Up to €2billion to be cut from Social Welfare: Times

dotski_w_

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 28, 2004
Messages
2,474
Website
irishpollingreport.wordpress.com
Family C "enjoy" €487 p.m. CB. The savings for multiple children is lower than you think, but even if it's 25% of the non-childcare costs, that's (3X €150) + (3 X €500) = €1,950 p.m. Given mortgage is €1,500, their net outgoings are €3,450, which from €4,487 leaves €1,037 per month.
Interestingly, the "twin bonus" has also been attacked, but if pregnancy number 3 resulted in children 3 & 4, that would make their their net position €761 per month after the higher CB. Plus they need a bigger car as you can't use a normal car for a family of 6 (unless you put one kid in the boot. In this case, the lower income parent (usually the mother) is pretty much forced to give up work.
 


dotski_w_

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 28, 2004
Messages
2,474
Website
irishpollingreport.wordpress.com
"They need bigger houses and cars ..."

What planet have you been living on for the last three years !?

This country is BROKE.
a. I made no adjustment for that (as you'd know if you could read part the first line), I was simply pointing out that they have greater needs, which they do (i.e. they can't live in a 1 bed apartment, unlike the childless couple) and yet already make do with less cash to meet those needs.

b. I said they needed bigger living space relative to those with no kids to enjoy the same standard of living. I was making the point that a family of 6 in a 3 bedroom house are not in a better position than the childless couple in asimilar house, despite having less than half their disposable income on the same wages

c. As I pointed out, if they have 4 kids, they'll be legally required to have a larger car than most ppl.

d. A fairer solution, as I pointed out, is tax increases, which spreads the pain more fairly (something you don't refute, I suspect because you would be personally affected by this, and only support cutbacks that affect others, including other people's children)

e. If this is all news to you, I think I live somewhere closer to earth than you do.....
 
Last edited:

dotski_w_

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 28, 2004
Messages
2,474
Website
irishpollingreport.wordpress.com
Why should everyone else's tax be increased so that people who have 4 or more kids can keep their standard of living ?
they wouldn't, their income would fall by the same amount as everyone else, ya thickko!

The question you have to answer (although I doubt you can) is why they and their children should suffer a greater reduction in their standard of living in order to allow you keep your standard of living? Their disposable income has already been cut to the bone, and as I have already demonstrated (and you've shown no ability to dispute it) they are in a much worse financial position than you, where on the same salary. They're not out on the p!ss every weekend, they're staying at home and counting the pennies to pay for clothes and medical bills
 

neutral_lurker

Well-known member
Joined
May 28, 2009
Messages
844
a. I made no adjustment for that (as you'd know if you could read part the first line), I was simply pointing out that they have greater needs, which they do (i.e. they can't live in a 1 bed apartment, unlike the childless couple) and yet already make do with less cash to meet those needs.

b. I said they needed bigger living space relative to those with no kids to enjoy the same standard of living. I was making the point that a family of 6 in a 3 bedroom house are not in a better position than the childless couple in asimilar house, despite having less than half their disposable income on the same wages

c. As I pointed out, if they have 4 kids, they'll be legally required to have a larger car than most ppl.

d. A fairer solution, as I pointed out, is tax increases, which spreads the pain more fairly (something you don't refute, I suspect because you would be personally affected by this, and only support cutbacks that affect others, including other people's children)

e. If this is all news to you, I think I live somewhere closer to earth than you do.....
My mother had 4 kids and never had a car,a car is not an automatic right if you choose to have a larger family then you should bear in mind the costs.

I have no children but if I have one in the future through choice or otherwise I know I won't be as well off as when I am childless (unless theres a Labour Govt ;))
 

dotski_w_

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 28, 2004
Messages
2,474
Website
irishpollingreport.wordpress.com
My mother had 4 kids and never had a car,a car is not an automatic right if you choose to have a larger family then you should bear in mind the costs.
if we're going to play that game, you've no right to much of anything......

I have no children
really - you're full of surprises...

but if I have one in the future through choice or otherwise I know I won't be as well off as when I am childless (unless theres a Labour Govt ;))
that's hardly an argument in favour of increasing that disparity, is it?
 

dotski_w_

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 28, 2004
Messages
2,474
Website
irishpollingreport.wordpress.com
Why should someone who has no kids see their income fall by the same amount as someone who has five or six kids, so that child benefit can continue to be paid at the same level to said person with five or six kids ?

That is what I am asking.
well, aside from the fact that you've increased the children from 3, to 4, and now 5 or 6 ....

Because that's them suffering by the same amount, i.e. sharing the pain equally. Well, actually they are suffering more, as a €100 tax hike per month is a higher percentage of the disposable income for them than the single family (see above).

Why exactly do you think they should suffer by a greater amount than you? Is it so the children can suffer? In fact, an argument could be made that they should pay less than you, as they'll not be p!ssing it against a wall
 

White Rose

Well-known member
Joined
May 29, 2007
Messages
624
Interestingly, the "twin bonus" has also been attacked, but if pregnancy number 3 resulted in children 3 & 4, that would make their their net position €761 per month after the higher CB. Plus they need a bigger car as you can't use a normal car for a family of 6 (unless you put one kid in the boot. In this case, the lower income parent (usually the mother) is pretty much forced to give up work.
The twin bonus is crazy (and this from someone who has twins). Why should you get loads more money because 2 arrived together
 

Outlander

Well-known member
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
593
The increased payment for 3 or more kids is partly to encourage families to have more than the 2.1 children needed to replace the population - strategies like this are also in place in France. If the population becomes pensioner heavy then we are heading for trouble - who's going to pay for the pensions?
 

Bow tie

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 30, 2010
Messages
349
Paying child benefit is the same as paying OAP- they are social benefits recognised to aide society and it's weakest members.

When I had no children, and a higher disposable income I certainly didn't look at the tax take on my wages and begrudge the sliver being paid to others in CB. Neither did I think, damn those OAPs I have to pay for. Or the PRSI contributions I make though I also pay private insurance. Or any other part of the tax I pay. For god's sake.
Like someone else said, it's as if making the children suffer will make you feel better, is that it?

For someone with twins to say the extra payment is 'crazy' ; well you either don't use expensive childcare and/ or have a very healthy family income.
 

dotski_w_

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 28, 2004
Messages
2,474
Website
irishpollingreport.wordpress.com
You still haven't answered me.

I'm asking what is the moral justification for them both suffering the same amount, to pay for children that only one of them had ?
that is nonsensical - you can only argue that the family with children should suffer a greater decrease in their disposable income next January if you feel either (a) they are better off (which I've shown they're not, they are already considerably worse off or (b) you feel that there is some sort of moral imperative to make their relatively worse situation even further behind that of childless people.
 

dotski_w_

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 28, 2004
Messages
2,474
Website
irishpollingreport.wordpress.com
The twin bonus is crazy (and this from someone who has twins). Why should you get loads more money because 2 arrived together
if you'd actually read the post you were "replying" to you'd see the rationale.... did you not read it after the 5th word, or do you have some sort of rebutting argument that you want us all to guess....?
 

eoghanacht

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 18, 2006
Messages
32,410
Boo hoo - the dole lifers aka 'the most vulnerable' will have 20 quid taken from their handout each week.

.
No everybody on the dole is taking a cut but hey if you need to class us all as 'dole lifers' what the heck, eh?
 

wombat

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
35,712
you feel that there is some sort of moral imperative to make their relatively worse situation even further behind that of childless people.
Welfare cutbacks are a question of necessity, not morality. I believe they should be selective - abolish some allowances rather than across the board cuts. A friend of mine uses his free travel to come to Dublin & elsewhere for social visits - a nice to have perk but hardly as essential as a fuel grant.
 

Bow tie

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 30, 2010
Messages
349
How many people do you know have twins? Secondly how many people with twins do you know say the extra payment is crazy? Wouldn't that be a minutely tiny proportion of the population? :roll:
I have twins, why?
I was responding to White rose saying the payment was crazy. I don't think it is. Maybe the other poster is trolling. Maybe not.
 

White Rose

Well-known member
Joined
May 29, 2007
Messages
624
if you'd actually read the post you were "replying" to you'd see the rationale.... did you not read it after the 5th word, or do you have some sort of rebutting argument that you want us all to guess....?
The 5th word in the post I was replying to was 'also', What is your point, that people need a bigger car so they should get money to buy one? This is the economics of bankruptcy.
 

hammer

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 6, 2009
Messages
58,180
10% cut and then use some of the saving to provide social welfare to the self employed that are entitled to NOTHING
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top Bottom