Speculation on Budget SW cuts

bmaxi

Speculation today is that Joan Burton will propose cuts to the Household Benefits package as part of her cuts to Social Welfare. Whatever the rights and wrongs of these payments and I'm sure we'll get the usual "parasites" and "something for nothing" type begrudgery, why do these politicians always take the easy option of blanket cuts rather than weeding out the wheat from the chaff, thus making a miserable existence for some, even more miserable?
For instance, there are three "single parents" living within a stone's throw of my home, each of them has a live in partner and no doubt qualifies for every handout under the sun. They have each been reported to SW, but what do SW do? send them a letter giving two week's notice of an intended visit by which time the boyfriend has made himself scarce, cars are parked somewhere else, heating is turned off and Mary is sitting by a single coal burning in the fireplace with a starving infant at her tit, doing a reasonable impression of an underprivileged Noreen Bawn.
What way is this to police the system?
Anecdotal evidence would suggest that these are not isolated cases and I'm astounded that politicians, particularly Labour Party politicians, can stand over these blanket cuts when little effort is made to reform the SW system. No doubt the Tories of FG would remove all SW in the morning if they could but it ill behoves their so called socialist partners to do so.

hmmm

bmaxi wrote: »

why do these politicians always take the easy option of blanket cuts rather than weeding out the wheat from the chaff, thus making a miserable existence for some, even more miserable?

Because the chaff are Labour's core constituency - or at least that's what they think when they are at home in D4 discussing Marx over a bottle of Burgundy and a selection of foreign cheese.

Gatling

Worse in the Sun today the woman who's husband has a well paid job and gave up a well paid job herself to look after her 3 children giving a sob story that cutting or taxing children allowance would leave her kids starving ,

This self Entitlement has no end

Karl Stein

hmmm wrote: »

Because the chaff are Labour's core constituency - or at least that's what they think when they are at home in D4 discussing Marx over a bottle of Burgundy and a selection of foreign cheese.

Are you posting from the cold war?

Sir Humphrey Appleby

bmaxi wrote: »

Speculation today is that Joan Burton will propose cuts to the Household Benefits package as part of her cuts to Social Welfare. Whatever the rights and wrongs of these payments and I'm sure we'll get the usual "parasites" and "something for nothing" type begrudgery, why do these politicians always take the easy option of blanket cuts rather than weeding out the wheat from the chaff, thus making a miserable existence for some, even more miserable?
For instance, there are three "single parents" living within a stone's throw of my home, each of them has a live in partner and no doubt qualifies for every handout under the sun. They have each been reported to SW, but what do SW do? send them a letter giving two week's notice of an intended visit by which time the boyfriend has made himself scarce, cars are parked somewhere else, heating is turned off and Mary is sitting by a single coal burning in the fireplace with a starving infant at her tit, doing a reasonable impression of an underprivileged Noreen Bawn.
What way is this to police the system?
Anecdotal evidence would suggest that these are not isolated cases and I'm astounded that politicians, particularly Labour Party politicians, can stand over these blanket cuts when little effort is made to reform the SW system. No doubt the Tories of FG would remove all SW in the morning if they could but it ill behoves their so called socialist partners to do so.

Why should rich OAP's or Junkies on Disability get free ESB, Travel, TV licence etc.?
Nobody should receive something for nothing, there should some charge.
Nobody should receive allowances simply because of age or disability, allowances should be strictly means tested and paid on a sliding scale.
As for you comments on lone parents they seem to based on nothing other than a supposition on your part.

bmaxi

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

Why should rich OAP's or Junkies on Disability get free ESB, Travel, TV licence etc.?
Nobody should receive something for nothing, there should some charge.
Nobody should receive allowances simply because of age or disability, allowances should be strictly means tested and paid on a sliding scale.
As for you comments on lone parents they seem to based on nothing other than a supposition on your part.

I don't disagree for the most part except to say that my comments on lone parents are based on first hand experience and anyway the thrust of my post was why do politicians consistently punish those who can least afford it rather than seek out the abusers.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

I think that the free travel to over 65's and the free travel pass to anyone who's entitled to the household benefits package should be looked at first and foremost as it seems to be one of the most unfair parts of the Department of Social Protection budget.

It should be means tested and it should be subsidised travel, it shouldn't be completely free for anyone. I resent a 70 year old getting on the bus for free when they could have a couple of pensions, multiple properties and have no debt while I pay full whack. I also have a problem (call it jealousy) that (if I make it) when I'm 65 68 70 75 that the free travel scheme will not exist the way it does today, it's unsustainable and can't continue as is, so the sooner it's corrected the better imo.

I think people who are entitled to a 'free' travel pass should pay between 20-50% of the standard fare that everyone else pays. If tax payers are expected to subsidise certain peoples travel, it is only fair (fare) that the people who are availing of the scheme contributes to the cost as well.

Any money that is saved through this I would want ring fenced to stay within the transport system and kept away from wages. I think the cost for children should be reduced, especially children in school uniform. I think the prices of weekly and monthly tickets should be reduced as these are the people who primarily fund the transport network.


I'd also cut the foreign aid budget by 80% and make a pledge to reinstate it at twice the international obligatory rate when we're not borrowing 1 billion a month. 1 billion a month that my child will have to pay back or else emigrate to get away from. For **** sake.

Jawgap

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

I think that the free travel to over 65's and the free travel pass to anyone who's entitled to the household benefits package should be looked at first and foremost as it seems to be one of the most unfair parts of the Department of Social Protection budget.

It should be means tested and it should be subsidised travel, it shouldn't be completely free for anyone. I resent a 70 year old getting on the bus for free when they could have a couple of pensions, multiple properties and have no debt while I pay full whack. I also have a problem (call it jealousy) that (if I make it) when I'm 65 68 70 75 that the free travel scheme will not exist the way it does today, it's unsustainable and can't continue as is, so the sooner it's corrected the better imo.

I think people who are entitled to a 'free' travel pass should pay between 20-50% of the standard fare that everyone else pays. If tax payers are expected to subsidise certain peoples travel, it is only fair (fare) that the people who are availing of the scheme contributes to the cost as well.

Any money that is saved through this I would want ring fenced to stay within the transport system and kept away from wages. I think the cost for children should be reduced, especially children in school uniform. I think the prices of weekly and monthly tickets should be reduced as these are the people who primarily fund the transport network.


I'd also cut the foreign aid budget by 80% and make a pledge to reinstate it at twice the international obligatory rate when we're not borrowing 1 billion a month. 1 billion a month that my child will have to pay back or else emigrate to get away from. For **** sake.

Why?

You can choose to have kids or not - you can't choose not to grow old.

You seem to be against the universal application of a benefit to older people, but all for it for younger people

I'm guessing you have kids.......

I don't know why there is a fixation with old folks getting a few modest perks after they've completed their working lives - all this nonsense talk is going to do is confuse and scare a lot of vulnerable people.

If we're going to start means testing then the obvious target is child benefit - why we haven't done this already is beyond the realm of reason.

We spend 2.25 billion or so on this payment - and according to the Commission on Taxation, nearly two-thirds of the families who get it have an income between € 40,000 and € 100,000 and 15% have an income in excess of €100,000.

Means test it - tax it - and link it to school attendance.

murphaph

Jawgap wrote: »

Why?

You can choose to have kids or not - you can't choose not to grow old.

You seem to be against the universal application of a benefit to older people, but all for it for younger people

I'm guessing you have kids.......

I don't know why there is a fixation with old folks getting a few modest perks after they've completed their working lives - all this nonsense talk is going to do is confuse and scare a lot of vulnerable people.

If we're going to start means testing then the obvious target is child benefit - why we haven't done this already is beyond the realm of reason.

We spend 2.25 billion or so on this payment - and according to the Commission on Taxation, nearly two-thirds of the families who get it have an income between € 40,000 and € 100,000 and 15% have an income in excess of €100,000.

Means test it - tax it - and link it to school attendance.

His kids will be paying your state pension!

Jawgap

murphaph wrote: »

His kids will be paying your state pension!

Doubt it.......

..........my kids will be paying my state pension......

Victor

bmaxi wrote: »

For instance, there are three "single parents" living within a stone's throw of my home, each of them has a live in partner and no doubt qualifies for every handout under the sun. They have each been reported to SW, but what do SW do? send them a letter giving two week's notice of an intended visit by which time the boyfriend has made himself scarce, cars are parked somewhere else, heating is turned off and Mary is sitting by a single coal burning in the fireplace with a starving infant at her tit, doing a reasonable impression of an underprivileged Noreen Bawn.

How do we know that any of this is true? For all we know you are fantasising.

Jawgap wrote: »

You can choose to have kids or not - you can't choose not to grow old.

But the child can't choose to not go to school.

You seem to be against the universal application of a benefit to older people, but all for it for younger people

Encouraging children and families to use public transport is important, as it gets them out of cars - which has societal benefits in less traffic congestion and healthier lifestyles.

Jawgap

Victor wrote: »

..........

But the child can't choose to not go to school.


Encouraging children and families to use public transport is important, as it gets them out of cars - which has societal benefits in less traffic congestion and healthier lifestyles.

Kids can be home schooled, and indeed in certain circumstances the State will pay you if your kids are being schooled at home!

I agree that encouraging wider use of public transport is important on a numbr of levels, but do you think simply giving 'travel' away free is going to encourage greater use of public transport while families have access to 'better' (in their view) modes of transport, namely a car? Plus people use their cars for more than economic reasons - there's a status / societal element to using the car in preference to public or other forms of transport, as well as the convenience factor.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

Jawgap wrote: »

Why?

You can choose to have kids or not - you can't choose not to grow old.

You seem to be against the universal application of a benefit to older people, but all for it for younger people

I'm guessing you have kids.......

I don't know why there is a fixation with old folks getting a few modest perks after they've completed their working lives - all this nonsense talk is going to do is confuse and scare a lot of vulnerable people.

If we're going to start means testing then the obvious target is child benefit - why we haven't done this already is beyond the realm of reason.

We spend 2.25 billion or so on this payment - and according to the Commission on Taxation, nearly two-thirds of the families who get it have an income between € 40,000 and € 100,000 and 15% have an income in excess of €100,000.

Means test it - tax it - and link it to school attendance.

Why, because it's fairer. An 8 year old has no income and is expected to pay approximately 70% of the price of a full fare whereas a 68 year old who could have an income in excess of 1,000 euro per week is expected to pay nothing at all for the exact same journey.

Like I said, you can means test it and/or instead of people getting to travel completely free of charge then you can get them to start contributing towards the price of their subsidised ticket.

I won't be entitled to the free travel pass (if I make it) for at least 40 years and there is no way it will be a complete free for all then so why not change it now so that it can be sustainable going into the future.

If we can learn one lesson from the economic downturn it should be that things need to be properly costed and manageable beyond the short term.

bmaxi

Victor wrote: »

How do we know that any of this is true? For all we know you are fantasising.

Rather an immature question, not to mention insulting.

Jawgap

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

Why, because it's fairer. An 8 year old has no income and is expected to pay approximately 70% of the price of a full fare whereas a 68 year old who could have an income in excess of 1,000 euro per week is expected to pay nothing at all for the exact same journey.

Like I said, you can means test it and/or instead of people getting to travel completely free of charge then you can get them to start contributing towards the price of their subsidised ticket.

I won't be entitled to the free travel pass (if I make it) for at least 40 years and there is no way it will be a complete free for all then so why not change it now so that it can be sustainable going into the future.

If we can learn one lesson from the economic downturn it should be that things need to be properly costed and manageable beyond the short term.

Well if that's your argument - what if the 8 year old, who presumably isn't travelling on his own, has parents who are well paid or have a substantial income?

Come to think of it, why isn't the kid charged the same as an adult fare - it doesn't cost less to transport him or her. Ryanair charge the same fare for anyone occupying a seat, why not adopt that principle?

tomdempsey200

bmaxi wrote: »

send them a letter giving two week's notice of an intended visit by which time the boyfriend has made himself scarce, cars are parked somewhere else, heating is turned off and Mary is sitting by a single coal burning in the fireplace with a starving infant at her tit, doing a reasonable impression of an underprivileged Noreen Bawn.

did you make that up? presumably unless you're in the house with them

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

Jawgap wrote: »

Well if that's your argument - what if the 8 year old, who presumably isn't travelling on his own, has parents who are well paid or have a substantial income?

Come to think of it, why isn't the kid charged the same as an adult fare - it doesn't cost less to transport him or her. Ryanair charge the same fare for anyone occupying a seat, why not adopt that principle?

Well, it wouldn't be easy (certainly not cost beneficial) to set up a whole new layer of bureaucracy in order to check whose got a rich mammy and daddy and who hasn't. You'd probably need children to carry a type of card to prove they have poor parents in order to avail of a cheaper ticket in comparison to a child who doesn't. It isn't really applicable tbh.

The bus service already runs at a loss so comparing it with Ryanair feels like apples and oranges tbf. I'm sorry to say this , children weigh less than adults so they cost less fuel to transport.

RayM

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

I think that the free travel to over 65's and the free travel pass to anyone who's entitled to the household benefits package should be looked at first and foremost as it seems to be one of the most unfair parts of the Department of Social Protection budget.

I think the elderly should keep their free travel passes and other nice little perks of... not dying. However, the state pension should be brought in line with other social welfare payments. If a 30-year-old can survive on €188 per week, I see no reason why a 70-year-old shouldn't. I think that's the most unfair part of the Department of Social Protection budget.

johnnyskeleton

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

It should be means tested and it should be subsidised travel, it shouldn't be completely free for anyone. I resent a 70 year old getting on the bus for free when they could have a couple of pensions, multiple properties and have no debt while I pay full whack. I also have a problem (call it jealousy) that (if I make it) when I'm 65 68 70 75 that the free travel scheme will not exist the way it does today, it's unsustainable and can't continue as is, so the sooner it's corrected the better imo.

I think people who are entitled to a 'free' travel pass should pay between 20-50% of the standard fare that everyone else pays. If tax payers are expected to subsidise certain peoples travel, it is only fair (fare) that the people who are availing of the scheme contributes to the cost as well.

Also it is ironic that it applies to special services such as nightlink, aircoach etc. Everyone deserves a night out or a holiday if they can afford it, but why is the taxpayer subsidising it?

Jawgap

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

Well, it wouldn't be easy (certainly not cost beneficial) to set up a whole new layer of bureaucracy in order to check whose got a rich mammy and daddy and who hasn't. You'd probably need children to carry a type of card to prove they have poor parents in order to avail of a cheaper ticket in comparison to a child who doesn't. It isn't really applicable tbh.

The bus service already runs at a loss so comparing it with Ryanair feels like apples and oranges tbf. I'm sorry to say this , children weigh less than adults so they cost less fuel to transport.

Fuel isn't the only cost associated with running a transport op. And i very deliberately picked Ryanair because it's the comparator of choice for many commentators when discussing the lack of efficiency / profitability in our various public transport systems.

The coach operator who runs an excellent service into Dublin from where I live charges for the seat - no concessions for age.

RayM wrote: »

I think the elderly should keep their free travel passes and other nice little perks of... not dying. However, the state pension should be brought in line with other social welfare payments. If a 30-year-old can survive on €188 per week, I see no reason why a 70-year-old shouldn't. I think that's the most unfair part of the Department of Social Protection budget.

....except the 30 year old has the option of getting his or her finger out and getting a job. I'd imagine employment options for the 70+ segment of the population are somewhat more limited compared to those for 30 year olds.

Victor

Jawgap wrote: »

Come to think of it, why isn't the kid charged the same as an adult fare - it doesn't cost less to transport him or her. Ryanair charge the same fare for anyone occupying a seat, why not adopt that principle?

Getting off-topic, but child fares (or similar products) are normally lower as families would otherwise travel by car.

RayM

Jawgap wrote: »

....except the 30 year old has the option of getting his or her finger out and getting a job. I'd imagine employment options for the 70+ segment of the population are somewhat more limited compared to those for 30 year olds.

I'm not just talking about people who are unemployed. People receiving disability allowances or invalidity pensions don't have the option of "getting their finger out". The state pension is the only social welfare payment that hasn't been reduced - and is between €30 and €40 higher than other payments.

Jawgap

RayM wrote: »

I'm not just talking about people who are unemployed. People receiving disability allowances or invalidity pensions don't have the option of "getting their finger out". The state pension is the only social welfare payment that hasn't been reduced - and is between €30 and €40 higher than other payments.

that's true - some of them, like rent supplement in certain areas, and Family Income Supplement, have actually been increased.

murphaph

Jawgap wrote: »

Well if that's your argument - what if the 8 year old, who presumably isn't travelling on his own, has parents who are well paid or have a substantial income?

The pensioner with the free pass might have rich children! In Germany there's no free travel scheme. Instead, over 65's can generally get a reduced price monthly ticket (but still costing in the case of Berlin/Brandenburg they get an annual ticket for the entire transport region for €581. The same ticket would cost me €1,872). It's a substantial discount BUT it's clearly NOT free. This is a fair model I believe. There is no "nationwide" reduced cost scheme. That ticket would be for the city of Berlin and state of Brandenburg only, however Ireland is small enough I suppose and people might need to travel to the cities for medical treatment etc. but it should cost SOMETHING unless you are destitute and NEED transport on medical grounds or what have you.

bmaxi

Jawgap wrote: »

that's true - some of them, like rent supplement in certain areas, and Family Income Supplement, have actually been increased.

This is exactly the type of thinking I was talking about. For the most part OAPs on a contributory pension would not qualify for these payments, few are in private rented accomodation and few have any family left.
The difference between OAPs on a contributory pension and the average single parent, junkie, or general layabout is that they have paid for their pension over the years whereas mostly, the others have made no direct contribution to the state so why treat them all the same? This was my question in the OP.

bmaxi

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Also it is ironic that it applies to special services such as nightlink, aircoach etc. Everyone deserves a night out or a holiday if they can afford it, but why is the taxpayer subsidising it?

I don't think the free travel concession covers nightlink and Aircoach, as a private operator, had to option of not participating in the scheme.

murphaph

bmaxi wrote: »

The difference between OAPs on a contributory pension and the average single parent, junkie, or general layabout is that they have paid for their pension over the years whereas mostly, the others have made no direct contribution to the state so why treat them all the same? This was my question in the OP.

Let's be honest, the taxes paid by those now in receipt of the €230 pw contributory pension have in the main not paid enough to cover that largess, even those who never dossed about simply will not have made anywhere near the contributions required for that sort of pension (check out UK state pensions for a quick comparison with a country that also doesn't link contributions to benefits received). Pensioners today would have never imagined that they'd receive such a large state pension when they were paying their taxes in the 60's and 70's, indeed right up until the Bertie era.

The state pension went up and up and up and is the only major state benefit that hasn't come down a single cent since the financial crisis began. Not a single cent!

I agree wholeheartedly that all forms of state benefits should be related to contributions made, be they unemployment benefits or pension payments.

sarumite

bmaxi wrote: »

The difference between OAPs on a contributory pension and the average single parent, junkie, or general layabout is that they have paid for their pension over the years whereas mostly, the others have made no direct contribution to the state so why treat them all the same? This was my question in the OP.

Really? We are now putting a single parent in the same catagory as a junkie?

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

Jawgap wrote: »

Fuel isn't the only cost associated with running a transport op. And i very deliberately picked Ryanair because it's the comparator of choice for many commentators when discussing the lack of efficiency / profitability in our various public transport systems.

The coach operator who runs an excellent service into Dublin from where I live charges for the seat - no concessions for age.

It's hard to make a genuine comparison between a loss making government subsidised bus and rail service and a profitable low budget international airline.
I have compared how a child going to school pays 70% of a full ticket fare whereas an OAP with a large income pays nothing for the same journey.

If we are to apply Ryanairs thinking to the Bus service then there would be no free travel pass and no subsidised ticket prices for anyone and I don't think anyone is advocating that position so feel it isn't necessary to make the comparison.

With less money in the public pot to go around we need to apply more fairness to how money is spent. I feel charging a pensioner 50 cent to avail of the bus system would be a much fairer way to help run the service going forward. Any revenue this raises shouldn't be taken out of the transport system but redistributed within it (and not go on wages) to help lower the price of everyone else's ticket.

OAP's pay a nominal amount and everyone else pays less, it's a win-win in my book.


For instance, the new medical cards for under fives that's being talked about now seems like a good idea in theory, but if it's at the expense of people with long term illnesses who will no longer be given discretionary medical cards then I don't think it's fair.

bmaxi

sarumite wrote: »

Really? We are now putting a single parent in the same catagory as a junkie?

For the most part, the great majority of both could have avoided the situation in which they find themselves. There are always exceptions of course and this is where the whole SW system falls down, which was the thrust of my original post.

bmaxi

murphaph wrote: »

Let's be honest, the taxes paid by those now in receipt of the €230 pw contributory pension have in the main not paid enough to cover that largess, even those who never dossed about simply will not have made anywhere near the contributions required for that sort of pension (check out UK state pensions for a quick comparison with a country that also doesn't link contributions to benefits received). Pensioners today would have never imagined that they'd receive such a large state pension when they were paying their taxes in the 60's and 70's, indeed right up until the Bertie era.

The state pension went up and up and up and is the only major state benefit that hasn't come down a single cent since the financial crisis began. Not a single cent!

I agree wholeheartedly that all forms of state benefits should be related to contributions made, be they unemployment benefits or pension payments.

I would imagine that applies to most pensions. Are you suggesting pension rates should reflect the cost of living of the era in which they were paid?

murphaph

bmaxi wrote: »

I would imagine that applies to most pensions. Are you suggesting pension rates should reflect the cost of living of the era in which they were paid?

I wasn't no but what I will say is this:
Defined benefit pensions are unsustainable. They are pyramid schemes. The state pension is a defined benefit scheme like any other.

People should look after their own retirements. They should not pay PRSI but rather be allowed (perhaps compelled in certain circumstances) to use that money to pay in to a defined contribution pension fund.

It's that or raise the retirement age substantially so it once again lies a handful of years before average age of death, as state pensions were when they were first introduced (they were manageable back then because few people actually lived long enough to draw them down for any length of time).

bmaxi

murphaph wrote: »

I wasn't no but what I will say is this:
Defined benefit pensions are unsustainable. They are pyramid schemes. The state pension is a defined benefit scheme like any other.

People should look after their own retirements. They should not pay PRSI but rather be allowed (perhaps compelled in certain circumstances) to use that money to pay in to a defined contribution pension fund.

It's that or raise the retirement age substantially so it once again lies a handful of years before average age of death, as state pensions were when they were first introduced (they were manageable back then because few people actually lived long enough to draw them down for any length of time).

I wouldn't class the state pension as a defined benefit, the amount is in the gift of the Government of the day and while there is merit in the idea that people should finance their own retirement, that is irrelevant in the case of today's pensioners.
My main argument is that no policing is done of the welfare system, welfare is paid on a model rather than a need. FG seem to baulk at the idea of means testing , the argument being that it is too expensive. I call bull****, it was done way back when the country was even more broke than it is now and how can a one off cost of devising and implementing a system be more expensive than an ongoing drain on resources. An affirmed statement of income, with provision for ignoring creative accounting, would be a start while a more comprehensive system is worked out. Random investigation, with severe penalties would probably deter all but the most brassy necks.
Today we're hearing that GP care is to be introduced for all under fives, again with no upper income limit, so now the yummy mummys on Killiney hill can pop little Jasper in the Range Rover and slum it down in Killiney village at the expense of the terminal cancer sufferer on a medical card who, after today according to reports, will have seen his prescription charges increased by 200% in two years or the road sweeper who is probably paying more net tax than yummy mummy. This is the reality of today's "fair Goverment..
Of course yummy mummy can always make her contribution by paying the 9% vat rate on the E50 she'll probably drop on the two lettuce leaves and a carrot lunch she'll have in a local Bistro while waiting for Nanny and Jasper to finish withe their free GP.

professore

RayM wrote: »

I think the elderly should keep their free travel passes and other nice little perks of... not dying. However, the state pension should be brought in line with other social welfare payments. If a 30-year-old can survive on €188 per week, I see no reason why a 70-year-old shouldn't. I think that's the most unfair part of the Department of Social Protection budget.

That's nonsense. A fit healthy young person needs less to live than a crippled oap.

murphaph

bmaxi wrote: »

I wouldn't class the state pension as a defined benefit, the amount is in the gift of the Government of the day

If the state pension is not a defined benefit scheme then neither are public sector pensions, which can also be altered by the government of the day at the stroke of a pen, but most people consider public sector pensions to be DB schemes, so surely the state pension is as well.

Sierra Oscar

Apparently the bereavement grant is gone? That is a really nasty and spiteful cut if true. People pay PRSI all their life and they can't even be sure that they will be given a respectful send off that won't plunge their family in debt at the end of their lives.

bmaxi

murphaph wrote: »

If the state pension is not a defined benefit scheme then neither are public sector pensions, which can also be altered by the government of the day at the stroke of a pen, but most people consider public sector pensions to be DB schemes, so surely the state pension is as well.

Not apples and apples. A defined benefit scheme, to my mind is when a certain figure or percentage is agreed at time of entry. I wouldn't be 100% sure but I think public service pensions can only be cut for new entrants to the scheme.

Jawgap

bmaxi wrote: »

Not apples and apples. A defined benefit scheme, to my mind is when a certain figure or percentage is agreed at time of entry. I wouldn't be 100% sure but I think public service pensions can only be cut for new entrants to the scheme.

Existing pensions in excess of €32k were cut by the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Act 2013.

Previously (in 2011), the Public Service Pension Reduction (PSPR) was introduced - this was / is a tiered reduction of certain public service
pensions above €12,000. The PSPR applied to all public service pensions above €12,000 awarded up to end-February 2012.

Victor

murphaph wrote: »

It's that or raise the retirement age substantially so it once again lies a handful of years before average age of death, as state pensions were when they were first introduced (they were manageable back then because few people actually lived long enough to draw them down for any length of time).

You mean make it a middle class subsidy?

Sir Humphrey Appleby

professore wrote: »

That's nonsense. A fit healthy young person needs less to live than a crippled oap.

Like eh all oap's are crippled.
OAP's should receive a pension on a par with the rate of JB paid to those who have lost their jobs.
If the unemployed have to pay full fare on the bus then the OAP should too, same with television licence etc.
No one should have an automatic right to freebies.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Apparently the bereavement grant is gone? That is a really nasty and spiteful cut if true. People pay PRSI all their life and they can't even be sure that they will be given a respectful send off that won't plunge their family in debt at the end of their lives.

They surely would have life insurance.
In any event those who need help can still get assistance through exceptional needs payments.
The idea of a death grant payable to all regardless of means is downright stupid.

Jawgap

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

Like eh all oap's are crippled.
OAP's should receive a pension on a par with the rate of JB paid to those who have lost their jobs.
If the unemployed have to pay full fare on the bus then the OAP should too, same with television licence etc.
No one should have an automatic right to freebies.

so education, health care, fire fighting etc shouldn't be based on need rather than ability to pay? Certain things should be free at the point of delivery.

there's no pensioner only on the state pension coining it in, even with the household package.

I would agree with the idea recently introduced in the UK that a cap be placed on the amount anyone can draw from the pubic purse, and that the household package should automatically to go to any OAP drawing only the state pension - anyone else should have to apply and be means / needs tested before they get it.

ebbsy

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Apparently the bereavement grant is gone? That is a really nasty and spiteful cut if true. People pay PRSI all their life and they can't even be sure that they will be given a respectful send off that won't plunge their family in debt at the end of their lives.

+1

Dying in Ireland is so expensive.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

Jawgap wrote: »

so education, health care, fire fighting etc shouldn't be based on need rather than ability to pay? Certain things should be free at the point of delivery.

there's no pensioner only on the state pension coining it in, even with the household package.

Free medical cards for over 70's , Free TV licence, Free ESB/Gas. Free Travel are NOT based on need they are freebies automatically granted based on age or illness. They should be means tested and based on need.
there are plenty of pensioners in this country that are comfortably off, they also get a very generous income tax exemption.
The idea that because one is old one is automatically entitled to range of freebies is ludicrous.

Jawgap

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

Free medical cards for over 70's , Free TV licence, Free ESB/Gas. Free Travel are NOT based on need they are freebies automatically granted based on age or illness. They should be means tested and based on need.
there are plenty of pensioners in this country that are comfortably off, they also get a very generous income tax exemption.
The idea that because one is old one is automatically entitled to range of freebies is ludicrous.

We hear all about these pensioners who are apparently affluent and well off but no one seems to want to publish any stats

Truth is, even accounting for those pensioners with private and occupational pensions, 75% of pensioner (male) have an annual income of less than €20,000 and 75% of women OAPs have an annual income of less than €14,000 - that's 'comfortably off' ?

At the higher end (4th income quartile) the incomes are nearly €48k for men and €28k for women - now, that's heading for 'comfortably off.'

I've no problem with means testing, but means test all benefits including the 'mickey money' and the dole.

EDIT: figures taken from the Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing

K-9

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

Like eh all oap's are crippled.
OAP's should receive a pension on a par with the rate of JB paid to those who have lost their jobs.
If the unemployed have to pay full fare on the bus then the OAP should too, same with television licence etc.
No one should have an automatic right to freebies.

There's a social aspect to a free travel pass for pensioners though, a lot of them wouldn't be able to drive and anyway in most rural areas it isn't of that much use anyway. Same with the telephone allowance, with landline ownership down so much pensioners would make up a big chunk of those who have one. Considering they were encouraged to install home alarms linked to phone lines and got a grant for it, it's a bit sly to then remove the subsidy.

For me I'd prefer a tenner cut of the main payment and leave cuts like the above, probably save far more too.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

K-9 wrote: »

There's a social aspect to a free travel pass for pensioners though, a lot of them wouldn't be able to drive and anyway in most rural areas it isn't of that much use anyway. Same with the telephone allowance, with landline ownership down so much pensioners would make up a big chunk of those who have one. Considering they were encouraged to install home alarms linked to phone lines and got a grant for it, it's a bit sly to then remove the subsidy.

For me I'd prefer a tenner cut of the main payment and leave cuts like the above, probably save far more too.

I would prefer if payments and services were at realistic levels and provided based on needs and not some arbitrary qualification such as age.
moreover services should always attract some charge however much reduced.

Sierra Oscar

Shame on Labour for targeting those that are most in need through this budget.

It is to be expected from Fine Gael, but Labour are sellouts.