Joan Burton will drive up the number of old people suffering from cold this winter

My granny is on the basic state pension and, according to my dad, gets €240 p/w. She doesn't have a mortgage, has only herself to feed, and most of her other (minimal) expenses are subsidised by the state.

Why on earth shouldn't she endure some cutbacks?

The sooner people in this country start thinking with their heads, and stop allowing themselves to be so easily emotionally manipulated, the better. Contrary to popular opinion, old people are NOT universally vulnerable.

Einhard wrote: »

My granny is on the basic state pension and, according to my dad, gets €240 p/w. She doesn't have a mortgage, has only herself to feed, and most of her other (minimal) expenses are subsidised by the state.

Why on earth shouldn't she endure some cutbacks?

The sooner people in this country start thinking with their heads, and stop allowing themselves to be so easily emotionally manipulated, the better. Contrary to popular opinion, old people are NOT universally vulnerable.

maybe she's into the sharks for the bingo. It starts small, a few sundays a month, then before you know it Jimmy The Head has you in for 50 large and he's going to send the De Luca twins over to make sure your kneecaps are introduced to a hammer.

krudler wrote: »

maybe she's into the sharks for the bingo. It starts small, a few sundays a month, then before you know it Jimmy The Head has you in for 50 large and he's going to send the De Luca twins over to make sure your kneecaps are introduced to a hammer.

You don't know my granny. She's the one doing the knee capping for Jimmy the Head!!

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I often wonder what the elderly - usually paying no rent and with no dependants - actually blow all their money on? 1k per month buys a lot of Murray mints.

Wurthers Original.

westendgirlie wrote: »

So means test it! Not everyone when they retire will own their own home. They may still be paying off a mortgage or renting.

Doesn't that encourage reckless behaviour in people before they retire though? If you save well, work hard, and manage to pay off your mortgage, we'll cut your pension for you. If, on the other hand, you live the high life, and fail to invest for your future, we'll subsidise your pre-retirement lifestyle through your pension, and at the expense of the people who had some thought for their futures.

I see the pint your making, and it;s a valid one, but it's not so simple as you make out.

Are we, the working generation, pissed off because we are paying higher taxes, usc, etc? All to subsidise pensioners? Shouldn't we expect something out os the society we have paid into once we retire?

I'm not pissed off with anyone. I just think it;s unfair to expect everyone in society to take some cutbacks, except this group or that group.

Also, current OAPs experienced the benefit of their contributions throughout their lives. They used the roads, availed of education, and relied on social welfare long before they retired. there seems to be a notion going about, that pensioners only begin to avail of their dues paid once they hit 65. Which is obviously not true.

Correct me if I'm wrong but were taxes and interest rates not astronomical by todays rates when the now pensioners were working age? Have they not paid their dues into the system?

The state pension has gone through the roof in the past decade, far outstripping the rise in the cost of living. The amounts that people paid to their pensions don't even come close to matching the amounts pensioners receive from the state these days. So, in terms of what they paid in, and what they currently receive, no they haven't paid their dues to the state.

Even aside from that, you could make the same argument about practically any cutback. Haven't the unemployed paid their dues to the state? many were working for decades, paid their PRSI, and now face cuts to their welfare. Haven't the parents of kids with special educational needs paid taxes their whole lives? Why then, having paid their dues, should support for their kids be reduced? I could go on ad infinitum...

The problem is that the state cannot afford the overly generous financial support packages availed of by Irish pensioners. In truth, we never really could. There are two alternatives to dealing with this- cut pensioners benefits somewhat, or leave them untouched, but impose swinging cuts in areas such as mental health.

You know,we could all argue about this until we're blue in the face.
Bottom line = there are some elderly who can easily afford (significant)budget reductions and some for whatever reason,who can't.

It would make sense to take some of the hundreds of unempoyed people with clerical experience and utilise them to assess who can and who can't afford to receive less SW-
This country is seriously f***ed and if everyone moans that "We cant make ends meet so don't touch me", then we'll never get out of this mess.

LeixlipRed wrote: »

You're telling me someone on 240 euro a week can pay for all their overheads and comfortably pay for home heating oil or gas during the winter months? Because I don't. I'm not talking about self made millionaires over 65. The majority of those recieving the state pension would need the allowance to heat their homes to a comfortable level I would imagine. All while heating prices continue to rise. I couldn't give a **** how much it costs, people's homes should be heated so they don't die. You and other people might think it's more important to cut, cut, cut instead of targetting those who got us here in the first place. I do not. Provide the basics for everyone, food, water, shelter and warmth. What's the point of a welfare state if it doesn't even do those things?

Can we please read before typical ULA overreactions. Look at the text:

"The Fuel Allowance is a means-tested weekly payment of €20 available for people on long term welfare schemes; it is paid for 32 weeks from September to April each year and this element of the scheme remains unchanged. The additional Smokeless Allowance, which is being removed from September 2011, is a top-up of €3.90 a week payable only to Fuel Allowance customers in the towns where the sale of bituminous fuel is banned.

Minister Burton noted: “The Smokeless Fuel Allowance was introduced at a time when many more people used coal and there was a big price difference between the types of coal. This situation has changed radically, with far fewer people using coal. Also, smokeless fuel is estimated to be more than 50% more energy efficient than conventional coal which more than offsets any increase in cost.”

http://www.welfare.ie/EN/Press/PressReleases/2011/Pages/pr120711.aspx

They are removing the smokeless allowance, which is 3.90 a week only to certain pensioners. The majority are all getting the same fuel allowance as before. Typical lefty "don't cut anything, people will die, money grows on trees" reactions.

LeixlipRed wrote: »

You're telling me someone on 240 euro a week can pay for all their overheads and comfortably pay for home heating oil or gas during the winter months? Because I don't. I'm not talking about self made millionaires over 65. The majority of those recieving the state pension would need the allowance to heat their homes to a comfortable level I would imagine. All while heating prices continue to rise. I couldn't give a **** how much it costs, people's homes should be heated so they don't die. You and other people might think it's more important to cut, cut, cut instead of targetting those who got us here in the first place. I do not. Provide the basics for everyone, food, water, shelter and warmth. What's the point of a welfare state if it doesn't even do those things?

I would prefer the government had the basic cop on to means test, instead of continuously making blanket cuts.

That way, those who are genuinely vulnerable won't be cut and those who can afford a little less every week will.

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Err weve already touched on how hopelessly inefficient the government department in question is.

Its perfectly conceivable that the cost of administering the means tests would cost more to administer than theyd save.

Besides means testing is notoriously prone to both arbitrary cut off points and suceptability to fraud.

As far as I know, Burton was trilling about how they managed to increase efficiency of government depts. when it came to the recent Back to School allowance payments this year, by simplifying the system when it came to means testing recipients.

There doesn't have to be an increased cost when it comes to means testing, if the system is simplified sufficiently enough.

Rather than continuing to make blanket cuts, why not attempt to make the public service depts. more efficient where it comes to means testing welfare payments instead? Surely much of the information they need to assess suitability for welfare is already on a shared government database.