Should there be a cap on social welfare payments?

this makes me laugh! I can earn a pathetic 32k before having to give over 51c in the euro, for the likes of this! & yes 32k is pathetic when you look at welfare levels here. Ill tell you what, I have way less of a problem with my taxes going to bail out the likes of Fitzpatrick and his ilk than I do on the career welfarers! Well thats what we get for a bunch of crooks buying votes for over a decade...

DonalK1981 wrote: »

There is a cap on welfare payments.

Back to bed sleepy head...............

Godge wrote: »

http://www.examiner.ie/ireland/call-for-welfare-pay-cap-as-couple-claim-90k-a-year-168808.html


The above article gives an example of a family on social welfare payments receiving over €90,000 per year.

It is an incredible amount of money to pay out on social welfare to just one family. It is not possible to know whether this is an isolated case or whether there are other families out there in a similar position.

It immediately raises the question of whether there should be a cap on the amount of social welfare paid into a household. Is there a point when a payment no longer is adequate but becomes over-generous.

I have pointed out for a long time that social welfare rates in general are too generous in Ireland and provide for a lot more than a basic standard of living. They also act as a disincentive to work not just from a monetary point of view but from a lifestyle point of view. A cap, well below 90k would make a great deal of sense.

It is worth remembering that proposals to cap public sector pay at €100,000 and pensions at €60,000 have got significant support on boards. Is there the same support for a cap on social welfare?

is it too late to point out this article is rubbish. Their figures don't add up to €90,000 a year

OMD wrote: »

is it too late to point out this article is rubbish. Their figures don't add up to €90,000 a year

Yes. The seed is planted. It's the people claiming benefits and foreigners and foreigners claiming benefits that have this country on the bones of it's arse.

Doesn't matter that the Senator is either talking out of his arse or has been fed a shovelful of lies by someone with an agenda, the plebs will only hear and see what they want to hear and see. They have their scapegoat.

Mission successful.

OMD wrote: »

It is probably so labour can say they are going to crack down on this despite the fact no one is receiving these amounts. Ffs he is saying they are getting €288 a week children's allowance. The real rate is €280 (not 288) a month. He could not possibly be so ignorant of basic welfare payments. Remember the reaction when Gerry Adams didn't know these figures.

I assumed the figures for weeks were an accumulation of the multiple child benefits being collected condensed down to weeks (even though as you point out the calcs still seem wrong.. the carers allowance also seems wrong btw)..

What is somewhat more interesting is that these are the figures provided apparently by the state, then Senators, the Media and folks on here are willing to run with it... and formulate plans on what needs to be done without even having a basic understanding that the figures seem incorrect..

But I guess the actual facts are never as good as a big "bogey man" story...

Welease wrote: »

[

I assumed the figures for weeks were an accumulation of the multiple child benefits being collected condensed down to weeks (even though as you point out the calcs still seem wrong.. the carers allowance also seems wrong btw)..

What is somewhat more interesting is that these are the figures provided apparently by the state, then Senators, the Media and folks on here are willing to run with it... and formulate plans on what needs to be done without even having a basic understanding that the figures seem incorrect..

But I guess the actual facts are never as good as a big "bogey man" story...

I think the rent allowance is wrong too. I wonder did the figures come from official sources? Sounds like the senator made the whole family up or if such a family exists he simply guessed what they might be getting in benefits.

The figures in this do not add up. Having previously received a lone parents payment ( 2 kiddies ) & a half sick rate I was on a sum of €328pw. I was not entitled to rent supplement as its means tested & based on your income. I have since moved to an enterprise scheme as I set up my own company went self employed as I am not employable due to illness . I am not entitled to rent supplement. I now receive €200.10pw as I receive child maintenance from my ex husband. The talk of capping SW is amazing me as it is already means tested - If you receive one payment this payment effects another & money is reduced off it. How this family can be in receipt of all these different payments is baffling me as through my own experience with the welfare system, any monies you are in receipt of have a knock on effect on another payment you may possibly be entitled to.

This talk of getting 90K to sit on your backside ? A grand total of €1600 a month income less rent( no rent supplement) , ESB, food etc leaves nothing to play with. Not a spare cent. I would love to know where they come up with all these crazy figures The majority of people on social welfare worked & worked hard over the years. Having been in the system you wouldnt choose it in a fit !

So why are the poorest and most miserable people in society being perceived as somehow a happy and wealthy group? Basically, the human race is a group based species and in order for reciprocal cooperation to evolve within a species, every member needs to contribute to the group. Too many free riders and the species go back to aggressive competition. To minimise the occurrence of free riding throughout our evolutionary history, humans developed a psychological bias towards overestimating the occurrence of cheating. As a result of this bias, people will greatly over estimate the number of fraudsters on the dole and the amount that the average dole recipient receives.

Benefits other than the basic dole payment need to be reduced. Besides being too high, one of the problems with such benefits is that they tend to divert money towards the richer sections of society (e.g. landlords, banks, medical professionals etc.). At least with the basic dole payment, a higher proportion will be spent into the local economy.

Debtocracy wrote: »

Benefits other than the basic dole payment need to be reduced. Besides being too high, one of the problems with such benefits is that they tend to divert money towards the richer sections of society (e.g. landlords, banks, medical professionals etc.). At least with the basic dole payment, a higher proportion will be spent into the local economy.

I'm a landlord. I'm not rich...guess you over estimated there

I actually agree with your broad point however. The myriad of side payments are the main problem. I believe the dole itself is only responsible for about 4bn of the 20 odd bn SW bill. Rent Supplement needs a fair whack taken off it (and as a landlord with tenants in receipt of RS it'll hit me in the pocket, but needs must). The likes of the standing charge on a pensioner's telephone bill being paid for by the taxpayer is actually obscene. 99% of pensioners live in areas of perfectly good mobile coverage and a mobile phone can be used to dial 112 even without a sim in it!

Welease wrote: »

But you don't (nor do I) have the basis for that arguement.. He could very well have fallen from a ladder 12 months ago and ended up disabled..
Unlikely, but a possibility.. You can't start making laws or benefits which require people to have the ability to see the future, and not have special needs children in case they lose their job (given we have no ability to abort foetus's with identified issues).

If you expand your arguement out to its natural conclusion, then noone on the Live register should be given financial help either.. they should not have had X kids when they are now financially dependant on the state..

I get the point you are trying to make, but I think you are making to many assumptions and conclusions which you don't have any data to backup.. Noone should be able to earn 90K on welfare.. There do need to be cuts, and rationalisations of what could be termed double payments, but that needs to be done on the facts on what payments are available and the costs associated, no on whether some guy who is now disabled should have kids, and definately not by linking this one story to the fact that there are lazy gits who have no intention of working..

Maybe I dont know the inns and outs of this case but I do know certain girls who from a young age want kid after kid so they can cream it..This needs to be disincentivised IMO