"Loss of Christmas bonus = loss of 4 per cent of annual income"??

kangaroo

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2010/0717/1224274901301.html

"Four per cent of annual income was taken away in the form of the “Christmas Bonus”

- talking about the old-age pension.

Does this make any sense to anybody? If people get 52.14 weeks of pension payments (or 52.29 weeks in a leap year) + 1 bonus week, then the bonus week is taken away, it is a loss of just under 2% it appears to me i.e. not 4 per cent.

c montgomery

Never let the truth get in the way of a good story



Seems to be the mantra of many papers and the labour party these days

Timistry

erm its simple really. The country is broke so we cannot afford it. you cannot get what is not there! I feel for the people affected but that is the harsh reality! I see people on here every day complaining about the government etc. If we do not meet the IMF's projections for debt vs GDP (3% by 2013) we are screwed! Some easturn european country like Lativa? broke EU rules earlier this year and the IMF stepped in and cut public sector pay by 25% across the board. So if the bond and currency markets go against us, this is what we face. Therefore the xmas bonus is but a drop in the economic ocean:mad:

nesf

kangaroo wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2010/0717/1224274901301.html


- talking about the old-age pension.

Does this make any sense to anybody? If people get 52.14 weeks of pension payments (or 52.29 weeks in a leap year) + 1 bonus week, then the bonus week is taken away, it is a loss of just under 2% it appears to me i.e. not 4 per cent.

Shush now, the old people are complaining!

johngalway

nesf wrote: »

Shush now, the old people are complaining!

I hope they do again, and finish the job off this time.

A Dub in Glasgo

The OP is pointing to a letter to the Irish times, presumably he has now written a letter in response and we can expect publication soon?

Liam Byrne

kangaroo wrote: »

If people get 52.14 weeks of pension payments (or 52.29 weeks in a leap year) + 1 bonus week, then the bonus week is taken away, it is a loss of just under 2% it appears to me i.e. not 4 per cent.

1/52 = 1.9%, so I'm with you on that calculation.

Seems like lots of people can't do basic math these days.

kangaroo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

The OP is pointing to a letter to the Irish times, presumably he has now written a letter in response and we can expect publication soon?

I'm afraid I'm not sure what the tone is of this message.

I wanted to check before I wrote anything whether I was missing anything obvious.

Of course, if I write anything there's no guarantee they'll publish it. Letters to the Irish Times have to be fairly succinct, etc., and if one has no title, one is probably at a disadvantage.

Anyone else is free to make the same point of course.

By the way, everyone else who used to get the Christmas bonus also lost it and everyone (or close to it) in receipt of State benefits except those who get the old age pension also had a reduction in the budget December 2009.

It seems to me that it may be done for political reasons: lots of older people have voted FF all their lives and FF may feel that if they don't annoy them too much, they may be able to hold on to those votes.

gaz wac

Timistry wrote: »

IMF stepped in and cut public sector pay by 25% across the board.:mad:

how is that a bad thing ? id rather 25% of public sector pay to be cut than 25% of Gov spending on hospital's etc !!

OhNoYouDidn't

gaz wac wrote: »

how is that a bad thing ? id rather 25% of public sector pay to be cut than 25% of Gov spending on hospital's etc !!

Because thats 25% less spending power of 15% of the economy. If you can't see that being bad for the economy, well dear oh dear

kangaroo

Liam Byrne wrote: »

1/52 = 1.9%, so I'm with you on that calculation.

Seems like lots of people can't do basic math these days.

I remember seeing a letter previously where somebody summed increases in cost of living in the following way: 4% on item 1, 4% on item 2 and 3% on item 3 meant a total increase of 11%!

TheInquisitor

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Because thats 25% less spending power of 15% of the economy. If you can't see that being bad for the economy, well dear oh dear

Your dead right, we should double the wages of all the public service , they would it turn spend all the money and the economy would be saved :rolleyes:

Victor

Were the pensioners getting a payment equal to an extra one or two weeks?

kangaroo wrote: »

I remember seeing a letter previously where somebody summed increases in cost of living in the following way: 4% on item 1, 4% on item 2 and 3% on item 3 meant a total increase of 11%!

Indo?

kangaroo

Victor wrote: »

Were the pensioners getting a payment equal to an extra one or two weeks?

One week:
http://www.cardi.ie/?q=news/hanafinsayschristmasbonuswillbepaidto13millionsocialwelfarerecipients

Upto around 10 years ago, it was less (around 60% of a week?)

Victor wrote: »

kangaroo wrote:

I remember seeing a letter previously where somebody summed increases in cost of living in the following way: 4% on item 1, 4% on item 2 and 3% on item 3 meant a total increase of 11%!

Indo?

Think it was the Times.

MrDarcy

Timistry wrote: »

erm its simple really. The country is broke so we cannot afford it. you cannot get what is not there!

Funny how the teachers, hospital consultants, politicians, civil servants, HSE paper pushers, and endless number of overpaid public sector "middle line managers", can "get what is not there!"...

We are clearly borrowing pallets of cash every business quarter to top up our national current account so that the above crowd of overpaid public sector workers can "get what is not there", why should the pensioners not seek to have their very humble benefits preserved?!?!?!?

kangaroo

MrDarcy wrote: »

Funny how the teachers, hospital consultants, politicians, civil servants, HSE paper pushers, and endless number of overpaid public sector "middle line managers", can "get what is not there!"...

We are clearly borrowing pallets of cash every business quarter to top up our national current account so that the above crowd of overpaid public sector workers can "get what is not there", why should the pensioners not seek to have their very humble benefits preserved?!?!?!?

They can seek what they want - everyone will want to seek to hold on to what they have.

Whatever one thinks about all those categories of PS workers, they have taken two significant cuts (pension levy and then a pay cut). Other Social Welfare recipients took a cut last year. Other social welfare recipients may well be hit again next time around. The question is whether pensioners should always be excluded when everyone else including people in receipt of disability payments, for example, have to take cuts.

Personally, I'm disappointed with pensioners - they have plenty of time to mature and learn to accept that just as one's income can go up, occasionally it may have to go down.

MrDarcy

kangaroo wrote: »

They can seek what they want - everyone will want to seek to hold on to what they have.

Whatever one thinks about all those categories of PS workers, they have taken two significant cuts (pension levy and then a pay cut). Other Social Welfare recipients took a cut last year. Other social welfare recipients may well be hit again next time around. The question is whether pensioners should always be excluded when everyone else including people in receipt of disability payments, for example, have to take cuts.

Personally, I'm disappointed with pensioners - they have plenty of time to mature and learn to accept that just as one's income can go up, occasionally it may have to go down.

The PS workers might have accepted pension levy's and other such cuts, I doubt if a single one of that cohort were living on a state pension or it's equivilent monetary income at the time that these cuts were foisted upon them.

I understand the question that was put, my view is that for as long as we have teachers on 60K, hospital consultants on 250K, (before we even look at what they make in private consultancy work), and politicians on 150K, then we should put the pensioners way way down the bottom of a list of what we are spending our current account money on...

We now have two groups of people who are untouchable at budget time, the pensioners, (and I believe rightly so), and those that are protected by a public sector union.

None of this with attend to the issue at hand, which is that we are spending the bulk of 60 billion a year while struggling to take in half that amount. Personally I think we should give pay increases to everyone in receipt of state income, all public sector workers, all pensioners and all those unemployed. We should increase all public spending at the next opportunity.

Then and only then will we learn the value of money when we default and cannot pay the Gardai, teachers, nurses, consultants, et al, and then and only then will we get our head around the fact that we must generally only pay out what we take in...

kangaroo

MrDarcy wrote: »

The PS workers might have accepted pension levy's and other such cuts, I doubt if a single one of that cohort were living on a state pension or it's equivilent monetary income at the time that these cuts were foisted upon them.

They might not be on that level of income but the ill and disabled were on less income and they were cut. As you say, pensioners seem to be the untouchables.

Some pensioners would also have incomes from other sources.
They also had a lifetime to build up assets.

irishh_bob

MrDarcy wrote: »

The PS workers might have accepted pension levy's and other such cuts, I doubt if a single one of that cohort were living on a state pension or it's equivilent monetary income at the time that these cuts were foisted upon them.

I understand the question that was put, my view is that for as long as we have teachers on 60K, hospital consultants on 250K, (before we even look at what they make in private consultancy work), and politicians on 150K, then we should put the pensioners way way down the bottom of a list of what we are spending our current account money on...

We now have two groups of people who are untouchable at budget time, the pensioners, (and I believe rightly so), and those that are protected by a public sector union.

None of this with attend to the issue at hand, which is that we are spending the bulk of 60 billion a year while struggling to take in half that amount. Personally I think we should give pay increases to everyone in receipt of state income, all public sector workers, all pensioners and all those unemployed. We should increase all public spending at the next opportunity.

Then and only then will we learn the value of money when we default and cannot pay the Gardai, teachers, nurses, consultants, et al, and then and only then will we get our head around the fact that we must generally only pay out what we take in...

so baschically your in favour of fischal austerity for everyone bar pensioners

pensioners are among the richest demographics in the country , thier the group who most benefited from the property boom and who are the least indebted , they recieve direct payments which are twice that of our nearest and wealthier neighbour and thats before we even taken into account the multitude of other perks associated with being old in this country , oh and dont give me the , they worked from morning till night and paid 80% in taxes back in the day , even you never worked a day in your life , you recieve 90% of what those who did , this was the generation who turned a blind eye to all kinds of behaviour from politicans to other powerfull institutions , thier are group who have been over indulged not because of their immense contribution to our nations history but instead for thier superb track record in voting fianna fail , enough of the misty eyed sentimentality , their can be no room for sacred cows , we simply cant afford it

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

MrDarcy

Pensioners are probably the physically weakest in our society, old age is upon them and they have lost the strength of their youth, but they are the only cohort of people in this country that will take no sh*t off this government and for that I commend them.

irishh_bob

MrDarcy wrote: »

Pensioners are probably the physically weakest in our society, old age is upon them and they have lost the strength of their youth, but they are the only cohort of people in this country that will take no sh*t off this government and for that I commend them.

children are the weakest both physically and every other way , death is a certainty for everyone , ensuring upward only payments to pensioners just because they are experiencing the symptoms of age is redicolous

MrDarcy

irishh_bob wrote: »

children are the weakest both physically and every other way , death is a certainty for everyone , ensuring upward only payments to pensioners just because they are experiencing the symptoms of age is redicolous

Maybe it should be cut, but I'd argue that it should not be cut for as long as we have a dreadfully inefficient public sector, where large scale redundancies need to be implemented and those that are left behind in jobs given a good dose of private sector proficiency.

We'd make more headway with getting our house in order if we tore up that outrageous Croke Park agreement and the first person to go on a strike or a work to rule gets the sack.

Pensioners and people living on 196 a week, how on earth can you argue that it is right to cut an income like that???

kangaroo

MrDarcy wrote: »

Pensioners are probably the physically weakest in our society

People on disability/illness payments are a fairly weak group also and if they have children, those children are quite vulnerable also. This group were cut in the last budget but pensioners were not. It could be the same next time around (and/or the time after that). Perhaps the cuts for those who are ill and disabled might be less if it was seen as fair to take a bit off pensioners this time.

Head The Wall

MrDarcy wrote: »

Maybe it should be cut, but I'd argue that it should not be cut for as long as we have a dreadfully inefficient public sector, where large scale redundancies need to be implemented and those that are left behind in jobs given a good dose of private sector proficiency.

Again why should pensioners be cosseted from the pain everyone else that gets money from the govt is feeling and will continue to feel into the future. Everyone that pays tax knows their money is being wasted in the govt black hole. Pensioners should be the same

irishh_bob

MrDarcy wrote: »

Maybe it should be cut, but I'd argue that it should not be cut for as long as we have a dreadfully inefficient public sector, where large scale redundancies need to be implemented and those that are left behind in jobs given a good dose of private sector proficiency.

We'd make more headway with getting our house in order if we tore up that outrageous Croke Park agreement and the first person to go on a strike or a work to rule gets the sack.

Pensioners and people living on 196 a week, how on earth can you argue that it is right to cut an income like that???

pensioners recieve 232 or 219 per week depending on whether they paid prsi during thier lifetime , when you include medical card , free travel , free phone , more or less free electricity , fuel allowance etc , you could almost add another 100 euro to it , they are spoiled

Victor

MrDarcy wrote: »

Personally I think we should give pay increases to everyone in receipt of state income, all public sector workers, all pensioners and all those unemployed. We should increase all public spending at the next opportunity.

Then and only then will we learn the value of money when we default and cannot pay the Gardai, teachers, nurses, consultants, et al, and then and only then will we get our head around the fact that we must generally only pay out what we take in...

Starving the child to death to teach them the value of food is a dangerous game.

MrDarcy wrote: »

Pensioners are probably the physically weakest in our society, old age is upon them and they have lost the strength of their youth, but they are the only cohort of people in this country that will take no sh*t off this government and for that I commend them.

Whoa! We're not putting them to hard labour and remember all those labour saving devices that have been developed over the last 200 years?

chasm

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Actually it is less than that for a couple, as they get a personal rate and a qualified adult rate, so it works out as €363.70 (aged between 66 and 80) or €373.70(over 80 yrs). Other than that i agree with what you have said

MrDarcy

Head The Wall wrote: »

Again why should pensioners be cosseted from the pain everyone else that gets money from the govt is feeling and will continue to feel into the future. Everyone that pays tax knows their money is being wasted in the govt black hole. Pensioners should be the same

Here's why... According to the source below, Brian Cowen currently receives a state salary of €228,466. That's €4,293.57 a week in gross earnings. Despite that, his wife can still claim children's allowance?!?!?!?!?

Now I argue that it would be more fair and equitable to take the children's allowance off families who are on this kind of an income, because they clearly do not need state support to rear their children, than take a tenner off people who are trying to get by on €196 a week or in the case of pensioners, a little bit more than that. It's insane that we are so utterly selfish in this country that we allow people on such serious incomes to tell us that they need or should be entitled to children's allowance. Seriously, what drugs are we actually on where we tolerate this, Michael O' Leary's wife can claim children's allowance for their two kids, obviously no income issues there worth mentioning, again what drugs are we all taking where we accept this?!?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taoiseach

kangaroo

MrDarcy, one could make the same argument (that some rich people don't need the children's allowance) to say that some rich people don't need the State pension.

The real question is why should all other welfare payments including for the sick and disabled be cut, but not the payment for pensioners.

I think it was done, as I say, because FF hope to hold on to many pensioners as voters - some people have voted FF all their lives and FF may feel if they don't annoy them too much, they will hold on to them.

Head The Wall

MrDarcy wrote: »

Now I argue that it would be more fair and equitable to take the children's allowance off families who are on this kind of an income, because they clearly do not need state support to rear their children, than take a tenner off people who are trying to get by on €196 a week or in the case of pensioners, a little bit more than that.

The point is we need to cut all welfare not one or the other but everything across the board.

dvpower

MrDarcy wrote: »

Pensioners and people living on 196 a week, how on earth can you argue that it is right to cut an income like that???

Any pensioner who is living on the standard pension is someone who made absolutely no additional provision for their old age. I'm not sure why we should subsidise their negligence.

MrDarcy

kangaroo wrote: »

MrDarcy, one could make the same argument (that some rich people don't need the children's allowance) to say that some rich people don't need the State pension.

The real question is why should all other welfare payments including for the sick and disabled be cut, but not the payment for pensioners.

I think it was done, as I say, because FF hope to hold on to many pensioners as voters - some people have voted FF all their lives and FF may feel if they don't annoy them too much, they will hold on to them.

I agree 110%. The only question that should be applicable to the dispensation of state benefits, is, "does this person really need state assistance". This should be the global and only consideration that is relevant, regardless of the type of benefit under consideration.

Where the answer is, "yes", then the benefit should be granted and where the answer is, "no", then it should be withheld. You can't argue fairer than that I think... I still maintain thought that we should start at the extremeties of this nonsense and work our way inwards. We should target those on higher incomes and start taking state benefits off these people. When we have our house in order then and we are not giving people on insane incomes free state benefits for nothing when they don't actually need them, then maybe there is a case to be made for looking at pensioners and those on welfare but not until then I believe.

kangaroo

Interesting.
That would be a whole discussion for itself.
The richer people may have paid more tax so could say they deserve it more.

Aside: I thought I'd remind people that just as with the old age pension, you have people who have built up sufficient credits and then those that don't (non-contributory - which is means tested), one also has that with payments with people who have disabilities/who are ill. Sometimes people may think of people with disabilities as always disabled/ill but some people acquire disabilities or illnesses which knock them out of the workforce, often when they are not prepared (one knows in advance (basically) when one is eligible for the old age pension). In the last budget, people on the payments for the disabled/with illnesses were cut but not the old age pension. Personally I'm inclined to believe that there was and probably still is room for everyone to be cut, because of necessity as the country is so broke (not for ideological reasons). I continue to question why when people reach the pension age, they shouldn't take their share of the cuts.

kangaroo

Letter in Irish Times:
"What do we owe our pensioners?" http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2010/0728/1224275613987.html

MrDarcy

In support of my last post, today it has been reported that Michael O' Leary has this week sold 20 Million Euro worth of Ryanair shares. His income for this year has increased by 20 million Euro (before CGT at 20% leaving him with approximately 16 Million Euro, in addition to his Ryanair salary of aprrox 500K a year. Last year he undertook the same exercise which gave him an additional income of 18 million Euro. And fair play to him the man has worked for it.

But Michael O' Leary's wife can still claim child benefit for 3 children?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

WTF?!?!?!?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/7913423/Michael-OLeary-bags-20m-from-sale-of-Ryanair-shares.html

mikemac

Means testing is incredibly expensive.
And if there is an embargo on hiring clerical officers and their superiors then you need to redeploy staff from another area to check every application, set the rules, apply the rules and make the calculations.
If there are excess staff in one area then great but you might be leaving somewhere else short-staffed.

Means testing might be the fairest way but it isn't the most efficient

thebman

MrDarcy wrote: »

Here's why... According to the source below, Brian Cowen currently receives a state salary of €228,466. That's €4,293.57 a week in gross earnings. Despite that, his wife can still claim children's allowance?!?!?!?!?

Now I argue that it would be more fair and equitable to take the children's allowance off families who are on this kind of an income, because they clearly do not need state support to rear their children, than take a tenner off people who are trying to get by on €196 a week or in the case of pensioners, a little bit more than that. It's insane that we are so utterly selfish in this country that we allow people on such serious incomes to tell us that they need or should be entitled to children's allowance. Seriously, what drugs are we actually on where we tolerate this, Michael O' Leary's wife can claim children's allowance for their two kids, obviously no income issues there worth mentioning, again what drugs are we all taking where we accept this?!?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taoiseach

I have no problem taking childrens allowance off such people but question the amount this will save as most probably aren't claiming it as it is petty cash money to them.

Does anyone have figures on how much we'd save from this?

dvpower

kangaroo wrote: »

Letter in Irish Times:
"What do we owe our pensioners?" http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2010/0728/1224275613987.html

Good letter.
It seems that once a person turns 66, we start treating them like children; they suddenly join the ranks of 'the most vunerable'. We credit them with building the country or for having made contributions for their whole lives, regardless of the facts.

MrDarcy

feelingstressed wrote: »

Means testing is incredibly expensive.
And if there is an embargo on hiring clerical officers and their superiors then you need to redeploy staff from another area to check every application, set the rules, apply the rules and make the calculations.
If there are excess staff in one area then great but you might be leaving somewhere else short-staffed.

Means testing might be the fairest way but it isn't the most efficient

Would it really cost that much to knock together a website where people can apply for child benefit, print off and sign the declaration and submit/attach a P60 or a wageslip to prove that they are earning under the threshold of 100K per household that could be the new income ceiling for childrens allowance??? Put 6 people on a team to administer the application of the rules, give them access to the Revenue & Social Welfare databases so they can check that the P60 submitted is geniune or if someone making an application is on welfare.

If you are earning 100K either on a 1 or 2 person in employment basis, that's more than enough to run a household for a family.

Simple solution to a simple problem.

mikemac

May suprise you to learn there are areas in Ireland without internet access and huge areas without broadband
There is a generation in Ireland who wouldn't be able or confident enough to access a website to get a form.

So not quite that simple.

But if it can be done efficiently through the existing network of SW offices, sure it can be looked at

And 6 people to administer child benefit for the entire country? These must be the best of the best

MrDarcy

feelingstressed wrote: »

May suprise you to learn there are areas in Ireland without internet access and huge areas without broadband
There is a generation in Ireland who wouldn't be able or confident enough to access a website to get a form.

So not quite that simple.

But if it can be done efficiently through the existing network of SW offices, sure it can be looked at

And 6 people to administer child benefit for the entire country? These must be the best of the best

This is the kind of defeatist, "oh no we can't" attitiude that has this country stuck in the place that it's now in. If people don't have internet access then stick hard copies of the application documents in the local Garda stations, Post Offices, Public Libraries, etc. As for the headcount, I don't know what it is but if I was doing it, it would be the absolute minimum number of people that would be required and it would be private sector people doing it.

A country that looks at someone that just earned around 16,000,000 Euro in a sale of Ryanair shares, and reckons his wife should still be able to claim child benefit for their three kids, that's just insanity to me, it's fu*ked up policy making. Now Michael O' Leary might be at the extreme of the scale in terms of those with high incomes who are entitled to child benefit, but there are no doubt not tens, but hundreds of thousands of people in this state who are relatively high earners, but somehow are entitled to state handouts. If there was an election in the morning and I was elected Minister for Finance, with the stroke of a pen there would not be ONE family in this country who earned more than 100K or more in the last financial year, who are still in the same employment, left with Child Benefit.

Child Benefit Monthly rate
One child €150
Two children €300
Three children €487
Four children €674
Five children €861
Six children €1,048
Seven children €1,235
Eight children €1,422

Take your family with three children, that costs the state 5,844 Euro a year. Take a family with two children, that costs the state 3,600 Euro a month. Say we have 50,000 people in each group who are above our new "proposed" income ceiling for Child Benefit:

Thats:

(5,844 Euro X 50,000 taken off Child Benefit) = 292,200,000
+
(3,600 Euro X 50,000 taken off Child Benefit) = 180,000,000

That's 472,200,000 Euro, not far off half a billion Euro, that could be saved from people that don't even need Child Benefit. By taking this attitude to policy, we haven't even hurt anyone yet, these people don't need the money, they have enough money.

Now I argue, on topic, that after we make a few really surgical attacks on what can only be called drunken government policies that allow for people with incomes like Michael O' Leary to be given 3,600 Euro a year of hard to come by state funds, then maybe we should look at pensioners to see if we can make a few adjustments there.

kangaroo

MrDarcy wrote: »

That's 472,200,000 Euro, not far off half a billion Euro, that could be saved from people that don't even need Child Benefit. By taking this attitude to policy, we haven't even hurt anyone yet, these people don't need the money, they have enough money.

A similar argument could be made for means-testing the OAP. After a lifetime, many OAPs have built up extensive assets including private pensions. Whether a lot of the others have really been responsible if they have nothing to supplement the OAP could be debated.

People have children in teens-early 40s generally (some men may be a little older). Generally most people haven't built up big money till they are 40+ and will have mortgages to pay which OAPs should have paid off. If one holds inherited assets from the older generation, one is likely to be older (i.e. one doesn't get them until both your parents pass on). I'd say means-testing the OAP might bring in more.

Also even those figures, which I am not sure about, are not enough to deal with the massive difference the country has between what it is spending and what it is taking in. Lots of things can be looked at - it's not clear to me why making changes in other areas, including sometime drastic cuts, should be considered before even small decreases to the OAP.