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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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!
If anything - people with a significant amount of equity in their homes should be disqualified from claiming the dole.
maybe you should live in england!samanthajane; said: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.
I'd love to hear what starlite68 thinks i am saying.
.
It is just me or does anyone else find it unbelievable that you are allowed 20k in savings and still be entitled to SW?
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?