# Margaret Cash: "I don't expect anything from the government"



## Brendan Burgess




----------



## David1234

Brendan I feel putting this up is reckless and will only generate negativity towards an individual. Apart from what the media have reported there may be other issues at play with the fathers of the children.


----------



## ivannomonet

With all due respect David I think many people are already aware of the amount of money this person takes from the state from the free magic money tree. And rightly so , working people are agrieved at the lack of thanks from people like this who want to take more and more while contributing nothing. She has no shame so I don't think we can bring any more to bear on her.


----------



## Delboy

That graphic is out of data too after the budget...there's a few more quid gone into that pot.
Also, HAP at 1,325 is too low. You can name your rate with HAP these days such is the panic in Govt circles to keep the hotel homeless number under 10k. So for a family this size, 2,000 is probably more accurate


----------



## Purple

Where's that from Brendan?


----------



## inflation

Everyone in Ireland should be forced to listen to this

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_ ... ie%2F&_rdr

After a free gaff and endless subsidisation to have as many children as you want the level of sheer stupidity, entitlement and arrogance in that clip is appalling.


----------



## David1234

ivannomonet said:


> With all due respect David I think many people are already aware of the amount of money this person takes from the state from the free magic money tree. And rightly so , working people are agrieved at the lack of thanks from people like this who want to take more and more while contributing nothing. She has no shame so I don't think we can bring any more to bear on her.


Well then get mad at the system rather than her. I absolutely do not agree with this individuals sense of entitlement when it comes to housing/benefits but they are merely working the system that we as a country have put in place.

I suppose my biggest issue with the graphic is that it focuses on an individual and contains a picture. There are thousands of others doing the same thing that currently aren't receiving hatred from 99% of the population.


----------



## bill_cash

The government, all major political parties, the media, the universities, the church, big business, and by their votes the Irish public all support this system.

We deserve everything we get.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Purple said:


> Where's that from Brendan?



Hi Purple 

It was on Twitter. I didn't provide a link as there was a lot of abusive comment on Twitter which misses the point.

Brendan


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Hi David 

The media and the campaigning groups focus on individual stories to generate publicity. 

They are not interested in analysis, facts or stats. Just "mother of 7 forced to sleep in Garda Station" 

Under the circumstances, I think it's perfectly appropriate to point out the benefits she is on. 

Brendan


----------



## galway_blow_in

David1234 said:


> Brendan I feel putting this up is reckless and will only generate negativity towards an individual. Apart from what the media have reported there may be other issues at play with the fathers of the children.



Mrs cash appears to have  sought out the media to help her highlight  her quest -  campaign for a house , she wasnt randomly picked for focus .


----------



## galway_blow_in

ivannomonet said:


> With all due respect David I think many people are already aware of the amount of money this person takes from the state from the free magic money tree. And rightly so , working people are agrieved at the lack of thanks from people like this who want to take more and more while contributing nothing. She has no shame so I don't think we can bring any more to bear on her.




in her defense , for decades now various left wing politicians , journalists and those who work in academia have constantly instilled in travelers an attitude that its the states duty to do everything for them , no questions asked .

a degree of conditioning inevitably sets in . criticising traveler culture beit removing children from school young , mistreating animals or engaging in questionable social behaviour , is ignored in the name of cultural difference and anyone who demands travelers leave behind practices which are simply not compatible with 21st century ireland is branded a bigot and officially so since travelers were granted ethnic status .


----------



## galway_blow_in

Brendan Burgess said:


> Hi David
> 
> The media and the campaigning groups focus on individual stories to generate publicity.
> 
> They are not interested in analysis, facts or stats. Just "mother of 7 forced to sleep in Garda Station"
> 
> Under the circumstances, I think it's perfectly appropriate to point out the benefits she is on.
> 
> Brendan



i think its more than that brendan , the media ( in the main ) are ideologically left wing and actively campaign for more public spending across the board .


----------



## PGF2016

Very sad situation with no winners. Kids growing up in a terrible environment and destined for a similar life. No sign of the father(s). State picking up a massive tab.


----------



## galway_blow_in

PGF2016 said:


> Very sad situation with no winners. Kids growing up in a terrible environment and destined for a similar life. No sign of the father(s). State picking up a massive tab.



the father is in prison according to newspaper reports ive read ?


----------



## TheBigShort

Its all pretty low-brow stuff really.

1. The topic title is misleading, should read "_this _government..." not "_the _government". 
2. Child benefit - she receives no more or no less per child than any other recipient in the State.
3. Fuel Allowance - doesn't she live in a b&b? Hard to see how she gets fuel allowance on a property that is not hers.
4. HAP - is it fair to say that it is the b&b that is in receipt of housing support payments?
5. Back to School Allowance is capped on income limits, including payments received from social welfare -  in Ms Cash's instance, if she was in receipt of all the other welfare she would be disqualified from Back to school allowance.


----------



## Delboy

The father , John McCarthy, got out from Cloverhill a few weeks ago where he was on remand for assault. Margaret gave an interview around that time saying she was looking forward to having him back as he'd be a help with the children.
Less than a week after his release she had a post on her Facebook page saying he had run off with another woman. She also posted pictures of that woman. Good riddance to the pair of them she said, he had never as much as bough t a pair of socks for the kids!


----------



## galway_blow_in

TheBigShort said:


> Its all pretty low-brow stuff really.
> 
> 1. The topic title is misleading, should read "_this _government..." not "_the _government".
> 2. Child benefit - she receives no more or no less per child than any other recipient in the State.
> 3. Fuel Allowance - doesn't she live in a b&b? Hard to see how she gets fuel allowance on a property that is not hers.
> 4. HAP - is it fair to say that it is the b&b that is in receipt of housing support payments?
> 5. Back to School Allowance is capped on income limits, including payments received from social welfare -  in Ms Cash's instance, if she was in receipt of all the other welfare she would be disqualified from Back to school allowance.




like i said , commenting - criticising travelers has become one of the ultimate taboos amongst liberal society .


----------



## TheBigShort

galway_blow_in said:


> like i said , commenting - criticising travelers has become one of the ultimate taboos amongst liberal society .



When did you say that? 

I have no problem on commenting or criticising travellers if it is based on factual and accurate information. All I have done is point out the inaccuracies in the criticism. 
For instance, do you know if she receives all those welfare payments or not? 
If she doesn't, and I have identified some anomalies in the poster graphic that would imply she doesn't, then all this commentary is based on false and misleading information and should cease. 
Regardless of what you think of this person, targeting her publicly for criticism on a false premise is as repugnant as targeting you publicly on a false premise. 
Wouldn't you agree?


----------



## Bronte

TheBigShort said:


> Its all pretty low-brow stuff really.
> 
> 1. The topic title is misleading, should read "_this _government..." not "_the _government".
> 2. Child benefit - she receives no more or no less per child than any other recipient in the State.
> 3. Fuel Allowance - doesn't she live in a b&b? Hard to see how she gets fuel allowance on a property that is not hers.
> 4. HAP - is it fair to say that it is the b&b that is in receipt of housing support payments?
> 5. Back to School Allowance is capped on income limits, including payments received from social welfare -  in Ms Cash's instance, if she was in receipt of all the other welfare she would be disqualified from Back to school allowance.



There you go again about landlords. The HAP payment is rent paid for Mrs. Cash. The HAP is paid directly by the HAP to the landlord on behalf of Mrs. Cash. It's like you saying her dole that pays Dunnes Stores for her groceries are really the beneficiary of the money. 

I don't see the relevance to the fact she's a traveller. 

There is no way her rent is as low as 1350 as she lives in Dublin, more likely 2K or more as that's what you'd need to house a family of 8.


----------



## TheBigShort

Bronte said:


> There you go again about landlords.



Im not the one criticising her for receiving income to pay to keep a roof over head and children.


----------



## Delboy

You were deliberating disregarding HAP from that calculation as you said it went to the landlord which is what Bronte was pointing out. Now your trying to sidestep that by pulling at heart strings.
The usual predictable 'round the house' posts that you bog down every thread you contribute to with


----------



## galway_blow_in

TheBigShort said:


> When did you say that?
> 
> I have no problem on commenting or criticising travellers if it is based on factual and accurate information. All I have done is point out the inaccuracies in the criticism.
> For instance, do you know if she receives all those welfare payments or not?
> If she doesn't, and I have identified some anomalies in the poster graphic that would imply she doesn't, then all this commentary is based on false and misleading information and should cease.
> Regardless of what you think of this person, targeting her publicly for criticism on a false premise is as repugnant as targeting you publicly on a false premise.
> Wouldn't you agree?



no i would not agree as mrs cash has not been targeted , quite the opposite , she has harnessed the media to her cause .

no one disputes she is not the only one entitled  to the menu of benefits she currently soups from , thats a straw man you created , the basis for the thread is mrs cash absurd counter factual point

" i dont expect anything from this government  "

she depends  entirely on the government !


----------



## jpd

galway_blow_in said:


> she depends  entirely on the government !



or rather the taxpayers


----------



## TheBigShort

Delboy said:


> You were deliberating disregarding HAP from that calculation as you said it went to the landlord which is what Bronte was pointing out. Now your trying to sidestep that by pulling at heart strings.
> The usual predictable 'round the house' posts that you bog down every thread you contribute to with



I didn't deliberately disregard anything. Quite the opposite actually, I pointed out how the graphic above paints a picture that is far from reality.


----------



## Bronte

TheBigShort said:


> Im not the one criticising her for receiving income to pay to keep a roof over head and children.



Nor did I criticise that fact. But you'll criticise me for receiving HAP as a landlord housing people.


----------



## TheBigShort

galway_blow_in said:


> i would not agree as mrs cash has not been targeted , quite the opposite , she has harnessed the media to her cause .



That is not what I asked you, this time with emphasis in bold.



TheBigShort said:


> Regardless of what you think of this person, targeting her publicly for criticism on a false premise is as repugnant as targeting you publicly on a *false* premise.
> Wouldn't you agree?


----------



## Bronte

TheBigShort said:


> I didn't deliberately disregard anything. Quite the opposite actually, I pointed out how the graphic above paints a picture that is far from reality.



So how about you tell us the reality, financially, on this financial forum.  And compare Mrs. Cash with a married couple with one earner, 3 kids and the man of the house earning about 40K.


----------



## Bronte

Delboy said:


> You were deliberating disregarding HAP from that calculation as you said it went to the landlord which is what Bronte was pointing out. Now your trying to sidestep that by pulling at heart strings.
> The usual predictable 'round the house' posts that you bog down every thread you contribute to with



Indeed, her entitlements are 52K and I would suggest it's nearer 60K tax free because there is no way her rent is below 2K unless she's living in a shoe box.

And HAP made it entirely clear to me that the landlord-tenant relationship rests between me and my tenants and has zero to do with the government/local authority. In fact if the tenant stops paying their portion to the LA,  the LA will pull the HAP from me but I won't find out until too late, as this procedure takes time and the LA has no authority to inform the tenant has stopped paying them.  And then I'd have to go about giving notice and every responsibility, as usual, would be on me.

How much do you have to earn in Ireland to get 60K into your hand - rough figure will do.


----------



## Delboy

TheBigShort said:


> I didn't deliberately disregard anything. Quite the opposite actually, I pointed out how the graphic above paints a picture that is far from reality.


And many posters have since pointed out to you that your deliberately mis-interpreting that graphic. And your obviously continuing with that line.
Yet another thread to be killed off by what has to be called out as thread derailing to put it politely.


----------



## Delboy

Bronte said:


> How much do you have to earn in Ireland to get 60K into your hand - rough figure will do.


Probably around 97k excluding pension contributions by my calculations


----------



## Sunny

That picture is disgraceful. It doesn't include the cost of 8 medical cards plus other benefits. I hate inaccurate reporting.

No individual should be picked on but when someone comes on the airwaves saying 'she expects nothing from this Government /taxpayers', it better not be someone in her position.


----------



## TheBigShort

Bronte said:


> Nor did I criticise that fact. But you'll criticise me for receiving HAP as a landlord housing people.



I criticised your attitude to raise rents for no other reason other than the State will pay; 

https://www.askaboutmoney.com/threa...e-quit-because-of-rent-controls.209554/page-8

*Bronte*
"_Which reminds me I should put up the rents to keep the property value up to market value. And the tenant's won't care as the state will pay. I'm convinced that HAP has driven up rents. Because I have never got so much rent"_


----------



## galway_blow_in

TheBigShort said:


> That is not what I asked you, this time with emphasis in bold.



i repeat !

mrs cash sought public - media attention in aiding her campaign .

she was not " targeted " !


----------



## Bronte

And what do I do with the extra money, I reinvest it back in to make the properties better.  And nice side step of you there, the reason I didn't raise the rents on my existing tenants was that I didn't feel they could afford it.  But I was then left in an invidious position of seeing my properties lose value if I didn't increase due to the rent cap.  Which is precisely why I have to increase the rent.  And you'd do the very same. 

You're very neat at avoiding certain realities.  And you've entirely left out the higher taxes, the loss of mortgage interest relief, the cost of wear and tear stretching out over 8 years, the prsi and the usc. Then there was the NPPR, following by the household charge and finally we have the property tax.


----------



## TheBigShort

galway_blow_in said:


> she was not " targeted " !



...on a false premise, yes she was. 

 Emphasis was on "false", not on "target". 
I take it you accept the graphic at start of topic is bogus.


----------



## Bronte

TheBigShort said:


> ...on a false premise, yes she was.
> 
> Emphasis was on "false", not on "target".
> I take it you accept the graphic at start of topic is bogus.



Leave Mrs. Cash out of the entire thing if it makes you feel better. How much is a woman with 7 children entitled to from the taxpayer.

What figure in the initial graph do you take issue with. And don't forget to add in a value to 8 free medical cards.


----------



## TheBigShort

Bronte said:


> Leave Mrs. Cash out of the entire thing if it makes you feel better. How much is a woman with 7 children entitled to from the taxpayer.


 
Same as every other woman with 7 children, no more no less. 

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/e...milies_and_children/child_benefit.html#l1f4da


----------



## Bronte

TheBigShort said:


> Same as every other woman with 7 children, no more no less.
> 
> http://www.citizensinformation.ie/e...milies_and_children/child_benefit.html#l1f4da



How much is it then do you reckon? Seeing as you're disputing the figure in the OP, which didn't count in medical cards.

Also do you agree with her statement that _she doesn't expect anything from the government_?

Or on her wishing to be housed in a particular area - Tallaght.


----------



## TheBigShort

Bronte said:


> And what do I do with the extra money, I reinvest it back in to make the properties better.



Bully for you. It must be nice to have the taxpayer prepared to pay for refurbishing your house. I have to pay for it myself.




Bronte said:


> But I was then left in an invidious position of seeing my properties lose value if I didn't increase due to the rent cap.



So the taxpayer should compensate you for loss of value on your investments? The sense of entitlement that some people have is breathtaking!



Bronte said:


> And you'd do the very same.



No I would not. Speak for yourself, not me.



Bronte said:


> And you've entirely left out the higher taxes, the loss of mortgage interest relief,



You have mortgage interest relief returned to you. Another state support for "free-market entrepreneurs".


----------



## Bronte

Bronte said:


> How much is it then do you reckon? Seeing as you're disputing the figure in the OP, which didn't count in medical cards.
> 
> Also do you agree with her statement that _she doesn't expect anything from the government_?
> 
> Or on her wishing to be housed in a particular area - Tallaght.



Well TheBigShort why are you avoiding this?


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Bully for you. It must be nice to have the taxpayer prepared to pay for refurbishing your house. I have to pay for it myself.


 You said before that you grew up in a council house. You were happy for the taxpayer to pay for refurbishing that house when you lived there.


----------



## Bronte

galway_blow_in said:


> i repeat !
> 
> mrs cash sought public - media attention in aiding her campaign .
> 
> she was not " targeted " !



while you're at it TBS could you answer this.


----------



## Purple

Bronte said:


> How much is it then do you reckon? Seeing as you're disputing the figure in the OP, which didn't count in medical cards.
> 
> Also do you agree with her statement that _she doesn't expect anything from the government_?
> 
> Or on her wishing to be housed in a particular area - Tallaght.


So inreality she's probably getting over €60,000 a year from her fellow citizens (the State and the government only spend our money).


----------



## Bronte

Purple said:


> So inreality she's probably getting over €60,000 a year from her fellow citizens (the State and the government only spend our money).



Seems to be the case Purple, I was only interested in the figures.  And comparing them to someone who was working and how much they'd need to get 60K into their hand, without any choice as to location of the family home as many commuters can attest to.

For some reason TBS is refusing to put an actual figure to the entitlements.  And is trying not to include certain things in some kind of financial reasoning that I don't understand.


----------



## Firefly

Purple said:


> So inreality she's probably getting over €60,000 a year from her fellow citizens (the State and the government only spend our money).


5 grand a month into the hand without lifting a finger. Nice "work" if you can get it. Surname is spot on too.


----------



## TheBigShort

Bronte said:


> How much is it then do you reckon



Im not sure. My only assertion in this topic was that the newspaper graphic at the start of the OP was false and misleading. I did that by pointing out some anomalies in the detail. An obvious one is the fuel allowance.



Bronte said:


> Also do you agree with her statement that _she doesn't expect anything from the government_?



She didn't say that. She said "I don't expect anything from _this _government". She said it on Claire Byrne Live and she said it in the context of ever finding anywhere permanent to live - not in the context that she received nothing from the government, as the article implies.
It is patently obvious that she receives states supports, but she is not the only one. Landlords who jack up rents knowing that the State will pay for it and use that money to increase the value on their own properties are also receiving supports from the government. Dont they?
We all receive supports from the State.




Purple said:


> So inreality she's probably getting over €60,000 a year from her fellow citizens (the State and the government only spend our money).



€60,000 a year and she lives in a b&b? Doesn't make sense to me. Id estimate transfers directly to herself, raising 7 kids by herself, to be about €34,000.
We could save on the HAP payment to the b&b but then where will she live?



Bronte said:


> For some reason TBS is refusing to put an actual figure to the entitlements. And is trying not to include certain things in some kind of financial reasoning that I don't understand.



You are making no sense. I do not know what the figure is on entitlements that she receives. Anymore than the figure on entitlements that you receive. I merely commenting on inaccuracies in the OP.

Its pretty galling of you to be critical of Cash when you openly admit to basically exploiting the State by increasing rents for no other reason than knowing the State will pay for it and to preserve the value of your own investments.
The notion that Cash can be criticised for receiving €1350 a month in HAP payments, when those payments go to the landlord is simply laughable.




Firefly said:


> 5 grand a month into the hand without lifting a finger.



You didn't read the bit then where the landlord increases the rent knowing the State will pay for it?


----------



## noproblem

If I owned a supermarket for example, what turnover would I need to have in order to pay myself this type of money? I'll have a stab at answering that and say €1,000,000.00. Yes, that reads a million and i've to employ a hell of a lot of people, pay rent, insurance, work my butt off and god knows what else to be in a position like this woman and she's got the cheek to say the goverment gives her nothing. It's also a tad insulting to ordinary hard working people to listen to and watch presenters on our national television and radio giving these people high profiles to appear on programmes and create sympathy and outright abhorrence that their plight is being ignored. The likes of Claire Byrne and her ilk never ask the questions we all want answered, they just use it as a popular exercise to put down politicians and everyone else who are at the coal face. It's red rotten and fair play to Brendan on here for highlighting the example in his opening post.


----------



## TheBigShort

noproblem said:


> If I owned a supermarket



Do you own a supermarket? Because if not I suspect the rest of your post wont make much sense.



noproblem said:


> i've to employ a hell of a lot of people, pay rent, insurance, work my butt off and god knows what else to be in a position like this woman



No you dont. Margaret Cash never owned a supermarket, with a turnover of €1m, employing lots of people, pay rent, insurance and work her butt off to get to the position she is in today.
She was brought up in the travelling community, living in a caravan for most of her life, she has a poor education record, now has seven children with a father in prison, or apparently not interested in his kids.
She is homeless and now lives in a b&b.

I get the impression you are jealous?



noproblem said:


> she's got the cheek to say the goverment gives her nothing.



She never said that. Dont believe everything you read in the papers (or Twitter).


----------



## Bronte

TheBigShort said:


> Its pretty galling of you to be critical of Cash when you openly admit to basically exploiting the State by increasing rents for no other reason than knowing the State will pay for it and to preserve the value of your own investments.
> The notion that Cash can be criticised for receiving €1350 a month in HAP payments, when those payments go to the landlord is simply laughable.
> 
> .



Stop misquoting me. I said I was *considering* increasing the rents for the tenants in HAP. Why. I said because if I don't, because the government put a rent cap on, my property would be worth less than a comparable property achieving market rent.  It's the government that put in the rent pressure zone and is devaluing my property. It's in my financial interest to increase the rents, not because I wanted to, but because it will preserve the property value.  And don't say I've actually done so, when I haven't even figured out how to go about increasing the rent.  And I could don't without the hassle of it actually.  I've done fine for more than 2 decades never increasing rents. I have increased one rent, a rental from 2011 in 2017.  And that's because it's also in a rent pressure zone, but that one is not HAB and now if I don't increase the rent, the property will be worth less than market value, which is why I spoke to the tenant about it recently.  And I don't want to do any of this. 

Do not misquote me on critising Cash. I have not done so at all.  I merely wish to know how much the government is paying her. She is the one complaining about not being given a house in Tallaght.  In addition you've tried to claim that the rent that the government pays her has zero to do with her.  It's equivelent to you saying you don't pay your mortgage, the company you work for does. Though maybe you don't have a mortgage because another poster said you have a council house.


----------



## Bronte

TheBigShort said:


> €60,000 a year and she lives in a b&b? Doesn't make sense to me. Id estimate transfers directly to herself, raising 7 kids by herself, to be about €34,000.



So now you refuse to count all state monies she is receiving.  Like her rent money doesn't cost anybody anything.  Ridiculous.  By that measure HAB costs nothing to the taxpayer. And Cash, not a tax payer, is also paying nothing.  Who is paying Cash's rent TBS?


----------



## TheBigShort

Bronte said:


> Stop misquoting me.



I didn't. Here it is again, your words;



*Bronte*
"_Which reminds me I should put up the rents to keep the property value up to market value. And the tenant's won't care as the state will pay. I'm convinced that HAP has driven up rents. Because I have never got so much rent"_


----------



## TheBigShort

Bronte said:


> So now you refuse to count all state monies she is receiving.



Im not refusing anything. Merely pointing out the anomalies in the article and the misleading detail. 
If you can accept that the detail is inaccurate and misleading then perhaps we can discuss what it is that she likely receives.
If you cannot accept the inaccuracies and still want to persist with the headline then there is not point in carrying on.

Not nice when what you actually said, and what you actually meant to say, is taken out of context and used as a stick to beat you with, is it?


----------



## Purple

The BS, why are you comparing a service, offered on the open market, supplied by Bronte and purchased on behalf of Mrs. Cash to the hand-out that she receives to pay for that service?
If Bronte had no tenants who receive State handouts all of the units they own would still be rented out. There is absolutely no comparison between a person who does not work getting State support  and someone else being paid by the State for supplying a service.

You are a State employee. Should your income be compared to income also received from the State by people on welfare? Personally I don't think so as you work for your income. Bronte is being paid for providing a service. Mrss. Cash is providing nothing and instead living off her fellow citicens.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> The BS, why are you comparing a service, offered on the open market, supplied by Bronte and purchased on behalf of Mrs. Cash to the hand-out that she receives to pay for that service?



Im not comparing the service with the welfare payment. Im comparing Brontes expectation that the State will pay any rent increases he imposes on his tenants with the perceived expectation that M Cash has with the government. 

Bronte will claim (im sure) that I have taken his comments out of context? 
M Cash's comments have been taken out of context.

The headline relates to a comment that M Cash made on Claire Byrne Live. It related to her belief that she has no expectation that this government will ever supply herself and her 7 children with a permanent home. Not that she no expectation of any support at all, when clearly she does receive supports.


_

_


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Im not comparing the service with the welfare payment. Im comparing Brontes expectation that the State will pay any rent increases he imposes on his tenants with the perceived expectation that M Cash has with the government.


 So you are equating the provision of a service by Bronte with the receipt of welfare my Mrs. Cash. Bronte (I don't know if they are male of female) has an expectation that they can increase their rent in a manner which is legal and ethical. If the government wants to continue to purchase that service from Bronte then they will have to pay the going rate. If Bronte does not increase the rent then  they are negatively impacting on the capital value of their asset.

Do you expect the State to continue to pay you for the services you provide, including any pay increases, be they increments or otherwise, which you are due while having a problem with Bronte doing the same? Bronte is providing a public good; they are housing people who otherwise might be homeless. Are you doing something which is as socially laudable? I know I'm not. 



TheBigShort said:


> The headline relates to a comment that M Cash made on Claire Byrne Live. It related to her belief that she has no expectation that this government will ever supply herself and her 7 children with a permanent home. Not that she no expectation of any support at all, when clearly she does receive supports


 I have no expectation that the State will provide me with a permanent home either and I've a much lower take home income than she does.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> So you are equating the provision of a service by Bronte with the receipt of welfare my Mrs. Cash.



Oh dear, read my post again. Im comparing Brontes _expectation _that the State will pay any rent increases he imposes on his tenants against the perception peddled here that MCash has no expectation for government supports at all - hence the OP and attached article.

Im guessing Bronte will argue that I have taken his comments out of context?
Have I taken his previous comments out of context?

Im arguing that MCash's comments have been taken out of context. That they relate only to her non-expectation that _this _government will not ever find her and her family secure permanent accommodation.

If you want to argue around the houses about the 'ethics' of all of this then open another thread.
This topic is bogus as it takes MCash's comments out of context and uses them as a stick to beat her down.

Btw, I provide about 5hrs of my time coaching mine and other peoples kids U11 &12 soccer free of charge. I would consider that somewhat socially laudable - try it sometime, makes you feel good.

To equate charging market rents on people who cannot afford it, that they need State assistance to meet payments to keep a roof over their heads, as socially laudable is a joke.


----------



## Firefly

Purple said:


> You are a State employee. Should your income be compared to income also received from the State by people on welfare? Personally I don't think so as you work for your income.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Oh dear, read my post again. Im comparing Brontes _expectation _that the State will pay any rent increases he imposes on his tenants against the perception peddled here that MCash has no expectation for government supports at all - hence the OP and attached article.


Yep, just read it again. It's perfectly clear; you are equating the provision of a service by Bronte with the receipt of welfare my Mrs. Cash.


TheBigShort said:


> Im arguing that MCash's comments have been taken out of context. That they relate only to her non-expectation that _this _government will not ever find her and her family secure permanent accommodation.


Do they? How do you know?


TheBigShort said:


> Btw, I provide about 5hrs of my time coaching mine and other peoples kids U11 &12 soccer free of charge. I would consider that somewhat socially laudable - try it sometime, makes you feel good.


 Hang on a sec, I have to get up on my high-horse so I can eyeball you... that's better... now, I'm not going to get into a "mine is bigger than yours" discussion with you about who does what to serve the community and how much of what we do is actually because we enjoy it.


TheBigShort said:


> To equate charging market rents on people who cannot afford it, that they need State assistance to meet payments to keep a roof over their heads, as socially laudable is a joke.


 Just like a nurse or doctor or teacher or  social worker who gets paid their salary, despite their employer not having enough money to house homeless people? Those people could choose to work elsewhere and get the same salary or better. Bronte could rent out their property to private tenants only and get paid more. What's the difference?

I'm a tenant. I pay rent. My landlord charges me below the market rate because they know I can't afford to pay more and because I'm an excellent tenant. My landlord is providing a social good.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> You are a State employee. Should your income be compared to income also received from the State by people on welfare? Personally I don't think so as you work for your income



Thank you, I appreciate the compliment.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Just like a nurse or doctor or teacher or social worker who gets paid their salary, despite their employer not having enough money to house homeless people?



Comparing the work of those professions to landlords who charge market rents beyond what tenants can afford in their incomes is a joke.


----------



## noproblem

Sometimes so called landlords are very ordinary people who have been through the wringer themselves and have had to back up the rent they get, with their own money, to pay their mortgage, unlike Ms Cash who thinks she's entitled to everything for nothing. Actually demands it.


----------



## orka

TheBigShort said:


> Im not refusing anything. Merely pointing out the anomalies in the article and the misleading detail.
> If you can accept that the detail is inaccurate and misleading then perhaps we can discuss what it is that she likely receives.
> If you cannot accept the inaccuracies and still want to persist with the headline then there is not point in carrying on.


There's actually nothing incorrect in the article.  Nowhere does it say that is what Mrs Cash actually receives (which seems to be your main issue '_but aha, she doesn't actually *get* heat allowance because she's in a B&B, therefore this entire thread is based on a false premise'_) - the heading is 'Single mother with seven children in Dublin (5 in school)'.  Posters appear to think this is too much (equating to a salary of 90K+), particularly when you compare to, say a working family on 50K with 3 children.


----------



## TheBigShort

orka said:


> There's actually nothing incorrect in the article.


----------



## Gordon Gekko

Finally I’ve worked it out...Big Short and Margaret Cash are the same person...and I thought that BS was the clue!


----------



## TheBigShort

Gordon Gekko said:


> Finally I’ve worked it out...Big Short and Margaret Cash are the same person...and I thought that BS was the clue!



Isnt speculating on a person's identity against the rules?


----------



## noproblem

orka said:


> There's actually nothing incorrect in the article.  Nowhere does it say that is what Mrs Cash actually receives (which seems to be your main issue '_but aha, she doesn't actually *get* heat allowance because she's in a B&B, therefore this entire thread is based on a false premise'_) - the heading is 'Single mother with seven children in Dublin (5 in school)'.  Posters appear to think this is too much (equating to a salary of 90K+), particularly when you compare to, say a working family on 50K with 3 children.



"Working family" being the significant difference


----------



## cremeegg

orka said:


> There's actually nothing incorrect in the article. .



There is something incorrect in the article. 

The 2018 Christmas bonus is 100% rather than the 85% quoted.


----------



## mathepac

There's a lot that's wrong in the article. e.g.

Neither 85%  nor 100% of €198 amounts to  €6.88.

The €11,760 annual Child benefit payment Ms. Cash receives is the same as if she were the CEO of a large multi-national with 7 children.

If she and her partner were together and between them they earned the average industrial wage, they'd still be entitled to certain allowances from the State.

Would anyone care to do the sums to calculate her net draw from the State over and above that situation?


----------



## pauric

mathepac said:


> There's a lot that's wrong in the article. e.g.
> 
> Neither 85%  nor 100% of €198 amounts to  €6.88.
> 
> The €11,760 annual Child benefit payment Ms. Cash receives is the same as if she were the CEO of a large multi-national with 7 children.
> 
> If she and her partner were together and between them they earned the average industrial wage, they'd still be entitled to certain allowances from the State.
> 
> Would anyone care to do the sums to calculate her net draw from the State over and above that situation?



The difference being though that if they earned the average industrial wage they would be contributing to the state with taxes so I would hazard a guess that their net draw from the state is even higher than shown here.


----------



## noproblem

mathepac said:


> If she and her partner were together and between them they earned the average industrial wage, they'd still be entitled to certain allowances from the State.
> 
> Would anyone care to do the sums to calculate her net draw from the State over and above that situation?



Ahm! Everything.


----------



## gnf_ireland

mathepac said:


> The €11,760 annual Child benefit payment Ms. Cash receives is the same as if she were the CEO of a large multi-national with 7 children.



Just two points on this, and I do not really want to be drawn into Ms Cash's personal situation

1. I would be willing to bet a serious amount of money that there is no CEO of a large multi-national in Ireland with 7 children. I think you will struggle to find any professional or middle class family with 7 children in Ireland. The latest statistics on this that I have seen show that middle class parents tend to put off having children until they are older and have less children in general.
2. The issue here is the system that for some obscure reason encourages people to have more and more children. I understand all about replacing populations etc to keep the pyramid scheme going, but this only works when the kids are contributors to the system. Child Benefit should be (a) reduced and the funds directly provided to schools to ensure they are properly funded and provide everything the child needs to get an education, from books to copies to uniforms etc and (b) should be capped after 2 or worst case 3 children. 
The notion of paying people to have kids is madness in the first place, and if the state wants to do something in this area it should properly fund the education system from pre-school all the way to university rather than giving handouts to parents each month.


----------

