Budget 2017

jimgoose

tigger123 wrote: »

If you're male, and I think you are, women love ambition in a man. A lot of them find it sexy as fook, and they a love a man that's either going places, or making shapes like he's gonna go places. That should be motivation enough for ya

What women go weak at the knees for is independence and motivation that has nothing to do with them, that comes entirely from within. The Alpha-Bear presence, the one that says "the company might be using me, but I'm sure as Jaysis using them, and the next couple of them, as well, so you might as well audition for the position of My First Wife!" utterly mesmerises them. Especially when you tell them you seem to have left the old wallet in the Jaaaaag, awfully sorry old stick, would you mind getting this?

tigger123

lawlolawl wrote: »

I've reached a point in my life where i've just gotten sick of chasing women. Too much effort for **** all reward and i don't want to have kids so it's all a bit pointless.

Also, at the end of it all, after however many years you'll be stuck with an auld one. What kind of reward is that? Who would willingly walk into that?

I'll take money and being able to do whatever i want instead.

Do you mind me asking what age bracket you're in? I'm in my 30s.

lawlolawl

jimgoose wrote: »

What women go weak at the knees for is independence and motivation that has nothing to do with them, that comes entirely from within. The Alpha-Bear presence, the one that says "the company might be using me, but I'm sure as Jaysis using them, and the next couple of them, as well, so you might as well audition for the position of My First Wife!" utterly mesmerises them. Especially when you tell them you seem to have left the old wallet in the Jaaaaag, awfully sorry old stick, would you mind getting this?

Then menopause hits her and you can't even look at her anymore with getting angry at how hot she used to be.

jimgoose

lawlolawl wrote: »

Then menopause hits her and you can't even look at her anymore with getting angry at how hot she used to be.

If you'll excuse my saying so chief, I'm starting to get the impression you don't like women very much.

The Bishop Basher

lawlolawl wrote: »

I've reached a point in my life where i've just gotten sick of chasing women. Too much effort for **** all reward..

We can probably help you understand why that keeps happening..

lawlolawl

tigger123 wrote: »

Do you mind me asking what age bracket you're in? I'm in my 30s.

33. I'm committed to this single thing because i see how miserable couples who are older than me are and also even couples who are the same age as me are.

"Boy howdy, sign me up for decades of compromise and arguments with an obligation to some woman who will give up on her sexuality after her first child. That sounds great and not at all the best reason to eat a bullet out in the shed on some Saturady afternoon when she has you doing some stupid DIY **** yet again."

lawlolawl

jimgoose wrote: »

If you'll excuse my saying so chief, I'm starting to get the impression you don't like women very much.

I'm apathetic to them in much the same way as i'm apathetic to other guys.

jimgoose

lawlolawl wrote: »

I'm apathetic to them in much the same way as i'm apathetic to other guys.

Ah, you're the legendary "Donal!!" :D:D

tigger123

lawlolawl wrote: »

I'm apathetic to them in much the same way as i'm apathetic to other guys.

We have COMPLETELY derailed the thread.

jimgoose

tigger123 wrote: »

We have COMPLETELY derailed the thread.

Ah, this thread was bolloxed sometime last night...

lawlolawl

jimgoose wrote: »

Ah, you're the legendary "Donal!!" :D:D

I don't know what that means

Look, i could get real mean and tell y'all exactly what the important things a woman has to offer are but i'll just leave it at them being just other people to me now and sharing my life with other people doesn't hold much interest to me at this stage for a variety of reasons based on past experiences/other peoples experiences.

So, how about that budget, eh?

tigger123

lawlolawl wrote: »

I don't know what that means

Look, i could get real mean and tell y'all exactly what the important things a woman has to offer are but i'll just leave it at them being just other people to me now and sharing my life with other people doesn't hold much interest to me at this stage for a variety of reasons based on past experiences/other peoples experiences.

So, how about that budget, eh?

Sounds like you're saying women are only good for one thing. Which is a bit messed up tbh.

But anyway, yeah, budget. Didn't hold out any hope as part of the squeezed middle. And they didn't disappoint,

Wanderer78

absolutely disgraceful how the working classes are being treated in this country, and what the hell will the tax rebate do for those currently residing in hotels?

Harvey Normal

Wanderer78 wrote: »

absolutely disgraceful how the working classes are being treated in this country, and what the hell will the tax rebate do for those currently residing in hotels?

A very confusing question. It depends is the answer.

Wanderer78

Harvey Normal wrote: »

A very confusing question. It depends is the answer.

the tax rebate will do little or nothing to help those currently stuck in hotels, particularly in the short term. they need houses now. the government needs to get back into the building industry and fast

JustTheOne

Wanderer78 wrote: »

the tax rebate will do little or nothing to help those currently stuck in hotels, particularly in the short term. they need houses now. the government needs to get back into the building industry and fast

They have said there will be 32000 social homes built by 2020.

What more do you want?

Wanderer78

JustTheOne wrote: »

They have said there will be 32000 social homes built by 2020.

What more do you want?

its too late, this should have been done years ago. it looks like those currently in hotels will be stuck there for another couple of years. we should have never handed our housing needs completely over to the private sector.

dresden8

Wanderer78 wrote: »

its too late, this should have been done years ago. it looks like those currently in hotels will be stuck there for another couple of years. we should have never handed our housing needs completely over to the private sector.

The private sector is much more efficient than the public sector.

The evidence is all around you.

JustTheOne

Wanderer78 wrote: »

its too late, this should have been done years ago. it looks like those currently in hotels will be stuck there for another couple of years. we should have never handed our housing needs completely over to the private sector.

With the magic money tree.

legocrazy505

dresden8 wrote: »

The private sector is much more efficient than the public sector.

The evidence is all around you.

I don't see sufficient housing around the place, do you?

Handing things to the private sector is a disaster, doesn't matter if they are more efficient because it's generally at the expense of a proper service. Look at Eir as a perfect example of this.

Harvey Normal

dresden8 wrote: »

The private sector is much more efficient than the public sector.

The evidence is all around you.

Not in housing it isn't. He's right about that.

On the social welfare end of things, it would have been nice to see the OAPs get their increase this side of Winter. €5pw extra isn't much to some, but €20 a month is two extra bags of coal, or the heating turned on for several hours extra each week to those who need it.

On the jobseeker's increase, I'm not someone who will lose sleep over it. However, I can understand how some people will. While I don't begrudge JS that extra fiver, if I was a minimum wage worker it would feel like a full force kick in the teeth.

For the minimum wage worker doing 39 hours a week, €9.25 an hour sees their weekly gross at €360.75. Take off at least €30 for tax and contributions and say they take home €330 for their week's work.

Meanwhile a jobseeker will collect €193 per week. Take the Christmas bonus at 85% and divide that into a weekly figure (€164.05 / 52) to get €3.15. That brings it to 196.15 per week when you factor in the Christmas bonus.

The difference between that and the full-time minimum wage worker's €330 net pay is about €134. Now take that €134 that the MW worker is better off after working for a week over being on the dole, and divide it by 39 to get an hourly rate of about €3.44.

€3.44 per hour - That's roughly how much a minimum wage worker is 'better off' for their job over choosing to sit at home and keep those hours for themselves. €3.44 per hour, €134 per week - That's roughly how much of an incentive there is for someone to get off the dole and go out and get one of these minimum wage jobs and devote the bright hours of their week to working. All of these rough (but close) figures don't take other benefits into account such as rent supplement and the medical card. Likewise, they don't take into account the likes of travel expenses for the worker. They don't need to for my point though.

The pay for minimum workers, the reward and incentive, is far too close to the maximum (and average) rate of social welfare. I don't know how to fix this - Raise the minimum wage too high, too fast and small companies will go out of business and larger ones will run out of town. Any equally dramatic decrease in SW rates will see struggling families put under further pressure and children go hungry, but the small difference in the two figures is a large problem.

For a start maybe, this 'give everyone something but no one really anything' budget should have seen the increase for minimum wage workers eclipse the increase for job-seekers. Carers, disability and pensioners are a separate thing, but the minimum wage workers should have come out better than those who aren't working but could work. At that, it still wouldn't be much in the workers pocket, but at least a solid gesture and an actual signal of intent that this government wants to reward work, rather than the lip service the 10c raise is. Lip service is what was signified, a pure insult seems to be what was received and I don't blame any worker one bit for parting with harsh words over this. I just hope they are aimed in the right direction.

Kal El

tigger123 wrote: »

Nail on the head. Everyone's an idiot but you.

Hes not wrong though

Kal El

tigger123 wrote: »

If you're male, and I think you are, women love ambition in a man. A lot of them find it sexy as fook, and they a love a man that's either going places, or making shapes like he's gonna go places. That should be motivation enough for ya

Thats a sexist crappy attitude towards men, it would be similar to a man liking a docile girl who knows her place and irrelevant to the budget

Kal El

jimgoose wrote: »

Your "Real Life" will be largely confined to the dreaded "Friend Zone" with that attitude.

Why this makes zero sense
I know investment bankers who have plenty of women and money who really do there job for just that reason, all a means to a end

Kal El

Harvey Normal wrote: »

Not in housing it isn't. He's right about that.

100% shouldnt be left in charge again after last time, hopefully we dont have some bitch in charge of being the watch dog of the banks this time

tigger123

Kal El wrote: »

Thats a sexist crappy attitude towards men, it would be similar to a man liking a docile girl who knows her place and irrelevant to the budget

It's an observation based on experience. And it was part of a wider discussion on 'why would you be bothered with a career'. It was just one reason I was putting forward.

I'm not following what you mean with the docile girl comment though. I don't see the comparison. An ambitious man is most appropriately compared to an ambitious woman.

TheDoc

lawlolawl wrote: »

Have to say i agree with this whole-heartedly. I'm a bit pissed off with the budget because i am only benefiting about as much as someone on the dole is in raw financial terms but, whatever, that seems to be the type of country the majority people want at the moment.

I make a bit above the the 33800 mark and i'm very comfortable if i'm honest. I bought my house in 2010 with a 35 year mortgage for 90ish % of the value and i'm on track to pay it off completely in the next couple of years, my monthly repayments are pathetic at this stage. I can easily live on 100 euro for all my groceries for a fortnight and i'm not even really trying to be frugal other than shopping in Lidl and Aldi (if you aren't doing this already you are a fool). Bills are really manageable because i shop around for the best deal which takes a few minutes on the internet.

I don't have kids because i don't want to and i'll concede that this is a huge financial advantage to me but it is also a choice that people make.

For somewhere with the 6th highest cost of living, Ireland is pretty easy to live cheaply in if you actually try.

Just nonsensed your own arguement. Don't take your situation as being a template for the average. Single people arn't prioritised in budgets because of the advantages they have of that situation.

My situation is being the sole earner for me, my girlfriend and our two children, both under 2 years of age. We are in a rental market thankfully getting a good rate on a house, but it's still €1000 a month. Central bank regulations wiped our home ownership prospects overnight, beforehand I was being approved mortages left right and centre on my own, and was planning to bulk my savings to buy as most mortage repayments are significantly less then rent at the time.

But I can assure you for anyone in "my" situation that 33,800 would be an absolute struggle. I'm on what I'd constitute significantly more and it's not what I would constitute comfortable.

As for the poster you responded to, would be interested in learning what he constitutes a special circumstance. Sure it would be great if my GF worked and was earning similar salary to me, but that is not the reality of her situation. When we had our first child and we sat down to do the maths, it was working out as a loss to us, for her to go work and to acquire childcare.

So we came to the quick conclusion, to which my partner supported and was actually pushing, that she stay at home and raise our child. Which is great and has tremendous benefits, and then a second arrived two weeks ago, and I have great comfort knowing my children are being raised and cared for by their mother, and not some total stranger. And seeing my first daughters developement and personalty grow, it was clearly the best choice for us.

So I'm the sole earner in the house, GF doesn't receive any benefit or state assistance and we grind it out making a best a life for ourselves and our children as we can.

But I'd argue that's not a special circumstance, that is the norm for many a young family, and how it has been for some time. Albeit probably worse now, with the prospects of home ownership gone(I'll really never get over that until that measure is gone, appreciate why it's there, but its a typical nuclear option, instead of being flexible to situations and circumstance. )

TheDoc

Cina wrote: »

Where the feck are you living that you're paying 1,400 rent? Move out!

Wonderful disconnect from the situation at hand

TheDoc

Cina wrote: »

Where the feck are you living that you're paying 1,400 rent? Move out!

What a wonderful disconnect from the world the rest of us live in.