Payroll to be cut by 3%.

Économiste Monétaire

So, as announced by the Minister for Education today, third level institutions must cut payrolls by 3% (even though education and health were announced to be safe from cuts). Hugh was on T.V. looking astonished.

I wonder who they'll sack...

NinjaTruncs

do people have to be sacked? 3% should be achievable through cutting out overtime, natural attrition and possible a 1% pay cut, but i guess no one will take the 1% cut even if it ment keeping a colleague in a job.

panda100

Seriously they could chop a good more than 3% of Bradys €205,168 he gets each year along with a personal allowance of €12,751 and a further €4,876 in expenses,not to mention free gaff!

http://www.independent.ie/education/latest-news/bestpaid-university-president-gets-836460000-more-than-others-1428003.html

Économiste Monétaire

Link to the video about the cut

Duke Fame

Lets start with the vice presidents didnt need them five years ago now we have five or six Ive lost count. Sorry, the way this place is run
We might appoint another one to oversee the 3% cut.

boomhower

Pride Fighter wrote: »

Get a grip.

+1

boneless

I think we have drifted off topic here. The thread was about UCD reducing the payroll costs, not the economy in general.

bassman22

sorry for not keeping on topic, but this is starting to annoy me. Does anyone else notice Kaptain Redeye regularly will post two posts in a row, when they could be combined into one. Fair enough if it was occasional, you've only just thought of something else to add to the conversation. But this is quite regular.
Silly stuff.

Stabshauptmann

bassman22 wrote: »

sorry for not keeping on topic, but this is starting to annoy me. Does anyone else notice Kaptain Redeye regularly will post two posts in a row, when they could be combined into one. Fair enough if it was occasional, you've only just thought of something else to add to the conversation. But this is quite regular.
Silly stuff.

The funny thing is if you look at post 18, I edited it to add something new.
I try and keep posts to just one person's remarks where it seems appropriate to do so. Ive found through experience its the clearest way to communicate.

Also, people can get paranoid over edited posts.

bassman22

fair enough. I still think the over posting is a little silly tho

Duke Fame

Can we talk about the UCD staff here? Fees and taxes are beyond the control of the college. People might be out of a job. What will UCD do? Recruitment freeze, voluntary redundancies heard they might try for this next year but that was before the 3% payroll cut hit the news. Should staff be worried?

superficies

No need for permanent staff to be worried IMO - they're safe. Introducing voluntary redundancies might not be a bad idea, and would give a nice 'out' to people in their mid to late 50s, sick of working, who are not research active and therefore have stuck on CL for the past 25 years and are not enjoying the influx of new, young, very very research active colleagues who are quickly promoted. In my mind the people who should be worried are the non-permanent staff, academic and service included. Might cut down on tutorial hours for PhD students and add tuts to academic teaching loads in schools where that is not the case. I imagine a recruitment freeze may come though, which btw is very bad news for the University when it's trying to go further up the ranks of B&I universities -- will make it v hard to recruit top-class academics if no new Chairs coming about. Might have to tap into the excellent UCD alum and get a few more endowed chairs -- that would be the best. But if they freee recruitment for 2-3 years then retirements and VRs should take care of the 3% cut and everyone else can get on with their jobs, going up the scale, and getting promoted. That would be best I think.

What do you think yourself Duke?

The_Minister

Everyone back on topic. There is an Economics forum if you wish to continue this discussion.

Économiste Monétaire

The_Minister wrote: »

Everyone back on topic. There is an Economics forum if you wish to continue this discussion.

+1

Plus the economics forum needs more posters We get like one post a day.

Pythia

The senior staff in UCD won't be getting their pay rise as they're senior civil servants.

Red Alert

I think the HEA should examine the way in which UCD offered non-standard pay and benefit packages to certain people which were not in compliance with the HEA scale.

The_Minister

There. I absolutely gutted this thread into the economics forum.

BTW, if any of you ignore another instruction from me to stop being off-topic, I will infract/ban you.

Économiste Monétaire

New talk of the reintroduction of fees for third level.

Ernie Ball

UCD_Econ wrote: »

New talk of the reintroduction of fees for third level.

Fees should be reintroduced. However,

1) the idea of using them to compensate for Brady's complete mismanagement of UCD's finances (on consultants and off-the-scales admin salaries) would be a scandal. The condition for reintroducing fees at UCD should be Brady's resignation.

2) Batt O'Keefe, it seems to me, has about zero chance of pushing this through. I don't get the impression he has anything like the political smarts that would be required to sell it.

3) This quote is a hilarious joke: "Mr von Prondzynski said that the free-fees system is outdated for a developed country like Ireland, and is normally seen only in developing countries. He said that we must properly fund the third-level sector, if we want to begin competing with Harvard, Cambridge and other internationally recognised colleges."

I assume that von Prondzynski is clued in enough to know that he's talking nonsense. The sad thing is that there are those, particularly in the political class, who believe such a thing is possible.

Économiste Monétaire

Mary Hanniffin (sic) said recently on the week in Politics that fees were not coming back in this government's term. I know she's the former minister for Education but that could be a clue as to the mindset of the other cabinet members.

But yes, competing with Harvard and the like just isn't a battle they can win. Least of all DCU.

Pride Fighter

Ernie Ball wrote: »

Fees should be reintroduced. However,

1) the idea of using them to compensate for Brady's complete mismanagement of UCD's finances (on consultants and off-the-scales admin salaries) would be a scandal. The condition for reintroducing fees at UCD should be Brady's resignation.

2) Batt O'Keefe, it seems to me, has about zero chance of pushing this through. I don't get the impression he has anything like the political smarts that would be required to sell it.

3) This quote is a hilarious joke: "Mr von Prondzynski said that the free-fees system is outdated for a developed country like Ireland, and is normally seen only in developing countries. He said that we must properly fund the third-level sector, if we want to begin competing with Harvard, Cambridge and other internationally recognised colleges."

I assume that von Prondzynski is clued in enough to know that he's talking nonsense. The sad thing is that there are those, particularly in the political class, who believe such a thing is possible.

I agree with what you say. Fees should be for those of a higher socio-economic background IMO. Bat O'Keefe was a former lecturer at CIT I think so he may have the smarts to convince others of its validity. LOL at the DCU guy.

the evil lime

Pride Fighter wrote: »

I agree with what you say. Fees should be for those of a higher socio-economic background IMO.

See, while I can see why that seems like a nice idea from a sort of idealistic perspective "well, those with money can afford to pay" etc. I'm not so sure I like it.

In opening: I do not have, nor do I stand to inherit a large amount of money (unless my parents have been lying to me). I would however like to earn such.

If I've got money, odds are I worked damn hard to get it (some people still inherit fortunes, but it's rare these days). I did so in order that I might enjoy luxuries and my children advantages. It's selfish, but that's how we're fundamentally built. We want to make our kids better than those of others so our DNA has a better chance to propagate.

So in exchange for my hard work, the government rewards me by making me pay to educate my children, while it pays for the education of those who haven't worked as hard, or on occasion have just been unlucky.

I have nothing against the notion of the government paying for the education of those other kids, I just don't like the "success tax" it creates on this hypothetical, hypothetically-wealthy version of me.

Ernie Ball

the evil lime wrote: »

See, while I can see why that seems like a nice idea from a sort of idealistic perspective "well, those with money can afford to pay" etc. I'm not so sure I like it.

In opening: I do not have, nor do I stand to inherit a large amount of money (unless my parents have been lying to me). I would however like to earn such.

If I've got money, odds are I worked damn hard to get it (some people still inherit fortunes, but it's rare these days). I did so in order that I might enjoy luxuries and my children advantages. It's selfish, but that's how we're fundamentally built. We want to make our kids better than those of others so our DNA has a better chance to propagate.

So in exchange for my hard work, the government rewards me by making me pay to educate my children, while it pays for the education of those who haven't worked as hard, or on occasion have just been unlucky.

I have nothing against the notion of the government paying for the education of those other kids, I just don't like the "success tax" it creates on this hypothetical, hypothetically-wealthy version of me.

According to this logic, the government should provide a special subsidy for rich people just to reward them for all their "hard work."

This is just complete BS. There is no way that relatively poorer taxpayers should be subsidising the educations of relatively rich college students, especially when very few of those college students do much of anything during their time in college.

And the social darwinism according to which poor people are somehow less hardworking than rich people and therefore deserve to be poor is despicable, not to mention idiotic.

Stabshauptmann

Ernie Ball wrote: »

According to this logic, the government should provide a special subsidy for rich people just to reward them for all their "hard work."

How are you drawing that conclusion. There is no way anyone could draw that conclusion.
The Evil Lime said that it is unfair to add an extra tax to those who work hard and you interpret this as there should be extra tax breaks. This is the most illogical interpretation I have ever read, infact I think it is a deliberately disingenuous comment.

Ernie Ball

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

How are you drawing that conclusion. There is no way anyone could draw that conclusion.
The Evil Lime said that it is unfair to add an extra tax to those who work hard and you interpret this as there should be extra tax breaks. This is the most illogical interpretation I have ever read, infact I think it is a deliberately disingenuous comment.

It's very simple: Your error is in seeing fees as "an extra tax" when it is simply asking those who benefit from college to pay their way. By not charging fees to the wealthy, you are effectively giving them a subsidy. The costs of their children going to college have to be paid by someone and the OP's view is that those costs should be paid by somebody other than him.

The name of that "somebody else" is the taxpayer. Now, the average taxpayer is less well-off than the family of the average college student. The abolition of fees was, effectively, a subsidy paid by the poor to the rich.

Amazing how right wingers like yourself become dyed-in-the-wool socialists when the beneficiaries of the socialism are the wealthy. When the beneficiaries are the poor, however, then you're in favour of the purest laissez-faire capitalism.

The_Minister

*DEEP BREATH*


STICK TO UNIVERSITY FINANCES OR GO TO THE ECONOMICS FORUM!

*EXHALE*
It's close enough to topic that no-one gets punished, but if it turns into a economic fight, then take it to the economic forum. Keep the focus on UCD.

Stabshauptmann

Ernie Ball wrote: »

It's very simple: Your error is in seeing fees as "an extra tax" when it is simply asking those who benefit from college to pay their way.

A)Third level education is open to everyone. And there are many schemes actively encouraging people from less well off back grounds to go to college. There was even a story in the news this month about colleges who fail to meet targets in the area losing some of their funding

B)That we have a 2 tier tax system. Those who earn more do pay more tax.

By not charging fees to the wealthy, you are effectively giving them a subsidy.

That is not true. Nobody pays fees, and everybody has equal access so there is no subsidy. A reintroduction of fees to some people but not others would introduce an extra tax/subsidy

The costs of their children going to college have to be paid by someone and the OP's view is that those costs should be paid by somebody other than him.

Thats a stretch.
A)Wealthier people pay more tax
B)Wealthier people reap fewer benefits from government spending
C)An educated population with free education for all benefits everyone

The name of that "somebody else" is the taxpayer. Now, the average taxpayer is less well-off than the family of the average college student.

I honestly dont believe that statement to be true. The wealthier section of Irish society - those who for sake of simplicity we'll say are the college graduates, do in fact pay more tax.

The abolition of fees was, effectively, a subsidy paid by the poor to the rich.

Yet somehow, looking back with the advantage of hindsight, thats not what happened. What actually happened was a huge increase in the number of people going to university, from all walks of life.

Amazing how right wingers like yourself become dyed-in-the-wool socialists when the beneficiaries of the socialism are the wealthy. When the beneficiaries are the poor, however, then you're in favour of the purest laissez-faire capitalism.

I am nowhere near as right wing as you keep trying to paint me. I fact I think the comparisons you've made throughout this thread (particularly in the section that was split) were unfounded and down right insulting.

I think you deliberately make facetious arguments and that you childishly hide from replying to question that you just cant answer.

Ernie Ball

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

That is not true. Nobody pays fees, and everybody has equal access so there is no subsidy. A reintroduction of fees to some people but not others would introduce an extra tax/subsidy

I'm sorry, but this is just wrong. If taxpayers are paying the bill for your education, you're getting a subsidy. The removal of that subsidy is not a "tax."

The rest of your post is of a sort as to make response nearly impossible: by citing and responding point by point, my only option if I want to answer you is to do the same, resulting in ever-longer posts. I'm not interested in playing that game, especially since you don't seem to me to be particularly clued-in or coherent.

A couple of points: the fact that the wealthy pay more tax (on a per capita basis) doesn't mean that wealthy people as a group pay more tax than poor and middle-class people as a group. Quite the contrary. Most taxes are paid by people who are less well-off than the families of college students.

Second, the fact that the wealthy pay more tax on a per capita basis is of no relevance whatever to whether they are receiving a subsidy in the form of free fees. They are. This is not up for debate, no matter how you try to slice it.

As for this claim about the abolition of fees:

What actually happened was a huge increase in the number of people going to university, from all walks of life.

You're simply misinformed. This is arrant nonsense and not borne out by any facts. You must've missed the multiple stories in the press about how the abolition of fees has failed to have the desired effect. For example: this and this and this HEA report from 2004 which I quote:

A range of surveys and reports over the past two decades show us that inequity of access and participation remain as unacceptable and anti-democratic features of our education system. . . . In some urban areas, fewer than 2% of eligible young people and adults progress to higher education. Students in our higher education institutions continue to be predominantly from the middle and higher income groups. [from p. 9]

I am nowhere near as right wing as you keep trying to paint me. I fact I think the comparisons you've made throughout this thread (particularly in the section that was split) were unfounded and down right insulting.

Look, if you want to spew uninformed garbage, you can't get a case of the vapours when someone points it out to you.

I think you deliberately make facetious arguments and that you childishly hide from replying to question that you just cant answer.

You're mistaking respect for keeping the thread on-topic with an inability to answer. It doesn't speak well for your handle on the facts of the matter.

Stabshauptmann

Ernie Ball wrote: »

I'm sorry, but this is just wrong. If taxpayers are paying the bill for your education, you're getting a subsidy. The removal of that subsidy is not a "tax."

You're getting a service. One of many of the services the public sector provides.

A couple of points: the fact that the wealthy pay more tax (on a per capita basis) doesn't mean that wealthy people as a group pay more tax than poor and middle-class people as a group. Quite the contrary. Most taxes are paid by people who are less well-off than the families of college students.

A)Over a quarter of all income tax paid in the state is paid by the wealthiest 1.5%
B)40% of income earners at the lower end of the income scale pay no income tax.
http://www.finfacts.com/irelandbusinessnews/publish/printer_1000article_1011252.shtml

What you are saying is simply not true.

Second, the fact that the wealthy pay more tax on a per capita basis is of no relevance whatever to whether they are receiving a subsidy in the form of free fees. They are. This is not up for debate, no matter how you try to slice it.

Now you said that "by citing and responding point by point, my only option if I want to answer you is to do the same, resulting in ever-longer posts. I'm not interested in playing that game".

You dont want to respond point by point because, as I said in my last post, you like to hide from replying to points that weaken your argument.
Yes free fees is a service that the wealthiest portions of Irish society avail of more that the less well off, but as I said and you ignored, the wealthiest, i.e. those who pay more taxes, avail of fewer public services that the less well off. The wealthiest in our society are unquestionably net providers. They pay far far more tax than they receive in services, to imply the poor are subsidising the education of the rich is facetious

As for this claim about the abolition of fees:

You're simply misinformed. This is arrant nonsense and not borne out by any facts. You must've missed the multiple stories in the press about how the abolition of fees has failed to have the desired effect. For example: this and this and this HEA report from 2004 which I quote:

The first article says that those who attend fee paying schools are more likely to go to university. Well Duh.
The second is an opinion piece, and makes no substantial claims.
And as for the HEA report, you rather selectively quoted, didnt you?

From the same report "A ‘snapshot’ survey commissioned by the HEA in 2003–4 has provided some indications of progress in achieving equity of access to higher education for these under–represented socio–economic groups."

This is another example of you being disingenuous with your arguments.

In fact the percentage of the entire population that has achieved degree status has almost doubled since the introduction of free fees in 1996.*
And this has been across all socio-economic backgrounds**

So while some sections of society do avail of 3rd level education more frequently, the effects of free education has been the same for everyone. That is, a corresponding increase on the number of students attending 3rd level from each socio-economic group.



*It has gone in ten years from 6.5% of the population to 12.4% according to the 2006 Census.
**I would imagine targets for the inclusion of disadvantaged students is taken quite seriously considering the meet targets or lose 10% of your funding story

Look, if you want to spew uninformed garbage, you can't get a case of the vapours when someone points it out to you.

And I suppose since I have debunked with facts your arguments re:
A)Distribution of income tax; and
B)Effects of the abolition of free fees

that you will appologise, admit you were wrong or more likely run and hide just as you did when I demonstrated the dole is higher than a six day working week with no meal breaks

You're mistaking respect for keeping the thread on-topic with an inability to answer. It doesn't speak well for your handle on the facts of the matter.

Bull shit plain and simple. You avoiding posting before The_Minister made his comment and you've had every opportunity to post on the other thread.

You sir, are a disrespectful, misinformed, and deliberately misleading debated.

Ernie Ball

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

You're getting a service. One of many of the services the public sector provides.

And the service you're getting is one:

1) that you're not paying for;
2) that provides huge benefits to you;
3) that provides scant benefits to those who are paying for you (who are, in general, poorer than you are)

A)Over a quarter of all income tax paid in the state is paid by the wealthiest 1.5%
B)40% of income earners at the lower end of the income scale pay no income tax.

Even if true, this proves absolutely nothing about the question at hand: is the average taxpaying household poorer than the average household with at least one kid in college. The answer to this is an unqualified: yes. Which means that the poor are subsidising the educations of the rich. That's socialism in reverse. So what do you have against capitalism?

You dont want to respond point by point because, as I said in my last post, you like to hide from replying to points that weaken your argument.
Yes free fees is a service that the wealthiest portions of Irish society avail of more that the less well off, but as I said and you ignored, the wealthiest, i.e. those who pay more taxes, avail of fewer public services that the less well off.

OK, I'll bite: prove it.

The wealthiest in our society are unquestionably net providers. They pay far far more tax than they receive in services, to imply the poor are subsidising the education of the rich is facetious

1) That's a misuse of the word facetious, but literacy is not your strong point, I gather.
2) It is simply a fact that relatively poor taxpayers are subsidising the educations of the rich. It's a simple point so I don't know why I expect you to grasp it.
3) Of course the wealthiest (in general: that link you provided had some juicy information about tax cheats, er, tax avoiders under the headline "Ireland's Top Earners and Tax 2003: 48 paid less than 5% on their income; 3 Millionaires paid Zero Income Tax") should be net providers. That is how it should be in any industrialised country based on at least some principles of social justice. Which is why it violates those principles to have the poor paying for the rich. But I've seen no proof that they are net providers: they seem to benefit from national defence, fire protection, police protection and they are given free education for as many offspring as they care to produce.

Got any proof?

And as for the HEA report, you rather selectively quoted, didnt you?

From the same report "A ‘snapshot’ survey commissioned by the HEA in 2003–4 has provided some indications of progress in achieving equity of access to higher education for these under–represented socio–economic groups."

"Some indications of progress" is not the clear-cut progress you've claimed.

It's also false. From the OECD Report entitled "A Review of Higher Education in Ireland", p. 12:

Despite the great expansion in student numbers and the introduction of student grant schemes in 1968 great disparities continued to exist in the participation of students from families of different socio-economic status. This did not change significantly after the abolition of tuition fees for undergraduate studies in 1995/96; the take up a rate in higher education remained highly dependent on socio-economic background.

From Dr Sean Barrett's (Senior Lecturer in Economics at Trinity) submission to that report:

The Department of Education report Supporting Equity in Higher Education (2003) shows a disparity of almost five to one between total participation in third level full-time education in the higher professional socio-economic group and 21% in the unskilled manual worker group. Between 1992 and 1998 [fees were abolished in 1995] the higher professional, employers and managers and farmers further increased the
margin by which they exceeded the participation rates of the lower socioeconomic groups. The high participation groups increased their participation rates by 15% compared to only 5.3% increase by the seven lowest participation groups.(p.11). The same table of data indicates that the increase in participation of the five lowest social groups was 23% higher in the years 1986-1992 than in the years 1992-98. . . .

Irish research indicates strongly that there is a high rate of return on investment in higher education to the individual in whom the investment is made. This is illustrated in the earnings differentials between graduates and non-graduates. The return on investment in higher education makes the investment highly attractive. There is on the other hand little evidence to indicate that the benefits spill over to non-graduates more than graduates and therefore the case is weak that taxpayers as a whole, rather than graduates, should bear the cost of higher education.

In fact the percentage of the entire population that has achieved degree status has almost doubled since the introduction of free fees in 1996.

That's entirely consistent with the fact that the vast majority of college attenders are from families of above average wealth. There are just more of them going to college.

And this has been across all socio-economic backgrounds

This is where you're wrong, as both the OECD Report and Dr Barrett's paper make clear.

So while some sections of society do avail of 3rd level education more frequently, the effects of free education has been the same for everyone. That is, a corresponding increase on the number of students attending 3rd level from each socio-economic group.

Perhaps, but the rate of increase has been greater among the wealthy than it has among the poor. Result: the poor are subsidising the wealthy.

And I suppose since I have debunked with facts your arguments re:
A)Distribution of income tax; and
B)Effects of the abolition of free fees

Don't flatter yourself. You've done nothing of the sort. You have no idea what you're talking about.

that you will appologise, admit you were wrong or more likely run and hide just as you did when I demonstrated the dole is higher than a six day working week with no meal breaks

Uh, not to burst your bubble, but that was a conversation you were having with yourself. I made one post to it, which I stand by.

But this quote about the dole is revealing of the extent to which you're in favour of socialism, but only for the rich. You have no problem with, say, a Medical student from Foxrock getting a taxpayer subsidy of some €24,000 per year. Such taxpayer money is always ennobling when given to the rich: it makes them stronger as well as wiser. But the very same taxpayer money (less, actually) is of course corrupting when given to the poor: it makes them stupid as well as weak.

You sir, are a disrespectful, misinformed, and deliberately misleading debated.

And you, sir, are illiterate and misinformed and not worth debating.

Stabshauptmann

Ernie Ball wrote: »

And the service you're getting is one:

1) that you're not paying for;
2) that provides huge benefits to you;
3) that provides scant benefits to those who are paying for you (who are, in general, poorer than you are)

Its paid for via taxes, which college graduates both per capita and as a group pay more of.

Even if true, this proves absolutely nothing about the question at hand: is the average taxpaying household poorer than the average household with at least one kid in college. The answer to this is an unqualified: yes. Which means that the poor are subsidising the educations of the rich. That's socialism in reverse. So what do you have against capitalism?

I couldnt find an actual breakdown of income tax income, but those 2 facts do seem to imply the obvious, that high earners pay more tax.

What is the basis on which you think poor people pay more tax than rich people?

OK, I'll bite: prove it.

Thats ridiculous. Think of the public services and its obvious who uses more of them.

1) That's a misuse of the word facetious, but literacy is not your strong point, I gather.

Ok, a facetious argument.

TBH, I think calling me illiterate only demonstrates to any reasonable bystander your own failings.

2) It is simply a fact that relatively poor taxpayers are subsidising the educations of the rich. It's a simple point so I don't know why I expect you to grasp it.

Ah the sliding scale!

3) Of course the wealthiest (in general: that link you provided had some juicy information about tax cheats, er, tax avoiders under the headline "Ireland's Top Earners and Tax 2003: 48 paid less than 5% on their income; 3 Millionaires paid Zero Income Tax") should be net providers. That is how it should be in any industrialised country based on at least some principles of social justice. Which is why it violates those principles to have the poor paying for the rich. But I've seen no proof that they are net providers: they seem to benefit from national defence, fire protection, police protection and they are given free education for as many offspring as they care to produce.

Got any proof?

Completely OT. But fine, dont deal with the issues, your obviously incapable. Once again solid facts contradict your rhetoric but thats not something you need to address...

But those 3 individual FYI only avoided personal income tax. They paid other taxes, and are huge employers.

"Some indications of progress" is not the clear-cut progress you've claimed.

It's also false. From....

All those reports are saying the same thing. That there are far more wealthy people going to college than poor people. Something Im not denying. But free fees increased the numbers attending college from all backgrounds. It has benefited all groups, thus it is not a subsidy for one particular group as you are making it out.

There are more people going to college, from all backgrounds.

Perhaps, but the rate of increase has been greater among the wealthy than it has among the poor. Result: the poor are subsidising the wealthy.

You cant logically draw that conclusion, because the wealthy provide most of the public income. They subsidise the public sector services for the less well off, they just avail of this one particular service more often than the less well off, but they still provide the funding for it.

Don't flatter yourself. You've done nothing of the sort. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Well if thats the case it doesnt say much for your intelligence if someone without a clue has run rings around you.

Uh, not to burst your bubble, but that was a conversation you were having with yourself. I made one post to it, which I stand by.

But this quote about the dole is revealing of the extent to which you're in favour of socialism, but only for the rich. You have no problem with, say, a Medical student from Foxrock getting a taxpayer subsidy of some €24,000 per year. Such taxpayer money is always ennobling when given to the rich: it makes them stronger as well as wiser. But the very same taxpayer money (less, actually) is of course corrupting when given to the poor: it makes them stupid as well as weak.

You talk about one way conversations, then put words in someone elses mouth . You're a hypocrite.

And its nice of you to acknowledge you had no come back, its given me a warm fuzzy feeling.

And you, sir, are illiterate and misinformed and not worth debating.

Hmm, coherent posts, well structured, backed up by references and statistics. Yup, must be illiterate, you're inability to come up with rebuttals must be a result of my failings, heaven forbid you made fatal assumptions.

:rolleyes: