Budget 2019

NIMAN

Geuze wrote: »

No.

There are 90,000 approx on social housing waiting lists.

I'm surprised there are only 10000 classed as homeless then, the other 80000 are missing a trick.

They need to up their game and get themselves more visible if they want to get themselves housed.

Eric Cartman

naughtb4 wrote: »

But that doesn't prove that reforming social welfare would lead to more criminality

Well theres the logic that a lot more criminals are on welfare than working , so any change downward in welfare would result in them doing more crime for money.

Then theres the second school of thought that reducing welfare would make people who are not currently criminals, become criminals in order to make up the shortfall (which depending on who says it is either suggesting that being a criminal has no moral decision required or that everyone on welfare has criminal tendancies and the current rates just appease their desire to commit crime. Both very bleak views of those on welfare in my book)

enricoh

So the more the hse overspends, the more money the government throws at it.
Wonder what the paddys power odds are for an overspend next year!!

A mate of mine used to work for a skip hire company. About 5 years ago he was collecting a big roll off skip from the local hospital and noticed it full of the fancy hospital beds, still boxed. Said to himself someone messed up here putting these in the skip and went off to find someone to tell them.
The guy responsible told him that they have a budget to spend every year, if it's not spent the budget is cut. Cue beds in skip! My mate took photos, told the boss n said he was ringing some of the papers. Boss told him if it ends up in the paper, he's sacked, hse were their best customer.
Around the same time people were marching in protest over services getting cut at the hospital. Hopeless! Just shovel more dough at it!

ThunbergsAreGo

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Well theres the logic that a lot more criminals are on welfare than working , so any change downward in welfare would result in them doing more crime for money.

Then theres the second school of thought that reducing welfare would make people who are not currently criminals, become criminals in order to make up the shortfall (which depending on who says it is either suggesting that being a criminal has no moral decision required or that everyone on welfare has criminal tendancies and the current rates just appease their desire to commit crime. Both very bleak views of those on welfare in my book)

Couldn't there be another school that people that can work but are choosing not to (or indeed are waiting for something in their field) would go out and work whatever the job? Or indeed it might just give an extra bit of impetuous. I believe most people are decent and would rather any job than becoming a criminal

As with all things though I guess its not black and white

seamus

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Both very bleak views of those on welfare in my book

That's because you "other" people on welfare, like they're a different kind of person than you are. They're not.

If you found yourself tomorrow with insufficient income, no way to get a job and a family to feed, you'd turn to crime.

And anyone who says otherwise is a liar. It's human nature; we do what we feel we have to, to survive.

FFS, as soon as they announce an increase on cigs, people declare they're turning to crime to get them, "I'll just have to go get all mine Moore St so".

When one says, "Reforming welfare will increase crime", they're not saying that people on welfare will start donning masks, and going out with baseballs bats to smash the place up. But they will turn to ancillary crime. Rather than go to DID to get a new TV, they'll see if Joe Cash down the halting site "knows of" any going. Can't afford car tax, but Jimmy's youngfella can get his hands on a disc for a tenner. Grand job.

Stuff that people don't consider very wrong, but that filters up to the wider criminal activities and increases direct crime.

Stuff that you would do in their shoes.

naughtb4 wrote: »

Couldn't there be another school that people that can work but are choosing not to (or indeed are waiting for something in their field) would go out and work whatever the job?

As with all things though I guess its not black and white

This is the poverty trap, and it is an issue. That is, someone could realistically be long-term on welfare with a number of dependents, where accepting minimum-wage work will reduce their income, but minimum-wage work is their only realistic prospect. So why would they work? This is not their fault; the system has shackled them by circumstance. So activation measures are required to make working work for them.

One could argue that reducing social welfare rates for this individual will serve as encouragement. But then you run the risk of digging the hole deeper; if they can't afford to work on minimum wage, then that's not magically going to change just because you've reduced their dole. They'll now be working, but they'll still be stuck in poverty.

Ultimately the number of people stuck in these circumstances are pretty low, so widespread reforms aren't going to make the permanently unemployed go get jobs.

Eric Cartman

naughtb4 wrote: »

Couldn't there be another school that people that can work but are choosing not to (or indeed are waiting for something in their field) would go out and work whatever the job? Or indeed it might just give an extra bit of impetuous. I believe most people are decent and would rather any job than becoming a criminal

As with all things though I guess its not black and white

I wish that was the case, Ireland however does have a proportion of people on welfare who are determined not to work

Eric Cartman

seamus wrote: »

That's because you "other" people on welfare, like they're a different kind of person than you are. They're not.

If you found yourself tomorrow with insufficient income, no way to get a job and a family to feed, you'd turn to crime.

And anyone who says otherwise is a liar. It's human nature; we do what we feel we have to, to survive.

FFS, as soon as they announce an increase on cigs, people declare they're turning to crime to get them, "I'll just have to go get all mine Moore St so".

When one says, "Reforming welfare will increase crime", they're not saying that people on welfare will start donning masks, and going out with baseballs bats to smash the place up. But they will turn to ancillary crime. Rather than go to DID to get a new TV, they'll see if Joe Cash down the halting site "knows of" any going. Can't afford car tax, but Jimmy's youngfella can get his hands on a disc for a tenner. Grand job.

Stuff that people don't consider very wrong, but that filters up to the wider criminal activities and increases direct crime.

Stuff that you would do in their shoes.

You talk about committing crime to feed your family and then talk about fake tax disks and stolen tv's .

I can see how were it to come to it human nature would make somebody steal bread to survive as being human nature, !but buying stolen televisions and fake tax disks is just scummy and to be looked down upon no matter what circumstance anybody is in.

For Forks Sake

Pelvis wrote: »

I'm about 300 euro better off per year. Didn't tds give themselves an 800 euro salary increase recently?

Absolutely sick of this joke of a country. What's worse is there's no viable alternative to FG.

This isn't remotely true - TD's pay is no longer decided by the house (mostly thanks to the sort of sh1tehawkery that went on in Berties day) - their increase is linked to civil service rates now so any increase is directly in line.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2016/1020/825582-fempi-payments/

Draco

lawred2 wrote: »

Anyone got a link for that calculator?

Need to see if I can afford that Bentley yet..

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

ThunbergsAreGo

seamus wrote: »

This is the poverty trap, and it is an issue. That is, someone could realistically be long-term on welfare with a number of dependents, where accepting minimum-wage work will reduce their income, but minimum-wage work is their only realistic prospect. So why would they work? This is not their fault; the system has shackled them by circumstance. So activation measures are required to make working work for them.

One could argue that reducing social welfare rates for this individual will serve as encouragement. But then you run the risk of digging the hole deeper; if they can't afford to work on minimum wage, then that's not magically going to change just because you've reduced their dole. They'll now be working, but they'll still be stuck in poverty.

Ultimately the number of people stuck in these circumstances are pretty low, so widespread reforms aren't going to make the permanently unemployed go get jobs.

I do understand that and its one of the most frustrating things about this budget. Encouragement needs to be provided to get "low paid" jobs, be it moving up a housing list, not having payments taken off you etc. These jobs are absolutely fundamental to society

The optics of this Budget are really poor for that. If I was on the dole at the moment and say I got a bigger increase for staying on the dole than working 35 hours down the local Centra where is my motivation to do this? I would feel I was "better off" staying and waiting in case wither something better comes along (which might be never) or just never working.

vickers209

vickers209 wrote: »

Currently earning 30k per year married with one child single income with full med card.

Ive worked last 20 years never set foot inside a dole office thank god.
Im up at 6am 6 days a week and out working till 7 to 8 most evenings.

ive just checked the calculator and il be better off by 0 next year!

Il never own my own house yet im paying majorty of my wages on crazy rent prices.
have paid nearly 100k over last 10 years.
yet i dont earn enough for morgatage!

After a budget like that il be better off giving up work joining the dole and get on housing list and i might get ons of those 10000 council houses
i would have a better quailty of life and get to spend more time with my child and get a christmas bonus!

blanch152 wrote: »

You have made a ridiculous point that those with jobs should change jobs to get an increase in pay, but that people on social welfare should be allowed sit on their arse to get the same or better increase?

Do you not realise that a better solution would be to increase the incentive to work.

Painful reality for people who actually work in this country

Captain Obvious

Wanderer78 wrote: »

So this is a proactive way of dealing with these complex issues, and what about the victims of these crimes?

On it's own? No. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done though. There's only so much training and education you can offer people. If someone is determined to make a life out of either state benefits or crime I don't think they should be helped.

The Bishop Basher

I'm honestly just dumbfounded by this budget..

I know politicians break promises all the time but to do a complete 180 on his mantra in the way that Leo has done is a new one..

Once could be seen as a mistake, twice might be seen as pandering to vested interests but 3 times is a trend that can't be ignored.

There has to be an ulterior motive but i can't figure it out..

Leo is slowly killing off any incentive to work in this godforsaken sh1thole...

We need a reboot button. Rip it all down and start again..

milhous

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

The government actually covered that.

The minister said: "Why don't you look after your own flesh & blood and stop whinging about paying some Eastern European to be your indentured servant"

It was cutting by the minister, but fair.

Why do we pay someone (Irish) a full salary to look after our kids? Because we both work and contribute to economy, and tbf, probably pay for you being at home with your extra fiver. Enjoy a latte on me.

lawred2

Rennaws wrote: »

I'm honestly just dumbfounded by this budget..

I know politicians break promises all the time but to do a complete 180 on his mantra in the way that Leo has done is a new one..

Once could be seen as a mistake, twice might be seen as pandering to vested interests but 3 times is a trend that can't be ignored.

There has to be an ulterior motive but i can't figure it out..

Leo is slowly killing off any incentive to work in this godforsaken sh1thole...

We need a reboot button. Rip it all down and start again..

I would recommend an email with links to his own quotes

leo.varadkar@oireachtas.ie

And a simple statement that says a person needed to earn €65k per annum to see a reduction in their direct taxes commensurate with the €5 per week increase in the dole.

lawred2

Draco wrote: »

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

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?

BailMeOut

Draco wrote: »

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

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

Assetbacked

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

The most incredible figure is on spending.

Year-on-year spending increases by €3.8 billion!

FF levels of largess

Lessons were never learned.

Yeah but we're back

uncommon_name

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.

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.

There's definitely something off there. Would you be willing to PM me with some details?

seamus

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.

lawred2

uncommon_name wrote: »

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.

I don't want to outright say that that's wrong but that seems very wrong

Based on yesterday's tax measures - all reductions are limited up to 70k - that being a whopping €289 per annum maximum tax reduction.

Earn 150k - gains from yesterday still €289.

Not sure where €1316 comes from

Try this one -> https://www.irishtimes.com/business/budget/calculator

uncommon_name

Draco wrote: »

There's definitely something off there. Would you be willing to PM me with some details?

I agree, it doesn't seem right at all.

BailMeOut

lawred2 wrote: »

I don't want to outright say that that's wrong but that seems very wrong

Based on yesterday's tax measures - all reductions are limited up to 70k - that being a whopping €289 per annum maximum tax reduction.

Earn 150k - gains from yesterday still €289.

Not sure where €1316 comes from

Try this one -> https://www.irishtimes.com/business/budget/calculator

Irish Times says €289 better off but no option for self employed.
Deloitte says I am €60 a year better off!

So I am somewhere between €5 and €27 per week better off!

McMurphy

lawred2 wrote: »

I don't want to outright say that that's wrong but that seems very wrong

Based on yesterday's tax measures - all reductions are limited up to 70k - that being a whopping €289 per annum maximum tax reduction.

Earn 150k - gains from yesterday still €289.

Not sure where €1316 comes from

Try this one -> https://www.irishtimes.com/business/budget/calculator

That one has me and my spouse on 553 per annum extra.

The other one had us on 1500 (from memory).

Bit of a gap between them.

lawred2

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

That one has me and my spouse on 553 per annum extra.

The other one had us on 1500 (from memory).

Bit of a gap between them.

553 is closer to the more correct I'm sure

ThunbergsAreGo

lawred2 wrote: »

I would recommend an email with links to his own quotes

leo.varadkar@oireachtas.ie

And a simple statement that says a person needed to earn €65k per annum to see a reduction in their direct taxes commensurate with the €5 per week increase in the dole.

This and dont vote for them again

McMurphy

lawred2 wrote: »

553 is closer to the more correct I'm sure

10.63 per week between us.

Whoopedoo.

uncommon_name

lawred2 wrote: »

I don't want to outright say that that's wrong but that seems very wrong

Based on yesterday's tax measures - all reductions are limited up to 70k - that being a whopping €289 per annum maximum tax reduction.

Earn 150k - gains from yesterday still €289.

Not sure where €1316 comes from

Try this one -> https://www.irishtimes.com/business/budget/calculator

This one seems a lot closer to what I was thinking.
€248 extra per year. Thanks

James Brown

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.

Sounds like a Fine Gael party public service announcement