Wealthy DCU Econimist targets Social Wel Recipients in Budget

teddy_303

Ciaran Mac an Bhaird, a lecturer in business and management in DCU, sais that it is of the utmost importance that correct budgetary decisions are made immediately by the Government.

Mr Mac an Bhaird warned that we must make cuts to social welfare if necessary, or we risk losing sovereign control of the State.

"If we don't deal with this now, fast, you could be looking at the IMF and EU telling us what to do," he said.

"If we've got to make cuts to social welfare, we'll make them. If the EU or IMF come in, they will top-slice everything. They will cause untold social harm."

The IMF will top slice everything. Would that not be fairer than simply persecuting the weakest members of our society so the millionaire benefactors of the boom can contribute a disproportionately small amount, as they have done so far? 4000 people who earned over €100,000 in wages last year payed no tax at all in this unfair taxation system as it is.

Would the IMF taking over be better for 98% of the population, rather than the muppets who landed us where we are?

mikom

The dole is gonna be cut in the budget, that's for certain.

galwayrush

Until we stop voting mupets to the Dail, we'll never recover. The future therefore looks bleak.

Latchy

teddy_303 wrote: »

Would the IMF taking over be better for 98% of the population, rather than the muppets who landed us where we are?

it might be but for how long ? And what other rules and regulations might the IMF introduce into the country ?

That's the worry for Ireland ok .

teddy_303

This top slice business sounds a lot fairer though, no? Take it from the haves, instead of the nots as per..

ballsymchugh

how do you know he's wealthy? or are you just annoyed that someone with a well respected job may be better off than you?

zapata

Social welfare rates are pretty generous in this country at the moment.
Fingerprinting the welfare recipients and forcing them to scan their finger when collecting payments should also be considered to cut down on social welfare fraud.

My name is URL

teddy_303 wrote: »

This top slice business sounds a lot fairer though, no? Take it from the haves, instead of the nots as per..

It isn't fairer that way, it causes those with more money to stop spending what they have too, which in turn causes even more problems. Cuts should be spread fairly throughout all echelons of society. If the people most like to set up businesses are targeted above everyone else then they'll simply sit on their money instead

teddy_303

ballsymchugh wrote: »

how do you know he's wealthy? or are you just annoyed that someone with a well respected job may be better off than you?

No, Just that he is very quick to point his finger at the lass well off, and not his own tax bracket..

Anita Blow

"Wealthy DCU Econimist targets Social Wel Recipients in Budget"
Why is his wealth relevant?

IMF would ruin the country. They'd make the corrections but I believe it would be such a shock to the economy in the space of time the corrections would be made that it would have a long lasting, terrible effect on the economy.
Public Sector numbers will be slashed, the rest will have their pay slashed. Taxes will rise for everyone which will put more people on the breadline. Biggest hit would be corporation tax which would no doubt rise. That would put many SMEs out of business who are already struggling and you could easily park up by the airport and literally watch multi-nationals pack up and fly out of the country leaving our export-led economy in tatters.

Yes the government were assholes the way they dealt with our economy in the past few years, but they know they won't get back in so in my opinion they are making the necessary cuts because they can.
Sure they're still making a few asshole decisions but overall the necessary cuts are being made.

Social Welfare includes things like Child Benefit which has to be cut. There is no need for middle-income or high-income families to be getting that money. etc. etc.

sock puppet

teddy_303 wrote: »

No, Just that he is very quick to point his finger at the lass well off, and not his own tax bracket..

How on earth would you know? You think you know his entire economic vision for Ireland based on those two lines? If there's a link to him saying that no wealthy person should have to suffer in the budget post it.

Cavehill Red

I wouldn't mind seeing the budget target wages at the top end of the third level education sector, myself.
Some of these duffers are on 400K per year, ffs.
Ivory towers wouldn't be in it.
Meanwhile, of course the bulk of the work is actually done by poor junior lecturers on temporary part-time contracts for buttons, peanuts and magic beans.
When I see one of these turkeys suggesting that the 3rd level sector be restructured to get rid of the dead wood and properly remunerate the actual educators, I'll be impressed. But of course they don't vote for Christmas, do they?

Latchy

Anita Blow wrote: »

"
Social Welfare includes things like Child Benefit which has to be cut. There is no need for middle-income or high-income families to be getting that money. etc. etc.

That's the way David Cameron saw it in UK , by going ahead with cutting the Child Benefits to middle and some high income families.Different much larger emonomy I know and how that would pan out in Ireland remains to be seen .

Freddie59

teddy_303 wrote: »

This top slice business sounds a lot fairer though, no? Take it from the haves, instead of the nots as per..

I can't agree. The SW issue has to be tackled. A major issue is the number of people in receipt of "invalidity" or "disability" payments. Many of these are in receipt of free travel for both them and their partners. It's ludicrous. I was speaking to a chap who travelled on a bus recently. Only he and one other paid. Everyone else had free travel.

A Joe Duffy programme revealed the same during the year. This situation is untenable. We are borrowing a half billion euro each week to fund this.

I was speaking to a chap the other day who was made redundant in the final year of his apprenticeship. His application for job seekers allowance is being dragged out, with DFSA looking for statements of his parent's bank accounts, etc. He himself has friends who are on €200 SW per week for years and they're never touched.

This nettle MUST be grasped - before it is too late for this country.

starbelgrade

There needs to be cuts right across the board, including to social welfare & those on state pensions. It's a hard but necessary move.

teddy_303

sock puppet wrote: »

How on earth would you know? You think you know his entire economic vision for Ireland based on those two lines? If there's a link to him saying that no wealthy person should have to suffer in the budget post it.

Conspicuous by its absence I said..

Freddie59

Cavehill Red wrote: »

poor junior lecturers

Most lecturers in ITs are grossing €96k per year. Imagine what it must be in a Uni.

Einhard

I'm on the dole. it needs to be cut. Anyone saying otherwise is living in a different reality.

Having said that though, and this isn't out of self interest, I think that, while the dole should be cut, the greater bulk of savings should be made in the myriad assortment of additional benefits the state provides to those on SW. And the system made more efficent and accountable. For example, I know of one person who gets rent allowance for a two bedroom apartment. He pays €15 a week towards it. That's for the whole place. Were he to advertise for someone to take the other room, then the allowance could be halved. But SW didn't do any investigation before they granted him the allowance, and haven't checked on him since. Were loopholes and oversights like this examined and dealt with, then significant savings could be found in the SW budget, without too great an impact oin peoples' lives.

Cavehill Red

Freddie59 wrote: »

Most lecturers in ITs are grossing €96k per year. Imagine what it must be in a Uni.

I doubt you're correct there. I know plenty of junior lecturers, not one of them in a permanent contract, all living hand-to-mouth on part-time temporary contracts.
It's a classic pyramid structure, with a well-off few at the top of the pile, trousering the sort of wages you mention while doing little actual work and plenty of 'research' and sabbaticals, and the real educating being performed by many untenured people for little remuneration.

starbelgrade

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I doubt you're correct there. I know plenty of junior lecturers, not one of them in a permanent contract, all living hand-to-mouth on part-time temporary contracts.
It's a classic pyramid structure, with a well-off few at the top of the pile, trousering the sort of wages you mention while doing little actual work and plenty of 'research' and sabbaticals, and the real educating being performed by many untenured people for little remuneration.

True. But it's easier to make shit up & invent figures than to post something based on reality.

Max Power1

We need to drasticlaly cut the SW bill.

I say the fairest way to do this is to leave JSB untouched, and cut JSA by 10% minimum.

Also reduce the myriad of benefits available like Lone Parents etc.

Cavehill Red

Max Power1 wrote: »

We need to drasticlaly cut the SW bill.

I say the fairest way to do this is to leave JSB untouched, and cut JSA by 10% minimum.

Also reduce the myriad of benefits available like Lone Parents etc.

Why can't we just let Anglo and AIB swing instead?
More money to be saved there than if you slashed the social welfare bill to zero.

ejmaztec

...and there are still people legitimately getting multiple benefits, for this that and the other, and earning a hell of a lot more than they would if they had a full-time job.

Max Power1

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Why can't we just let Anglo and AIB swing instead?
More money to be saved there than if you slashed the social welfare bill to zero.

would you like to have a banking system?
EDIT: Anglo could have been let fail IMO, but not AIB.

Cavehill Red

Max Power1 wrote: »

would you like to have a banking system?
EDIT: Anglo could have been let fail IMO, but not AIB.

Counterfactual assertion there. We'll never know. But looking at Iceland, their country didn't collapse overnight when they let their banks fail. Rather, they're in recovery already. By nationalising these private banking losses, on the other hand, we're going to be screwed for generations.
In any case, there are plenty of other banks in Ireland than those two (or indeed BoI).
I bank with Ulster, a very good bank imo, and of course there are options like Rabo if you'd rather not have your money exposed to what has now become a real sovereign debt calamity.
And we had other options too, like Halifax, until the banking bailout skewed the market and actually drove out healthy competition.
So I very much dispute your suggestion that the banking system in Ireland would have collapsed. Two toxic banks would have collapsed, and we'd be 50 billion euro better off as a state if we'd let them.

Cavehill Red

gizmo wrote: »

And what happens to peoples money invested in those banks in the meantime?

Deposits were already protected up to a level of tens of thousands by existing legislation.

gurramok

Einhard wrote: »

I'm on the dole. it needs to be cut. Anyone saying otherwise is living in a different reality.

Having said that though, and this isn't out of self interest, I think that, while the dole should be cut, the greater bulk of savings should be made in the myriad assortment of additional benefits the state provides to those on SW. And the system made more efficent and accountable. For example, I know of one person who gets rent allowance for a two bedroom apartment. He pays €15 a week towards it. That's for the whole place. Were he to advertise for someone to take the other room, then the allowance could be halved. But SW didn't do any investigation before they granted him the allowance, and haven't checked on him since. Were loopholes and oversights like this examined and dealt with, then significant savings could be found in the SW budget, without too great an impact oin peoples' lives.

Agree, just look at what welfare aka single parents get
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66188084&postcount=337

JSB should be increased to reward workers who contributed and JSA should be decreased especially to those who never worked.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Why can't we just let Anglo and AIB swing instead?
More money to be saved there than if you slashed the social welfare bill to zero.

That does not solve the public finance deficit one iota. Those billions that were poured into the banks was added onto the national debt.

Cavehill Red

gurramok wrote: »

That does not solve the public finance deficit one iota. Those billions that were poured into the banks was added onto the national debt.

Anglo bailout alone is costing 26 billion plus. It's not our debt and we shouldn't pay it, especially in the current economic climate.
Rescind the guarantee now. Let them go to the wall if they must. Speculators gambled and lost. The state doesn't return my money when I lose a bet with Paddy Power. So why should we pay for Roman Abramovich's losing punts?

gurramok

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Anglo bailout alone is costing 26 billion plus. It's not our debt and we shouldn't pay it, especially in the current economic climate.
Rescind the guarantee now. Let them go to the wall if they must. Speculators gambled and lost. The state doesn't return my money when I lose a bet with Paddy Power. So why should we pay for Roman Abramovich's losing punts?

I agree with you that it should of been closed a long time ago. If it was closed or the banking situation never existed(no billions used), it would have had nothing to do with the deficit as the deficit is the difference between revenues and income.

Jesus Wept

teddy_303 wrote: »

Ciaran Mac an Bhaird, a lecturer in business and management in DCU, sais that it is of the utmost importance that correct budgetary decisions are made immediately by the Government.

Mr Mac an Bhaird warned that we must make cuts to social welfare if necessary, or we risk losing sovereign control of the State.

"If we don't deal with this now, fast, you could be looking at the IMF and EU telling us what to do," he said.

"If we've got to make cuts to social welfare, we'll make them. If the EU or IMF come in, they will top-slice everything. They will cause untold social harm."

The IMF will top slice everything. Would that not be fairer than simply persecuting the weakest members of our society so the millionaire benefactors of the boom can contribute a disproportionately small amount, as they have done so far? 4000 people who earned over €100,000 in wages last year payed no tax at all in this unfair taxation system as it is.

Would the IMF taking over be better for 98% of the population, rather than the muppets who landed us where we are?

What group are the 4000 who don't pay tax?
Is this the artists exemption? And what is the reasoning behind that particular exemption?

Cavehill Red

gurramok wrote: »

I agree with you that it should of been closed a long time ago. If it was closed or the banking situation never existed(no billions used), it would have had nothing to do with the deficit as the deficit is the difference between revenues and income.

Indeed, and that brings us to a discussion as to how the deficit was created in the first place.
McCreevynomics ('If I have it, I spend it') were to blame, along with reducing levels of income tax to depend on property taxes and corporation tax.
Of course, with the collapse in the property bubble, the property tax take slumped too, leaving us with a hefty deficit.
I see plenty of room for manouevre even in the current climate. The public sector protected jobs scam is one. Why can't people be sacked? It's ludicrous to offer blanket job security to the entire public sector. We have, for example, around eight times as many administrators in the health service as it requires. Sack seven in eight of them.
Then the income tax take needs to be adjusted back up to take account of the property tax slump.
Social welfare benefits do need to be addressed, but we do currently have half a million people on the dole and biting cuts in this area is guaranteed to lead to genuine suffering, poverty and the sort of scenes we denigrate in so-called less developed countries - homelessness, malnutrition and a stark rise in crime.
It's way too easy to scapegoat the poor, and it's especially unfair when there is little or no work out there for the unemployed.
And it's also not a particularly smart way out of our current crisis, since as I said, reneging on the bank debts alone would correct the exchequer in a far more significant way than any social welfare cuts ever could.