Wealthy DCU Econimist targets Social Wel Recipients in Budget

Einhard

Cavehill Red wrote: »

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?

And what happens next year when, after cancelling a gaurantee made in good faith, we go back to the self same investors looking for money?!

Cuddlesworth

I'd be happy for it. High Social Welfare causes problems for everybody. My rent is propped up by the minimum SW payment. Groceries propped up by the dole. And the minimum wage.

Cavehill Red

Einhard wrote: »

And what happens next year when, after cancelling a gaurantee made in good faith, we go back to the self same investors looking for money?!

The Uruguay precedent indicates that markets have short memories.
Furthermore, it's not the banking investors we're borrowing from currently, since the bulk of Irish bonds seem to be taken up by the ECB and similar European entities.

gurramok

Re: Cavehill Red. Not all welfare is too high. If you have kids, you are better off on welfare by a mile.

Both welfare(for those milking it legally and illegally) and the public sector needs to be slashed. They won't be in poverty after.

mfceiling

According to todays sunday times almost 1 million workers pay no tax....not a cent.

Even if they paid 2-5% would it not be a help?

Cavehill Red

gurramok wrote: »

Re: Cavehill Red. Not all welfare is too high. If you have kids, you are better off on welfare by a mile.

Not true in all cases as you suggest. True in some cases, but people on here aren't suggesting a close analysis of the margins, but across the board cuts.

gurramok wrote: »

Both welfare(for those milking it legally and illegally) and the public sector needs to be slashed. They won't be in poverty after.

Well, firstly those claiming benefits illegally ought to face legal enforcement for fraud as already legislated for.
Those claiming it legally aren't milking anything. Social welfare exists to prevent people descending into poverty because they cannot find work, and there are half a million of those in Ireland today.
There are already indications of genuine poverty resulting in Ireland, as the queues for food at St Vincent de Paul centres indicate. Savage slashing of the social welfare bill will only exacerbate that, and won't, as I've already suggested, do much to significantly correct the country's finances.

i_love_toast

personally I would like to see social welfare slimmed down to the bone and top earners paying more. Im sick and tired of the working/lower middle class being the backbone of this country and being hit the most on taxes every single time.

Mr Benevolent

As someone mentioned yesterday, the UK was bailed out by the IMF during the 1970's. They survived and prospered.

KindOfIrish

Anita Blow wrote: »

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

His wealth is relevant because he is paid by taxpayers from private sector like me. And in my opinion (i know rate of payment in DCU) they are grossly overpaid. Much more than SW recepients.

gurramok

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Not true in all cases as you suggest. True in some cases, but people on here aren't suggesting a close analysis of the margins, but across the board cuts.

Is true, did you not see the table for parents with kids on welfare?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66188084&postcount=337

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Well, firstly those claiming benefits illegally ought to face legal enforcement for fraud as already legislated for.
Those claiming it legally aren't milking anything. Social welfare exists to prevent people descending into poverty because they cannot find work, and there are half a million of those in Ireland today.
There are already indications of genuine poverty resulting in Ireland, as the queues for food at St Vincent de Paul centres indicate. Savage slashing of the social welfare bill will only exacerbate that, and won't, as I've already suggested, do much to significantly correct the country's finances.

The illegals do it via the black economy, that is fierce hard to counteract just like in the 80's. The legals like single mothers milk every cent with partners living with them on the quiet.
As for the people on food parcels, I bet they are single with no kids. Get the drift? To avoid real poverty in this country, you're better off having a kid as it will pay for Rent Allowance and all the benefits that goes with been a parent.

Pherekydes

Jeez, who'd have thunk it? There's two of the feckers!

C Mac an Bhaird

C Mac an Bhaird

I thought my old pal from Maynooth had gone and gotten himself wealthy.

He's right, though. People on SW haven't taken much of a hit, while the cost of living has dropped.

Cavehill Red

gurramok wrote: »

Is true, did you not see the table for parents with kids on welfare?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66188084&postcount=337

I'm aware of one single parent who was made redundant in June and went from around 700 a week in their hand to around 220 overnight. This may go up to 300 if and when they ever get an appointment for their one parent family claim interview.
So, no, what you suggest is not true.

gurramok wrote: »

The illegals do it via the black economy, that is fierce hard to counteract just like in the 80's. The legals like single mothers milk every cent with partners living with them on the quiet.

Then they're not legally entitled to it and are as illegal as the others.

gurramok wrote: »

As for the people on food parcels, I bet they are single with no kids. Get the drift?

No, I don't. You're suggesting people with more mouths to feed have less need of assistance? That seems unlikely, and contradicts the experience of St Vincent de Paul.

gurramok wrote: »

To avoid real poverty in this country, you're better off having a kid as it will pay for Rent Allowance and all the benefits that goes with been a parent.

People without kids qualify for rent allowance too. I really don't see what you're driving at, except some sort of blanket hatred of single parents.

Max Power1

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Counterfactual assertion there.

Not really.
Anglo is a small time property related bank, with little or no public face to private or commercial deposits. AIB on the other hand is the second most common bank (behind BOI) and has many depositors.

Letting Anglo fail would result in a lot of speculators losing money. Letting AIB fail would result in disaster for the economy.

Cavehill Red

Max Power1 wrote: »

Letting Anglo fail would result in a lot of speculators losing money. Letting AIB fail would result in disaster for the economy.

Whereas a 50 billion bailout is what, exactly? Economic happy days?
My assertion, based on the Icelandic experience, is that we should jettison these banks immediately. Their country didn't collapse when they did so, and they are already in recovery.
We owe nothing to the likes of the bondholders of either bank, and the deposits in both were already secured under legislation to the tune of tens of thousands per depositor.

Max Power1

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Whereas a 50 billion bailout is what, exactly? Economic happy days?
My assertion, based on the Icelandic experience, is that we should jettison these banks immediately. Their country didn't collapse when they did so, and they are already in recovery.
We owe nothing to the likes of the bondholders of either bank, and the deposits in both were already secured under legislation to the tune of tens of thousands per depositor.

While this is somewhat off topic, you cant let AIB fail. The second biggest bank in the country. Pension funds, salaries, savings etc all possibly wiped out.

If the 50billion figure quoted refers to Anglo, I already said that was a stupid decision.

gurramok

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I'm aware of one single parent who was made redundant in June and went from around 700 a week in their hand to around 220 overnight. This may go up to 300 if and when they ever get an appointment for their one parent family claim interview.
So, no, what you suggest is not true.

Wait for their interview then. They'll be means tested and if that person has savings/assets, they'll get alot less than those who have nothing.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Then they're not legally entitled to it and are as illegal as the others.

Can't be enforced.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

No, I don't. You're suggesting people with more mouths to feed have less need of assistance? That seems unlikely, and contradicts the experience of St Vincent de Paul.

No. People with more mouths to feed get over and above more than they need via child supports than those that don't.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

People without kids qualify for rent allowance too. I really don't see what you're driving at, except some sort of blanket hatred of single parents.

Haha. I state the facts and you accuse me of having a blanket hatred. The benefit system financially discriminates in favour of parents with kids especially with qualification for Rent Supplement. Look at the table again.

Biggins

Speaking on money, for those that missed it...

TDs' €2.3m in summer expenses

They are 'living in a parallel universe' and lack 'moral authority', says leading economist

THE nation's TDs received over €2.3m in expenses payments between June and September, despite the Dail's 12-week break, the Sunday Independent can reveal.
Figures published by the Houses of the Oireachtas showed that between the beginning of June and the end of September, members claimed €2,303,138, in total, between them -- even though the Dail rose on July 8 and only returned on September 29. The figures also showed that despite there being no committee hearings in August, as well as no Dail sittings, the 163 members of the lower house claimed €575,000 in expenses during the month.

The amount paid to members was heavily criticised yesterday. "They are living in a parallel universe and such revelations erode their moral authority," leading economist Jim Power said.

Overall, the top claimant was Fine Gael Cork South West TD PJ Sheehan, who received €21,180.
Mr Sheehan recently resigned as his party's deputy spokesman on agriculture, after the Sunday Independent revealed that he was involved in a drunken incident with a female garda who claimed he threatened her.
"I have no comment other than to say I am the furthest TD from the Dail (don't forget - when he was also on holidays from the Dail!!!) and the closest to the White House. You would want to cop on. . ."

The next two highest claimants were independent Jackie Healy Rae and Fine Gael's Dinny McGinley, who each received €20,932 in expenses payments. Both face round trips of over 700kms from their homes to the Dail.

Behind them is Mr Sheehan's Cork South-West rival FF's Christy O'Sullivan, who received €20,680. Four TDs -- Niall Blaney (FF Donegal North East), Jimmy Deenihan (FG Kerry North), Michael Moynihan (FF Cork North West) and Tom Sheahan (FG Kerry South) -- all claimed €20,428 in expenses over the summer months.
According to the official figures, 17 TDs claimed in excess of €20,000 between June and September.

Of the party leaders, FG leader Enda Kenny led the way, receiving €16,616.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/tds-euro23m-in-summer-expenses-2372912.html

The madness continues...

ilovemybrick

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..

I'm not convinced you understand how tax brackets work. The vast majority of the tax take is paid by a minority. The welfare culture in Ireland is ingrained and nationally damaging. Some of the savings have to come from cutting welfare.

galwayrush

Max Power1 wrote: »

While this is somewhat off topic, you cant let AIB fail. The second biggest bank in the country. Pension funds, salaries, savings etc all possibly wiped out.

If the 50billion figure quoted refers to Anglo, I already said that was a stupid decision.

Many peoples pension funds have already been wiped out.No bail out for them.....

sock puppet

teddy_303 wrote: »

Conspicuous by its absence I said..

He hasn't spelled out what he thinks the government should do though. Lots of other things are also absent, which is expected given that it's a two line quote! Also how do you know he wasn't responding to a question on whether or not social welfare should be reduced? Maybe the journalist didn't ask him whether or not he thinks taxes should be increased?

R P McMurphy

Biggins wrote: »

Speaking on money, for those that missed it...


http://www.independent.ie/national-news/tds-euro23m-in-summer-expenses-2372912.html

The madness continues...

Is hard to believe that they still don't get the idea that perception is everything. Even if the expenses are all accounted for why do they not have the common sense to say that they better lay off the big claims for a while. In work we only claim a fraction of the expenses we are due and this is a voluntary reduction for a period of a couple of years. They really do appear to just not get it or else they just don't give a stuff

Cavehill Red

gurramok wrote: »

Wait for their interview then. They'll be means tested and if that person has savings/assets, they'll get alot less than those who have nothing.

Either way proves my point, that they are a lot worse off now than they were than they were working.

gurramok wrote: »

Can't be enforced.

Sure it can. The fact that it isn't sufficiently enforced is a failure of the system.

gurramok wrote: »

No. People with more mouths to feed get over and above more than they need via child supports than those that don't.

They get more because they have more people to feed. Per capita, they get a lot less (20 odd euro per kid, compared to 200 odd per adult.)

gurramok wrote: »

Haha. I state the facts and you accuse me of having a blanket hatred. The benefit system financially discriminates in favour of parents with kids especially with qualification for Rent Supplement. Look at the table again.

Because they've got more people to house? Again, per capita, they get less.

Cavehill Red

Max Power1 wrote: »

While this is somewhat off topic, you cant let AIB fail. The second biggest bank in the country. Pension funds, salaries, savings etc all possibly wiped out.
If the 50billion figure quoted refers to Anglo, I already said that was a stupid decision.

Savings wouldn't have been wiped out as they were already guaranteed in legislation. The rest is going anyway, since the bank is being wound down.
The difference is, we're underwriting the losses of bondholders, which is bringing the country down with it under the weight of sovereign debt which is rightfully not the taxpayer's to pay.

greendom

zapata wrote: »

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.

Nice one - criminalise the needy in society, just what is required.

Wertz

greendom wrote: »

Nice one - criminalise the needy in society, just what is required.

How is that criminalising anybody?

Cavehill Red

greendom wrote: »

Nice one - criminalise the needy in society, just what is required.

Of course, it's not identity fraud that makes up most of social welfare fraud. It's people doing the double, flying in from abroad to claim, and single parents living with partners.
What we should really do is biochip all claimants and track their whereabouts 24/7 on computers.

/sarcasm

Edit - actually there are probably people in here who think that's a good idea.

teddy_303

ilovemybrick wrote: »

I'm not convinced you understand how tax brackets work. The vast majority of the tax take is paid by a minority. The welfare culture in Ireland is ingrained and nationally damaging. Some of the savings have to come from cutting welfare.

I understand what a tax bracket is thank you. I mentioned it because he failed to mention what he could contribute to the national recovery. It's not for him to suggest cuts should be proportionate across the board, no?

Freddie59

starbelgrade wrote: »

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

Of course it is........:rolleyes: That old Egyptian river again........

The STARTING salary for a six-month contract in an IT is between 41k and 57k. FOR STARTERS.

So what is it in a UNI?

El Siglo

IMF intervention would be catastrophic, they're the last thing we need. Here's a quote from an article by Zwart (2007) in the Journal of Financial Stability:

"Firstly, when the IMF resources are sufficiently large, the signalling effect is a useful tool for coordinating investors. When a loan is granted, the IMF not only conveys the message that the country is not sufficiently sound to deal with its problems, but also that the IMF is confident that its involvement will be effective. The IMF succeeds in reducing the probability of the country being solvent but illiquid. Secondly, when the IMF resources are small, the IMF presence can be distorting. The IMF can no longer intervene convincingly. Although the liquidity effect of the loan is positive, the main effect of the loan is signalling that the private information of the IMF indicates the country to be solvent but illiquid. Despite its good intentions, the IMF might thus aggravate the country’s problems. This is in sharp contrast with the simultaneous model in which the signalling effect is absent and the IMF is necessarily successful, even for small resources."

The fact that we're now paying over 34.3 billion off in bad debt, which is a figure that can rise (worst case scenario is 50 billion). It wouldn't be a nice situation to have the IMF coming in.

poppyvalley

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.

Oh! dont you know WE CANNOT LET THE MARKETS DOWN!! otherwise our name will be mud:rolleyes: