Relaxation of Restrictions, Part VI - **Read OP for Mod Warnings**

Ginger n Lemon

Allinall wrote: »

If someone was on the PUP maximum rate of €350 for a whole year, they would pay no tax.

They're taxed as it is added to other earned income. This is as it should be.

So governments shutting down businesses, giving money to employees on emergency basis, and then taxing that money - is how it should be?

Do you not a see a major flaw?

stephenjmcd

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

IT and Indo now both saying that takeaway pints will be banned for the remainder of this current lockdown

For 2 weeks haha this country is a joke.

BeefeaterHat

nofools wrote: »

The sensible majority or the difficult minority earning us more and more restrictions daily.

Some people are slow learners that can't put 2 and 2 together about cause and effect.

You're starting to sound a bit sinister if you don't mind me saying so.

growleaves

stephenjmcd wrote: »

For 2 weeks haha this country is a joke.

You're forgetting that they can easily extend the lockdown on Dec 1st.

I'm not predicting that will happen but it is hardly outside the realm of possibility.

stephenjmcd

growleaves wrote: »

You're forgetting that they can easily extend the lockdown on Dec 1st.

I'm not predicting that will happen but it is hardly outside the realm of possibility.

I'd be highly surprised if government extended level 5.

Level 3 is basically the same with retail open.

It was billed to the public as a 6 week set of restrictions and that was it, good luck to them to get any more support.

Allinall

Ginger n Lemon wrote: »

So governments shutting down businesses, giving money to employees on emergency basis, and then taxing that money - is how it should be?

Do you not a see a major flaw?

No. Absolutely not.

Government give money to civil and public servants every week, and tax them on it.

Government give social welfare to people every week, and tax them on it.

Government give money to pensioners every week, and tax them on it.

Tax is payable on income. It's why it's called income tax.

Very straightforward.

Piehead

stephenjmcd wrote: »

For 2 weeks haha this country is a joke.

Lockdown level 5 will be rightly extended into mid Jan

Ginger n Lemon

Allinall wrote: »

No. Absolutely not.

Government give money to civil and public servants every week, and tax them on it.

Government give social welfare to people every week, and tax them on it.

Government give money to pensioners every week, and tax them on it.

Tax is payable on income. It's why it's called income tax.

Very straightforward.

None of above is given on emergency basis. You do seem to be missing the point.

Government SHUTS DOWN businesses and leaves EMPLOYEES with NO INCOME.

Then they proceed to give those employees up to 350 euros a week.

Then they proceed to tax that.

Can you please let me know which scenario is this similar to? Pensioners getting pension? Or public servants performing weekly work and getting paid for it?

I get a worrying feeling that you think PUP is a permanent arrangement. It is not. It is not in any shape or form similar to arrangements you have described above.

stephenjmcd

Piehead wrote: »

Lockdown level 5 will be rightly extended into mid Jan

I'll bookmark this

nofools

BeefeaterHat wrote: »

You're starting to sound a bit sinister if you don't mind me saying so.

Well in that case you are just sounding a bit paranoid.

What is the fear?

Penfailed

Piehead wrote: »

Lockdown level 5 will be rightly extended into mid Jan

No. It won't.

It’s beyond a joke at this point. Covid spreading in hospitals and nursing homes due to the incompetence of Government/NPHET/HSE and we have to listen to some numpty from NPHET talking about our relationship with alcohol and the media reporting on take away pints.

How many cases has take away pints led to?

I suppose we should ban take away tea /coffee and hot chocolate as well?

Allinall

Ginger n Lemon wrote: »

None of above is given on emergency basis. You do seem to be missing the point.

Government SHUTS DOWN businesses and leave EMPLOYEES with NO INCOME.

Then they proceed to give those employees up to 350 euros a week.

Then they proceed to tax that.

Can you please let me know which scenario is this similar to? Pensioners getting pension? Or public servants performing weekly work and getting paid for it?

I get a worrying feeling that you think PUP is a permanent arrangement. It is not. It is not in any shape or form similar to arrangements you have described above.

You can call it what you like.

It's income.

Income is taxable, regardless of the source.

It's perfectly fair.

To not tax it would be unfair. Unfair to all those others receiving government money and paying tax on it.

nofools

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It’s beyond a joke at this point. Covid spreading in hospitals and nursing homes due to the incompetence of Government/NPHET/HSE and we have to listen to some numpty from NPHET talking about our relationship with alcohol and the media reporting on take away pints.

How many cases has take away pints led to?

I suppose we should ban take away tea /coffee and hot chocolate as well?

How did it get into the hospitals Jac? Who's fault is it and why?

_Kaiser_

Piehead wrote: »

Lockdown level 5 will be rightly extended into mid Jan

On what basis?

Seriously... what reason is there for extending the lockdown and restrictions at all?

Forget about cases - pointless metric as they don't translate into serious illness or death in the vast majority of instances, plus the way the metric is arrived at is flawed and acknowledged as same by the HSE in Dail Committee hearings

What reason is there to lock down 5 million people at this stage? There's still only a handful of deaths, most in the very elderly who already had serious issues and before April would have been classed as part of old age, a large number of people don't realise they have CV-19 until they're told, and the damage being caused to business and personal wellbeing is massive.

What are we being "protected" from? Something that is no more dangerous than the flu to most people?

nofools

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

What are we being "protected" from? Something that is no more dangerous than the flu to most people?

You got upset yesterday that I didn't take your post seriously but if you just keep repeating this absolute lie what do you expect?

nofools

nofools wrote: »

How did it get into the hospitals Jac? Who's fault is it and why?

There is a mild virus out there. Some people will require hospitalisation. It is nobodies fault if someone gets sick...

After nearly a year of this... You’d think that we would have actions in place to avoid multiple outbreaks in hospitals no?

More importantly, you think we’d have gotten better at protecting the nursing homes where over 60% of deaths have occurred... Instead we reduced testing.

Now it’s time to deflect... more finger wagging because someone drank a take away pint.

alentejo

Piehead wrote: »

Lockdown level 5 will be rightly extended into mid Jan

Absolutely so. What's another few billion! Sure, its only money!!

Captain_Crash

On the discussion of any extension. I said to the Mrs back when level 5 was announced that I have zero confidence that it will only be for six weeks! Sadly, I somehow have even less confidence than I did before in this government! I hope you guys are right about some sort of relaxation in 2 weeks! Because I myself can’t see it!

BeefeaterHat

[Deleted User] wrote: »

There is a mild virus out there. Some people will require hospitalisation. It is nobodies fault if someone gets sick...

After nearly a year of this... You’d think that we would have actions in place to avoid multiple outbreaks in hospitals no?

More importantly, you think we’d have gotten better at protecting the nursing homes where over 60% of deaths have occurred... Instead we reduced testing.

Now it’s time to deflect... more finger wagging because someone drank a take away pint.

Well according you're not with him you're against him. I wonder what he wants to happen to people who are 'against' him

_Kaiser_

nofools wrote: »

You got upset yesterday that I didn't take your post seriously but if you just keep repeating this absolute lie what do you expect?

Where's the lie? Serious question

Are you denying that those most at risk are in the very elderly/underlying issues category

Are you denying that of the 67903 cases, we've only seen 1979 deaths - many in that aforementioned demographic

Are you denying that lots of people don't even realise they have CV-19 unless tested and told?

nofools

[Deleted User] wrote: »

There is a mild virus out there. Some people will require hospitalisation. It is nobodies fault if someone gets sick...

After nearly a year of this... You’d think that we would have actions in place to avoid multiple outbreaks in hospitals no?

More importantly, you think we’d have gotten better at protecting the nursing homes where over 60% of deaths have occurred... Instead we reduced testing.

Now it’s time to deflect... more finger wagging because someone drank a take away pint.

Why would such action be warranted for such a "mild" thing?

You can't have both without your argument falling apart.

froog

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Where's the lie? Serious question

Are you denying that those most at risk are in the very elderly/underlying issues category

Are you denying that of the 67903 cases, we've only seen 1979 deaths - many in that aforementioned demographic
Are you denying that lots of people don't even realise they have CV-19 unless tested and told?

"only" 1979 deaths? christ.

and how many you reckon would have died with zero restrictions?

Captain_Crash

Captain_Crash wrote: »

On the discussion of any extension. I said to the Mrs back when level 5 was announced that I have zero confidence that it will only be for six weeks! Sadly, I somehow have even less confidence than I did before in this government! I hope you guys are right about some sort of relaxation in 2 weeks! Because I myself can’t see it!

I kind of hope they are foolish enough to extend it for all December.

Public support is largely dropping apart from a few crazies on here.

Cancelling Christmas would be the final nail.

_Kaiser_

froog wrote: »

"only" 1979 deaths? christ.

and how many you reckon would have died with zero restrictions?

People die. It's unfortunate, but it happens every day and in far great numbers than from CV-19. You surely don't believe that death can be stopped by CV-19 restrictions do you?

As for your second question, we'll never know but given our relatively youthful population the chances are we certainly wouldn't have seen scenes as in Italy.

All we're doing now is protecting the incompetence and waste in the HSE and their inability to get their house in order for decades.

nofools

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Where's the lie? Serious question

Are you denying that those most at risk are in the very elderly/underlying issues category

Are you denying that of the 67903 cases, we've only seen 1979 deaths - many in that aforementioned demographic

Are you denying that lots of people don't even realise they have CV-19 unless tested and told?

I am denying any association with "just a flu" which has already been ripped apart by the scientific community.

Or let's use a common sense heuristic, if it was actually akin to a flu the world wouldn't have stopped.

Not even looking at your numbers as I can only assume it is a cherry picked non argument like the rest of it. Look globally and you are proven very wrong.

froog

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

People die. It's unfortunate, but it happens every day and in far great numbers than from CV-19. You surely don't believe that death can be stopped by CV-19 restrictions do you?

As for your second question, we'll never know but given our relatively youthful population the chances are we certainly wouldn't have seen scenes as in Italy.

All we're doing now is protecting the incompetence and waste in the HSE and their inability to get their house in order for decades.

are you serious? you think no lives were saved by the lockdowns?

get a clue man.

Ginger n Lemon

Ginger n Lemon wrote: »

None of above is given on emergency basis. You do seem to be missing the point.

Government SHUTS DOWN businesses and leaves EMPLOYEES with NO INCOME.

Then they proceed to give those employees up to 350 euros a week.

Then they proceed to tax that.

Can you please let me know which scenario is this similar to? Pensioners getting pension? Or public servants performing weekly work and getting paid for it?

I get a worrying feeling that you think PUP is a permanent arrangement. It is not. It is not in any shape or form similar to arrangements you have described above.

Allinall wrote: »

You can call it what you like.

It's income.

Income is taxable, regardless of the source.

It's perfectly fair.

To not tax it would be unfair. Unfair to all those others receiving government money and paying tax on it.

Damn. For a second there we were having a quality debate. But you went ahead and ruined it.

So you are essentially saying that even though PUP is given under Urgent needs payments under Section 202 of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005, it is fine to be taxed purely because govt had no time to make it means tested?

Or you are saying that all income is taxable. Regardless of actual laws of this country? (I ll give you a hint, not all income is taxable.)


Your point of "to not tax it would be unfair to all those others receiving government money (for work performed or under social welfare act)" is quite moot and is lacking substance.

nofools

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Public support is largely dropping apart from a few crazies on here.

Back in reality, public support is rounding against selfish people costing them their freedom and livelihood.

froog

froog wrote: »

"only" 1979 deaths? christ.

and how many you reckon would have died with zero restrictions?

Those deaths are way overstated.
Excess mortality will show a tiny death rate.

It will be nothing to do with lockdown either.
Keep it out of nursing homes and almost no deaths at all.

Sweden are also proof that lockdown achieved f*ck all.

We certainly would have never had the 250K deaths that Mr Varadkar mentioned.