# what do you class as means for SW?



## samanthajane (16 Jun 2009)

It is just me or does anyone else find it unbelievable that you are allowed 20k in savings and still be entitled to SW? 

I would understand if this amount was for a pension or an account set up for your childrens future, but to have this money sitting in an account for your own personal use, and to be told you dont have to touch that money!!

No wonder were in such a mess.


----------



## galleyslave (16 Jun 2009)

actually, in a way it's a good thing if true. Is it not perverse to beggar somebody before you help them?


----------



## DeeFox (16 Jun 2009)

I am working and have always saved a small percentage of my wages for a rainy day fund and this account is currently fairly healthy - I don't think I should be penalised for being sensible.  As a taxpayer, I don't think that my practical habit of saving should count against me when it comes to claiming Job seekers (or whatever).


----------



## samanthajane (16 Jun 2009)

Isnt that what a rainy day fund is for? If anything were to happen like you were ill, or lost your job you could use that money to cover mortgage, bills ect.


----------



## Firefly (16 Jun 2009)

deefox said:


> i am working and have always saved a small percentage of my wages for a rainy day fund and this account is currently fairly healthy - i don't think i should be penalised for being sensible. As a taxpayer, i don't think that my practical habit of saving should count against me when it comes to claiming job seekers (or whatever).


 

+1


----------



## Caveat (16 Jun 2009)

I agree also.

If all savings were means tested it could contribute to a poverty trap - e.g. someone could be saving for a house then made redundant.  They should not be penalised or forced to start again.


----------



## samanthajane (16 Jun 2009)

I didn't say all savings, i just think 20k is a lot of money. 

Everyone has different situations. 

What really got me mad was 1 post i read. Very briefly, house fully paid off, have been that well off have not needed to use CB for a very long time, got a huge redundancy payment. And was thinking of moving funds into childs account so that they could still claim 100% SW entitlements. 

They dont need any help. For 1 they have no mortgage!! That along with childcare is the biggest outgoing as it is that they dont have to pay. 

From my point of view for someone that cant afford to have a rainy day fund ( well not 20k anyway) because every penny i earn is accounted for. I ran into trouble a while ago and i wasn't entitled to any sort of help because i was over the limit. 

Of course to be careful and to save all that money on your own bills and living would be hard for some people. If your neighbour came to you saying he needed 300 euro or they were going to cut their electric off, would you give him the 300 euro knowing that he had 20k in the bank, he just didn't want to spend that money. I really dont think so.


----------



## Samantha (16 Jun 2009)

Well, it won't work out if she transfer funds to her children accounts if they are dependant as you have to declare it as well to the Social welfare for mean testing


----------



## samanthajane (16 Jun 2009)

She knows that now as people have told her that. The fact was she was looking for ways not to disclose her savings is what got me mad. 

As caveat said which i do see his point, if someone has worked hard and saved for years to buy a house and then lose their job to be made to start again is somewhat unfair.


----------



## amtc (16 Jun 2009)

I don't have a firm view on this, but isn't there an argument that anything from PRSI shouldn't depend on means. After all it's Pay Related Social Insurance - and Insurance is a means of protecting against things that may or may not happen.


----------



## Graham_07 (16 Jun 2009)

samanthajane said:


> It is just me or does anyone else find it unbelievable that you are allowed 20k in savings and still be entitled to SW?


 
Just curious, what would you consider an acceptable amount for a person on means tested SW to have ?


----------



## MandaC (16 Jun 2009)

DeeFox said:


> I am working and have always saved a small percentage of my wages for a rainy day fund and this account is currently fairly healthy - I don't think I should be penalised for being sensible.  As a taxpayer, I don't think that my practical habit of saving should count against me when it comes to claiming Job seekers (or whatever).



I'm with this view.  If I lost my job in the morning, I would be down to SW to get job seekers or whatever I would be entitled to and I have to be honest, I have a lot more than €20K saved.  Even so, €200 per week or what ever job seekers is, would barely cover my mortgage, so I would be living on my savings anyway.


----------



## samanthajane (16 Jun 2009)

No cause you would be entitled to get the interest on your mortage paid aswell. 

Funny how the people that haven't agreed with me all work and have lots of savings. 

If this money is a rainy day fund please explain the tern "rainy day fund" to me. Cause it's obvious not what i though it was.


----------



## MandaC (16 Jun 2009)

People work to better themselves and should not be penalised for this.  Anybody here who has commented here and has savings they are after tax has been paid, so it is their after tax earnings they are saving.

Is job seekers benefit means tested or is it just after the year that you are automatically entitled to that  that the €20K comes in?

In my case rainy day fund means that if a big bill comes in, or the cooker breaks, or the TV blows up  etc, I can just buy another one and not have to worry about it.  When I was a child, we were hungry from Tuesday evening  to Thursday before payday.  That is why I work and try and save as well.    As I dont have a great pension, I am also putting aside that money for my retirement,  so I dont live my last days in poverty.


----------



## micmclo (17 Jun 2009)

I don't think you can penalize people for savings.

If two people got made redundant and one had 20k in savings and another blew 20k and all their savings on a car last week, you're telling me only one is entitled to SW?

I've a bit in savings.
But then I didn't buy an overpriced house or own a car.
And watched the company pension scheme collapse in value so I'm not putting money into that. 

I would hope a social welfare officer won't kick me out of the office due to this


----------



## starlite68 (17 Jun 2009)

samanthajane said:


> It is just me or does anyone else find it unbelievable that you are allowed 20k in savings and still be entitled to SW?
> 
> .


 just you i think!


----------



## Bronte (17 Jun 2009)

OP you are arguing that people should basically be destitute before they get help.  20K is not a lot of money if you have kids, a mortgage and no job.  People who save and are careful are probably the first people who will get back on their feet.  Why should they be penalised.  This rainy day fund as you call it could be used to pay for a medical emergency, a roof repair, a replacement car, things that I would consider necessites and I think you'll discover that if you have one of these life emergencies the social welfare are not going to give you any extra which is probably why people are trying to hide any money they have worked hard to have.  Personally I think the 20K should be increased because I see it as an extra tax through social welfare reductions on hardworking people who have been sensible.


----------



## Odea (17 Jun 2009)

micmclo said:


> I don't think you can penalize people for savings.
> 
> If two people got made redundant and one had 20k in savings and another blew 20k and all their savings on a car last week, you're telling me only one is entitled to SW?


 
And in another post SamanthaJane tells us that she is a smoker. I don't smoke. I would rather save this money for my "rainyday".

So why should my non smoking rainyday savings be means tested while a smoker like SamanthaJane who burns her money away claim that they have no money and therefore get first preference on social welfare?


----------



## DeeFox (17 Jun 2009)

micmclo said:


> If two people got made redundant and one had 20k in savings and another blew 20k and all their savings on a car last week, you're telling me only one is entitled to SW?


 
This is a good point.


----------



## gipimann (17 Jun 2009)

The 20K disregard does not apply across all SW schemes.

Supplementary Welfare Allowance (which includes Rent Supplement and Mortgage Interest Supplement) disregards the first €5000 savings and assesses the balance.


----------



## gillarosa (17 Jun 2009)

samanthajane said:


> She knows that now as people have told her that. The fact was she was looking for ways not to disclose her savings is what got me mad.


 
The post you are speaking about was focused on the possibility of her husband finding out about savings she had accumulated without his knowledge, she wasn't at issue with a potential decrease in their weekly allowance after the means test for its own sake but for the potential problems it may cause in their homelife when he discovered the money she had saved without his knowledge. She was also upfront and forthright with Social Welfare.


----------



## Phibbleberry (17 Jun 2009)

I agree with the majority of the posters here. Without being inflamatory, why should people who had the 'keeping up with the Jones' mentality bought every newest gadget/new car every year etc..and are now in serious trouble, be looked more favourably upon than people who were prudent through the good times? 

Its quite simple: If you paid PRSI while you worked, and you are no longer working, you should be entitled to €x benefits.
The same €x benefits as every other poor PRSI contributor, regardless of your situation, be it savings, spouses income etc..

Look at it this way:
Worker A (newly redundant):
20 years in a job earning €65k per year - paid x amount of tax on his salary over the years. 
Worker B (newly redundant):
20 years in a job earning €30k per year - paid x amount of tax on his salary over the years.

The yield from worker A's income over the years will have contributed more to the coffers than worker B's however (in the case where there is no other benefits to be claimed) each will get the same weekly dole amount. Fair enough. 
But if you apply this scenario to worker A's who spent to the hilt and worker B's who saved - or workers A's who saved and worker B's who spent to the hilt how do you justify who DESERVES more than the other? Surely we all deserve the same...??

Er...it makes senses in my head...hope I haven't complicated it the way its written!


----------



## starlite68 (17 Jun 2009)

Phibbleberry said:


> I agree with the majority of the posters here. Without being inflamatory, why should people who had the 'keeping up with the Jones' mentality bought every newest gadget/new car every year etc..and are now in serious trouble, be looked more favourably upon than people who were prudent through the good times?
> 
> Its quite simple: If you paid PRSI while you worked, and you are no longer working, you should be entitled to €x benefits.
> The same €x benefits as every other poor PRSI contributor, regardless of your situation, be it savings, spouses income etc..
> ...


 well said..


----------



## Raskolnikov (17 Jun 2009)

What about the chap who has a €300,000 house with no mortgage? He deserves his dole, whereas the other "poorer" guy with €20,000 in the bank and no house gets nothing.

If anything - people with a significant amount of equity in their homes should be disqualified from claiming the dole.


----------



## MandaC (17 Jun 2009)

Raskolnikov said:


> What about the chap who has a €300,000 house with no mortgage? He deserves his dole, whereas the other "poorer" guy with €20,000 in the bank and no house gets nothing.
> 
> If anything - people with a significant amount of equity in their homes should be disqualified from claiming the dole.



My parents bought their house for €4K in the 70's.  House worth €400K.  They have no cash.  Why should they not be entitled to dole/sw.  Why should they have to sell their home to get it either.

That is silly thinking.


----------



## dockingtrade (17 Jun 2009)

also alot of cash would be kept "under pillows"


----------



## samanthajane (17 Jun 2009)

Odea said:


> And in another post SamanthaJane tells us that she is a smoker. I don't smoke. I would rather save this money for my "rainyday".
> 
> So why should my non smoking rainyday savings be means tested while a smoker like SamanthaJane who burns her money away claim that they have no money and therefore get first preference on social welfare?


 
What has me smoking got to do with anything? Your making it out that i choose not to save anything, try digging a bit further to get the full story not just use 1 post that i have replied to. I never suggested anyone should get preference, my point was the 20k is a very high disregard.




gipimann said:


> The 20K disregard does not apply across all SW schemes.
> 
> Supplementary Welfare Allowance (which includes Rent Supplement and Mortgage Interest Supplement) disregards the first €5000 savings and assesses the balance.


 
Finally someone with some actual information to give.



gillarosa said:


> The post you are speaking about was focused on the possibility of her husband finding out about savings she had accumulated without his knowledge, she wasn't at issue with a potential decrease in their weekly allowance after the means test for its own sake but for the potential problems it may cause in their homelife when he discovered the money she had saved without his knowledge. She was also upfront and forthright with Social Welfare.


 
She was honest because she was told she couldn't hide the funds. She went to them after posting on here. Weather i fully believe the whole story of hers is another convesation



Phibbleberry said:


> I agree with the majority of the posters here. Without being inflamatory, why should people who had the 'keeping up with the Jones' mentality bought every newest gadget/new car every year etc..and are now in serious trouble, be looked more favourably upon than people who were prudent through the good times?
> 
> Its quite simple: If you paid PRSI while you worked, and you are no longer working, you should be entitled to €x benefits.
> The same €x benefits as every other poor PRSI contributor, regardless of your situation, be it savings, spouses income etc..
> ...


 
I've never said anyone should be entitled to more or less than someone else. Anyone from a high paid job to being on the social could have the 20k in savings. My point was and i still stand it that 20k is a lot of money to be disregared ( for some social welfare ) 

You all seem to think i'm saying that you shouldn't get a thing and taking great offense in the matter. 

Since the budget people on minimum wage have to pay tax, now among other things this is to help towards the people who are now unemployed. So someone through no fault of their own who didn't have the money to go on to further education is working at a min wage job. That money is being taken from to go to people that arn't working that have 20k sitting in the bank. 

I've read a lot of posts where you all have opinion on pulic sector wages to name one. You think they are being paid to much! You only think that cause your not a public sector worker. If you were then you wouldn't think that at all. You'd be arguing that you shouldn't be getting the cuts in your wages. 

I recently found out my partner could claim CB and FIS, and i was unsure should i apply for it or not. On one hand who's going to say no to extra money, and one the other side i could survive without the money. I decided not to apply for it as i dont need it. I was surprised as a lot of people said go ahead and claim it anyway. And that brings me back to the main point why claim when you dont need to. 

Were all unhapy about the education cut backs, as express in another post here. 

There are cut backs everywhere, no ones happy with them but no one is prepared to give a little either. All everyone wants is to keep as much as they can and get as much as they can. It's human nature. 

I know that england has no such 20k rule, you go to them and your laughted at for looking for help with 20k in the bank. Is there another E.U country that allows you to have this amount and still claim?? 

Is this maybe why were in the **** a lot more than other countrys?


----------



## Graham_07 (17 Jun 2009)

Raskolnikov said:


> If anything - people with a significant amount of equity in their homes should be disqualified from claiming the dole.


 
Gosh, while we're at it why not take the houses off those disgusting people altogether and use that money to pay those deemed deserving  . It's so good to see that begrudery is still alive and well.


----------



## starlite68 (17 Jun 2009)

samanthajane; said:
			
		

> I know that england has no such 20k rule, you go to them and your laughted at for looking for help with 20k in the bank.


 maybe you should live in england!


----------



## samanthajane (17 Jun 2009)

getting a bit personal there arn't you starlite68. 

Could you not think of anything worth while to mention, but just wanted your name to appear in the thread. Or just take a section of it which didn't fully reflect on what i was saying.  

I think MAYBE i can live where every i want without any help from you. 

But if ever do need help on where to live i'll know who to ask wont i!! But i wouldn't hold your breath on that one.


----------



## starlite68 (17 Jun 2009)

i think myself and nearly everyone else here knows exactly what you were saying!


----------



## MandaC (17 Jun 2009)

The original argument is so fundamentally flawed, it does not even make sense.  OP, you asked the question does anyone else not find it unbelieveble or whatever, and then seem annoyed because people do not agree.  Smoking or any discretionary spending is actually relevant here, count up how much per year people spend on cigarettes/drink etc and see how quickly it adds up.  So, if I save the money you smoke or drink or whatever, then we both lose our jobs and I have my €20K fag money and get nothing and you get benefits???  

I am not surprised that people disagree with it.  It is ridiculous to infer that just because someone has €20K saved, that they do not need or should not be entitled to SW.    As some people have pointed out, it is not a large amount of money by any stretch and would not see you into your retirement!  


It would make more sense for the government to seek out and tackle the welfare tourists instead of trying to penalise people who work and save a few bob.


----------



## samanthajane (17 Jun 2009)

I'm not annoyed at all that people have different opinions to me. If we all had the same views the world would be a very boring place. 

What i take offense to is stupid little comments from people, i'm entitled to my opinion the same as anyone else that is here. And sarky little comments about my opinions just because you dont agree with them is pathetic. 

I'd love to hear what starlite68 thinks i am saying. 

Not one single person has answer the original question. You just all waved in thinking it was a personal attack on you. That says more about you than it does about me really.


----------



## Yachtie (17 Jun 2009)

Some of my savings are ear-marked for different things - baloon payment for the car, honeymoon, etc. Saving is not easy regardless of whether you're saving for any eventuality or a specific purpose and I don't think that anyone should be penalised for that. If you've paid your PRSI, you are entitled to SW. Personally I have issues with those who choose not to work but collect the dole instead, demand council housing,.... but that's a whole new thread.


----------



## starlite68 (17 Jun 2009)

samanthajane said:


> I'd love to hear what starlite68 thinks i am saying.
> .


 
ok..i think you are saying that anyone who has managed to save 20.000euro should not be getting SW.
I also think that you tought people would agree with you...they dont.
thats it plain and simple.


----------



## MandaC (17 Jun 2009)

samanthajane said:


> *It is just me *or does anyone else find it unbelievable that you are allowed 20k in savings and still be entitled to SW?



This is your original question.

Almost every single post has disagreed with you.

How can you say after all these posts that no one has answered your question?

but if you read your original question, you have answered it yourself - it seems to be just you.

We are all entitled to our opinions,  but it seems a bit odd to accuse people of seeing your opinion as a personal attack just because their opinion differs from yours?  I dont see it as a personal attack - I just disagree with it.  That does not say more about me than you does it?   Also, you have questioned the credibility of another poster, which is both personal and unfair_*.(Weather i fully believe the whole story of hers is another convesation)*_

More power to all the posters with a few quid put aside.


----------



## samanthajane (18 Jun 2009)

starlite68 said:


> ok..i think you are saying that anyone who has managed to save 20.000euro should not be getting SW.
> I also think that you tought people would agree with you...they dont.
> thats it plain and simple.


 
But i never did say they shouldn't get it, i just said i thought it was a lot of money to disregard when be assessed. 

I didn't have any opinions on what other people would or wouldn't think or say. If i wasn't interested in what other people thought of the matter i would of posted it in the first place.



MandaC said:


> This is your original question.
> 
> Almost every single post has disagreed with you.
> 
> ...


 
But my question was "what do you class as means for sw"? 

That was the title of my post. My opinion is it's too high. Obviously other people dont agree and think it should be higher. What do you think the amount should be? 25k...30k.....50k???? When is the cut off point?

I never said anyone was attacking me. I though silly comments were pointless. 

I said very little about the other post, if it was that personal she shouldn't of posted it in the first place for anyone to see. Isn't that why she did it cause she wanted people to look form an opinion and make a suggestion. I didn't however like another poster say directly to her i didn't believe the full story. Every day people question what others have said. That not either unfair or personal.


----------



## MandaC (18 Jun 2009)

My point is it is out of order to say you dont believe someone, directly, indirectly or otherwise.  These boards are for people to hopefully get advice about their circumstances.  The comment *(weather or not I believe her is another conversation)* is in my opinion a personal, sly dig and I must say (one I would take offence at, if it had been directed at me)  and just not the kind of response to threads that should be encouraged on the boards.


----------



## Bronte (18 Jun 2009)

SJ, if you are entitled to extra money from SW or whatever then I think you are very silly indeed not to take it. Even if you don't need it now you might need it someday.

I too am surprised at your comment about the other poster who had a problem in relation to her husband. I thought she was very genuine but if you didn't you should have said it directly to her on the other post not here where she cannot defend herself as she may not know about this post.

As you brought up smoking, you do realise that smokers are more likely to get ill and are therefore a greater burder to health costs and ultimately to all tax payers. You cost all of us more. But I'm not of the brigade they should be penalised for this, thought others might think so, and I'm just making that point to you. 

Nobody seems to agree with your original post but you are having issues dealing with this. Can you not see this?

Why anyone would pick the UK as a good example of social welfare policies is beyond me. There are so many people living in poverty there, it's a really viscious circle of poverty in the UK. Have you seen council estates in London, Birmingham etc.
______________________________

I'm not on social welfare and hopefully will not be but I would be of the belief that it is better to reward those who have been thrifty and careful rather than demeaning them and penalising them. It's not so long ago people had to beg for welfare in Ireland, a time when there were comly maidens dancing at the crossroads in our idyllic ilse. I've been on social welfare and it was demaining, depressing and life sapping, I hope things have changed.


----------



## Bronte (18 Jun 2009)

Raskolnikov said:


> What about the chap who has a €300,000 house with no mortgage? He deserves his dole, whereas the other "poorer" guy with €20,000 in the bank and no house gets nothing.
> 
> If anything - people with a significant amount of equity in their homes should be disqualified from claiming the dole.


 
Raskolnikov do you really believe this?


----------



## Graham_07 (18 Jun 2009)

Bronte said:


> Raskolnikov do you really believe this?


 
If he is this person then probably


----------



## Chocks away (18 Jun 2009)

Graham_07 said:


> If he is this person then probably


Jeez Graham. This fellow is pretty complex.


----------



## samanthajane (18 Jun 2009)

MandaC said:


> My point is it is out of order to say you dont believe someone, directly, indirectly or otherwise. These boards are for people to hopefully get advice about their circumstances. The comment *(weather or not I believe her is another conversation)* is in my opinion a personal, sly dig and I must say (one I would take offence at, if it had been directed at me) and just not the kind of response to threads that should be encouraged on the boards.


 
And you have never seen anyone else on here saying they didn't fully believe someone or thought there was something more to the story! 

If i had wanted to get a dig at her i would of said something in the post, but i didn't. I used that as an example, i could of picked from plenty of others.


----------



## gipimann (18 Jun 2009)

Raskolnikov said:


> What about the chap who has a €300,000 house with no mortgage? He deserves his dole, *whereas the other "poorer" guy with €20,000 in the bank and no house gets nothing.*
> 
> If anything - people with a significant amount of equity in their homes should be disqualified from claiming the dole.


 
Just to point out that the statement highlighted above is incorrect. A person with 20k in savings will be entitled to full jobseekers allowance if there is no other income (which was part of Samanthajane's point in the first place - 20k in savings is disregarded).

Savings over 20k are assessed, but not euro for euro, so a person can have significant savings before being fully disallowed from payment.


----------



## Raskolnikov (22 Jun 2009)

Bronte said:


> Raskolnikov do you really believe this?


I am just making the point that what samanthajane is proposing is potentially highly unfair.


----------



## redbhoy (23 Jun 2009)

samanthajane said:


> It is just me or does anyone else find it unbelievable that you are allowed 20k in savings and still be entitled to SW?
> 
> I would understand if this amount was for a pension or an account set up for your childrens future, but to have this money sitting in an account for your own personal use, and to be told you dont have to touch that money!!
> 
> No wonder were in such a mess.


 

Why should someone who has put away money for a rainy day or perhaps saved to buy something expensive be punished for it, when someone who is in the same situation but has never saved any money be entitled to the same benefits??


----------



## csirl (23 Jun 2009)

Most means testing used in this country is possibly unConstitutional. The word "Prudence" features prominently in the preamble of the Constitution. The implication is that the prudent people should not be in a worse off position than people who are reckless with money.

Means testing should based on historic income, not current assets/wealth. 2 people who've earned the same amount over their lifetime should get the same SW regardless of whether or not one has loads of savings and the other is broke. 

I'm waiting to see what happens when someone challenges SW means testing in the Supreme Court - will be interesting.


----------



## samanthajane (23 Jun 2009)

And thats the way that it is. If you have paid your stamps you get to claim 12 months jobsekers regardless of what money you have in your account. It could be 1 million it could be 1 euro. 

You cant have that continue forever, it has to stop somewhere. 

I dont see you logic of historic income there are so many variables to consider. Someone had a great job lost it for what ever reason and has taken a pay cut, why should they get less than someone who has earned more of an income for set amount of years. That would mean that people on long term social welfare should always get lower payments. 

It's not just a case of being wreckless with money. A lot of people seem to think that because someone has no saving means they have blow all there money and nothing to show for it. This is not the case. 

Most of you are all for keeping all your money and claiming the full amount. How does this differ over the judge's pay system at the moment? They get paid a lot of money some up to 140k a year, a mere few have taken the pay cut,( 14 odd i think ) 129 have not. And there is up roar at the moment because of this. I dont see what the difference is. It's their money they have worked hard to earn that money so why shouldn't they keep every pennys of it?


----------



## starlite68 (23 Jun 2009)

samathajane..is it not time to admit that you have lost this one and move on to something else?


----------



## samanthajane (23 Jun 2009)

Why do you think that i have lost? 

Or is it that you think you have won? 

It's my opinion and i was responding to what someone else had written. You cant win or lose on an opinion! They are what i personally think, and i'm not going to change my thinking because people dont agree with me.


----------



## narky (25 Jun 2009)

the original post has really annoyed me and kind of disgusted me... i am 30, newly married and would love to have children in the future... for this we are saving like mad.  We work hard.  I don't have a car as i live in Dublin and am trying to save (i would love my own car), we never go out for meals.  we might go out to the pub MAYBE once a month, we save every penny we can and do without major luxuries.  On the other hand I have friends who earn MORE than me but have NO savings... by reading your post i thought... what the hell am I at? why am i not going away for weekends and driving around in my own car.  my job is not safe and I would just die if i thought that my savings would be wiped out if I did lose it after all the scrimping i did when in employment.  Children would also be out of the question.  So really i think you need to review your opinion and maybe it's begrudgery that you are feeling.  When i hear people have saved that amount i think 'well done you'!


----------

