what do you class as means for SW?

S

samanthajane

Registered User
Messages
766
It is just me or does anyone else find it unbelievable that you are allowed 20k in savings and still be entitled to SW?

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

No wonder were in such a mess.
 
actually, in a way it's a good thing if true. Is it not perverse to beggar somebody before you help them?
 
I am working and have always saved a small percentage of my wages for a rainy day fund and this account is currently fairly healthy - I don't think I should be penalised for being sensible. As a taxpayer, I don't think that my practical habit of saving should count against me when it comes to claiming Job seekers (or whatever).
 
Isnt that what a rainy day fund is for? If anything were to happen like you were ill, or lost your job you could use that money to cover mortgage, bills ect.
 
deefox said:
i am working and have always saved a small percentage of my wages for a rainy day fund and this account is currently fairly healthy - i don't think i should be penalised for being sensible. As a taxpayer, i don't think that my practical habit of saving should count against me when it comes to claiming job seekers (or whatever).
Click to expand...


+1
 
I agree also.

If all savings were means tested it could contribute to a poverty trap - e.g. someone could be saving for a house then made redundant. They should not be penalised or forced to start again.
 
I didn't say all savings, i just think 20k is a lot of money.

Everyone has different situations.

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

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

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

Of course to be careful and to save all that money on your own bills and living would be hard for some people. If your neighbour came to you saying he needed 300 euro or they were going to cut their electric off, would you give him the 300 euro knowing that he had 20k in the bank, he just didn't want to spend that money. I really dont think so.
 
Well, it won't work out if she transfer funds to her children accounts if they are dependant as you have to declare it as well to the Social welfare for mean testing
 
She knows that now as people have told her that. The fact was she was looking for ways not to disclose her savings is what got me mad.

As caveat said which i do see his point, if someone has worked hard and saved for years to buy a house and then lose their job to be made to start again is somewhat unfair.
 
I don't have a firm view on this, but isn't there an argument that anything from PRSI shouldn't depend on means. After all it's Pay Related Social Insurance - and Insurance is a means of protecting against things that may or may not happen.
 
DeeFox said:
I am working and have always saved a small percentage of my wages for a rainy day fund and this account is currently fairly healthy - I don't think I should be penalised for being sensible. As a taxpayer, I don't think that my practical habit of saving should count against me when it comes to claiming Job seekers (or whatever).
Click to expand...

I'm with this view. If I lost my job in the morning, I would be down to SW to get job seekers or whatever I would be entitled to and I have to be honest, I have a lot more than €20K saved. Even so, €200 per week or what ever job seekers is, would barely cover my mortgage, so I would be living on my savings anyway.
 
No cause you would be entitled to get the interest on your mortage paid aswell.

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

If this money is a rainy day fund please explain the tern "rainy day fund" to me. Cause it's obvious not what i though it was.
 
People work to better themselves and should not be penalised for this. Anybody here who has commented here and has savings they are after tax has been paid, so it is their after tax earnings they are saving.

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

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

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

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

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

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

:(
Click to expand...

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

So why should my non smoking rainyday savings be means tested while a smoker like SamanthaJane who burns her money away claim that they have no money and therefore get first preference on social welfare?
 
The 20K disregard does not apply across all SW schemes.

Supplementary Welfare Allowance (which includes Rent Supplement and Mortgage Interest Supplement) disregards the first €5000 savings and assesses the balance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top