An Bord Snip Nua

Tim Robbins

From today's Times

Irish Times wrote:

MAJOR LOCAL authorities should be merged, hundreds of millions of euro worth of allowances for State employees should be cut and €1.5 billion should be taken from the social welfare budget, an expert group has recommended in a report to be published today.

Following a five-hour meeting yesterday, the Cabinet decided to publish the report of the Special Group on Public Service Numbers and Expenditure Programmes, chaired by UCD economist Colm McCarthy.

Just 22 local authorities would remain under the plan, including the four existing ones in Dublin.

The group recommends the merger of county and city councils in Cork, Limerick, Waterford and Galway. It also says single councils should serve two counties in a number of cases, including SligoLeitrim and Carlow-Kilkenny, and calls for town councils to be abolished.

The group, informally known as An Bord Snip Nua, was established by the Government in November to identify potential reductions in public expenditure.

Small rural schools with falling numbers should be merged, its report recommends. It also calls for all State lands to be managed by the OPW, and some sold once prices improve.

The Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs should be abolished, it says.

The future of the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism should be examined, it says, but, in the meantime, €20 million should be cut from the Sports Council’s budget and the same from the arts budget.

Cuts in social welfare should be severe, but targeted, the report says, proposing a series of reductions in a variety of benefits, including the State pension and unemployment benefits.

Enterprise Ireland should absorb all community enterprise boards, along with other bodies, including Shannon Development, while the offices of the Ombudsman, the Children’s Ombudsman and the Data Protection Commissioner should merge.

Up to a dozen major cutbacks are recommended for each Government department by the group, which was barred from investigating the State’s capital spending and public pay bill.

However, it does propose that allowances, which form a significant part of each State worker’s take-home pay, should be cut. Gardaí, for instance, would lose €50 million worth of allowances. Similar cuts would affect nurses, prison officers and other public sector workers.

The expert group has exceeded the Government’s target recommendation of €3.5 billion worth of cuts, instead proposing a €5.2 billion package involving 17,000 State job losses, including a €300 million reduction in the Health Service Executive’s paybill.

Ireland should abandon its pledge to spend 0.7 per cent of its national budget on overseas aid by 2012 because this can “no longer be afforded”, it recommends. Instead, a new target date of 2015/16 should be set.

Minister for Finance Brian Lenihan last night insisted the public must accept that there are hard choices ahead, adding that €4 billion must be cut from spending or raised in extra tax next year. “There is no doubt that implementing the scale of adjustments required means that we must all take some very difficult decisions,” he said.

The report is split into two volumes: one 80 pages long and the other of 200 pages. Mr Lenihan has sent it to the Oireachtas Finance Committee, chaired by Fianna Fáil TD Michael Ahern.

The committee will, Mr Lenihan said, be able to hear the opinions of all those affected by the independent report’s recommendations.

The report is to be published on the Department of Finance website by early afternoon, and Mr McCarthy will “make himself available for interviews” to make “the report intelligible”, Mr Lenihan said.

The Government emphasised the independence of the report’s authors – though group member Donal McNally, the Department of Finance’s second secretary general, held equal standing to Mr McCarthy.

I think it's shocking there are cuts to social welfare, pensions, oversea's aid, sports and arts council when judges, consultants and tubirdy earn in excess of 250K a year.

What sort of twisted, morally corrupt people are we becoming?

granturismo

I wonder if they recommend any cutbacks for the School of Economics in UCD? :rolleyes:

Time Magazine

granturismo wrote: »

I wonder if they recommend any cutbacks for the School of Economics in UCD? :rolleyes:

Fascinating contribution. We need to cutback €4bn, do you really think the UCD School of Economics can make much of a dent in that?

And fwiw McCarthy took a huge pay cut to go from the private sector to work for UCD. So your cynicism isn't just cheap, it's mis-placed.

techdiver

Tim Robbins wrote: »

From today's Times



I think it's shocking there are cuts to social welfare, pensions, oversea's aid, sports and arts council when judges, consultants and tubirdy earn in excess of 250K a year.

What sort of twisted, morally corrupt people are we becoming?

Big picture unfortunately. How much money would we get by even halving the Judges and Tubridy's pay??

irish_bob

Tim Robbins wrote: »

From today's Times



I think it's shocking there are cuts to social welfare, pensions, oversea's aid, sports and arts council when judges, consultants and tubirdy earn in excess of 250K a year.

What sort of twisted, morally corrupt people are we becoming?

why should those on social wellfare be exempt from cuts

solice

techdiver wrote: »

Big picture unfortunately. How much money would we get by even halving the Judges and Tubridy's pay??

I think the point is that we are being told that everyone needs to take the pain, it would seem that this is not true

Villain

Its going to be hard to swollow but we have NO choice, although I think the Greens might decide to jump before they have to back the proposals. But FG and Labour would have to do the same.

Time Magazine

techdiver wrote: »

Big picture unfortunately. How much money would we get by even halving the Judges and Tubridy's pay??

We can't touch judges' pay.

And we'd get about €100,000, or about 0.0% of the deficit by halving Ryan Tubridy's pay.

Deflation is running about about 4% so those on social welfare are essentially getting a 4% increase this year. It should of course be brought down by at least 4%, probably more because they should shoulder some of the pain as well.

Amalgam

The group recommends the merger of county and city councils in Cork, Limerick, Waterford and Galway. It also says single councils should serve two counties in a number of cases, including SligoLeitrim and Carlow-Kilkenny, and calls for town councils to be abolished.

There'll be fierce resistance to those suggestions!

KerranJast

techdiver wrote: »

Big picture unfortunately. How much money would we get by even halving the Judges and Tubridy's pay??

Agreed. You could take every cent they have and it'd be a drop in the ocean. Sad fact is to raise enough money to bridge the chasm in our deficit the ordinary worker is going to have to be hit hard.

techdiver

solice wrote: »

I think the point is that we are being told that everyone needs to take the pain, it would seem that this is not true

I agree with you that it should be spread evenly, but as we all know fairness is only an illusion and rarley will the wealthy ever fell the pinch, such it life.

The reality is if we don't do anything the country is going to go down the tube. We are borrowing massive amounts to fund the public sector and the welfare system. This is just not sustainable.

solice

techdiver wrote: »

The reality is if we don't do anything the country is going to go down the tube. We are borrowing massive amounts to fund the public sector and the welfare system. This is just not sustainable.

We are borrowing massive amounts to run the entire country not just public service and welfare, the public sector bill is the same as it was last year more or less.

JonathanAnon

The whole way that this thing has been handled makes me sick. the usual government spin. Release this report and the Leas Cross report on the same day so that one will bury the other. 2.8 million report on a nursing home THAT IS CLOSING DOWN (http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=7826)

Contrived so that there is no Dáil, no Seanad in session to answer any questions about either report on the day of release. Fk them, they dont even have the balls to stand over a report they have commissioned, never mind actually take the decisions that need to be made.

As long as people in the public sector are continually rewarded for time served and not talent, with no possibility of making people redundant should their position become unnecessary, the country is always going to be in the same sh1te. And if the government dont address this head on, we might as all get a job in Public Service admin, play Solitaire for the day, and watch our wages and pension grow.

I'm gonna have a buget Supervalu Jaffa Cake and calm down

techdiver

solice wrote: »

We are borrowing massive amounts to run the entire country not just public service and welfare

The 2 largest areas of expenditure are welfare and public service.

solice wrote: »

the public sector bill is the same as it was last year more or less.

Which is still too high, that is the point. We can't live by the means of previous years. Incoming revenue has collapsed. We funded the public service in the "good times" based on unsustainable revenue from the artificially inflated property boom.

Villain

solice wrote: »

the public sector bill is the same as it was last year more or less.

Our Tax Income isn't sadly, public sector bill needs to be cut to match our income

solice

techdiver wrote: »

The 2 largest areas of expenditure are welfare and public service.



Which is still too high, that is the point. We can't live by the means of previous years. Incoming revenue has collapsed. We funded the public service in the "good times" based on unsustainable revenue from the artificially inflated property boom.

I completly agree that we need reform in the PS in terms of wages and structure. It needs to become more efficient. I just thought it was misleading of you to say that we are borrowing to fund the Public Service...we are borrowing to run the country as a whole and to bail out the banks. That is why we are borrowing! We are not borrowing to line the pockets of those in the public service.

silverharp

The Economist wrote: »

Deflation is running about about 4% so those on social welfare are essentially getting a 4% increase this year. It should of course be brought down by at least 4%, probably more because they should shoulder some of the pain as well.

I'm not disagreeing with you and I think social welfare should be cut because its not affordable at current levels but has the cost of living dropped by 4% for those on welfare? VAT has gone up for instance and mortgage cuts dont benefit the majority of welfare recepients?

mike65

JonathanAnon wrote: »

Contrived so that there is no Dáil, no Seanad in session to answer any questions about either report on the day of release. Fk them, they dont even have the balls to stand over a report they have commissioned, never mind actually take the decisions that need to be made.

The gubberment made a tactical boo-boo by waiting until the holliers, had the Dail being sitting they would have put it up to the opposition and indeed the Greens to back the proposals or come up with something better (which is hardly likely to have happened).

turgon

An Bord Snip Nua: far too late. This whole committee was probably designed simply to deflect criticism from FF onto the Bord. But the fact remains if we had had a proper government the past 12 years Bord Snip would not be needed.

Up to last year we were in a Boom, and yet our budget deficit and borrowing went Up. Even the Russians managed to impart a bit of elementary economics into their budget - save in the boom and spend in the recession. But instead FF bought everyone with new roads, new welfare, new this, new that and everyone was pulled in by it.

Social Welfare. Oh, how many times have I been nearly called a nazi for suggesting a social welfare cul. The statistics tell us that Social Welfare increased disproportionately to inflation in the boom years - child benefit increased at 2.5 times the rate of inflation asfaik. Yet any suggestion of real cuts in social welfare and you are labeled an angel of the rich. This social welfare cut should never have been necessitated. Living on welfare should never have become the viable career choice it is today.

And all these crap welfare programs. Back to work incentive scheme - excuse me? So not only were we forced to give them welfare, we have to incentivize them to work. Thankfully this ones gone.

Single mother supplement. So let me get this straight, if someone has a child out of a solid relationship and end up on their own - that becomes the taxpayers fault? What ever happened to personal responsibility, may I venture to ask?

And lets not get started on the Public sector, shall we. Suffice to say - for years and years the government has proven itself incompetent to run even basic services at a good level. The logic being to have them run my someone else. But any suggestion of privatization makes you an evil capitalist.

Id love to write here that ye got what ye deserved. But the fact is that the people who kept FF in power - the people who put up with this - have forced us all into **** creek. FF abused their power, made a balls of things, and yet people here will still scorn the obvious solutions.

nice_guy80

I think the small schools will be the most fiercely resisted in rural Ireland.

They provide a vital service for rural communities (often the only thing left in rural areas) and merging them with other schools will only mean kids having to travel further each day by bus or car

JonathanAnon

turgon wrote: »

And all these crap welfare programs. Back to work incentive scheme - excuse me? So not only were we forced to give them welfare, we have to incentivize them to work. Thankfully this ones gone. Single mother supplement. So let me get this straight, if someone has a child out of a solid relationship and end up on their own - that becomes the taxpayers fault? What ever happened to personal responsibility, may I venture to ask?

I agree with you on this but I think you're gonna get a lot of abuse, because it's not politically correct to say so. The less people are willing to have personal responsibility, the more the state is prepared to nurse them. Conversely, anybody trying to run a business gets it up the proverbial from Revenue and other government departments.

nice_guy80 wrote: »

I think the small schools will be the most fiercely resisted in rural Ireland.

Yeah, that was the first thing I thought when I heard this. Why dont they just get rid of the rented prefabs and get the builders (for 0.50 a brick) building proper schools. While the merging of the councils might seem like a good idea I can see it ending up like the Health Service / HSE debacle. You will end up with a new merged coucil, and remnants of the two old councils that the unions wont let you get rid of.

Just listening to Pat Kenny there, says that Sean O'Rourke called off his holidays to do the special for RTE on the An Bord Snip Nua report.

Het-Field

Will the merging of councils (in the highly unlikely event it goes ahead, mean the sacking of hundreds of local Cllrs who were elected last month ?

Heavy public sector reform (i.e. Cuts), and reductions in Social Welfare will have people out on the streets. If FF have the balls to implement some of this stuff in the national interest, they may save the country before its too late, and they may just save themselves too.

However, im still convinced they will return to the tax model which they have been swearing by. It means they can continue to plead "tough decisions", when in fact they have done nothing of the sort

Biggins

Have they mentioned anything about the useless Senad?

RiverWilde

The Seanad isn't useless ... at least with the Seanad in place there is a chance that legislation won't simply go through without some form of scrutiny. As it stands the current shower of eejits just use their majority to whip Bills through. With the Seanad they can hold it up and make life awkward for the govt.

There are questions to be answered concerning the membership of the Seanad but that's another story.

Riv

JonathanAnon

RiverWilde wrote: »

The Seanad isn't useless ... at least with the Seanad in place there is a chance that legislation won't simply go through without some form of scrutiny. As it stands the current shower of eejits just use their majority to whip Bills through. With the Seanad they can hold it up and make life awkward for the govt.

Two points
1) The two Green members opposed the government's new legislation on the last day of sitting. What happens? The legislation is going through anyway. They werent even asked about it before the Dail passed it. The Seanad is useless or at least so close to being useless that we cant afford it.

2) "Make life awkward for the govt." - The only government dept that the Seanad creates difficult for is the Department of Finance, who have to pay for the thing. Most of the appointees are too far removed from normal Irish life that they dont represent anybody. Most have cushy jobs outside of the Seanad and dont really need the job. The rest are just waiting to run in 2012 or whatever by election for Europe/Dail/anything that arises in between. Last few speakers of the house (so to speak) have been FF TDs who lost their seats.

I dont think they have mentioned the Seanad in the report. I think that would be too close to home for the FF TDs, as they may need it when they lose their seats in 2012.

Tim Robbins

The Economist wrote: »

We can't touch judges' pay.

And we'd get about €100,000, or about 0.0% of the deficit by halving Ryan Tubridy's pay.

Deflation is running about about 4% so those on social welfare are essentially getting a 4% increase this year. It should of course be brought down by at least 4%, probably more because they should shoulder some of the pain as well.

I disagree. There's tonnes of people in the public sector, quango's and semi- state on big bucks that shouldn't be.

Tubirdy is just an iconic example.

Also, it softens the blow to people who do receive cuts that someone isn't been grossly over payed out of public taxes.

Drumpot

RiverWilde wrote: »

The Seanad isn't useless ... at least with the Seanad in place there is a chance that legislation won't simply go through without some form of scrutiny. As it stands the current shower of eejits just use their majority to whip Bills through. With the Seanad they can hold it up and make life awkward for the govt.

There are questions to be answered concerning the membership of the Seanad but that's another story.

Riv

Isnt being a representitive on the Seanad a "privelage" ?

In England, their equivilant "house of Lords" dont get paid a wage. By all means keep the seanad, but why pay them ?

Sparks

The Economist wrote: »

We can't touch judges' pay.

There's a legal ruling that contradicts you on that, y'know.

And we'd get about €100,000, or about 0.0% of the deficit by halving Ryan Tubridy's pay.

Yes... but it's Tubridy ffs. There is no way on this earth that he's worth €200,000 a year if you still have to listen to him as well.

Deflation is running about about 4% so those on social welfare are essentially getting a 4% increase this year. It should of course be brought down by at least 4%, probably more because they should shoulder some of the pain as well.

Any hope we could do things like having TDs clock in so we see their attendance figures for their €100,000 p.a. or getting rid of unvouched expenses for TDs and Senators before we get those people who've just lost their jobs to pay for the mistakes made by the people who'll be making the cuts?

granturismo

The Economist wrote: »

Fascinating contribution. We need to cutback €4bn, do you really think the UCD School of Economics can make much of a dent in that?

Every little helps. It will be interesting to see if a board chaired by an academic recommends any closures or mergers within the third level sector - how many depts or schools of economics (or any other faculty) do we need in the greater Dublin area or Ireland. If its acceptable to merge Sligo/Leitrim CC, why not depts of Italian as suggested in a report published earlier this year.

The Economist wrote: »

And fwiw McCarthy took a huge pay cut to go from the private sector to work for UCD. So your cynicism isn't just cheap, it's mis-placed.

His choice to work where he wants. At his stage in life I'm sure he is financially comfortable and has made more than adequate provision for his retirement.

I work in the third level sector and see how some petty fiefdoms are protected and money wasted;

Some academics who dont work an 8 hour day during term time and disappear for 2 months in summer and yet classes of 30+ are accpetable in primary schools. A senior lecturer's salary of 80K would employ 2 primary/secondary teachers, 2 nurses?

identical courses provided by institutes within the same city and yet 24 hr A+E services closed down in some Dublin hospitals over recent years.

€0.3 million spent on one piece of equipment, 1 post created to operate each instrument (so little knowledge transfer to graduates), annual running costs €10K, it's technology is redundant within 3 years and now rarely used - subcontracting sample analysis for 3 years would have cost €200k max

etc, etc, etc.

The Economist wrote: »

So your cynicism isn't just cheap, it's mis-placed.

Just like you, I'm entitled to my opinions and cynicism, this is a public forum. As a moderator you should know that personal attacks are not encouraged on most forums. Ask boards to delete the sarcastic roll eyes if you have an issue with sarcasm. Attack the post not the poster.

My contribution is now finished, my luch break is over.

Time Magazine

Sparks wrote: »

There's a legal ruling that contradicts you on that, y'know.

Linkeh?

35.5 says "The remuneration of a judge shall not be reduced during his continuance in office."

Sparks

The Economist wrote: »

Linkeh?
35.5 says "The remuneration of a judge shall not be reduced during his continuance in office."

A good explanation from the Examiner:

The relevant provision of the constitution is Article 35.5, which states: “The remuneration of a judge shall not be reduced during his continuance in office.”

But this provision is not to be read literally.

We know this from the Supreme Court case of O’Byrne v Minister for Finance (1959).

In this case, which was brought by a judge’s widow, it was contended that this provision meant it would be unconstitutional to levy income tax from a judge’s salary. Rejecting this argument, Judge Kingsmill Moore stated: “The object was to secure the independence of the judges and the impartial administration of justice. The legislation was for the protection of the people, not for the interests of the judges. A judge who was subject to removal or to have his salary reduced would be under temptation to be subservient to the wishes of those in whose power it was to ensure his removal or reduce his salary. Any discrimination by tax or otherwise… would be equally objectionable. But I fail to see how a tax which is non-discriminatory against judges can assail the judicial independence… ”

The reasoning in Kingsmill Moore’s judgment would be broad enough to cover an increased pension levy against a judge’s salary, provided only that such an increase did not amount to a discrimination against judges.

There is no need, therefore, for any “voluntary reduction”: judges’ salaries could be subjected, by way of legislation, to the same levy that is being applied to public sector workers.

That's not from a journalist, by the way, it's a letter written by David Morgan, the Professor of Law in University College Cork. So I give it some weight myself...

Time Magazine

granturismo wrote: »

Every little helps. It will be interesting to see if a board chaired by an academic recommends any closures or mergers within the third level sector

He's not a fan of Sociology. We'll see what happens there. Your pre-emptive swipe still remains a pre-emptive swipe. I don't particularly like McCarthy but he's as independent as you get. If he concludes there should be cuts in third-level expenditure I'm sure he'll say it.

Just like you, I'm entitled to my opinions and cynicism, this is a public forum. As a moderator you should know that personal attacks are not encouraged on most forums.

Your entitlement to an opinion doesn't render it correct. Personal attacks are only allowed on one forum and this isn't it, but modding other forums is irrelevant here -- I am just a standard user on this forum. But I do know that that wasn't a personal attack, it was an attack on the opinion/cynicism that dribbled from your post. I'm sure you're a lovely person.

Time Magazine

Sparks wrote: »

A good explanation from the Examiner:

That's not from a journalist, by the way, it's a letter written by David Morgan, the Professor of Law in University College Cork. So I give it some weight myself...

But I don't read that as saying you may lower their pay, merely that you may tax them at the same rate as everyone else. So afaik, and IAMAL, and I can use many more acronyms, but I don't think it's a case that you can lower their pay, merely that you can apply taxes on them.

Darragh29

Am listening to RTE1 here, Jesus I'm sick of all these union representatives queueing up to pick a fight. Peter Mc Loone now weighing in for a row after the break.

What parrallel universe are these people living in???? Half of my mates are now unemployed! These guys on the radio still have their snouts in the trough, they've bullied pay increases out of us for years and now the chickens have come home to roost.

We need a TV documentary along the lines of Channel 4's "Wifeswap", but instead of two couple's swapping their wives for a week, we get a public sector worker and a private sector worker to swop roles for a week.

We'd soon see how the public sector worker would cope with coming in to work on a Saturday FOR FREE, seeing their colleagues being let go because the company can't afford to keep them on, and then you having to do their job FOR FREE as well!!!

How would be public sector worker deal with being handed a wages cheque on Friday but being told not to lodge it until the following Tuesday because the bank won't honour it until then???

This is what is going on in the private sector up and down the country. I've a mate with three weeks wages cheque's up on his bedroom wall, they've all bounced, but he's still working (basically for free), to see if he can help get his employer out of the hole he is in at the moment...

deadhead13

turgon wrote: »

Social Welfare. Oh, how many times have I been nearly called a nazi for suggesting a social welfare cul. The statistics tell us that Social Welfare increased disproportionately to inflation in the boom years - child benefit increased at 2.5 times the rate of inflation asfaik. Yet any suggestion of real cuts in social welfare and you are labeled an angel of the rich. This social welfare cut should never have been necessitated. Living on welfare should never have become the viable career choice it is today.

And all these crap welfare programs. Back to work incentive scheme - excuse me? So not only were we forced to give them welfare, we have to incentivize them to work. Thankfully this ones gone.

No I don't think you have nearly been called a "nazi" for suggesting social welfare cuts. I think it has more to do with your judgemental tone and the sweeping generalizations you make when you refer to the unemployed. How many of the 400,000 currently on the live register consider "living on welfare to be a viable career choice". You ignore the years of PRSI contirbutions most of them will have made. And don't seem to know the difference between jobseekers benefit and jobseekers allowance. That said, I agree that cuts in the social welfare bill need to be made.

Darragh29

It's beyond me how on earth a state can give child benefit to a yummy mummy who can afford to drop her kid's to school in a 09 Range Rover worth over 100K. This is social and fiscal recklessness in my opinion.

is_that_so

Colm McCarthy on RTE radio now explaining it. Very comprehensive range of proposals where it is "possible" to make cuts. It also sounds like they took a cold hard look at what needs to be done and avoided the wimpishness that politicians would show. Full report is here.

Mr.Applepie

Please correct me if my figures are wrong:

Estimated spending: 60bn
Of Which:
Public Service: 20bn
Social Welfare: 20bn
Other: 20bn

Estimated Income: 35-40bn

So if we don't cut social welfare or the public service are we just going to get rid of everything else?

Hellrazer

deadhead13 wrote: »

I think it has more to do with your judgemental tone and the sweeping generalizations you make when you refer to the unemployed. How many of the 400,000 currently on the live register consider "living on welfare to be a viable career choice". You ignore the years of PRSI contirbutions most of them will have made. And don't seem to know the difference between jobseekers benefit and jobseekers allowance. That said, I agree that cuts in the social welfare bill need to be made.

Well said--There seems to be an attitude in this country that the unemployed are all scroungers.While this may have been true in the past when there were jobs to be had I firmly believe that nowadays its not as clear cut.
As Darragh says "half my mates are now unemployed"

Most of my mates are unemployed aswell--these were lads who worked their backsides off and to see them in the depths of depression over losing their jobs is a killer.

For anyone who thinks the dole should be cut--You try and live on the dole money with a mortgage,kids ,bills to pay etc and then tell me it should be cut.

I guarantee that that attitude would change very very quickly.

spank_inferno

Its down to the strange almost peverse idea of "social equality" that the rich get such benefits.

is_that_so

Darragh29 wrote: »

It's beyond me how on earth a state can give child benefit to a yummy mummy who can afford to drop her kid's to school in a 09 Range Rover worth over 100K. This is social and fiscal recklessness in my opinion.

The Commission on Taxation will be reporting this month and that is expected to come up in it.

KerranJast

Personally I think the Science Innovation & Technology, and Green Energy areas should be ringfenced or at least rationalised rather than simply slashed.

turgon

deadhead13 wrote: »

I think it has more to do with your judgemental tone and the sweeping generalizations you make when you refer to the unemployed.

This group of unemployed, whom I apparently judge and make generalizations about, include myself, for your information.

deadhead13 wrote: »

How many of the 400,000 currently on the live register consider "living on welfare to be a viable career choice".

How many of the 150,000 that were on it during an economic boom considered it a career choice?

If you really think I am on about those who recently lost their jobs then I would have to say you read my post with a view to hearing something you wanted to hear.

deadhead13 wrote: »

You ignore the years of PRSI contirbutions most of them will have made. And don't seem to know the difference between jobseekers benefit and jobseekers allowance.

Forgive me, I speak entirely of the jobseekers allowance, its my fault for rarely making that explicit. If someone makes PRSI contributions then they are obviously entitled to the fruits of those contributions.

turgon

Darragh29 wrote: »

It's beyond me how on earth a state can give child benefit to a yummy mummy who can afford to drop her kid's to school in a 09 Range Rover worth over 100K. This is social and fiscal recklessness in my opinion.

Why stop at the "rich"? If you want a child, surely it is your responsibility to ensure you can pay for, not the states?

Akrasia

Darragh29 wrote: »

It's beyond me how on earth a state can give child benefit to a yummy mummy who can afford to drop her kid's to school in a 09 Range Rover worth over 100K. This is social and fiscal recklessness in my opinion.

Its not economical to tax child welfare or to means test it. the money you would save would be eaten up in admin costs. What they should do instead, is let them keep the child ben but increase the top rate of tax, which would also hit the older generation who are on the biggest bucks, have a significant share of the blame for the current mess and don't have the expense of rearing a family.

Leave the universal payments alone, increase the rates of tax and abolish all of the tax breaks and loopholes that allow the over wealthy to squirrel their wealth away.

Sparks

The Economist wrote: »

But I don't read that as saying you may lower their pay, merely that you may tax them at the same rate as everyone else. So afaik, and IAMAL, and I can use many more acronyms, but I don't think it's a case that you can lower their pay, merely that you can apply taxes on them.

Well David Morgan IAL, and he says you're wrong.

spank_inferno

Mr.Applepie wrote: »

Please correct me if my figures are wrong:

Estimated spending: 60bn
Of Which:
Public Service: 20bn
Social Welfare: 20bn
Other: 20bn

Estimated Income: 35-40bn

So if we don't cut social welfare or the public service are we just going to get rid of everything else?

Your figures are pretty much on the nose.
The last figure I saw was from May and that anticipated a 2009 income of just 37 billion and that was after the tax hikes in the emergency budget.

Depending on social welfare costs and the costs of public sector pay raises (and they are getting raises) Spending could be between 58 - 62 billion for the year.

So 2009 defecit = 20 billion at least
2010 deficit = guessing less but in the same region, mabey 15 billion.

And thats excluding the 7billion paid to AIB & BOI
1.5 billion to Anglo-Irish
the Costs of NAMA
the costs of the Government banking garauntee


Save us IMF.... save us!

is_that_so

turgon wrote: »

Why stop at the "rich"? If you want a child, surely it is your responsibility to ensure you can pay for, not the states?

We need kids to pay for our elderly, otherwise we end up with an ageing population supported by a smaller and smaller working population. Incidentally there is a proposed cut of €500 million in child benefit in that report (p. 77), by standardising the rate.

Darragh29

is_that_so wrote: »

The Commission on Taxation will be reporting this month and that is expected to come up in it.

You see this is more of it... How much are we paying that quango to tell us the blinding f*cking obvious?!??!?!?

Do we in all seriousness need another quango to tell us that a woman who can afford to drive a 100K top end truck to bring her kids to school in the morning, doesn't actually need, and should not be receiving, child benefit???

Time Magazine

Sparks wrote: »

Well David Morgan IAL, and he says you're wrong.

Where does he say you can cut their pay?

is_that_so

Darragh29 wrote: »

You see this is more of it... How much are we paying that quango to tell us the blinding f*cking obvious?!??!?!?

Do we in all seriousness need another quango to tell us that a woman who can afford to drive a 100K top end truck to bring her kids to school in the morning, doesn't actually need, and should not be receiving, child benefit???

I wouldn't lump it in with the rest. Their remit is much wider than just child benefit and their work will finish soon, unlike most other quangos. Unlike many other quangos what they say is important and IMO essential in addressing the problems with our narrow tax base.