Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Budget; After Hours style

Options
1246

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    OctavarIan
    Registered Users Posts: 2,736 ✭✭✭OctavarIan


    lastlaugh wrote: »
    A lot of people still living at home with Mummy & Daddy have no real concept of hardship or what it is to be bled by a hard budget.
    Getting their washing done for them, not contributing towards bills or a mortgage, all that take home pay just spent on fancy phones and nights out on the Razz.

    They need to be taxed. HEAVILY. :cool:

    You should just pull out of this thread while you can and save face. Bitterness isn't flattering on anyone.


  • Options
    #93
    lastlaugh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,382 ✭✭✭lastlaugh


    Lollipops23 wrote: »
    eh, no they don't. anyone I know still living at home pays rent (myself included). I also look after my own food most of the time, clean my own living space etc. i have lived outside of home before (job moved and other stuff happened so had to move home) so I know I am well capable of taking care of myself, paying bills on time etc.

    Good for you, well done. I'd still like to see you taxed more though!
    Lollipops23 wrote: »
    Some people are so bitter that others have a nice home life and decent parents.

    There is no need for that. You are just being nasty.


  • Options
    #94
    elvis99
    Registered Users Posts: 173 ✭✭elvis99


    lastlaugh wrote: »
    Nope. It should be means tested. People in their mid twenties to early fourties who live at 'home' quite comfortably and who work full time have a lot of 'extra' cash. I'd rather see these people taxed heavily than cuts to SNAs or other wothwhile things. That's all. We all need to share the pain.

    And they contributed to the financial collapse how?

    I'm not implying they 'contributed to the financial collapse', rather we should get a few more quid off them as they don't need it as much.

    So fleece people for living at home now?

    If you entered into a mortage and finding it difficult its not there fault is it?

    How about taxing higher earners? wouldn't that make more sense?


  • Options
    #95
    lastlaugh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,382 ✭✭✭lastlaugh


    OctavarIan wrote: »
    You should just pull out of this thread while you can and save face. Bitterness isn't flattering on anyone.

    I'm not bitter thanks!

    And I'm not out to impress anyone, especially not people still living at home!


  • Options
    #96
    lastlaugh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,382 ✭✭✭lastlaugh


    elvis99 wrote: »
    So fleece people for living at home now?

    If you entered into a mortage and finding it difficult its not there fault is it?

    How about taxing higher earners? wouldn't that make more sense?

    I'm 100% for that. Anyone who can afford to pay more, should pay more.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    BraziliaNZ
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,671 ✭✭✭BraziliaNZ


    lastlaugh wrote: »
    Nope. It should be means tested. People in their mid twenties to early fourties who live at 'home' quite comfortably and who work full time have a lot of 'extra' cash. I'd rather see these people taxed heavily than cuts to SNAs or other wothwhile things. That's all. We all need to share the pain.

    And they contributed to the financial collapse how?

    I'm not implying they 'contributed to the financial collapse', rather we should get a few more quid off them as they don't need it as much.

    I haven't live at home for more than a few months now and again in the last 11 years, I am 31 now, not that it should matter.
    So just because these people have a few extra quid, take it off them and make them as miserable as you are? Are you a communist or what?


  • Options
    #98
    OctavarIan
    Registered Users Posts: 2,736 ✭✭✭OctavarIan


    lastlaugh wrote: »
    I'm not bitter thanks!

    And I'm not out to impress anyone, especially not people still living at home!

    That may be true, but some of your posts are absolutely exuding bitterness. Was just letting you know, obviously you weren't aware.

    Also if someone is working full-time and living at home what are they doing wrong? They're working full time, paying their taxes and spending their money. That's kinda how economies grow in the first place.


  • Options
    #99
    Lollipops23
    Registered Users Posts: 5,420 ✭✭✭Lollipops23


    lastlaugh wrote: »
    Good for you, well done. I'd still like to see you taxed more though!



    There is no need for that. You are just being nasty.

    I pay my taxes (PAYE/PRSI/USC) happily, I wouldn't quibble it as I know it's needed. But I refuse to be singled out due to my personal life.

    I'm not being nasty, but there are always posts on boards slagging of people who still live at home- they tend to believe that if you don't move out at 18 on the dot you must be a jumped up brat whose Mammy still does everything for. The comment wasn't aimed solely at yourself, it's just something that bugs the hell out of me.


  • Options
    #100
    Lollipops23
    Registered Users Posts: 5,420 ✭✭✭Lollipops23


    OctavarIan wrote: »
    That may be true, but some of your posts are absolutely exuding bitterness. Was just letting you know, obviously you weren't aware.

    Also if someone is working full-time and living at home what are they doing wrong? They're working full time, paying their taxes and spending their money. That's kinda how economies grow in the first place.

    or shock horror, they're putting some money away so that they can try their best to be financially responsible.

    yep, take their spare cash of em regardless, that'll make them less likely to pick up bad spending habits!!


  • Options
    #101
    elvis99
    Registered Users Posts: 173 ✭✭elvis99


    lastlaugh wrote: »
    I'm 100% for that. Anyone who can afford to pay more, should pay more.

    Pay for what though? I wasn't involved in fúcking up the country and neither were the people living at home


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    lastlaugh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,382 ✭✭✭lastlaugh


    BraziliaNZ wrote: »
    I haven't live at home for more than a few months now and again in the last 11 years, I am 31 now, not that it should matter.
    So just because these people have a few extra quid, take it off them and make them as miserable as you are? Are you a communist or what?

    I'm not miserable, and I am not struggling to pay a mortgage, not that it is any of your business.
    There are a lot of people really miserable though and who are struggling, and will be hit a lot harder than people living a sheltered existance in their parents homes.
    OctavarIan wrote: »
    That may be true, but some of your posts are absolutely exuding bitterness. Was just letting you know, obviously you weren't aware.

    Also if someone is working full-time and living at home what are they doing wrong? They're working full time, paying their taxes and spending their money. That's kinda how economies grow in the first place.

    You misinterpreted my posts as bitter but were tongue in cheek.

    I do think that people living at home have more to 'contribute' than others.

    Is this so wrong?


  • Options
    #103
    BraziliaNZ
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,671 ✭✭✭BraziliaNZ


    lastlaugh wrote: »
    I'm not miserable, and I am not struggling to pay a mortgage, not that it is any of your business.
    There are a lot of people really miserable though and who are struggling, and will be hit a lot harder than people living a sheltered existance in their parents homes.

    Sheltered existence? Seriously? So you're not allowed look after your family anymore? I give up.


  • Options
    #104
    lastlaugh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,382 ✭✭✭lastlaugh


    Lollipops23 wrote: »
    I pay my taxes (PAYE/PRSI/USC) happily, I wouldn't quibble it as I know it's needed. But I refuse to be singled out due to my personal life.

    I'm not being nasty, but there are always posts on boards slagging of people who still live at home- they tend to believe that if you don't move out at 18 on the dot you must be a jumped up brat whose Mammy still does everything for. The comment wasn't aimed solely at yourself, it's just something that bugs the hell out of me.

    The way I read it was that I was bitter because I didn't have a happy family life and people who do should be punished.

    But we can all misread things.


  • Options
    #105
    Lollipops23
    Registered Users Posts: 5,420 ✭✭✭Lollipops23


    BraziliaNZ wrote: »
    Sheltered existence? Seriously? So you're not allowed look after your family anymore? I give up.

    Yep, people seem to find it unbelievable that I get on well with my folks, and that I can genuinely go several days without seeing them so it's not as if they're smothering me.
    I also pay my way in the house, I have tried to offer the mother more rent a few times (she refused) and I always slip in some extra money at Xmas for all the extra crap we get in.

    Financial resposibility shouldn't be punished.


  • Options
    #106
    OctavarIan
    Registered Users Posts: 2,736 ✭✭✭OctavarIan


    lastlaugh wrote: »
    You misinterpreted my posts as bitter but were tongue in cheek.

    I do think that people living at home have more to 'contribute' than others.

    Is this so wrong?

    You should work on your communication then.

    In what way do you feel these people aren't contributing?


  • Options
    #107
    mattjack
    Registered Users Posts: 5,389 ✭✭✭mattjack


    a fancy phone tax.


  • Options
    #108
    blackdog2
    Registered Users Posts: 852 ✭✭✭blackdog2


    lastlaugh wrote: »
    Nope. It should be means tested. People in their mid twenties to early fourties who live at 'home' quite comfortably and who work full time have a lot of 'extra' cash. I'd rather see these people taxed heavily than cuts to SNAs or other wothwhile things. That's all. We all need to share the pain.

    And they contributed to the financial collapse how?

    I'm not implying they 'contributed to the financial collapse', rather we should get a few more quid off them as they don't need it as much.

    I am living at home quite comfortably, but if I could afford to live away from home, it sure as hell wouldn't be in Ireland, and I think it is the same for quite a lot of people my age (early 20s)

    If something like this is operated, all young independent people would be out of here like a flash. Ireland offers no value for money when it comes to taxation and cost of living.


  • Options
    #109
    Amirani
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,523 Mod ✭✭✭✭Amirani


    Sc@recrow wrote: »
    Abolish Senate.
    Reduce excise duty+vat on diesel for businesses
    Decrease Social Welfare on a year by year scale for people on it for more than 5 years without having a disability
    Increase higher rate of tax by 1-2 % (I'm on this but no objections)
    Abolish Croke Park Agreement- Abolish benchmarking for public sector, set up company pension schemes for PS.
    Reduce Admin count at HSE- It's bloody ridiculous.
    Close all motor tax offices nationwide/abolish car tax- Instead levy petrol+diesel to cover for it.
    Only one pension for TD regardless of offices held- And not payable until the national retirement age.
    No holding up a job vacancy such as Enda and the rest have been doing in case they fail at politics and don't get elected- tough shít- if you want a career choice it's your decision so think carefully.

    It's nearly 4pm so I'm finished work so loads more to do later :D

    No arguments here, some very good suggestions.


  • Options
    #110
    sensibleken
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,650 ✭✭✭sensibleken


    tax rain


  • Options
    #111
    UsernameInUse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 778 ✭✭✭UsernameInUse


    End corporate subsidies.

    Then give people on the dole €50 in FOOD ONLY VOUCHERS (no cigs/alcohol).

    Billions saved right there.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 16,720 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I'd be in favour of massive tax increases in all areas that don't effect me.


  • Options
    #113
    edgecutter
    Registered Users Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭edgecutter


    UsernameInUse wrote: »
    End corporate subsidies.

    Then give people on the dole €50 in FOOD ONLY VOUCHERS (no cigs/alcohol).

    Billions saved right there.

    If the dole was cut by that much we would have riots.


  • Options
    #114
    s14driftking
    Registered Users Posts: 646 ✭✭✭s14driftking


    UsernameInUse wrote: »
    End corporate subsidies.

    Then give people on the dole €50 in FOOD ONLY VOUCHERS (no cigs/alcohol).

    Billions saved right there.
    thats a thick post people need this money to live survive on etc,
    i dont know what your situation is but i was on the dole for 9 months before i bit the bullet and moved back home and am now reeducating myself. that 9 months i was on the dole having no money to go anywhere barely enough to eat and pay bills i was suicidial stuck in a house all day from morning to nite with nothing to do
    thankfully im in a better place now and can afford to get out for a few drinks each weekend go cinema etc


  • Options
    #115
    Amirani
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,523 Mod ✭✭✭✭Amirani


    edgecutter wrote: »
    If the dole was cut by that much we would have riots.

    Army could then shoot the rioters, isn't that what we're paying them for?


  • Options
    #116
    IvaBigWun
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,368 ✭✭✭IvaBigWun


    Fighting Irish wrote: »
    We need those people to stay in Ireland though

    I was talking to an oul lad before and he told me that during the 80s tax was as bad as 75p for every punt for the wealthy. Why shouldnt it be the same now?


  • Options
    #117
    Amirani
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,523 Mod ✭✭✭✭Amirani


    IvaBigWun wrote: »
    I was talking to an oul lad before and he told me that during the 80s tax was as bad as 75p for every punt for the wealthy. Why shouldnt it be the same now?

    I honestly can't believe you've decided to look at Government fiscal policies in the 80s as being in any way sensible. Do you have any idea how bad things were? :p

    Simply put, whatever tax high earners pay at the moment would shortly become 0 were we to set rates higher than the UK for instance. That is, it would have a negative economic effect. That's without going into the fact that high earners create most of the jobs in the economy.

    Yes higher earners should pay more, however, the rates some people are suggesting are ridiculous.


  • Options
    #118
    desertcircus
    Registered Users Posts: 2,648 ✭✭✭desertcircus


    All money a person gets in the course of a year should be put into a single pot and taxed at current rates. It's obscene that a million in profits from share dealing, or capital gains from asset sales, or interest on deposit accounts, can be taxed at a lower level than the money a person earns by working for it. Write down all the money you got this year and we'll just call it "income" and tax it like we tax earnings now.


  • Options
    #119
    lastlaugh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,382 ✭✭✭lastlaugh


    Lollipops23 wrote: »
    Yep, people seem to find it unbelievable that I get on well with my folks, and that I can genuinely go several days without seeing them so it's not as if they're smothering me.
    I also pay my way in the house, I have tried to offer the mother more rent a few times (she refused) and I always slip in some extra money at Xmas for all the extra crap we get in.

    Several days?! Jeez sorry about that, I didn't realise that.
    Lollipops23 wrote: »
    Financial resposibility shouldn't be punished.

    All I'm sayin is you should be eligible to pay a bit more tax if you don't have a mortgage or rent to pay and you are living in the family home!
    OctavarIan wrote: »
    You should work on your communication then.

    In what way do you feel these people aren't contributing?

    OK then smarty pants.

    When did I say these people aren't contributing?
    niallsparky wrote: »
    Army could then shoot the rioters, isn't that what we're paying them for?

    What?


  • Options
    #120
    lastlaugh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,382 ✭✭✭lastlaugh


    blackdog2 wrote: »
    I am living at home quite comfortably, but if I could afford to live away from home, it sure as hell wouldn't be in Ireland, and I think it is the same for quite a lot of people my age (early 20s)

    If something like this is operated, all young independent people would be out of here like a flash. Ireland offers no value for money when it comes to taxation and cost of living.

    Are you working full time?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    My name is URL
    Registered Users Posts: 25,068 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    lastlaugh wrote: »
    All I'm sayin is you should be eligible to pay a bit more tax if you don't have a mortgage or rent to pay and you are living in the family home!

    What about people that don't own a car, or those that don't have a credit card? Should those who managed avoid paying through the nose for stuff in the past really be punished for it now?

    I once gambled and lost €1000 over the course of a few hours in the bookies one day.. I demand that those who won money on that same day pay more tax than me in order to cover my losses!

    Sorry, but there is no logical reason whatsoever that those living at home while working should have to pay any new fangled tax.


Advertisement