Fair cuts for 2010 budget??

gerry28

There is a lot of talk recently about cutting the social welfare payments and public service wages.

I think as social welfare recipients were untouched in the last budget and considering that general prices have dropped in the last year or so. Then a 5% cut would not be unreasonable on all social welfare payments.

For people still living in the family home and getting the full €204.80 per week, cut that significantly.

For the public service, I would say cut income or change the pension levy so that anyone earning €20,000 to €30,000 reduce by 2%, anyone earning in the €30's by 3%, €40's by 4%, €50's by 5% and on up the payscale - By the time you get to the big boys of the public service and the governemt leaders on €250,000 they'd be hit with a 25% reduction.

Mountjoy Mugger

With those proposed cuts, I'd guess you're not in the Public Service. There'd be war, I tell you. War!

jmayo

Mountjoy Mugger wrote: »

With those proposed cuts, I'd guess you're not in the Public Service. There'd be war, I tell you. War!

Good, war usually means you get rid of people and thus cut costs

solice

Performance related employment in the public sector, if you are not performing, you get laid off!

Spudmonkey

solice wrote: »

Performance related employment in the public sector, if you are not performing, you get laid off!

Correct, the job-for-life mentality is a joke!

conchubhar1

td wage decrease to normal wages

expenses purely on a need basis

fifth

Dole cuts for those at home stronger means testing, if they haven't lifted a finger then hit them hard. If they've proved they've tried getting work, then leave them be.

PUBLIC SECTOR REFORM!

It should not be a job for life. Why is it??

& TD's wages & Expenses need to be exposed and picked apart.

Cut back taxes on goods and services to encourage spending.

NewDubliner

funkyflea wrote: »

It should not be a job for life. Why is it??

It isn't.

funkyflea wrote: »

Cut back taxes on goods and services to encourage spending.

On foreign goods?

ParkRunner

funkyflea wrote: »

Dole cuts for those at home stronger means testing, if they haven't lifted a finger then hit them hard. If they've proved they've tried getting work, then leave them be.

PUBLIC SECTOR REFORM!

It should not be a job for life. Why is it??

& TD's wages & Expenses need to be exposed and picked apart.

Cut back taxes on goods and services to encourage spending.

The public sector reform is happening as we speak. People are retiring from the public sector in their droves without being replaced and other are being re-deployed to social welfare without being replaced. Many on contract work are not having their contracts renewed and there is simply no opportunity for promotion for anyone. An Bord Snip Nua will be reporting shortly also.
As a civil servant I welcome the reforms, but any further increase in the pension levy will be an unfair burden on one sector.

Hillel

funkyflea wrote: »

It should not be a job for life. Why is it??

NewDubliner wrote: »

It isn't.

@NewDubliner Still peddling the same old line, I see. I thought we had thoroughly debunked that position, many weeks ago.

@funkyflea. You are right, it is simply intolerable that public servants, regardless of their competence, performance or contribution, have "de facto" jobs for life.
Just one of the many areas to be addressed, if the country is to recover from the current mess.

irish_bob

EF wrote: »

The public sector reform is happening as we speak. People are retiring from the public sector in their droves without being replaced and other are being re-deployed to social welfare without being replaced. Many on contract work are not having their contracts renewed and there is simply no opportunity for promotion for anyone. An Bord Snip Nua will be reporting shortly also.
As a civil servant I welcome the reforms, but any further increase in the pension levy will be an unfair burden on one sector.

public sector workers are still paid at least 30% more than thier counterparts in the private sector , the gap is especially wide at the lower paid levels , besides , public sector wages need to be brought into line with those of other european countries , countries which are wealthier than ireland i might add , thier is a long long way to go yet in redressing the imbalance in public sector pay in this country

ninty9er

conchubhar1 wrote: »

td wage decrease to normal wages

Define normal wages? If I were a barrister it could be anywhere up to €1m in reality, if I were a street sweeper it'd be closer to €30/€35k.

conchubhar1 wrote: »

expenses purely on a need basis

I know if I was to be working in Dublin 3 days a week I'd get mileage, accommodation and 3 square meals covered by my cost centre and also the last 2 private companies I've worked for. What TDs and Senators have is subsidised food, not covered. It's just an expense that seems above average as most of us aren't based away from home 2 to 3 nights a week for the majority of the year.

nesf

conchubhar1 wrote: »

td wage decrease to normal wages

What a terrible idea.

NewDubliner

Hillel wrote: »

@NewDubliner Still peddling the same old line, I see. I thought we had thoroughly debunked that position, many weeks ago.

The term 'job-for-life' itself is meaningless. But it plays well to the gallery. 'job security' might be more accurate, but as the government can change terms and conditions of employment at any time, such as with the pension levy and the raid on the pension fund, nothing can be regarded as secure.

ef wrote:

The public sector reform is happening as we speak.

That's not reform, no more than 'decentralisation' was. It's merely a random shake-up.

Spudmonkey

NewDubliner wrote: »

The term 'job-for-life' itself is meaningless. But it plays well to the gallery. 'job security' might be more accurate, but as the government can change terms and conditions of employment at any time, such as with the pension levy and the raid on the pension fund, nothing can be regarded as secure.

I had always regarded it as such, as in when times were good, regardless of someones performance, there was no way of firing them. Thats not the same in private companies where someones performance is monitored. I supposee with the way things have changed recently, it would be no harm introducing performance reviews...

turgon

"fair" is as subjective as it gets.

My idea of "fair" is cutting all child benefit and single parent supplements for all new applicants. Yes, I am aware that I am a Nazi for wanting to people to have some responsibility when planning a family.

Bring social welfare back to 95 levels adjusted for inflation, of course. Im sorry that those who are unemployed (like yours truly) and who are on the dole (unlike myself) wont be able to go out on the weekend.

Reduce the minimum wage as the economy deflates. And start taxing everyone. Sick of being on minimum wage and now some people want to tax you? Well how about going to college. Its free.

Sell the busses. Sell other state agencies that would work better in the private sector. That will help with the shortfall while increasing efficiency.

And deal with the public sector. Rationalisation. And Labours laying off 1000 people is not rationalisation. Its simply an example of why Labour are the last thing this country needs.

irish_bob

turgon wrote: »

"fair" is as subjective as it gets.

My idea of "fair" is cutting all child benefit and single parent supplements for all new applicants. Yes, I am aware that I am a Nazi for wanting to people to have some responsibility when planning a family.

Bring social welfare back to 95 levels adjusted for inflation, of course. Im sorry that those who are unemployed (like yours truly) and who are on the dole (unlike myself) wont be able to go out on the weekend.

Reduce the minimum wage as the economy deflates. And start taxing everyone. Sick of being on minimum wage and now some people want to tax you? Well how about going to college. Its free.

Sell the busses. Sell other state agencies that would work better in the private sector. That will help with the shortfall while increasing efficiency.

And deal with the public sector. Rationalisation. And Labours laying off 1000 people is not rationalisation. Its simply an example of why Labour are the last thing this country needs.

spot on , we need more people thinking with their head instead of thier heart in this country

NewDubliner

turgon wrote: »

Sell the busses. Sell other state agencies that would work better in the private sector. That will help with the shortfall while increasing efficiency.

You're full of rhetoric on this.

I suppose the buses will run with less losses if they're allowed to cut loss-making routes. And if we privitised the roads, we could shift costs onto long-distance commuters. This would then favour people who worked near where they lived and protect local employment.

Selling off ESB, Water boards and Bord Gais at present would leave us with more 'Eircom' type private sector near-monopolies but at fire-sale prices. We could privitise some quangos like the 'Combat Poverty Agency'? But regulators need to be in public control. The privitisation of RegTel (premium rate regulator) has not been a happy one for consumers.

turgon wrote: »

And deal with the public sector. Rationalisation. And Labours laying off 1000 people is not rationalisation.

Anything specific? What services should be cut?

turgon

NewDubliner wrote: »

I suppose the buses will run with less losses if they're allowed to cut loss-making routes.

And why should they? Should "society" be forced to pay for those who live in the back of beyonds and do not have private transport and who refuse to use a taxi?

NewDubliner wrote: »

And if we privitised the roads, we could shift costs onto long-distance commuters. This would then favour people who worked near where they lived and protect local employment.

It might. But I dont believe in privatising all roads. I dont believe in privatising "networks" such as train lines, telephone cables and electricity cables etc. However I do believe that the company's that use these networks, ie train, phone and electricity distribution companies should not be in government control.

I believe people in estates should privately own the roads in said estate.

NewDubliner wrote: »

Selling off ESB, Water boards and Bord Gais at present would leave us with more 'Eircom' type private sector near-monopolies but at fire-sale prices.

Well as i have said, I dont believe that gas networks/water pipes should be sold off. However the suppliers might be. So a gas company would "rent" pipe usage as it were. A complex rent usage payment scheme could involve a rate of a certain amount of gas per metre. The distance traveled would be worked out and a price gotten.

Because fundamentally, I dont believe adequate competition can exist in gas pipes. Thus they should be run by a state entity that charges just enough to facilitate proper management.

NewDubliner wrote: »

But regulators need to be in public control.

True.

NewDubliner wrote: »

Anything specific? What services should be cut?

Well I suppose a lot of my beliefs in this area would be shaped by what I see as the role of the state. So a lot of the "quangos" that mainly do things such as information promotion would be removed. I think said information should be incorporated into education, information such as drugs awareness. But that only stems from the fact that I believe individuals should have maximum responsibility, and shouldnt have to be "babysat" by the "nanny state".

Its pretty apparent that the HSE needs major rationalisation in the admin area. Removal of duplicate posts etc. I think that FG's faircare program is pretty good. So the state becomes the purchaser of health services rather than the provider. In this set-up hospitals would have to be run efficiently as it would be in owners financial interest.

ParkRunner

NewDubliner wrote: »

That's not reform, no more than 'decentralisation' was. It's merely a random shake-up.

I beg to differ! There is no prospect of promotion. Staff are being lost and not replaced. Agreed pay increases are not going to happen. There is an exodus of some highly qualified civil servants from my own experience taking advantage of the opportunities that are out there in the private sector or taking early retirement. Anyone who thinks it's a cushy number in the civil service with lots of benefits is living in the past. and the small issue of the pension levy on top of the income and health levy.

NewDubliner

turgon wrote: »

And why should they? Should "society" be forced to pay for those who live in the back of beyonds and do not have private transport and who refuse to use a taxi?

Agreed. If we concentrated populations in cities, we'd achieve economies of scale and labour mobility would be facilitated.

turgon wrote: »

It might. But I dont believe in privatising all roads.

How do we ensure that the roads are used for the greatest economic benefit? Surely, it's best to link the cost of a service to those who use it?

turgon wrote: »

In this set-up hospitals would have to be run efficiently as it would be in owners financial interest.

How would we ensure that the costs would be reasonable while ensuring no corners are cut?

turgon

NewDubliner wrote: »

How do we ensure that the roads are used for the greatest economic benefit?

How do you mean?

NewDubliner wrote: »

Surely, it's best to link the cost of a service to those who use it?

Absolutely. In fact one of the advantages I see in privatisation is that individuals pay for services as they need them themselves. My overall roads "strategy" would be this:

Set up a body (or use a current one) to fully administer the roads. This bodies funding would be solely composed of a) excise duty on road fuel and b) tolls on main motorways, which would be based on km traveled like in France. Thus if a road user travels a longer distance they require more petrol and pay more excise duty.

This body would then use this funding gained to maintain roads and (I suppose) build new roads. They could not gain any funding from the government, except on a capital spending basis, nor could they give any excess money to the government. So the price of fuel and tolls would be in some ways tied to the cost of maintenance.

Advantages: Those who dont use road vehicles dont have to pay for those who do. Also, if the government wants to hike other spending such as social welfare they cant raise the price of petrol to accommodate this. So when you buy petrol you buy road kilometres, not job seekers allowance.

NewDubliner wrote: »

How would we ensure that the costs would be reasonable while ensuring no corners are cut?

Regulation by the current HSE would obviously continue. But fundamentally the money would follow the patient. So, theoretically, it would not be in the interest of the owner to cut corners and reduce standards.

NewDubliner

turgon wrote: »

How do you mean?

How do we make sure that productive traffic, e.g. goods going for export, essential materials, are not obstructed by traffic congestion caused by commuters, single occupant cars or people just driving around for fun? (While keeping the roads clear for high-spending foreign tourists, of course.)

turgon wrote: »

Set up a body (or use a current one) to fully administer the roads. This bodies funding would be solely composed of a) excise duty on road fuel and b) tolls on main motorways

Why not toll ALL roads?

turgon wrote: »

So the price of fuel and tolls would be in some ways tied to the cost of maintenance.

And the fat bonuses for the operator's executives?

turgon wrote: »

But fundamentally the money would follow the patient. So, theoretically, it would not be in the interest of the owner to cut corners and reduce standards.

So, keep patients alive longer & subject them to lots of medical tests/procedures to keep the income stream?

Fighting Irish

Cut county counsil funds, most times i see CC workers all they are doing is tidying up flower beds, i couldn't give a fuck about flowers

turgon

NewDubliner wrote: »

How do we make sure that productive traffic, e.g. goods going for export, essential materials, are not obstructed by traffic congestion caused by commuters, single occupant cars or people just driving around for fun?

In general one would have a road plan the seeks to alleviate congested areas first, with priority possibly given to areas of high economic activity an transport centres such as harbours and airports.

NewDubliner wrote: »

Why not toll ALL roads?

Firstly because its not practical, tolling works best on dual carriageways. Secondly though motorways require a high degree of maintenance.

NewDubliner wrote: »

And the fat bonuses for the operator's executives?

Thats true. However I would see the body tendering contract out to companies, who would then offer maintenance services for a period of time at a good price.

Do you have a better solution that would avoid this pitfall?

NewDubliner wrote: »

So, keep patients alive longer & subject them to lots of medical tests/procedures to keep the income stream?

Erm, no. Theres only so much insurance companies will pay for.

gerry28

Mary Hanafin should put in a request for staff to transfer from quieter departments into hers and increase the number of social welfare inspectors. Increase the penalties for social welfare fraud also.

Think about all the people working the black economy and signing?
What about all the lone parent claimants who are cohabiting?
Why are young men and women in their twenties and living at home getting €204.30 drinking money every week?
Families bringing in over €100,000 a year and still getting child benefit.

NewDubliner

turgon wrote: »

Firstly because its not practical, tolling works best on dual carriageways. Secondly though motorways require a high degree of maintenance.

The London congestion charge operates on non dual-carriageways. And, using satellite-tracking technology would greatly faciliatate pay-per-use charging. We could become world leaders in the application of this technology. We could also abolish free on-street parking, which simply wastes road space & slows everyone down. The roads are a valuable public asset, being used very inefficiently at present. Selling them off to the private sector who would manage them more effectively may well be the key to improving our competiveness.

Erm, no. Theres only so much insurance companies will pay for.

So, what happens to patients who become economically unviable?

astrofool

NewDubliner wrote: »

The London congestion charge operates on non dual-carriageways. And, using satellite-tracking technology would greatly faciliatate pay-per-use charging. We could become world leaders in the application of this technology. We could also abolish free on-street parking, which simply wastes road space & slows everyone down. The roads are a valuable public asset, being used very inefficiently at present. Selling them off to the private sector who would manage them more effectively may well be the key to improving our competiveness.

You have seen the god awful mess that has been the no barrier toll system on the M50?

The technology is at least 10 years out to be reliable enough to use, it needs to be 6 sigma, i.e. 99.9997% correct, rather than the current 99.8% which is generating a huge backlog of cases.

turgon

NewDubliner wrote: »

So, what happens to patients who become economically unviable?

I wasnt talking about "economically unviable" patients. You said that hospitals might purposely keep patients for longer to rake in more money; I said that insurance companies would not pay for such blatant money grabbing techniques.

gurramok

ninty9er wrote: »

Define normal wages? If I were a barrister it could be anywhere up to €1m in reality, if I were a street sweeper it'd be closer to €30/€35k.

Is a street sweeper really on that much for cleaning the streets, you serious?

Taxipete29

Anybody who still lives in the family home and gets the full job seekers allowance recieves it because they have the necessary contributions. If they didnt they would be means tested and recieve very little. If these young people didnt live at home they would be entitled to rent allowance and possibly other benefits.

While I dont totally agree that unemployed young people should be getting €200 drinking money per week, but I dont agree either that the family should be made to support them. Further to that by, living at home the welfare system is in effect saved the burden of lining some landlords pocket while these young people live it up in their own party pad.

Providing a bus service to remote parts of the country is a social responsibilty. If the service was privatised, those private companies would only take on the profitable routes and the government would be forced to either run there own services in these remote areas or to heavily subsidise private operators to run them.

As for criticising people for living in remote areas, just repeat that statement out loud to yourself and you might just realise how ridiculous it sounds

Spudmonkey

Taxipete29 wrote: »

Anybody who still lives in the family home and gets the full job seekers allowance recieves it because they have the necessary contributions. If they didnt they would be means tested and recieve very little. If these young people didnt live at home they would be entitled to rent allowance and possibly other benefits.

While I dont totally agree that unemployed young people should be getting €200 drinking money per week, but I dont agree either that the family should be made to support them. Further to that by, living at home the welfare system is in effect saved the burden of lining some landlords pocket while these young people live it up in their own party pad.

I agree with this, the people who do stay at home are actually saving the taxpayer additional costs like rent allowance. While I do not agree with drinking money, these people could possibly add more onto the social welfare bill if they wanted to..

Anyway if someone has paid their stamps, surely they are entitled to this? Besides if you want to find out who is willing to get up of their arse, use the incentive of not giving them the full dole payout unless they are willing to do something for it!!

turgon

Taxipete29 wrote: »

Providing a bus service to remote parts of the country is a social responsibilty.

Why?

Taxipete29 wrote: »

As for criticising people for living in remote areas, just repeat that statement out loud to yourself and you might just realise how ridiculous it sounds

Im not criticising people living in remote areas; Im criticising people who live in remote areas and expect city dwellers to pick up the tab on services.

LoanShark

I don't know if cutting the dole is the way forward..
Most of the people who claim it these days have been unfortunate to loose their jobs recently. So the €204 you get weekly has to be spread very thinly..
I was unemployed for six months last year So I know how thin it has to become.
I had a personal loan,credit card,VHI, a car and other expenses.
SO work it out,
Loan 400pm
Credit Card minimum payment 80pm
VHI 65pm
Car tax fuel insurance 200 est.

204 a week for a month is €816- 745(est cost)= 71 for food and unexpected costs... Not really much is it!

I totally agree that costs need to be saved somewhere, I dont agree that Guards and Front Line Health Staff should get the touch.. But the pen pushers needs to be clipped,I think that TD salary should be on a scale of Say €60k for a year with an increase y-o-y and then when a new Dail is elected they all start back at €60 and so it continues.#

A group should be set up to look at where money is being thrown away and stop that..
I heard a story of a man who three years ago built a massive garage with office space attached, He was asked this year how business was going, his reply was "I'm keeping above water thanks to the health service" they paid rent on the Office space and have not set foot into it at a cost of €2million per year.There is far too much money being dished out..

I also agree that we are not taking full advantage of the downturn, The government should get all the infastructure under control and get value for money..
Don't allow anymore Housing development to go ahead for at least 5 years until the current backlog of houses has been shifted.

But since I'm not in power this'll hardly happen.:cool:

Spudmonkey

turgon wrote: »

Im not criticising people living in remote areas; Im criticising people who live in remote areas and expect city dwellers to pick up the tab on services.

Everyone pays taxes, including those who live in rural areas, to think that those who live in the city are alone in paying for rural transport is not entirely accurate.

LoanShark wrote: »

I don't know if cutting the dole is the way forward..
Most of the people who claim it these days have been unfortunate to loose their jobs recently. So the €204 you get weekly has to be spread very thinly..
I was unemployed for six months last year So I know how thin it has to become.
I had a personal loan,credit card,VHI, a car and other expenses.
SO work it out,
Loan 400pm
Credit Card minimum payment 80pm
VHI 65pm
Car tax fuel insurance 200 est.

204 a week for a month is €816- 745(est cost)= 71 for food and unexpected costs... Not really much is it!

The purpose of the dole is to provide for the basic necessities in life; food, clothing, heating. It is not the role of the taxpayer to pay off loans and credit card repayments!

turgon

LoanShark wrote: »

Loan 400pm
Credit Card minimum payment 80pm

Is it the governments fault you racked up such debt?

Spudmonkey wrote: »

Everyone pays taxes, including those who live in rural areas, to think that those who live in the city are alone in paying for rural transport is not entirely accurate.

Well lets examine it. Firstly rural bus service s obviously cost more to run. Services such as water pipes gas supplies etc are more expensive in rural areas. Telephone lines/electricity lines are more expensive as there is a higher line length per house ratio.

Thats why I would say services should be charged on a usage basis, and those in the countryside should pay the cost of extra line maintenance etc. I'm saying this, btw, as someone who's family owns a "second home" in the country side.

Spudmonkey

turgon wrote: »

Well lets examine it. Firstly rural bus service s obviously cost more to run. Services such as water pipes gas supplies etc are more expensive in rural areas. Telephone lines/electricity lines are more expensive as there is a higher line length per house ratio.

Thats why I would say services should be charged on a usage basis, and those in the countryside should pay the cost of extra line maintenance etc. I'm saying this, btw, as someone who's family owns a "second home" in the country side.

Thats fair enough, and I know that the majority of these services in rural areas probably run at a severe loss. But you can't have these areas regressing further into the dark ages while developments happen mainly in urban areas. Whats more but most of the countries wealth is located in the major cities, not in the countryside.

I think it's a bit unfair to penalise those who happen to live in these areas, cause the alternative of getting everyone to move to the city isn't really a runner. The only thing really is to see how its done in other countries as its probably done in a far more effective way than it is here.

LoanShark

Spudmonkey and Turgon, You are both correct, It is not the governments responsibilty to pay my debts, but that is how I had to spread my unemployment benefit..I would rather pay off my debt in the best way that is possible to me..
I never recieved anything else from them,I dont believe in taking things for granted...
Being on the dole is not nice, Ask around!

Spudmonkey

I have no doubt that it is not a nice place to be, especially those who are used to working all their lives and know nothing else. Unfortunately there are a lot of people who have built up debt, some probably far more than you.

Problem is though, the taxpayers who are struggling to pay off many of their own loans cannot be burdened with other peoples as well.

Hopefully you'll get it sorted out!

Riskymove

I think the scope of this thread is very wide and there are already a few different debates going on at once

but anyway...


1. as i have said before whats needed in public sector is proper reform, allow managers to actual manage and be in a position to confront and deal with non and under performance...it is an issue that greatly frustrates the majority of public sector workers who do their work when such deadwood is allowed to get away with it

It is only a "job-for-life" because the system allows it to be, you can discipline (and fire) public servants but there is no support/incentive for this and as a result people decide its not worth the bother to tackle these people

2. The HSE and numbers of managers - ridiculous; re-allocate, allow to retire but whatever bring this into line

3. Public sector wages is always difficult to compare. Whats the private sector equivalent of a Garda? etc reduction in numbers in HSE, public sector agencies etc a far better long term solution to the pay bill


4. welfare costs have gone way out of control. Its clear that a universal child benefit has to change in some way but is it the right time to cut dole when so many are being laid off?

Taxipete29

turgon wrote: »

Why?



Im not criticising people living in remote areas; Im criticising people who live in remote areas and expect city dwellers to pick up the tab on services.

Not everyone who lives in rural areas needs public transport. Those that do are usually the vulnerable in society ie old people who have probably contributed their fair share to the state coffers. These people may not own cars or be in a position to drive if they did. Then we have children we need to get to school and its not always possible for parents to be able to bring them as their jobs may some what interfere with that.

Your comment about a second home in the country is nonsense. Its different living somewhere to spending the odd weekend or a couple of summer months someplace. I have yet to meet someone who owns a second home in the country and doesnt own a car.

harsea8

LoanShark wrote: »

I don't know if cutting the dole is the way forward..
Most of the people who claim it these days have been unfortunate to loose their jobs recently. So the €204 you get weekly has to be spread very thinly..
I was unemployed for six months last year So I know how thin it has to become.
I had a personal loan,credit card,VHI, a car and other expenses.
SO work it out,
Loan 400pm
Credit Card minimum payment 80pm
VHI 65pm
Car tax fuel insurance 200 est.

204 a week for a month is €816- 745(est cost)= 71 for food and unexpected costs... Not really much is it!

I totally agree that costs need to be saved somewhere, I dont agree that Guards and Front Line Health Staff should get the touch.. But the pen pushers needs to be clipped,I think that TD salary should be on a scale of Say €60k for a year with an increase y-o-y and then when a new Dail is elected they all start back at €60 and so it continues.#

A group should be set up to look at where money is being thrown away and stop that..
I heard a story of a man who three years ago built a massive garage with office space attached, He was asked this year how business was going, his reply was "I'm keeping above water thanks to the health service" they paid rent on the Office space and have not set foot into it at a cost of €2million per year.There is far too much money being dished out..

I also agree that we are not taking full advantage of the downturn, The government should get all the infastructure under control and get value for money..
Don't allow anymore Housing development to go ahead for at least 5 years until the current backlog of houses has been shifted.

But since I'm not in power this'll hardly happen.:cool:

The first part of this comment is a prime example of how people have lost sight of the difference between what is needed in life and what is desired in life. We'd all would like to have private healthcare and we'd all like to have our own car, but these are not necessities of life that the government (or other taxpayers) should be paying for. IMO, a person on the dole should not feel they are entitled to continue to have VHI or to run a car as these are luxuries that many working people cannot afford. Arguing that the dole should not be cut because the dole is not enough for someone to afford to pay for private healthcare or to fuel their car is just plain ridiculous.

turgon

Taxipete29 wrote: »

Not everyone who lives in rural areas needs public transport. Those that do are usually the vulnerable in society ie old people who have probably contributed their fair share to the state coffers.

Firstly if you want to start talking about what people have contributed as a basis for what they receive then the whole idea of socialistic government falls.

Now, old people, vulnerable and all as they are, have made a choice to live in the countryside. What you are suggesting is that everyone else pays for this choice. I say not. Living somewhere is a choice made on pros and cons, and the government should not be there to give money to those who wish to live a specific sort of lifestyle.

Its a pattern that is echoed across the board. People make choices with their life - what career to start; whether or not to go to college; where to live - and if these choices end up badly for the person they expect the government to come in and fix it for them.

So surely, if the old lady was thinking responsibly that she wanted to go to town every Wednesday, she should have moved closer to said town?

turgon

harsea8 wrote: »

The first part of this comment is a prime example of how people have lost sight of the difference between what is needed in life and what is desired in life. We'd all would like to have private healthcare and we'd all like to have our own car, but these are not necessities of life that the government (or other taxpayers) should be paying for. IMO, a person on the dole should not feel they are entitled to continue to have VHI or to run a car as these are luxuries that many working people cannot afford. Arguing that the dole should not be cut because the dole is not enough for someone to afford to pay for private healthcare or to fuel their car is just plain ridiculous.

Quite right. And the very fact that they can is evidence that the dole should be reduced.

VHI is optional. And anyone who is fiscally responsible in their own lives should not saddle themselves with debt that they might conceivably not be able to pay off.

solice

turgon wrote: »

Now, old people, vulnerable and all as they are, have made a choice to live in the countryside. What you are suggesting is that everyone else pays for this choice. I say not. Living somewhere is a choice made on pros and cons, and the government should not be there to give money to those who wish to live a specific sort of lifestyle.

Its a pattern that is echoed across the board. People make choices with their life - what career to start; whether or not to go to college; where to live - and if these choices end up badly for the person they expect the government to come in and fix it for them.

Damn right, you choose to live where you do and you should live with the consequences. Im down in Limerick, I see my tax money going into the Luas, Metro North and billion or so that the govt. spent on buying the toll bridge on the M50.

If old people want to live in the country let them. If people want to live in the Dublin I dont mind paying a few quid so that their lives will be easier! That right Turgon?

FFS :rolleyes:

turgon

solice wrote: »

If old people want to live in the country let them. If people want to live in the Dublin I dont mind paying a few quid so that their lives will be easier! That right Turgon?

Go on and show me where I said that people outside Dublin should be paying for services in Dublin. Otherwise I fail to see the validity of your point.

Spudmonkey

turgon wrote: »

So surely, if the old lady was thinking responsibly that she wanted to go to town every Wednesday, she should have moved closer to said town?

And completely abandon her way of life. Many of these people know nothing else, what do you suggest? That she abandon her house or sell it to someone from the city because they can afford a car to get there.

If this can be done in less developed countries surely it can be done here too, I suppose she will have to pay for the fact she is breathing cleaner air too!

solice wrote: »

Damn right, you choose to live where you do and you should live with the consequences. Im down in Limerick, I see my tax money going into the Luas, Metro North and billion or so that the govt. spent on buying the toll bridge on the M50

And your tax money hasn't gone towards anything in Limerick either? A bypass, shannon tunnel etc....

big b

turgon wrote: »

So surely, if the old lady was thinking responsibly that she wanted to go to town every Wednesday, she should have moved closer to said town?

turgon wrote: »

Quite right. And the very fact that they can is evidence that the dole should be reduced.

One of the most ridiculous posts I've seen on here, followed by one of the most ridiculous posts I've ever seen on here.

a) by that token, everyone in Connemara should move to Galway City because they shop there once a week?

b) Because some people aren't stretched on the dole it should be cut for all? For every young lad who's left with a bit of beer/VHI/whatever money, there's a family who are down to one wage earner & still have a mortgage to pay.

All this standing on personal pedestals & deciding that those in different circumstances should be the ones to suffer make me sick.
As do all-sweeping generalisations such as "Johnny down the road's on the dole & still paying his VHI/ having a pint. Therefore all dole should be cut"

turgon

big b wrote: »

a) by that token, everyone in Connemara should move to Galway City because they shop there once a week?

No. Please show me where I said that. Otherwise, stop reading things from my posts that simply arent there, and this includes familiarising yourself with the context of my post which you failed to do.

I said people who wish to go shopping in Galway, and have no proper means to get there and are unwilling to get a taxi and are unwilling to negotiate a lift off of a neighbour should move to Galway, instead of expecting the government to provide an expensive bus service.

big b wrote: »

b) Because some people aren't stretched on the dole it should be cut for all? For every young lad who's left with a bit of beer/VHI/whatever money, there's a family who are down to one wage earner & still have a mortgage to pay.

Yes and they get extra benefits for dependants (including spouses) and mortgage aid on house loans. But I suppose you didnt want to think of that because it would contradict your point.

big b wrote: »

All this standing on personal pedestals & deciding that those in different circumstances should be the ones to suffer make me sick.

Different circumstances? Im also unemployed. But I suppose in your perfect non-stereotyping stance on debate that fact never occured to you.

Spudmonkey wrote: »

And completely abandon her way of life.

Surely it an unsustainable way of life if it requires other people to pay for it?

Taxipete29

Turgon I think there is a fact you have to wake up, sometimes Governments spend money on things we dont like.

Also not everyone has a choice where they live. If you were born in a rural area, lived and WORKED there all your life and now suddenly find yourself retired and due to whatever reason unable to drive. Why the hell should you have to move to a city. Its a ridiculous notion to suggest you should.

The person who is on the dole and has VHI can now get rid of that in favour of a full medical card which will be funded by the government. People who advocate dropping benefits or just leaving people to fend for themselves in times of difficuly need to realise that one way or another the Government will end up picking up the tab. This is the country you live in. We have a welfare state. If you dont like it, you are free to move.

solice

turgon wrote: »

Go on and show me where I said that people outside Dublin should be paying for services in Dublin. Otherwise I fail to see the validity of your point.

Spudmonkey wrote: »

And your tax money hasn't gone towards anything in Limerick either? A bypass, shannon tunnel etc....

My point is, we are all paying taxes! The people in the country (not just in Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Galway and Waterford) are just as entitled to a certain level of services and saying comments like "oh they chose to live there so fcuk them" is nothing short of arrogance!

One of the things this country needs to get back on its feet and to start attracting even spread of inward investment is a well developed public transport and services infrastructure. Otherwise all ivestments will be funnelled into Dublin and Cork and nobody else will get a look in.