No social welfare bonus this year

Smertrius

http://www.thejournal.ie/christmas-bonus-3-4253114-Sep2018/

MINISTER FOR SOCIAL Protection Regina Doherty has said she has no intention of discontinuing the Christmas bonus for welfare

recipients this year.


The Taoisesach was also asked about the newspaper reports after Leaders’ Questions today. He said he was happy to reassure people that the Christmas bonus would be paid this year.

suicide_circus

storker wrote: »

If payments were increased "massively" then some of it would be saved and not used in the economy., that's why.

but surely it would be good if people could save for the future?

storker

suicide_circus wrote: »

but surely it would be good if people could save for the future?

If money is saved then it's not circulating, so no. It's good for the individual in that it's prudent money-management, but economic activity requires that someone buy something from someone.

suicide_circus

storker wrote: »

If money is saved then it's not circulating, so no. It's good for the individual in that it's prudent money-management, but economic activity requires that someone buy something from someone.

but why shouldn't people on SW be afforded the ability to save via substantial payments? these are human beings we're talking about

storker

suicide_circus wrote: »

but why shouldn't people on SW be afforded the ability to save via substantial payments? these are human beings we're talking about

Sure, go ahead and make that argument if you want.

Hitman3000

suicide_circus wrote:

but why shouldn't people on SW be afforded the ability to save via substantial payments? these are human beings we're talking about

Can you not argue what is here already? instead of creating a strawman?

Gatling

No word on anything for the taxpayers yet ?

iamwhoiam

orangerhyme wrote: »

I agree that the money would be better spent on the working and middle class who pulled this country out of recession.
e

Some of the same working class and middle class are now on the old age pension and some on disability pension .Some of us dragged the country out of two major recessions . Many middle class who reared kids during the 80's and worked their guts off to send them to college and UNI are now retired .So I think a €184 once off Christmas bonus will probably fly back into the economy for the grandkids anyway .

noodler

storker wrote: »

Are you saying that dole payments don't go back into the economy? Where do they go then?

Its a stupid stupid rationale for increases.

The original poster was correct.

Subverting revenues into unsustainable welfare increases rather than productive investment like infrastructure etc is exactly a part of the mistakes of boomtime.

storker

noodler wrote: »

Its a stupid stupid rationale for increases.

I never said it was the rationale for increases. I don't know what the rationale is, whether it's humanitarianism, economics or vote-buying. My point is that it doesn't bother me as a taxpayer, because the increase does inject money into the economy. That's a fact, and its being unpalatable to you doesn't make it any less true.

noodler

storker wrote: »

I never said it was the rationale for increases. I don't know what the rationale is, whether it's humanitarianism, economics or vote-buying. My point is that it doesn't bother me as a taxpayer, because the increase does inject money into the economy. That's a fact, and its being unpalatable to you doesn't make it any less true.

"into the economy"

As opposed to what?

You'd swear "into the economy" was some homogenous thing.

storker

noodler wrote: »

"into the economy"

As opposed to what?

You'd swear "into the economy" was some homogenous thing.

As opposed to not being in the economy :rolleyes:.

If an entity is buying or selling goods and/or services, paying tax and employing people who pay tax, then that entity is part of the economy.

I don;t get why you're banging on about this so much. I'm not necessarily making a definitive argument for or against, although I am in favour and it doesn't bother me, and I've outlined why. If your own knickers are inextricably twisted about it, I suggest you contact your local TD.

Hitman3000

Retailers every year since the "bonus" as a vital stimulus to the local economy. Although that doesn't help the begrudgers, so feel free to pick holes in it.

noodler

storker wrote: »

As opposed to not being in the economy :rolleyes:.

If an entity is buying or selling goods and/or services, paying tax and employing people who pay tax, then that entity is part of the economy.

I don;t get why you're banging on about this so much. I'm not necessarily making a definitive argument for or against, although I am in favour and it doesn't bother me, and I've outlined why. If your own knickers are inextricably twisted about it, I suggest you contact your local TD.

You just seem to think that giving people money directly seems to be preferable to other types of government expenditure.

I wonder if you have thought it through. It sounds like you heard welfare is "good for the economy" and then ran with it without thinking of alternative uses for the money.

Geuze

storker wrote: »

If money is saved then it's not circulating, so no. It's good for the individual in that it's prudent money-management, but economic activity requires that someone buy something from someone.

All savings are spent, just by somebody else.

Savings are not idle.

PlaneSpeeking

suicide_circus wrote: »

but why shouldn't people on SW be afforded the ability to save via substantial payments? these are human beings we're talking about

Seriously ???

I've had a savings account that's as much use as a sex swing round Daniel O'Donnell's house for all that goes in it and you want people getting money free, gratis and for nowt building up a nest egg ????

BBFAN

Gatling wrote:

No word on anything for the taxpayers yet ?

That's down to your employer. You should ask them.

BBFAN

PlaneSpeeking wrote:

I've had a savings account that's as much use as a sex swing round Daniel O'Donnell's house for all that goes in it and you want people getting money free, gratis and for nowt building up a nest egg ????

I've never seen anyone moan so much about their lot. Really would hate to be this miserable.

You really need to get a better job.

suicide_circus

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Seriously ???

I've had a savings account that's as much use as a sex swing round Daniel O'Donnell's house for all that goes in it and you want people getting money free, gratis and for nowt building up a nest egg ????

look, if we want a just society you'll just have to be prepared to pay more tax in order to afford these HUMAN BEINGS the chance you gather wealth and stimulate the economy

storker

noodler wrote: »

You just seem to think that giving people money directly seems to be preferable to other tyes of government expenditure.

That's all very well if the government says it's XMas bonuses or <thing>. If that was the case, I would evaluate it against <thing> and make a decision. But at the moment all I have to go on is a vague handwave in the direction of "something else". Not terribly convincing.

I wonder if you have thought it through. It sounds like you heard welfare is "good for the economy" and then ran with it without thinking of alternative uses for the money.

I didn't "hear" it. I thought about it, taking into various things I've read and heard about economic activity. I wonder if you have thought it through. It sounds like you heard "welfare is bad, m'kay" and then ran with it without thinking any deeper about it. (Actually I don't because I've no way of knowing, but see how that little rhetorical game cuts both ways?)

Gatling

BBFAN wrote: »

That's down to your employer. You should ask them.

No it's only fair if bonus are being handed out , maybe they could issue a tax rebate to workers to match their pay packets in time for the Christmas shopping weeks

storker

Geuze wrote: »

All savings are spent, just by somebody else.

Savings are not idle.

But they're not spent now. That's what makes them savings. When the government wanted to slow down economic overheating some years ago it introduced a special savings scheme to encourage people to take money out of the economy.

storker

Gatling wrote: »

No it's only fair is bonus are being handout , maybe they could issue a tax rebate to workers to match their pay packets in time for the Christmas shopping weeks

Actually that's not a bad idea.

suicide_circus

storker wrote: »

Actually that's not a bad idea.

luckily I mentioned it yesterday.

if bonuses are justified as an economic stimulus, then surely a tax rebate for those in employment is even more stimulation

storker

suicide_circus wrote: »

luckily I mentioned it yesterday.

if bonuses are justified as an economic stimulus, then surely a tax rebate for those in employment is even more stimulation

Sorry I missed it. The only problem is that employed people are more likely to have more disposable income and might save the bonus. But that could well be offset by Christmas being such a "spendy" time of year. I know I'd spend it.

suicide_circus

storker wrote: »

Sorry I missed it. The only problem is that employed people are more likely to have more disposable income and might save the bonus. But that could well be offset by Christmas being such a "spendy" time of year. I know I'd spend it.

but then logically the more you tax workers and give more bonuses to those dependant on SW, the more the economy will be stimulated. Workers saving money is bad for business.

Hitman3000

suicide_circus wrote:

look, if we want a just society you'll just have to be prepared to pay more tax in order to afford these HUMAN BEINGS the chance you gather wealth and stimulate the economy

Amazing how sarcasm goes over the heads of some on here. Well played.

Hitman3000

Gatling wrote:

No it's only fair is bonus are being handed out , maybe they could issue a tax rebate to workers to match their pay packets in time for the Christmas shopping weeks

I'd prefer a tax cut, a rebate is just giving me back tax I've already paid. I did hear that tax for low and middle earners will be cut in the budget. Hope that cheers you up a little.

storker

suicide_circus wrote: »

but then logically the more you tax workers and give more bonuses to those dependant on SW, the more the economy will be stimulated. Workers saving money is bad for business.

Look, find an economic's forum to thrash this out in if it means so much to you. For the hard of understanding, all I've done here is explain why SW Xmas bonuses don't bother me, and my reason for saying so. I don't have any political axe to grind, I just look at each issue from the point of view of whether or not it makes sense to me. I'm sorry some of you don't like that, but there it is. If you want to change it so badly, don't waste your time talking to me, talk to someone who (a) agrees with you and (b) may be able to do something about it.

bloodless_coup

Tax break at christmas for employees? Are you mad? The government are too busy taxing bonuses @ 50% to be doing that.