Social Justice Ireland- oh dear sweet baby jebus

Banned Account

So the latest shower to stick their oars in on the impending budget are a charity called "Social Justice Ireland" and their contribution ...?

To lower the tax relief on pension contribution to 20% for anyone earning above the average industrial wage! Seriously, are they actually suggesting that this should be considered - it will only serve to prevent those in the higher tax bracket from contributing to their pensions, thus creating a new generation of poor retirees more reliant on the state for support.

Added to this the fact that they seem to think that making everyone equally poor is the best way to achieve social justice - Jesus wept.

I'm getting pretty sick to the back teeth of the idea that those who have managed to become even remotely succussful are now to be penalised for not being hard up - it's bad enough having to shoulder the bigger tax burden but then to have reliefs taken away on top of it is just going way to far for my liking.

Is it not time to realise that for social jusice to be achieved, people will once more have to believe in the notion of the social contract, this will only be done by restoring peoples faith in the fact that their tax monies will be spent in a way which is for the good of society as a whole. The fact that this notion is dead is not the fault of the general public but rather the fault of generations of politicians who seem to have lost touch with the basic principles of good governance.

The idea that old school left wingers feel that one part of society can be rightfully bled dry by de facto reason of earnings and job title alone is really beginning to sicken me to the pit of my stomach.

I'm actually beginning to hate this country a little more every day now.

irishh_bob

the well fed fr sean healy of social justice ireland was on the news at one yesterday outlining his ( goverment ) programme , a visitor to the country would think this man was the opposition spokesperson on finance , the 1st thing that should be done in the next budget is a cull of this unelected QUANGO

bullpost

Interesting - the Catholic Church couldn't wait to get rid of Communism - now they can't wait to bring it back :eek:

Idbatterim

Talking of social justice, the below I just pulled from the independent is a step in the right direction... "The Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne also said he would cap the total state benefits paid to any family at £26,000 (€30,097) to ensure they would not be better off than working families." The full article is below.

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/britain-ends-child-welfare-for-wealthier-families-2364544.html

P. Breathnach

irishh_bob wrote: »

the well fed fr sean healy of social justice ireland was on the news at one yesterday outlining his ( goverment ) programme , a visitor to the country would think this man was the opposition spokesperson on finance , the 1st thing that should be done in the next budget is a cull of this unelected QUANGO

What unelected QUANGO? Or are you suggesting that any group that participates in public discourse should be culled?

On the point that so incenses Fitzcaraldo: those on higher incomes have, for decades, received a proportionately greater tax subsidy towards their pensions than have those on lower incomes. I find it hard to sympathise with a contention that inequity is a good thing and should be continued.

Banned Account

P. Breathnach wrote: »

On the point that so incenses Fitzcaraldo: those on higher incomes have, for decades, received a proportionately greater tax subsidy towards their pensions than have those on lower incomes. I find it hard to sympathise with a contention that inequity is a good thing and should be continued.

Right, so the best way to adress inequity is to reduce all to the lowest level rather than improve the lot of those worse off by increasing their relief to 41% or introduce a common 30% relief in the hope that lower earners may provide for themselves in the future??

murphaph

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I find it hard to sympathise with a contention that inequity is a good thing and should be continued.

...but we are not all equal. Some people work harder than others and they deserve the breaks. Some people are more intelligent than others and so can perform complex tasks that the less intelligent cannot...these people deserve to earn, on average, more! What is the problem with that?

I like the UK's move to "a single benefits payment" capped at a certain figure. This is badly needed in Ireland. NO FAMILY ON BENEFITS SHOULD "EARN" MORE THAN A WORKING FAMILY

Coillte_Bhoy

irishh_bob wrote: »

the well fed fr sean healy of social justice ireland was on the news at one yesterday outlining his ( goverment ) programme , a visitor to the country would think this man was the opposition spokesperson on finance , the 1st thing that should be done in the next budget is a cull of this unelected QUANGO

Whata re you on about? Unelected Quango?? You obv havent s clue what you're on about,

Tipp Man

Fitzcaraldo wrote: »

Right, so the best way to adress inequity is to reduce all to the lowest level rather than improve the lot of those worse off by increasing their relief to 41% or introduce a common 30% relief in the hope that lower earners may provide for themselves in the future??

Thats what sickens me about a lot of people in this country. They'd rather drag down the people who are successful rather than incentivise those who are less successful.

The best thing you can do in this country is nothing, that way somebody who is actually doing something will do all the hard work while you reap all the benifits.

Its also hilarious that public servants on this thread with defined benefit pensions have the cheek to complain about tax breaks for pensions when they have contributed f##k all to their own gold plated pensions.

Equality is great when somebody else is paying

Idbatterim

why dont the catholic church spread some of their wealth if they are so concerned about "social justice"!

johnboy_123

murphaph wrote: »

...but we are not all equal. Some people work harder than others and they deserve the breaks. Some people are more intelligent than others and so can perform complex tasks that the less intelligent cannot...these people deserve to earn, on average, more! What is the problem with that?

I like the UK's move to "a single benefits payment" capped at a certain figure. This is badly needed in Ireland. NO FAMILY ON BENEFITS SHOULD "EARN" MORE THAN A WORKING FAMILY

Thats bolloxology it really is...the whole childrens allowence thing its a crap shoot and I will tell you why.

If your rich and paying more tax then the poor and you should be entitled to childrens allowence it isnt a payment by the gov it is a tax break...They pay for childrens allowence through tax so why shouldnt they get it.

If your middle class taking this away is going to impact on your quality of life it is a lifeline for people here at the moment

If your unemployed/struggling/lower class this definately needs to be kept but having said that I dont think its fair that people working hard should have to pay for other peoples children.

Either cut it out altogether that way me you and the man on the street isnt paying for Mary who couldnt be arsed getting a job as the childrens allowence and other allowences are too good to get up off the hole

or cut it accross the board...The other point here is that this money is for the children who has not got their own wealth (yet) so every child should get it.

Also this should be paid in domestic grossery store vouchers..If the government could stike a deal with dunnes/tesco/aldi/lidle and any other stores who would like to avail of it... This gets rid of the argument that only the poorer put this money back into the local ecconomy...So the rich would have to spend it in the local supermarkets or whatever....It could also be done at a discount say go to the stores and say right we are paying 10billion in childrens allowance at present (dont quote me on that figure) and go to the stores and see if they will do a deal for 10 billion worth of credit for say 9 billion - thats 1 billion off the current deficit

murphaph

johnboy_123 wrote: »

Thats bolloxology it really is...the whole childrens allowence thing its a crap shoot and I will tell you why.

If your rich and paying more tax then the poor and you should be entitled to childrens allowence it isnt a payment by the gov it is a tax break...They pay for childrens allowence through tax so why shouldnt they get it.

If your middle class taking this away is going to impact on your quality of life it is a lifeline for people here at the moment

If your unemployed/struggling/lower class this definately needs to be kept but having said that I dont think its fair that people working hard should have to pay for other peoples children.

Either cut it out altogether that way me you and the man on the street isnt paying for Mary who couldnt be arsed getting a job as the childrens allowence and other allowences are too good to get up off the hole

or cut it accross the board...The other point here is that this money is for the children who has not got their own wealth (yet) so every child should get it.

Also this should be paid in domestic grossery store vouchers..If the government could stike a deal with dunnes/tesco/aldi/lidle and any other stores who would like to avail of it... This gets rid of the argument that only the poorer put this money back into the local ecconomy...So the rich would have to spend it in the local supermarkets or whatever....It could also be done at a discount say go to the stores and say right we are paying 10billion in childrens allowance at present (dont quote me on that figure) and go to the stores and see if they will do a deal for 10 billion worth of credit for say 9 billion - thats 1 billion off the current deficit

I'm struggling to understand your take on this tbh.

RobbieTheRobber

Tipp Man wrote: »

Thats what sickens me about a lot of people in this country. They'd rather drag down the people who are successful rather than incentivise those who are less successful.

The best thing you can do in this country is nothing, that way somebody who is actually doing something will do all the hard work while you reap all the benifits.

Its also hilarious that public servants on this thread with defined benefit pensions have the cheek to complain about tax breaks for pensions when they have contributed f##k all to their own gold plated pensions.

Equality is great when somebody else is paying

This post is bullcrap and more of the misleading garbage that is posted about public servants. Please get some facts and come back to this point.

Tipp Man

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

This post is bullcrap and more of the misleading garbage that is posted about public servants. Please get some facts and come back to this point.

How about you come out with some facts to prove it is bullcrap rather than just call it that. Why not let the facts speak for themselves. Prove it wrong

And don't even start by saying the ps pension is not top notch

RobbieTheRobber

Tipp Man wrote: »

How about you come out with some facts to prove it is bullcrap rather than just call it that. Why not let the facts speak for themselves. Prove it wrong

And don't even start by saying the ps pension is not top notch

I dont need to tipp mann
The government have a document including the history of remuneration and what is paid. Have some happy reading. http://finance.gov.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=895

Banned Account

Folks, do you think it would be too much to ask for the occasional thread to be allowed to run without descending into the same old private versus public sector debate which has been done a million times?

The thread was about whether it's right to achieve equality by reducing the rights of one party rather than increasing the rights of another, I really don't see what the public v's private sector debate has to do with it.

Thanks.

ardmacha

On the point that so incenses Fitzcaraldo: those on higher incomes have, for decades, received a proportionately greater tax subsidy towards their pensions than have those on lower incomes. I find it hard to sympathise with a contention that inequity is a good thing and should be continued.

It is not quite as simple as that though, as those on higger incomes typically also pay a higher rate of tax on income drawn from those pensions. There is a case to answer regarding pensions, but it is not a simple one.

dvpower

Fitzcaraldo wrote: »

To lower the tax relief on pension contribution to 20% for anyone earning above the average industrial wage! Seriously, are they actually suggesting that this should be considered - it will only serve to prevent those in the higher tax bracket from contributing to their pensions, thus creating a new generation of poor retirees more reliant on the state for support.

If they didn't insist on taxing annuity income at the higher rate this wouldn't be so bad; tax relief on pension contributions is basically just tax deferred.

dvpower

Perhaps a benefit in kind on defined benefits pensions should be considered or a tax on all payments made by employers into these schemes.

mikemac

Nobody mentioned that they want a tax on text messages.
I realize this was proposed by the Greens last year also

A 1 cent tax on text messages.
All mobile operators have sophisticated billing systems.
It would be pretty straightforward to calculate and forward what's due to Revenue

Tbh, I don't have an issue with it.
Not sure how much it raise. Over several million anyway

Fat_Fingers

Greens should change their party name to Tax Party

Taxi Drivers

The supporting arguments for a lot of these proposals are baseless. The pension proposal Fr Healy said "pension tax breaks – with a 20% rate on lower incomes and a 41% rate for higher earners – unfairly hit the less well-off. This means four-fifths of the benefit goes to the richest one-fifth."

The ability to make pensions contributions from gross salary reduces an earner's income tax liability. The benefit is reduced income tax. The pension contribution scheme cannot help the low paid because they do not pay income tax. In 2006, 50% of income tax cases filed with the Revenue Commissioners had an income tax bill of approximately zero.

Removing the tax-free status of pension contributions at the marginal rate will do adsolutely nothing for low earners. We already do as much as we can for them - they do not pay income tax.

There may be reasons for changes our pension provisions, but any argument that the current situation mainly benefits mid to high earners is a meaningless one. The current provisions can only benefit these people as they are the only ones paying income tax.

A income tax deduction can only benefit those who actually pay income tax. Fr Healy should be more concerned with trying to raise to incomes of lower paid to help them benefit from this provision rather than reducing the incomes of higher paid.

Finally, the issue of relevance here is a person's income tax bill. Obviously everyone pays indirect taxes but the pension debate relates primarily to income tax. The issues with our indirect taxes is another debate.

P. Breathnach

Taxi Drivers wrote: »

... There may be reasons for changes our pension provisions, but any argument that the current situation mainly benefits mid to high earners is a meaningless one...

Huh? Meaningless, but involving real money. A tax spend is still a spend.

People on high incomes get a tax break at 41%, meaning that the state underwrites 41% of their pension savings; people on moderate incomes get a tax break at 20%, meaning that the state underwrites 20% of their pension savings; people on low incomes get 0% of their pensions underwritten.

johnboy_123

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Huh? Meaningless, but involving real money. A tax spend is still a spend.

People on high incomes get a tax break at 41%, meaning that the state underwrites 41% of their pension savings; people on moderate incomes get a tax break at 20%, meaning that the state underwrites 20% of their pension savings; people on low incomes get 0% of their pensions underwritten.

But its still a tax break they are still paying the gov 41% of their wage so why shouldnt they get this tax break?

dvpower

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Huh? Meaningless, but involving real money. A tax spend is still a spend.

People on high incomes get a tax break at 41%, meaning that the state underwrites 41% of their pension savings; people on moderate incomes get a tax break at 20%, meaning that the state underwrites 20% of their pension savings; people on low incomes get 0% of their pensions underwritten.

People who have high pension incomes pay 41% tax on it
People who have moderate pension incomes pay 20% tax on it
People who have no pension income pay 0% tax.
Seems like a fair system to me.

Tipp Man

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Huh? Meaningless, but involving real money. A tax spend is still a spend.

People on high incomes get a tax break at 41%, meaning that the state underwrites 41% of their pension savings; people on moderate incomes get a tax break at 20%, meaning that the state underwrites 20% of their pension savings; people on low incomes get 0% of their pensions underwritten.

Sorry what is your point??

The tax is defferred until the pension is drawn down, so if you pay a lot into a pension now then you get a big relief, when you draw down this big pension then you will pay a lot of tax on it then.

kmick

If they remove the tax breaks people simply wont contribute to their pension. People who do not contribute to their pension end up costing the state. Its a deferred cost to the state in the end. Special interest groups are a bane to democracy. We need to bring back the debate about ministers decoupling from being TD's who are unfortunately always accountable to their constituencies.

Tipp Man wrote: »

The tax is defferred until the pension is drawn down, so if you pay a lot into a pension now then you get a big relief, when you draw down this big pension then you will pay a lot of tax on it then.

This is correct albeit you can draw down 25% tax free.

dvpower

johnboy_123 wrote: »

But its still a tax break they are still paying the gov 41% of their wage so why shouldnt they get this tax break?

Exactly. The income is foregone (at least until retirement), so it seems fair that the tax should be foregone (at least until retirement).

Tipp Man

Fitzcaraldo wrote: »

Folks, do you think it would be too much to ask for the occasional thread to be allowed to run without descending into the same old private versus public sector debate which has been done a million times?

The thread was about whether it's right to achieve equality by reducing the rights of one party rather than increasing the rights of another, I really don't see what the public v's private sector debate has to do with it.

Thanks.

on the issue of equality I think that Michael McDowell once said that it is good not to have an equal society and he was lambasted for it. But technically he is very much correct as can be summed up nicely in Murph's post

murphaph wrote: »

...but we are not all equal. Some people work harder than others and they deserve the breaks. Some people are more intelligent than others and so can perform complex tasks that the less intelligent cannot...these people deserve to earn, on average, more! What is the problem with that?

dvpower

kmick wrote: »

If they remove the tax breaks people simply wont contribute to their pension. People who do not contribute to their pension end up costing the state. Its a deferred cost to the state in the end. Special interest groups are a bane to democracy. We need to bring back the debate about ministers decoupling from being TD's who are unfortunately always accountable to their constituencies.

If they agreed not to tax the income derived from pensions then it would be acceptable to revove the relief on contributions, but this proposal is to lower the relief to 20% but keep the tax on pension income at 41%.

Its taxing the same income twice.

rumour

johnboy_123 wrote: »

Thats bolloxology it really is...the whole childrens allowence thing its a crap shoot and I will tell you why.

If your rich and paying more tax then the poor and you should be entitled to childrens allowence it isnt a payment by the gov it is a tax break...They pay for childrens allowence through tax so why shouldnt they get it.

If your middle class taking this away is going to impact on your quality of life it is a lifeline for people here at the moment

If your unemployed/struggling/lower class this definately needs to be kept but having said that I dont think its fair that people working hard should have to pay for other peoples children.

Either cut it out altogether that way me you and the man on the street isnt paying for Mary who couldnt be arsed getting a job as the childrens allowence and other allowences are too good to get up off the hole

or cut it accross the board...The other point here is that this money is for the children who has not got their own wealth (yet) so every child should get it.

Also this should be paid in domestic grossery store vouchers..If the government could stike a deal with dunnes/tesco/aldi/lidle and any other stores who would like to avail of it... This gets rid of the argument that only the poorer put this money back into the local ecconomy...So the rich would have to spend it in the local supermarkets or whatever....It could also be done at a discount say go to the stores and say right we are paying 10billion in childrens allowance at present (dont quote me on that figure) and go to the stores and see if they will do a deal for 10 billion worth of credit for say 9 billion - thats 1 billion off the current deficit

I have a novel approach, seems to me I pay tax and then have it given back to me in childrens allowance. WTF we are employing people to go around in circles administering nonsense.

How about just adding it as a tax credit to mothers or identified carers period. Another couple of hundred grand(probably millions) saved in admin and one less media argument over nothing spared.

Oh I can just hear the 'what about the single mum with no income'...thats a social welfare problem.

Banned Account

My main issue with this proposal is the flawed logic behind it, the notion that the best way to improve the lot of the poorer in society is to drag those more fortunate than them down to the same level. To my mind, it's akin to saying that the best way to ensure pregnant women are not discriminated against in the workplace is to take away any rights to maternity leave.

In the latter case, the mere mention of such a scheme would never be contenanced and would be met with an uproar from a number of societal cross sections. Somehow though, when it comes to financial matters, it seems to be acceptable to target those who have worked hard to get ahead.

I have spent years working hard and ensuring that I have educated myself to a level which allows me to leave a relatively comfortable lifestyle (not by any means lavish, but comfortable nonetheless) much of my disposable income is spent supporting Irish jobs and I pay a great deal of tax to the Irish Government for that pleasure. The fact of the matter is that I have roughly 40 years in which to earn enough to ensure that I am comfortable enough not to have to rely on the state for not just my 40 years as a worker but for at least another 30 years after that.

Despite the fact that I firmly believe I earn my keep fairly, I am now considered to be an acceptable target for certain interest groups who deem my position unfair by the virtue that there happen to be others worse off.

murphaph

Fitzcaraldo wrote: »

My main issue with this proposal is the flawed logic behind it, the notion that the best way to improve the lot of the poorer in society is to drag those more fortunate than them down to the same level.

If we had the option, I would vote Conservative. In this clip Margaret Thatcher explains quite well what you are getting at and it's very hard to fault her logic. Hard work should be rewarded. Those who are unfit to work should be looked after by society. Those who are unwilling to work should be told to take a hike.

She was mad as a brush in her later years but the woman had the balls required to deal with lazy unions and their ilk. We can no longer afford our Bertie, one for everyone in the audience mantality (we never really could). We need a conservative government and fast. FG are the nearest thing to it and hopefully they'll become moreso if/when they see the books and realise just how much of a hole we are in.

feicim

murphaph wrote: »

...NO FAMILY ON BENEFITS SHOULD "EARN" MORE THAN A WORKING FAMILY

Have you a definition of what constitutes a working family?
And what exactly does a "working family" earn?



If you can't answer these two simple questions I can't for the life of me figure out why you would hold this position (without having even the most basic facts).

murphaph

feicim wrote: »

Have you a definition of what constitutes a working family?
And what exactly does a "working family" earn?



If you can't answer these two simple questions I can't for the life of me figure out why you would hold this position (without having even the most basic facts).

I don't know what the lowest earning working familes earn, but I'm sure the various government departments do (Revenue etc.).

Take that figure and set it as the maximum figure that a family on benefits can receive (like the UK is going to do!).

I don't actually need to know what the figures are to hold this position...it's common sense: working families should not end up with less money in their pockets than familes who claim benefits. It is a matter of fairness!

feicim

murphaph wrote: »

I don't know what the lowest earning working familes earn, but I'm sure the various government departments do (Revenue etc.).

Take that figure and set it as the maximum figure that a family on benefits can receive (like the UK is going to do!).

I don't actually need to know what the figures are to hold this position...it's common sense: working families should not end up with less money in their pockets than familes who claim benefits. It is a matter of fairness!

It sounds like common sense, but until you have figures/definitions you don't know that this isn't already the case.

Have you considered that the dole in ireland already could well be less than what a "working family"* recieves?

You are working under the assumption that people on the dole get more than a "working family"*

Is this this actually the case?

Issues like this tend to get jumped on by all and sundry because

a) england is doing it

b) it sounds like common sense

People tend to ignore reality/facts outside of these two criteria.



*whatever that is

namenotavailablE

If they agreed not to tax the income derived from pensions then it would be acceptable to remove the relief on contributions, but this proposal is to lower the relief to 20% but keep the tax on pension income at 41%.

Its taxing the same income twice.

This doesn't always apply- it depends on the amount of your pension.

The current rules enable a couple where 1 spouse is aged at least 65 to earn a combined income of €40000 pa [for single people it's €20000] and effectively pay no PAYE (for details see here- http://www.revenue.ie/en/tax/it/leaflets/it8.pdf )
Additionally, if such a couple earns slightly over the €40000 annual income, they may be able to avail of marginal relief which reduces their PAYE liability.

It is therefore possible that you could gain tax relief on a pension contribution while working and also pay no effective tax on your pension.

murphaph

feicim wrote: »

It sounds like common sense, but until you have figures/definitions you don't know that this isn't already the case.

Have you considered that the dole in ireland already could well be less than what a "working family"* recieves?

You are working under the assumption that people on the dole get more than a "working family"*

Is this this actually the case?

Issues like this tend to get jumped on by all and sundry because

a) england is doing it

b) it sounds like common sense

People tend to ignore reality/facts outside of these two criteria.



*whatever that is

but do you agree that a family drawing benefits should not be better off than a family who go out and work for their money? In principle I mean?

Spudmonkey

murphaph wrote: »

Those who are unfit to work should be looked after by society. Those who are unwilling to work should be told to take a hike.

We lump both of these into the same category here!

Scofflaw

Fitzcaraldo wrote: »

Folks, do you think it would be too much to ask for the occasional thread to be allowed to run without descending into the same old private versus public sector debate which has been done a million times?

The thread was about whether it's right to achieve equality by reducing the rights of one party rather than increasing the rights of another, I really don't see what the public v's private sector debate has to do with it.

Thanks.

And on that note, johnboy_123 banned for a week for persistent off-topic contributions, and posts deleted.

moderately,
Scofflaw

feicim

murphaph wrote: »

but do you agree that a family drawing benefits should not be better off than a family who go out and work for their money? In principle I mean?

In principle I would agree that it might not be fair that a family drawing benefits should not be better off than a family who go out and work for their money... but life isn't that simple... however I think the new UK system simplifies the issue too much and I think it would be a more unfair way of doing things.

This innovation from the UK comes across a media soundbite friendly way of doing things, no doubt concocted by spin doctors in the uk.

It might be a system that could have been used during boom years when there was plenty of jobs.

Setting criteria like this when there are not enough jobs available is a cynical exercise.

murphaph

feicim wrote: »

In principle I would agree that it might not be fair that a family drawing benefits should not be better off than a family who go out and work for their money... but life isn't that simple... however I think the new UK system simplifies the issue too much and I think it would be a more unfair way of doing things.

This innovation from the UK comes across a media soundbite friendly way of doing things, no doubt concocted by spin doctors in the uk.

It might be a system that could have been used during boom years when there was plenty of jobs.

Setting criteria like this when there are not enough jobs available is a cynical exercise.

I think your main problem with this idea is that it comes from the UK, no?

The fact is that we as a nation are skint, broke, brassic. We NEED to reduce our outgoings and this appears a pretty damn fair way of doing it to me.

We have developed in Ireland to a point where there are a sizable number of people who have made a carrier out of benefits. Benefits should NEVER be attractive. They should be at a "make do and mend" level which is enough to buy the basics that we all need, basic nutritious food and so on.

I will add my usual disclaimer...people who are recently unemplyed (ie, up to 1 year) should receive full benefits, perhaps a percentage of their last salary, like in many EU states. But after this period, benefits should be reduced dramatically to subsistance levels.

One thing is for damn sure...our current system of social welfare is widely abused and cumbersome. Benefits being paid from multiple departments. It should all be lumped together to make sure a) we know exactly how much people are getting IN TOTAL and b) to reduce the admin overhead.

ardmacha

One thing is for damn sure...our current system of social welfare is widely abused and cumbersome. Benefits being paid from multiple departments. It should all be lumped together to make sure a) we know exactly how much people are getting IN TOTAL and b) to reduce the admin overhead.

We are now in third year of this crisis. The government has had plenty of time to identify things like overlaps in payments and poverty traps brought about by badly integrated systems. But just as they down the groundwork for taxing children's allowance, for imposing taxes on property or for a proper student loan scheme one suspects that they haven't fully modelled the existing social welfare system for inconsistencies.

Spudmonkey

feicim wrote: »

In principle I would agree that it might not be fair that a family drawing benefits should not be better off than a family who go out and work for their money

It might not be fair? There is absolutely no way it is fair and all situations which cause such a situation to arise should be changed immediately. What kind of attitudes would this create towards working?

feicim

Spudmonkey wrote: »

It might not be fair? There is absolutely no way it is fair and all situations which cause such a situation to arise should be changed immediately. What kind of attitudes would this create towards working?

I'll clarify for you since you didn't extract the meaning of my post.

No it is not fair, but a system such as the UK is a more unfair way of doing things.

It seems that you would prefer that fairness be the exclusive right of people who are employed.

Before you fall off your high horse you should wait for a few facts and figures before getting all virtual-reality-angry about this notional concept. No one of any authority is even suggesting this system is brought in....

Fairness is not the

Spudmonkey wrote: »

What kind of attitudes would this create towards working?

Are you serious? climb down off the orange crate. People in this country have proven themselves to be hardworking during the boom years. And if there were jobs available people would be hard working again.

feicim

murphaph wrote: »

I think your main problem with this idea is that it comes from the UK, no?.

Erm no. I actually explained why I was against it...

murphaph wrote: »

The fact is that we as a nation are skint, broke, brassic. We NEED to reduce our outgoings and this appears a pretty damn fair way of doing it to me.?

1. We are skint. Would this solve that. No. It might help a little bit.

2. Yes, we could and should reduce outgoings, and we should increase incomings ie higher taxes. More people in the tax net.

murphaph wrote: »

We have developed in Ireland to a point where there are a sizable number of people who have made a carrier out of benefits. Benefits should NEVER be attractive. They should be at a "make do and mend" level which is enough to buy the basics that we all need, basic nutritious food and so on.

Some people have made a career out of benefits. Most haven't. Most have no choice. For most the benefits aren't attractive and do just cover the basics.

But if you want to tar everybody on benefits with the same brush, feel free, I can't stop you. Doesn't make you right though.

murphaph wrote: »

I will add my usual disclaimer...people who are recently unemplyed (ie, up to 1 year) should receive full benefits, perhaps a percentage of their last salary, like in many EU states. But after this period, benefits should be reduced dramatically to subsistance levels.

Your opinions are interesting. But maybe if you broadened your information base from boards.ie and the tabloid newspapers you might get some new opinions.:)

murphaph wrote: »

One thing is for damn sure...our current system of social welfare is widely abused and cumbersome. Benefits being paid from multiple departments. It should all be lumped together to make sure a) we know exactly how much people are getting IN TOTAL and b) to reduce the admin overhead.

Maybe the system should root out abuse. Because some abuse it, doesn't necessarily mean it should be cut for everybody, thats collective punishment.

To sum up, you want ~500,000 in this country (+ their families) living at subsistence levels. While they watch as the government hands over 50 billion+ to bail out the banks investors.

It would be an interesting social experiment alright.

Gus99

P. Breathnach wrote: »

On the point that so incenses Fitzcaraldo: those on higher incomes have, for decades, received a proportionately greater tax subsidy towards their pensions than have those on lower incomes. I find it hard to sympathise with a contention that inequity is a good thing and should be continued.

One could also use that logic to say that there should be no higher tax rate in the 1st place - then the issue would not arise:)

Spudmonkey

feicim wrote: »

It seems that you would prefer that fairness be the exclusive right of people who are employed.

And I'll clarify for you as you did not seem to get the meaning from my point. I am not in some way prejudiced against the unemployed. I am prejudiced against those unwilling to work.

feicim wrote: »

Before you fall off your high horse you should wait for a few facts and figures before getting all virtual-reality-angry about this notional concept. No one of any authority is even suggesting this system is brought in....

Fairness is not the

Are you serious? climb down off the orange crate. People in this country have proven themselves to be hardworking during the boom years. And if there were jobs available people would be hard working again.

I have said nothing at all about any system being brought in. I just wanted question why you think it may only be just unfair that some get more from welfare than actually working. There is nothing high-horsed or fruit crated about that. It is common sense. Welfare is a safety net which protects people who lose their job. In no way should it be considered an alternative.

murphaph

feicim wrote: »

But if you want to tar everybody on benefits with the same brush, feel free, I can't stop you. Doesn't make you right though.

I clearly didn't tar all benefit recipients as benefit cheats, as anyone actually reading my posts would garner. I said a sizable number of people are scamming the system or at least making a good go at getting enough from it so that they don't need to work.

feicim wrote: »

Your opinions are interesting. But maybe if you broadened your information base from boards.ie and the tabloid newspapers you might get some new opinions.:)

Catch yourself on FFS. You don't know me from adam yet pronounce to know how much I know about things? Maybe you should broaden your horizons yourself and look outside Ireland for ideas. Ireland's home grown ones haven't been too successful thusfar, have they!

feicim wrote: »

Maybe the system should root out abuse.

The fact that you are so reticent to find benefit cheats is telling!

feicim wrote: »

Because some abuse it, doesn't necessarily mean it should be cut for everybody, thats collective punishment.

It's not punishment. Benefits need to be cut like all our expenditure because we are broke. The banking bailout (sickening as it is) does not in itself prevent our books from balancing. Even if it were the case that we hadn't given or promised the banks one cent, we would still be spending app. 20bn a year more than we are taking in. Benefits have to give, like all other expenditure. We are not in fantasy 2003 anymore.

feicim wrote: »

To sum up, you want ~500,000 in this country (+ their families) living at subsistence levels. While they watch as the government hands over 50 billion+ to bail out the banks investors.

You think because I want our books to balance and not to saddle my kids (if they choose to live in Ireland) with OUR generation's debt that I am in favour of the bank bailout? How the fcuk did you come to that conclusion? The dole should be about subsistence, I have already stated that the recently unemployed should be entitled to more, but that after a set time, say 12 months as it is in Germany, the dole should be reduced to subsistence levels. In Germany if you haven't found a job after 12 months (18 if you are over 58), you get a flat €359 a month plus rent paid in a small flat with some extra payments for dependents and with medical insurance paid.

feicim wrote: »

It would be an interesting social experiment alright.

We'll soon see, because the markets are going to stop lending to us if we don't get our house in order, then there'll be no money for anyone!

Tipp Man

Gus99 wrote: »

One could also use that logic to say that there should be no higher tax rate in the 1st place - then the issue would not arise:)

Take a bow my good friend

this is the best thing i have ever read on here!!

AlekSmart

I have already stated that the recently unemployed should be entitled to more, but that after a set time, say 12 months as it is in Germany, the dole should be reduced to subsistence levels. In Germany if you haven't found a job after 12 months (18 if you are over 58), you get a flat €359 a month plus rent paid in a small flat with some extra payments for dependents and with medical insurance paid.

Probably a wee bit to sensible and simple for our convoluted Celtic phsychology to embrace Murphaph.

However it is worth recalling that the original intent of Pay Related Social Insurance was exactly as your Germanic model.

You were entitled to the Basic Rate of Insurance and then you got a Pay Related top-up for 12 months.
The more you had earned,the greater your PRSI amount...kinda locical that ?

What happened to it as a concept I do not know.

Somewhere,the entire setup was hijacked and turned on its head insofar as the "Insurance" element was concerned.

Whereas in the outside world the general principle of all Insurance Cover is based upon "The premiums of the Many paying for the claims of the Few"....In our rarefied atmosphere we reversed the principle and as a result we screwed up a perfectly fair system.

Your reference to the German "Subsistence" level of Social Welfare is interesting in itself as it tends to send shivers along the Irish Spine.

The modern Irish Social Welfare payment is regarded by many recipients as being based on the State`s responsibility to maintain a living standard at least on a par with an employed person.

This for example has led to all manner of "Discretionary Payments" as Social Welfare Officers became Wages Clerks in their own right as the constant need for to fund mobility,entertainment or communications had to be satisfied.

And,in the main,it all worked well,very well indeed for many thousands of people.

Many families are now into a second generation of Social Welfare funded life and not doing too badly at all really,especially when one takes into account the reduced Local Authority rent or the Private Rented Accomodation allowance.

As we now stand,our Government appear locked on a course to extract far more money in direct taxation from the "Contributing Classes" whilst continuing to maintain the pretence of "Looking after" the "less well off",who are mostly now members of that contributing class too

It`s hard to see the present administration having the intellect or willpower to address the situation as they are collectively locked into a hugely serious effort to keep stuff secret for as long as possible,or at least until they`ve got their own wealth out of the country.....Erin go Bráith alright ?