Is Joan Burton mad?

Iused2likebusts

flutered wrote: »

the oaps worked during the 60s the 70s etc, they paid tax at 70%, then there were other bits on top of that, they raised their kids, they bought houses, they paid for ici, aib and the pmpa, now you want to crucify them in their old age, i believe strongly in a thing called karma, check it out.

hardly crucify them a 4% cut on a reasonable standard of living to save everyone else thats already been cut left, right and centre. I dont think its too much to ask most people have already given as much as they can give.

flutered

green_bow wrote: »

the grey brigade

ask anyone who sells stuff for a living and they will tell you that its the elderly who are their best customers

do you know why, it is not the the ordinary pensioner, it is the pensioner with the oap and the public service or works pension, no the ordinary pensioner has little or nothing, most own their own houses, some have not paid off their morgages, 35 year ones, as they were not in a position to buy until their late 30s and 40s, instead of rushing out with a shoot them all, please select your target, our president will have seven yes seven pensions when he leaves the park, the bottle blonde from mayo will have at least three, teachers tds and t-shocks, maby more, look at the clowen from offaly, or the drumcondra sleeze, plus multible others, pick your target, not the soft one, hit the one that costs most to run, not the one who has had to scrape and scrounge all their life, hopefully you will collect the old age pension, but beware of karma.

L1011

flutered wrote: »

d some have not paid off their morgages, 35 year ones, as they were not in a position to buy until their late 30s and 40s

Were 35 year mortgages even offered prior to about 2002?

I know of people on pensions with active mortgages, but it was due to remortgaging/equity release for extensions, cars, holidays etc and not the original purchase of the house. The bulk of people who got given mortgages that won't reach term till after statutory retirement age are at best in their 50s and I'd guess that that includes all who got them as a first mortgage on a first property.

flutered

Iused2likebusts wrote: »

hardly crucify them a 4% cut on a reasonable standard of living to save everyone else thats already been cut left, right and centre. I dont think its too much to ask most people have already given as much as they can give.

as i said there are two types of oap, they are near the end of their lives, why crucify the for a pittance,
the below cost selling of drink by the muntibles, the foregin aid scam, the incomes of the politicians, the incomes of the top heads of local authoritys,
a liberian in ucc has a larger income than the president of spain
why not make it your hobby to hit and lobby for the above,
rather than the oaps, quite a few of whom cannot read or write,
ah yes the easy target.

flutered

MYOB wrote: »

Were 35 year mortgages even offered prior to about 2002?

I know of people on pensions with active mortgages, but it was due to remortgaging/equity release for extensions, cars, holidays etc and not the original purchase of the house. The bulk of people who got given mortgages that won't reach term till after statutory retirement age are at best in their 50s and I'd guess that that includes all who got them as a first mortgage on a first property.

i got one when i was 33, i have another five to go.

flutered

green_bow wrote: »

income taxes are not for pensions , PRSI is and it was only nesscessery to pay a relatively small amount for a relatively short time in order to qualify for the contributory pension , such has been the increase in the state pension since 1997 , most pensioners will draw down four times what they put in , one need to ever have paid any tax in order to receive the non contributory pension of 219 per week and a quarter of pensioners are on this


your falling for the lobby groups line

i am almost qualified for the oap, i paid income tax at 70%, i raised a family, i bought a house, all ways it was unreal to get by, at the moment i am on the invility pension, i have to keep a house going, keep it in good nick, heat it, no mean feat, all on €193 per week, the guy next door aged 64 was in construction all his life, he put a lot into his construction pension, it was €97 per week for a while, this made him well off so to speak when this was added to his dole, then it was cut to 47, now he is sorry that he did not trouser it like all the examples we see on the media.

Iused2likebusts

flutered wrote: »

as i said there are two types of oap, they are near the end of their lives, why crucify the for a pittance,
the below cost selling of drink by the muntibles, the foregin aid scam, the incomes of the politicians, the incomes of the top heads of local authoritys,
a liberian in ucc has a larger income than the president of spain
why not make it your hobby to hit and lobby for the above,
rather than the oaps, quite a few of whom cannot read or write,
ah yes the easy target.

i agree with you on all your suggestions above but what i believe is that before raising taxes, cutting the dole, cutting child benefit, cutting public sector al which have taken place a number of times. I would cut oaps before the above as the above have all played their part.

flutered

Iused2likebusts wrote: »

i agree with you on all your suggestions above but what i believe is that before raising taxes, cutting the dole, cutting child benefit, cutting public sector al which have taken place a number of times. I would cut oaps before the above as the above have all played their part.

then forget about the oa pensioner, hitting them will gain little in the way of savings compared to what i mentioned above, i have been hit a few times in recent budgets, i am lucky that i am a hard nosed bastard who dont give a fcuk about anything, or anyone, the only one that i have any dread for died about 2,000 years ago,many oaps need protection, as they were hit by the traveling thieves/robbers, then they were advised to put whatever they had into the banks to protect their savings, it was then they met the real robbers, the suited ones who advised them to invest their savings abroad, some time later they got letters from the tax man to cough up, they then went to the suited ones who told them to forget about the tax demands, they got more letters to which the suited one scoffed at, the came judgement day, they got cleaned out, the suited ones washed their hands of them, retired on a nice moxey, nothing could be done as the suited ones were pleasently pensioned off while the victims were left with egg on their face and zilch in theeir pocket, often having to ask the suited ones successor for a loan to help keep them going.

Fitz123

The state contributory pension is €5.3 b per annum according to some print media today fluttered. Hardly little to gain in the way from savings from a cut to that. Though admittedly some of the things you point out should be cut too.

There are very many wealthy pensioners out there, not all are living on the bread line. Would be nice to have more targeted cuts, but means testing seems to be a no no.

green_bow

flutered wrote: »

then forget about the oa pensioner, hitting them will gain little in the way of savings compared to what i mentioned above, i have been hit a few times in recent budgets, i am lucky that i am a hard nosed bastard who dont give a fcuk about anything, or anyone, the only one that i have any dread for died about 2,000 years ago,many oaps need protection, as they were hit by the traveling thieves/robbers, then they were advised to put whatever they had into the banks to protect their savings, it was then they met the real robbers, the suited ones who advised them to invest their savings abroad, some time later they got letters from the tax man to cough up, they then went to the suited ones who told them to forget about the tax demands, they got more letters to which the suited one scoffed at, the came judgement day, they got cleaned out, the suited ones washed their hands of them, retired on a nice moxey, nothing could be done as the suited ones were pleasently pensioned off while the victims were left with egg on their face and zilch in theeir pocket, often having to ask the suited ones successor for a loan to help keep them going.

the state pension is one of the largest chunks of the social welfare budget , you really need to stop falling for the emotive rhetoric which paid lobbyists spout on behalf of pensioners , the vast majority of them are comfortable and a sizeable chunk are very well off

Sand

We spent 623 million on foreign aid last year. We could cut that down to the bone first before we start arguing about what to cut further domestically. I'm sure Joan Burton would agree that foreign aid spending has no stimulus effect on the Irish economy.

flutered

Fitz123 wrote: »

The state contributory pension is €5.3 b per annum according to some print media today fluttered. Hardly little to gain in the way from savings from a cut to that. Though admittedly some of the things you point out should be cut too.

There are very many wealthy pensioners out there, not all are living on the bread line. Would be nice to have more targeted cuts, but means testing seems to be a no no.

i have made the point a number of times about the difference in pensioners, i mentioned the one with the civil service and the old age pension, i also mentioned the number of pensions advailable to politicions, i mentioned also the below selling cost of drink by the muntibles, this believe it or not amounts to unreal money each week never mind each year,
could some one post a link to this, just the amount involved please.

Fitz123

Sand wrote: »

We spent 623 million on foreign aid last year. We could cut that down to the bone first before we start arguing about what to cut further domestically. I'm sure Joan Burton would agree that foreign aid spending has no stimulus effect on the Irish economy.

Totally agree with this. Not sure why this has not received the attention it should

Fitz123

If I recall pensions are exempt from PRSI. Would a solution be to have pensions above a certain threshold liable to PRSI ?

These pensioners will effectively pay for any state pension they receive through PRSI on their employment related pensions. An easier way to do it, rather than a lot of means testing.

Aineoil

I don't think Joan is mad.....but there are games going on, to be sure, to be sure, to be sure. I wouldn't mess with her, tough, smart lady.

Aineoil

Sand wrote: »

We spent 623 million on foreign aid last year. We could cut that down to the bone first before we start arguing about what to cut further domestically. I'm sure Joan Burton would agree that foreign aid spending has no stimulus effect on the Irish economy.

You are right, but all UN members have agreed to pay a percentage of our GDP to foreign aid. We did have money and we lost the run of ourselves.

green_bow

Fitz123 wrote: »

If I recall pensions are exempt from PRSI. Would a solution be to have pensions above a certain threshold liable to PRSI ?

These pensioners will effectively pay for any state pension they receive through PRSI on their employment related pensions. An easier way to do it, rather than a lot of means testing.

the level of PRSI which most pensioners paid during their working lives doesn't come close to matching the level of increase in the state pension this past fifteen years , it really has had a collosal increase

Fitz123

yes it has green bow. Hence it might be worth subjecting pensions to prsi above a certain amount. increase in prsi receipts and an effective reduction in pensions for the highest earners. much easier than meanstesting to implement.

Farmer Pudsey

green_bow wrote: »

income taxes are not for pensions , PRSI is and it was only nesscessery to pay a relatively small amount for a relatively short time in order to qualify for the contributory pension , such has been the increase in the state pension since 1997 , most pensioners will draw down four times what they put in , one need to ever have paid any tax in order to receive the non contributory pension of 219 per week and a quarter of pensioners are on this


your falling for the lobby groups line

This is a myth that income is not for pensions where is the money that PS pensions paid out of comes from. It comes from Tax. No tax is ring fenced in this country if it was we would have motorways to Ballymagash with the amount collected on motor related taxes. In the late 90's early 00's I think Charlie McCreevy raided the PRSI fund to balance the budget. If PS pensioners and politicians are entitled to there pension from income tax so are private sector workers. When people quote 5 billion for OAP is this contributory only or the combined figure for Contributory/Non Contributory.

I also like to remind people about the slush fund call the USC. In reality if taxes were not so high for mid income workers they could afford to pay 1-2% extra in PRSI. This is a smoke screen about PRSI the tax levels on mid income workers is huge in this country and always has been except for the 00's when bertie could not add 2+2

Iused2likebusts wrote: »

i agree with you on all your suggestions above but what i believe is that before raising taxes, cutting the dole, cutting child benefit, cutting public sector al which have taken place a number of times. I would cut oaps before the above as the above have all played their part.

The rate of social welfare in this country is huge compare to other countries. It also is crazy that a newly unemployed worker is on less in real terms compared those long term benefit. It stifles the incentive to go back to work. The cost of going to work is huge in this country and leaves no incentive for people to look at low paid work.

green_bow

it would be great if we could buy every pensioner a rolls but the harsh reality dictates otherwise , we cannot afford to keep paying endless tribute to the elderly , while most people subscribe to the whimsical notion that they haven't a p0t to piss in , eventually people will get wise to the claims of penury

Iused2likebusts

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

The rate of social welfare in this country is huge compare to other countries. It also is crazy that a newly unemployed worker is on less in real terms compared those long term benefit. It stifles the incentive to go back to work. The cost of going to work is huge in this country and leaves no incentive for people to look at low paid work.

The amount of money oaps get is also huge compared to other countries. Correct me if im wrong but the dole and the oap were roughly the same when this crisis begun. Oaps still get 230 dole 188. They can afford a 10 euro cut which means thats 250 million less they have to take from all the other people that have suffered numerous cuts already.
I agree with you that there needs to be an incentive to get people back to work, as the system clearly is not working.
I just cant see how an oap could argue that they shouldnt take their first hit, yet a struggling family should bear the brunt again be that a private sector worker paying more tax, a recently unemployed person trying to feed his kids, a public sector worker on less than 40k, childrens allowance being hit again.
Thats my argument if its not the oaps it will be back to the same pool of people again and I dont think thats fair.

green_bow

Iused2likebusts wrote: »

The amount of money oaps get is also huge compared to other countries. Correct me if im wrong but the dole and the oap were roughly the same when this crisis begun. Oaps still get 230 dole 188. They can afford a 10 euro cut which means thats 250 million less they have to take from all the other people that have suffered numerous cuts already.
I agree with you that there needs to be an incentive to get people back to work, as the system clearly is not working.
I just cant see how an oap could argue that they shouldnt take their first hit, yet a struggling family should bear the brunt again be that a private sector worker paying more tax, a recently unemployed person trying to feed his kids, a public sector worker on less than 40k, childrens allowance being hit again.
Thats my argument if its not the oaps it will be back to the same pool of people again and I dont think thats fair.

when you have every political party tripping over themselves to court your vote and a convoy of QUANGO,s earning salaries for portraying you as inherently vulnerable , its natural that a strong sense of entitlement would develop

few topics of discussion in Ireland are lacking in truth and facts as the issues of pensioners , its completely engulfed with trite rhetoric

Farmer Pudsey

Iused2likebusts wrote: »

The amount of money oaps get is also huge compared to other countries. Correct me if im wrong but the dole and the oap were roughly the same when this crisis begun. Oaps still get 230 dole 188. They can afford a 10 euro cut which means thats 250 million less they have to take from all the other people that have suffered numerous cuts already.
I agree with you that there needs to be an incentive to get people back to work, as the system clearly is not working.
I just cant see how an oap could argue that they shouldnt take their first hit, yet a struggling family should bear the brunt again be that a private sector worker paying more tax, a recently unemployed person trying to feed his kids, a public sector worker on less than 40k, childrens allowance being hit again.
Thats my argument if its not the oaps it will be back to the same pool of people again and I dont think thats fair.

It is those on non contributory pensions that benifit most in Ireland. In a lot of other countries you OAP is based on your career earnings usually the last 5-15 years. Somthing similar to PS pensions. most are toning down pwnsions both public and private sectors but protections are put in place for those on or going on pension. I think Germany have an OAP based on 80% of wages pre 1996 and 60% after than this would be ahead on Irish rates. Some have OAP based on the Minimum wage.

Great Britian has amoung the lowest rate of pension in the EU it compare more to an Eastern European rate that the more developed western countries.Where we have an issue is on taxation of pensioners they enjoy a taxation rate that is low compared to general Taxation rates.

However the Irish taxation system is skewed by exemptions and allowances. There seem to be a perception that as self employed have a precieved greater licience to write off expenses that they should have a reduced tax credit hence the PAYE allowance for those in direct employment which doubles the tax credit for PAYE workers, to balance this the government doubles the tax credit of pensioners. Is this right or wrong.

The more worrying aspect is non monertary benifits in Ireland, these are taxation free and also are non means tested. Mind not that I am in favour of means testing as it is generally more of a benifit to people who smoke and drink. However there is no reason that the over 70's medical card could not have benn charged for to those that are well off. For those over 70 they could have opted in at 70 and paid the cost of same in a reduction of there tax credit.

Geuze

2012 DSP stats report:

http://www.welfare.ie/en/Pages/Annual-SWS-Statistical-Information-Report---2012.aspx

Chapter 2 on Pensions:

http://www.welfare.ie/en/downloads/Social%20Stats%20AR%202012_Section%20B.pdf



2012 exp = 6,280m, up 3.1% on 2011

Non-con social assistance pension = 963m (means-tested)

Social Insurance pensions = 4bn



Number of recipients = 540,000

Geuze

An example of unsustainable public finances:

Couple, retired

Gross income = 900-1000pw

Work pension = 700pw
State pension = 115
Pension fund income = 70pw
Earnings = 60pw

Income tax = very low, maybe 5%-10%

Two medical cards
Two travel passes

Subsidised elec, telecom, and free TV licence

CRAZY - no wonder the fiscal deficit is so big!!

Farmer Pudsey

If you look at non contributory welfare those that are not PRSI supported

Non Contributory pension 950 million
Disability 1.1 billion
Carers 500 million
Jobseeker 3 billion
Farm assist 110 million
One parent 1 billion
Supplementary benifit& Except Needs 230 million

This is nearly 7 billion in non PRSI supported welfare on big ticket items. There is probally another half a billion in bits and pieces

In prsi supported welfare you have a 2 billion deficit over PRSI income however I would make the point that High irish taxes make it impossible to increase workers PRSI contribitions. If you add USC to PRSI the intake more than supports contributory payments. there is no ring fencing of taxes in Ireland.

Also I acn see no reason why Contributory pensions cannot be part funde out of income tax as most PS pensions are funded out of general taxation

flutered

farmer pudsy, can you find any link to the figures for low cost selling, as i do not know where to look never mind then tracking it down, how much does it cost the exchequer, my guess is that it is massive.

fliball123

creedp wrote: »

Presumably by that you don't think an additional reduction of €1bn in public sector pay agreed by Labour will translate into lower costs for the private sector. Funny how high public sector wages are blamed for the high cost of living and cost of doing business here but when pay is cut it appears to have no impact on these issue.

Sorry but with annual increments being taken into account there has not been much saved at all since 2008 with regard to the public sector pay.

goose2005

flutered wrote: »

farmer pudsy, can you find any link to the figures for low cost selling, as i do not know where to look never mind then tracking it down, how much does it cost the exchequer, my guess is that it is massive.

How would it cost the exchequer? Are you talking about cheap booze? There's little or no below cost selling - after all, where would off-licences make their profit? And the people who buy a crate of cheap beer are unlikely to also buy some high-margin expensive items

flutered

goose2005 wrote: »

How would it cost the exchequer? Are you talking about cheap booze? There's little or no below cost selling - after all, where would off-licences make their profit? And the people who buy a crate of cheap beer are unlikely to also buy some high-margin expensive items

by using below cost selling an outlet does not loose money, say for instance an outlet is to pay tax of $100, they loose $58 in below cost selling, they can now deduct the difference from the tax, ie $42, the firm is on a winner all the way, as far as i know this is how it works, perhaps a form user can help out here please