Pat kenny and poverty

dodgyme

A tax inspector who was interested in poverty (obviously Pat wouldnt know much about that) was on Pk this morning and not just people on the dole, basically said that when she looked at the figures that a person on 35k salary with partner and 2 kids was about 3-4k worse off than someone on the scratcher of same family arrangement.

However in defense we had this one on from some project or other telling us that it shouldnt be a race to the bottom, blah blah blah and that it was hard on the dole and she was on it for 12 years with a family of 5? :rolleyes:

No one thought to ask/say to her.
Why it took her to have 5 kids?
Did she not feel grateful for being supported for 12 f8cking years doing nothing and contributing nothing to the economy while the rest of us paid for it and tried to avoid being on the dole.

etc etc I think you can get the drift. I would make you F&cking sick listening to this BS.

Meanwhile you read letters in the paper and see what happens when you dont have 5 kids on the scratcher

from indo today:
"Trust me to go and have a recession baby. I've been working and studying for 25 years, since I was 17, and have just had my first baby at age 42.

And what do you know, after paying all that tax, never claiming anything, they decide to cut child benefit.

I am contemplating baby-minding and/or creche fees and how it will cost more than my mortgage. Don't get me wrong, I love my child and am thankful every day that she survived, being born nine weeks premature, but I am an independent woman who likes to work.

What incentives has the Government given me to work again when I've given them nothing but tax, tax and more tax over 25 years? My suggestion is to take away all their cushy benefits and hearty pensions and let them live the life we are living . . . hand to mouth."

1huge1

I agree with your comment about the mother having 5 children but you wouldn't see me saying that on the radio unless I want to get told off by some human rights group...etc

I guess my point is from a economics point of view it is extremely frustrating

tapo

I am now unable to bring myself to listen to Mr. Kenny. The respect has left the building

FlutterinBantam

Now I heard that programme and I felt both participants had very good points.

The woman with the 5 kids is separated and apparently has a degree and is now running a social service in Kilbarrack.
She said her years on the dole were hell, and I'm sure she only survived by scrimping and saving and had the get go to better herself.

No matter what you say, it can't have been easy.

The other lady said, rightly in my opinion that a family of 4 ,mother,father two kids, only father working, earning circa €35k is worse off than a similar family on the dole when all supports are taken into account.

Very hard to know how to resolve that anomaly but both had very valid points.

dodgyme

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Now I heard that programme and I felt both participants had very good points.

The woman with the 5 kids is separated and apparently has a degree and is now running a social service in Kilbarrack.
She said her years on the dole were hell, and I'm sure she only survived by scrimping and saving and had the get go to better herself.

No matter what you say, it can't have been easy.

The other lady said, rightly in my opinion that a family of 4 ,mother,father two kids, only father working, earning circa €35k is worse off than a similar family on the dole when all supports are taken into account.

Very hard to know how to resolve that anomaly but both had very valid points.

one is working and one is not. Its is not valid to say that a person on the dole should be better off then one who is working and providing themselves for their family. To me that is not a valid point. 12 years on the dole? 5 kids before you seperate? for god sake this country is a joke.

I remember working on a dole scheme during college. The lads on that wouldnt work for the local warehouse because the work was "too hard"

FlutterinBantam

Yes I agree with you, but the issue is; how do we square that circle.

The woman 's marriage broke up, she was left with five kids.

Doesn't appear the father contributed anything, but I do not know.

Maybe that's where the anomaly begins??

P. Breathnach

dodgyme wrote: »

... 5 kids before you seperate? for god sake this country is a joke...

Do you really think she planned it that way?

Your attitude stinks.

asdasd

On the subject of what people earn and the dole. It used to be that the measure of poverty was the bottom 10% ( or people at 60% of the middle income) against the median income. Not only is that a spurious measure anyway ( since most of the income and wealth is earned or held by the top 10%) - it never took into account transfers.

V Browne is always on about how unequal we are compared to the rest of the OECD, * we are about 18th of 21 - but the OECD is very equal compared to poorer countries) but that , too, does not take into account tranfers. Which is utterly ridiculous. With transfers we are in the top ten most equal countries in the world.

Further the more sophisticated way of measuring poverty - the GINI index ( a lorenz curve) - can make us more unequal if the top 10% are richer than the median income groups. That is the case in Ireland, as we know, our top level lawyers, bankers, consultants etc are raking it in.

Knowing how the mathematics works here calls for a reduction in tax on the middle income groups, and ( even) a reduction in dole at the lower level, coupled with a higher level of tax for the top 10% ( I dont get the they will leave argument - to where? To places with an existing higher tax band and less pay?).

That would be ideal. No hope.

ei.sdraob

@OP et al. there was an interesting article in the IT today on subject

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/1112/1224258654221.html

Dannyboy83

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Yes I agree with you, but the issue is; how do we square that circle.

The woman 's marriage broke up, she was left with five kids.

Doesn't appear the father contributed anything, but I do not know.

Maybe that's where the anomaly begins??

The circle is easy to square.
There is an incentive not to work and a disincentive to work.
That should never happen, regardless of the fiscal situation.


They should be even.
Things being even is a big enough excuse for the lazy to abuse the system as it is, but regardless of any anomalies and not overlooking the second woman's suffering, there is no excuse for punishing someone who has worked and contributed.

irish_bob

asdasd wrote: »

On the subject of what people earn and the dole. It used to be that the measure of poverty was the bottom 10% ( or people at 60% of the middle income) against the median income. Not only is that a spurious measure anyway ( since most of the income and wealth is earned or held by the top 10%) - it never took into account transfers.

V Browne is always on about how unequal we are compared to the rest of the OECD, * we are about 18th of 21 - but the OECD is very equal compared to poorer countries) but that , too, does not take into account tranfers. Which is utterly ridiculous. With transfers we are in the top ten most equal countries in the world.

Further the more sophisticated way of measuring poverty - the GINI index ( a lorenz curve) - can make us more unequal if the top 10% are richer than the median income groups. That is the case in Ireland, as we know, our top level lawyers, bankers, consultants etc are raking it in.

Knowing how the mathematics works here calls for a reduction in tax on the middle income groups, and ( even) a reduction in dole at the lower level, coupled with a higher level of tax for the top 10% ( I dont get the they will leave argument - to where? To places with an existing higher tax band and less pay?).

That would be ideal. No hope.

vincent browne apart from being a lecturing bore , is a complete economic illiterete , he usually has his facts wrong too , the divide between the so called rich and poor has actually narrowed this past ten years , VB continues to parrott the opposite

hes not too concerned with the detail , it eases his liberal guilt to come out with this guff every night , maybe it allows him sleep in his house in dalkey , while he may be rich , at least hes unhappy about it

CleverName

I won't mention the name or the place but I know of a party that was on recently in a pub where a guy was celebrating 30 years.
30 years of what you ask?
30 years on the dole.
There were balloons and everything...

irish_bob

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

The circle is easy to square.
There is an incentive not to work and a disincentive to work.
That should never happen, regardless of the fiscal situation.


They should be even.
Things being even is a big enough excuse for the lazy to abuse the system as it is, but regardless of any anomalies and not overlooking the second woman's suffering, there is no excuse for punishing someone who has worked and contributed.

which group gets more media attention , those who work for low wages or those who live off the states good humour

several times a week , the national broadcaster has someone from CHOIR like fr whats hisname telling us how those on wellfare havent a pot to piss in , fergus ( no child should have to wear hand me down school uniforms ) finlay is regulary on radio , blathering on about how if thier are any cuts in social wellfare , people will starve to death , YES , STARVE TO DEATH , its time people realised that idiots like fergus finlay are allowed spout the nonesense they do and be lauded as great citizens because our media in ireland is overtly left wing , when have you ever heard someone on who claimed those on social wellfare have it too good in this country , im not talking about someone from the ERSI stating that you can bring in XY or Z on social wellfare , that is reporting of facts , im talking opinion here , it simply doesnt happen , all we get a endless lines of people from various QUANGOS or proffessors of social studies from various universitys ( vincent browne hardly goes one night without having one on ) telling us how we need to adopt the scanadanavian model and how wealth distribution and increasing equality is the number one priority facing the country

i for one am sick and tired of minority left wing views having such a grossly disproportionate level of access to our national airwaves

P. Breathnach

irish_bob wrote: »

vincent browne apart from being a lecturing bore , is a complete economic illiterete , he usually has his facts wrong too , the divide between the so called rich and poor has actually narrowed this past ten years ...

Evidence, please.

murphaph

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Yes I agree with you, but the issue is; how do we square that circle.

The woman 's marriage broke up, she was left with five kids.

Doesn't appear the father contributed anything, but I do not know.

Maybe that's where the anomaly begins??

Yup, the father should have to support the kids to the best of his ability. Wages should be docked at source if he refuses to play ball. However, the man wasn't able to defend himself on the radio so maybe he was making a fair contribution and the woman was squandering it, we simply don't know.

It doesn't change one iota the fact that we can't afford to keep welfare payments so high and the cost of living is actually falling overall (falling in the private sector, public sector charges are still increasing).

The cost of living would fall even faster if the artificial floor on wages and income (minimum wage and welfare) were reduced along with public sector wages. Retailers will only charge what they can get-see the regional pricing policies of Lidl, Aldi etc. in Germany where they have to charge less in Berlin than in Munich for the same goods.

FlutterinBantam

If I remember correctly the issue here on the radio show was that, when cuts have to be made,these cuts by default, excluded social welfare recipients per se, and worked on incomes solely.

This ignored the scenario that the social welfare reciepient could have ,when all benefits are collated, have a better extrapolated income than someone on €35k in a similar situation.

Difficult circle to square imho.

Daithinski

CleverName wrote: »

I won't mention the name or the place but I know of a party that was on recently in a pub where a guy was celebrating 30 years.
30 years of what you ask?
30 years on the dole.
There were balloons and everything...

And this unusual incident proves what exactly?

CleverName

I wasn't trying to prove anything.
Should I have? I'm very very sorry if you had to read that. Did it hurt your head?

Daithinski

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

If I remember correctly the issue here on the radio show was that, when cuts have to be made,these cuts by default, excluded social welfare recipients per se, and worked on incomes solely.

This ignored the scenario that the social welfare reciepient could have ,when all benefits are collated, have a better extrapolated income than someone on €35k in a similar situation.

Difficult circle to square imho.

This seems a fair enough conclusion to come to, this same story was on newstalk with George Hook blathering on and on till I had to change the channel. Is it just me or is he getting stupider and more belligerent?

There is one major point people are overlooking. And that there is a minimum cost of living in Ireland. Ireland is an expensive place to live, any thing less than these amounts for a family and they would really be living in poverty.

The media are omitting this fact. They are just looking for a sensational story and not a truly balanced argument.

The media is fueling the fire between the public sector, private sector and the unemployed "sector".

If the goverment wanted to save out money, why don't they put people into all the empty property that "we" (the Irish taxpayer) are now the proud owners off via NAMA?

CleverName

Does the little head mean "sad and confused"?

dodgyme

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Do you really think she planned it that way?
.

to paraphase wilde. To have one kid in these circumstances may be regarded as a misfortune; to have 5 looks like carelessness.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Your attitude stinks.

Of course it does. 12 years getting dole and going on the radio moaning is what stinks. She should be thanking god she wasnt born in the slums of Jakarta or bombay!!:eek:

P. Breathnach

dodgyme wrote: »

to paraphase wilde. To have one kid in these circumstances may be regarded as a misfortune; to have 5 looks like carelessness.

What circumstances? Do you know something about her that we don't know?

Dannyboy83

Daithinski wrote: »

If the government wanted to save our money, why don't they put people into all the empty property that "we" (the Irish taxpayer) are now the proud owners off via NAMA?

Because we're are going to make billions of profits off those properties.

Did you forget?:D

asdasd

What circumstances? Do you know something about her that we don't know?

We know she didnt need to have 5 kids. What we also know is that she has them on our dime. Were she rich, it would nae matter.

P. Breathnach

asdasd wrote: »

We know she didnt need to have 5 kids. What we also know is that she has them on our dime. Were she rich, it would nae matter.

Do you know why she was a lone parent? Or is it simply self-evidently wrong for a woman to be responsible on her own for the upbringing of five children? Should we stone widows with children, and cast deserted wives into prison?

dodgyme

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Do you know why she was a lone parent? ?

because she had sex with someone atleast five times at a given interval to make it possible and then decided after 5 that oh he wasnt for her?

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Or is it simply self-evidently wrong for a woman to be responsible on her own for the upbringing of five children? ?

yes if the state are the ones who are responsible for it

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Should we stone widows with children, and cast deserted wives into prison?

give over with the fire and brimstone. :rolleyes: 12 years of oh so nice dole! lovely.

asdasd

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Do you know why she was a lone parent? Or is it simply self-evidently wrong for a woman to be responsible on her own for the upbringing of five children? Should we stone widows with children, and cast deserted wives into prison?

Should we stop making strawman arguments if we are to be taken seriously.

By the way I answered whether it was self evidently wrong or not when I said I didn't care provided she could afford it. Bringing children into the world on someone elses dime is morally wrong when the working women paying fir you may be sacrificing familes, certainly large families, for career - part of the earnings of which go to the perennials on the dole.

Taxipete29

irish_bob wrote: »

which group gets more media attention , those who work for low wages or those who live off the states good humour

several times a week , the national broadcaster has someone from CHOIR like fr whats hisname telling us how those on wellfare havent a pot to piss in , fergus ( no child should have to wear hand me down school uniforms ) finlay is regulary on radio , blathering on about how if thier are any cuts in social wellfare , people will starve to death , YES , STARVE TO DEATH , its time people realised that idiots like fergus finlay are allowed spout the nonesense they do and be lauded as great citizens because our media in ireland is overtly left wing , when have you ever heard someone on who claimed those on social wellfare have it too good in this country , im not talking about someone from the ERSI stating that you can bring in XY or Z on social wellfare , that is reporting of facts , im talking opinion here , it simply doesnt happen , all we get a endless lines of people from various QUANGOS or proffessors of social studies from various universitys ( vincent browne hardly goes one night without having one on ) telling us how we need to adopt the scanadanavian model and how wealth distribution and increasing equality is the number one priority facing the country

i for one am sick and tired of minority left wing views having such a grossly disproportionate level of access to our national airwaves

I would of thought the majority of people in this country would like to see better wealth distribution and more equality. They are hardly minority left wing views.

deadhead13

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

The circle is easy to square.
There is an incentive not to work and a disincentive to work.
That should never happen, regardless of the fiscal situation.

Go back 2 years and we essentially had full-employment. The unemployment benefits where more or less same as now, wages have gone done to certain extent but not by a substantial amount - yet people chose to work. There where a hardcore of around 28,000 who didn't but I don't see why everyone else who is currently unemployed should judged by that groups standards.

I heard various FF politicians use the disincentive rational for cutting benefits over the past few weeks, but where is the evidence that this is the case. It didn't happen 2 years ago when people had the choice between working and not working, are there a lot of job vacancy's going unfilled at present? Not that I know of. To me, it is politicians deflecting blame away for themselves and onto the the unemployed. The same politicians created the social welfare system as it currently stands and their management of the economy is, in a large part, responsible for the size of our dole queues.

P. Breathnach

dodgyme wrote: »

because she had sex with someone atleast five times at a given interval to make it possible and then decided after 5 that oh he wasnt for her?

I find it difficult to keep a moderate tone.

You presume that she was to blame for having children. You don't know why she didn't have a partner living with her and supporting her and the children. He might have been dead; he might have developed a drink or drugs problem; he might have become violent; he might have got into financial difficulties and absconded.

You simply blame her for being in a difficult situation.

That is a repulsive attitude.

creeper1

P. Breathnach wrote: »

he might have developed a drink or drugs problem; he might have become violent;

I used to work on night shift so I am familiar with "the Jeremy Kyle show". Now in Britain the type of guy that you describe above is seems prime father material. Such a guy has supersperm and gets all the local girls pregnant.

So the girls have to go on Jeremy Kyle for a DNA test to prove whether or not he is the dad. There could be as many as 4 candidates for the title of "father". However I would describe none of them as 'winners'. Quite the opposite really.

Now in Tallagh you can also see this type of thing.

Some babies are actually born drug addicts because their mothers are junkies.

However there really is nothing we can do about this problem. People have guaranteed human rights and morality was lost long, long ago.

FlutterinBantam

The issue here, is whether budget cuts should take cognisance of the fact that Social welfare recipients in certain situations may have a better income than a person working on circa 35k, and therefore is it fair that the employed person be asked to take cuts, while the social welfare recipient is exempt.

All discussion as to the whys and wherefores are largely irrelevant.


That was the issue on the PK show.

nesf

Taxipete29 wrote: »

I would of thought the majority of people in this country would like to see better wealth distribution and more equality. They are hardly minority left wing views.

Actually I'm not convinced that what media pundits sell as better wealth distribution and more equality actually reflects general public opinion. Most people I talk to are more concerned with their own situation and how much the State takes from them than any higher notions of equality of wealth distribution.

Also, equality and "better" wealth distribution are really loose ideals, more buzzwords than anything else unless someone specifies exactly what they mean by them.

irish_bob

Taxipete29 wrote: »

I would of thought the majority of people in this country would like to see better wealth distribution and more equality. They are hardly minority left wing views.

many make the mistake of thinking the irish media is an accurate reflection of irish public opinion , it is not , irish public opinion is much more conservative than that

if they were not minority views then the labour party would be a hell of a lot larger than they are

Stark

deadhead13 wrote: »

I heard various FF politicians use the disincentive rational for cutting benefits over the past few weeks, but where is the evidence that this is the case. It didn't happen 2 years ago when people had the choice between working and not working, are there a lot of job vacancy's going unfilled at present?

I wouldn't say it's as much about disincentives as it is about fairness. You shouldn't be punished financially for choosing to work instead of receiving handouts. And while there might not be too much of a disincentive now, there will be if you keep reducing the take home pay of workers while leaving social welfare completely untouched.

Dannyboy83

deadhead13 wrote: »

Go back 2 years and we essentially had full-employment. The unemployment benefits where more or less same as now, wages have gone done to certain extent but not by a substantial amount - yet people chose to work. There where a hardcore of around 28,000 who didn't but I don't see why everyone else who is currently unemployed should judged by that groups standards.

I heard various FF politicians use the disincentive rational for cutting benefits over the past few weeks, but where is the evidence that this is the case. It didn't happen 2 years ago when people had the choice between working and not working, are there a lot of job vacancy's going unfilled at present? Not that I know of. To me, it is politicians deflecting blame away for themselves and onto the the unemployed. The same politicians created the social welfare system as it currently stands and their management of the economy is, in a large part, responsible for the size of our dole queues.

I don't disagree.
In fact, I would argue its entirely their fault, based on incredible short sightedness and a complete lack of any form of contingency plans.

But the fact remains, people are €3-5K better off on the dole (according to that tax lawyer).
Morals issues aside, it will gradually destroy the middle class as has been happening in the UK and break the country as people start to emigrate.

Things were the way they were.
They need to be changed.
All part of the Irish reformation.

Mad_Max

Anyone know where I can find this discussion on the net?

I have heard many people giving out over the last year or two this but I never believed that it was working out better than someone on 35k!

Taxipete29

irish_bob wrote: »

many make the mistake of thinking the irish media is an accurate reflection of irish public opinion , it is not , irish public opinion is much more conservative than that

if they were not minority views then the labour party would be a hell of a lot larger than they are

I think its more the case that Labour has done a poor job of actually making the point that making the society more equal doesnt mean the end of capitalism. Many people do not view Labour as the left and the extreme left is in a word far too extreme for most peoples liking. You should bare in mind that FF have for a very long time proclaimed themselves the working mans party. They sold the idea quite well, while in the background pandering to property developers and bankers etc. It is only now that ordainary people can see the extent of this fallacy.

I dont think you can extrapolate the publics opinion on this from the relatively modest performances of the Labour party through history. I would ask you to show some evidence that the public opinion is conservative as you say.

Taxipete29

nesf wrote: »

Actually I'm not convinced that what media pundits sell as better wealth distribution and more equality actually reflects general public opinion. Most people I talk to are more concerned with their own situation and how much the State takes from them than any higher notions of equality of wealth distribution.

Also, equality and "better" wealth distribution are really loose ideals, more buzzwords than anything else unless someone specifies exactly what they mean by them.

I think thats the point. More people would favour these ideals if it was presented to them in a way that shows them how better there lives would be if there was more equality.I think it has to be more personalised and not just about abstract ideals that ordainary people dont feel they can relate to.

nesf

Taxipete29 wrote: »

I think its more the case that Labour has done a poor job of actually making the point that making the society more equal doesnt mean the end of capitalism. Many people do not view Labour as the left and the extreme left is in a word far too extreme for most peoples liking. You should bare in mind that FF have for a very long time proclaimed themselves the working mans party. They sold the idea quite well, while in the background pandering to property developers and bankers etc. It is only now that ordainary people can see the extent of this fallacy.

I dont think you can extrapolate the publics opinion on this from the relatively modest performances of the Labour party through history. I would ask you to show some evidence that the public opinion is conservative as you say.

Honestly given the relative dominance of FG and FF since almost the foundation of the state I think that one would have to argue that the revealed preference is for mild conservatism. It doesn't mean that public opinion is actually conservative, it just means that they tend to vote for conservative parties but they aren't necessarily voting for them because they are conservative so trying to work out public opinion from seat counts is a mess really.

nesf

Taxipete29 wrote: »

I think thats the point. More people would favour these ideals if it was presented to them in a way that shows them how better there lives would be if there was more equality.I think it has to be more personalised and not just about abstract ideals that ordainary people dont feel they can relate to.

Yeah but invariably for someone who works and pays taxes it means more taxes. For your average small business owner or PAYE worker "equality of wealth" means taking away money they've earned and handing some of it to people who haven't earned it. These aren't the super wealthy that Labour like to drum on about but ordinary people, some even over the magical 100K mark because of dual incomes.

Taxipete29

nesf wrote: »

Honestly given the relative dominance of FG and FF since almost the foundation of the state I think that one would have to argue that the revealed preference is for mild conservatism. It doesn't mean that public opinion is actually conservative, it just means that they tend to vote for conservative parties but they aren't necessarily voting for them because they are conservative so trying to work out public opinion from seat counts is a mess really.

Totally agree

asdasd

Honestly given the relative dominance of FG and FF since almost the foundation of the state I think that one would have to argue that the revealed preference is for mild conservatism.

I dont agree that we necessarily want more equality ( than we have) however a vote for FF historically is not a vote for developers, the founding of the welfare State - a fairly generous one too lies with FF - and land redistribution at the start of the State.

Taxipete29

nesf wrote: »

Yeah but invariably for someone who works and pays taxes it means more taxes. For your average small business owner or PAYE worker "equality of wealth" means taking away money they've earned and handing some of it to people who haven't earned it. These aren't the super wealthy that Labour like to drum on about but ordinary people, some even over the magical 100K mark because of dual incomes.

The policies of taxing those in the middle income brackets that you speak of are more akin to FF than Labour. How many tax breaks exist in our code that only favour the wealthy and super-wealthy?? Your average small business owner or middle income PAYE worker cannot avail of the vast majority of these breaks.

I am not simply talking about taxing the rich but rather making them pay at the level that your average PAYE worker does. We could remove tax breaks for those at the very top and pass them onto small business owners. Reducing their burden in order to build employment oppurtunities.

We have to force the rich to pay their share while at the same time force those seemingly too lazy to work to get off their asses.

Equality is an ideal and will remain as such until society as whole begins to change. I think this is always going to be extremely hard because peoples me fein attitudes make it difficult to initiate real change. I will not however give up on it just yet.

dodgyme

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I find it difficult to keep a moderate tone.
You presume that she was to blame for having children. .

Dont tell tell me, the state looked after that side of things as well?:rolleyes:

P. Breathnach wrote: »

You don't know why she didn't have a partner living with her and supporting her and the children. He might have been dead; he might have developed a drink or drugs problem; he might have become violent; he might have got into financial difficulties and absconded..

Its always the bad old man. I presume this is the same bad old man that doesnt get named on birth certs?

P. Breathnach wrote: »

You simply blame her for being in a difficult situation.

No I am blaming her for the neck shown on PK yesterday. 12 years on the dole - 5 kids and arguing but pretending to be on the side of the tax researcher who has come with evidence that someone who works is 4k worse off than a similar person doing NOTHING

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That is a repulsive attitude.

so far my attitude "stinks" and my attitiude is "repulsive", while this woman was kept by taxpayers for 12 years. I'd like to see you put your money where your mouth is?

asdasd

The fact about "equality" is this: the bottom 50-60% are equal already regardless of how many hours they work when you factor in transfers from the government. The question is whether this is fair or not. I personaly dont think it is. ( And it assumes, by the way that the underclass has no other income from say criminality, which is clearly false).

If we are going to redistribute then lets take it from the top. We'd all be in favour of banking bonuses being taxed I assume. If socialism could reduce the taxes on middle income earners and increase the tax on people earning 100- 1000 times more than them, it would be more popular.

Vyse

creeper1 wrote: »

I
Now in Tallagh you can also see this type of thing.

Because you wouldn't see it anywhere else in the country:rolleyes: At least learn how to spell the place before you go stereotyping it.

Riskymove

dodgyme wrote: »

No I am blaming her for the neck shown on PK yesterday. 12 years on the dole - 5 kids and arguing but pretending to be on the side of the tax researcher who has come with evidence that someone who works is 4k worse off than a similar person doing NOTHING

this particular woman had her kids before ending up on the dole after she seperated from her husband

as she was left to look after 5 kids its hardly surprising that after that she could not get a job and instead needed to look after said kids

its also mentioned early in this thread that this women managed to get a qualification in her own time and now runs some sort of social service in the area

in the circumstances I cannot see how people can be so critical (and indeed downright contemptuous) of this woman.

we all have concerns about welfare fraud and poverty traps etc but this seems far from that


lastly, its seems very easy for people to describe someone looking after children as "doing nothing" and other things

asdasd

True, in her particular case it was not too bad.

However she is an example of the poverty trap. She cant really work without losing money.

nesf

Taxipete29 wrote: »

The policies of taxing those in the middle income brackets that you speak of are more akin to FF than Labour. How many tax breaks exist in our code that only favour the wealthy and super-wealthy?? Your average small business owner or middle income PAYE worker cannot avail of the vast majority of these breaks.

I am not simply talking about taxing the rich but rather making them pay at the level that your average PAYE worker does. We could remove tax breaks for those at the very top and pass them onto small business owners. Reducing their burden in order to build employment oppurtunities.

We have to force the rich to pay their share while at the same time force those seemingly too lazy to work to get off their asses.

Equality is an ideal and will remain as such until society as whole begins to change. I think this is always going to be extremely hard because peoples me fein attitudes make it difficult to initiate real change. I will not however give up on it just yet.

You're talking about the uber rich though, not the average 100K a year PAYE worker. Those guys can literally move their wealth and earnings out of the country, removing the tax breaks for them won't earn us more income just a sense of social justice.

DublinWriter

Mad_Max wrote: »

I have heard many people giving out over the last year or two this but I never believed that it was working out better than someone on 35k!

She worked out the figures and the total package was 41K for someone with a family on benefits when you factor in all the allowances etc.