal savings. The social is supposed to be a safety net for those who cannot support themselves, not an alternative income source

kneemos

pinkyeye wrote: »

That's a bit of a peculiar story because if you've been working just before you claim jobseekers it's jobseekers benefit you get and that's not means tested. I think it's only for 9 months now though.

If you're claiming jobseekers allowance that is means tested. So we're not really getting the full story here.

Even on job seekers allowance having savings only means you get a reduced payment.

Not sure if there's a cut off limit though, don't think there is.

splinter65

Beta Ray Bill wrote: »

So I read the article below today and at first I was thinking to myself: "The absolute cheek of him, €135k in the bank on claiming the dole!"

But then after think about it for a bit, I then thought: "Well hang on a second, he's 48, probably been working since he was 16/17 as an apprentice. he probably had a good job and paid a lot of tax over the 20/30 years he was working. It's probably taken him the same amount of time to save the €135k in the first place, shouldn't he be entitled to the dole and job seekers allowance given he's worked his whole life?"

Think of it this way:
Person A and Person B are the same age, and have the exact same job with the same salary
Person A p**sed all their money away on cars/booze/women etc.
Person B saves up as much of their money as they can, and doesn't lead an extravagant life.
Then A and B both lose their jobs at the same time after 20 years employment.

In that scenario, A is entitled to dole and job seekers allowance and B is not despite the fact they've both earned the same money over the same amount of time.
IE: B is punished for being responsible

That's how I feel about the case in the article below.

How is that fair?
Like €135k is a fair bit of cash, but not if it took 20/30 years to save it.
Opinions?

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/construction-worker-guilty-of-hiding-135000-in-savings-from-social-welfare-inspectors-when-he-applied-for-dole-953016.html

Soo what your saying in a nutshell is that if you’ve worked for 28 years you should be able to retire and get state top up from the taxpayers minimum €203 + €134.70 for spouse + €37 for each kid per week, irregardless of savings, until retirement at 67 when it goes up to €248 +++?
Sweet! I’m 54 now. Can I get back money?

B0jangles

Eric Cartman wrote: »

because you should be paying for your own existence and not mooching off the state if you have the money to feed yourself.....

Weren't you a big supporter of Sean Gallagher for President? The man who built a business by getting as much free money off the state as possible and then started a sideline teaching other people how to do the same thing?

Eric Cartman

B0jangles wrote: »

Weren't you a big supporter of Sean Gallagher for President? The man who built a business by getting as much free money off the state as possible and then started a sideline teaching other people how to do the same thing?

I voted peter casey.
I also believe government quangos and grants like that should be ended.

He’d worked all his adult life, paid tax and saved and like many of us in construction lost his job in the recession. He’s not a layabout as he signed off 12 months later and then signed on again when that job went.

The recession was **** and he was more deserving of it than some that have never been off it.

Eric Cartman

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

He’d worked all his adult life, paid tax and saved and like many of us in construction lost his job in the recession. He’s not a layabout as he signed off 12 months later and then signed on again when that job went.

The recession was **** and he was more deserving of it than some that have never been off it.

more deserving than most on welfare - absolutely , but welfare was designed as and should always be a last resort only when you can no longer support yourself.

Nermal

Penalising saving, how misguided.

The DSP budget is €20.6B.

There are about 3M Irish citizen residents over 18.

Just give us all our €6,866.67 per year.

Eric Cartman

Eric Cartman wrote: »

more deserving than most on welfare - absolutely , but welfare was designed as and should always be a last resort only when you can no longer support yourself.

And yet they chose to make an example of him like they are great. He was on the dole twice for short periods.

Idbatterim

Eric Cartman wrote: »

because you should be paying for your own existence and not mooching off the state if you have the money to feed yourself.....

i dont agree, the people that pay in a fortune, should get nothing back if they have money saved? but the wasters who have never paid anything in, should be given ridiculous sums for life with no questions asked?

Eric Cartman

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

And yet they chose to make an example of him like they are great. He was on the dole twice for short periods.

its their soft touch approach, everyone who would rally behind him is in work, somebody like margaret cash could mobilise an army of druggies and drunks.

Eric Cartman

Idbatterim wrote: »

i dont agree, the people that pay in a fortune, should get nothing back if they have money saved? but the wasters who have never paid anything in, should be given ridiculous sums for life with no questions asked?

i think this is the first time ive ever been accused of saying wasters should get anything....at all.....ever....

Wibbs

kneemos wrote: »

Even on job seekers allowance having savings only means you get a reduced payment.

Not sure if there's a cut off limit though, don't think there is.

IIRC, though don't quote me on it K the limit is around 10,000 for jobseekers allowance? To me that's fair, but 100 plus grand? Eh no. The medical card is even more daft on this score. I was doing the carer thing for donkey's years and towards the end I was told I could have a medical card and I got the form and again IIRC the savings limit was around 35 k for a single person and 75 K for a couple.

I didn't apply for it TBH and god knows I paid enough tax in my time and paid for the caring needs out of my own pocket for over 8 years until that pot was dry. I just felt odd about some of the "entitlements". Looking back and being honest here, after I've seen too many take the piss outa the system, there's a large part of me that is sorry I didn't.

What I saw of the social welfare setup was mostly good on balance with those tasked with doling it out doing what they could with what tools they had. I also found it concerning in some places, a bloody joke in others. One aspect that irritated me was it is often an either or when it comes to some benefits. That if you want say "benefit A" you had to take all that comes with it. There was little enough by way of tailoring to individual setups, so some people who actually needed and deserved more help, were getting less than others that needed so much less. Massive wastage IMHO.

dotsman

Eric Cartman wrote: »

yeah, and you should get that after youve run down your own personal savings. The social is supposed to be a safety net for those who cannot support themselves, not an alternative income source

So you believe in punishing people for doing the right thing and encouraging people to be wasters?

Lifetime of paying taxes and sensible saving? - fcuk you
Blow all your money, live a life of crime or have zero ambition to better yourself - here! have a reward!

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I voted peter casey.

Figures. You do realise, besides pissing off the PC brigade, he actually didn't have any decent policies?

Eric Cartman wrote: »

more deserving than most on welfare - absolutely , but welfare was designed as and should always be a last resort only when you can no longer support yourself.

That's a terrible "design" for welfare.

Have you heard of PRSI? It's Pay-Related Social Insurance.

Because of people like you, our welfare state is certainly not pay-related (although one could argue that it is inversely related I suppose), extremely anti-social and doesn't provide you with any insurance.

If PRSI was to live up to its name:

• Pay-Related - the more your pay in, the more benefits you would receive if/when you need them
• Social - it would be for the betterment of society (helping people to get back on their feet, helping those who currently can't help themselves to start helping themselves)
• Insurance - to be paid out upon a "bad event" happening - losing job, becoming ill etc. that is not your fault.

Unfortunately, the social state has become a tool for the left wing to steal money from the hard-working and the sensible and (predominantly) give it to the wasters and the chancers.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

i think this is the first time ive ever been accused of saying wasters should get anything....at all.....ever....

Well, your views on "the social" clearly define how you love promoting wasters!

titan18

Eric Cartman wrote:

yeah, and you should get that after youve run down your own personal savings. The social is supposed to be a safety net for those who cannot support themselves, not an alternative income source

Tbf, doesn't that just encourage people to not have savings then and blow all their money when they're working. If you have savings, you just live s more frugal life and then don't get social welfare like others.

Idbatterim

Wibbs hard workers should take every cent they can get from it, anything they dont take, is more money to be wasted here or more for the wasters!

Wibbs

Idbatterim wrote: »

Wibbs hard workers should take every cent they can get from it, anything they dont take, is more money to be wasted here or more for the wasters!

I dunno Ib, my take was always along the lines of if I ever needed it I'd take what I needed and that's it. If more thought like that(and quite a few I've known do) there'd be more in the pot for where and when it might be needed. Over the years I've put a fair few bob through the tax system. On what I put through on VAT alone, if a PAYE worker were paying out 50k per annum in tax they'd need to work at that level for nearly 60 years and I have never begrudged anyone getting something out of that.

I do get pissed off with the wastage and not just in the social welfare areas, health for example needs a massive kick up the hole. I have no real issue, other than with actual chancers of the social welfare system here, in general. Having been in the social welfare area and being around others in receipt of payments, I would say from what I saw that a fair percentage of the long term unemployed people I encountered were just "broken" for the real want of a better word people. A couple I've met down the years I had a case of there but for the grace of god go I about them. I would also far prefer to have less in my pocket and to have social welfare liveable on than say the example of our neighbour the UK where genuine poverty can be seen. Places like Spain and Italy similarly if not worse. That's sh1te for those in it, but it makes wider society worse, less safe. Plus in the end even the actual wasters are buying stuff and services which means the vast majority of their payments are being circulated anyway. So even if they're spending all their money on ciggies and cider the shop is making cash from them and the tax man is making cash on the sale.

Now to be fair all of the above is from the position of someone who's never been a PAYE worker, have always been my own boss, never had expensive girlfriends and no kids and never needed a loan to buy anything because I had cash in the bank(and if I couldn't afford something I'd simply go without). I can see how a PAYE worker in near constant worry and stress fighting to make ends meet for their family looking at his or her tax outgoings wondering WTF and looking for someone to blame. And there are plenty of candidates.

LoughNeagh2017

Good on anyone who tries to scam the system, it's pathetic how everyone loves those unemplyment shows you would see on English TV, it all comes down to jealousy, if working is so good then why do people hate the unemployed? Surely you would pity them if they are unemployed if work is so good? People have a resentment for capitalism and having to spend so much time away from their families that they take it out on the unemployed, maybe they should all join the unemployed so the structure of society may have to change, maybe if more people rebelled against the rat race then we would only have to work 3 day weeks. Work sucks all joy away from me, being forced to work is the direct cause of my future suicide, no pills or therapy makes the rat race bearable, I only plan to endure the next 30 years so that I don't cause parents distress, in them days the retirement age will be 70+, no thanks, I will choose the graveyard.

Geuze

Social Insurance should be increased, so JSB should rise

Social Assistance should not be increased.

JSB should be much higher than JSA.

splinter65

Geuze wrote: »

Social Insurance should be increased, so JSB should rise

Social Assistance should not be increased.

JSB should be much higher than JSA.

You’re probably right.

Gonad

LoughNeagh2017 wrote: »

Good on anyone who tries to scam the system, it's pathetic how everyone loves those unemplyment shows you would see on English TV, it all comes down to jealousy, if working is so good then why do people hate the unemployed? Surely you would pity them if they are unemployed if work is so good? People have a resentment for capitalism and having to spend so much time away from their families that they take it out on the unemployed, maybe they should all join the unemployed so the structure of society may have to change, maybe if more people rebelled against the rat race then we would only have to work 3 day weeks. Work sucks all joy away from me, being forced to work is the direct cause of my future suicide, no pills or therapy makes the rat race bearable, I only plan to endure the next 30 years so that I don't cause parents distress, in them days the retirement age will be 70+, no thanks, I will choose the graveyard.

a man after my own heart

gozunda

Chrxst this country is fuked up for sure

Beta Ray Bill

splinter65 wrote: »

Soo what your saying in a nutshell is that if you’ve worked for 28 years you should be able to retire and get state top up from the taxpayers minimum €203 + €134.70 for spouse + €37 for each kid per week, irregardless of savings, until retirement at 67 when it goes up to €248 +++?
Sweet! I’m 54 now. Can I get back money?

But he went back to work!?
I didn't want to lay around doing nothing.

Wibbs wrote: »

IIRC, though don't quote me on it K the limit is around 10,000 for jobseekers allowance? To me that's fair, but 100 plus grand? Eh no.

€100k over the course of 20/30 years is not a lot, it's saving an average of €4k per year, which is doable for most people.
If you're going to be penalised for saving it in the event you lose you job, whats the point in saving it?

I understand what you are saying though that maybe if it were a million or two, they could f**k off.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Eric Cartman wrote: »

yeah, and you should get that after youve run down your own personal savings. The social is supposed to be a safety net for those who cannot support themselves, not an alternative income source

No, it's an insurance fund you pay into in order to access in the event of a certain event happening.

If you pay health insurance and then get sick and have to spend time in hospital, the health insurance covers you. They can't just tell you to fund it yourself just because you can.

If you pay motor insurance and then have an accident, the motor insurance covers you. They can't just tell you to go fund it yourself just because you can.

maccored

if you have that kind of money in the bank you dont need to sign on

Pronto63

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

No, it's an insurance fund you pay into in order to access in the event of a certain event happening.

If you pay health insurance and then get sick and have to spend time in hospital, the health insurance covers you. They can't just tell you to fund it yourself just because you can.

If you pay motor insurance and then have an accident, the motor insurance covers you. They can't just tell you to go fund it yourself just because you can.

The fund you pay into is for Jobseekers Benefit (JB). You can have millions in the bank and it won't affect your JB claim.

JB only lasts for 9 months after that you claim Jobseekers Allowance (JA).

JA is designed to help those in dire financial straits who have no other means of support. The idea behind the means test is so that only those that really need it qualify for it. Even so you can still have €20,000 in savings and it doesn't affect your JA claim.

May 2009 - May 2010 he was out of work. 7 months of that would have been JB and 3 months JA.

Back in employment for 22 months till March 2012 when he signed on again up till October 2012 (8 months).

Were his contributions paid between May 2010 and March 2012 not enough to put him back on JB?

This guy is a worker and used the welfare only when he in the **** position of not having a job. He shouldn’t be the type of person they are prosecuting as an “example” to us all. I also don’t see in the report that they say he had claimed any extras like rent/mortgage allowance so sorry, I don’t believe he was taking the piss.

Mr. teddywinkles

Is it not the case if you have savings you get reduced dole neways. Every 10000 your reduced more. So technically your still entitled to get welfare. Also the fact he was going back to work to pay prsi and tax again neways so what's the problem

splinter65

Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »

Is it not the case if you have savings you get reduced dole neways. Every 10000 your reduced more. So technically your still entitled to get welfare. Also the fact he was going back to work to pay prsi and tax again neways so what's the problem

You can have 20000 and it not affect your JSA.
If you have 30000 you are deducted €10.
If you have 40000 you are deducted €30.
If you have more then you are deducted a further €4 for every €1000 you have.
So if you have say 60000 then you would be deducted €110 etc

smelly sock

Idbatterim wrote: »

small change! that waster margaret cash and many like her, are handed that figure in two years, for life, no questions asked!

No they are not.

splinter65

splinter65 wrote: »

You can have 20000 and it not affect your JSA.
If you have 30000 you are deducted €10.
If you have 40000 you are deducted €30.
If you have more then you are deducted a further €4 for every €1000 you have.
So if you have say 60000 then you would be deducted €110 etc

So if he had 100000 that’s 40 grand left to calculate. 40x4 is 160 so total deducted is more than JA?

splinter65

smelly sock wrote: »

No they are not.

Including child benefit Margaret cash as a lone parent/JSA will have had a minimum of €35000 by the end of 2019.
You would have to add fuel allowance at €22.50 per week for 7 months, BTSCFA, and HAP, to all that plus medical card.
She could also be in receipt of 1/2 rate Carers Allowance and DCA too, I don’t know.
I don’t know if her husband is living with her or not. If he is you can add another €7000 to that.
It’s a tragedy for Margaret and her kids that she lives the way she does. You can see from her angry tearful outbursts about being “robbed” by the government how unhappy she is despite having far more money coming in from the state then she actually needs. If anyone could suggest what can be done about this it would be interesting to hear.

pinkyeye

splinter65 wrote: »

Including child benefit Margaret cash as a lone parent/JSA will have had a minimum of €35000 by the end of 2019.
You would have to add fuel allowance at €22.50 per week for 7 months, BTSCFA, and HAP, to all that plus medical card.
She could also be in receipt of 1/2 rate Carers Allowance and DCA too, I don’t know.
I don’t know if her husband is living with her or not. If he is you can add another €7000 to that.
It’s a tragedy for Margaret and her kids that she lives the way she does. You can see from her angry tearful outbursts about being “robbed” by the government how unhappy she is despite having far more money coming in from the state then she actually needs. If anyone could suggest what can be done about this it would be interesting to hear.

What on earth has this to do with the OP???????

Portsalon

The court heard that when he applied for the benefit he had not told department about funds he had in two bank accounts.

Deliberate fraud.

He had ticked a box in his application saying he did not not have money in a bank or a credit union.

Deliberate Fraud

The court heard he signed a declaration that also included a warning that it was an offence to conceal information in a social welfare application.

Deliberate Fraud.


There is absolutely no difference morally or ethically between what he did and what Maria Bailey tried to do.

Sheeps

You are paying for his fraud.

Sheeps

Sheeps wrote: »

You are paying for his fraud.

So was he. Go figure

splinter65

pinkyeye wrote: »

What on earth has this to do with the OP???????

As you know I was responding to a series of posts speculating on the income of Margaret cash

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Pronto63 wrote: »

The fund you pay into is for Jobseekers Benefit (JB). You can have millions in the bank and it won't affect your JB claim.

JB only lasts for 9 months after that you claim Jobseekers Allowance (JA).

JA is designed to help those in dire financial straits who have no other means of support. The idea behind the means test is so that only those that really need it qualify for it. Even so you can still have €20,000 in savings and it doesn't affect your JA claim.

Yeah, I know all that - problem is when Eric insists on mentioning "the social" it's a bit difficult to know what he's talking about.

LillySV

Geuze wrote: »

Social Insurance should be increased, so JSB should rise

Social Assistance should not be increased.

JSB should be much higher than JSA.

What happened in last few years was that when the actual taxpayer lost their job, they had a safety net of 390 days to collect their jobseekers payment before having to consider a means tested payment ... that was brought back to 312 , then 234 days where it had stayed . That means you could pay stamps for 45 years and after all that get paid for 234 days/9 months. The current pack of bastards in govt also brought in rule where u cant claim illness benefit for 6 days if anything happens to ya.... so basically most people paying prsi for nothing as most be returned to work by then.

Meanwhile the money for wasters have increased, the child dependent rate that they claim had gone up, further incentivizing them to breed like rats.. the long term unemployed get fuel allowance for winter while the unemployed taxpayer does not ...the long term unemployed get hap to pay their rent and eventually in many cases, a free house.... the taxpayer.... nothing .... your seeing a trend here... pay tax get frig all, pay nothing get everything .... once that system is goin on, theres a lot who won’t bother to work.

Should be like most other countries ... taxpayer gets a percentage of their last salary when lose job which reduces to nothing eventually after 9-12 months. The long term unemployed should be made Work on schemes to aid their local community and get a minimum rate of payment which will incentivize them to find work