Possible social welfare cuts in Ireland?

stupidusername · 30-05-2010 09:33PM

Gus99 wrote: »

In terms of the weekly JSA/JSB rate, I think there should be much more emphasis on how much you have actually contributed previously through PRSI, before being unemployed. Instead of having a (generally) flat rate for JSA (I know it varies if you are younger etc), why not basically abolish JSA and have everyone qualify for JSB, where the amount is linked to your previous earnings.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/social-welfare/social-welfare-payments/unemployed-people/jobseekers_benefit

This would have the dual benefit of providing a cushion to (and giving back to) people who have made significant PRSI contributions in the past, while making the "career unemployment" option much less attractive.

Lots of other countries pay higher amounts (but for a certain period) than we do to people who have just been made unemployed (% of last salary, capped at x) - surely this is a more equitable approach?

Well I see a problem straight away with linking all unemployment benefit to previous earnings / contributions. I'm unemployed for just going on one year, since I finished college last year. I was in college for 6 years all together. During this time I worked part time, various hours, and full time over holidays etc. Before college, after school, I worked for a year full time. Because there's a break in between my full time working times, my PRSI contributions count for nothing.

So what about me? Would you cut me off all together?

Besides this, what about the people that do qualify for JSB, and are getting their PRSI returned to them, their JSB is cut off after a year or so, and then are switched over to JSA, so do you cut them off?

The system isn't set up to make this switchover. I am totally against people being long term unemployed (see my previous posts in these forums) but the answer isn't in not letting anyone that doesn't fit the JSB criteria have access to help.

thebman · 30-05-2010 09:39PM

stupidusername wrote: »

Well I see a problem straight away with linking all unemployment benefit to previous earnings / contributions. I'm unemployed for just going on one year, since I finished college last year. I was in college for 6 years all together. During this time I worked part time, various hours, and full time over holidays etc. Before college, after school, I worked for a year full time. Because there's a break in between my full time working times, my PRSI contributions count for nothing.

So what about me? Would you cut me off all together?

Besides this, what about the people that do qualify for JSB, and are getting their PRSI returned to them, their JSB is cut off after a year or so, and then are switched over to JSA, so do you cut them off?

The system isn't set up to make this switchover. I am totally against people being long term unemployed (see my previous posts in these forums) but the answer isn't in not letting anyone that doesn't fit the JSB criteria have access to help.

You can easily make allowances for those just graduated.

Deise Tom · 30-05-2010 10:12PM

Smiley Burnett wrote: »

do you actually think that it takes "balls" to bail out Anglo-Irish bank with taxpayers money, and on the other hand take money from the health service, from the elderly, from children with special needs?
thats not "balls"!! thats "neck"!!!

Are you a stalker. Would appear you only have something to say when i say something, or else you dont like what i have to say.

CoalBucket · 30-05-2010 10:17PM

AARRRGH wrote: »

We have too many scumbags in this country who spend their life leeching off the state and do not understand the concept of personal responsibility.
Hopefully this breaks the "dole for life" mentality which so many families seem to have.

gurramok wrote: »

Coalbucket, my OH is unemployed. I stated this if you search my posts from about December on this forum. What I object to is the widespread scamming going on by the careerists, not those who recently lost their jobs after paying PRSI for years.

Lets have a look at the official figures of "life long dole careerists" that are being used for some comments.

Unemployment is currently at 13.4% or approximately 435,200 people.

The unemployment rate in 2004 was 4.3 %. This equates to 139,653 people.

The long term unemployed in 2004 made up 1.4 %. That equates to 45,468 people.

The long term unemployment rate is rising and rising due to the fact that more and more people have been made unemployed.

The percentage of long term "career" unemployed is 1.4 % of the working population. The remaining 12% have been made unemployed in the past 5 years.

http://www.cso.ie/newsevents/pressrelease_measuringirelandsprogress2005.htm

http://www.cso.ie/statistics/sasunemprates.htm

danbohan · 30-05-2010 10:29PM

CoalBucket wrote: »

Lets have a look at the official figures of "life long dole careerists" that are being used for some comments.

Unemployment is currently at 13.4% or approximately 435,200 people.

The unemployment rate in 2004 was 4.3 %. This equates to 139,653 people.

The long term unemployed in 2004 made up 1.4 %. That equates to 45,468 people.

The long term unemployment rate is rising and rising due to the fact that more and more people have been made unemployed.

The percentage of long term "career" unemployed is 1.4 % of the working population. The remaining 12% have been made unemployed in the past 5 years.

http://www.cso.ie/newsevents/pressrelease_measuringirelandsprogress2005.htm

http://www.cso.ie/statistics/sasunemprates.htm

that 1.4% can be misleading , some may have been placed on work schemes etc which will not give true picture of just how many long term leaches we have , a system should be brought in where somebody that has been in recipt for 3 years would have to activily show what they were doing to become employed every month . failure to do so or take a job / any job ,means no payment .after 3 years a system of food stamps / rent at min level etc would still be available , but we cant continue to have a system where many are better off unemployed than to be working .

CoalBucket · 30-05-2010 10:42PM

scorpioishere wrote: »

Social welfare should be cut by 100%. There are too many lazy ****ers who doesn't bother to go and look for job as the taxpayers are looking after them and their family. Social welfare shouldn't be exist at all. You loose your job you look for another one until you find one. You will make only 1-2 babies and not 6. You don't have money to go on holidays, you stay at home. You don't have money for a new car, use your old 00 one. The list goes one and this will make people realise how to be independent and not being look after by other people. Countries around the world who doesn't have social welfare have already been out of recession whereas Ireland is still in the same **** and will be deeper and deeper because so many people are abusing the system.

I hope this is a wind up as a post because if it is not it indicates a serious amount of ignorance.

scorpioishere wrote: »

Social welfare shouldn't be exist at all.

lmao. Are you actually advocating the abolition of the welfare state ? What planet are you on. This countrys greatest achievement is the introduction of the welfare state. We as a society should take care of the weaker members of society. What you are proposing is some sick darwinian economics.

scorpioishere wrote: »

You will make only 1-2 babies

Have I woken up in China ?

scorpioishere wrote: »

Countries around the world who doesn't have social welfare have already been out of recession

Here is a list of the Countries in the OECD which have a welfare state system.

Denmark, Sweden, France, Germany, Belgium, Switzerland, Austria, Finland, Netherlands, Italy, Greece, Norway, Poland, United Kingdom, Portugal, Luxembourg, Czech Republic, Hungary, Iceland, Spain, New Zealand, Australia, Slovak Republic, Canada, Japan, United States, Mexico, South Korea.

Let's see some examples of countries without the welfare system that are out of recession.

CoalBucket · 30-05-2010 10:52PM

danbohan wrote: »

that 1.4% can be misleading , some may have been placed on work schemes etc which will not give true picture of just how many long term leaches we have , a system should be brought in where somebody that has been in recipt for 3 years would have to activily show what they were doing to become employed every month . failure to do so or take a job / any job ,means no payment .after 3 years a system of food stamps / rent at min level etc would still be available , but we cant continue to have a system where many are better off unemployed than to be working .

This point is irrelevant as the government proposals are to cut people who turn down courses as well as not searching for employment. Those are the same courses that you say are skewing the figures.

Some of the suggestions on this thread try to portray that the majority of the unemployed are career dole heads.I have presented the official CSO figures.

I completely agree with the bolded portion of your comment.

flutered · 30-05-2010 11:01PM

i have not not read every thread on this, the traveling community are automatically entiteled to the dole and to trade, will leveling the playing field apply to them,

gurramok · 31-05-2010 08:41AM

CoalBucket wrote: »

Some of the suggestions on this thread try to portray that the majority of the unemployed are career dole heads.I have presented the official CSO figures.

I never said the majority of dole recipients are careerists. Perhaps someone else? Single mothers on the baby production line are more prevalent to be scammers.

CoalBucket wrote: »

This countrys greatest achievement is the introduction of the welfare state. We as a society should take care of the weaker members of society.

You see the problem here. Social welfare is too high at the moment, they are the strongest members in society as a result of it been too high. It ain't worthwhile working when benefits are huge.

Gus99 · 31-05-2010 10:42AM

stupidusername wrote: »

Well I see a problem straight away with linking all unemployment benefit to previous earnings / contributions. I'm unemployed for just going on one year, since I finished college last year. I was in college for 6 years all together. During this time I worked part time, various hours, and full time over holidays etc. Before college, after school, I worked for a year full time. Because there's a break in between my full time working times, my PRSI contributions count for nothing.

So what about me? Would you cut me off all together?

Besides this, what about the people that do qualify for JSB, and are getting their PRSI returned to them, their JSB is cut off after a year or so, and then are switched over to JSA, so do you cut them off?

The system isn't set up to make this switchover. I am totally against people being long term unemployed (see my previous posts in these forums) but the answer isn't in not letting anyone that doesn't fit the JSB criteria have access to help.

I don't actually see the necessity of two different forms of payment. I think there should be a a standard minimum payment (let us say for argument €100), which would then be scaled upwards by the amount of PRSI contributions you made in the last (say) "z" months, lets say 36 months The overall payment would be capped at (lets just say) €400. This figure would reduce the longer the person stays unemployed (say towards €200 in the first 9-12 months, or less if limited PRSI contributions), because "z" will reduce over time.

So to answer your particular position, you might get some small upscaling from the basic €100 based on your previous PRSI contributions. But in general, somebody straight out of college and never having paid any tax should only get a basic amount, even if it means they have to live at home while unemployed

Thats just how I think it should work at a very, very high level - and please dont get hung up on the figures I used, and yes, there will be exceptions etc etc

CoalBucket · 31-05-2010 08:11PM

gurramok wrote: »

I never said the majority of dole recipients are careerists. Perhaps someone else? Single mothers on the baby production line are more prevalent to be scammers.

Ok I have presented you with the figures to show the long term unemployed are a tiny proportion of the social welfare claimants so now it is the "Single mothers on the baby production line"

Lone parents are more likely than any other social group to be living in poverty. Data from the EU Survey on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC), conducted by the Central Statistics Office, shows that in 2008, 17.8% of lone parents were living in consistent poverty, compared to 4.2% of the population as a whole.

Are they living in Poverty due to the huge benefits they are scamming from the state.

http://www.combatpoverty.ie/povertyinireland/oneparentfamilies.htm

gurramok wrote: »

You see the problem here. Social welfare is too high at the moment, they are the strongest members in society as a result of it been too high.

Social welfare recipients are the strongest members of society ?

36.4% of lone parents are at risk of poverty with 17.8% are in consistent poverty.

23% of unemployed people are at risk of poverty while 9.7% are in consistent poverty.

http://www.combatpoverty.ie/povertyinireland/whoispoor.html

gurramok wrote: »

It ain't worthwhile working when benefits are huge.

Benefits are huge. If it is that beneficial to get unemployment why are 86% of the work force deperately trying to keep their jobs.

Mininum wage in Ireland is €8.65. The hourly rate on a 39 hour week to earn the "huge" €196 is €5.02. In addition the claimant would have to recieve another €140 in auxilliary benefits to claim the equivalent of the minimum wage.

As I have stated previously I have recently unemployed and I desperately needed to get work before I would eventually get into financial difficulty. If the social welfare payment were that "huge" I would not be working now.

murphaph · 31-05-2010 08:19PM

I reckon most middle class workers would be too proud to be telling people how hard they were finding it to make ends meet anyway, whereas your average benefit scrounger will have no bother rattling off how tricky it is to live on x a month.

See beyond the figures please!

CoalBucket · 31-05-2010 08:24PM

murphaph wrote: »

I reckon most middle class workers would be too proud to be telling people how hard they were finding it to make ends meet anyway, whereas your average benefit scrounger will have no bother rattling off how tricky it is to live on x a month.

See beyond the figures please!

The usual response from the right wingers on boards, when confronted with the actual facts just come up with another diatribe.

Lets see something to back up your comments or else just say your comments are purely based on your biased opinions rather than actual data or facts.

gurramok · 31-05-2010 08:26PM

CoalBucket wrote: »

Ok I have presented you with the figures to show the long term unemployed are a tiny proportion of the social welfare claimants so now it is the "Single mothers on the baby production line"

Lone parents are more likely than any other social group to be living in poverty. Data from the EU Survey on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC), conducted by the Central Statistics Office, shows that in 2008, 17.8% of lone parents were living in consistent poverty, compared to 4.2% of the population as a whole.

Are they living in Poverty due to the huge benefits they are scamming from the state.

http://www.combatpoverty.ie/povertyinireland/oneparentfamilies.htm
Social welfare recipients are the strongest members of society ?

36.4% of lone parents are at risk of poverty with 17.8% are in consistent poverty.

23% of unemployed people are at risk of poverty while 9.7% are in consistent poverty.

http://www.combatpoverty.ie/povertyinireland/whoispoor.html

Benefits are huge. If it is that beneficial to get unemployment why are 86% of the work force deperately trying to keep their jobs.

Mininum wage in Ireland is €8.65. The hourly rate on a 39 hour week to earn the "huge" €196 is €5.02. In addition the claimant would have to recieve another €140 in auxilliary benefits to claim the equivalent of the minimum wage.

As I have stated previously I have recently unemployed and I desperately needed to get work before I would eventually get into financial difficulty. If the social welfare payment were that "huge" I would not be working now.

Oh boy, you have not looked up what single mothers get before spouting the above quoting an agency who do not disclose the source of their stats.

I'll help you. Goto http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/social-welfare/social-welfare-payments/social-welfare-payments-to-families-and-children

A non-working single mother gets at LEAST 35k net with rent paid in Dublin with 23k of that into the hand from OPFP.

From Karls tax calculator(http://taxcalc.eu/), a single woman or man working will have to earn 48k GROSS to get the same money to pay for the same lifestyle.

And you wonder why I say alot of single mothers are careerists?

Where is the poverty there?:mad:

murphaph · 31-05-2010 08:29PM

CoalBucket wrote: »

The usual response from the right wingers on boards, when confronted with the actual facts just come up with another diatribe.

Lets see something to back up your comments or else just say your comments are purely based on your biased opinions rather than actual data or facts.

I am biased. I am a biased taxpayer who is sick of being the one who foots the bill for the overpaid public sector and benefit recipients who receive 3 times the amounts handed out in Northern Ireland and who still moan and for servicing the burgeoning national debt while being charged 50 quid to see a doctor myself. We are sick and fcuking tired of it.

CoalBucket · 31-05-2010 08:30PM

gurramok wrote: »

Oh boy, you have not looked up what single mothers get before spouting the above quoting an agency who do not disclose the source of their stats.

I'll help you. Goto http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/social-welfare/social-welfare-payments/social-welfare-payments-to-families-and-children

A non-working single mother gets at LEAST 35k net with rent paid in Dublin with 23k of that into the hand from OPFP.

From Karls tax calculator(http://taxcalc.eu/), a single woman or man working will have to earn 48k GROSS to get the same money to pay for the same lifestyle.

And you wonder why I say alot of single mothers are careerists?

Where is the poverty there?:mad:

You are disputing the figures from the combat poverty agency which is part of the department of social and family affairs !

murphaph · 31-05-2010 08:32PM

CoalBucket wrote: »

You are disputing the figures from the combat poverty agency which is part of the department of social and family affairs !

Answer his other points. Why do you consider a single mother on the equivalent of 48k gross in Dublin to be "in poverty"?

CoalBucket · 31-05-2010 08:35PM

murphaph wrote: »

I am biased. I am a biased taxpayer who is sick of being the one who foots the bill for the overpaid public sector and benefit recipients who receive 3 times the amounts handed out in Northern Ireland and who still moan and for servicing the burgeoning national debt while being charged 50 quid to see a doctor myself. We are sick and fcuking tired of it.

Yes and you are so biased that you base your comments on opinion rather than fact.

danbohan · 31-05-2010 08:40PM

CoalBucket wrote: »

You are disputing the figures from the combat poverty agency which is part of the department of social and family affairs !

there are lies , damm lies , and statistics , the only statistic that matters is that this country is broke .
Dr. Constantin Gurdgiev in his blog suggests we need the following , so wheres the funding going to come from ?

To restore our competitive balance we need:

A cut of €23 billion in gross annual primary spending by the state (current expenditure) - some 14.7% of our GNP. Not €3bn as Brian Lenihan is doing, or €3.5bn as An Bord Snip Nua was suggesting. A whooping €23 billion, folks!
The cut above cannot come from the capital budget side - where most of the cuts so far took place. It has to be cut from the current expenditure. The reason for this is simple - capital spending is one-off item of expenditure and it is associated, in theory, with a net positive return on investment. Current spending is permanent and yields no financial return.
The cuts must include at the very least a €9.3bn reduction in the wages and pensions bill in the public sector (5.9% of GNP or almost 44% cut in the total PS wages bill, achievable through both reductions in numbers employed and wages paid and pensions benefits entitlements).

CoalBucket · 31-05-2010 08:40PM

murphaph wrote: »

Answer his other points. Why do you consider a single mother on the equivalent of 48k gross in Dublin to be "in poverty"?

Read the previous posts where I prensented the government figures illustrating poverty in social welfare recipients and lone parents. You also need to address your reference to lone parents as single mothers.

I have presented the figures from the Department of Social and Family Affairs illustrating that 17.8 % of lone parents live in consistent poverty.

Regarding the 48k, the link provided does not illustrate that.

CoalBucket · 31-05-2010 08:43PM

danbohan wrote: »

there are lies , damm lies , and statistics , the only statistic that matters is that this country is broke .
Dr. Constantin Gurdgiev in his blog suggests we need the following , so wheres the funding going to come from ?

To restore our competitive balance we need:
A cut of €23 billion in gross annual primary spending by the state (current expenditure) - some 14.7% of our GNP. Not €3bn as Brian Lenihan is doing, or €3.5bn as An Bord Snip Nua was suggesting. A whooping €23 billion, folks!

The cut above cannot come from the capital budget side - where most of the cuts so far took place. It has to be cut from the current expenditure. The reason for this is simple - capital spending is one-off item of expenditure and it is associated, in theory, with a net positive return on investment. Current spending is permanent and yields no financial return.

The cuts must include at the very least a €9.3bn reduction in the wages and pensions bill in the public sector (5.9% of GNP or almost 44% cut in the total PS wages bill, achievable through both reductions in numbers employed and wages paid and pensions benefits entitlements).

I have not disputed that the country needs to make savings. The opinions on this thread about social welfare recipients living the high life is what I have the dispute with.

Yes there are statistics, facts, and baseless opinions.

With all due respect Dr. Constantin Gurdgiev is an economist. This country and more specifically this society is more than an economy.

gurramok · 31-05-2010 08:53PM

CoalBucket wrote: »

Read the previous posts where I prensented the government figures illustrating poverty in social welfare recipients and lone parents. You also need to address your reference to lone parents as single mothers.

I have presented the figures from the Department of Social and Family Affairs illustrating that 17.8 % of lone parents live in consistent poverty.

Regarding the 48k, the link provided does not illustrate that.

So, 80% are not in poverty. You see, you can dress it that way too.

Put 48k into http://taxcalc.eu/ and you get the net take home pay which pays for everything for a worker.

A Dublin single mother with 3 kids gets 487(child benefit)x12 + 286x52 = 20,716. Add in FIS, Fuel allowance & Back to School & Footwear allowance and you get 23k.

Add in Rent of 1100 a month (which is what she gets) and you get a grand total of 35k.

Put that 35k into Karls tax calculator and you get 48k gross.

That ain't poverty sir.

murphaph · 31-05-2010 08:54PM

CoalBucket wrote: »

Read the previous posts where I prensented the government figures illustrating poverty in social welfare recipients and lone parents. You also need to address your reference to lone parents as single mothers.

Why are you hiding behing PC bullsh!t like this? What percentage of lone parents on benefits do you suppose are single mothers as opposed to single fathers? Everyone knows the courts very rarely give custody of kids to the estranged fathers.

Scarab80 · 31-05-2010 08:58PM

Just for clarification, consistent poverty in ireland means

Without heating at some stage in the last year

Unable to afford a morning, afternoon or evening out in the last fortnight

Unable to afford two pairs of strong shoes

Unable to afford a roast once a week

Unable to afford a meal with meat, chicken or fish every second day

Unable to afford new (not second-hand) clothes

Unable to afford a warm waterproof coat

Unable to afford to keep the home adequately warm

Unable to afford to replace any worn out furniture

Unable to afford to have family or friends for a drink or meal once a month

Unable to afford to buy presents for family or friends at least once a year

.... combined with having an income of 60% of the median.

At risk of poverty does not necessarily mean that you are at risk of poverty, just that you earn 60% of the median income of the state, though in 2008 this figure was €12,455.

gurramok · 31-05-2010 09:16PM

CoalBucket wrote: »

You also need to address your reference to lone parents as single mothers.

I'll help you again, simple Googling works wonders. Here's an actual fact with hard data. http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2009/1230/1224261408872.html

IT wrote:

According to the department’s statistical information on social welfare services, 87,840 people were in receipt of the one-parent family payment in 2008. Just over 1,800 were men. Expenditure on the payment increased by 10.9 per cent last year to more than €1 billion, while the number of recipients rose by 2,756, an increase of 3.2 per cent on 2007.

Thats about 98% of OPFP recipients are women.

CoalBucket · 31-05-2010 09:25PM

gurramok wrote: »

Single mothers on the baby production line are more prevalent to be scammers,

gurramok wrote: »

I'll help you again, simple Googling works wonders. Here's an actual fact with hard data. http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2009/1230/1224261408872.html

Thats about 98% of OPFP recipients are women.

gurramok wrote: »

So, 80% are not in poverty. You see, you can dress it that way too.

Put 48k into http://taxcalc.eu/ and you get the net take home pay which pays for everything for a worker.

A Dublin single mother with 3 kids gets 487(child benefit)x12 + 286x52 = 20,716. Add in FIS, Fuel allowance & Back to School & Footwear allowance and you get 23k.

Add in Rent of 1100 a month (which is what she gets) and you get a grand total of 35k.

Put that 35k into Karls tax calculator and you get 48k gross.

That ain't poverty sir.

For starters my right wing friend I do not need any assistance.

Are you refusing to acknowledge the government figures that 20% of lone parents live in consistant poverty ?

gurramok wrote: »

Add in FIS, Fuel allowance & Back to School & Footwear allowance and you get 23k.

Firstly FIS is available to all families not just lone parent families.

Family Income Supplement (FIS) a weekly tax-free payment available to married or unmarried employees with children. It gives extra financial support to people on low pay.To qualify for FIS, your net average weekly family income must be below a certain amount for your family size. The FIS you receive is 60% of the difference between your net family income and the income limit which applies to your family.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/social-welfare/social-welfare-payments/social-welfare-payments-to-families-and-children/family_income_supplement

The Smokeless Fuel Allowance is an allowance paid by the Department of Social Protection to low-income households to help them meet the extra costs of using smokeless or low smoke fuels in certain parts of the country.

Are the lone parents sitting in freezing and then spending the money on their lavish lifestyles ?

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/social-welfare/social-welfare-payments/extra-social-welfare-benefits/smokeless_fuel_allowance

Do you think that low income families should not be able to gain assistance with Back to School costs, particularily in a country where we are informed has free education.

gurramok wrote: »

Add in Rent of 1100 a month (which is what she gets) and you get a grand total of 35k

You are specifically targetting a lone parent living in private rented accomodation. How many lone parents are recieving € 1100 rent allowance?

gurramok wrote: »

Single mothers on the baby production line are more prevalent to be scammers,

All of the above social welfare benefits are available to all families. Your specific target are the single mother scammers.

CoalBucket · 31-05-2010 09:32PM

murphaph wrote: »

Why are you hiding behing PC bullsh!t like this? What percentage of lone parents on benefits do you suppose are single mothers as opposed to single fathers? Everyone knows the courts very rarely give custody of kids to the estranged fathers.

One at a time ladies. I don't have to hide from anything. I present the facts with my opinions rather than just mindless right wing diatribe.

I have no issue dicussing the facts of the thread with garramuk as at least his opinions are based on something.

Lone parents are not only seperated families. My friend is widowed which makes him a lone parent so no it's not just PC bullsh!t as you so eloquently put it.

thebman · 31-05-2010 09:37PM

CoalBucket wrote: »

Are you refusing to acknowledge the government figures that 20% of lone parents live in consistant poverty ?

I think you'll find he is questioning their definition of poverty not the 20%.

20% of people know this. :P

The 20% is only accurate if we know what their definition of poverty is and all agree it is a fair yard stick to measure against.

It also depends on the number of people surveyed or if its all of society. How was the data for the statistic calculated?

The government cannot automatically be trusted with statistics. They were saying everything would be rosy with the economy after all and are 20 billion in the red. Maths isn't their strong point.

gurramok · 31-05-2010 09:38PM

CoalBucket wrote: »

For starters my right wing friend I do not need any assistance.

I ain't right wing my friend, i'm working class.

CoalBucket wrote: »

Are you refusing to acknowledge the government figures that 20% of lone parents live in consistant poverty ?

I do not see their source of the figures. Scarab80 gave definitions and lets say those definitions are dubious. Does a top of the range buggy count or getting new clothes in River Island count??

One must wonder what presents are included, the latest PS3 with a few 50quid a pop games thrown in?

CoalBucket wrote: »

Firstly FIS is available to all families not just lone parent families.

Family Income Supplement (FIS) a weekly tax-free payment available to married or unmarried employees with children. It gives extra financial support to people on low pay.To qualify for FIS, your net average weekly family income must be below a certain amount for your family size. The FIS you receive is 60% of the difference between your net family income and the income limit which applies to your family.

The Smokeless Fuel Allowance is an allowance paid by the Department of Social Protection to low-income households to help them meet the extra costs of using smokeless or low smoke fuels in certain parts of the country.

Are the lone parents sitting in freezing and then spending the money on their lavish lifestyles ?

No, not certainly. They are well heated as well and can afford to escape the harsh winter on a nice sunny holiday. Have we left out any other allowances they are entitled to?

CoalBucket wrote: »

Do you think that low income families should not be able to gain assistance with Back to School costs, particularily in a country where we are informed has free education.

They have too much as it is, it is not needed.

CoalBucket wrote: »

You are specifically targetting a lone parent living in private rented accomodation. How many lone parents are recieving € 1100 rent allowance?

500m is spent on RS in this country. Social housing was nearly wiped out(remember that property bubble we had that lasted about 14yrs) until
a recent surge to get people off the housing list.

That housing list is huge. Its huge for a reason as alot of the applicants are receiving RS so as they have a place to live. Without doubt alot of single mothers receive this. I'm sure with your Googling powers, you could find an exact number.

CoalBucket wrote: »

All of the above social welfare benefits are available to all families. Your specific target are the single mother scammers.

Yes, as they are milking the system at the expense of workers. I notice you have not disputed the 48k figure yet.

Scarab80 · 31-05-2010 09:42PM

CoalBucket wrote: »

Are you refusing to acknowledge the government figures that 20% of lone parents live in consistant poverty ?

I would argue that the figure is misleading and here is why. Every year 4,000 birth certificates are issued without a fathers name (that's about 5% of all births), some of these will obviously be for a valid reason however i know several people personally who do this to get the benefit of LPF allowances. The father lives with the family as normal but does not report this to the department of social welfare and can not be followed up for maintenance payments as he is not on the birth certificate.

Therefore the CSO figures will disregard the fathers income in the household despite the fact that he will be contributing to the family and living as a family.

Obviously i have no way of quantifying this abuse, but i know of several people personally who are abusing the system in this way. It is very difficult to prosecute as the father will still have mail going to his parents house etc.

Possible social welfare cuts in Ireland?

Comments