Budget 2019

James Brown

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

2.5 billion.

That money is the money people wanted back in tax cuts.

Instead it's going to private developers and private landlords. I'll whinge about that one with you. FYI: you seem to be whinging.

Draco

uncommon_name wrote: »

Draco wrote: »

https://taxcalc.ie/budget-2019/
(full disclosure, I wrote it)

BailMeOut wrote: »

Your calculator says I am now €1,389 per year better off so hopefully accurate as I am happy with that!

Yes, says I am €1316 better off, so is my fiancee which means €2632 better off a year for the house. I am happy with that too.

Er, could you have been looking at the total you'd be getting per week? What you're better off by is the last column.

Sleepy

naughtb4 wrote: »

This and dont vote for them again

The scary bit about that notion is that this is a budget from the supposedly "right wing" party. Labour / Sinn Fein / PBP et al on the left would have screwed workers even harder.

Knex*

I wasn't expecting to be better off at all really, so can't complain with the extra 200 quid or so.

I do think the low income families are in a difficult spot when they compare their financials to those on welfare. That must be a hard one to swallow.

From my perspective, I don't really care if they are getting more. For one thing, less poverty usually means less issues. I know that there are abusers of the system, for sure, but there are others in genuine need. Also, I'm young, have a good job and no dependencies, so I understand its easier for me to gloss over this and carry on.

Ideally, in my mind anyway, we'd be putting the extra money towards infrastructure. If we had a proper transport in this country that made living further away from the three main cities more feasible, then it would help out massively on the housing front for one thing.

James Brown

Sleepy wrote: »

The scary bit about that notion is that this is a budget from the supposedly "right wing" party. Labour / Sinn Fein / PBP et al on the left would have screwed workers even harder.

I disagree. Labour, for their many many faults, generally side with the worker, as do SF and PBP. The idea that these parties only fight for lifers on the dole is an old wives tale spun by FG/FF to keep you voting for the very parties bring out the policies and budgets you complain about but take because the left might do worse.
The right wing element plays into all the money being funneled to private concerns like developers, landlords and vulture funds profiting off of misery while paying little tax, because FG want to attract their like. The extra fiver on welfare is the distraction and it works quite well.

tayto lover

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Have to laugh at people thinking budgets are there to give them lots of money.

Everyone giving out about the homeless and social housing, well you all got your wish 2.5 billion going on it, there’s your money you thought you were getting back.

Bunch of whingers.

I agree with you to a point and I didn't expect anything so I'm not disappointed.
I am annoyed however that the won't work and never worked scavengers received more than someone "who rises early in the morning" to actually go to work.

BailMeOut

tayto lover wrote: »

I agree with you to a point and I didn't expect anything so I'm not disappointed.
I am annoyed however that the won't work and never worked scavengers received more than someone "who rises early in the morning" to actually go to work.

in every society there are a % of the possible workforce that nobody will employ. Not making excuses for these 'scavengers' but they are mostly unemployable and no company will want them anyway.

The saving grace however is that typically the majority social welfare payments are typically spent and put back into the economy quickly which benefits us all.

ThunbergsAreGo

Sleepy wrote: »

The scary bit about that notion is that this is a budget from the supposedly "right wing" party. Labour / Sinn Fein / PBP et al on the left would have screwed workers even harder.

A year ago I might have agreed.

This is a budget delivered by a primarily Fine Gael led Government and a Taoiseach who said he is "for those who get up early in the mornings". They are either liars or have no principles and have been pushed into other parties/independants to hang onto power. I dont know what is worse. There should be be blame placed at other parties doorsteps, they have not delivered this Budget.

Fine Gael do not stand for anything.

Watching Reeling in the Years last night, I think I would have liked the PDs

namenotavailablE

Another net pay calculator- here's my spreadsheet (Windows only, uses macros and requires a minimum version of Excel 2007) :

http://taxcalc.eu/monthlyss/Excel%202007%20version-%20Employee%20PAYE%20calculator.xlsm

jay0109

naughtb4 wrote: »

Watching Reeling in the Years last night, I think I would have liked the PDs

They were as bad as FG. Spending like fek was as right wing as they got

Gbear

Knex. wrote: »

Ideally, in my mind anyway, we'd be putting the extra money towards infrastructure. If we had a proper transport in this country that made living further away from the three main cities more feasible, then it would help out massively on the housing front for one thing.

Or better planned, more dense housing so that they didn't have to.

James Brown

naughtb4 wrote: »

A year ago I might have agreed.

This is a budget delivered by a primarily Fine Gael led Government and a Taoiseach who said he is "for those who get up early in the mornings". They are either liars or have no principles and have been pushed into other parties/independants to hang onto power. I dont know what is worse. There should be be blame placed at other parties doorsteps, they have not delivered this Budget.

Fine Gael do not stand for anything.

Watching Reeling in the Years last night, I think I would have liked the PDs

Mary Harney used a government jet to fly down the country and open a friends pub.
The tax payers are cattle to be milked and as with medical cards and the fiver on the dole, they are chips used to buy and sell favour. It's all about larger business and wheeler dealing. There's private profit to be made off the housing crisis. Everything done in that regard is to make money off the misery of the tax payer caught up in it. The vulture funds and landlord rental companies are profiteering off a crisis and FG welcome it with open arms, going by their budget that FF loved, housing wise.

Draco

seamus wrote: »

lawred2 wrote: »

think you might have made an error for married 2 incomes joint assessment

would the cutoff for two people earning not have increased by €1500 not €750?

Yeah, it doesn't seem to be factoring in dual incomes correctly. The Deloitte calculator tells me I'm better off by twice as much.

So a bit of poking at the Deloitte and PWC calculators, and it looks like they are presuming that you're assessed separately (which means you both get the extra €750 in the tax bands) whereas on mine the first married option is the joint assessment (where only one person gets the €750). My understand from my payroll expert is that if there is a big difference in pay between spouses, joint assessment can be beneficial (to take full advantage of both people's tax credits as they can be transferred between spouses) otherwise separate assessments could work out better.

tayto lover

BailMeOut wrote: »

in every society there are a % of the possible workforce that nobody will employ. Not making excuses for these 'scavengers' but they are mostly unemployable and no company will want them anyway.

The saving grace however is that typically the majority social welfare payments are typically spent and put back into the economy quickly which benefits us all.

I agree but they would be well able to clean the gutters at the sides of the roads which are full of leaves and which will flood with a fall of heavy rain.
The cocos don't seem to have the means to do this in my area.

lawred2

Draco wrote: »

So a bit of poking at the Deloitte and PWC calculators, and it looks like they are presuming that you're assessed separately (which means you both get the extra €750 in the tax bands) whereas on mine the first married option is the joint assessment (where only one person gets the €750). My understand from my payroll expert is that if there is a big difference in pay between spouses, joint assessment can be beneficial (to take full advantage of both people's tax credits as they can be transferred between spouses) otherwise separate assessments could work out better.

So does the increase in bands under joint assessment

Blackjack

tayto lover wrote: »

I agree but they would be well able to clean the gutters at the sides of the roads which are full of leaves and which will flood with a fall of heavy rain.
The cocos don't seem to have the means to do this in my area.

That would be inhumane, Slavery etc.
At least those were the excuses trotted out before when anyone suggested this.

Layabouts will layabout, and at the expense of the taxpayer, and there are folks that make a career our of defending this behaviour.

Should not be too long now before someone strides in to blames the bankers or something.

James Brown

Blackjack wrote: »

That would be inhumane, Slavery etc.
At least those were the excuses trotted out before when anyone suggested this.

Layabouts will layabout, and at the expense of the taxpayer, and there are folks that make a career our of defending this behaviour.

Should not be too long now before someone strides in to blames the bankers or something.

How about hiring people to do the work, a taxpaying job like.
Ignoring the millions on grants and tax breaks to private industry, (including landlords corporation or individual). Ignoring the doing business with vulture funds...
You blame the genuine poor, who meet all state required criteria to be eligible to receive welfare payments legally, for a Fine Gael budget brokered with more to do with maintaining bums on seats in mind than you or I? Interesting.

blanch152

tobsey wrote: »

I never said they should be allowed sit on their arse. There are people who will lose their job in January or February next year who will be glad of the extra fiver. Not everyone who receives those benefits are long term unemployed.

Yet you are telling people in jobs who didn't get a payrise that they should look for another job if they want an increase.

Your logic means that if someone loses a job, they shouldn't look to the state but just get another job.


You can't apply "Just get another job" as a solution to one group without applying it to others.

blanch152

Rennaws wrote: »

Charities are one of the biggest cons going in this state..

Because the Irish are so flucking gullible they're a licence to print money..

The salaries paid by charities to their top people are eye-watering.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I disagree. Labour, for their many many faults, generally side with the worker, as do SF and PBP. The idea that these parties only fight for lifers on the dole is an old wives tale spun by FG/FF to keep you voting for the very parties bring out the policies and budgets you complain about but take because the left might do worse.
The right wing element plays into all the money being funneled to private concerns like developers, landlords and vulture funds profiting off of misery while paying little tax, because FG want to attract their like. The extra fiver on welfare is the distraction and it works quite well.

SF and PBP side with the permanent protestors who have never worked.

They also want to kill FDI and return Ireland to the poverty of the 1930s, when the only job you could get was building social housing.

Blackjack

Matt Barrett wrote: »

How about hiring people to do the work, a taxpaying job like.
Ignoring the millions on grants and tax breaks to private industry, (including landlords corporation or individual). Ignoring the doing business with vulture funds...
You blame the genuine poor, who meet all state required criteria to be eligible to receive welfare payments legally, for a Fine Gael budget brokered with more to do with maintaining bums on seats in mind than you or I? Interesting.

It took all of about 18 minutes I see.

Please point out where in my post you derived this nugget in bold from?.

James Brown

Blackjack wrote: »

It took all of about 18 minutes I see.

Please point out where in my post you derived this nugget in bold from?.

...Layabouts will layabout, and at the expense of the taxpayer, and there are folks that make a career our of defending this behaviour.

Should not be too long now before someone strides in to blames the bankers or something.

Unless I read it wrong, it seems layabouts on welfare are causing problems for the taxpayer. And some will defend these 'layabouts' by trying to pin blame for the tax payers ills on bankers?

I'm saying, anyone receiving welfare has been vetted and deemed eligible to receive it, so they wouldn't be layabouts, unless successfully defrauding the system. These fraudsters, how ever many there may be, (stats/link?) can not be put under the banner of welfare recipients suggesting that a good number are merely wily layabouts. Any such inference on foot of a budget is ignoring the broader reaching and much larger policies of the FG government and their budget which feed landlord corporations, vulture funds and developers. Pinning your gripes on a 5 euro hike, as decided by the Fine Gael budget, is interesting if misguided.
If I give you 50 euro tax payer money, is it your fault or my fault when people take issue? It's like blaming a dog for sh*tting on your lawn while the dog owner helps himself to your cupboards.

Blackjack

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Unless I read it wrong, it seems layabouts on welfare are causing problems for the taxpayer. And some will defend these 'layabouts' by trying to pin blame for the tax payers ills on bankers?

I'm saying, anyone receiving welfare has been vetted and deemed eligible to receive it, so they wouldn't be layabouts, unless successfully defrauding the system. These fraudsters, how ever many there may be, (stats/link?) can not be put under the banner of welfare recipients suggesting that a good number are merely wily layabouts. Any such inference on foot of a budget is ignoring the broader reaching and much larger policies of the FG government and their budget which feed landlord corporations, vulture funds and developers. Pinning your gripes on a 5 euro hike, as decided by the Fine Gael budget, is interesting if misguided.
If I give you 50 euro tax payer money, is it your fault or my fault if people take issue?

thats some amount of extrapolation right there - lets go back to where you said:
"You blame the genuine poor, who meet all state required criteria to be eligible to receive welfare payments legally, for a Fine Gael budget brokered with more to do with maintaining bums on seats in mind than you or I?"

Now lets go back to my question then - where in my original post do you draw this conclusion?. You're inferring an awful lot of stuff that I never actually said.

James Brown

Blackjack wrote: »

thats some amount of extrapolation right there - lets go back to where you said:
"You blame the genuine poor, who meet all state required criteria to be eligible to receive welfare payments legally, for a Fine Gael budget brokered with more to do with maintaining bums on seats in mind than you or I?"

Now lets go back to my question then - where in my original post do you draw this conclusion?. You're inferring an awful lot of stuff that I never actually said.

Who are these layabouts you know of? You can't claim welfare and layabout. They stop paying you.

It's beyond belief to have a budget people take issue with turned to casting aspersions on the poor.

Blackjack

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Who are these layabouts you know of? You can't claim welfare and layabout. It's illegal.

Yes of course. The Legality of it.
Silly old me.

Now again - where did I blame the genuine poor?.

Eric Cartman

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Unless I read it wrong, it seems layabouts on welfare are causing problems for the taxpayer. And some will defend these 'layabouts' by trying to pin blame for the tax payers ills on bankers?

I'm saying, anyone receiving welfare has been vetted and deemed eligible to receive it, so they wouldn't be layabouts, unless successfully defrauding the system. These fraudsters, how ever many there may be, (stats/link?) can not be put under the banner of welfare recipients suggesting that a good number are merely wily layabouts. Any such inference on foot of a budget is ignoring the broader reaching and much larger policies of the FG government and their budget which feed landlord corporations, vulture funds and developers. Pinning your gripes on a 5 euro hike, as decided by the Fine Gael budget, is interesting if misguided.
If I give you 50 euro tax payer money, is it your fault or my fault when people take issue? It's like blaming a dog for sh*tting on your lawn while the dog owner helps himself to your cupboards.

I went to school with two girls who's life plan was to have children and get a free gaf off the council when they left school. Both have successfully done this and have spent the last decade doing nothing but boozing and hanging out with other women who have done this and having more children with different men who scarper as soon as the kid is born.

I also know of a lad who, having dropped out of college, went on the dole during the recession. Sick of the constant requests from intreo disturbing his party lifestyle he tried to apply for disability siting that he had depression and was an alcoholic, luckily they saw through that and didn't believe it , but fair play to him he tried again and well, succeeded and now actually is an alcoholic who can commonly be found around his hometown asleep from drink in the middle of the weekday.

These people are 'legitimate, vetted claimants' but nobody can dare tell me its right that they got to make that choice.

James Brown

Blackjack wrote: »

Yes of course. The Legality of it.
Silly old me.

Now again - where did I blame the genuine poor?.

you called welfare recipients layabouts. Anyone on welfare is on it because they are genuinely poor, with the exception of possibly some fraudsters.

Enter the anecdotes....

Hotblack Desiato

Hitman3000 wrote: »

I'm no fan of TD's no matter their party but their pay is linked to the civil service.

30 years ago, TDs pay was linked to the HEO grade. Now it's linked to the PO grade, which is two grades higher and almost twice the salary.

Nice work if you can get it, voting on your own pay...

Blackjack

Matt Barrett wrote: »

you called welfare recipients layabouts. Anyone on welfare is on it because they are genuinely poor, with the exception of possibly some fraudsters.

No I didnt. Either point out where I did, or retract the accusation.

James Brown

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I went to school with two girls who's life plan was to have children and get a free gaf off the council when they left school. Both have successfully done this and have spent the last decade doing nothing but boozing and hanging out with other women who have done this and having more children with different men who scarper as soon as the kid is born.

I also know of a lad who, having dropped out of college, went on the dole during the recession. Sick of the constant requests from intreo disturbing his party lifestyle he tried to apply for disability siting that he had depression and was an alcoholic, luckily they saw through that and didn't believe it , but fair play to him he tried again and well, succeeded and now actually is an alcoholic who can commonly be found around his hometown asleep from drink in the middle of the weekday.

These people are 'legitimate, vetted claimants' but nobody can dare tell me its right that they got to make that choice.

Sounds like you've issues with the system and how it works.

I don't see how these people are to blame for a Fine Gael budget.