They wanted it 'Tough, but Fair'

NewApproach

Simple yes/no answer, did they succeed??

edit: I can't get a poll up

edit II: I'll say NO!

NatDonegal

I just read "child allowance will now be means tested" .... what ?? was it not means tested before ?? Disgraceful...

Sorry... simple answer... Yes... well sort of...

ncmc

They didn't go nearly far enough IMHO. I wouldn'r be suprised to see yet another budget in September.

We need a new government

super_furry

No, they gave us soft and pointless. We'll be back again in six months.

wolfpawnat

Childrens Allowance should be means tested - I say this as a mother. I wasnt too upset to see the Early Childhood Supplement go, the free pre school year isnt great but better than nothing. They were not too savage on the working class, but as said before - They'll be back again too soon.

The reason I dont think its fair is that they did not attack the upper bracket of society hard enough. And am I the only one who noticed they are not making the sacrifices the rest of society are???

The Prophet

They were looking to the next elections, trying to save their seats. All the while giving underhanded help to their banker/developer/investor pals.

A weak budget. A weak, cowardly, and guilty government.

misssaucie

Don't think child allowance should be means tested, I've no kids myself but a friend of mine is married to a tight p***k and he has plenty of money but he only gives my friend a measly allowance that has to cover the weekly shop, kids shoes, kids clothes, her clothes etc, she will be very affected by this. If her hubby was means tested there is just no way she's get a penny off the state. She relies heavily on the early child supplement.

NatDonegal wrote: »

I just read "child allowance will now means tested" .... what ?? was it not means tested before ?? Disgraceful...

Sorry... simple answer... Yes... well sort of...

super_furry

So the state should pay for that man's children because he doesn't want to?

NOGMaxpower

NO they've gotten it completely wrong yet again!

I don't know about you guys but i thought i earned a good salary but couple the budget with a 10% drop in salary ask Im down about 400 a month. What the ****!!!!

There's absolutely no incentive to stay in this country any longer if you're a professional.

Australia here i come!

Resi12

Let's get them out NOW!
Why do we stand for crap like this?!?!

NOGMaxpower

Resi12 wrote: »

Let's get them out NOW!
Why do we stand for crap like this?!?!

Here here, to the GPO everyone

Villain

No Wasn't tough in anyway

johnnyskeleton

I voted no becuase while it was reasonably fair, it wasn't very tough. It was far too easy on most of the things they really need to address but which would be politically difficult namely public sector wages and social welfare. Also, while it was reasonably fair, it could have been much fairer.

An entirely different question is does this budget address the difficulties this country is facing? Not at all. FF are, IMO, going to take all the developer loans into the new NAMA at above market value (if not face value), then settle with the developers for cents in the euro, leave us with a massive increase in national debt, the cost of borrowing for the Irish state will balloon and then they'll bail out and leave the country to its fate. This bad bank is the worst of all possible choices, and is effectively socialising private lossess.

Sparks115

Yet again the rich are getting away with a piddly effort by the govenment to tax them. How can it be fair to tax someone the same on 50K to someone on 290K!!! Its disgracefit !! Another joke of a government budget. I will be hit by the childrens allowance but it is something we will have to try and get through but someone earning 290k is not going to be crying over this budget. A Revolution is what is needed!! Out with the government ( still looking after their wealthy developer friends)

misssaucie

Thats not what I am implying at all, just wanted to make the point that whether parents are unemployed or whether parents are wealthy a child is a child and each child in Ireland should be treated the same. No one knows what goes on behind closed doors, some peoples childrens allowance goes on booze and drugs, my friends childrens allowance is spent on her kids. I work in the pub business and on childrens allowance day we see kids being given crisps by pi**ed parents for their dinner. I do however understand why you wrote that quote.

super_furry wrote: »

So the state should pay for that man's children because he doesn't want to?

Vegeta

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

This bad bank is the worst of all possible choices, and is effectively socialising private lossess.

That both scares me and makes me very angry at the same time

Pines

INCH wrote: »

How can it be fair to tax someone the same on 50K to someone on 290K!!! Its disgracefit !!

Not even remotely true.

A married couple with one income earning 50k will lose 3.8% from their current net income. The same couple, earning 300k, will lose 8.7% of their current net income.

The better off someone is, the bigger the drop in their salary in percentage terms. Because they're paying a higher percentage of a higher amount, the person on (say) 150k will pay much more than 3 times the amount of tax/PRSI/levies than the person on 50k. Which is as it should be, incidentally, don't get me wrong.

http://www.budget.gov.ie/2009SupApril09/downloads/Annex%20A%20-%20Details%20of%20Income%20Levy%20Health%20Levy%20&%20PRSI%20changes.pdf

Highsider

No is the answer. The dole should have been cut in half for all and public service pay should have been cut by a third for all on wages of 30k and over. Disgraceful spineless effort. No doubt they'll be back in October for more. The simple fact is the goverment is still playing politics trying to please everyone instead of trying to fix the problem. Pathetic :mad:

Kerly

They need to tackle the hugely inflated public sector pay levels. From top to bottom they are paid far too much, that includes teachers, nurses and a lot of the other sacred cows of the irish economy. They can console themselves with having a job when all around are on the dole.

Pay rates are 30-40% higher than our nearest neighbours, our countries money is being blown on already a bloated public sector.

johnp

I haven't been hit too hard, sure I'm down a couple of quid, but I though it would be worse.

nesf

Honestly, for a very tough budget I think they spread the pain relatively fairly with the impact percentage wise on the higher paid being around 11% while the lowest are facing 2% tax wise.


No one likes their income going down though so it's unlikely to be broadly perceived in this way.

moonbug33

“A 10% cut in political expenses, while long-term payments to TDs will be abolished
A review of top-level public sector pay rates.” http://www.rte.ie/money/budget2009/stories/2009/0407/budgetmeasures.html 8/4/09

I really thought the TD’s would have had a serious pay cut and not a “review” at some later date. 10% cut in expenses………that’s a joke.
What are The Greens thinking ……why are they continuing to back FF.

laurence997

No. They should have taxed the rich more, but still, not harsh enough overall.

OPENROAD

ncmc wrote: »

They didn't go nearly far enough IMHO. I wouldn'r be suprised to see yet another budget in September.

We are having the main budget in December, expect that to be even tougher with a new Carbon tax and property tax to be introduced.

narwog81

laurence997 wrote: »

No. They should have taxed the rich more, but still, not harsh enough overall.

baby steps first, remember we've 5 more years of budgets like this to go according to the government.

every person thinks they pay too much tax, and that everyone else pays too little!;)

O'Coonassa

Personally I feel 'Tough but Fair' would involve members of Dáil Éireann and their chums in the oligarchy swinging from lamposts on the streets of the capital. Or at least something to that effect.

mumof2

super_furry wrote: »

So the state should pay for that man's children because he doesn't want to?

No, the state shouldn't - the man should. There has to be some way of making men support their children, until they are 18 yrs of age - whether they wanted the children or not. Sounds harsh but why should the mothers be left picking up the pieces and scraping by ('despite stories of how good things are for them').

And NO this budget is not tough enough - hitting the wrong people again. They just can't get it right.

O'Coonassa

mumof2 wrote: »

No, the state shouldn't - the man should. There has to be some way of making men support their children, until they are 18 yrs of age - whether they wanted the children or not. Sounds harsh but why should the mothers be left picking up the pieces and scraping by.

Er perhaps the mothers in such cases are more culpable because they did want the children? Basically if it's wrong for the state to pay for their wilful stupididty it's just as wrong for an unwilling father to pay for it. Obviously if a man wanted a child and then changed his mind after it was born then that's another story.

mumof2

O'Coonassa wrote: »

Er perhaps the mothers in such cases are more culpable because they did want the children? Basically if it's wrong for the state to pay for their wilful stupididty it's just as wrong for an unwilling father to pay for it. Obviously if a man wanted a child and then changed his mind after it was born then that's another story.

And this is looking at it from a mans point of view??:rolleyes:

johnnyskeleton

laurence997 wrote: »

No. They should have taxed the rich more, but still, not harsh enough overall.

Let's not kill the goose that lays the golden egg here. After all, not only do the higher earners pay the a disproportionately high amount of taxes already (while the lower earners pay little or nothing (the lowest of all are paid money)) but realistically the higher earners include a lot of the productive, talented and wealth creating individuals in the country. True, a lot of them do not provide all that much benefit to the country, but if you think of the people who can actually bring us out of the recession, they are the ones who you are proposing to punish.

O'Coonassa

mumof2 wrote: »

And this is looking at it from a mans point of view??:rolleyes:

Not really, just looking at it fairly, I'd say the exact same thing if it was men who could fall pregnant.

Belfast

It failed to address the problem.

Public spendings is still out of control as it has been for many years.
A large part of the tax raised by the state of the last 10 years came for borrowing large amount of money for housing and cars. This tax boast was not going to continue in the long term, but the state treated this short term tax boost as long term tax base.

The solution they want is for people to start borrowing large amounts of money again.
Borrowing large amounts of money is what got us in trouble in the first place.
I think we should replace the borrow and spend culture with a savings culture.
With the increase in dirt tax to 25% it seems the government do not care if people save.

Most of the spending cuts have been postponed , probably in the hope the Obama stimulus package works and will help the world economy to recover.

As to fairness, that seems to become a code word of somebody else other than me should pay for this mess.

mumof2

O'Coonassa wrote: »

Not really, just looking at it fairly, I'd say the exact same thing if it was men who could fall pregnant.

:D:D

OPENROAD

Belfast wrote: »

It failed to address the problem.

Public spendings is still out of control as it has been for many years.
A large part of the tax raised by the state of the last 10 years came for borrowing large amount of money for housing and cars. This tax boast was not going to continue in the long term, but the state treated this short term tax boost as long term tax base.

The solution they want is for people to start borrowing large amounts of money again.
Borrowing large amounts of money is what got us in trouble in the first place.
I think we should replace the borrow and spend culture with a savings culture.
With the increase in dirt tax to 25% it seems the government do not care if people save.

Most of the spending cuts have been postponed , probably in the hope the Obama stimulus package works and will help the world economy to recover.

As to fairness, that seems to become a code word of somebody else other than me should pay for this mess.

My own opinion is that the govt wanted to achieve one objective and that was to get the public finances under control, by all acconts they will achieve this however nothing in this budget to actually kick start the economy and try and bring us out of recession. While you are indeed correct that we borrowed too much, saving is not going to do anything for the economy,why have the ECB, BOE and the US been reducing interest rates? people will be saving now and won't spend for the remainder of the year for one reason and that is fear of what will come in the budget in December. So the govt will be getting in less revenue and they will continue to raise taxes which will do nothing for growth.
From what has been said the US should start to see signs of growth later this year, early next year and as you say the govt are counting on this as we will get some benefit from this, but only a small amount,the govt shoul have done more in this budget for business and had some sort of stimulus plan,lets hope they do in December otherwise when things do possibly pick up next year we will see little benefit.

wheresthebeef

Can i do something really dangerous here and try to give some defence to the public service workers.
I am a Nursing Intern in a large Dublin Hospital. I work full time in medical and surgical wards. I work 13 hour shifts, most of which i spend on my feet running left and right trying to give my 8 or 12 patients the best care I can from making sure they are ready for their operations, to listening to their anxieties, to aiding them to use the toilet, washing them each day, feeding them their meals, giving them medications, monitoring their vital signs and many other essential aspects of daily living. I have never gotten a tea break or a lunch break at the time I am due to go for one, I often wait, or forget to use the toilet myself for long periods of time because I am just so busy. I go home with blisters on my feet and aching legs and my head swimming with information trying to assure myself that i managed to achieve all the tasks I had to do today. I earn approximately 1750 euro a month after PAYE, from last month I have been deducted even more due to the Public Sector Pensions Levy and the new income levy increase. I could quite happily survive on a dole payment, a medical card, and rent supplement but I choose to work. And I work hard. I deserve the money I get, and I think i'm worth more than that too. I will have to work in the public service for 40 years to qualify for a pension, and to be honest I can't even begin to entertain the idea of working for the HSE for 10 years, let alone 40. I am paying a huge chunk of my monthly salary to subsidise greedy bankers, stupid politicians and unemployed people who are claiming the dole. I really do feel sorry for people who have been hit hard by the recession, but I didn't cause this problem. I do not have an artificially inflated salary. I am not paid more than I am worth.
So tell me why I should pay any amount of my hard earned cash towards a problem I personally did not help to create. I already pay income tax. Why should I be sorry for being a public sector worker. There was nothing stopping anyone applying for a public sector job.

Personally I feel that no human being working a standard 35-40 hour week is worth more than 100-150k a year. In fairness thats 2-3k a week. They should cap everyone in the country from receiving any more than 100k a year, and take the rest as tax. Salarys of 300/400/500/600k a year are just laughable. What would you do with that amount of money. What work could you possibily be doing to justify that kind of salary. Start at the top. And then work down.

astrofool

while your work is very important, it is not particularly hard to do in the grand scheme of things, a high (relatively) percentage of the population could choose to be a nurse and succeed at it.
limiting salary will mean that all those rich enough will leave the country. Also, once someone reaches the pay limit, they may as well stop working for the rest of the year and go on holiday.

rasper

We'll know when its fair, because the public unions will be out on the streets until that happens this country is going into a deeper and deeper recession