Tánaiste Moany Burton: IW protesters 'seem to have extremely expensive phones'

Gatling

2005 unemployed in Ireland 98,000+ alone

The fact the term long term unemployed has changed from anything over 5 years to 18 months is now considered long term unemployed

VinLieger

Laois6556 wrote: »

Well it's the truth, considering how tough some people have it, those comfortably well off really have nothing to complain about. Yet they never miss an oportunity to.

Possibly because they are always the targets, tax the rich is not a solution to econmic problems and never will be. Yes let's tax the job creators and people who pay the vast majority of tax as it is even more, that will deffinitely fix things and won't be the last nail in the coffin that makes them leave the country.

Laois6556

VinLieger wrote: »

Possibly because they are always the targets, tax the rich is not a solution to econmic problems and never will be. Yes let's tax the job creators and people who pay the vast majority of tax as it is even more, that will deffinitely fix things and won't be the last nail in the coffin that makes them leave the country.

So everyone well off are job creators and everyone on social welfare are scrounging scum.

KomradeBishop

VinLieger wrote: »

Possibly because they are always the targets, tax the rich is not a solution to econmic problems and never will be. Yes let's tax the job creators and people who pay the vast majority of tax as it is even more, that will deffinitely fix things and won't be the last nail in the coffin that makes them leave the country.

More myths to do away with:
Rich does not equal Job Creator.

Laois6556

Ok here's some real numbers. From this article in 2013 it says that 43,375 of those on the dole have never paid in the PRSI system: http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/one-in-seven-people-on-the-dole-has-never-worked-a-single-day-29278033.html

Of that 43,000, only 20,000 were of working age during the boom. Then we have to cut off the number who emigrated and came back, never had to pay tax, worked in the black economy, the unemployable (drug addicts etc). After doing this we reach a number below 10,000. 10,000 people who were unemployed during the boom and continue to be, that's not bad is it?

Gatling

Laois6556 wrote: »

Ok here's some real numbers. From this article in 2013 it says that 43,375 of those on the dole have never paid in the PRSI system: http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/one-in-seven-people-on-the-dole-has-never-worked-a-single-day-29278033.html

Of that 43,000, only 20,000 were of working age during the boom. Then we have to cut off the number who emigrated and came back, never had to pay tax, worked in the black economy, the unemployable (drug addicts etc). After doing this we reach a number below 10,000. 10,000 people who were unemployed during the boom and continue to be, that's not bad is it?

(98,000 unemployed in 2005 alone)

2,677 people aged between 60 and 65 who have never made any PRSI contribution.

43,375 people, or one in seven of those in receipt of the €188-a-week Jobseeker's Benefit, have never made any contribution to the PRSI system, in other words, they have never been in employment.

I notice no mention of those on less than 188 or those who are qualified adults .

Laois6556

Gatling wrote: »

98,000 unemployed in 2005 alone

Did you read anything in the article? Did you read anything on this thread in the last page? Under 10,000 were unemployed during the boom and remain unemployed. So that's under 10,000 that have no excuse as to why they're long term unemployed. That's not a very high figure, aren't you happy?

Gatling

Laois6556 wrote: »

Did you read anything in the article? Did you read anything on this thread in the last page? Under 10,000 were unemployed during the boom and remain unemployed. So that's under 10,000 that have no excuse as to why they're long term unemployed. That's not a very high figure, aren't you happy?

According to you and one article which doesn't mention under 10,000 unemployed through the boom

mickydoomsux

Laois6556 wrote: »

Did you read anything in the article? Did you read anything on this thread in the last page? Under 10,000 were unemployed during the boom and remain unemployed. So that's under 10,000 that have no excuse as to why they're long term unemployed. That's not a very high figure, aren't you happy?

Would the Government at the time not have been singing this figure you've arrived at from the rooftops?

Laois6556

Gatling wrote: »

According to you and one article which doesn't mention under 10,000 unemployed through the boom

You must have missed this part of my post: "Of that 43,000, only 20,000 were of working age during the boom. Then we have to cut off the number who emigrated and came back, never had to pay tax, worked in the black economy, the unemployable (drug addicts etc). After doing this we reach a number below 10,000. 10,000 people who were unemployed during the boom and continue to be, that's not bad is it?"

So under 10,000 were unemployed during and after the boom. That's not bad, why aren't you happy?

Laois6556

mickydoomsux wrote: »

Would the Government at the time not have been singing this figure you've arrived at from the rooftops?

Did you read the article I linked and my posts? Where are the numbers wrong?

VinLieger

KomradeBishop wrote: »

More myths to do away with:
Rich does not equal Job Creator.

No but rich people are required to make jobs, taxing the rich into oblivion is not a solution. They pay a huge portion of the countries income tax so taxing them even more will very likely cause many higher earners to simply get the hell out, leaving us with a huge shortfall to make up from where?

KomradeBishop

VinLieger wrote: »

No but rich people are required to make jobs, taxing the rich into oblivion is not a solution. They pay a huge portion of the countries income tax so taxing them even more will very likely cause many higher earners to simply get the hell out, leaving us with a huge shortfall to make up from where?

No they aren't, banks give loans to fund businesses, to make jobs, all the time.

Rich does not equal Job Creator.

Since these businesses can't survive without their customers, it's really the customers of these businesses that are the job creators really; without their money the businesses would not exist.

Gatling

Laois6556 wrote: »

You must have missed this part of my post: "Of that 43,000, only 20,000 were of working age during the boom.

That doesn't mean there was less than 10,000 unemployed during the the boom

hatrickpatrick

Why do people have to be poor to take issue with injustice? I could be the richest man on the planet and still have a problem with paying a nest feathering fee for political cronies which is disguised as an environmentalist initiative. How wealthy one is doesn't have to change one's principles.

VinLieger

KomradeBishop wrote: »

No they aren't, banks give loans to fund businesses, to make jobs, all the time.

Rich does not equal Job Creator.

Since these businesses can't survive without their customers, it's really the customers of these businesses that are the job creators really; without their money the businesses would not exist.

Just continue living in your socialist paradise where everyone isn't allowed earn a net of over 40k no matter what they have done to earn it

KomradeBishop

Gatling wrote: »

That doesn't mean there was less than 10,000 unemployed during the the boom

Make up your mind, are you talking about:
1: The unemployed
2: The long-term unemployed, or
3: Dole scroungers that don't want to work?

You seem to be switching between one and the other at a whim there.

Laois6556

Gatling wrote: »

That doesn't mean there was less than 10,000 unemployed during the the boom

What are you doing? Where's the rest of my post gone? What's wrong with knowing that there was only 10,000 that were unemployed during and after the boom?

KomradeBishop

VinLieger wrote: »

Just continue living in your socialist paradise where everyone isn't allowed earn a net of over 40k no matter what they have done to earn it

Ooookay...what?... Is this some generic "blah blah socialist! blah blah" response? I don't remember anyone saying that.

VinLieger

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Ooookay...what?... Is this some generic "blah blah socialist! blah blah" response? I don't remember anyone saying that.

No i was just a bit frustrated, apologies, can I ask you though honestly what you would class as rich? And what is a fair tax system in your mind? Your comments in this thread an others I have noticed are heavily sociliast leaning and your name betrays this as well. If i'm wrong tell me.

KomradeBishop

VinLieger wrote: »

No i was just a bit frustrated, apologies, can I ask you though honestly what you would class as rich? And what is a fair tax system in your mind? Your comments in this thread an others I have noticed are heavily sociliast leaning and your name betrays this as well. If i'm wrong tell me.

My name is just really taking the piss, out of the fact that people often tend to just label me as Socialist/Communist when they disagree with me on economic topics, often in absence of actual counterarguments.

I support a mixed economy (mixed capitalism/socialism), just like 99% of all capitalists do, and which all of the most successful capitalist economies do.

My ideal economic system, isn't politically possible in Europe at the moment (except perhaps the UK) - but I'd probably be in favour of eliminating income tax entirely (redistributing taxes elsewhere), and having a maximum wage (possibly as a multiple, 20x-100x, of the lowest wage - as that's plenty).

So, depending on how you look at my views, I can be either extremely capitalistic, or extremely socialistic (though not really ever communistic) - so I think those labels are pretty meaningless.

Lucy and Harry

She used to be great when she was in opposition and abusing them in the Dail.But now she has power she has become a gee bag like the rest of them.Such a shame.

If they can refurbish a bar in the Dail then they can stop these water charges.Old people in their homes afraid to flush the toilet or have a bath.
On a island full of rivers and lakes with high rainfall we have to pay for water.A basic human right.

AlekSmart

VinLieger wrote: »

Just continue living in your socialist paradise where everyone isn't allowed earn a net of over 40k no matter what they have done to earn it

Oddly enough,we already have such a system in operation.

The Working Time Act makes it Illegal for an Employee to work more than an average of 48 Hours over an agreed period (17-26 weeks usually).

It is also an offence for an Employer to facilitate working above this figure or to employ staff on a second-job basis should they exceed that 48 Hour MAXIMUM.

So,forget all this fanciful stuff about working harder to to fund your goals or better lifestyle,because under current Irish Legislation you will be fined and/or imprisoned if you try it !!!

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/act/pub/0020/

Sections 33,34 and 41 are the Read it and Weep bits !:mad:

KomradeBishop

Not really - I know someone who regularly works 60+ hours a week; what's written in law and what's enforced are two different things.

Davarus Walrus

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Not really - I know someone who regularly works 60+ hours a week; what's written in law and what's enforced are two different things.

You spend 60 hours a week trying to convince people about the relevance of your utterly deluded economic 'theories', but there ain't no law against that either.

KomradeBishop

Davarus Walrus wrote: »

You spend 60 hours a week trying to convince people about the relevance of your utterly deluded economic 'theories', but there ain't no law against that either.

What do you think economics is? All economic schools of thought are 'theories' :rolleyes: Pretty deluded yourself if you think otherwise.

Whining about someone discussing economics all the time, is like whining about people discussing politics all the time - and it's pretty easy for you to snipe from the sidelines, while never presenting an opinion of your own on the topic.

That's about as pointless as jumping into a discussion about a topic you don't like, and whining at people for discussing it.

Lucy and Harry

Lucy and Harry wrote: »

She used to be great when she was in opposition and abusing them in the Dail.But now she has power she has become a gee bag like the rest of them.Such a shame.

If they can refurbish a bar in the Dail then they can stop these water charges.Old people in their homes afraid to flush the toilet or have a bath.
On a island full of rivers and lakes with high rainfall we have to pay for water.A basic human right.

Old people, if they're in receipt of the Household package from social welfare, will get €100 towards the cost of water.

experiMental

For a lot of people, it's a matter of choice. It's either the expensive phone or paying for water. Sometimes, they can't afford both. Expensive phones are way more exciting, so they buy an expensive phone first, go broke and then say that they can't afford water charges, because they can do it and water charges are not introduced yet!

Smidge

Deleted User wrote: »

Old people, if they're in receipt of the Household package from social welfare, will get €100 towards the cost of water.

I dont think thats correct.
Only people with additional needs for water for medical use(and thats when in receipt of DA).

Smidge

Smidge wrote: »

I dont think thats correct.
Only people with additional needs for water for medical use(and thats when in receipt of DA).

This was in Saturdays Indo website
"Tanaiste Joan Burton has secured additional funding to pay for relief from water charges. Ms Burton had already planned to give a €100 discount to 415,000 people on the households benefits packages, including the over 70s, carers and people with disabilities."
http://www.independent.ie/business/budget/budget-2015-revealed-1000-new-teachers-and-1pc-tax-cut-in-budget-30655482.html