# The most vulnerable in society



## Purple (4 Sep 2009)

The national dialogue about what cuts are needed/necessary and who they should be targeted at is varied with some approaching it from an ideological perspective, others from a “fairness” perspective and others from a purely economic perspective. The one point of consensus seems to be that we need to protect the most vulnerable in society.

My question is who are the most vulnerable in society?

From listening to politicians they seem to agree that they are the unemployed and the elderly.
I disagree; I think that the most vulnerable are middle income earners with relatively big mortgages. To be more specific, young(ish) middle income earning married couples with young children. These are the people just within the tax net who have massive relative fixed costs. They are usually both working (public and/or private sector) so they have crèche/childminding fees on top of their mortgage, insurance and utility bills. 
Household income can be quite high but disposable income will be very low. They are not the low paid but they are not the high paid either. They are the people who pay a massive proportion of their income in tax (a family on €80’000 a year pay 5 times as much income tax as a family on €40’000 a year). They are the engine of the economy, the engine that provides the revenue for the needs of society. They are just about surviving so why are they also the easy target? 

Maybe the consensus shouldn’t be the consensus.


----------



## callybags (4 Sep 2009)

I think they are the target because that is where the biggest block of money is.

If taxes were raised purely on an idealogical basis, then one could argue that this sector should be protected.

However, there is a target tax take which must be achieved, so the money has to come from somewhere.

The important thing is to ensure that it is seen to be fair in the eyes of the public. By this I mean that the highest income group pay proportionally more tax on an individual basis, and vica versa for the lowest income groups, even though the total take from these groups is relatively insignificant compared to the overall total tax take.


----------



## Welfarite (4 Sep 2009)

One man's floor is another man's ceiling.

When we talk about the 'most vulnerable', we have to ask 'vulnerable to what?' Losing their own house and going into subsidised rented accommodation? Losing a job and going on the dole? Not having enough food to maintain a proper diet? Getting into poor health as a result of poor diet? Having mental health problems? Sleeping on the streets? 

My definition of the 'most vulnerable' is that they are the people is society who would suffer the most drastic change in lifestyle when disposable* income decreases. 

*income used for food, clothing, heating.


----------



## z107 (4 Sep 2009)

Interesting debate.

I would think the most _financially_ vunerable right now would be those that bought property over the last five years, and are self employed. Especially those that are in construction related companies.


----------



## Shawady (4 Sep 2009)

When commentators talk about the most vulnerable in society in the context of cutbacks they are usually refering to people that receive money from the social welfare budget eg unemployed, pensioners, children.
Unfortunately the social welfare budget accounts for 37% of government spending and there is no way the government will get close to briging the gap without moderate cuts in social welfare payments.

As the been suggested by previous posters, other groups could also consider themselves 'vulnerable'.


----------



## Purple (4 Sep 2009)

Welfarite said:


> My definition of the 'most vulnerable' is that they are the people is society who would suffer the most drastic change in lifestyle when disposable* income decreases.
> 
> *income used for food, clothing, heating.


 I agree but there are plenty of people on what would be considered good incomes with less disposable income than many on welfare.


----------



## micheller (4 Sep 2009)

I see your point, but I don't think your earlier example are considered vulnerable as they just about have their heads above water. Compared to people in dire straits lacking food, heating, shelter or any of the basics they are doing ok. 

The only problem now is that with a lot of them being made redundant and still doing what they can to stay afloat- savings, redundancies, JB/JA etc.- things are getting closer and closer. I would say within a short time we will  see more of these people pushed into the vulnerable group. I'd like to hope things might pick up before that happens (call me an optimist)...


----------



## z107 (4 Sep 2009)

> I agree but there are plenty of people on what would be considered good incomes with less disposable income than many on welfare.


Many of these people might also be in negative equity, which would put their net worth at minus €€€k, whereas someone on social welfare could just be at zero.


----------



## Purple (5 Sep 2009)

jaybird said:


> I think it says a lot about your values if you think employed couples on 80k a year are the most vulnerable in society.
> Are they more vulnerable than children living in poverty? In 21st century Ireland, we still have people, often children, the elderly and the disabled that go to bed hungry and cold. We have pensioners who have to choose between food and heat, and mothers who feed their children and go hungry themselves. They still exist.


 There is more than enough income available through our welfare so that no child or adult in this country ever goes hungry. If they do the problem is social or medical, not economic. I don’t accept for one minute that any mother goes hungry in order to feed her children because of inadequate welfare payment. The price of one packet of cigarettes can provide breakfast for 3 children for a week so anyone who smokes obviously has more than enough money to provide the basics.
Homeless people and those with psychiatric and psychological needs are not what I am talking about. I agree that the services provided for them are not up to scratch but that’s got more to do with incompetence and inefficiency than budgets. 



jaybird said:


> But dual income couples in the higher tax bracket with 2.4 kids in private creches, 2 cars and a nice house in the suburbs are the *most vulnerable* in our society? Bizarre.


 They may be the most economically vulnerable since they have a tiny disposable income. A reduction of 5% of salary may wipe out 50% of it. 
Families on welfare with state housing are not the most vulnerable, far from it. 
We won't see the real impact of targets on these people for another 12-18 months. That's when interest rates will probably start to rise again, taking away what breathing space they have.

I started this thread after thinking about three families I know from North Dublin. All are large families with siblings in their 30's and 40's. All grew up in council houses. Some of the siblings have good middle-income jobs and have bought their own homes. Others have their own council houses and live on welfare. In all but one case those on welfare have more disposable income than those with mortgages and jobs.


----------



## Purple (5 Sep 2009)

jaybird said:


> And assuming that a low income mother spends her kids food money on smokes is both lazy stereotyping and more often than not inaccurate.



I'm not assuming that, it as just an example. I don't accept that any mother or father (let's not be sexist ) has to make the choice between feeding themselves and feeding their child.

The point of the thread is to question what seems to be the generally accepted premise that those on relatively high incomes are the ones who should shoulder the burden of cuts and tax increases. They should get hit but so should my friends’ younger brother who just lost his job. He's 26, single and just bought an apartment. With welfare and his mortgage interest being paid he has €160 a week to live on. That's about €50 less than he had when he was working. He thinks it's great but according to the accepted norm he should be left alone and you should be hit. I think a less PC debate is necessary.


----------



## Complainer (5 Sep 2009)

I spotted some interesting stories of modern Ireland on [broken link removed], including



> We get the dole each week and the mortgage interest relief but we are not even close to gettin by , Our mortgage is in arrears by 4k , we have personal debt of about 30k between credit cards and cr union loan. We bought the house in the height of it and get a €20 k loan for the deposit.
> We have 3 kids and i am sick with worry , this evening as i had no one to buy food i gave the kids soup and potatoes for dinner. Our washing machine and dryer have broken and i had get the washing machine fixed on saturday and it cost €200 .





> my maternity stamps ran out, and the man from the welfare (cwo) shouted at me in front of everyone in the waiting room he told me not to come back til I was completely destitute!
> 
> At the time I had €20 which the RC mum had posted to me, I was using it for nappys in lidl and was walking a couple of miles with my buggy as dont drive to s***rquinn for the cheap formula (i didnt even have the cost of the bus)
> I called them and a lovely man called out to my house, he saw the bear cuppords, the mouldly3 day old bread sitting on the sink.
> He gave me €60 for groceries, it was like a million quid


----------



## Purple (5 Sep 2009)

I agree with you complainer, the people who remained in state housing and welfare through the last 10 ten years are better off than their friends and siblings who bought houses and moved to the outer suburbs. The ones who tried to make a better life for themselves and their children but have now lost their jobs are the ones who are suffering most. The people in the example I gave above are the ones with the big debt, the ones who fall behind very quickly with relatively small changes in income.

There has to be far more targeted distribution of welfare, especially considering the cuts that have to take place. Simply saying that anyone on welfare is equally vulnerable is nonsense.
That said credit card debt is unforgivable.


----------



## z107 (5 Sep 2009)

A financial vulnerability hierarchy could look something like this (in my opinion):

TDs, Cronies and Golden Circle
Senior Public Sector
Civil Servants
Doctors, Pharmacists and other protected professions
Farmers
Unemployed social welfare recipients
Rest of Public Sector
Senior Private Sector in Large companies
Rest of Private Sector (not self employed)
Self employed in > 10 employee companies
Rest of self employed
Unassisted unemployed


----------



## annet (5 Sep 2009)

Are we talking about groups who are classified by many policy analysts and interest groups to be "vulnerable" by virtue of their age, disability or economic status or are we talking about people who because of age, disability or economic status are considered to be at risk of poverty, deprivation and social exclusion?   

Empirical evidence including that from the ESRI and CPA does suggest that low income households are at particular risk of poverty, deprivation and social exclusion.  The health and social sciences does establish a clear link between socio-economic status, health status, poor health outcomes and low life expectancy.  

Low income families can include people who are participating in economic activity where disposable income can be quite low.  It also includes families whose subsistence is based on the minimum adequate income provided through our social welfare system.  Anomalies naturally exist whereby "making work pay" or the shifting the ideology "from welfare to work" is not an inbuilt feature of many of our welfare provisions - where FAS and social services have failed to keep pace with a changing needs of Ireland's labour market in 2009 and beyond - where certain payments create a welfare dependency, and where OPFP has been shown to do absolutely nothing to promote child welfare (Irish Times Sept 2, 2009).

Those fortunate enough to be in employment pay rent, mortgages, bin charges and childcare.  While many can be in low paid employment, we have all heard catch 22 horror stories where families hold off bringing children or themselves to a GP because they cannot cover the GP or prescription costs.  If they apply for the full or GP visit medical card - many fail to qualify just because their income is barely over the income threshold.  However, this is not a situation that is exclusive to those fortunate enough to be in employment.  Many people who have suffered redundancy and now find themselves amongst the masses in the dole queue - not knowing where their next mortgage payment is going to come from - not to mention whether they are going to have a roof over their heads this time next year - or being able to pay for their childrens GP or medical expenses because their partner may be in employment... let alone whether FAS has the skillsbase to assist them to re-enter the labour market or provide them with real, sustainable and upwardly mobile job opportunities.  

On the other end of the scale you have people who are structurally unemployed - where underemployment is seen in some quarters as a personal lifestyle choice - where some elements of the welfare system can be seen to reward people for continuously making "bad choices and personal life decisions", where the duplicity of rights vs. responsibilities doesnt seem to be recognised by providers and recipients of welfare, and where "differential citizenship rights" seems to be the emerging consensus amongst certain people within the "Professional Classes" who are charged with administering and delivering our public welfare programmes.


----------



## Raskolnikov (7 Sep 2009)

Disagree that the middle class are the most vulnerable. At least most of these people will have training, education or skills that will stand to them when Ireland does eventually coming out of recession.

The most vulnerable people are those who are young, uneducated, and working in a non-skilled environment while having a huge mortgage hanging over them. If you were on €40,000 a year working in Element 6, Teva or any of the other manufacturing operations; what hope have you got of getting a similar job these days?


----------



## Purple (7 Sep 2009)

Raskolnikov said:


> Disagree that the middle class are the most vulnerable. At least most of these people will have training, education or skills that will stand to them when Ireland does eventually coming out of recession.
> 
> The most vulnerable people are those who are young, uneducated, and working in a non-skilled environment while having a huge mortgage hanging over them. If you were on €40,000 a year working in Element 6, Teva or any of the other manufacturing operations; what hope have you got of getting a similar job these days?



Since when was €40'000 a year not a middle-class wage? The guys in element 6 were/are highly skilled, some of them just don't have skills that translate to other jobs.

Even during the height of the celtic tiger not too many young unskilled people got huge mortgages.


----------



## SarahMc (9 Sep 2009)

Easy, the most vulnerable are children, they have no constitutional rights, they can legally be physically assaulted and



Purple said:


> The price of one packet of cigarettes can provide breakfast for 3 children for a week so anyone who smokes obviously has more than enough money to provide the basics.


 
tough, the child still goes hungry.


----------



## coleen (9 Sep 2009)

I have to agree that the families who have just risen out of the social welfare system by both getting average jobs seem to have less income than those who have stayed in the social welfare bracket. I work in childcare  where we offer reductions to people who are getting a social welfare or fis payment or have a medical card. The family who have a social welfare payment can attend the after school centre for next to nothing and the family who are both working minimum wage jobs have to pay full costs. Why does a family need after school care if neither parent are working. We are told that if we do not get enough funding the only group we can charge over and above the price of a childcare place is the person in Band D the person who does not qualify for any reductions. I see that the parents who are both working and struggling to make ends meet will try to cut every corner to reduce the childcare cost, where the family in band A those getting a social welfare use and abuse the childcare centre as the are only paying a nominal payment. I feel anything given out for next to nothing has no value and is treated as such. Why does a person who is getting a payment as they are not working need to sen their child to a childcare service or afterschool service


----------



## Purple (15 Sep 2009)

coleen, that's exactly the sort of thing I am talking about.


----------



## staff (15 Sep 2009)

Tthe people who have been hit worst by this recession (in that they have lost the most disposable income whether it be through pay cuts / tax etc) may be the middle income earners but the most vulnerable in society are still those who are on social welfare, pensioners etc. The difference between these two groups of people is that the ones on social welfare etc never had the money to lose in the first place. The only increase they got was maybe a €10/20 increase in their social over the last 10 years. They have already taken away their Christmas bonus and now they want to decrease their weekly allowances. 

There are people in this group who cannot afford to pay their bills every month, they would never get a bank loan (even in the so called good times) so if they needed extra cash for an emergency their only option was to go to either a money lender or a charity. I worked for a charity for a number of years and the most vulnerable cases have been on the books for as long as I have been there. They have just been hanging on by the skin of their teeth - they didn't make it good during the good times like a lot of our "middle income earners" with their second houses, holiday homes, fancy cars etc. Our most vulnerable could never have afforded a home to start with never mind a second / third one.

This needs to be put in perspective - yes people have lost a lot of money through pay cuts / tax / job losses but if it comes down to it how many of them will you actually see homeless, begging on the streets etc.


----------



## Purple (15 Sep 2009)

staff said:


> The only increase they got was maybe a €10/20 increase in their social over the last 10 years. They have already taken away their Christmas bonus and now they want to decrease their weekly allowances.


 I think we both know that’s not true; there have been massive increases in social welfare over the last 10 years.



staff said:


> they didn't make it good during the good times like a lot of our "middle income earners" with their second houses, holiday homes, fancy cars etc. Our most vulnerable could never have afforded a home to start with never mind a second / third one.


 Most middle income earners don’t have second or third homes. Most of those that do are utterly screwed now. Those that could never afford a home are better off than those who could afford one but have now lost their job. 
BTW, if in your world middle income earners can buy investment properties, holiday homes and fancy cars what can rich people afford? Do you have to own your own jet to be rich?



staff said:


> This needs to be put in perspective - yes people have lost a lot of money through pay cuts / tax / job losses but if it comes down to it how many of them will you actually see homeless, begging on the streets etc.


 Very few and if they do it will be because of social/medical reasons rather than economic ones, just as is the case with long-term unemployed people who end up homeless.  



staff said:


> I worked for a charity for a number of years and the most vulnerable cases have been on the books for as long as I have been there. They have just been hanging on by the skin of their teeth


 How much of that was down to inadequate funding and how much of it was down to inadequate people?


----------



## staff (15 Sep 2009)

Purple said:


> I think we both know that’s not true; there have been massive increases in social welfare over the last 10 years.
> 
> Most middle income earners don’t have second or third homes. Most of those that do are utterly screwed now. Those that could never afford a home are better off than those who could afford one but have now lost their job.
> BTW, if in your world middle income earners can buy investment properties, holiday homes and fancy cars what can rich people afford? Do you have to own your own jet to be rich?
> ...


 

OK - I don't have the exact figures for the increases is social welfare but it is all relative (I couldn't find them).  Whether it is €10/€20 or €50/€60 I know that my salary doubled in that timeframe - and it was not just because I had a generous boss - it was down to Charlie McCreevy changing the tax bands / lowering the tax percentages etc.  

I know a few people who bought a second property over the last few years ago - OK they may be regretting it now but none of them are completely broke, they are still getting by and I wouldn't consider any of them "rich".

If you are referring to "inadequate funding" I presume you must mean from the Government which is what this boils down to.  That they should *not* be reducing social welfare payments.  Who are the "inadequate people" you refer to?


----------



## z107 (15 Sep 2009)

> That they should *not* be reducing social welfare payments.


This is probably off topic, but every has to come down.
Ireland needs to reduce borrowing. To do this, out goings have to come down.
We need to reduce: 

1. Public sector pay and perks, starting from the top down.
2. Then social welfare. 
3. Then minimum wage. 

Preferably in that order. Then prices should come down.
If the cost of living halves then it doesn't matter that minimum wage and social welfare is also halved.

At the moment, Ireland is borrowing too much and companies are going bust because they can't get credit and costs are too high.

Isn't all this obvious by now?

Really, brian cowen should stand up and say he is reducing his pay, and that of the TDs to average industrial wage. We can work from there.

Unfortunately, with this strategy, mortgage holders are screwed.


----------

