Remember, It's people on Job Seekers who are the real problem

jasonc5432

The below article shows how a man in his 50s can receive a pension of 101,000 euros... What a joke!

This is the REAL reason Ireland is in the gutter!! Too many ludicrous payments to too many of 'the lads'. Up 'the lads'! What was it Berie said about anyone who questions it all...? Oh yeah... Probably applies here too.

But, of course, an army of right wingers will continue marauding about asking for the poorest to have less. No wonder we are in a depression. But 'the lads' are happy at least.

---

€102,000 salary plus €101,000 pension for ex-department boss

By Katherine Donnelly
Friday December 02 2011
A FORMER secretary general of a government department is being paid a state salary of €102,000 on top of his annual pension of €101,000.

Tadhg O hEalaithe, former secretary general of the Department of Arts Culture and the Gaeltacht, has a senior post with an education standards watchdog.

Mr O hEalaithe is Director of Corporate Services and Learners Awards with the Higher Education and Training Awards Council. HETAC is the qualifications awarding body for third-level institutions outside the university sector.

Mr O hEalaithe retired from his secretary general role in January 2000, while in his early- 50s, but has continued to enjoy lucrative positions on the state payroll.

Under the terms of the Top Level Appointments Commission (TLAC), secretary generals are appointed for only seven years.

In return they receive a generous severance package.

Mr O hEalaithe served as secretary general in the Department of the Gaeltacht from 1991 and, subsequently, in the Department of Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, when it was established in 1993.

When he left the department, he moved into the chairmanship of Udaras na Gaeltachta.

A few weeks before retirement from the department on January 20, 2000, Mr O hEalaithe was appointed chairman of Udaras na Gaeltachta.

After his term as Udaras chairman ended, Mr O hEalaithe was appointed to his current role in HETAC, following an open competition.

Under 1965 legislation, if a former civil servant on a pension is re-employed in the civil service, his combined pension and salary income must not exceed the salary in the original job.

In the case of Mr O hEalaithe, his combined income of €203,000 is slightly ahead of the cap of €200,000 recently introduced for secretary generals of government departments.

Mr O hEalaithe is currently on medical leave from HETAC and was not contactable yesterday.

HETAC did not respond to a request from the Irish Independent to discuss the matter.

- Katherine Donnelly

Irish Independent

This isn't a news dump.

What are your opinions on the article?

jasonc5432

bluewolf wrote: »

This isn't a news dump.

What are your opinions on the article?

I've edited it

Cuddlesworth

If the Average person on job seekers is costing the State upwards of 10k per year, then his glorious 200k pension is the equivalent of 20 people claiming benefits. If a 1,000 people retired on similar deals, then we would have the equivalent of 20,000 on the dole. But since there is around 400,000 people claiming right now, is that not the bigger problem?

jasonc5432

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

If the Average person on job seekers is costing the State upwards of 10k per year, then his glorious 200k pension is the equivalent of 20 people claiming benefits. If a 1,000 people retired on similar deals, then we would have the equivalent of 20,000 on the dole. But since there is around 400,000 people claiming right now, is that not the bigger problem?

Because he's rich and they're poor, then by YOUR logic, yes. Servile logic would have it that way

swordofislam

The rich cannot demand that the poor assume burdens unless we assume greater burdens ourselves. The most fortunate must bear the greatest weight.

jasonc5432

swordofislam wrote: »

The rich cannot demand that the poor assume burdens unless we assume greater burdens ourselves. The most fortunate must bear the greatest weight.

But you seem to forget, paying a man in his 50s a full pension is fine.
Even though he's YEARS before pension age.

And if ANY of the rest of us approached a previous employer we'd be LAUGHED at and told we were stupid if we asked for a full pension in our 50s.

But not these lads.

And they'll be protected to the death by their bands of followers.

Ireland's right wing doesnt care about those who are out of work by virtue of an economic crisis caused by BANKERS, POLITICIANS, AND FINANCIAL MARKETS.

They will spin stories that all those lads really werent to blame at all!

Its actually the most vulnerable who are to blame -- the sick, the poor, the elderly (real) pensioners, people out of work because of a crisis they didnt create, the blind, people with special needs

etc..

JustinDee

swordofislam wrote: »

The rich cannot demand that the poor assume burdens unless we assume greater burdens ourselves. The most fortunate must bear the greatest weight.

The "burden" should be proportional.
If I earn more than another person, why should I pay a "greater weight"? Unless I'm much mistaken, this "burden" you refer to is actually carried more by middle-range earners than either of the polemics in any perceived scale. Not a simplistic case of rich:poor with nothing between. I've scrapped paying to any contributions to my own pension as money is required elsewhere. A pension is not a luxury I can currently afford and this is from someone who has no debt except a manageable mortgage.

Not excusing silly-level pension deals or anything. Thing is that is the existing pension agreements are legally bound.
I don't think anything can be done about that in a legal sense since contracts are involved. There is still plenty of scope for reform of subsequent deals however and this should be mandatory in my view. These reforms should accompany social welfare review ie. both done in tandem. Not a case of one or another.

Spudmonkey

Half his pension Jason, by all means...

Does it make a blind bit of difference in the grand scheme of things??

jasonc5432

Spudmonkey wrote: »

Half his pension Jason, by all means...

Does it make a blind bit of difference in the grand scheme of things??

YES!!!!!

to you, 51 THOUSAND euro may not be a lot.

But to some of us who are CITIZENS in this bloody country, YES it is!!!

You think you can twist things around for your own benefit, or the benefit of the richest, but paying 101 THOUSAND euros of a pension to a man who is not even of PENSIONABLE AGE is an utter joke!!

Go ahead and defend it all you like.

It shows your mindset. I wont argue with it. Hope it keeps you in good stead as Ireland crumbles.

jasonc5432

JustinDee wrote: »

The "burden" should be proportional.
If I earn more than another person, why should I pay a "greater weight"? Unless I'm much mistaken, this "burden" you refer to is actually carried more by middle-range earners than either of the polemics in any perceived scale. Not a simplistic case of rich:poor with nothing between. I've scrapped paying to any contributions to my own pension as money is required elsewhere. A pension is not a luxury I can currently afford and this is from someone who has no debt except a manageable mortgage.

Not excusing silly-level pension deals or anything. Thing is that is the existing pension agreements are legally bound.
I don't think anything can be done about that in a legal sense since contracts are involved. There is still plenty of scope for reform of subsequent deals however and this should be mandatory in my view. These reforms should accompany social welfare review ie. both done in tandem. Not a case of one or another.

This 'pre-existing' deals stuff is ridiculous.

Targeted taxation would solve that in a matter of hours.

There isnt the will though.

The right wing is too strong, and too hell bent on austerity for the poorest, while concurrently rewarding the richest....

That's how it is. Tell me otherwise!

whatstherush

jasonc5432 wrote: »

Ireland's right wing doesnt care about those who are out of work by virtue of an economic crisis caused by BANKERS, POLITICIANS, AND FINANCIAL MARKETS.

Right wing this, right wing that. It was his left wing union that got him such a good deal on his pension. Why don't you start cribbing to them?

Spudmonkey

jasonc5432 wrote: »

YES!!!!!

to you, 51 THOUSAND euro may not be a lot.

But to some of us who are CITIZENS in this bloody country, YES it is!!!

You think you can twist things around for your own benefit, or the benefit of the richest, but paying 101 THOUSAND euros of a pension to a man who is not even of PENSIONABLE AGE is an utter joke!!

Go ahead and defend it all you like.

It shows your mindset. I wont argue with it. Hope it keeps you in good stead as Ireland crumbles.

3.6bn - 51k ~ 3.6bn

Keep em coming Jason.....

jasonc5432

whatstherush wrote: »

Right wing this, right wing that. It was his left wing union that got him such a good deal on his pension. Why don't you start cribbing to them?

Whoever it was that was involved in negotiating such a deal is clearly suffering from some form of detachment from reality.

It was NOT acceptable to pay someone a 101,000 pension 10 years ago, and its NOT acceptable today.

Whoever is involved in allowing this pension to be maintained is equally detached from reality

Godge

swordofislam wrote: »

The rich cannot demand that the poor assume burdens unless we assume greater burdens ourselves. The most fortunate must bear the greatest weight.

Agreed, but they already do. The top 1% of income tax payers pay 22% of all of the income tax.

But to take your logic to the extreme we could cut all social welfare payments in half and after eliminating the budget deficit, we could send any money left over to those in Africa surviving on €1 a day. At least the dole recipients in Ireland would still have €94 per week.

jasonc5432

Spudmonkey wrote: »

3.6bn - 51k ~ 3.6bn

Keep em coming Jason.....

As i said, the fact that you argue for 8EURO to be taken from the poorest, but think it is unnecessary to take 51k / 101k from a very wealthy man,... it shows your mindset.

jasonc5432

Godge wrote: »

Agreed, but they already do. The top 1% of income tax payers pay 22% of all of the income tax.

But to take your logic to the extreme we could cut all social welfare payments in half and after eliminating the budget deficit, we could send any money left over to those in Africa surviving on €1 a day. At least the dole recipients in Ireland would still have €94 per week.

We live in ireland... not africa... what nonsense are you spouting?

Spudmonkey

jasonc5432 wrote: »

As i said, the fact that you argue for 8EURO to be taken from the poorest, but think it is unnecessary to take 51k / 101k from a very wealthy man,... it shows your mindset.

Maths aren't your strength Jason....

RichardAnd

swordofislam wrote: »

The most fortunate must bear the greatest weight.

Not that I disagree but I must ask the question, why must there always be a weight to bear?

jasonc5432

Spudmonkey wrote: »

Maths aren't your strength Jason....

Why do you say that -- nothing in what ive said shows that. Typical of your comments Spudmonkey. Keep it up!

jasonc5432

RichardAnd wrote: »

Not that I disagree but I must ask the question, why must there always be a weight to bear?

Because of how bankers, politicians, and financial markets have made a mess of things

Godge

swordofislam wrote: »

The rich cannot demand that the poor assume burdens unless we assume greater burdens ourselves. The most fortunate must bear the greatest weight.

jasonc5432 wrote: »

We live in ireland... not africa... what nonsense are you spouting?

sword of islam comes on here and say that the rich should assume greater burdens than the poor and I assume he means this in an Irish context.

I am just pointing out that in a world context, that would mean slashing social welfare well beyond anything dreamed up by the most avid right-winger on boards and give the money to Africa. If you are going to spout principles like that, you should go the full way.

jasonc5432

Godge wrote: »

sword of islam comes on here and say that the rich should assume greater burdens than the poor and I assume he means this in an Irish context.

I am just pointing out that in a world context, that would mean slashing social welfare well beyond anything dreamed up by the most avid right-winger on boards and give the money to Africa. If you are going to spout principles like that, you should go the full way.

What are you on about?

Irish politics does not plan socio economic policy in countries in Africa.

Nor do we make social welfare contributions to people there.

Do you understand what nation states are? Or how they function?

COYW

jasonc5432 wrote: »

The right wing is too strong, and too hell bent on austerity for the poorest, while concurrently rewarding the richest....

How, where? We don't a true right wing party in this country? Are you trying to tell us that FG/Labour/FF/Green Party who have been in power for the last 20 years in this country are right wing? Surely not!

Also, no amount of taxation would solve our public expenditure problems. Typical left wing attitude thinking there is some magical pot of wealth out there to raid.

jasonc5432

COYW wrote: »

How, where? We don't a true right wing party in this country? Are you trying to tell us that FG/Labour/FF/Green Party who have been in power for the last 20 years in this country are right wing? Surely not!

Also, no amount of taxation would solve our public expenditure problems. Typical left wing attitude thinking there is some magical pot of wealth out there to raid.

Im SPECIFICALLY talking about how wrong it is to pay one man 101000 euros of a pension, when he is NOT EVEN of pensionable age

while....

concurrently attempting to justify cutting the poorest by 8 euro.

V_Moth

COYW wrote: »

How, where? We don't a true right wing party in this country? Are you trying to tell us that FG/Labour/FF/Green Party who have been in power for the last 20 years in this country are right wing? Surely not!

Also, no amount of taxation would solve our public expenditure problems. Typical left wing attitude thinking there is some magical pot of wealth out there to raid.

Funny you should say that:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2011/1123/1224307997208.html

First off, cuts in public sector pay. More than half of all 431,827 public servants are paid incomes of less than €40,000. They should experience no cuts. About 140,000 are paid between €40,000 and €80,000. They are paid probably €50,000 on average. Were they to take a 10 per cent cut in pay, the savings would be around €0.7 billion. There are more than 40,000 public servants earning €80,000 and over. Were they, on average, to take a pay cut of one-third, the saving would be about €1.3 billion. (This could be gradated, so that those in the €80,000 to €100,000 bracket would take a cut of perhaps 20 per cent, with those on higher levels taking a higher cut.) These calculations are based on data supplied in answer to a Dáil question on January 18th last.

Data compiled by the Revenue Commissioners shows individuals and couples who file their tax returns jointly and who are paid €80,000 and more, comprise just 9 per cent of all income tax payers (193,495 out of 2,224,798 income tax payers) and are paid 33 per cent of all income paid to everyone in the State. These 193,495 individuals and couples are paid on average €143,390 and they pay just 33 per cent of this on average in income tax and the Universal Social Charge (USC). If this group were to pay 10 percentage points more of their income in tax, (ie 43 per cent, including the USC), the additional revenue to the State would be €2.7 billion.

If, in addition to this, those taxpayers earning more than €140,000 – there are 49,195 of these, and they are paid €13 billion in total, an average of €268,199 each – were required to pay a total of 52 per cent of their income in income tax, there would be a further yield of €0.8 billion.

Also, a household charge would yield €1 billion. Then, with some of the projected cuts to yield €1 billion, the total adjustment would be €7.5 billion.

jasonc5432

V_Moth wrote: »

Funny you should say that:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2011/1123/1224307997208.html

Careful now V_Moth... if theres anything neoliberals hate more, it's when facts and reality disagree with their theory and misinformation

Godge

jasonc5432 wrote: »

What are you on about?

Irish politics does not plan socio economic policy in countries in Africa.

Nor do we make social welfare contributions to people there.

Do you understand what nation states are? Or how they function?

Look if someone comes on here, which they did, and makes a generalised principled statement that the rich must pay more than the poor, fair enough but then you are changing that to mean only in Ireland.

So the principled statement should read: "The rich should pay more than the poor, but only in Ireland as the poor outside Ireland don't count".

It reminds me a bit of "all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others".

I don't claim to be a socialist, but those who do tend to only want to redistribute wealth from those richer than them to themselves. I have never met a socialist who says that s/he should pay more, there is always someone else richer who should be subsidising them.

jasonc5432

Godge wrote: »

Look if someone comes on here, which they did, and makes a generalised principled statement that the rich must pay more than the poor, fair enough but then you are changing that to mean only in Ireland.

So the principled statement should read: "The rich should pay more than the poor, but only in Ireland as the poor outside Ireland don't count".

It reminds me a bit of "all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others".

I don't claim to be a socialist, but those who do tend to only want to redistribute wealth from those richer than them to themselves. I have never met a socialist who says that s/he should pay more, there is always someone else richer who should be subsidising them.

Very well said -- basically, you're saying... because the specifics dont suit me, Ill have a chat about something entirely different, and hope its hard hitting.

Sorry, what youre talking is nothing to do with me, so Im not going to continue with it. You and your socialist stuff, can head off to Russia. Im not interested.

You mean well, of course. But Im not going to bother having a chat about capitalism vs socialism.

That belongs in the class room.

Im dealing with the real world here.

Not some theoretical realm you live in where you are still fighting the cold war and reporting back to Senator McCarthy in the 1950s. Lord!

JustinDee

jasonc5432 wrote: »

This 'pre-existing' deals stuff is ridiculous

It isn't ridiculous. Its a legally binding constraint. Employment law applies to everyone.

jasonc5432 wrote: »

Targeted taxation would solve that in a matter of hours

Again, it has to be within a proportional band. Why punish people for earning? Not everyone earning is bleeding the flippin' state dry.

jasonc5432 wrote: »

The right wing is too strong, and too hell bent on austerity for the poorest, while concurrently rewarding the richest....

That's how it is. Tell me otherwise!

Forget about "wings" and cool the jets. There are left-wing elected politicians who have and still do very nicely from the system. It has eff all to do with "wings".
Slash what can be slashed by all means but singling out someone just for earning a good crust is not on. And you can spare me the class warrior line too.

murphaph

jasonc5432 wrote: »

Because he's rich and they're poor, then by YOUR logic, yes. Servile logic would have it that way

I'm getting really sick of reading your posts which indirectly attribute characteristics such as "servile" to other posters.

Anyway:
This man's pension seems pretty grotesque alone, nevermind coupled to the fact that he's in receipt of an equally generous salary having "retired" and to be quite frank, his only "qualification" seems to be that he is a native Irish speaker (I'm guessing, from his name and jobs). It's another example of the Irish language lobby being happy to see millions wasted on stupid titles, roles "initiatives" etc. that in the end do NOTHING to promote daily use of the Irish language.

Another anyway:
His remuneration and pension are part of the problem. The level of benefits paid out in Ireland are also clearly part of the problem. You are attempting to personalise it by stating that jobseekers themselves are a problem, when of course they are not. The predicament they find themselves in (unemployment) is the problem and the benefits they receive are a problem, but they themselves are most definitely (in 90%+ of cases) not the problem.

Ireland spends two thirds of its tax revenue on welfare. This is completely unsustainable Jason-or do you not agree?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

jasonc5432

V_Moth wrote: »

Funny you should say that:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2011/1123/1224307997208.html

From the above:


"Instead, we are being softened up for a budget that will afflict the least able to bear affliction, through social welfare cuts – inevitably to be described by that wicked word “reforms” – through taxes on the poor, increased VAT, and protestations of fairness when the rich are required to make minor adjustments to their status and lifestyles."

gerryo777

jasonc5432 wrote: »

What are you on about?

Irish politics does not plan socio economic policy in countries in Africa.

Nor do we make social welfare contributions to people there.

Do you understand what nation states are? Or how they function?

Your right about not making welfare contributions to people in africa, we encourage them to come over here to claim and then they 'western union' half that money back to africa!!

jasonc5432

gerryo777 wrote: »

Your right about not making welfare contributions to people in africa, we encourage them to come over here to claim and then they 'western union' half that money back to africa!!

Wow ^^ just wow ^^

Gobsmacked.

Gerry, let us know... actually... no cant be bothered. That doesnt warrant a specific reply.

Just, wow

gerryo777

BTW Jason, I agree entirely with your OP.

jasonc5432

gerryo777 wrote: »

BTW Jason, I agree entirely with your OP.

Thanks Gerry. However, I find your comments on people from Africa, quite disturbing personally. I want to distance myself quite far away from those Im afraid

gerryo777

jasonc5432 wrote: »

Thanks Gerry. However, I find your comments on people from Africa, quite disturbing personally. I want to distance myself quite far away from those Im afraid

Fair point, we're all entitled to or views though. I'll probably get banned!

jasonc5432

gerryo777 wrote: »

Fair point, we're all entitled to or views though. I'll probably get banned!

Diversity is the spice of life Gerry. Although, you may possibly not quite agree with that... ironically

gerryo777

I made the point last week of a dept. of education head retiring at 53. She was earning €150+k a year, She now gets a lump sum of €200k and a pension of €110k per year. Meantime someone else will take over her €150k a year position and probably decide to retire in a couple of years and the circle goes on and on....Madness!

irishh_bob

jasonc5432 wrote: »

But you seem to forget, paying a man in his 50s a full pension is fine.
Even though he's YEARS before pension age.

And if ANY of the rest of us approached a previous employer we'd be LAUGHED at and told we were stupid if we asked for a full pension in our 50s.

But not these lads.

And they'll be protected to the death by their bands of followers.

Ireland's right wing doesnt care about those who are out of work by virtue of an economic crisis caused by BANKERS, POLITICIANS, AND FINANCIAL MARKETS.

They will spin stories that all those lads really werent to blame at all!

Its actually the most vulnerable who are to blame -- the sick, the poor, the elderly (real) pensioners, people out of work because of a crisis they didnt create, the blind, people with special needs

etc..

why do you include the elderly in your list of victims of this rescession , they havent seen a single cut

hidinginthebush

jasonc5432 wrote: »

A FORMER secretary general of a government department is being paid a state salary of €102,000 on top of his annual pension of €101,000....

...Under the terms of the Top Level Appointments Commission (TLAC), secretary generals are appointed for only seven years.

In return they receive a generous severance package.
Irish Independent...

So for the sake of a 7 year posting, secretary generals recieve a pension of €101K? That is well and truly shocking!

I think pensions should not be collectable until the recipient has fully retired, or at least left the public sector. In this case alone, that would save the government over €1.5 million , assuing he continues on his current generously paid job until 66.

gerryo777

murphaph wrote: »

I'm getting really sick of reading your posts which indirectly attribute characteristics such as "servile" to other posters.

Anyway:
This man's pension seems pretty grotesque alone, nevermind coupled to the fact that he's in receipt of an equally generous salary having "retired" and to be quite frank, his only "qualification" seems to be that he is a native Irish speaker (I'm guessing, from his name and jobs). It's another example of the Irish language lobby being happy to see millions wasted on stupid titles, roles "initiatives" etc. that in the end do NOTHING to promote daily use of the Irish language.

Another anyway:
His remuneration and pension are part of the problem. The level of benefits paid out in Ireland are also clearly part of the problem. You are attempting to personalise it by stating that jobseekers themselves are a problem, when of course they are not. The predicament they find themselves in (unemployment) is the problem and the benefits they receive are a problem, but they themselves are most definitely (in 90%+ of cases) not the problem.

Ireland spends two thirds of its tax revenue on welfare. This is completely unsustainable Jason-or do you not agree?

We mightn't have to spend so much on welfare if the past 3 hopeless/out of their depth FF led governments hadn't been drunk on buying votes/getting elected and had ran this country properly!!!

jasonc5432

gerryo777 wrote: »

I made the point last week of a dept. of education head retiring at 53. She was earning €150+k a year, She now gets a lump sum of €200k and a pension of €110k per year. Meantime someone else will take over her €150k a year position and probably decide to retire in a couple of years and the circle goes on and on....Madness!

I wholeheartedly agree with the above post. It is actually quite sad, because there are families, people I know, who are really struggling.

It is leading to mental/emotional depression,
-borderline malnourishment,
-people losing homes/cars,
-families being broken up,
-emigration (<<< one for you to remember),
-an apparent increase in suicide.. someone I know did it as a result of financial difficulties, sadly.
-people unable to afford adequate heating
-people unable to afford various other things.

But, people will argue FOR the out of work to be cut by 8euro.

And AGAINST people receiving pensions of 101000 euro even though they are NOT EVEN OF PENSIONABLE AGE!

It saddens me.

I am not poor.

I am not unemployed.

I am from a good background. I am quite lucky. But I think I will leave Ireland soon. I cant live in a country that rewards people at the top, then cuts the people at the bottom, and then calls it 'sharing the pain'.

I am a proud Irishman, for most of my life.

Not anymore.

We have become a joke, and a laughing stock. It saddens me. I am actually looking forward to leaving in 2012 and taking my qualifications and experience with me elsewhere.

I cannot contribute to a community that screws the little guys and takes that money and gives it to the already very wealthy. It's immoral

jasonc5432

hidinginthebush wrote: »

So for the sake of a 7 year posting, secretary generals recieve a pension of €101K? That is well and truly shocking!

I think pensions should not be collectable until the recipient has fully retired, or at least left the public sector. In this case alone, that would save the government over €1.5 million , assuing he continues on his current generously paid job until 66.

Excellent post

jasonc5432

irishh_bob wrote: »

why do you include the elderly in your list of victims of this rescession , they havent seen a single cut

You are wrong Im afraid!


Blind and deaf groups condemn 'savage' cutbacks
By Ailish O'Hora
Thursday December 09 2010
BLIND and deaf charities last night accused the Government of making "savage" cuts to people with disabilities.

Thousands of blind and deaf people have had their pay, allowances and pensions cut in the Budget.

"The Government is paying lip service to equity by trying to include everybody," Des Kenny, chief executive of the National Council for the Blind, told the Irish Independent.

"I'm concerned about the savage cuts to allowances and pensions particularly and about 4,000 of our members will be hit. They have no other way of finding income and the pension is vigorously means tested."

The cuts for the visually impaired include:

An €8 cut to the weekly blind pension.
A €61 cut to the weekly supplementary payment for those receiving a pension.
A €180 reduction in annual tax credits to €1,650.
Mr Kenny called on Social Protection Minister Eamon O Cuiv to reverse the blind pension cut, pointing out that the state pension was unchanged.

"It clearly should have been part of the pensions protection in the Budget," he said.

John Mangan, chief executive of the Irish Deaf Society (IDS), said many of its 5,000 members would take a hit through the €1 cut to the minimum wage at a time when funding for its services had also been slashed.

"Over the past two years funding for our advice centres and support services . . . has been cut by 20pc to around €100,000," he added.


Support

"We have only been given guarantees for this funding for the first three months of 2011 and it will then be reviewed by the Department of Community, Equality and Gaeltacht Affairs."

Mr Mangan said many of the society's members lived in rural areas and depended on the limited support services.

Opposition parties also claimed the cuts were unfair.

Labour Party spokesperson on Social Protection Roisin Shortall said: "There's no justification for cutting welfare, including payments for the blind."

But Mr O Cuiv defended the disability cuts, saying "The reduction in the Blind Pension is in line with the reduction to all rates for people of working age -- those under 66. Blind pensioners also receive free travel and household benefits and these have not been reduced."

- Ailish O'Hora

Irish Independent

gerryo777

jasonc5432 wrote: »

I wholeheartedly agree with the above post. It is actually quite sad, because there are families, people I know, who are really struggling.

It is leading to mental/emotional depression,
-borderline malnourishment,
-people losing homes/cars,
-families being broken up,
-emigration (<<< one for you to remember),
-an apparent increase in suicide.. someone I know did it as a result of financial difficulties, sadly.
-people unable to afford adequate heating
-people unable to afford various other things.

But, people will argue FOR the out of work to be cut by 8euro.

And AGAINST people receiving pensions of 101000 euro even though they are NOT EVEN OF PENSIONABLE AGE!

It saddens me.

I am not poor.

I am not unemployed.

I am from a good background. I am quite lucky. But I think I will leave Ireland soon. I cant live in a country that rewards people at the top, then cuts the people at the bottom, and then calls it 'sharing the pain'.

I am a proud Irishman, for most of my life.

Not anymore.

We have become a joke, and a laughing stock. It saddens me. I am actually looking forward to leaving in 2012 and taking my qualifications and experience with me elsewhere.

I cannot contribute to a community that screws the little guys and takes that money and gives it to the already very wealthy. It's immoral

It's immoral ok but sadly it'll never change. Greed, pure greed has ruined this once great little country of ours!

jasonc5432

irishh_bob wrote: »

why do you include the elderly in your list of victims of this rescession , they havent seen a single cut

More evidence of how wrong you are Bob


Age Action welcomes decision not to cut State Pension -- but older people will be hit by other cuts

Tue, 07/12/2010 - 06:00
Age Action has welcomed the Government’s decision not to reduce the State Pension, but warned that older people dependent on other social welfare payments will be hit by cuts announced in today’s Budget.

The fact that the Government has decided to exempt the State Pension from the cuts means that some older people will be protected from falling further into poverty,” Age Action spokesman Eamon Timmins said. “With one-in-ten older people at risk of poverty and many more hovering around the poverty line, any cut in the State Pension would have caused huge hardship.”

“However, for widows under-66, those on invalidity pension and carers will all be hit.” (See below for details).

The older people’s charity also welcomed the once-off €40 for those receiving the fuel allowance. “This is a small gesture, but a welcome one for older people who are concerned about turning on their heating for fear of receiving a large bill,” Mr Timmins said. “But it does not come close to compensating older people for the carbon tax which the Government introduced on home heating oil and gas in May.”

Age Action is concerned at the lack of detail in today’s Budget. It will watch closely to see what impact funding cuts have on the health service. “A substantial cut to the HSE’s budget would undoubtedly have a negative effect on older people and the community-based services they depend on to remain living with dignity in their own homes,” Mr Timmins said.

“For those older people who depend on the State for their income or health services, the full impact of this budget has still to be seen, but it would be wrong to present them as winners in today’s Budget,” he said.

Cuts announced in today’s Budget for pensioners and carers included:

- Widows/widowers contributory pension under 66 decreased from €201.50 to €193.50 (no change for over 66’s)

- Invalidity pension for under 65’s personal rate decreased from €201.50 to €193.50 and for a person with a qualified adult under 66 from 345.30 to 331.60. For a qualified adult aged over 66 under invalidity pension decrease from €407.80 to €399.80.

- Carer’s benefit decrease from €213 to €205.

- Personal rate of widow/widowers non-contributory pension personal rate decrease from €196 to €188.

- Care allowances for people under 66 years decrease from €212 to €204 (no change for people aged 66 years and over)

- Supplementary allowance payment to blind people in receipt of blind pension 61 to 58 and for a blind couple by €12 to €117.



FOR MEDIA QUERIES CONTACT EAMON TIMMINS, HEAD OF ADVOCACY AND COMMUNICATIONS, AGE ACTION

JustinDee

jasonc5432 wrote: »

More evidence of how wrong you are Bob


Age Action welcomes decision not to cut State Pension -- but older people will be hit by other cuts

Tue, 07/12/2010 - 06:00

Genuine question here: Did those cuts actually get passed and are they still in operation now if so. I ask this because the current coalition government won an election earlier this year and not last year so what you highlight is the policy of the FFers in 2010.

irishh_bob

jasonc5432 wrote: »

You are wrong Im afraid!


Blind and deaf groups condemn 'savage' cutbacks
By Ailish O'Hora
Thursday December 09 2010
BLIND and deaf charities last night accused the Government of making "savage" cuts to people with disabilities.

Thousands of blind and deaf people have had their pay, allowances and pensions cut in the Budget.

"The Government is paying lip service to equity by trying to include everybody," Des Kenny, chief executive of the National Council for the Blind, told the Irish Independent.

"I'm concerned about the savage cuts to allowances and pensions particularly and about 4,000 of our members will be hit. They have no other way of finding income and the pension is vigorously means tested."

The cuts for the visually impaired include:

An €8 cut to the weekly blind pension.
A €61 cut to the weekly supplementary payment for those receiving a pension.
A €180 reduction in annual tax credits to €1,650.
Mr Kenny called on Social Protection Minister Eamon O Cuiv to reverse the blind pension cut, pointing out that the state pension was unchanged.

"It clearly should have been part of the pensions protection in the Budget," he said.

John Mangan, chief executive of the Irish Deaf Society (IDS), said many of its 5,000 members would take a hit through the €1 cut to the minimum wage at a time when funding for its services had also been slashed.

"Over the past two years funding for our advice centres and support services . . . has been cut by 20pc to around €100,000," he added.


Support

"We have only been given guarantees for this funding for the first three months of 2011 and it will then be reviewed by the Department of Community, Equality and Gaeltacht Affairs."

Mr Mangan said many of the society's members lived in rural areas and depended on the limited support services.

Opposition parties also claimed the cuts were unfair.

Labour Party spokesperson on Social Protection Roisin Shortall said: "There's no justification for cutting welfare, including payments for the blind."

But Mr O Cuiv defended the disability cuts, saying "The reduction in the Blind Pension is in line with the reduction to all rates for people of working age -- those under 66. Blind pensioners also receive free travel and household benefits and these have not been reduced."

- Ailish O'Hora

Irish Independent

where in my post did i say that the blind have not seen cuts , i said those on the OAP have ( as yet ) been completley shielded , no politican ever lost his or her seat by upsetting the blind voter you see , different story with the grey vote

as for AGE ACTION , thier too pensioners what the ASTI is to teachers , thier a lobby group who make a living from playing violins for the elderly

gf2009

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Just curious... but why did you compare a saving applied to one man compared to a saving applied to all jobseekers?

• €8 x all jobseekers compared to €980(or relevant amount) x all citizens in similar position as 'this man'
  
• €8 compared to €980

...I imagine both situations should be adjusted.