Joan Burton's world tour in every interview

July Rain

Has anybody else noticed that everytime Joan Burton is asked in an interview to justify a cut to whatever welfare scheme, She picks a random country and points out how in her opinion their system is better than ours, even though it might have little relevance. eg When asked about back to school clothing allowance cut 50% since 2011, she said in Denmark they don't give as much cash supports to parents but they make sure all their schools have fresh meals and hot showers.

RichardAnd

You will rarely find a politician who will give a straight answer to a straight question.

Icepick

And the point of this thread is?

touts

Perhaps it's because many many other countries have better approach to welfare than Ireland.

johnnyskeleton

It's not fair to compare ireland to other countries. Ireland is different. Other countries percieve social welfare as a necessary burden on the taxpayer. But in Ireland, welfare is the main driver of the economy, apparently:

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/welfare-keeps-economy-going-says-joan-burton-1.1459503

Fr Tod Umptious

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

It's not fair to compare ireland to other countries. Ireland is different. Other countries percieve social welfare as a necessary burden on the taxpayer. But in Ireland, welfare is the main driver of the economy, apparently:

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/welfare-keeps-economy-going-says-joan-burton-1.1459503

I don't think that;s what she is saying
The point she is making in that piece is that studies have shown that welfare payments help drive local economies.
People on welfare usually spend all of their payment. If you cut the welfare payment then you take money from the domestic economy
People on high incomes are less likely to spend all of that income, a lot of it is invested or saved, thus lost to the domestic economy

I am not saying that welfare is good, I am just point out the welfare cuts have a negative effect on local economies

syklops

Icepick wrote: »

And the point of this thread is?

The point of this thread is to bitch about welfare cuts, Joan Burton, austerity and the economy. Presumably Joe Duffy was engaged.

touts

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I don't think that;s what she is saying
The point she is making in that piece is that studies have shown that welfare payments help drive local economies.
People on welfare usually spend all of their payment. If you cut the welfare payment then you take money from the domestic economy
People on high incomes are less likely to spend all of that income, a lot of it is invested or saved, thus lost to the domestic economy

I am not saying that welfare is good, I am just point out the welfare cuts have a negative effect on local economies

The problem with having an economy whose foundation is based purely on one sector (previously building now, it seems, welfare) is if that sector declines the economy declines. So the government are terrified to tackle welfare because we have fallen into the trap of it driving the economy.

However if you cut welfare and instead give the money back to the people who work for it in the form of tax cuts that would also engourage them to spend more and would also benefit the economy thus creating jobs across multiple sectors and therefore take people off welfare. There may be a short term dip in the economy but long term you get a much more robust economy not overly reliant on any one group or sector. However the government are always looking to the next election so they are only focused on the short term.

creedp

touts wrote: »

The problem with having an economy whose foundation is based purely on one sector (previously building now, it seems, welfare) is if that sector declines the economy declines. So the government are terrified to tackle welfare because we have fallen into the trap of it driving the economy.

However if you cut welfare and instead give the money back to the people who work for it in the form of tax cuts that would also engourage them to spend more and would also benefit the economy thus creating jobs across multiple sectors and therefore take people off welfare. There may be a short term dip in the economy but long term you get a much more robust economy not overly reliant on any one group or sector. However the government are always looking to the next election so they are only focused on the short term.

Presumably it depends how these tax reductions are distributed. If they are to people who already have sufficient income to live comfortably then a lot will be squirelled away for the rainy day thereby not boosting the economy in the short term. Joan Burton probably has a point where certain areas currently have very high levels of unemployment and reducing welfare in these areas will have a negative impact on the local economy making life even more difficult for business operating there. The main point is though that this can only be a short term strategy. It is not sustainable to maintain high welfare payments in order to boost the local economy. What's important therefore is what is being proposed in the medium term to wean local economies off welfare dependancy.

touts

creedp wrote: »

Presumably it depends how these tax reductions are distributed. If they are to people who already have sufficient income to live comfortably then a lot will be squirelled away for the rainy day thereby not boosting the economy in the short term. Joan Burton probably has a point where certain areas currently have very high levels of unemployment and reducing welfare in these areas will have a negative impact on the local economy making life even more difficult for business operating there. The main point is though that this can only be a short term strategy. It is not sustainable to maintain high welfare payments in order to boost the local economy. What's important therefore is what is being proposed in the medium term to wean local economies off welfare dependancy.

Sure there is a danger that letting working people keep more of their money will mean they save some of it and therefore there is not the immediate boost in short term spending in local shops and supermarkets. But if they do save up some lump sums then it is likely to result in increased business in sectors like home buying/renovating, Motor Trade, tourism (external but also internal), electronics, etc. These are sectors that have been among the hardest hit in the downturn and which also produce a large number of the types of unskilled or manual jobs that many of the current unemployed welfare recipients would fill. Cutting welfare also makes these jobs more attractive to the people needed to fill them.

Reducing our new dependency on the welfare sector will not be easy and there will be pain. But weaning off gradually over a long period of time could cause much more cumulative damage.

Icepick

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

People on high incomes are less likely to spend all of that income, a lot of it is invested or saved, thus lost to the domestic economy

mindless spending is better than investing and saving?

Fr Tod Umptious

Icepick wrote: »

mindless spending is better than investing and saving?

Who said anything about 'mindless spending' ?

Maybe your image of a person on welfare is a layabout who spends too much money on booze, cigs and the bookie shop ?

I am a university educated professional that happens to be unemployed at the moment
I am on welfare
And I spend every penny of it every week, feeding and clothing my family and keeping a roof over their heads

Is that mindless spending ?

Cookie_Monster

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Who said anything about 'mindless spending' ?

Maybe your image of a person on welfare is a layabout who spends too much money on booze, cigs and the bookie shop ?

I am a university educated professional that happens to be unemployed at the moment
I am on welfare
And I spend every penny of it every week, feeding and clothing my family and keeping a roof over their heads

Is that mindless spending ?

if you were employed would you spend less if your income than you do now?

Icepick

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Who said anything about 'mindless spending' ?

Maybe your image of a person on welfare is a layabout who spends too much money on booze, cigs and the bookie shop ?

I am a university educated professional that happens to be unemployed at the moment
I am on welfare
And I spend every penny of it every week, feeding and clothing my family and keeping a roof over their heads

Is that mindless spending ?

Spending half of government's income on welfare alone is mindless spending, especially when they have to still borrow 9.6 billion.

Also, the tax payer is feeding and clothing your family and keeping a roof over their heads.

Fr Tod Umptious

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

if you were employed would you spend less if your income than you do now?

I'd probably spend the same on day to day week to week household essentials, but obviously would have more to save towards other items in the medium to long term

I am not saying the welfare rates should be increased, decreased or remain the same, that is a bigger debate for another time

I am just pointing out that their is truth to the assertion that cut in the amount of welfare a person gets paid into their hand on a weekly basis would have a negative effect on domestic demand.

Fr Tod Umptious

Icepick wrote: »

Spending half of government's income on welfare alone is mindless spending, especially when they have to still borrow 9.6 billion.

What has govt spending on welfare got to do with it ?
I though we were talking about your perception of 'mindless spending' by welfare recipients ?
Or did my reply make you realise that your perception was way off reality and you had to change the subject ?

Icepick wrote: »

Also, the tax payer is feeding and clothing your family and keeping a roof over their heads.

I'm well aware of that
And I am well aware that the amount each week I get is in some way determined by my PRSI contributions as a worker over the past 20 odd years.
And I am also well aware that the tax I have paid in the past as a worker has gone towards other peoples food, clothes and roofs ?

You point is what again ?

johnnyskeleton

creedp wrote: »

Presumably it depends how these tax reductions are distributed. If they are to people who already have sufficient income to live comfortably then a lot will be squirelled away for the rainy day thereby not boosting the economy in the short term.

Money not spent is turned into savings and investments. Whether that person buys shares in a company or puts it in a bank who then lends money out to a company is largely immaterial.

Plus, why is it seen as a bad thing that people want to save, be prudent and use the money at a later date? Why does everything have to be about immediate consumption?

In order to build a sustainable economy, we need to have a balance of savings and spending. IMO our current model is based far too much on spending and so we are not really looking after our future. On a personal level, on a societal level and on a State level, the attitude seems pervasive. Don't bother with a pension, don't bother saving for a car, don't bother putting money away in case you lose your job, just spend spend spend, live in the now, and if any of those bad things does happen to you, the government will punish the working population even more so that you don't have to stop your spend spend spend lifestyle.

I appreciate that you are saying that it should be a short term policy only. I guess my point is that even on a short term basis it can have disasterous consequences, and we are already on year 20 something of this policy, 6 of those years being part of a serious recession/depression, so I have to question what exactly is short term about it.

johnnyskeleton

Icepick wrote: »

Also, the tax payer is feeding and clothing your family and keeping a roof over their heads.

To be fair to him/her, he/she could be on jobseekers benefit having paid a significant amount of stamp and temporarily having to rely on welfare payments. I don't think there should be cuts to the benefit, because that is already lower than many european countries (e.g. in Germany they pay out in proportion to what was paid in).

But the allowance that lasts forever should be gradually reduced, such that if you are still on allowance after say 5 years you get nothing more, and it should be a sliding scale downwards up to that point.

Finally, if you are self employed you should either pay no PRSI / USC and get no benefits, or you should pay PRSI / USC and get full benefits. The current system where you pay PRSI and USC (and Burton is talking about increasing it on them nasty self employed people) and get almost nothing in return is ridiculous.

Icepick

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

What has govt spending on welfare got to do with it ?

Would you not try harder to find a job or start a business if you received half of what you receive now?
Would you try less if you received twice as much?
Maybe it doesn't apply to you personally but it applies in general.

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I though we were talking about your perception of 'mindless spending' by welfare recipients ?

Mindless spending of the government is my problem.
That it in turn means mindless spending by welfare recipients is obvious.

Icepick

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

But the allowance that lasts forever should be gradually reduced, such that if you are still on allowance after say 5 years you get nothing more, and it should be a sliding scale downwards up to that point.

I agree with the principle.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Finally, if you are self employed you should either pay no PRSI / USC and get no benefits, or you should pay PRSI / USC and get full benefits. The current system where you pay PRSI and USC (and Burton is talking about increasing it on them nasty self employed people) and get almost nothing in return is ridiculous.

Self employed people pay much less PRSI, but the whole system is a mess and should be completely reformed.

harpsman

Icepick wrote: »

I agree with the principle.

Self employed people pay much less PRSI, but the whole system is a mess and should be completely reformed.

No they dont-none pay less and alot pay more as they are also employers

creedp

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Money not spent is turned into savings and investments. Whether that person buys shares in a company or puts it in a bank who then lends money out to a company is largely immaterial.

Plus, why is it seen as a bad thing that people want to save, be prudent and use the money at a later date? Why does everything have to be about immediate consumption?

In order to build a sustainable economy, we need to have a balance of savings and spending. IMO our current model is based far too much on spending and so we are not really looking after our future. On a personal level, on a societal level and on a State level, the attitude seems pervasive. Don't bother with a pension, don't bother saving for a car, don't bother putting money away in case you lose your job, just spend spend spend, live in the now, and if any of those bad things does happen to you, the government will punish the working population even more so that you don't have to stop your spend spend spend lifestyle.

I appreciate that you are saying that it should be a short term policy only. I guess my point is that even on a short term basis it can have disasterous consequences, and we are already on year 20 something of this policy, 6 of those years being part of a serious recession/depression, so I have to question what exactly is short term about it.

I thought the problem in Ireland at present is that the savings ratio is now too high which is detrimental for the domestic economy. This is of course the polar opposite to what happenned during the 'good times' when it would have been beneficial if the saving ratio had been higher is order to take some heat out of the domestic economy. As a country we seem to be incapable of reaching a balanced position on anything - constantly swinging from opposite ends of the spectrum. Presumably an almost criminal lack of planning from Government down contributes in a huge way to this chaos.

Geuze

harpsman wrote: »

[/U]No they dont-none pay less and alot pay more as they are also employers

Employed worker - typical

Employee pays 4%
Employer pays 10.75%
Total paid is 14.75%

Self-employed worker - class S

PRSI = 4%

http://www.welfare.ie/en/Pages/PRSI-Contribution-Rates-%ef%bc%86-User-Guide-(SW14)_holder.aspx


PRSI paid by self-employed people is a lot less.

Of course, they don't qualify for some benefits, notably JSB.

Geuze

Icepick wrote: »

Spending half of government's income on welfare alone is mindless spending, especially when they have to still borrow 9.6 billion.

I agree.

However, more precise data, 2012:

DSP spending = 20bn approx
Total social transfers = 29bn approx

Total Govt exp = 70bn

touts

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Money not spent is turned into savings and investments. Whether that person buys shares in a company or puts it in a bank who then lends money out to a company is largely immaterial.

Plus, why is it seen as a bad thing that people want to save, be prudent and use the money at a later date? Why does everything have to be about immediate consumption?

In order to build a sustainable economy, we need to have a balance of savings and spending. IMO our current model is based far too much on spending and so we are not really looking after our future. On a personal level, on a societal level and on a State level, the attitude seems pervasive. Don't bother with a pension, don't bother saving for a car, don't bother putting money away in case you lose your job, just spend spend spend, live in the now, and if any of those bad things does happen to you, the government will punish the working population even more so that you don't have to stop your spend spend spend lifestyle.

I appreciate that you are saying that it should be a short term policy only. I guess my point is that even on a short term basis it can have disasterous consequences, and we are already on year 20 something of this policy, 6 of those years being part of a serious recession/depression, so I have to question what exactly is short term about it.

The government see people saving money as a bad thing because that means the government don't have easy access to that money through transaction taxes (VAT, VRT, Excise etc etc etc). Immediate consumption gives the government immediate access to a large share of other people's money. However the problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money.

Mr. teddywinkles

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

It's not fair to compare ireland to other countries. Ireland is different. Other countries percieve social welfare as a necessary burden on the taxpayer. But in Ireland, welfare is the main driver of the economy, apparently:

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/welfare-keeps-economy-going-says-joan-burton-1.1459503

Well then we should be comparing Irelands marvellous jobs market with other countries also, yes? :rolleyes:

Dob74

Icepick wrote: »

Spending half of government's income on welfare alone is mindless spending, especially when they have to still borrow 9.6 billion.

Also, the tax payer is feeding and clothing your family and keeping a roof over their heads.

Income taxpayers also receive welfare. Childrens allowance is collected by everyone. OAP is collected by everyone over 65. Would bet most of these are in tax net. Have no problem with people getting basic welfare rates.

Corporate welfare is not even looked at. Denis O'Brien & T.O'R indo group got a 75 mil right down from state owned banks. And this one takes the biscuit
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/wife-of-mcfeelys-former-business-partner-wins-living-expenses-of-9000-a-month-29752344.html


Welfare in another name

harpsman

Geuze wrote: »

Employed worker - typical

Employee pays 4%
Employer pays 10.75%
Total paid is 14.75%

Self-employed worker - class S

PRSI = 4%

http://www.welfare.ie/en/Pages/PRSI-Contribution-Rates-%ef%bc%86-User-Guide-(SW14)_holder.aspx


PRSI paid by self-employed people is a lot less.

Of course, they don't qualify for some benefits, notably JSB.

Exactly:employees pay 4% and self employed pay 4%,and alot more in the case of the many who are also employers.
The employee does not pay the employers PRSI-the employer pays that-the clues in the word.

Mr. teddywinkles

Icepick wrote: »

Would you not try harder to find a job or start a business if you received half of what you receive now?
Would you try less if you received twice as much?
Maybe it doesn't apply to you personally but it applies in general.

Mindless spending of the government is my problem.
That it in turn means mindless spending by welfare recipients is obvious.

pretty obvious ya haven't suffered a job loss or have been in receipt of welfare.

Dob74

harpsman wrote: »

Exactly:employees pay 4% and self employed pay 4%,and alot more in the case of the many who are also employers.
The employee does not pay the employers PRSI-the employer pays that-the clues in the word.

If you work as a contractor you will receive more money from your employer because he doesn't have to PRSI.
Which means you are self employed and only have to pay 4%.
The 10% differents is extra money for self employed.
The 10% paid into PRSI is insurance so if you are laid off you will receive JSB.
PRSI paid the employer for an employee is part of there wage.

Elephant Man from china

She's a total moron... That's basically your answer

Moe Gilmore

July Rain wrote: »

Has anybody else noticed that everytime Joan Burton is asked in an interview to justify a cut to whatever welfare scheme, She picks a random country and points out how in her opinion their system is better than ours, even though it might have little relevance. eg When asked about back to school clothing allowance cut 50% since 2011, she said in Denmark they don't give as much cash supports to parents but they make sure all their schools have fresh meals and hot showers.

Yeah she was at it again this morning on Today with Sean O'Rourke