Possible social welfare cuts in Ireland?

fifth · 31-05-2010 09:43PM

Ya know, I'm working, and I'm fortunate to be working still, living on a below average wage but it's more than enough for me. (under 30K) To be honest, anything over 20k is fine..

I really feel for those people on the dole - it's really terrible - I know people struggling with children/debts/trying to live week by week and I don't care how sick and tired you are of paying taxes.. you'd be much worse off on the dole.

It's not glamorous by any means and anything less than the amount they receive at the moment would make it very difficult indeed to live here.

Also, does anyone know what effect it would have on Irelands economic position in the international markets if we DID jail all the corrupt bankers/politicians?

CoalBucket · 31-05-2010 09:53PM

gurramok wrote: »

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

Class has nothing to do with your political opinions. Describing single mothers as "scammers" is right wing enough for me

gurramok wrote: »

I do not see their source of the figures. Scarab80 gave definitions and lets say those definitions are dubious.

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.

Source in bold. Previously posted.

gurramok wrote: »

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

Again Baseless opinion.

gurramok wrote: »

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.

I presented facts to back up my opinion. Can you do the same ? And you were doing so well and all.

gurramok wrote: »

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

Ah I think I did. If a family is over the mean 60% threshold they do not qualify for the supplements you outlined (and over estimated) therefore the 48k figure is fantasy.

CoalBucket · 31-05-2010 09:57PM

Scarab80 wrote: »

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.

Whilst I do acknowledge that social welfare fraud takes place, it cannot be measured surely on the grounds that if they knew the number of people and who they were it would not exist.

Feel free to dispute the official department of family affairs and CSO figures but they are clearly the most reliable figures we have rather than guesstimation which seems to be the standard in this thread.

thebman · 31-05-2010 09:58PM

funkyflea wrote: »

Ya know, I'm working, and I'm fortunate to be working still, living on a below average wage but it's more than enough for me. (under 30K) To be honest, anything over 20k is fine..

I really feel for those people on the dole - it's really terrible - I know people struggling with children/debts/trying to live week by week and I don't care how sick and tired you are of paying taxes.. you'd be much worse off on the dole.

It's not glamorous by any means and anything less than the amount they receive at the moment would make it very difficult indeed to live here.

Also, does anyone know what effect it would have on Irelands economic position in the international markets if we DID jail all the corrupt bankers/politicians?

Its supposed to be difficult to life off the generosity of others. If your living on handouts then you should expect to not have everything people that work all week do. Its simple as.

I'm sure being a single mother is very difficult, nobody is saying it isn't but we are 20 billion in the red and the only way to keep up that level of payment to these people is to tax all the workers into worse poverty than the single mothers are in which is simply not workable as those people will emigrate or quit and look for their hand out.

gurramok · 31-05-2010 10:02PM

CoalBucket wrote: »

Class has nothing to do with your political opinions. Describing single mothers as "scammers" is right wing enough for me

LOL. I grew up in Finglas South and now i'm an ardent right-winger for objecting to welfare abuse!!

CoalBucket wrote: »

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.

Source in bold. Previously posted.

I explained this, you have no comeback on it.

CoalBucket wrote: »

Again Baseless opinion.

I know two single mothers who buy expensive clothes. My OH is unemployed and by god she is angry at them as she gets feck all by not having a few kids.

CoalBucket wrote: »

I presented facts to back up my opinion. Can you do the same ? And you were doing so well and all.

No you did not. You quoted an agency saying 80%+ of single parents are NOT living in poverty but neglect to study the origin of the definition of poverty.

CoalBucket wrote: »

Ah I think I did. If a family is over the mean 60% threshold they do not qualify for the supplements you outlined (and over estimated) therefore the 48k figure is fantasy.

Read my post again. The total reaches 33k net before include FIS is included. Oh, I forgot to add SWA as well. Here's the link AGAIN. http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/social-welfare/social-welfare-payments/social-welfare-payments-to-families-and-children

thebman · 31-05-2010 10:05PM

gurramok wrote: »

Read my post again. The total reaches 33k net before include FIS is included. Oh, I forgot to add SWA as well. Here's the link AGAIN. http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/social-welfare/social-welfare-payments/social-welfare-payments-to-families-and-children

If someone is managing to live in poverty on 33K then I have one thing to say.

Shopping around, your doing it wrong!

CoalBucket · 31-05-2010 10:10PM

thebman wrote: »

Its supposed to be difficult to life off the generosity of others. If your living on handouts then you should expect to not have everything people that work all week do. Its simple as.

I'm sure being a single mother is very difficult, nobody is saying it isn't but we are 20 billion in the red and the only way to keep up that level of payment to these people is to tax all the workers into worse poverty than the single mothers are in which is simply not workable as those people will emigrate or quit and look for their hand out.

Finally someone who advocates reducing the social welfare payements without attacking the character of the recipients.

thebman wrote: »

I'm sure being a single mother is very difficult, nobody is saying it isn't

Have you read some of the posts about the single mothers shopping in river island with their ps3s 20 odd K disposable income and winter sun holidays.

Scarab80 · 31-05-2010 10:14PM

thebman wrote: »

If someone is managing to live in poverty on 33K then I have one thing to say.

Shopping around, your doing it wrong!

If the mother has 3 kids, that's the povery line income of 12,455 x 4 people = 49,820 of after tax income that the family must have not to be included in the poverty stats.

Those figures are from 2008, i can't wait to see the 2009 figures where thousands will be lifted out of poverty - not because they have got more money but because the rest of the country has got poorer, which means the poverty line will lower and they will no longer be in poverty. Hooray!

It's a ridiculous way of measuring poverty.

thebman · 31-05-2010 10:22PM

CoalBucket wrote: »

Finally someone who advocates reducing the social welfare payements without attacking the character of the recipients.

Have you read some of the posts about the single mothers shopping in river island with their ps3s 20 odd K disposable income and winter sun holidays.

Its all speculation though as nobody seems to have actual useful statistics with backed up definitions for what they mean.

Maybe 20% are in poverty but we can't find out online which is a shame really. If 20% are in poverty, it leaves 80% that aren't by the governments own statistics. All we can do is try to encourage them to sensibly cut so that those in poverty are left alone if they are truely in poverty. That still leaves 80% that aren't in poverty and presumably above the poverty line and the truely useful statistic would be how far above are they?

No government department will release such a statistic for fear of back lash from the public however.

thebman · 31-05-2010 10:25PM

Scarab80 wrote: »

If the mother has 3 kids, that's the povery line income of 12,455 x 4 people = 49,820 of after tax income that the family must have not to be included in the poverty stats.

Those figures are from 2008, i can't wait to see the 2009 figures where thousands will be lifted out of poverty - not because they have got more money but because the rest of the country has got poorer, which means the poverty line will lower and they will no longer be in poverty. Hooray!

It's a ridiculous way of measuring poverty.

I have said on other threads that the best way to get an accurate reading on cost of living (which would reveal a true poverty line) would be to have a welfare card (like a laser/credit card) where the welfare payments go on that card and the government can then build accurate statistics about what welfare recipients are spending their money on.

With the widespread use of such cards, shops would not even notice who was using a welfare card over a laser/credit card and so no shame would be made of using such a card.

Scarab80 · 31-05-2010 10:30PM

thebman wrote: »

I have said on other threads that the best way to get an accurate reading on cost of living (which would reveal a true poverty line) would be to have a welfare card (like a laser/credit card) where the welfare payments go on that card and the government can then build accurate statistics about what welfare recipients are spending their money on.

With the widespread use of such cards, shops would not even notice who was using a welfare card over a laser/credit card and so no shame would be made of using such a card.

Great idea!, although you would have to limit the amount of cash withdrawals. I don't suppose there is any chance that your real name is Eamon O'Cuiv?

gurramok · 31-05-2010 10:31PM

CoalBucket wrote: »

Have you read some of the posts about the single mothers shopping in river island with their ps3s 20 odd K disposable income and winter sun holidays.

They can easily afford it on 23k in the hand without havig to pay for Rent or Medical bills. Have more kids and that amount gets higher.

CoalBucket · 31-05-2010 10:35PM

QUOTE=gurramok;66167439]LOL. I grew up in Finglas South and now i'm an ardent right-winger for objecting to welfare abuse!![/QUOTE]

Even if you were only justifying a crack down on social welfare fraud you are advocating a cutting of the payments for everyone !

Firstly as already stated class has nothing to do with political opinion.

You originally were of the opinion that it was people on the dole who were scamming the system until the long term unemployed figure was pointed out to you.

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.

Once that was pointed out you changed to single mothers.

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.

QUOTE=gurramok;66167439]I explained this, you have no comeback on it.[/QUOTE]

I provided the link and the source of the survey. This is the method that poverty is measured across the EU. Whether you think it is a fair method of measuring or not is irrelevant.

QUOTE=gurramok;66167439]I know two single mothers who buy expensive clothes. My OH is unemployed and by god she is angry at them as she gets feck all by not having a few kids.[/QUOTE]

And I know plenty of single mothers who do not wear designer clothes and who without the assistance of the state would be homeless with their children. If you know of benefit fraud report it rather than trying to justify it as a reason for cutting the people who actually need it.

QUOTE=gurramok;66167439]No you did not. You quoted an agency saying 80%+ of single parents are NOT living in poverty but neglect to study the origin of the definition of poverty.[/QUOTE]

Again I provided the link and the source of the survey. And as already stated that "Agency" is immalgimated into the department of family and social affairs. I also provided the source of their statistics. This is the method that poverty is measured across the EU. Whether you think it is a fair method of measuring or not is irrelevant.

QUOTE=gurramok;66167439]Read my post again. The total reaches 33k net before include FIS is included. Oh, I forgot to add SWA as well. Here's the link AGAIN. http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/social-welfare/social-welfare-payments/social-welfare-payments-to-families-and-children[/QUOTE]

Having clearly read your post how about you try reading my reply which provided the qualification standards for such benefits. Which by the way uses the same site that you provided. If you had read past the first page of the benefits you would have seen the qualification basis.

gurramok · 31-05-2010 10:52PM

CoalBucket wrote: »

You originally were of the opinion that it was people on the dole who were scamming the system until the long term unemployed figure was pointed out to you.

Where did say that?

CoalBucket wrote: »

And I know plenty of single mothers who do not wear designer clothes and who without the assistance of the state would be homeless with their children. If you know of benefit fraud report it rather than trying to justify it as a reason for cutting the people who actually need it.

Buying expensive clothes is not fraud, its taxpayers money they get for claiming to be single mothers with kids.

CoalBucket wrote: »

I provided the link and the source of the survey. This is the method that poverty is measured across the EU. Whether you think it is a fair method of measuring or not is irrelevant.

Again I provided the link and the source of the survey. And as already stated that "Agency" is immalgimated into the department of family and social affairs. I also provided the source of their statistics. This is the method that poverty is measured across the EU. Whether you think it is a fair method of measuring or not is irrelevant.

Its quite obvious you think 33k net IS living in poverty.

CoalBucket wrote: »

Having clearly read your post how about you try reading my reply which provided the qualification standards for such benefits. Which by the way uses the same site that you provided. If you had read past the first page of the benefits you would have seen the qualification basis.

Yeh, NOT working. ZERO income outside welfare.

CoalBucket · 31-05-2010 11:15PM

gurramok wrote: »

Where did say that?

The theme of the thread is the cutting in social welfare which you have repeatedly demonstrated that you are in favour of. Either that or you think that the payments which you are complaining about should be maintained.

gurramok wrote: »

Buying expensive clothes is not fraud, its taxpayers money they get for claiming to be single mothers with kids.

How do they afford expensive clothes. Are you saying every lone parent can afford to buy expensive clothes or just the one or two that you know ?

gurramok wrote: »

Its quite obvious you think 33k net IS living in poverty.

Obviously you do not have children and you are not aware of the costs. Again I'll repeat the department of social and family affairs and combat poverty show 20% of lone parents are in consistent poverty. Is this not true. And again what your opinion is on how they calculate poverty is irrelevant, i'm pretty sure they know better that you.

gurramok wrote: »

Yeh, NOT working. ZERO income outside welfare.

What you are forgetting is the F.I.S. fuel allowances, back to school allowances etc are contributions not full payments. The remainder has to be paid by the beneficiary. Your figure of 33k has been pulled from the sky and does not take into account the outgoings to maintaining a 4 person family.

gurramok · 31-05-2010 11:19PM

CoalBucket wrote: »

The theme of the thread is the cutting in social welfare which you have repeatedly demonstrated that you are in favour of. Either that or you think that the payments which you are complaining about should be maintained.

I did not say target the majority of Dole recipients.

CoalBucket wrote: »

How do they afford expensive clothes. Are you saying every lone parent can afford to buy expensive clothes or just the one or two that you know ?

Money talks.

CoalBucket wrote: »

Obviously you do not have children and you are not aware of the costs. Again I'll repeat the department of social and family affairs and combat poverty show 20% of lone parents are in consistent poverty. Is this not true. And again what your opinion is on how they calculate poverty is irrelevant, i'm pretty sure they know better that you.

The benefits speak for themselves and that says they VAST majority are NOT living in poverty.

CoalBucket wrote: »

What you are forgetting is the F.I.S. fuel allowances, back to school allowances etc are contributions not full payments. The remainder has to be paid by the beneficiary. Your figure of 33k has been pulled from the sky and does not take into account the outgoings to maintaining a 4 person family.

Pulled from the sky? I gave you accurate calculations of how that was obtained.

stupidusername · 31-05-2010 11:31PM

Gus99 wrote: »

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

This idea I don't get. I don't get why the parents should 'have to' support someone that is after finishing college. This idea is crazy. Typical government type rule though - you're an adult when it suits them, but when it doesn't you're expected to depend on your parents even though you're well into your twenties? MAD!

CoalBucket · 31-05-2010 11:33PM

gurramok wrote: »

I did not say target the majority of Dole recipients.

Ok I'll explain it again, everybody will be cut under the current proposals. you have showed your support for the current proposals. Whether you now want to water down that opinion is irrelevant, I'm sure the government will look at your proposal and choose your option.

gurramok wrote: »

Money talks.

Lmfao. Is that the best you can do ?. FAIL.

gurramok wrote: »

The benefits speak for themselves and that says they VAST majority are NOT living in poverty.

Is 20 % in poverty and an additional 17% at risk of poverty an acceptable figure. Maybe it is in your right wing opinion. But for those of us with a thought for society as a whole rather than just ourselves, it is not.

gurramok wrote: »

Pulled from the sky? I gave you accurate calculations of how that was obtained.

Yes and chose to ignore that the remainder had to be made up from the original social welfare payments and therefore did not balance the figure. I hope you are not an accountant.

stupidusername · 31-05-2010 11:37PM

CoalBucket wrote: »

Ok I'll explain it again, everybody will be cut under the current proposals. you have showed your support for the current proposals. Whether you now want to water down that opinion is irrelevant, I'm sure the government will look at your proposal and choose your option.
.

Where did you get this idea? Not everyone on the dole is going to be cut.

Scarab80 · 31-05-2010 11:47PM

CoalBucket wrote: »

Obviously you do not have children and you are not aware of the costs. Again I'll repeat the department of social and family affairs and combat poverty show 20% of lone parents are in consistent poverty. Is this not true. And again what your opinion is on how they calculate poverty is irrelevant, i'm pretty sure they know better that you.

You can't just say that the method of calculation is irrelevant, especially when combining that with a statement about the cost of raising children. The method of poverty calculation makes no determination about the cost of living, only on relative wealth.

If you want to say that lone parent familys are considerable less wealthy than the average family that is fine, however because of the way we calculate the figures we can make no determination on households in poverty as it is commonly known.

Consider applying the poverty calculations to a country like Monaco, it is feasable that you could have someone earning over 100k defined as being in poverty.

If you wanted to determine if someone was in poverty (normal meaning) it would be preferable to calculate the amount of their income and compare that to the cost of living and raising children, as posters have previously done.

CoalBucket · 31-05-2010 11:50PM

stupidusername wrote: »

Where did you get this idea? Not everyone on the dole is going to be cut.

I stand corrected. In my anxiousness to post a reply I mad the error as the conversation was about lone parents which have been described as "scammers"

gurramok · 31-05-2010 11:56PM

CoalBucket wrote: »

Ok I'll explain it again, everybody will be cut under the current proposals. you have showed your support for the current proposals. Whether you now want to water down that opinion is irrelevant, I'm sure the government will look at your proposal and choose your option.

Lets hope

CoalBucket wrote: »

Lmfao. Is that the best you can do ?. FAIL.

Nope. Their NET pay pays for the fancy clothes.

CoalBucket wrote: »

Is 20 % in poverty and an additional 17% at risk of poverty an acceptable figure. Maybe it is in your right wing opinion. But for those of us with a thought for society as a whole rather than just ourselves, it is not.

Again, did you even look at the definition of poverty/poverty risk?

It includes
Without heating at some stage in the last year - unlikely
Unable to afford a morning, afternoon or evening out in the last fortnight- Wow, I have not been able to afford this!!
Unable to afford two pairs of strong shoes - Are we talking Nike Air here??
Unable to afford a roast once a week - they can afford this
Unable to afford a meal with meat, chicken or fish every second day- they can afford this
Unable to afford new (not second-hand) clothes - Pennys have cheap good quality clothes, no need for River Island
Unable to afford a warm waterproof coat - they can afford this
Unable to afford to keep the home adequately warmthey can afford this
Unable to afford to replace any worn out furniture - Ah here. Furniture is bloody expensive, 3 piece suite is a 100o quid, I cant afford that!!
Unable to afford to have family or friends for a drink or meal once a month - I can;t afford this either, R'nt bills for a fmaily can run well over a hundred quid.
Unable to afford to buy presents for family or friends at least once a year - Yeh, we discussed this. Hopefully console games are not listed here

CoalBucket wrote: »

Yes and chose to ignore that the remainder had to be made up from the original social welfare payments and therefore did not balance the figure. I hope you are not an accountant.

Explain. How does this affect the net 23k before those extra allowances?

CoalBucket · 31-05-2010 11:57PM

Scarab80 wrote: »

You can't just say that the method of calculation is irrelevant, especially when combining that with a statement about the cost of raising children. The method of poverty calculation makes no determination about the cost of living, only on relative wealth.

If you want to say that lone parent familys are considerable less wealthy than the average family that is fine, however because of the way we calculate the figures we can make no determination on households in poverty as it is commonly known.

Consider applying the poverty calculations to a country like Monaco, it is feasable that you could have someone earning over 100k defined as being in poverty.

If you wanted to determine if someone was in poverty (normal meaning) it would be preferable to calculate the amount of their income and compare that to the cost of living and raising children, as posters have previously done.

I agree that a better method of calculating the figure could be reached but this is the international recognised method and the method used by the CSO, Department of Social and Family affairs and the EU.

With reference to dismissing the posters calculation, I think it is totally reasonable to dismiss the figure when the figure ignores the outgoings.

Especially when the figure is incorrectly used to demonstrate that lone parents have money to spend on winter sun holidays, designer clothes, ps3 etc. which is laughable if it wasn't so ignorant of reality.

Scarab80 · 01-06-2010 12:04AM

CoalBucket wrote: »

I agree that a better method of calculating the figure could be reached but this is the international recognised method and the method used by the CSO, Department of Social and Family affairs and the EU.

With reference to dismissing the posters calculation, I think it is totally reasonable to dismiss the figure when the figure ignores the outgoings.

Especially when the figure is incorrectly used to demonstrate that lone parents have money to spend on winter sun holidays, designer clothes, ps3 etc. which is laughable if it wasn't so ignorant of reality.

I agree, an income figure means nothing until it is combined with outgoings. Find some figures on the costs of raising three young children / running a four member household and you are in business.

Otherwise you are just talking in circles, which seems to happen so often around here.

CoalBucket · 01-06-2010 12:21AM

gurramok wrote: »

Lets hope

At least you are now willing to admit your right wing views.

gurramok wrote: »

Nope. Their NET pay pays for the fancy clothes.

Again no proof just ill-informed opinion.

gurramok wrote: »

Again, did you even look at the definition of poverty/poverty risk?

It includes
Without heating at some stage in the last year - unlikely
Unable to afford a morning, afternoon or evening out in the last fortnight- Wow, I have not been able to afford this!!
Unable to afford two pairs of strong shoes - Are we talking Nike Air here??
Unable to afford a roast once a week - they can afford this
Unable to afford a meal with meat, chicken or fish every second day- they can afford this
Unable to afford new (not second-hand) clothes - Pennys have cheap good quality clothes, no need for River Island
Unable to afford a warm waterproof coat - they can afford this
Unable to afford to keep the home adequately warmthey can afford this
Unable to afford to replace any worn out furniture - Ah here. Furniture is bloody expensive, 3 piece suite is a 100o quid, I cant afford that!!
Unable to afford to have family or friends for a drink or meal once a month - I can;t afford this either, R'nt bills for a fmaily can run well over a hundred quid.
Unable to afford to buy presents for family or friends at least once a year - Yeh, we discussed this. Hopefully console games are not listed here

Again it is the internationally recognised measurement.
Do you think you know better than the CSO, Department of Social and Family affairs and the EU.

They conducted a survey not just ran an opinion through their head and guessed incorrectly. Your opinions have no basis.

Explain. How does this affect the net 23k before those extra allowances?[/QUOTE]

The 23k includes all the additional allowances. Check your own post

"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."

That 3k is 60% of the total meaning the remaining 40% has to come from the original total of 20,716. That means another 2k comes off the 20k. Leaving 18k for one parent to feed, clothe, and generally all the expenses that come with 3 kids.

That is €346 a week. You try raising 3 kids and yourself on that. Hardly enough for designer gear, winter holidays and ps3s as you claim.

Just to give you an idea of the cost of raising one child.

http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/surviving-the-recession/raising-children-can-be-extremely-expensive-1634030.html

lmimmfn · 01-06-2010 02:29AM

CoalBucket wrote: »

Again it is the internationally recognised measurement.
Do you think you know better than the CSO, Department of Social and Family affairs and the EU.

Well its absolute crap, theres several things on that list i cant afford and im working( yes i save, not the point, i spend on average 250euro weekly ex rent and bills, 60euro on petrol for work, 30 euro for work lunches and 20 euro on handy food because i work late, thats 140euro in total that i need to survive the week, if i was on the dole id have 70euro a week for bills )

The whole thing is an absolute joke, its amazing how our friends in the uk survive on 30% of what the dole is here yet we're all borderline poverty stricken on the dole.

Ive a mate who gleans a nice 700euro a week legitimately from social welfare, sweet, dunno why we bother working

CoalBucket wrote: »

That is €346 a week. You try raising 3 kids and yourself on that. Hardly enough for designer gear, winter holidays and ps3s as you claim.

so free rent, free medical for all your kids, clothing allowance and the other benefits dont count for anything?, if a single mother is on 40k a year then why bother? 10k is gone on tax, 1700 on medical prescriptions, were down at 28300euro now, 8000euro on rent, so now were on 20300, im sure clothing allowance and the other benefits would make up the rest of it so its 18k meaning if youre a single mother with a few kids youre just stupid working, besides child care because youre not at home probably costs another few k a year

K-9 · 01-06-2010 05:41AM

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.

Why are you using a single mans wages? He obviously doesn't have kids.

41k is more comparable, though even that isn't right as they'd get FIS. I'm wrong, it is less again.

A single mother on 35k would get about 30k net plus FIS of about €3,500 a year.

So, in comparable circumstances, 35k gross would do, not near 48k.
Family Income Supplement-Information from CitizensInformation.ie

Edit: Actually they don't need near that. You are counting child benefit, but they get that if working. They don't get FIS if not working. FIS does not kick in if working less than 19 hours a week.

You'd need to discount the Child Benefit of about €5,800.

So, we are down to needing a Net wage of about €23,000 as FIS will make up the difference.

Put that in your calculator, giving them the married credit as they qualify for a double tax credit, we get €24,200 Gross, nearly half what you quoted originally, 48k. FIS would be about €6,700. Net wage, 23k and Child Benefit of about €5,800.

So, in comparable circumstances a single parent would need a wage of 24k, not 47k. It is unfair and disingenuous to compare a single mans wages as obviously a single man on 48k does not have any where near the same expenses as a single parent.

Sorry for being a stickler for these figures but a poster on the AH thread you and me are on estimated the Gross figure as 80k, you have it as 47k, but I've shown it is actually 24k, 30% of the original claim on that thread. Really, for people to get it that wrong is mind blowing. That poster was 70% out, you are about 50% out, doubling the wage required. Astounding.

gurramok · 01-06-2010 08:35AM

CoalBucket wrote: »

At least you are now willing to admit your right wing views.

So lets see here. If one opposes high welfare where such welfare recipients receive more than a worker, one is right-wing? LOL

CoalBucket wrote: »

Again no proof just ill-informed opinion.

Figures speak for themselves.

CoalBucket wrote: »

Again it is the internationally recognised measurement.
Do you think you know better than the CSO, Department of Social and Family affairs and the EU.

They conducted a survey not just ran an opinion through their head and guessed incorrectly. Your opinions have no basis.

Yes, BS as the previous poster said. In that case i'm in poverty too.

CoalBucket wrote: »

The 23k includes all the additional allowances. Check your own post

"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."

That 3k is 60% of the total meaning the remaining 40% has to come from the original total of 20,716. That means another 2k comes off the 20k. Leaving 18k for one parent to feed, clothe, and generally all the expenses that come with 3 kids.

That is €346 a week. You try raising 3 kids and yourself on that. Hardly enough for designer gear, winter holidays and ps3s as you claim.

Just to give you an idea of the cost of raising one child.

http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/surviving-the-recession/raising-children-can-be-extremely-expensive-1634030.html

You don't get FIS when not working so discount it. Perhaps they get SWA?

K-9 wrote:

Why are you using a single mans wages? He obviously doesn't have kids.

Its to highlight how having a kid you'd be much better off than not having one. It does not much diffference, w working person would get just child benefit and maybe FIS if on very low income, it would only dent a few thousand in that 23k figure.

K-9 wrote:

41k is more comparable, though even that isn't right as they'd get FIS. I'm wrong, it is less again.

A single mother on 35k would get about 30k net plus FIS of about €3,500 a year.

Where did you get 41k or that 35k or that €3,500 from? Non-workers don't get FIS, right?

K-9 wrote:

So, in comparable circumstances, 35k gross would do, not near 48k.
Family Income Supplement-Information from CitizensInformation.ie

Edit: Actually they don't need near that. You are counting child benefit, but they get that if working. They don't get FIS if not working. FIS does not kick in if working less than 19 hours a week.

You'd need to discount the Child Benefit of about €5,800.

So, we are down to needing a Net wage of about €23,000 as FIS will make up the difference.

Put that in your calculator, giving them the married credit as they qualify for a double tax credit, we get €24,200 Gross, nearly half what you quoted originally, 48k. FIS would be about €6,700. Net wage, 23k and Child Benefit of about €5,800.

So, in comparable circumstances a single parent would need a wage of 24k, not 47k. It is unfair and disingenuous to compare a single mans wages as obviously a single man on 48k does not have any where near the same expenses as a single parent.

Sorry for being a stickler for these figures but a poster on the AH thread you and me are on estimated the Gross figure as 80k, you have it as 47k, but I've shown it is actually 24k, 30% of the original claim on that thread. Really, for people to get it that wrong is mind blowing. That poster was 70% out, you are about 50% out, doubling the wage required. Astounding.

You've lost me completely. Where did you get 35k initially and why are you including married people when we are talking about single people with or without kids.?

You've mentioned FIS several times when it does not apply to a non-working single mother. The 48k figure stands until you clarify where you are getting your figures from.

murphaph · 01-06-2010 11:40AM

CoalBucket wrote: »

Again it is the internationally recognised measurement. Do you think you know better than the CSO, Department of Social and Family affairs and the EU.

YES! These are the same jokers who believe their pay levels should be maintained at Celtic Tiger levels despite a collapse in tax revenues and massive private sector unemployment. What the fcuk would these people in their ivory towers know about poverty?

In fact, I reckon more private sector employees on low pay are living in genuine poverty than people living on LPA etc. They are just too proud to go begging with the hand out.

Permabear · 01-06-2010 12:19PM

This post has been deleted.

Possible social welfare cuts in Ireland?

Comments