FG to just do nothing for the next 5 years.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I'll stop reading right there.

I am entitled to know ALL of it.

The HSE, Leo etc have been evasive on this for a number of days. Their online team of supporters where dismissing it as an issue for a couple of days too.

Fine Gael arrogance again and lack of transparency.

You are entitled to nothing like that.

As I have said repeatedly, one of the biggest problems in this country is the entitlement culture which manifests itself in loads of different ways.

efanton

So today Labour have made it clear they have no interest whatsoever in joining a coalition. The Greens are sticking to their stance they do not want to join a FF/FG coalition but want an all party national government instead.

Can FF/FG get enough Independents to join them or is there coalition plan now doomed to failure?

If they succeed in forming a coalition, will it last?

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

You are entitled to nothing like that.

As I have said repeatedly, one of the biggest problems in this country is the entitlement culture which manifests itself in loads of different ways.

It ok blanch...I got what I wanted - clarity and transperancy, and my nephew got an apology from the HSE, thanks.

Any chance you would deign to apologise to those you pilloried in your protectionism?

McMurphy

atticu wrote: »

I think you might be indulging in a little bit of sarcasm above, dunno - I used to be fairly good at sarcasm detection, but I've become a bit rusty of late.

You need to go back and read what you posted and take that into consideration before making a post about anything other than a load of nonsensical ranting, and have a little think before you start hammering out words on your keyboard.

If you are having trouble remembering what you posted, let me know.


I'll go put the kettle on.

You won't need s sarcasm detector for this one, but I'm not in the habit of randomly checking on whether or not my 30 something year old male neighbours need any shopping done on their behalf.

I remember quite clearly what I posted, you on the other hand tried to jump in with your two feet, make a smart arse comment, but in hindsight you just ended up with your comments looking more arsey than smarty.

Hint - (try reading back through the thread to the part where I discussed dropping off supplies to him)

I will add - it's a bit weird that you have copied one of my own posts and presented it as yours in some twisted attempt at debating with me. Not sure if I'm flattered or creeped out tbh.

satguy

efanton wrote: »

So today Labour have made it clear they have no interest whatsoever in joining a coalition. The Greens are sticking to their stance they do not want to join a FF/FG coalition but want an all party national government instead.

Can FF/FG get enough Independents to join them or is there coalition plan now doomed to failure?

If they succeed in forming a coalition, will it last?

Joan Burton finished off the LP when Enda tricked her into a water meter and a 68 pension age, most Labour voters saw just how far to right Labour had leaned.

Poor Joan thought this was good her voters, While Enda still not 68 was about to retire with a very nice state pension.

christy c

satguy wrote: »

Joan Burton finished off the LP when Enda tricked her into a water meter and a 68 pension age, most Labour voters saw just how far to right Labour had leaned.

Poor Joan thought this was good her voters, While Enda still not 68 was about to retire with a very nice state pension.

If we are not going to increase the pension age, what are the plans for dealing with the upcoming time bomb? I don't see it as a left/right thing, more of a common sense situation.

satguy

christy c wrote: »

If we are not going to increase the pension age, what are the plans for dealing with the upcoming time bomb? I don't see it as a left/right thing, more of a common sense situation.

We could ban rich people from having offshore bank accounts, make pay them their share of tax, like PAYE workers.

When Dinny sold esat for 300 million, he swaned off to Purtugal and never paid a penny tax.

apple paid effectively 2% tax while making Billions.

If we can fix some of that, I think we'll be fine.

weldoninhio

smurgen wrote: »

That was fine however people have just lost jobs. It's compounding people's misery for very little gain on the banks side. Also charges are for all sorts of transactions now including tapping and direct debits. I did appreciate the attempted FG pile on Pearse Doherty initiated by one of FG "economists" who got his arse handed too him after he was economist with the truth. If was nice to see the FG TD Neil Richmond amongst others delighted at the idea they finally nailed Pearse though. Mortified for them.

https://twitter.com/higginsdavidw/status/1244978536491954177?s=19

So when people get their ESB fees, their Gas fees, their mobile phone fees, health or car insurance fees will they be onto Pearse to get them back too??

Also, there have always been fees for direct debits and there are no fees for tapping.

christy c

satguy wrote: »

We could ban rich people from having offshore bank accounts, make pay them their share of tax, like PAYE workers.

When Dinny sold esat for 300 million, he swaned off to Purtugal and never paid a penny tax.

apple paid effectively 2% tax while making Billions.

If we can fix some of that, I think we'll be fine.

How much would banning offshore accounts raise?

Similarly Esat type scenarios?

Also that particular situation with Apple related mostly to sales in other countries. At a glance, all this seems like loose change compared to the recurring pension costs.

We have currently currently 5 workers for every pensioner, projected to drop to 2 workers for every pensioner by 2050 due to our aging population. Increasing the pension age was one of the few good things to come out of having the IMF in town.

atticu

McMurphy wrote: »

so I kept well on the opposite side of the road to him when talking.

atticu wrote: »

It seems that you managed to get a lot of information from your neighbor in a short conversation from across the road.

It also all ended well with your neighbor making a full recovery.

McMurphy wrote: »

Ever heard of mobile phones and WhatsApp?

atticu wrote: »

I have.

Not sure why you are asking me.

McMurphy wrote: »

are you suggesting to me that in 2020 you assume communication with neighbours can only be made with a neighbour from face to face verbal communication from across the street

McMurphy wrote: »

You won't need s sarcasm detector for this one, but I'm not in the habit of randomly checking on whether or not my 30 something year old male neighbours need any shopping done on their behalf.

I remember quite clearly what I posted, you on the other hand tried to jump in with your two feet, make a smart arse comment, but in hindsight you just ended up with your comments looking more arsey than smarty.

Hint - (try reading back through the thread to the part where I discussed dropping off supplies to him)

McMurphy wrote: »

I haven't heard much from him since last week, I noted his fiance car was parked across from their house one of the days over the weekend, her with all the PPE equipment out shouting towards the house from the roadside.
, so she's definitely not moved back in yet anyway.

Well, this is quite embarrassing.

I thought that you were more up to date on what you posted.

Did you mention Mobile phones, WhatsApp and FaceTime to your neighbor and their fiancé?

CtevenSrowder

atticu wrote: »

Well, this is quite embarrassing.

I thought that you were more up to date on what you posted.

Did you mention Mobil phones, WhatsApp and FaceTime to your neighbor and their fiancé?

He's like a ****e Keyser Soze.

efanton

christy c wrote: »

How much would banning offshore accounts raise?

Similarly Esat type scenarios?

Also that particular situation with Apple related mostly to sales in other countries. At a glance, all this seems like loose change compared to the recurring pension costs.

We have currently currently 5 workers for every pensioner, projected to drop to 2 workers for every pensioner by 2050 due to our aging population. Increasing the pension age was one of the few good things to come out of having the IMF in town.

Well if the government have been honest and prudent, all of those pension payments should already be there waiting to be paid out. Those pensioners have been paying PRSI their entire lives.

Of course FG will never mention that they robbed billions out of the pension reserve fund and never put a single cent back into it.

Personally I would sooner see the government adjusting the PRSI rate from time to time to ensure that when we retire at 65 there is sufficient funds there to pay a pension. I know they have raised the pensionable age beyond 65 now, but if they are allowed to do it now, how often will they be tempted to keep pushing the pensionable age threshold. I could see those who are under 30 being 75 years of age before they are allowed to retire if FG get their way. Of course this will not affect the wealthy as they will have been able to afford substantial pension plans and retire at 65 anyhow if they wish, but the ordinary worker who struggles to pay a mortgage, childcare, car insurance etc etc will not be that fortunate.

Its not a case that this country cannot afford to pay a pension at 65. This country collects in the region of 80 billion in tax and other sources every year. Millions are collected in PRSI every year. Its more a case of how the government wishes to spend that huge sum. I do not believe for one minute that out of that sum provision cannot be made for pensions if the PRSI rate is occasionally adjusted.

If an insurance company behaved in the way recent governments have, by taking money set a side for pensions and spending elsewhere, the director of those companies would be in prison.

If existing PRSI contributions are not sufficient they why not be honest about it and raise them. Allowing a government to push back the pension age because they spent all the money elsewhere is just inviting them to constantly push back the pensionable age.

christy c

^^^ What would the PRSI need to be increased to to cover pension, given higher life expectancy and the increases most (all?) parties were proposing?

Or if we're going to take money from elsewhere, where are the cuts going to be? I'm afraid even if we turn Dinny and any other bogeymen upside down, it wont be enough.

We seem to be taking a bury our heads in the sand approach. There seems to a growing bunch of populists who want to undo the small bit we had done to ease the pressure (i.e. increasing the age), without having anything else to replace it.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I am entitled to know ALL of it.

Jaysus, will you listen to yourself, Francie.

Nevermind you lie about half the stuff you write about, now you think you are entitled to everything the government knows and does from the get-go.

Perhaps they are a little busy right now, but we will try and get Leo and Simon out to your gaff to personally brief you, your majesty.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Jaysus, will you listen to yourself, Francie.

Nevermind you lie about half the stuff you write about, now you think you are entitled to everything the government knows and does from the get-go.

Perhaps they are a little busy right now, but we will try and get Leo and Simon out to your gaff to personally brief you, your majesty.

You still haven't gotten back to us with examples of those 'lies' mark.

Whenever you are ready.

efanton

christy c wrote: »

^^^ What would the PRSI need to be increased to to cover pension, given higher life expectancy and the increases most (all?) parties were proposing?

Or if we're going to take money from elsewhere, where are the cuts going to be? I'm afraid even if we turn Dinny and any other bogeymen upside down, it wont be enough.

We seem to be taking a bury our heads in the sand approach. There seems to a growing bunch of populists who want to undo the small bit we had done to ease the pressure (i.e. increasing the age), without having anything else to replace it.

Simple question. When you are asked to pay for something in advance and someone takes your money, do you expect them to deliver?

Yes pensions do need to be paid for, I'm not for one minute suggesting they do not. There is going to be a hump in our country's age profile in the coming years where the worker to pensioner ratio reduces. This is not new information, its been known about for decades. That's precisely why there was a pension reserve fund.

I have yet to see anyone present any factual information that proves that by raising the pensionable age the country will still be able to afford to pay a pension for those of the current pensionable age in 20 years time when that hump is near its peak.

What the government is suggesting is that by removing 2 years pension from everyone who has yet to retire somehow there will be sufficient money to pay a pension for all in 20 years time. I dont believe that is true at all.

If we are all to have pensions when we retire there has to be a pot of money sufficient enough to pay for it. What the government is suggesting that if we each contribute €25,792 (two years of €248 p/w pension) that some how there will be more than sufficient money to pay everyone the pension in 20 years time. Again I would love for someone to show me those number to prove this is the case, I personally dont believe raising the pension age is going to come close to fixing the problem.

Instead I feel they should just increase the PRSI. After all most workers will work close to 45 years in their lifetime and if the PRSI rate was increased by a percent or two, with compound interest, that would probably exceed the cost of foregoing 2 years pension.

Geuze

You are correct than increasing the SP age to 67, then 68 will help, but not completely deal with the increasing costs of ageing.

The SP bill increases by 200m per annum, with no rate increases.

Note that SI conts are not invested, so there's no compound interest.

efanton

Geuze wrote: »

You are correct than increasing the SP age to 67, then 68 will help, but not completely deal with the increasing costs of ageing.

The SP bill increases by 200m per annum, with no rate increases.

Note that SI conts are not invested, so there's no compound interest.

This is precisely why I am against raising the pensionable age. Yes it would reduce the eventual cost but by how much?

Simple maths two years pension 25k divided by a typical working life of 45 years works out to be roughly €550 a year. Thats roughly 45 per month

Now I know no one is going to like to hear they have to pay an extra €45 per month(more likely closer to 60) in PRSI, but to me it seems a far better way of dealing with the issue. If the government increase the pensionable age it is not going to come close to fixing the problem, so they will move the threshold again, and again until people are forced to work into the 70's.

I dont know about you personally, but I would like a few years at the end of my life to step back, relax, and do all those things I promised I might do but never had the time to do so and still be healthy enough and physically able to do that. I certainly do not want to see people working at 70 years of age, and for many whose job requires physical labour is that even feasible?
I would sooner see the PRSI increased to cover the cost over a longer period.

If the government would just spell it out in a document or web page being everyone seems to be permanently connected to a phone now as to how increasing the pensionable age solves anything, with proper numbers to back it up and possibly a comparison as to how else it would be afforded I might be persuaded. Until then I am firmly in the don't touch the pensionable age camp not for ideological reasons but because as I see it there is no way possible for the numbers to stack up.

We are being sold yet another lie and false promise.

christy c

efanton wrote: »

We are being sold yet another lie and false promise.

The pension reserve is spent, to borrow the Brian Cowen's phrase "we are where we are", we need to fix it. I agree raising the pension age will not be enough on it's own. But if you look through each party's policies, the options we have are:

1. Increase pension age
2. Do nothing

If someone wants to talk about increasing PRSI, great. But as usual in Irish politics, we are told that we can have our cake and eat it.

Bass Reeves

efanton wrote: »

Well if the government have been honest and prudent, all of those pension payments should already be there waiting to be paid out. Those pensioners have been paying PRSI their entire lives.

Of course FG will never mention that they robbed billions out of the pension reserve fund and never put a single cent back into it.

Personally I would sooner see the government adjusting the PRSI rate from time to time to ensure that when we retire at 65 there is sufficient funds there to pay a pension. I know they have raised the pensionable age beyond 65 now, but if they are allowed to do it now, how often will they be tempted to keep pushing the pensionable age threshold. I could see those who are under 30 being 75 years of age before they are allowed to retire if FG get their way. Of course this will not affect the wealthy as they will have been able to afford substantial pension plans and retire at 65 anyhow if they wish, but the ordinary worker who struggles to pay a mortgage, childcare, car insurance etc etc will not be that fortunate.

Its not a case that this country cannot afford to pay a pension at 65. This country collects in the region of 80 billion in tax and other sources every year. Millions are collected in PRSI every year. Its more a case of how the government wishes to spend that huge sum. I do not believe for one minute that out of that sum provision cannot be made for pensions if the PRSI rate is occasionally adjusted.

If an insurance company behaved in the way recent governments have, by taking money set a side for pensions and spending elsewhere, the director of those companies would be in prison.

If existing PRSI contributions are not sufficient they why not be honest about it and raise them. Allowing a government to push back the pension age because they spent all the money elsewhere is just inviting them to constantly push back the pensionable age.

First off it was not FG that as you put it robbed billions out of the pension reserve fund. It was part of the agreement between FF and the IMF to rescue the country in 2010. Actually the only MOF that removed money as part of a budget from the PRSI reserver fund was Charlie McCreevy. It was the IMF that also insisted on raising the pension age.

Is it right or wrong. On reaching 65 the average pensioner will live to 84 at present(before COVID). We are where we are. We cannot borrow or magic money to pay for pensions. It is unlikely that we could manage to set up a pension reserve fund again. Even in reality the pension reserve fund was here to help pay for public service pensions.

The reality is that in 20 years time it will not be possible to pay for pensions with public service or OAP's. How to solve it is the problem. If the pension reserve fund had been50 billion the INF would still have robbed it as they considered it a sovereign wealth fund

Ballso

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I'll stop reading right there.

I am entitled to know ALL of it.

You're some narcissist Francie. Bang of Gemma O'Doherty off your posts

FrancieBrady

Ballso wrote: »

You're some narcissist Francie. Bang of Gemma O'Doherty off your posts

As I said to blanch...it's ok Ballso, I got the info on testing I wanted, because the citizens (believe it or not) are 'entitled' to transparency and answers to questions asked. This is not 2 party state land anymore.

And my nephew also got an apology from the HSE for the delays and messing about..a general apology, not a personal one, as there are too many affected byt the delays and messing.

FrancieBrady

FG about to enter seventh Heaven? :eek:

https://twitter.com/SeanDefoe/status/1245696202668232706?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1245696202668232706&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.broadsheet.ie%2F2020%2F04%2F02%2Fhe-technically-isnt-accountable-to-it%2F

satguy

So it seems the Greens will bow out of this unholy FG & FF coalition, and it will be left up to FG & FF gene pool IND TD's to make up the numbers.

A wise move by the GP, and I think they saw the writing on the wall. (= wipe out at next GE )

Maybe FG will ask Michael Lowry to sit this one out,, we all know what happened the last time Lowry had any power. But the others might chip in, a bypass here, and a new school there. It's all good, and sure we might drive on the bypass, ya never know.

The other thing that might happen is,, FF will realise that MM has very bad stage fright, and pushing Leo up front gives him something / someone to hide behind. It's the main reason for that god awful confidence and supply agreement we've had to sit through for the last few years.

Jim O'Callaghan might give MM a wee push, and then might give Mary Lou a wee call,, sure, isn't this what we all want ?

Even FG ..

Suckit

I wonder how much Leo has spent on spin since the election. I have no doubt somebody is watching it.
He had to shut it down the last time because he was spending too much, then the reality showed how bad he was without it. They slipped further down the ratings.
No doubt he decided to invest in them again when they didn't fare as well as they had hoped in the GE.
There has definitely been a bit of spending for those speeches, a quote from a movie here, a nod to Churchill there, and all he was actually doing (eventually) was what the HSE were telling him.
He really uses the spin squad like a crutch.

FrancieBrady

Josepha showing that there is no change in direction anyhow.

https://twitter.com/fionnansheahan/status/1245727996637523969

feargale

OK, folks. So what's the solution? Who is going to form a government?

And let's say the sooner the better. A caretaker givernment cannot go on forever, especially when people are questioning its legitimacy.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

FG about to enter seventh Heaven? :eek:

https://twitter.com/SeanDefoe/status/1245696202668232706?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1245696202668232706&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.broadsheet.ie%2F2020%2F04%2F02%2Fhe-technically-isnt-accountable-to-it%2F

The failure of Sinn Fein to rally 81 out of the 125 anti-FG TDs is really coming home to roost.

It is not FG's fault that the 125 TDs who wanted change from a FG government are too incompetent to agree an alternative.

Drumpot

feargale wrote: »

OK, folks. So what's the solution? Who is going to form a government?

And let's say the sooner the better. A caretaker givernment cannot go on forever, especially when people are questioning its legitimacy.

This is a crisis scenario. To talk about disbanding the current government, that has thus far been excellent, is mindnumbingly stupid.

Shame on other parties only interested in themselves , desperate to stop FG from their sterling work. It is not and should not be a priority to change government and if all parties really were interested in doing what’s right they would leave the government and authorities to get through this.

There is no benefit to changing up the people running the show. It’s like a house on fire , with firemen trying to put it out who arrived first on the scene.. But some egotistical chief comes along and wants to change a more experienced fire crew with ones with no experience just because it’s protocol or some other bullsh^t ideal.

It really is clear that it’s killing FF and SF to see FG do such a superb job. I was chatting with a lifetime FF supporter today who said he thinks this FG have been the best Irish government in his lifetime and I tend to agree. I don’t care what happened before they cancelled the parade, when we needed them most as a nation they stood up to the plate. I wouldn’t want anybody else getting us through this right now and it would be usa/uk level idiot self destructive level to change them before this is resolved.

Suckit

Drumpot wrote: »

This is a crisis scenario. To talk about disbanding the current government, that has thus far been excellent, is mindnumbingly stupid.

Shame on other parties only interested in themselves , desperate to stop FG from their sterling work. It is not and should not be a priority to change government and if all parties really were interested in doing what’s right they would leave the government and authorities to get through this.

There is no benefit to changing up the people running the show. It’s like a house on fire , with firemen trying to put it out who arrived first on the scene.. But some egotistical chief comes along and wants to change a more experienced fire crew with ones with no experience just because it’s protocol or some other bullsh^t ideal.

It really is clear that it’s killing FF and SF to see FG do such a superb job. I was chatting with a lifetime FF supporter today who said he thinks this FG have been the best Irish government in his lifetime and I tend to agree. I don’t care what happened before they cancelled the parade, when we needed them most as a nation they stood up to the plate. I wouldn’t want anybody else getting us through this right now and it would be usa/uk level idiot self destructive level to change them before this is resolved.

Don't know what caretakers you have been watching, but 'excellent', sterling' and 'superb' are not close to the words I would use to decribe them.

Of course, there are some people that listened to Leo's speeches and thought that was all the work done there.