Roscommon TD accuses Opposition of hypocrisy over SSIAs

BaZmO*

Heard this on the radio this morning.
Have to agree with his last statement “Is this not rank hypocrisy of the highest order?” It most certainly is.

http://www.athloneadvertiser.ie/index.php?aid=742

Roscommon TD accuses Opposition of hypocrisy over SSIAs
BY DECLAN VARLEY

The Opposition parties are guilty of gross hypocrisy over the SSIA scheme, the vice-Chair of the Dáil Finance Committee and Roscommon Fianna Fáil TD, Michael Finneran has said.

Deputy Finneran said that since the SSIA scheme was launched Fine Gael and Labour TDs have been strong in their disapproval and severely criticised the government for its introduction.

“Yet Enda Kenny and Pat Rabbitte have both availed of the accounts. Enda Kenny described the scheme as ego-sustaining.

“His own Fine Gael spokespeople have joined in the criticism. In 2002, Fine Gael’s Denis Naughten claimed that if the scheme was withdrawn “it would save €150 million”.

“Pat Breen from Clare also berated the government for a scheme that “is costing over €2.5 billion at a time when we urgently need projects and infrastructure.

“Yet the Fine Gael leader is happy to take his share of money that these deputies feel should be spent on infrastructure.”

“The Labour party indulges in just as much doublespeak on this issue. Party leader Pat Rabbitte has been happy to avail of what he called a “daft scheme”.

Brendan Howlin agrees that it was a daft scheme but honourably admitted that he had one because it was “money for old rope”. His frontbench colleague Seán Ryan said that the SSIA scheme showed “total recklessness”.

Joan Burton moaned that “of the monuments to Deputy McCreevy's misplaced arrogance, the SSIA scheme is one of the most ridiculous. It typifies his refusal to accept advice”.

Labour’s education spokesperson Jan O’Sullivan complained that over €500 million was spent on the SSIA scheme in 2002 and claimed that it would have been better to spend some of that money elsewhere.

“It is clear that both Enda Kenny and Pat Rabbitte were happy to complain about the SSIA scheme, to let their frontbenchers do likewise, yet at the same time they signed on the dotted line to take out accounts.

“It is as if they said "This is terrible, can I have one?" These politicians like to preach about justice and accountability yet they chose to avail of that which they condemned.

“Is this not rank hypocrisy of the highest order?”, Deputy Finneran concluded.

simu

Yeah, twould seem so alright. How come it's possible to know that they have these accounts, though? I thought that would have been confidential info?

The_Minister

Joan Burton was asked about her account on Prime Time - she was not happy.:D

Cork

I think negative opposition speechs are rants.

They come out aganist the principle of SSIAs and then on pronciple they have no problem availing of the scheme.

This shower should have gone to Europe not Charlie McCreevy.

TheVan

I think the current opposition suffer from a case of "protesting for the sake of protesting".....its a credibility problem.

You rarely hear of FG or Labour working with the government or agreeing with the government.

Most people see FG as another version of FF....they shouldn't campaign on how FF are just plain wrong, they should say "good idea, wrong way to go about it"

Cork

I think opposisition partys lack alternative tax, social and economic policies.

If they see a better way - why can't they come out with it.

They grouch away and hope they get attention.

But then within government too many reports are comissioned.

oscarBravo

simu wrote:

How come it's possible to know that they have these accounts, though?

At a guess, you just ask them. They can't really afford to be caught in a lie.

John R

Them not taking a SSIA would have had no effect on the scheme sucking funds out of the treasury though. Once the scheme was started only a fool with the money to spare would not have invested in one.

This is just another example of the criticisms that appear to be fair game to throw at anyone that claims to aspire to a fairer and more just distribution of wealth. If they are not wallowing in poverty themselves then obviously they are hypocrites and liars.

It is a pathetic arguement and usually one thrown by people who have no problem with outlandish greed on their own behalf but feel compelled to criticise anyone else who does well for themselves.

Much more relevant is did they object to the scheme when it was proposed? After it had been established there was nothing they could have done about it anyway so why shouldn't they have benefitted from it?

I don't think it was a good scheme for the country, the money could have been better spent on public services rather than the expected boom in conservatories and new motors in the coming year. It certainly isn't fair on those who couldn't afford to tie up 15k for years but still have to pay their share of taxes to fund it.

I still made sure that I have a SSIA for the full amount and see no hypocricy in that.

Did I agree with the policy; No.
Do I think that only those who agreed with it have a right to benefit from this tax rebate; No.

Cork

John R wrote:

Them not taking a SSIA would have had no effect on the scheme sucking funds out of the treasury though. Once the scheme was started only a fool with the money to spare would not have invested in one.
and liars.

Anybody with disposable income who did not sign up was not a fool.

Many had other uses of their funds - sending kids to college etc.

John R wrote:

I don't think it was a good scheme for the country, the money could have been better spent on public services rather than the expected boom in conservatories and new motors in the coming year.

What is the point at giving more money to public services?

Threre has never been a point where so much money is being spent on public services.

What we are not getting from public services is value for money.

The Health spend was tripled.

Opposition Tds who were aganist the scheme turning around and opening SSIAs is typical of them.

gandalf

Well tbh I didn't agree with the SSIA's because the people that need to be encouraged to save couldn't. The ones that have benefitted are the middle classes who could afford to invest in it.

Did I, of course I did you would be a fool not it, it is money for nothing. The same goes for opposition politicians, as a citizen they are entitled to take advantage of a legal opportunity like this and as a politician they are entitled to criticise the scheme.

Oh Cork by highlighting all the money wasted on the civil service and health service you have shown up the SSIA for what it is, a smokescreen to try and generate a feel good factor before the next general election so people will forget how badly this government have mis-managed things in a time of plenty.

If someone doesn't approve of a new bypass and still uses it they need to, are being hypocritical or just sensible? Hypocrisy would be if Labour/FG supported the SSIA scheme back in the day but opposed it now.

bk

gandalf wrote:

Well tbh I didn't agree with the SSIA's because the people that need to be encouraged to save couldn't. The ones that have benefitted are the middle classes who could afford to invest in it.

That is complete BS, I opened the SSIA when I was a pennyless student. I put the minimum amount of €12 odd a month into it.

Once I left college and got a job I increased it to the max. But the point is that the minimum amount was €12, you would have to be far below the poverty line not to be able to afford that. It certainly wasn't just for the middle class, I come from a working class area and most of my neighbours did it.

John R

Cork wrote:

What is the point at giving more money to public services?

Threre has never been a point where so much money is being spent on public services.

What we are not getting from public services is value for money.

Of course if our leaders weren't incompetent, corrupt and craven beyond belief the record spending would have achieved much more.

Cork wrote:

Opposition Tds who were aganist the scheme turning around and opening SSIAs is typical of them.

Yes, how dare they avail of a legal investement guaranteed to give a high return.

Congratulations on completely avoiding my points by the way. Care to take another crack at my first post including the reasons why their availing of SSIAs is not hypocritical?

samb

bk wrote:

That is complete BS, I opened the SSIA when I was a pennyless student. I put the minimum amount of €12 odd a month into it.

Once I left college and got a job I increased it to the max. But the point is that the minimum amount was €12, you would have to be far below the poverty line not to be able to afford that. It certainly wasn't just for the middle class, I come from a working class area and most of my neighbours did it.

Well said, and well done to you. I think those that didn't avail of the scheme must not have been paying attention.
I disagree with the extent of the scheme but think the idea is good. I think it should be scaled down but continued. All the money coming out now is not healthy for the economy, they should introduce it on a permanent basis to incourage saving. The way it was timed was definetely motivated by the next election.

pete

bk wrote:

That is complete BS, I opened the SSIA when I was a pennyless student. I put the minimum amount of €12 odd a month into it.

Well then strictly speaking you weren't penniless, were you?

Once I left college and got a job I increased it to the max. But the point is that the minimum amount was €12, you would have to be far below the poverty line not to be able to afford that. It certainly wasn't just for the middle class, I come from a working class area and most of my neighbours did it.

The reason that I and others objected to it was that here in a country where there are people that far below the poverty line, we have the Government handing free money to those who need it least. Boggles the mind.

SeanW

The SSIAs were, are, and always will be a stupid waste of money.

Note the dates of maturity, they'll start to mature soon, and it will be less than 12 months before the next general election.

The SSIAs were a way to waste taxpayers money to buy an election. Nothing more, nothing less.

Widgeon

I don't subscribe to the theory that SSIAs were a way of buying the next election. I don't think the Government was ever capable of thinking that far ahead.
SSIAs are going to overheat the economy just when we need it to slow down a little. The feelgood factor may last a little longer, but when a flattening out or downturn happens, the pain will be greater.
Think of all the younger people who have never known unemployment. How will they cope?

John R

Widgeon wrote:

I don't subscribe to the theory that SSIAs were a way of buying the next election. I don't think the Government was ever capable of thinking that far ahead.

Thinking ahead to the next election is the main focus for all political parties. The next election is always where the minds of governments are.

Just look at budgets, there are always tight budgets early into a government to cut spending in order to pay for the giveaway budgets approaching elections.

Their number one consideration is how to stay in power, whatever it takes to win that next election.

bk

pete wrote:

Well then strictly speaking you weren't penniless, were you?

You are right, I worked in a supermarket while at University. But I certainly had very little money.

pete wrote:

The reason that I and others objected to it was that here in a country where there are people that far below the poverty line, we have the Government handing free money to those who need it least. Boggles the mind.

You said middle class, which I object to entirely. I'm sure there are people for whom even €12 is too much, but not for the vast majority of even working class people.

For such people, no scheme would help them learn to save.

I don't mean to sound crass, but I just have to say, anyone who can't afford €12 per month in this day and age with almost full employment and decent minimum wage, is blowing all their money on either drinking, smoking or taking drugs.

The only reason for anyone being in real poverty is due to addiction.

democrates

I was against the ssia on three counts, 1) the money could be better used 2) it discriminated against people without spare wealth to invest resulting in 3) it artificially created a division of people into winners and losers.

Once it was brought in though, I had to choose between being a winner or loser. Max from start to finish.

John R

bk wrote:

I don't mean to sound crass, but I just have to say, anyone who can't afford €12 per month in this day and age with almost full employment and decent minimum wage, is blowing all their money on either drinking, smoking or taking drugs.

The only reason for anyone being in real poverty is due to addiction.

€12 a month for 5 years would only produce an extra €180 investement, hardly a big payout for the poor.
The extra investement for those that could afford to put in the max amount is €3800.

There are a hell of a lot of non-addict working people in Ireland that could not afford anything close to €250 a month to put away.

Pay for accomodation in Dublin then see how decent the Min wage is to live on.

pete

bk wrote:

You said middle class

ehh, what?

RainyDay

Where is the hypocrasy? They never stated that they would not open an account. They never advised other people not to open accounts. This simply and correctly stated that the SSIAs are a scandleous waste of public funds. But given that the are now the law, there is no reason why they (or I) should put themselves at a financial disadvantage.

There is no hypocracy here. This is the cheapest of cheap point-scoring by a no-name backbencher trying to get his name into the paper. Where was he when genius Cullen was rushing to throw away €50m of our money on a pile of electronic junk?

bk

John R wrote:

€12 a month for 5 years would only produce an extra €180 investement, hardly a big payout for the poor.

While certainly not a big pay out, it has the best return of any savings scheme has ever had in the past and certainly better then the crappy interest rates offered by most banks at the time, which wouldn't attract anyone to saving.

Everyone got the same amount from the government depending on how much they put in. That is only fair and equal. If some poor person decided to spend a little less on extras and put more in then they got more out and more power to them.

John R wrote:

There are a hell of a lot of non-addict working people in Ireland that could not afford anything close to €250 a month to put away.

True, but they could afford €12 pm or perhaps even more.

What would you suggest, those who put in under €50 get 25%, but those who put in €250 only get 10%?

Don't be such a bleeding heart.

John R wrote:

Pay for accomodation in Dublin then see how decent the Min wage is to live on.

When I first came to Dublin as an intern I was on close to the minimum wage and was paying over 50% of my wages to rent (nice place in a nice area). I got by ok. I certainly couldn't buy a nice car or go on holidays abroad or go out drinking too often, but I could certainly put a roof over my head and eat well and entertain myself.

The minimum wage for 36 hours a week will give you almost 1,100 a month tax free. You would easily get a two bed bedroom for €400 a month, maybe even cheaper if you tried. That is 36% of the minimum wage. You can live on that.

I suppose it depends on how you define poverty. I define poverty as not being able to put a roof over your head (renting), food on the table and give your kids a decent education.

I don't consider not being able to buy a house, car, go on yearly foreign holidays or spend every night in the pub and buying ciggies to be poverty.

In todays economy the only people who are in true poverty are addicts. I will give a concession that single mums with lots of kids would also find it difficult, but this is a social and educational problem that we need to solve.

pete wrote:

ehh, what?

Sorry, it was Gandalf who said that earlier and sparked this whole discussion.

r3nu4l

pete wrote:

Well then strictly speaking you weren't penniless, were you?



The reason that I and others objected to it was that here in a country where there are people that far below the poverty line, we have the Government handing free money to those who need it least. Boggles the mind.

There are very few people out there who can't afford €12 a month! I personally know two people who were giving out that they could not afford to put in €12 a month because they were on benefit and didn't have jobs. The irony was they were supping pints of Bulmers in the pub while they were telling me they could not afford it!! It's €3 a week ffs!! Even one hour minimum wage pays more than that!

However, the system does benefit the wealthy to a greater extent as I also know a family where three kids are students who cannot afford to put in the full amount themselves so Mummy and Daddy are putting in the full amount for them! The parents also have accounts and are putting the full amount in...so one couple are essentially putting in €1275 a month and benefitting.

The rich do get richer but there is no way in hell that there are many people who could not afford to put in at least the minimum to an SSIA!

John R

bk wrote:

What would you suggest, those who put in under €50 get 25%, but those who put in €250 only get 10%?

Don't be such a bleeding heart.

Personal insults are not allowed.

I particularly object to you putting words in my mouth and then insulting me on the basis of your comments.

I never suggested any such thing as different rates. my original point was that I thought the whole idea of SSIAs was wrong and discriminatory.

bk

John R wrote:

Personal insults are not allowed.

I particularly object to you putting words in my mouth and then insulting me on the basis of your comments.

I apologise for any offence caused, but my points stand.

John R wrote:

I never suggested any such thing as different rates. my original point was that I thought the whole idea of SSIAs was wrong and discriminatory.

Then please give us an example of a scheme that would attract people to saving money instead of madly spending it, a scheme that would not be discriminatory.

I really can't see the discrimination. The entrance fee was very low €12 and everyone got the same return from the government, 25% tax free.

Even the maximum wasn't actually that high, €254 per month is actually quiet low for what people should be saving as per the average Irish industrial wage.