The post you are speaking about was focused on the possibility of her husband finding out about savings she had accumulated without his knowledge, she wasn't at issue with a potential decrease in their weekly allowance after the means test for its own sake but for the potential problems it may cause in their homelife when he discovered the money she had saved without his knowledge. She was also upfront and forthright with Social Welfare.
what do you class as means for SW?
- Thread starter samanthajane
- Start date
The post you are speaking about was focused on the possibility of her husband finding out about savings she had accumulated without his knowledge, she wasn't at issue with a potential decrease in their weekly allowance after the means test for its own sake but for the potential problems it may cause in their homelife when he discovered the money she had saved without his knowledge. She was also upfront and forthright with Social Welfare.
Phibbleberry
Registered User
- Messages
- 166
I agree with the majority of the posters here. Without being inflamatory, why should people who had the 'keeping up with the Jones' mentality bought every newest gadget/new car every year etc..and are now in serious trouble, be looked more favourably upon than people who were prudent through the good times?
Its quite simple: If you paid PRSI while you worked, and you are no longer working, you should be entitled to €x benefits.
The same €x benefits as every other poor PRSI contributor, regardless of your situation, be it savings, spouses income etc..
Look at it this way:
Worker A (newly redundant):
20 years in a job earning €65k per year - paid x amount of tax on his salary over the years.
Worker B (newly redundant):
20 years in a job earning €30k per year - paid x amount of tax on his salary over the years.
The yield from worker A's income over the years will have contributed more to the coffers than worker B's however (in the case where there is no other benefits to be claimed) each will get the same weekly dole amount. Fair enough.
But if you apply this scenario to worker A's who spent to the hilt and worker B's who saved - or workers A's who saved and worker B's who spent to the hilt how do you justify who DESERVES more than the other? Surely we all deserve the same...??
Er...it makes senses in my head...hope I haven't complicated it the way its written!
Its quite simple: If you paid PRSI while you worked, and you are no longer working, you should be entitled to €x benefits.
The same €x benefits as every other poor PRSI contributor, regardless of your situation, be it savings, spouses income etc..
Look at it this way:
Worker A (newly redundant):
20 years in a job earning €65k per year - paid x amount of tax on his salary over the years.
Worker B (newly redundant):
20 years in a job earning €30k per year - paid x amount of tax on his salary over the years.
The yield from worker A's income over the years will have contributed more to the coffers than worker B's however (in the case where there is no other benefits to be claimed) each will get the same weekly dole amount. Fair enough.
But if you apply this scenario to worker A's who spent to the hilt and worker B's who saved - or workers A's who saved and worker B's who spent to the hilt how do you justify who DESERVES more than the other? Surely we all deserve the same...??
Er...it makes senses in my head...hope I haven't complicated it the way its written!
starlite68
Registered User
- Messages
- 330
well said..I agree with the majority of the posters here. Without being inflamatory, why should people who had the 'keeping up with the Jones' mentality bought every newest gadget/new car every year etc..and are now in serious trouble, be looked more favourably upon than people who were prudent through the good times?
Its quite simple: If you paid PRSI while you worked, and you are no longer working, you should be entitled to €x benefits.
The same €x benefits as every other poor PRSI contributor, regardless of your situation, be it savings, spouses income etc..
Look at it this way:
Worker A (newly redundant):
20 years in a job earning €65k per year - paid x amount of tax on his salary over the years.
Worker B (newly redundant):
20 years in a job earning €30k per year - paid x amount of tax on his salary over the years.
The yield from worker A's income over the years will have contributed more to the coffers than worker B's however (in the case where there is no other benefits to be claimed) each will get the same weekly dole amount. Fair enough.
But if you apply this scenario to worker A's who spent to the hilt and worker B's who saved - or workers A's who saved and worker B's who spent to the hilt how do you justify who DESERVES more than the other? Surely we all deserve the same...??
Er...it makes senses in my head...hope I haven't complicated it the way its written!
Raskolnikov
Registered User
- Messages
- 351
What about the chap who has a €300,000 house with no mortgage? He deserves his dole, whereas the other "poorer" guy with €20,000 in the bank and no house gets nothing.
If anything - people with a significant amount of equity in their homes should be disqualified from claiming the dole.
If anything - people with a significant amount of equity in their homes should be disqualified from claiming the dole.
My parents bought their house for €4K in the 70's. House worth €400K. They have no cash. Why should they not be entitled to dole/sw. Why should they have to sell their home to get it either.
That is silly thinking.
dockingtrade
Registered User
- Messages
- 342
also alot of cash would be kept "under pillows"
samanthajane
Registered User
- Messages
- 766
What has me smoking got to do with anything? Your making it out that i choose not to save anything, try digging a bit further to get the full story not just use 1 post that i have replied to. I never suggested anyone should get preference, my point was the 20k is a very high disregard.
Finally someone with some actual information to give.
She was honest because she was told she couldn't hide the funds. She went to them after posting on here. Weather i fully believe the whole story of hers is another convesation
I agree with the majority of the posters here. Without being inflamatory, why should people who had the 'keeping up with the Jones' mentality bought every newest gadget/new car every year etc..and are now in serious trouble, be looked more favourably upon than people who were prudent through the good times?
Its quite simple: If you paid PRSI while you worked, and you are no longer working, you should be entitled to €x benefits.
The same €x benefits as every other poor PRSI contributor, regardless of your situation, be it savings, spouses income etc..
Look at it this way:
Worker A (newly redundant):
20 years in a job earning €65k per year - paid x amount of tax on his salary over the years.
Worker B (newly redundant):
20 years in a job earning €30k per year - paid x amount of tax on his salary over the years.
The yield from worker A's income over the years will have contributed more to the coffers than worker B's however (in the case where there is no other benefits to be claimed) each will get the same weekly dole amount. Fair enough.
But if you apply this scenario to worker A's who spent to the hilt and worker B's who saved - or workers A's who saved and worker B's who spent to the hilt how do you justify who DESERVES more than the other? Surely we all deserve the same...??
Er...it makes senses in my head...hope I haven't complicated it the way its written!
I've never said anyone should be entitled to more or less than someone else. Anyone from a high paid job to being on the social could have the 20k in savings. My point was and i still stand it that 20k is a lot of money to be disregared ( for some social welfare )
You all seem to think i'm saying that you shouldn't get a thing and taking great offense in the matter.
Since the budget people on minimum wage have to pay tax, now among other things this is to help towards the people who are now unemployed. So someone through no fault of their own who didn't have the money to go on to further education is working at a min wage job. That money is being taken from to go to people that arn't working that have 20k sitting in the bank.
I've read a lot of posts where you all have opinion on pulic sector wages to name one. You think they are being paid to much! You only think that cause your not a public sector worker. If you were then you wouldn't think that at all. You'd be arguing that you shouldn't be getting the cuts in your wages.
I recently found out my partner could claim CB and FIS, and i was unsure should i apply for it or not. On one hand who's going to say no to extra money, and one the other side i could survive without the money. I decided not to apply for it as i dont need it. I was surprised as a lot of people said go ahead and claim it anyway. And that brings me back to the main point why claim when you dont need to.
Were all unhapy about the education cut backs, as express in another post here.
There are cut backs everywhere, no ones happy with them but no one is prepared to give a little either. All everyone wants is to keep as much as they can and get as much as they can. It's human nature.
I know that england has no such 20k rule, you go to them and your laughted at for looking for help with 20k in the bank. Is there another E.U country that allows you to have this amount and still claim??
Is this maybe why were in the **** a lot more than other countrys?
Gosh, while we're at it why not take the houses off those disgusting people altogether and use that money to pay those deemed deserving
. It's so good to see that begrudery is still alive and well.starlite68
Registered User
- Messages
- 330
maybe you should live in england!samanthajane; said:
samanthajane
Registered User
- Messages
- 766
getting a bit personal there arn't you starlite68.
Could you not think of anything worth while to mention, but just wanted your name to appear in the thread. Or just take a section of it which didn't fully reflect on what i was saying.
I think MAYBE i can live where every i want without any help from you.
But if ever do need help on where to live i'll know who to ask wont i!! But i wouldn't hold your breath on that one.
Could you not think of anything worth while to mention, but just wanted your name to appear in the thread. Or just take a section of it which didn't fully reflect on what i was saying.
I think MAYBE i can live where every i want without any help from you.
But if ever do need help on where to live i'll know who to ask wont i!! But i wouldn't hold your breath on that one.
starlite68
Registered User
- Messages
- 330
i think myself and nearly everyone else here knows exactly what you were saying!
The original argument is so fundamentally flawed, it does not even make sense. OP, you asked the question does anyone else not find it unbelieveble or whatever, and then seem annoyed because people do not agree. Smoking or any discretionary spending is actually relevant here, count up how much per year people spend on cigarettes/drink etc and see how quickly it adds up. So, if I save the money you smoke or drink or whatever, then we both lose our jobs and I have my €20K fag money and get nothing and you get benefits???
I am not surprised that people disagree with it. It is ridiculous to infer that just because someone has €20K saved, that they do not need or should not be entitled to SW. As some people have pointed out, it is not a large amount of money by any stretch and would not see you into your retirement!
It would make more sense for the government to seek out and tackle the welfare tourists instead of trying to penalise people who work and save a few bob.
I am not surprised that people disagree with it. It is ridiculous to infer that just because someone has €20K saved, that they do not need or should not be entitled to SW. As some people have pointed out, it is not a large amount of money by any stretch and would not see you into your retirement!
It would make more sense for the government to seek out and tackle the welfare tourists instead of trying to penalise people who work and save a few bob.
samanthajane
Registered User
- Messages
- 766
I'm not annoyed at all that people have different opinions to me. If we all had the same views the world would be a very boring place.
What i take offense to is stupid little comments from people, i'm entitled to my opinion the same as anyone else that is here. And sarky little comments about my opinions just because you dont agree with them is pathetic.
I'd love to hear what starlite68 thinks i am saying.
Not one single person has answer the original question. You just all waved in thinking it was a personal attack on you. That says more about you than it does about me really.
What i take offense to is stupid little comments from people, i'm entitled to my opinion the same as anyone else that is here. And sarky little comments about my opinions just because you dont agree with them is pathetic.
I'd love to hear what starlite68 thinks i am saying.
Not one single person has answer the original question. You just all waved in thinking it was a personal attack on you. That says more about you than it does about me really.
Some of my savings are ear-marked for different things - baloon payment for the car, honeymoon, etc. Saving is not easy regardless of whether you're saving for any eventuality or a specific purpose and I don't think that anyone should be penalised for that. If you've paid your PRSI, you are entitled to SW. Personally I have issues with those who choose not to work but collect the dole instead, demand council housing,.... but that's a whole new thread.
starlite68
Registered User
- Messages
- 330
ok..i think you are saying that anyone who has managed to save 20.000euro should not be getting SW.
I also think that you tought people would agree with you...they dont.
thats it plain and simple.
This is your original question.
Almost every single post has disagreed with you.
How can you say after all these posts that no one has answered your question?
but if you read your original question, you have answered it yourself - it seems to be just you.
We are all entitled to our opinions, but it seems a bit odd to accuse people of seeing your opinion as a personal attack just because their opinion differs from yours? I dont see it as a personal attack - I just disagree with it. That does not say more about me than you does it? Also, you have questioned the credibility of another poster, which is both personal and unfair.(Weather i fully believe the whole story of hers is another convesation)
More power to all the posters with a few quid put aside.
samanthajane
Registered User
- Messages
- 766
But i never did say they shouldn't get it, i just said i thought it was a lot of money to disregard when be assessed.
I didn't have any opinions on what other people would or wouldn't think or say. If i wasn't interested in what other people thought of the matter i would of posted it in the first place.
But my question was "what do you class as means for sw"?
That was the title of my post. My opinion is it's too high. Obviously other people dont agree and think it should be higher. What do you think the amount should be? 25k...30k.....50k???? When is the cut off point?
I never said anyone was attacking me. I though silly comments were pointless.
I said very little about the other post, if it was that personal she shouldn't of posted it in the first place for anyone to see. Isn't that why she did it cause she wanted people to look form an opinion and make a suggestion. I didn't however like another poster say directly to her i didn't believe the full story. Every day people question what others have said. That not either unfair or personal.
My point is it is out of order to say you dont believe someone, directly, indirectly or otherwise. These boards are for people to hopefully get advice about their circumstances. The comment (weather or not I believe her is another conversation) is in my opinion a personal, sly dig and I must say (one I would take offence at, if it had been directed at me) and just not the kind of response to threads that should be encouraged on the boards.
SJ, if you are entitled to extra money from SW or whatever then I think you are very silly indeed not to take it. Even if you don't need it now you might need it someday.
I too am surprised at your comment about the other poster who had a problem in relation to her husband. I thought she was very genuine but if you didn't you should have said it directly to her on the other post not here where she cannot defend herself as she may not know about this post.
As you brought up smoking, you do realise that smokers are more likely to get ill and are therefore a greater burder to health costs and ultimately to all tax payers. You cost all of us more. But I'm not of the brigade they should be penalised for this, thought others might think so, and I'm just making that point to you.
Nobody seems to agree with your original post but you are having issues dealing with this. Can you not see this?
Why anyone would pick the UK as a good example of social welfare policies is beyond me. There are so many people living in poverty there, it's a really viscious circle of poverty in the UK. Have you seen council estates in London, Birmingham etc.
______________________________
I'm not on social welfare and hopefully will not be but I would be of the belief that it is better to reward those who have been thrifty and careful rather than demeaning them and penalising them. It's not so long ago people had to beg for welfare in Ireland, a time when there were comly maidens dancing at the crossroads in our idyllic ilse. I've been on social welfare and it was demaining, depressing and life sapping, I hope things have changed.
I too am surprised at your comment about the other poster who had a problem in relation to her husband. I thought she was very genuine but if you didn't you should have said it directly to her on the other post not here where she cannot defend herself as she may not know about this post.
As you brought up smoking, you do realise that smokers are more likely to get ill and are therefore a greater burder to health costs and ultimately to all tax payers. You cost all of us more. But I'm not of the brigade they should be penalised for this, thought others might think so, and I'm just making that point to you.
Nobody seems to agree with your original post but you are having issues dealing with this. Can you not see this?
Why anyone would pick the UK as a good example of social welfare policies is beyond me. There are so many people living in poverty there, it's a really viscious circle of poverty in the UK. Have you seen council estates in London, Birmingham etc.
______________________________
I'm not on social welfare and hopefully will not be but I would be of the belief that it is better to reward those who have been thrifty and careful rather than demeaning them and penalising them. It's not so long ago people had to beg for welfare in Ireland, a time when there were comly maidens dancing at the crossroads in our idyllic ilse. I've been on social welfare and it was demaining, depressing and life sapping, I hope things have changed.
Raskolnikov do you really believe this?