Entitlements and moral rights to....

[pernickety]

Hello.
This situation has popped up several times in my life.

I am entitled to certain benefits but am not sure that I should avail of them.

Most recent is that I have moved to France with a tidy lump sum from sale of Irish home, we have lovely house, no mortgage etc and hubby has a modest job. Because we have 3 kids, we pay no tax and we qualify for lots of reductions and free entry to museums, cheap train travel etc.

But I don't use most of these because I know I have plenty of money and don't need them.

Yet I feel a bit of an eejit not to.

do you avail of all that's coming to you?

 

[ClubMan]

Do you avail of all that's coming to you?

Yes - of course. I don't see what morals/morality has to do with this issue to be honest.

 

[Purple]

I know where you are coming from. There are some things, like childrens allowance, that I don't think we need. By that I mean it would be better if our share went to those for whom it was a necessity. The extra money is nice but we would still do fine without it.

 

[PMU]

You don’t have a moral right to these benefits, as they are not essential to your existence; or you didn’t create them personally; or you didn’t, like the French, elect a government that created them on their behalf with their taxes. But you do have an entitlement to them if the French decide to make these benefits available to all residents in France. So you are entitled to avail of them. It’s not an issue of moral rights. With three kids, as the French say (or sing) : ‘Famille nombreuse Famille heureuse Quand on est frère et soeur c'est le bonheur’, so participate in le bonheur - you’ve an entitlement to it.[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

 

[ClubMan]

I know where you are coming from. There are some things, like childrens allowance, that I don't think we need.

Who do you mean by "we" here? You and your family specifically or others too?

By that I mean it would be better if our share went to those for whom it was a necessity. The extra money is nice but we would still do fine without it.

So why not claim it and donate it to those who you think better deserve it?

 

[ClubMan]

You don’t have a moral right to these benefits

As above I don't really understand the concept of "moral right" here.

 

[GeneralZod]

Claim them until the Government decides to make them means tested. If you feel there are more needy people donate it to charity.

The charity will probably spend it more efficiently than the bloated public service bureaucracy.

 

[pernickety]

Who do you mean by "we" here? You and your family specifically or others too?

So why not claim it and donate it to those who you think better deserve it?

Yes, perhaps.

All things are not equal.

Family 1: Earns 1000 euro/month, has no savings and a 'large' (for them) mortgage of 300pm. Every bill that comes in is a struggle. Finding money for holidays may not be possible. They claim all benefits.

Family 2: Earns same, but has huge savings and no mortgage. Every bill is just a matter of paperwork. Several holidays a year and no money worries. They can claim the same benefits.

Legally, Family 2 are entitled to the same benefits but morally I'm not sure. (have I now explained 'morally' clearly?)

I think the 'child benefit' remark explains a little. Everyone gets it. Some need it to survive, others put it in a savings account and don't.

Should we always take what others have defined we are entitled to? Should we take it and run. Should we take it and give to charity, as suggested above. Or should we just not claim it and leave the money in the system?

 

[Caveat]

Or should we just not claim it and leave the money in the system?

I'm not sure 'the system' could handle such philanthropy.

Think of all those who make illegitimate claims - I wouldn't feel guilty about claiming what the system has deemed to be your entitlement.

By all means donate it or something but don't leave anything 'unclaimed'.

 

[Sn@kebite]

I have to agree with ClubMan's 2nd post 'donate it to those who you think better deserve it'.
Surely there are people who woud see you as a God among men (or women) if you helped them out with an ESB or Phone bill?

I can't speak for anyone but me here, but I would rather my 'entitlements' were under my control in my pocket rather than in a 'spike' on O'Connell Street tbh.
I could go as far as saying: not claiming it would seem a bit naive. One day you may need it and wish you claimed and saved it.
Why don't you put it into your Life Assurance or Health Insurance?

 

[ClubMan]

I think the 'child benefit' remark explains a little. Everyone gets it.

Those without children or those who are not the primary carers for their children don't.

Should we always take what others have defined we are entitled to?

"Others" have not dictated this - we all have by virtue of the fact that we live in a democracy.

Should we take it and run. Should we take it and give to charity, as suggested above. Or should we just not claim it and leave the money in the system?

There is no "should" about it - it's a personal choice.

 

[SarahMc]

I always viewed children's allowance and the pre-school payment as being universal untargeted payments, which I disapprove of (and fought hard against the latter).
Its all well and good saying "donate it to those who you think better deserve it", but I have a problem with money from a child poverty measure going to a dogs home.


Has anyone else heard about the exchange between Mrs Fitzgerald and Mrs Smurfitt in Brown Thomas re: children's allowance, or is that an urban myth?

 

[ClubMan]

Its all well and good saying "donate it to those who you think better deserve it", but I have a problem with money from a child poverty measure going to a dogs home.

Eh? Dogs (or dog's or dogs' presumably?) home? If you have fundamental objections to these payments being universal to those with children then you should probably start lobbying your elected representatives or otherwise campaign for changes to the relevant welfare payment schemes. Good luck!

Has anyone else heard about the exchange between Mrs Fitzgerald and Mrs Smurfitt in Brown Thomas re: children's allowance, or is that an urban myth?

Again - eh?

 

[Sn@kebite]

I always viewed children's allowance and the pre-school payment as being universal untargeted payments, which I disapprove of...

Care to elaborate?
Do you mean 'disapprove of' because of guilt or something that there are people out there starving and you're collecting that money?
I think a lot of people pay tax here, and it's fair that we get helped along by the government.
I'm sure if you disagree you can refuse to collect the money?

 

[SarahMc]

If you have fundamental objections to these payments being universal to those with children then you should probably start lobbying your elected representatives or otherwise campaign for changes to the relevant welfare payment schemes. Good luck!

I am politically active, and do lobby. I agree that these schemes will probably never be revised.

are to elaborate?
Do you mean 'disapprove of' because of guilt or something that there are people out there starving and you're collecting that money?
I think a lot of people pay tax here, and it's fair that we get helped along by the government.
I'm sure if you disagree you can refuse to collect the money?

i disapprove becuase child benefit is a child poverty measure. It was initially universal as most women did not have economic independence, and there was no way of ensuring income distribution within the home. Nowadays with economic opportunities available to women, this argument does not hold water.

In an ideal world, I would like to see it targeted towards children living in poverty. Perhaps by taxing it and using the revenue to roll out early start programmes or other intervention schemes.

 

[Sn@kebite]

i disapprove becuase child benefit is a child poverty measure. It was initially universal as most women did not have economic independence, and there was no way of ensuring income distribution within the home. Nowadays with economic opportunities available to women, this argument does not hold water.

In an ideal world, I would like to see it targeted towards children living in poverty. Perhaps by taxing it and using the revenue to roll out early start programmes or other intervention schemes.

I see your point. However, I believe you would be in a minority? I don't think everybody would think about the impoverished before they put their hand out to collect. So sadly you may have a long, arduous affair ahead of you.

 

[Purple]

i disapprove becuase child benefit is a child poverty measure. It was initially universal as most women did not have economic independence, and there was no way of ensuring income distribution within the home. Nowadays with economic opportunities available to women, this argument does not hold water.

In an ideal world, I would like to see it targeted towards children living in poverty. Perhaps by taxing it and using the revenue to roll out early start programmes or other intervention schemes.

I agree 100% with this.
It is totally unjust that those on incomes of €200k plus a year get the same as those on €40K.

 

[Sn@kebite]

I agree 100% with this.
It is totally unjust that those on incomes of €200k plus a year get the same as those on €40K.

I might agree too, if the difference was given to the 40k/y earner. But do you think that it would? Or is that what the lobbying is for.

 

[PMU]

[/font]As above I don't really understand the concept of "moral right" here.

‘Moral rights’ are usually referred to as rights related to intellectual property, i.e. the rights of creators of copyright works. You often see, especially on American paperbacks, phrases like ‘The author asserts his moral rights to this work’. So they are rights related to something you create (i.e not to something provided to you by the state from other taxpayers' funds).
Others use the phrase in relation to rights that do not expressly need to be defined in law, e.g. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness". ; ‘I have a moral right to defend myself, my family and my property against aggression.”, etc.

 

[Purple]

Who do you mean by "we" here? You and your family specifically or others too?

I mean me and my family and others like me.

So why not claim it and donate it to those who you think better deserve it?

Since you asked, that's what we do.

I might agree too, if the difference was given to the 40k/y earner. But do you think that it would? Or is that what the lobbying is for.

Yes, that's a good point too. Payments should be increased to those who need it most and decreased or stopped altogether to those who need it least.
I feel the same way about third level fees and grants but that’s a different story.