Follow, retweet @dailypinster




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 115 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: The Dept of Social Protection thread
PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2015 8:23 am 
Offline
Too Big to Fail

Joined: Sep 13, 2012
Posts: 4752
mocame wrote:
I don't know why I continue to be shocked by the sense of entitlement among some social welfare claimants and the unwillingness of the media to challenge it but I do. Can me old fashioned but in my opinion if you bring children into the world you have an obligation to try your best to support them by working and only rely on benefits if no other options are available. This is not the opinion of this letter writer to the Irish times who is insensed becuase the government has had the timerity to recquire recipients of Lone Parent's Allowance with children over seven to be available for work

The letter writer does work. Her argument is that withdrawal of the LPA will mean she has to choose between working full time or not at all.

I don't have a strong opinion but this seems to be a complicated issue of benefits tapering, marginal incentives to work and the effects on children of having all parents working full time.

_________________
"It's easy to confuse what is with what ought to be, especially when what is has worked out in your favour"
Tyrion Lannister


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Dept of Social Protection thread
PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2015 9:34 am 
Offline
Under CAB Investigation

Joined: Mar 31, 2010
Posts: 2656
Reading that letter, it seems that the woman is in receipt of:

Lone Parent Allowance
Child Benefit
Family Income Supplement
Fuel Allowance (80 Euro per month for six months of the year!)
Back to School Footwear and Clothing Allowance
Medical Card

I didn't add in all of the exemptions that usually follow when anyone is in receipt of some of the above benefits. (State exam costs, for example.)
Her mortgage is only Euro 160 per month yet she claims if she sold her house it would be at a loss?

Astonishingly, she's now threatening the Government that her children might become "disruptive" at school and require extra tuition at a cost to the State as a result of the changes. No mention of the fact that not having a father around (or at least one who contributes something to the upbringing of his two children) might have a similar effect.

Bottom line is, the State is already heavily subsidising the fact that, for whatever reason, she and her children's father have decided not to raise their children together. Not only that but they expect the taxpayer to step in to make up the difference. Another example of our Welfare culture laid bare.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Dept of Social Protection thread
PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2015 9:52 am 
Offline
Real Estate Developer

Joined: Jul 27, 2011
Posts: 799
+ 1 Hi Fi

and you forgot to mention the free school bus she also raises in the letter.

In addition, let's remember is she loses her job no one is suggesting that she starve. She will simply get job seekers allowance at the same rate as any other unemployed person.

Prior to the reform of Lone Parent's Allowance recipients were entitled to claim it, with no obligation to seek work until their youngest child was 18. This means that in theory I could have a child at 20 and another at 38 and make it almost to retirement age having never worked or never had an obligation to do so in return for benefits. Joan Burton has attracted vitriol for decreasing this to 7 years. Fintan O'Toole has an article in the Irish times this very morning making this point. There is no mention of the parents (male or female) having any obligation to support their own children.

For lone parents who do work part time there were also a whole range of supports in place not available to single people or married parents with children. These entitlements are simply being standardized across family types. This woman doesn't mentioned that if she increases her working hours to 19 hours per week she will lose nothing because the government have introduced a new payment (the back to work family dividend) for people in this category.

My politics are probably to the left of most pinsters. I believe in the necessity to pay taxes to fund a strong welfare state. However IMO the Irish welfare state is deeply problematic. There are too many means tested supports for people who don't work, no enforcement of the obligation to seek work and no benefits or other supports for people who do work and pay for everything. This means that wonders wonder why they bother to pay tax and people on benefits are discouraged from seeking employment.

Critics of Burton's reforms commonly claim that she should have introduced a Swedish childcare system to enable lone parents to work. I agree but, unlike them I think, I would like the rest of the Swedish system too. Sweden doesn't have a lone parents benefit. Instead they have supports for all types of parents for the first 18 months of a child's life and after that everyone is obliged to seek work, that obligation is enforced and they are provided with the training necessary to do so. That is why Sweden can afford universal subsidised childcare - their exchequer isn't paying for an equivalent of LPA.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Dept of Social Protection thread
PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2015 12:59 pm 
Offline
Single Home Owner

Joined: Mar 8, 2010
Posts: 172
mocame wrote:
+ 1 Hi Fi

and you forgot to mention the free school bus she also raises in the letter.

In addition, let's remember is she loses her job no one is suggesting that she starve. She will simply get job seekers allowance at the same rate as any other unemployed person.

Prior to the reform of Lone Parent's Allowance recipients were entitled to claim it, with no obligation to seek work until their youngest child was 18. This means that in theory I could have a child at 20 and another at 38 and make it almost to retirement age having never worked or never had an obligation to do so in return for benefits. Joan Burton has attracted vitriol for decreasing this to 7 years. Fintan O'Toole has an article in the Irish times this very morning making this point. There is no mention of the parents (male or female) having any obligation to support their own children.

For lone parents who do work part time there were also a whole range of supports in place not available to single people or married parents with children. These entitlements are simply being standardized across family types. This woman doesn't mentioned that if she increases her working hours to 19 hours per week she will lose nothing because the government have introduced a new payment (the back to work family dividend) for people in this category.

My politics are probably to the left of most pinsters. I believe in the necessity to pay taxes to fund a strong welfare state. However IMO the Irish welfare state is deeply problematic. There are too many means tested supports for people who don't work, no enforcement of the obligation to seek work and no benefits or other supports for people who do work and pay for everything. This means that wonders wonder why they bother to pay tax and people on benefits are discouraged from seeking employment.

Critics of Burton's reforms commonly claim that she should have introduced a Swedish childcare system to enable lone parents to work. I agree but, unlike them I think, I would like the rest of the Swedish system too. Sweden doesn't have a lone parents benefit. Instead they have supports for all types of parents for the first 18 months of a child's life and after that everyone is obliged to seek work, that obligation is enforced and they are provided with the training necessary to do so. That is why Sweden can afford universal subsidised childcare - their exchequer isn't paying for an equivalent of LPA.


Totally agree, in addition to that in Sweden fathers are responsible for contributing financially to the children's upbringing and you can bet that the sate fully pursues them on that point. Unlike here where it's considered acceptable that legions of unmarried fathers are practically invisible without rights nor responsibilities.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Dept of Social Protection thread
PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2015 9:22 pm 
Offline
Of Systemic Importance

Joined: Nov 4, 2011
Posts: 5502
Location: SthDub
I think the minimum a father has to give is 15e per week. I was talking to a former school mate at the weekend who told me he left the wife and moved home. He's giving her 15e for 2 kids and sounded quiet proud of that.
Meanwhile he's on 1 of those back to work schemes where you continue to get some dole for 4 yrs while earning. They even paid for his tools.

Great country


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Dept of Social Protection thread
PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2015 9:30 pm 
Offline
Nationalised
User avatar

Joined: Jan 4, 2013
Posts: 16996
Location: To the right of the decimal place
As a alternative example, in California an absent father who is unemployed with $1000/month of dole pays $161/month in child support.

FYI in the US, if you owe $2500 or more in child support by law you cannot be issued with a passport. Some states will also suspend your driver’s license.

_________________
“If you're afraid - don't do it. If you're doing it - don't be afraid!” ― Genghis Khan

"Do, or do not; there is no try" -- Yoda


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Dept of Social Protection thread
PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2015 10:10 pm 
Offline
Of Systemic Importance

Joined: Jun 9, 2008
Posts: 7056
Mantissa wrote:
As a alternative example, in California an absent father who is unemployed with $1000/month of dole pays $161/month in child support.

FYI in the US, if you owe $2500 or more in child support by law you cannot be issued with a passport. Some states will also suspend your driver’s license.


Ah the US, the paradigm of sensibility :D

Quote:
Statutory rape victim forced to pay child support

While in high school, Olivas had sex with a 20-year-old woman. As he sees it now, she took advantage of a lonely kid going through a rough patch at home.

State law says a child younger than 15 cannot consent with an adult under any circumstance, making Olivas a rape victim. Olivas didn't press charges and says he didn't realize at the time that it was even something to consider.

The two went their separate ways. Olivas, now 24 and living in Phoenix, graduated from high school, went to college and became a medical assistant.

Then two years ago, the state served him with papers demanding child support. That's how he found out he had a then-6-year-old daughter.

"It was a shock," he said. "I was living my life and enjoying being young. To find out you have a 6-year-old? It's unexplainable. It freaked me out."

He said he panicked, ignored the legal documents and never got the required paternity test. The state eventually tracked him down.

Olivas said he owes about $15,000 in back child support and medical bills going back to the child's birth, plus 10 percent interest. The state seized money from his bank account and is garnisheeing his wages at $380 a month.


http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... /14953965/

edit:
Quote:
garnisheeing

_________________
“Don't ask the barber if you need a haircut—and don’t ask an academic if what he does is relevant.” Nassim Nicholas Taleb


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Dept of Social Protection thread
PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2015 10:14 pm 
Offline
Nationalised
User avatar

Joined: Jan 4, 2013
Posts: 16996
Location: To the right of the decimal place
Oh, I’m not saying they’re not fucked when it comes to social policy. But they certainly do a better job of pursuing absent fathers than we do.

Also, do the sums -- if I’m not mistaken he was above the age of consent when he fathered the child (assuming it’s his -- he refused the paternity test).

_________________
“If you're afraid - don't do it. If you're doing it - don't be afraid!” ― Genghis Khan

"Do, or do not; there is no try" -- Yoda


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Dept of Social Protection thread
PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2015 10:36 pm 
Offline
Of Systemic Importance

Joined: Jun 9, 2008
Posts: 7056
Mantissa wrote:
Oh, I’m not saying they’re not fucked when it comes to social policy. But they certainly do a better job of pursuing absent fathers than we do.

Also, do the sums -- if I’m not mistaken he was above the age of consent when he fathered the child (assuming it’s his -- he refused the paternity test).


I assume you added the 9 months?

_________________
“Don't ask the barber if you need a haircut—and don’t ask an academic if what he does is relevant.” Nassim Nicholas Taleb


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Dept of Social Protection thread
PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2015 10:45 pm 
Offline
Nationalised
User avatar

Joined: Jan 4, 2013
Posts: 16996
Location: To the right of the decimal place
grumpy wrote:
Mantissa wrote:
Oh, I’m not saying they’re not fucked when it comes to social policy. But they certainly do a better job of pursuing absent fathers than we do.

Also, do the sums -- if I’m not mistaken he was above the age of consent when he fathered the child (assuming it’s his -- he refused the paternity test).


I assume you added the 9 months?


I do know how long the stork takes, yes.

24 - 6 - 2 - 0.75 > 15. Unless I misread. I know he was still a victim.

_________________
“If you're afraid - don't do it. If you're doing it - don't be afraid!” ― Genghis Khan

"Do, or do not; there is no try" -- Yoda


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Dept of Social Protection thread
PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2015 10:52 pm 
Offline
Of Systemic Importance

Joined: Jun 9, 2008
Posts: 7056
Mantissa wrote:
grumpy wrote:
Mantissa wrote:
Oh, I’m not saying they’re not fucked when it comes to social policy. But they certainly do a better job of pursuing absent fathers than we do.

Also, do the sums -- if I’m not mistaken he was above the age of consent when he fathered the child (assuming it’s his -- he refused the paternity test).


I assume you added the 9 months?


I do know how long the stork takes, yes.

24 - 6 - 2 - 0.75 > 15. Unless I misread. I know he was still a victim.


Depends on birthdays. Anyway, from the article

Quote:
California issued a similar state court ruling a few years later in the case of a 15-year-old boy who had sex with a 34-year-old neighbor. In that case, the woman had been convicted of statutory rape.

In both cases, it was the state social-services agency that pursued the case after the mother sought public assistance.


There is being a bit more than doing a better job than pursuing absent fathers.

They also have 2.3M in jail. And another 5M on parole.

_________________
“Don't ask the barber if you need a haircut—and don’t ask an academic if what he does is relevant.” Nassim Nicholas Taleb


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Dept of Social Protection thread
PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2015 11:32 pm 
Offline
Nationalised
User avatar

Joined: Jan 4, 2013
Posts: 16996
Location: To the right of the decimal place
As I said, yes they're fucked in many ways. But when it comes to getting absent parents to support their kids we truly suck worse.

_________________
“If you're afraid - don't do it. If you're doing it - don't be afraid!” ― Genghis Khan

"Do, or do not; there is no try" -- Yoda


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Dept of Social Protection thread
PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2015 11:43 pm 
Offline
Of Systemic Importance

Joined: Jun 9, 2008
Posts: 7056
Is everything not socially cataclysmically borked at this stage everywhere?

_________________
“Don't ask the barber if you need a haircut—and don’t ask an academic if what he does is relevant.” Nassim Nicholas Taleb


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Dept of Social Protection thread
PostPosted: Wed Jun 24, 2015 8:48 am 
Offline
Nationalised
User avatar

Joined: Jan 4, 2013
Posts: 16996
Location: To the right of the decimal place
grumpy wrote:
Is everything not socially cataclysmically borked at this stage everywhere?



Yeah, probably best just stay inside.

_________________
“If you're afraid - don't do it. If you're doing it - don't be afraid!” ― Genghis Khan

"Do, or do not; there is no try" -- Yoda


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Dept of Social Protection thread
PostPosted: Wed Jun 24, 2015 9:24 am 
Offline
Of Systemic Importance

Joined: Dec 28, 2006
Posts: 5578
HiFi wrote:
Reading that letter, it seems that the woman is in receipt of:

Lone Parent Allowance
Child Benefit
Family Income Supplement
Fuel Allowance (80 Euro per month for six months of the year!)
Back to School Footwear and Clothing Allowance
Medical Card

A person I know well in receipt of lone parents allowance was telling me that they are applying for a scheme to upgrade the insulation on their home. They want to get approval and get it done before their allowance runs out and they are no longer entitled.
It is a grant for a few thousand. The companies providing the insulation know how to extract the full grant at no cost to the customer so if it is there then why not avail of it.
The house is under 10 years old, is already well insulated and cheap to heat but it will add to the value of the house as it is in an estate and it differentiates it from all the other identical houses in the estate.
The grants are there to be taken so I can't fault them for taking them.

It is up to Government elected by the people to decide if they want to turn off the tap of social welfare, not the recipients of the bounty to stop taking.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 115 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 16 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  

Follow, Retweet @dailypinster



Pyramid Built, Is Better Built! - Latest Property Discussions www.thepropertypin.com