# Hypothetical Q.If you don't want to work



## z104 (23 Nov 2007)

I'm not referring to me but just say you wake up one day and decide not to work will the state pay you unemployment benefit.

Are you entitled to receive anything from the state and what is it you are entitled to..


----------



## beautfan (23 Nov 2007)

No - if you make yourself unemployed you will not be entitled to receive social welfare.


----------



## z104 (23 Nov 2007)

How come so many people are on the dole when there is so many jobs out there. I pay a wad load of tax each year and it annoys me to think people are living off it without giving anything back to society.


----------



## beautfan (23 Nov 2007)

Ireland actually has a low rate of unemployment in comparison to some other EU countries.


----------



## Thrifty1 (23 Nov 2007)

I actually thought if you were made unemployed you were entitled to sign on straight away but if it was voluntary you could sign on after 6 weeks unemployment.

SW is €185 a week i think and you have to prove you have been actively seeking work thought i dont think they are very strict about this.


----------



## beautfan (23 Nov 2007)

Thrifty - If you are made unemployed through no fault of your own you are entitled to sign on straight away.  You are probably right about the 6 week.  I was basing it on a friend of mine but it may have had something to do with her stamps, she has given up her job herself and I remember this being a problem.


----------



## monkeyboy (23 Nov 2007)

I was able to sign on when I voluntarily left a job due to wishing to relocate due to a commute I could no longer handle.

No hassles......


----------



## ClubMan (23 Nov 2007)

Bear in mind that to qualify for _Jobseekers Allowance/Benefit _then, among other things, you must be genuinely available for and actively seeking work.


----------



## RainyDay (25 Nov 2007)

Niallers said:


> How come so many people are on the dole when there is so many jobs out there. I pay a wad load of tax each year and it annoys me to think people are living off it without giving anything back to society.



What makes you so certain that those on the dole are not giving anything back to society? What value do you place on minding children, or elderly relatives, or people with disabilities?


----------



## ClubMan (26 Nov 2007)

RainyDay said:


> What makes you so certain that those on the dole are not giving anything back to society? What value do you place on minding children, or elderly relatives, or people with disabilities?


If by "dole" you specifically mean _Jobseeker's Allowance/Benefit _then most or all of the categories of people would not be entitled to these payments - whatever about other welfare payments - since they would presumably not be available for and seeking work most or all of the time.


----------



## z104 (26 Nov 2007)

This is what I meant- Jobseekers allowance.
People that care for elderly/incapacitated/ill people are to be admired.

There are alot of people out there with the attitude that why bother working when the state will give you money for doing nothing. My wife to be works in a recruitment agency and she gets people asking her to sign the form to say they popped in on a certain day inquiring about a job. She nearly always has a job they could go for but 80% are not interested as the money isn't worth giving the dole up for. Albeit some of these jobs are in the 8-10 euro per hour range.


----------



## ClubMan (26 Nov 2007)

Niallers said:


> She nearly always has a job they could go for but 80% are not interested as the money isn't worth giving the dole up for.


How come? Individual _JA/JB_ is a maximum of €185.80 p.w. which is about €10K p.a. The statutory minumum wage is €8.65 which is c. €17K for a 38 hour week full time job. I realise that somebody on _JA/JB_ may receive additional payments (e.g. covering dependents, other benefits etc.) but could the total take from _SW _really add up to c. €17K or more in many cases?


----------



## gipimann (26 Nov 2007)

If you factor in Rent Supplement, which could be worth up to €117 per week (maximum payable to a single person in Dublin, in non-shared accommodation), which ceases if the person takes up full time employment, you could see why some people turn down minimum wage jobs.


----------



## ClubMan (26 Nov 2007)

(€185.80 + €117) x 52 = €15,745.60 which is still less than €17K. Maybe tax/_PRSI _could swing it here or something?


----------



## michaelm (26 Nov 2007)

Niallers said:


> How come so many people are on the dole when there is so many jobs out there.


I reckon that most of those on the 'dole' long-term are unemployable.


----------



## monkeyboy (26 Nov 2007)

ClubMan said:


> (€185.80 + €117) x 52 = €15,745.60 which is still less than €17K. Maybe tax/_PRSI _could swing it here or something?



Duh 15,745 for nothing or 17k for a 37.5 hr week.

If it was an investment which has the greatest yield !!

Whats the incentive for people to get out and spend a week working and the cost of commuting when the difference is only that !


----------



## ClubMan (26 Nov 2007)

monkeyboy said:


> Duh 15,745 for nothing or 17k for a 37.5 hr week.


It's not €15,745 for nothing - it's for getting off your buttocks and looking for work.


> Whats the incentive for people to get out and spend a week working and the cost of commuting when the difference is only that !


I doubt that most jobs are paying the minimum wage these days so the difference in practice is most likely a lot more in most cases.


----------



## monkeyboy (26 Nov 2007)

ClubMan said:


> It's not €15,745 for nothing - it's for getting off your buttocks and looking for work.
> 
> I doubt that most jobs are paying the minimum wage these days so the difference in practice is most likely a lot more in most cases.



You fail to see the psychie of the people involved, you are looking at it from your educated, confirdent in a skill and with a desire to work attitude.

Many "state artists" seem to see it the way I describe.......Its their perception that counts after all. 

They only buttock extraction they must do is every time their benefit is under threat and do a Trainspotting type interview or attend a FAS interview.


----------



## PetPal (26 Nov 2007)

Does any poster know the answer to this slightly different question please.  If a person has become unemployed due to visual difficulties, and now qualifies for the blind pension (being visually impaired) but is still seeking suitable employment, can that person receive UB/UA in addition to the Blind Pension?


----------



## ClubMan (26 Nov 2007)

If they *could *claim both _JB/JA _and the pension then surely the resulting _JB/JA _income would mean that they would fail the _Blind Pension_ means test or get very little as a result?


----------



## PetPal (26 Nov 2007)

ClubMan said:


> If they *could *claim both _JB/JA _and the pension then surely the resulting _JB/JA _income would mean that they would fail the _Blind Pension_ means test or get very little as a result?


 
Yes, of course.  Didn't think of that.  Thank you.


----------



## gipimann (26 Nov 2007)

PetPal,  the following info from the SW website:

*Can I get any other Social Welfare payment as well as Blind Pension?*

If you are under age 66, you may qualify for one of the following payments in addition to your Blind Pension;

Half Rate Carer's Allowance 
Illness Benefit 
Jobseeker's Benefit 
Maternity Benefit 
Adoptive Benefit 
Health and Safety Benefit 
Injury Benefit 
Widow/er's (Contributory) Pension 
Widow/er's (Non-Contributory) Pension 
One-Parent Family Payment.


----------



## z103 (26 Nov 2007)

> (€185.80 + €117) x 52 = €15,745.60 which is still less than €17K. Maybe tax/_PRSI _could swing it here or something?



Maybe all that free time to do cash in hand work might swing it.

I'd doubt there'd be much, if any, PAYE/PRSI on €17k


----------



## monkeyboy (26 Nov 2007)

jaybird said:


> If you had even one child say, then you would also be out a large chunk of cash for childcare. I'd say that could swing it alright?
> Haven't we got a very low rate of unemployment here? I can't remember the last time I met someone on the dole.



Also get the single Mothers benefit......

I lived next door to a nice couple where the mother had 3 kids from an Ex. Never had to work at all and had the EHB pay for the rent on the best apt in the block.
The "undeclared" BF brought home the luxury money while the state paid alot of the rent and other supplements as she claimed single mothers allowance.......... rent mostly covered for the penthouse with roof terrace and the mom able to stay at home -  no childcare costs, mom of leisure! ..... sometimes I wonder are we getting a raw deal in the "middle class"!!


----------



## dontaskme (26 Nov 2007)

ClubMan said:


> (€185.80 + €117) x 52 = €15,745.60 which is still less than €17K. Maybe tax/_PRSI _could swing it here or something?


 
A medical card could make the difference.

Medical card saves costs of
-health insurance
-GP visit
-dentist
-prescription medicine.

Personally, I think there should be a token minimal charge associated with using a medical card e.g. 2 or 3 euro to see a GP or get a prescription because the current system is a blank cheque.


----------



## monkeyboy (26 Nov 2007)

All these little perks keep adding up and make it quite a tempting lifestyle choice !

And we wonder why people would rather this than to work cleaning floors in Maccy Ds for Min wage.....


----------



## ClubMan (26 Nov 2007)

Are you sure that _McDonald's _pay the minimum wage for any of their positions?


----------



## monkeyboy (27 Nov 2007)

Is it relevant exactly what they pay??

Im nearly sold on the lifestyle.........

Time to get me a wife beater 3 or 4 kids and a bag of Dutch ' Watch a bit of day time telly and avoid the commute. ( aprt from the monthly stroll at 10.30 amm to my nlocal siging on post ) the monthly 10 am start is a killer but every job has its down side I guess.

Ohh yeah not to mention double dole for Chrimbo next week !!


----------



## dontaskme (27 Nov 2007)

monkeyboy said:


> Also get the single Mothers benefit......
> 
> I lived next door to a nice couple where the mother had 3 kids from an Ex. Never had to work at all and had the EHB pay for the rent on the best apt in the block.
> The "undeclared" BF brought home the luxury money while the state paid alot of the rent and other supplements as she claimed single mothers allowance.......... rent mostly covered for the penthouse with roof terrace and the mom able to stay at home - no childcare costs, mom of leisure! ..... sometimes I wonder are we getting a raw deal in the "middle class"!!


 
Yep, this is quite a common problem. People remain unmarried, the bf declares himself to live at home and the lady of the house draws the single parents allowance. Whereas if the couple got married, the tax credits might be increased but not by enough to make up the difference in what they lose in social welfare payments. If taxes were much higher this might be less prevalent, as the but who wants that either?

However, I'm not sure that I would describe staying at home with 3 children as "mom of leisure".


----------



## monkeyboy (27 Nov 2007)

dontaskme said:


> However, I'm not sure that I would describe staying at home with 3 children as "mom of leisure".



3 school going kids who walk themselves and one old enough to baby sit oin a Fri night after a hard week............sounds good to me !

2 holidays a year also.


----------



## ClubMan (27 Nov 2007)

monkeyboy said:


> Is it relevant exactly what they pay??


Erm - if it's not then why did you say this...


monkeyboy said:


> And we wonder why people would rather this than to work cleaning floors in Maccy Ds for Min wage.....


----------



## delgirl (27 Nov 2007)

dontaskme said:


> Yep, this is quite a common problem. People remain unmarried, the bf declares himself to live at home and the lady of the house draws the single parents allowance. Whereas if the couple got married, the tax credits might be increased but not by enough to make up the difference in what they lose in social welfare payments. If taxes were much higher this might be less prevalent, as the but who wants that either?


This is exactly the scenario I came across last week while renting out a property.  A couple came to see it with their 3 children - he was introduced as the Boyfriend and in later conversation it transpired that he was the father of the 3 children.

When I asked how they would pay the rent, she said she was on SW and the Health Board would pay.  She said she would need to have only her name on the lease and he 'wasn't supposed to live with her' (this statement was accompanied by much laughter).

He told me that he works as a carpenter and earns a good wage and that they're on the 'pig's back' with the SW payments, rent allowance, medical cards etc. plus his earnings.

I work a 12 to 14 hour day and it really galls me to see these people playing the SW game and taking as much as they possibly can, even though they know it's illegal.

And before anyone asks, no I didn't report them as I didn't have enough information on them to give to SW.  I didn't rent the house to them either.


----------



## Welfarite (27 Nov 2007)

PetPal said:


> Does any poster know the answer to this slightly different question please. If a person has become unemployed due to visual difficulties, and now qualifies for the blind pension (being visually impaired) but is still seeking suitable employment, can that person receive UB/UA in addition to the Blind Pension?


 

See here: http://www.welfare.ie/publications/sw76.html#15


----------



## monkeyboy (27 Nov 2007)

ClubMan said:


> Erm - if it's not then why did you say this...



Jeese CM you must be completely isolated from anything other than pure middle class, you just dont seem to get it !!


----------



## truthseeker (27 Nov 2007)

delgirl said:


> This is exactly the scenario I came across last week while renting out a property. A couple came to see it with their 3 children - he was introduced as the Boyfriend and in later conversation it transpired that he was the father of the 3 children.
> 
> When I asked how they would pay the rent, she said she was on SW and the Health Board would pay. She said she would need to have only her name on the lease and he 'wasn't supposed to live with her' (this statement was accompanied by much laughter).
> 
> ...


 
Its a very common scenario.

But is it not a self limiting lifestyle? You can take as much as SW gives and perhaps the carpenter makes a good wage but thats it. Youre never gonna own that house that SW pays the rent for, youre never gonna have investments, you will always be dependant on the state to some degree. For the carpenter to use his wages to buy a bigger, better house in a nicer area means that the SW payments will stop. So you can only enjoy this kind of swindle to a point.


----------



## gipimann (27 Nov 2007)

dontaskme said:


> A medical card could make the difference.
> 
> Medical card saves costs of
> -health insurance
> ...


 
I didn't mention the medical card in my earlier post because persons who have been unemployed for 12 months can retain the card for 3 years after commencing employment - as an incentive to take up work.


----------



## tomred1 (27 Nov 2007)

*Can I get any other Social Welfare payment as well as Blind Pension?*
You may qualify for one of the following payments in addition to your Blind Pension;

‑ *** Half Rate Carer's Allowance
‑ Illness Benefit
‑ Jobseeker's Benefit
‑ Maternity Benefit
‑ Adoptive Benefit
‑ Health and Safety Benefit
‑ Injury Benefit
‑ Widow/er's (Contributory) Pension
‑ Widow/er's (Non‑Contributory) Pension
‑ One‑Parent Family Payment.


----------



## ClubMan (27 Nov 2007)

monkeyboy said:


> Jeese CM you must be completely isolated from anything other than pure middle class


What the hell is that supposed to mean?  

You mention something and then dismiss it as irrelevant while taking me to task for commenting on it?


----------



## RainyDay (27 Nov 2007)

dontaskme said:


> A medical card could make the difference.
> 
> Medical card saves costs of
> -health insurance
> ...


Please advise how the medical card saves the cost of health insurance?


monkeyboy said:


> I lived next door to a nice couple where the mother had 3 kids from an Ex. Never had to work at all and had the EHB pay for the rent on the best apt in the block.
> The "undeclared" BF brought home the luxury money while the state paid alot of the rent and other supplements as she claimed single mothers allowance.......... rent mostly covered for the penthouse with roof terrace and the mom able to stay at home -  no childcare costs, mom of leisure! ..... sometimes I wonder are we getting a raw deal in the "middle class"!!


Given that rent allowance is capped at €700 per month, please let me know where you get get the best apartment on the block, a penthouse with roof terrace 'mostly' covered for €700 per month.


----------



## truthseeker (28 Nov 2007)

RainyDay said:


> Given that rent allowance is capped at €700 per month, please let me know where you get get the best apartment on the block, a penthouse with roof terrace 'mostly' covered for €700 per month.


 
Is it? A friend of mine rents to a family whose social welfare cheque to cover rent is 1100 euro a month.


----------



## gipimann (28 Nov 2007)

There are different capping levels for each county, and different limits depending on family size which may explain the different amounts.

For example, in Dublin, the maximum rent limit for a single person in non-shared accommodation is €130 per week, for a couple it's €200 per week and for a family with 2 children it's €276 per week.

The limits in Cork for the same examples are €115, €153 and €203.


----------



## truthseeker (28 Nov 2007)

that would explain the example I used, in that particular family there is a mother, 4 children and 1 grandchild.


----------



## RainyDay (28 Nov 2007)

gipimann said:


> There are different capping levels for each county, and different limits depending on family size which may explain the different amounts.


Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## dontaskme (30 Nov 2007)

RainyDay said:


> Please advise how the medical card saves the cost of health insurance?


 
If you have a medical card then there is not much point having health insurance as well.

"If you have a medical card, you are entitled to free GP (family doctor) services; prescribed drugs and medicines (with some exceptions); in-patient public hospital services; out-patient services; dental, optical and aural services; medical appliances; maternity and infant care services; and a maternity cash grant of 10.16 euro on the birth of each child. " - from citizensinformation.ie.

So if someone is weighing up the benefits of working full time on low pay and paying health insurance versus not working and applying for a medical card, this could be a factor in their calculations.

Like I said earlier, I don't think the medical card should be a blank cheque, but that is probably how some people are going to perceive it.


----------



## RainyDay (1 Dec 2007)

dontaskme said:


> If you have a medical card then there is not much point having health insurance as well.
> 
> "If you have a medical card, you are entitled to free GP (family doctor) services; prescribed drugs and medicines (with some exceptions); in-patient public hospital services; out-patient services; dental, optical and aural services; medical appliances; maternity and infant care services; and a maternity cash grant of 10.16 euro on the birth of each child. " - from citizensinformation.ie.


But most of these services are available (except the perscription drugs) with minimal charges for non-medical-card holders anyway. And most health insurance schemes don't cover the costs of perscription drugs. This is a red herring. I would be very surprised if there are many people within reach of qualifying for a medical card who have private health insurance anyway.


----------



## z103 (1 Dec 2007)

> But most of these services are available (except the perscription drugs) with minimal charges for non-medical-card holders anyway.



Minimal charges?
I can't afford most of this stuff because I'm a low paid director. For example, I've been putting off going to the dentist for a couple of years now (because I simply can't afford it)

I certainly wouldn't go to the doctor unless I'm at death's door.


----------



## dontaskme (1 Dec 2007)

RainyDay said:


> But most of these services are available (except the perscription drugs) with minimal charges for non-medical-card holders anyway. And most health insurance schemes don't cover the costs of perscription drugs. This is a red herring. I would be very surprised if there are many people within reach of qualifying for a medical card who have private health insurance anyway.


 
My point was if you have a medical card you don't need to worry about health insurance because your medical bills will be approximately 0. 

If you don't have a medical card, then you might think of getting insurance. Or as you point out, it might not be worth it.

Either way, Unemployment 1 Working 0.


----------



## RainyDay (1 Dec 2007)

dontaskme said:


> My point was if you have a medical card you don't need to worry about health insurance because your medical bills will be approximately 0.
> 
> If you don't have a medical card, then you might think of getting insurance. Or as you point out, it might not be worth it.
> 
> Either way, Unemployment 1 Working 0.


You seem to have misunderstood the benefits of health insurance in Ireland. The benefits of health insurance is not about reducing bills. It is about getting access to consultants without getting stuck on a waiting list, and about getting a private room if/when you do go into hospital. The medical card does not help either of these problems.

The income limit for a married couple for a medical card is €298 per week, or approx €15k per annum. How many people with disposable income of €298 per week would be in a position to give even half-serious consideration to spending 10% of that income on private medical insurance.


----------



## Trafford (3 Dec 2007)

Niallers said:


> This is what I meant- Jobseekers allowance.
> People that care for elderly/incapacitated/ill people are to be admired.
> 
> There are alot of people out there with the attitude that why bother working when the state will give you money for doing nothing. My wife to be works in a recruitment agency and she gets people asking her to sign the form to say they popped in on a certain day inquiring about a job. She nearly always has a job they could go for but 80% are not interested *as the money isn't worth giving the dole up for.* Albeit some of these jobs are in the 8-10 euro per hour range.


 
That's the real issue. It's hard to blame a parent on the dole if they are better off financially than they would be if they were working. Add in the cost of childminder fees and it doesn't add up. Perhaps the state should address this in the amount of benefits they give so as to make working for a living a more viable option.


----------



## z104 (3 Dec 2007)

I suppose, Can you blame a person for taking what they are legally entitled to?

It's a weak system.
I think free childcare would be beneficial to the state in the long term.


----------



## HelloJed (3 Dec 2007)

Niallers said:


> I suppose, Can you blame a person for taking what they are legally entitled too?
> 
> It's a weak system.
> I think free childcare would be beneficial to the state in the long term.


 
Here here. I'd love to see free childcare in Ireland. I don't have children by the way and don't plan to have any - I just feel that if both parents are encouraged to work by the government (a general vibe I get - apologies if this isn't actually the case) they should be offered free childcare as well.


----------



## madisona (3 Dec 2007)

delete


----------



## madisona (3 Dec 2007)

_


madisona said:





delgirl said:



			This is exactly the scenario I came across last week while renting out a property.
		
Click to expand...



Click to expand...

_


madisona said:


> delgirl said:
> 
> 
> > _it really galls me to see these people playing the SW game and taking as much as they possibly can_
> ...


----------



## truthseeker (3 Dec 2007)

madisona said:


> Personally I think that the biggest spongers by far are the Landlords who take €500,000,000 a year from the state in rent allowance payments


 
Why shouldnt a Landlord accept a SW cheque as rent?
Or am I misunderstanding your post?


----------



## madisona (3 Dec 2007)

no reason at all,  but the landlord is accepting a payment from the exchequer. Many landlords receive about €9,000 a year per property in such payments. Now irrespective of the merits of the scheme, for a landlord who receives such welfare payments to moan and complain about people who receive unemployment assistance payments strikes me as hypocritical and mean spirited.  N.B. rent allowance payments go indirectly from taxpayers to landlords. I've made this arguement before. but I think its valid.


----------



## z103 (3 Dec 2007)

> Personally I think that the biggest spongers by far are the Landlords who take €500,000,000 a year from the state in rent allowance payments


This is incorrect.

The tenant gets the payment, and pays it to the landlord as rent. There is no direct contract between the landlord and the social welfare. If anyone is 'sponging' it's the tenant.

The landlord is providing housing. 

There is no restriction on who can can become a landlord, it's open to everyone. Although has become somewhat less accessible in recent years.


----------



## truthseeker (4 Dec 2007)

leghorn said:


> This is incorrect.
> 
> The tenant gets the payment, and pays it to the landlord as rent. There is no direct contract between the landlord and the social welfare. If anyone is 'sponging' it's the tenant.
> 
> ...


 
I agree - its not the landlords responsibility to monitor how the tenant earns the money to pay rent. The landlord is simply providing a service whereby housing is given in exchange for rent money.


----------



## z104 (4 Dec 2007)

The landlord gives a roof over the tennents head in return for rent.

They're giving something for something.That's not sponging


----------



## stir crazy (4 Dec 2007)

*





madisona said:


> Personally I think that the biggest spongers by far are the Landlords who take €500,000,000 a year from the state in rent allowance payments
> 
> it really galls me to see these people playing the SW game and taking as much as they possibly can



 No group of people is homogeneous. Maybe some landlords dont maintain their properties as they should. However 
   What does the person who accused us of being spongers suggest we do ? Withdraw from the market *and watch society collapse without us ? Or perhaps give away all our worldly goods ? If we give it away then who to ? You ? If we give it away then who will pay the loans on our properties? I really dont get the point of that sponger remark. if you have a problem with capitalism then come out and say it or else please clarify your remark.



.wysiwyg { background-attachment: scroll; background-repeat: repeat; background-position: 0% 0%; background-color: #f5f5ff; background-image: none; color: #000000; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; font-size: 10pt; line-height: normal } p { margin: 0px; }


----------



## madisona (4 Dec 2007)

Ok. sponger remark unfair and withdrawn.I was reacting to the the landlady who said that it galled her to see the unemployed getting social welfare. 

However if people paid rent to landlords from their unemployment assistance\benefit there would be no issue. Supply and Demand would mean that landlords would have no choice but to accept what people could afford to pay. 

However this is not the case. Rent Allowance cheques are only given to those who can prove that the full amount ends up in a Landlords pocket. 
It is therefore a subsidy or welfare payment to landlords. The fact that landlords give something in exchange does not change this. 

e.g. suppose the unemployed were told that they would get €10 a week Bread allowance. However the full amount had to be given to a baker in exchange for one loaf of bread and recepients had to show proof that this had occured. I would see this as a subsidy to bakers rather than the unemployed.


----------



## truthseeker (4 Dec 2007)

madisona said:


> Ok. sponger remark unfair and withdrawn.I was reacting to the the landlady who said that it galled her to see the unemployed getting social welfare.
> 
> However if people paid rent to landlords from their unemployment assistance\benefit there would be no issue. Supply and Demand would mean that landlords would have no choice but to accept what people could afford to pay.
> 
> ...


 
If people paid landlords directly from their jobseekers allowance money then you would find that jobseekers allowance would have to increase dramatically to cover this or there would be a lot of people with no roof over their heads looking for housing from the government. An increase in the jobseekers allowance would only encourage MORE people to faff about and not bother looking for work.


----------



## RainyDay (4 Dec 2007)

jaybird said:


> How about even tax relief on childcare costs? That would help a huge amount of people, it would certainly help me! It seems like you can get tax relief on practically everything but childcare, and that is the biggest monthly outlay for a lot of people.


Tax relief wouldn't help those who most need it, who would be paying little or no tax anyway. The laws of supply & demand mean that it would almost certainly lead to an equivalent increase in creche costs, resulting in a large subsidy for creche operators and little benefit for their customers.


----------



## delgirl (5 Dec 2007)

madisona said:


> Ok. sponger remark unfair and withdrawn.I was reacting to the the landlady who said that it galled her to see the unemployed getting social welfare.


Now you're withdrawing the 'sponger remark' and misquoting me as well!

I never said I was galled by the fact that the unemployed get social welfare.  I was galled by the fact that a woman with 3 kids and a permanent partner was claiming to be living on her own, claiming rent allowance and lone parent allowance etc., when she was in fact intending to rent my property with her working partner.  She specifically asked me not to put his name on the lease as she was claiming rent allowance in her name only and he wasn't supposed to be living with her.

The reason I did not want to rent my property to these people is that I would have knowingly been assisting them to defraud the State, the taxpayers.

Rent Allowance can be directly payable into the Bank account the Landord by the local Health Board with the agreement of the tenant.

Methinks there's a green eyed monster here!


----------



## madisona (5 Dec 2007)

It is informative that your ire and annoyance is reserved for the woman struggling to bring up three kids and who needs a place to stay and that the fraud in question that galls you is that she has a boyfriend. perhaps a condition of her landlord receiving rent allowance payments should be that she wears and chastity belt and signs a declaration that she will not seek a partner. Maybe you should consider that working is not an option for this woman as working at a minimun wage job would not provide enough for child care for three children. However perhaps it is better if poor women are sterilized or revolutionary concept , provided with social housing.

Why is it that you are not upset at the benificiary of this "fraud" the person that actually gets this welfare money, namely the landlord. 
Now let me be clear, my annoyance is not so much at landlords, but rather at landlords who are annoyed at poor people who are in effect forced to commit fraud for their benefit. The rent allowance system also acts as a poverty trap and a major disincentive to work.

Of course this issue would not arise if unemployment was increased to give people enough to pay for accomadation themselves or if alternatively means tested social housing was available with rent payments to state linked to income.


----------



## Ceist Beag (5 Dec 2007)

Give it a rest madisona - so these poor people are forced to commit fraud and are also disincentivised to work - aw poor diddums!! Anyone who commits fraud does so willingly - nobody is forced to do anything. Here's a thought - don't have kids in the first place? No wait that would imply some sort of responsibility on the parent! Sure there are probably some very valid cases of people struggling to get by but there are also a heck of a lot of people out there ripping off the state by unlawfully taking these benefits. The problem is finding the valid cases - no easy task I'm sure!


----------



## madisona (5 Dec 2007)

I accept that there may be merit in Delgirls  other point. i.e. should a man who meets a woman who has children from a previous relationship and who is on welfare , be legally obliged to take over responsibility from the state for financially providing for and supporting those children, before he is allowed to have a relationship with this woman. 

as for not having kids, I did suggest the forced sterilzation of poor women as a possible way to assuage the ire of the well off. However landlords should be aware that this could result in less transfers from the state to their pockets.


----------



## Guest127 (5 Dec 2007)

I know of at least one case where a 'single' mother is claiming single parents and living with the father. Its  not uncommon. I agree with an earlier post that those who are claiming UB now are probably unemployable.. That a few  of them may be working   in the back economy is  beside the point, the vast majority neither want work nor do employers want them. as for changing jobs and waiting 6 weeks. I suspect it depends on where you are and where you worked. Mrs Cu left employment around 3 years ago. when into sw office to sign on and the social welfare officer stated something like - 'you won't have to wait the 6 weeks as everyone leaves that place sooner or later'. As it turned out she found employment inside the 6 weeks and  refunded around €160 back to SW that year. (and got a receipt  for it)


----------



## delgirl (5 Dec 2007)

delgirl said:


> A couple came to see it with their 3 children - he was introduced as the Boyfriend and in later conversation it transpired that he was the father of the 3 children.


Madisona, you're either incapable of understanding what is being written here or are deliberately mis-quoting me to provoke a response.

The fraud is not the fact that she happens to have a boyfriend - if you'd care to read my original post (see above) you'd realise that the boyfriend *is the father of the 3 kids*, the oldest one was 7, and even though they are not married, it is his responsiblity to provide for his partner and children particularly if he is employed - just like the rest of us!

You've obviously got a huge problem with landlords - I have no idea where that stems from - but your reasoning is completely off the wall.


----------



## RainyDay (5 Dec 2007)

When Seamus Brennan was Minister for Social & Family Affairs, I heard him state his intention to remove the requirement to be living on your own to be eligible for such benefits, largely because it was unenforceable. Not sure if this has happened or will happen. Come back, Seamus - all is forgiven.


----------



## truthseeker (5 Dec 2007)

madisona said:


> Now let me be clear, my annoyance is not so much at landlords, but rather at landlords who are annoyed at poor people who are in effect forced to commit fraud for their benefit.


 
Nobody is FORCED to commit fraud - in the case that is being referred to here its quite clear that the mother of the 3 kids is deliberately committing fraud.
Why dont they pay rent out of the partners earnings? Because they have learned how to play the system and defraud the state.


----------



## RainyDay (5 Dec 2007)

RainyDay said:


> When Seamus Brennan was Minister for Social & Family Affairs, I heard him state his intention to remove the requirement to be living on your own to be eligible for such benefits, largely because it was unenforceable. Not sure if this has happened or will happen. Come back, Seamus - all is forgiven.



Just heard Joan Burton's speech today calling on the Minister to implement these promised changes, so I guess they certainly haven't happened yet.


----------



## Purple (6 Dec 2007)

RainyDay said:


> Just heard Joan Burton's speech today calling on the Minister to implement these promised changes, so I guess they certainly haven't happened yet.


 Not like Bertie to shaft one of his few effective ministers…

One of my employees had a flat in Ballymun for years, or at least his “partner2 and their three children did). They now have a house. They got a hand out from the state (that’s you and me people) to furnish it. Then they got a hand out from St. Vincent DePaul. 
This year he will earn €44’000. His wife works part time and they have a side line selling pornographic DVD’s. They are in no way exceptional.

A woman on RTE radio was moaning about lack of free childcare. She said something along the lines of, “what they expect me to do, I mean my child needs to minded in the afternoon”.  Well this might come as news to her but she’s a grown-up and is responsible for her own life. Why do so many people in this country still think that they are owed a living?


----------



## Welfarite (13 Dec 2007)

RainyDay said:


> When Seamus Brennan was Minister for Social & Family Affairs, I heard him state his intention to remove the requirement to be living on your own to be eligible for such benefits, largely because it was unenforceable. Not sure if this has happened or will happen. Come back, Seamus - all is forgiven.


 

He also mentioned, at the same time as he was talking about doing away with the co-habitation rule, that he would introduce conditions that a lone parent would have to go to work/training/education when the child reached 6 years of age in order to keep the payment. You still want him back?


----------



## truthseeker (13 Dec 2007)

Welfarite said:


> He also mentioned, at the same time as he was talking about doing away with the co-habitation rule, that he would introduce conditions that a lone parent would have to go to work/training/education when the child reached 6 years of age in order to keep the payment. You still want him back?


 
Why shouldnt a lone parent go into work/training/education when their child is 6 years of age and in school all day?


----------



## Purple (13 Dec 2007)

truthseeker said:


> Why shouldnt a lone parent go into work/training/education when their child is 6 years of age and in school all day?


Fascist! Nazi! Neo-Con Capitalist pig!
How dare you suggest that people should be self-sufficient and imply that the welfare system should be used to help them reach that goal and not as a free income for life!


----------



## delgirl (13 Dec 2007)

Purple said:


> Fascist! Nazi! Neo-Con Capitalist pig!
> How dare you suggest that people should be self-sufficient and imply that the welfare system should be used to help them reach that goal and not as a free income for life!


Well said!    They're introducing it in the UK from October 2008 - about time too!


----------



## Welfarite (13 Dec 2007)

truthseeker said:


> Why shouldnt a lone parent go into work/training/education when their child is 6 years of age and in school all day?


 
Why indeed?


----------



## Purple (13 Dec 2007)

Welfarite said:


> Why indeed?



Was that a rhetorical question?


----------

