IMF: social welfare benefits 'too high'

waltermc · 22-07-2012 02:28PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Nobody should be getting child benefit for more than 3 kids, rich or poor. If you can't raise them yourself don't expect your neighbour to pay for it. It should also be for children resident in the country.

Definitely agree that it should be for children resident in the country. I am aware of a woman who came from Poland and spent at least 2 years here before bringing her children over and she applied for back dated child benefit and got €20,000.

22-07-2012 03:01PM

waltermc wrote: »

Definitely agree that it should be for children resident in the country. I am aware of a woman who came from Poland and spent at least 2 years here before bringing her children over and she applied for back dated child benefit and got €20,000.

It seems to be quite common now, absolutely shocking that this government are too weak to even try and stop this ? Why aren't they doing anything about this ?

djpbarry · 22-07-2012 03:07PM

waltermc wrote: »

I am aware of a woman who came from Poland and spent at least 2 years here before bringing her children over and she applied for back dated child benefit and got €20,000.

Where does one apply for back-dated child benefit? Can you provide a link to the relevant form?

southsiderosie · 22-07-2012 03:19PM

waltermc wrote: »

Definitely agree that it should be for children resident in the country. I am aware of a woman who came from Poland and spent at least 2 years here before bringing her children over and she applied for back dated child benefit and got €20,000.

Deleted User wrote: »

It seems to be quite common now, absolutely shocking that this government are too weak to even try and stop this ? Why aren't they doing anything about this ?

MOD NOTE:

If this is truly common, then you need to provide some kind of link.

If these comments are of the same strand as "Nigerians dump their prams at the bus stop and just go to the council for a new one"-type stuff, then it needs to stop right now because this isn't the place for he-said-she-said conjectures.

waltermc · 22-07-2012 04:14PM

southsiderosie wrote: »

MOD NOTE:

If this is truly common, then you need to provide some kind of link.

If these comments are of the same strand as "Nigerians dump their prams at the bus stop and just go to the council for a new one"-type stuff, then it needs to stop right now because this isn't the place for he-said-she-said conjectures.

You want me to provide proof?

The woman in question used to work part time as a cleaner where I worked before I was made redundant. I dont know where she is now. Since I cant provide proof it wont be mentioned again

Chucky the tree · 22-07-2012 04:54PM

waltermc wrote: »

You want me to provide proof?

The woman in question used to work part time as a cleaner where I worked before I was made redundant. I dont know where she is now. Since I cant provide proof it wont be mentioned again

Well you can towards proving it by providing a link to the application form, or even a link to a site(Citizens information for example) which provides details on how someone can claim back-dated childrens allowance.

road_high · 22-07-2012 05:31PM

waltermc wrote: »

You want me to provide proof?

The woman in question used to work part time as a cleaner where I worked before I was made redundant. I dont know where she is now. Since I cant provide proof it wont be mentioned again

Oh I have no doubt this has gone on (and more). This country is unbelieveably generous to foreign nationals and so-called asylum seekers. And you're branded a racist of course if you question any of this. In your own country.
It's about time we had a proper debate on all this and the governemnt got tough. I'm quite frankly sick of watching it go on and our young people having to leave the state as they are (usually) entitled to nothing. There is something very wrong.

Chucky the tree · 22-07-2012 05:39PM

mfitzy wrote: »

Oh I have no doubt this has gone on (and more). This country is unbelieveably generous to foreign nationals and so-called asylum seekers. And you're branded a racist of course if you question any of this. In your own country.
It's about time we had a proper debate on all this and the governemnt got tough. I'm quite frankly sick of watching it go on and our young people having to leave the state as they are (usually) entitled to nothing. There is something very wrong.

Since when?

road_high · 22-07-2012 06:02PM

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Since when?

What? Mainly since the reccesion started.You may have noticed.

Chucky the tree · 22-07-2012 06:14PM

mfitzy wrote: »

What? Mainly since the reccesion started.You may have noticed.

No I haven't. Maybe you can explain who this people are who are entitled to nothing.

Boombastic · 22-07-2012 06:17PM

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Well you can towards proving it by providing a link to the application form, or even a link to a site(Citizens information for example) which provides details on how someone can claim back-dated childrens allowance.

If you make a late claim for Child Benefit and and can prove that you had a good reason for making a late claim, your Child Benefit can be backdated to the time you became entitled to the payment regardless of when you became entitled to the payment.

KINGVictor · 22-07-2012 08:36PM

waltermc wrote: »

Definitely agree that it should be for children resident in the country. I am aware of a woman who came from Poland and spent at least 2 years here before bringing her children over and she applied for back dated child benefit and got €20,000.

Sounds fishy to me, unless she had over 6 children, she wouldnt have got that much. It is even more astonishing that the department of social welfare would backdate it 2 years- one would have imagined that 6 months will be the maximum.

While I totally agree with you that CB should be for children resident in the state but the reality is that it EU freedom of movemement policy so essentially an Irish person can avail of the same right in other EU countries.

KINGVictor · 22-07-2012 08:51PM

mfitzy wrote: »

Oh I have no doubt this has gone on (and more). This country is unbelieveably generous to foreign nationals and so-called asylum seekers. And you're branded a racist of course if you question any of this. In your own country.
It's about time we had a proper debate on all this and the governemnt got tough. I'm quite frankly sick of watching it go on and our young people having to leave the state as they are (usually) entitled to nothing. There is something very wrong.

You will have to explain this 'genorisity' that the country provides foreign nationals. Asylum seekers get €19.80 a week and are given free accommodation in hostels till their cases are concluded. In many cases, parents and children stay in the same room so I would not exactly term that as being generous.

If you are referring to EU nationals that have a right to make social welfare claims after 2 years of exercising their EU treaty rights i.e been gainfully employed and pay their taxes or studying, then there is nothing the government can do about it unless there is a EU treaty change. Irish citizens can afford of the same priviledge in all EU member states which they often do.

Dannyboy83 · 23-07-2012 12:26AM

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

I believe the current moves in the HSE are the start of the dismantling of the Croke Park agreement also.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/marc-coleman-let-down-by-imf-croke-park-copout-3175290.html

I spoke too soon.:D

Does anyone see the correlation between Moodys et al., who said we were Triple A :rolleyes:....and the IMF endorsing Croke Park while pushing tax rises and welfare reductions?

Dannyboy83 · 23-07-2012 01:04AM

djpbarry wrote: »

Relative to where?

Lads, saying that the cost of something is high is completely meaningless unless you provide a frame of reference.

Now, looking at the latest Daft rental report, a 2-bed property in the most expensive part of Dublin, Dublin 4, will set you back an average of €1,372 per month. By comparison, a 2-bed property where I live in London, which is not a particularly expensive neighbourhood (SW4), will set you back in the region of £1,700 per month.

So, can people please explain to me why they think rents in Dublin are "crazy"?

What proportion of a person's net income is typically consumed by rent in Dublin?
To me, anything above 25% means there is a problem.
Anything above 40% means there is a serious problem.

I have friends in London who pay what I consider crazy rents;
you are talking 60% of their income on rent.

BUT - When you compare like for like:
Person in Dublin pays 40% of their income on rent and 20% on car tax/ownership/maintenance to live in a series of glorified villages called Dublin.
vs.
Person in London pays 60% of their income on rent and 0% on cars to live in 1 of the world's three global cities.

Maybe London isn't as crazy as it seems...

AlekSmart · 23-07-2012 01:37AM

KyussBishop wrote: »

Eh? Why should property cost even more? Government do not subsidize property here from what I can tell.

Owning a house is not an exorbitant luxury for gods sake, it should be achievable by anyone with a regular income, and judging largely by the material and construction costs, that's not an unreasonable target.

Successive Irish Governments have most definitely "subsidized" private property ownership,particularly since the 1960's when Mortgage Interest allowances began to form a core of every working persons future plans.

I certainly took full advantage of those allowances,particularly as for many years the allowance was available at ones marginal tax rate,which allowed the higher earners to get a bigger bang for their buck in purchasing terms.

In parallel with the direct subsidies came the removal of domestic rates and the absence of water charges,ground rent and other local charges which were all part and parcel of individual property ownnership elsewhere in Europe,if not the world.

Yessir,deciding to purchase one's own home in other juristictions was always a significant decision,and not one entered into lightly,specifically because in the rest of the UK,Europe and the World the expenses of property ownership were there laid bare for all to see,and accept,should they wish to go down that costly road.

Many millions,perhaps billions of ordinary Europeans,just as "ordinary" as "ordinary" Irish people thus decided that property ownership was simply far too much of a burden in comparison to renting (albeit within a far more civilized and structured infrastructure) and therefore decided to spend their money on actually living largely debt-free lifestyle.

Our State's Policy largely revolved around getting as many young persons as possible to take out mortgages on property at whatever cost,simply because it was preferable to paying "dead-money" in rent......:o

Owning a house,for substantial numbers of our population,IS an unaffordable luxure,and has been for a lot longer than is admitted.

The affordability of property ownership has to be viewed as a very long-term calculation with a considerable amount of extra cost-factors in addition to simply paying the mortgage...It is these extra's that Ireland Inc swept under the carpet for so long,a policy which has now landed us in the soup.....:(

MY suggestion to Government...Get the private rental sector sorted out.

Make it attractive for people to rent their resedential property.

Make it attractive for new Landlords,Individual and Corporate,to enter the sector,with State monitored and guaranteed support schemes for BOTH sides in a rental situation.

Provide transferable State backed guarantees to long-term trouble free tenants,allowing ease of movement,to facilitate work and social needs.

Provide Landlords with robust and fair means of monitoring and enforcing tenancy agreements without having to endure a death by a thousand missed-payments before finally managing to regain possession of a trashed,burned out shell.

The cost of providing such a Private Rental environment would,I suggest,be quite substantially lower than whatever the eventual figure for "restarting" the traditional "Buy your own little place" will be.

Property ownership is not a prerequisite for a happy life....there is life after property.;)

KyussBishop · 23-07-2012 03:17AM

AlekSmart wrote:

Successive Irish Governments have most definitely "subsidized" private property ownership,particularly since the 1960's when Mortgage Interest allowances began to form a core of every working persons future plans.

Mortgate Interest allowances are for help paying the interest on a mortgage, when you can't afford it; it is to help people keep up with the mortgage, not to subsidize mortgages generally.

If you claim that use of this was wide scale in the past as a mortgage subsidy, you'll need to back that up with a link or something (not saying it wasn't, just on initial look it doesn't seem setup that way, it's certainly not in any way a subsidy, more emergency funding).

None of the rest of your post explains why property ownership should not be attainable by everyone, just says "other countries make it too expensive".
In the course of a persons lifetime, they will spend more renting, than they would paying off a mortgage.

As things stand, yes property has been very expensive and out of reach of ownership for many people, but why should it stay that way?

You seem to advocate not just keeping the prices high, but increasing the prices even more; why? (what possible justification is there for that?) The material and labour cost of building a house/apartment/etc., make it seem largely like it should be affordable for almost everyone.

southsiderosie · 23-07-2012 06:12AM

mfitzy wrote: »

Oh I have no doubt this has gone on (and more). This country is unbelieveably generous to foreign nationals and so-called asylum seekers. And you're branded a racist of course if you question any of this. In your own country.
It's about time we had a proper debate on all this and the governemnt got tough. I'm quite frankly sick of watching it go on and our young people having to leave the state as they are (usually) entitled to nothing. There is something very wrong.

MOD NOTE:

If you want to have a 'proper debate', then start a thread on it based on actual, publicly available information. But please keep in mind that his forum is not the place for Liveline-style rants, and this particular thread is not about asylum seekers.

BKtje · 23-07-2012 06:59AM

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

What proportion of a person's net income is typically consumed by rent in Dublin?
To me, anything above 25% means there is a problem.
Anything above 40% means there is a serious problem.

Generally in Switzerland (as a comparison) agencies want you earning at least 3 times your rent and want a deposit of 3 times your rent as well. Student accomodation and directly renting from owners differs however.

jank · 23-07-2012 08:31AM

djpbarry wrote: »

Relative to where?

Lads, saying that the cost of something is high is completely meaningless unless you provide a frame of reference.

Now, looking at the latest Daft rental report, a 2-bed property in the most expensive part of Dublin, Dublin 4, will set you back an average of €1,372 per month. By comparison, a 2-bed property where I live in London, which is not a particularly expensive neighbourhood (SW4), will set you back in the region of £1,700 per month.

So, can people please explain to me why they think rents in Dublin are "crazy"?

Regarding to rent, in Sydney I pay $620 for a two bed apartment per week!
Per month that works out as $2666, about 2270 euro per month. One can pay ALOT more than that as well here in Sydney.

Heads the ball · 23-07-2012 09:20AM

Scofflaw wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0718/breaking55.html

I can see that's going to be highly popular with some people, and highly unpopular with others - in other words, politically divisive and requiring both careful analysis and courage.

The suggestion is that the 'low-hanging fruit' has gone, and it's time to start looking at those harder-to-reach areas:

Which means perhaps cuts in benefits, reductions of medical card access, narrowing the child benefit allowance:

Also, perhaps, further PS cuts:

and perhaps more taxes:

http://www.imf.org/external/np/ms/2012/071812.htm

Something upsetting in there for nearly everyone, which I suppose is a good thing - and unfortunately, yes, we've probably reached the end of the easy bit of the adjustment.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I find this sickening that the IMF (who have no democratic mandate) are pushing for a cut in welfare. Its sickening against the background of open-cheque-book-guaranteeing-of-banks which was forced upon us by the European authorities and ultimately pushed us over the edge.

Count Dooku · 23-07-2012 09:36AM

Heads the ball wrote: »

I find this sickening that the IMF (who have no democratic mandate) are pushing for a cut in welfare. Its sickening against the background of open-cheque-book-guaranteeing-of-banks which was forced upon us by the European authorities and ultimately pushed us over the edge.

1. Democratically elected government can always find alternative to IMF sources for subsidizing own populism
2. IMF was against protecting bondholders

Heads the ball · 23-07-2012 09:46AM

Count Dooku wrote: »

1. Democratically elected government can always find alternative to IMF sources for subsidizing own populism
2. IMF was against protecting bondholders

I find it amusing that notions of fairness and morality are referred to as "populism" here.

jank · 23-07-2012 10:55AM

Heads the ball wrote: »

I find it amusing that notions of fairness and morality are referred to as "populism" here.

Is it moral to give anyone what it wants all the time and not make the hard decisions to balance the books? Is it fair for those on the min wage to be subsidizing those on the dole no matter how long they have been "looking" for work?

Heads the ball · 23-07-2012 10:59AM

jank wrote: »

Is it fair for those on the min wage to be subsidizing those on the dole no matter how long they have been "looking" for work?

They are not subsidizing it. They are just paying their taxes like everyone else and the government is paying the dole! I dont really know why you have honed in on the minimum wage payers

Heads the ball · 23-07-2012 11:01AM

jank wrote: »

Is it moral to give anyone what it wants all the time and not make the hard decisions to balance the books?

I cant make any sense of this sentence

Stark · 23-07-2012 11:01AM

KyussBishop wrote: »

Mortgate Interest allowances are for help paying the interest on a mortgage, when you can't afford it; it is to help people keep up with the mortgage, not to subsidize mortgages generally.

If you claim that use of this was wide scale in the past as a mortgage subsidy, you'll need to back that up with a link or something (not saying it wasn't, just on initial look it doesn't seem setup that way, it's certainly not in any way a subsidy, more emergency funding).

He's referring to Mortgage Interest Relief. http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/owning_a_home/buying_a_home/mortgage_interest_relief.html

sarumite · 23-07-2012 11:06AM

Heads the ball wrote: »

I find it amusing that notions of fairness and morality are referred to as "populism" here.

If you were genuinely interested in 'moral' then I think you should be calling for a balancing of the books overnight which would require an even bigger adjustment of social welfare. Afterall it is immoral to have future generations pay for our excessive overspending.

golden lane · 23-07-2012 11:13AM

the IMF is a last resort........no country has to borrow off the IMF.....it is used when you can't get money elsewhere.....because the debt is too dodgy for other lenders to lend at reasonable rates.....

that means you cannot pay it back without spending adjustments....the IMF lends you money on condition that you make those adjustments...

Heads the ball · 23-07-2012 11:20AM

sarumite wrote: »

Afterall it is immoral to have future generations pay for our excessive overspending.

Absolutely. I just wouldnt blame those on the dole for that. And anyone who does is seriously misinformed.

IMF: social welfare benefits 'too high'

Comments