Budget 2019

Jolly Red Giant

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.

and as Enda said - 'I met a guy with two pints' :rolleyes:

Jolly Red Giant

Matt Barrett wrote: »

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.

This is the Fine Gael / Fianna Fail / Indo Alliance budget -

James Brown

Blackjack wrote: »

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

I asked you to explain, but you won't elaborate. Who are these layabouts if not welfare recipients? And how are these layabouts to blame in part for a FG budget you don't like, because....

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?

Eric Cartman

Matt Barrett wrote: »

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.

I do, and the solution to a broken system is not to hand out more money. FG is to blame for handing out more money when every dog on the street knows the reality. Increasing welfare at a time when the squeezed middle have still received nothing is bad optics, bad politics and a slap in the face to the fiscal conservatism everyone wanted when they voted for FG and gutted labour.

James Brown

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

This is the Fine Gael / Fianna Fail / Indo Alliance budget -

True. Certainly not a the anecdotal lads drinking dutch Gold in the middle of the day budget

Blackjack

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I asked you to explain, but you won't elaborate. Who are these layabouts if not welfare recipients? And how are these layabouts to blame in part for a FG budget you don't like, because....

So I didn't actually call Welfare recipients Layabouts, and I didn't blame the genuine poor, yet you inferred both from what i said?.

James Brown

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I do, and the solution to a broken system is not to hand out more money. FG is to blame for handing out more money when every dog on the street knows the reality. Increasing welfare at a time when the squeezed middle have still received nothing is bad optics, bad politics and a slap in the face to the fiscal conservatism everyone wanted when they voted for FG and gutted labour.

I think it's more to do with allocation. They're putting money into areas that will cause us problems.

The Irish Medical Organisation has accused the Government of using medical cards and GP visit cards as "political currency" - and has warned that without additional resources for general practice, Sláintecare cannot be delivered.

Speaking as she arrived for talks at the Department of Health on difficulties facing the GP sector, IMO CEO Susan Clyne described yesterday's budget decision to extend doctor visit cards to 100,000 additional patients as "putting the cart before the horse".

She said it was absolutely unsustainable to load the system that was already "creaking with capacity problems" following funding cuts of up to 38%.
https://www.rte.ie/news/2018/1010/1002225-medical-cards-imo/

Blackjack wrote: »

So I didn't actually call Welfare recipients Layabouts, and I didn't blame the genuine poor, yet you inferred both from what i said?.

Seems like we'll never know. I asked you three times you won't elaborate.

Blackjack

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Seems like we'll never know. I asked you three times you won't elaborate.

Well if you believe there are no layabouts, then good for you, I'd love to have the same blind faith that you do. I've seen and come across plenty in my time, no doubt any samples would be dismissed as "man with 2 pints".

However - you've inferred rather a lot, that i've somehow blamed genuine poor - I havent.

you specifically said: "you called welfare recipients layabouts"
I havent.

So either point out where I blamed the genuine poor, or where I called welfare recipients layabouts, or retract your accusations.

Jolly Red Giant

Blackjack wrote: »

So I didn't actually call Welfare recipients Layabouts, and I didn't blame the genuine poor, yet you inferred both from what i said?.

The 'genuine poor' according to FG/FF are the bankers, spivs, speculators and landlords.

Hotblack Desiato

Draco wrote: »

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

PwC (Irish Times) is telling me €5 a week
Taxcalc is saying €10
Deloitte is saying €11!

Which is right? None of them, probably...

lawred2

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

PwC (Irish Times) is telling me €5 a week
Taxcalc is saying €10
Deloitte is saying €11!

Which is right? None of them, probably...

Are you self employed? Then likely 10 quid.. don't think the Irish times is taking the tax credit increase for self employed into account

James Brown

Blackjack wrote: »

Well if you believe there are no layabouts, then good for you, I'd love to have the same blind faith that you do. I've seen and come across plenty in my time, no doubt any samples would be dismissed as "man with 2 pints".

However - you've inferred rather a lot, that i've somehow blamed genuine poor - I havent.

you specifically said: "you called welfare recipients layabouts"
I havent.

So either point out where I blamed the genuine poor, or where I called welfare recipients layabouts, or retract your accusations.

I was wrong so? I did pose it as a question.
Who are these layabouts so? You were commenting on a post suggesting welfare recipients be used to pick up leaves from the road side.

Blackjack

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I was wrong so. I did pose it as a question.
Who are these layabouts so? You were commenting on a post suggesting welfare recipients be used to pick up leaves from the road side. Anyway, no worries.

Apology accepted.

James Brown

Blackjack wrote: »

Apology accepted.

I did not apologise. It reads to me that you called welfare recipients layabouts. You refuse to elaborate. The discussion was people on welfare being used to clear roadside gutters, you said it might be considered slavery and described them as layabouts. If you don't wish to put your hand up, fair enough. I'll leave it here.

Either way I'd look to the people who put together the budget. It would be more constructive.

Blackjack

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I did not apologise. It reads to me that you called welfare recipients layabouts. You refuse to elaborate. The discussion was people on welfare being used to clear roadside gutters, you said it might be considered slavery and described them as layabouts. If you don't wish to put your hand up, fair enough. I'll leave it here.

Either way I'd look to the people who put together the budget. It would be more constructive.

Go again?. Where did I describe welfare recipients as layabouts?

Hotblack Desiato

lawred2 wrote: »

Are you self employed?

Nope.

namenotavailablE

@ Hotblack- you could try my spreadsheet. Uses macros, for Excel 2007 or greater in a Windows environment.

I checked it against the scenarios outlined in this Budget 2019 tax policy changes document (specifically pgs 16-18) and it was spot on so I'm pretty confident it's accurate.

Alternatively, post income values here or via PM and I'll run a quick calculation.

Draco

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Draco wrote: »

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

PwC (Irish Times) is telling me €5 a week
Taxcalc is saying €10
Deloitte is saying €11!

Which is right? None of them, probably...

Likely €10 or €11 then (the difference between TaxCalc and Deloitte is likely down to rounding). Pages 11 to 15 of this PDF from the government gives various examples for 10K to 175K for different scenarios so you might be able to estimate from that.

Klonker

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Matt Barrett wrote: »

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.

This is the Fine Gael / Fianna Fail / Indo Alliance budget -

So landlords are paying no tax now is it?
News to me!

You are either posting a purposely misleading meme or else you know so little that you should not comment in this thread again for your own good.

Draco

namenotavailabl wrote: »

@ Hotblack- you could try my spreadsheet. Uses macros, for Excel 2007 or greater in a Windows environment.

I checked it against the scenarios outlined in this Budget 2019 tax policy changes document (specifically pgs 16-18) and it was spot on so I'm pretty confident it's accurate.

Alternatively, post income values here or via PM and I'll run a quick calculation.

Hah! I should have scrolled down. But, yeah, I'm the same - I've test cases written agains all those examples and my calculator is agreeing with them.

lawred2

Draco wrote: »

Likely €10 or €11 then (the difference between TaxCalc and Deloitte is likely down to rounding). Pages 11 to 15 of this PDF from the government gives various examples for 10K to 175K for different scenarios so you might be able to estimate from that.

Unless it's two salaries or you're self employed, it can't be €10 a week.

Most any one person is seeing in reductions is 289 per annum which is a shade over €5 a week

namenotavailablE

€289 for employees is the upper saving for most people. However, there are a few exceptions.

If you're a proprietary director or part of a single income family the savings are going to be bigger- there were additional tax credits announced (€200 for the proprietary director; €300 for the Home carer's credit). So if you happen to be a proprietary director and married with a family, there's an additional €500 in tax credits. Add the saving arising from the increase in the standard rate band (20% x 750 = 150) and you could be ahead €650 (and that's before the USC savings are counted)!

Hotblack Desiato

lawred2 wrote: »

Unless it's two salaries or you're self employed, it can't be €10 a week.

Most any one person is seeing in reductions is 289 per annum which is a shade over €5 a week

See page 13 in the Dept Finance PDF, married couple one income two children, all incomes 45k or over gain 10 or 11 euro per week

The corresponding gains on the previous page (only difference - no kids) are 4 to 6 euro.

I'm not sure why there's a difference as working family payment does not apply at this income level, and child benefit hasn't been increased. - ah wait - it's the home carer's credit.

lawred2

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

See page 13 in the Dept Finance PDF, married couple one income two children, all incomes 45k or over gain 10 or 11 euro per week

The corresponding gains on the previous page (only difference - no kids) are 4 to 6 euro.

I'm not sure why there's a difference as working family payment does not apply at this income level, and child benefit hasn't been increased. - ah wait - it's the home carer's credit.

Ah wasn't aware of the home carer's credit

tobsey

blanch152 wrote: »

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.

If someone loses their job of course they should look to the state. They should also look for another job at the same time. However if it takes some time to start a new role having been previously let go then what do you expect people to do? The dole is their for a reason.

There are a small number of people who are unemployable. Nobody would give them a job. However we still need to be able to support people who are without work because in most cases they are looking for it.

There are also those rightfully on disability payments, pensions who are excluded from the requirement to work. They are all going to receive the small welfare increases.

I'll say it again though, if you are working and you don't see more of an increase in your take home pay, through the small tax cuts and your own increase, next year compared to the welfare increases you have nobody to blame but yourself. Someone on the lower rate of tax needs an increase of €320 gross, if you're on the high rate it's about €500 gross. So someone on €35k this year needs a 1.5% increase. You should be aiming for at least double that.

James Brown

It's pretty gross that a budget comes out and those, dare I say, whinging, (to use a Fine Gael term) about it are turning a lot of their energy to a rise in welfare rates. Like the man says, ends not meeting? On an income that's too low? Go out and get a better job and stop whinging or looking to others to solve all your problems. Or maybe we could look at getting some policy changes on the go?

jay0109

Matt Barrett wrote: »

It's pretty gross that a budget comes out and those, dare I say, whinging, (to use a Fine Gael term) about it are turning a lot of their energy to a rise in welfare rates. Like the man says, ends not meeting? On an income that's too low? Go out and get a better job and stop whinging or looking to others to solve all your problems. Or maybe we could look at getting some policy changes on the go?

Telling working people to get a better job if they want more money while also telling them to lay off people on the dole (at a time of near full employment) getting a rise for doing nothing

Priceless

James Brown

jay0109 wrote: »

Telling working people to get a better job if they want more money while also telling them to lay off people on the dole (at a time of near full employment) getting a rise for doing nothing

Priceless

Agreed, but that's not what I was doing.
It's been said anyone looking for hand outs should go out and get a better job. Should the same be said for those finding that their salary doesn't go as far as it use to?
If you think people on the dole get too much talk to your local politician. Somebody obviously thought they needed more, no point in blaming them but it makes for a good distraction from other things. As you say, near full employment too. How many of these welfare lifer ninja's are there?

christy c

Matt Barrett wrote: »

How many of these welfare lifer ninja's are there?

Would be interesting in knowing that also. A lot of times that's it's mentioned we get the usual "small minority, look over there, bankers, landlords" type response but neither side has come up with anything concrete as far as I can see.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I think it's more to do with allocation. They're putting money into areas that will cause us problems.





Seems like we'll never know. I asked you three times you won't elaborate.

Doctor gives out about the government putting more money into a sector she claims is underfunded.

Problem here is doctors want more money for treating less patients, but government is prepared to offer more money for treating more patients.

I would have thought you would have supported more medical cards.

Captain Obvious

blanch152 wrote: »

Doctor gives out about the government putting more money into a sector she claims is underfunded.

Problem here is doctors want more money for treating less patients, but government is prepared to offer more money for treating more patients.

I would have thought you would have supported more medical cards.

It's more about capacity though isn't it? It's hard enough to get a GP appointment in many places. I know of a number of GPs who simply won't accept new patients any more. And as far as I am aware, the GP's don't even get near their standard rate for seeing a person with a GP or medical card.

Anita Blow

blanch152 wrote: »

Doctor gives out about the government putting more money into a sector she claims is underfunded.

Problem here is doctors want more money for treating less patients, but government is prepared to offer more money for treating more patients.

I would have thought you would have supported more medical cards.

That's absolutely not the case. GP practices are absolutely struggling right now due to 30% and more in FEMPI cuts at a time when the government increased their workload by hundreds of thousands by introducing an Under 6s scheme. And now they want to increase it by another 100,000 while doing absolutely nothing to increase the number of GPS.

We have 2500 GPs in Ireland. 770 are set to retire in the coming years. Ireland currently has just 90 GPs under 35y on the General Medical Scheme.

blanch152

Anita Blow wrote: »

That's absolutely not the case. GP practices are absolutely struggling right now due to 30% and more in FEMPI cuts at a time when the government increased their workload by hundreds of thousands by introducing an Under 6s scheme. And now they want to increase it by another 100,000 while doing absolutely nothing to increase the number of GPS.

We have 2500 GPs in Ireland. 770 are set to retire in the coming years. Ireland currently has just 90 GPs under 35y on the General Medical Scheme.

The population hasn't changed, the number of people requiring GPs remains the same when medical card eligibility changes. What changes is who pays for the GP. For private patients, it is the private patient, for medical card holders, it is the government, but the number of people requiring GP services doesn't change.

blanch152

https://www.independent.ie/news/environment/hard-to-see-why-sensible-climate-actions-werent-taken-in-budget-37415847.html

An excellent article on measures that should have been in the budget in relation to the environment.

blanch152

blanch152 wrote: »

The population hasn't changed, the number of people requiring GPs remains the same when medical card eligibility changes. What changes is who pays for the GP. For private patients, it is the private patient, for medical card holders, it is the government, but the number of people requiring GP services doesn't change.

What also changes is the folk with medical cards are more inclined to visit the GP.

blanch152

Augeo wrote: »

What also changes is the folk with medical cards are more inclined to visit the GP.

Simple demand management of a €5 charge for medical card holders would deal with that. That is how other European countries work - a flat payment from the government, with a small charge for each visit.

Unfortunately, our entitlement culture wouldn't allow for that.

tayto lover

blanch152 wrote: »

Simple demand management of a €5 charge for medical card holders would deal with that. That is how other European countries work - a flat payment from the government, with a small charge for each visit.

Unfortunately, our entitlement culture wouldn't allow for that.

A simple charge of 5 euro for a return journey outside a 50 km zone for those with free travel like us OAP's would have been a good idea too.
I wouldn't have minded that. The fact that I could go to Dublin for 5 return by bus or train is still good value. I could still travel around my own town for shopping etc for free.

blanch152

tayto lover wrote: »

A simple charge of 5 euro for a return journey outside a 50 km zone for those with free travel like us OAP's would have been a good idea too.
I wouldn't have minded that. The fact that I could go to Dublin for 5 return by bus or train is still good value. I could still travel around my own town for shopping etc for free.

Again, that is how it works elsewhere in Europe. Free travel isn't always free, just very heavily discounted. Same with free medical cards.

With some of the highest social welfare rates in Europe, small charges shouldn't be a problem.

BeepBeep67

blanch152 wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/news/environment/hard-to-see-why-sensible-climate-actions-werent-taken-in-budget-37415847.html

An excellent article on measures that should have been in the budget in relation to the environment.

I don't have an EV, we own 2 'durty' diesels, however I wouldn't have been adverse to Xc being added to the cost of diesel if it was ring-fenced and invested in the charging network.