Was Rachel punished for being smart by the government?

Jeremy Sproket

Rachel and Peter both graduated from college at the same time and began working in very similar fields. 

Rachel was very diligent with her money, maxed out her pension contributions and saved a huge amount of money every month. By the time she reached her late 50's she was ready to take early retirement as she has a huge nest egg and a nice pension fund. She wanted to enjoy her money later in life and work hard now.

Peter was the opposite, he pissed away every penny and his money passed through his hands like water through a colander. He never bothered contributing to a pension either and lived payslip to payslip despite earning the same money as Rachel.

Rachel and Peter are both now in their late 50's. Coincidentally, they both have a similar unfortunate accident around the same time which requires significant medical care, limb prosthesis and adaptations to their homes.

Due to the "means testing" nature of our HSE, Rachel will be means tested and have to fork over a huge lump from her money. Peter doesn't, because he has nothing. 

The summary of the situation is:
Peter and Rachel both earned similar money. Rachel never enjoyed her money. Peter did. Rachel has to pay a fortune of her money. Peter doesn't have to pay a peanut.


Health insurance only goes so far and won't pay for things like prostheses and home adaptations.

How is that system fair? Do we have universal health or not here? 

Yurt2

How smart is Rachel really if she didn't have insurance?

Jeremy Sproket

Yurt! wrote: »

How smart is Rachel really if she didn't have insurance?

Health insurance doesn't pay for home adaptations or things like limb prosthesis.

Besides, my point still stands where one pays and the other doesn't. Despite them both having made similar contributions to the tax pool.

some random drunk

I can't believe you've left Declan out of all this.

Allinall

Why should Rachel not pay for something that she can afford, and will benefit her to a great extent?

Hoboo

Jeremy Sproket wrote: »

Health insurance doesn't pay for home adaptations.

Besides, my point still stands where one pays and the other doesn't. Despite them both having made similar contributions to the tax pool.

They couldn't possibly have contributed similar amounts to the tax pool, whatever his name is was spending all his money on goods and services while herself was spending nothing.

Leg End Reject

Yurt! wrote: »

How smart is Rachel really if she didn't have insurance?

That won't cover adaptations to her home though. She'd still have more money than Peter however, plus an ongoing income from her pension. Peter is now fully reliant on disability allowance.

Jeremy Sproket

Allinall wrote: »

Why should Rachel not pay for something that she can afford, and will benefit her to a great extent?

Can you not read?

She already contributed the same taxes.

How is it fair that Peter who pissed all his money away gets a free ride when Rachel doesn't.

Our health system and state aids are either universal or they aren't.

Jeremy Sproket

Jeremy Sproket wrote: »

Can you not read?

She already contributed the same taxes.

How is it fair that Peter who pissed all his money away gets a free ride when Rachel doesn't.

Our health system and state aids are either universal or they aren't.

I dont think anyone losing a limb could be classified as getting a free ride?

Leg End Reject

Ah Jeremy, wait until you hear about the Fair Deal scheme.

Jeremy Sproket

The amount of people thanking Yurts post obviously didn't read or comprehend the OP.

EddieN75

That's like nursing homes.
If you own your own house it's used as collateral and basically sold off to fund your care. Ie fair deal scheme.

If you haven't a cent you get looked after in a nursing home anyway. They take your pension.

Also contributory and non contributory pensions almost the same figure

Hoboo

Jeremy Sproket wrote: »

Can you not read?

She already contributed the same taxes.

How is it fair that Peter who pissed all his money away gets a free ride when Rachel doesn't.

Our health system and state aids are either universal or they aren't.

How did she contribute the same taxes if she was saving her money and he was spending his?

Please tell me!!

Jeremy Sproket

Deleted User wrote: »

I dont think anyone losing a limb could be classified as getting a free ride?

A free ride compared to Rachel who's in the exact same predicament.

Jeremy Sproket

Hoboo wrote: »

How did she contribute the same taxes if she was saving her money and he was spending his?

Please tell me!!

The income taxes would be similar (not accounting for the tax break for pension contributions).

She will have a private pension income and pay tax on that and probably have her state disability pension slashed too because of it. Whereas Peter takes the piss with free everything.

Jeremy Sproket

Jeremy Sproket wrote: »

A free ride compared to Rachel who's in the exact same predicament.

On what planet is losing a limb regarded as a free ride??


Has rachel tried an onlyfans account,a very niche segment there could attract a premium?

Jeremy Sproket

Deleted User wrote: »

On what planet is losing a limb regarded as a free ride??


Has rachel tried an onlyfans account,a very niche segment there could attract a premium?

Read the OP. Rachel is in the same predicament.

Yurt2

Deleted User wrote: »

I dont think anyone losing a limb could be classified as getting a free ride?

Next time I see someone with a prosthetic limb on the street I'm going to accost them about their financials, bloody layabout. MY TAXES paid for that bionic leg you know!

The internet is magical, someone concocting a fictional character with an imagined series of lifestyle choices - Peter the Peg Leg - and getting mad enough to start a thread about him

*shakes fist* Damn you to hell Peter!

Leg End Reject

Jeremy Sproket wrote: »

Read the OP. Rachel is in the same predicament.

She isn't, she has savings and an income from her pension. Peter has nothing except his prosthetic limb.

Yurt!

Yurt! wrote: »

Next time I see someone with a prosthetic limb on the street I'm going to accost them about their financials, bloody layabout. MY TAXES paid for that bionic leg you know!

The internet is magical, someone concocting a fictional character with an imagined series of lifestyle choices - Peter the Peg Leg - and getting mad enough to start a thread about him

*shakes fist* Damn you to hell Peter!

i mean such a scenario could in theory happen....but tbh i cant myself ever getting outraged that someone got a free prosthetic limb tbh


Seems a good arguement for universal healthcare for all tbh

enricoh

Use salt and pepper like yer man on the telly!

It's because the state can't afford to pay for everyone's health care. So they only pay for those who can't afford it. If they can't afford to pay for everyone would you prefer if no one got it?

Yurt2

Deleted User wrote: »

i mean such a scenario could in theory happen....but tbh i cant myself ever getting outraged that someone got a free prosthetic limb tbh


Seems a good arguement for universal healthcare for all tbh

Free prosthetics? Sounds like a recipe for communist tyranny to me. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

I'll tell you what's wrong with society today: Peg Leg Peter and his feckless enablers.

Leg End Reject

We should all forcibly remove any prosthetic limbs we see until the wearer proves they have sufficiently contributed to the cost.

Free legs for all, it's a disgrace!


*sarcasm, in case anyone takes it seriously.

Tpcl20

Rachel has learned too late in life that it's for living. The government didn't punish her, she was a dry shyte to begin with and she'll go out even drier.

One eyed Jack

Leg End Reject wrote: »

She isn't, she has savings and an income from her pension. Peter has nothing except his prosthetic limb.

Username checks out


@OP I don’t understand the question either to be honest and I have read the opening post. What property does Peter own if he pissed all his earnings away?

I’d rather be in Rachel’s position where she isn’t dependent upon State aid and waiting lists for everything under the misguided notion of Universal anything.

Leg End Reject

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Username checks out

Well feck ya, I didn't think!

odyssey06

Deleted User wrote: »

It's because the state can't afford to pay for everyone's health care. So they only pay for those who can't afford it. If they can't afford to pay for everyone would you prefer if no one got it?

The state would have more scope to fund essential services for everyone if it didn't provide everything to the "can't pay won't pay won't work" cohort... in many cases providing better if not equal standard of living to those who don't contribute anyting versus those putting their shoulders to the wheel and getting up early in the morning. So more and more people look at the poverty traps the government have created and ask themselves, why bother? So the state has to spend more money taking care of people who should be taking care of themselves. And gets less revenue.

The other is the appalling lack of bang for buck they get from the billions put into health care relative to other countries.
Other countries are paying for universal health care from the same amount of funding, considering age profile of the country.

Having said all that, when you are born you don't know if you will be a Rachel or a Peter. Behind a veil of ignorance you probably would opt for equal outcomes for both. In that sense it is fair. But it is unfair because tolerating the free riders puts a heavier burden on the rest, so behind a veil of ignorance you would also opt for a system which encourages and rewards effort and contribution to society.

Allinall

Jeremy Sproket wrote: »

Can you not read?

She already contributed the same taxes.

How is it fair that Peter who pissed all his money away gets a free ride when Rachel doesn't.

Our health system and state aids are either universal or they aren't.

I can read.

Maybe try answering the question.

Why should Rachel not pay for something that she can afford, and will benefit her to a great extent?

corner of hells

Was Peter the bloke in the red jumper ?

alchemist33

Jeremy Sproket wrote: »

The amount of people thanking Yurts post obviously didn't read or comprehend the OP.

Are you pretending you didn't edit the OP after Yurt's comment now?

odyssey06

Allinall wrote: »

I can read.

Maybe try answering the question.

Why should Rachel not pay for something that she can afford, and will benefit her to a great extent?

She has already contributed and paid in taxes to fund services and supports that should be there for her when she needs them.
She is being asked to pay twice - for her own care and those who made no provision for themselves.

We should either be in this together or left to take care of ourselves.
Asking the responsible to take care of the irresponsible creates a moral hazard which just incentivises more irresponsibility and free riders.

colm_mcm

corner of hells wrote: »

Was Peter the bloke in the red jumper ?

Yes, he bought a job lot of them from a bloke in Power City. That’s for another thread though.

ohnonotgmail

Nice to see such light-hearted threads in AH.

Leg End Reject

So, the moral of the story - squander all your money, lose a limb, get a free prosthetic and you've won at life.

I'd rather have all my limbs tbh.

Junkyard Tom

Why did she cut her own leg off?

Your Face

I'm eating my breakfast Kate, I mean Rachel.

Leg End Reject

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Why did she cut her own leg off?

Because she could afford a new one.

EddieN75

Leg End Reject wrote: »

So, the moral of the story - squander all your money, lose a limb, get a free prosthetic and you've won at life.

I'd rather have all my limbs tbh.

You can keep your limbs. The analogy is correct. Can be applied to state pension, housing, healthcare, late in life care etc

Rachel's mistake was not using her wealth to find a good accountant who could hide it out of revenue's eye line like most well off people do

Wait til you hear about contributory vs non contributory pensions.

The Mighty Quinn

I'm trying to strike a balance between your characters in my life.

Frame it as you have and Rachel looks like she's onto a loser and Peter a winner.... But in reality if you've been financially prudent and shrewd all your life then you'll most likely be better off in retirement then those who've made no effort to.

While I agree that the gap between contributory state pension and non contributory is too narrow, no point crying about that in your late 60s...

Pay into a private pension. You'll not be worse off no matter what. Don't believe anybody telling you their uncle lost his pension completely, or the government stole his pension last recession. Many in this situation were calling a second house they'd bought their pension etc etc.

Leg End Reject

EddieN75 wrote: »

You can keep your limbs. The analogy is correct. Can be applied to state pension, housing, healthcare, late in life care etc

Rachel's mistake was not using her wealth to find a good accountant who could hide it out of revenue's eye line like most well off people do

You're talking about the super rich there. Rachel and Peter are middle income earners, one saved and contributed to a pension, one spent everything, both now have a prosthetic limb.

But Rachel still has some savings and a pension.

twowheelsonly

So lets assume that both were in identical positions as regards wages and housing and general necessary outgoings.

Rachel saved €200,000. Well done Rachel.
Peter spent that €200,000 over the years. He bought cars, paid tax on them, liked nice clothes, paid tax on them, liked a few pints at the weekend, paid extortionate tax on them, smoked 20 a day, paid extortionate tax on them.

Peter has paid an absolute minimum of €50,000 more taxes than Rachel, substantially more if he spent a fair whack of his €200k on drink and smokes.

Those extra taxes are now all going towards his 'free' prosthetic.
Rachel should have lived a bit more..

The Mighty Quinn

The Mighty Quinn wrote: »

I'm trying to strike a balance between your characters in my life.

Frame it as you have and Rachel looks like she's onto a loser and Peter a winner.... But in reality if you've been financially prudent and shrewd all your life then you'll most likely be better off in retirement then those who've made no effort to.

While I agree that the gap between contributory state pension and non contributory is too narrow, no point crying about that in your late 60s...

Pay into a private pension. You'll not be worse off no matter what. Don't believe anybody telling you their uncle lost his pension completely, or the government stole his pension last recession. Many in this situation were calling a second house they'd bought their pension etc etc.

The waterford glass factory workers lost their pensions,some paid into for over 40 years


Only for they such a big group (and wealthy) could pool resources,they'd have got nothing otherwise.......what hope deos anyone on their own have to fight for it in court on own back??

Stihl waters

Peter was some crack in fairness, way better than that penny pinching bitch Rachel

killbillvol2

twowheelsonly wrote: »

So lets assume that both were in identical positions as regards wages and housing and general necessary outgoings.

Rachel saved €200,000. Well done Rachel.
Peter spent that €200,000 over the years. He bought cars, paid tax on them, liked nice clothes, paid tax on them, liked a few pints at the weekend, paid extortionate tax on them, smoked 20 a day, paid extortionate tax on them.

Peter has paid an absolute minimum of €50,000 more taxes than Rachel, substantially more if he spent a fair whack of his €200k on drink and smokes.

Those extra taxes are now all going towards his 'free' prosthetic.
Rachel should have lived a bit more..

Don't forget that Rachel also got tax relief on her pension contributions while Peter paid tax on all his income. Rachel is clearly the leech here. Where's this modified house of hers? I'm getting my pitchfork.

She could use her money to live the high life in a cheaper country though.

Leg End Reject

killbillvol2 wrote: »

Don't forget that Rachel also got tax relief on her pension contributions while Peter paid tax on all his income. Rachel is clearly the leech here. Where's this modified house of hers? I'm getting my pitchfork.

Off with her leg!

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The waterford glass factory workers lost their pensions,some paid into for over 40 years


Only for they such a big group (and wealthy) could pool resources,they'd have got nothing otherwise.......what hope deos anyone on their own have to fight for it in court on own back??

Don't forget the poor sods that had their pension money pocketed by a now sitting TD

Zaney

twowheelsonly wrote: »

So lets assume that both were in identical positions as regards wages and housing and general necessary outgoings.

Rachel saved €200,000. Well done Rachel.
Peter spent that €200,000 over the years. He bought cars, paid tax on them, liked nice clothes, paid tax on them, liked a few pints at the weekend, paid extortionate tax on them, smoked 20 a day, paid extortionate tax on them.

Peter has paid an absolute minimum of €50,000 more taxes than Rachel, substantially more if he spent a fair whack of his €200k on drink and smokes.

Those extra taxes are now all going towards his 'free' prosthetic.
Rachel should have lived a bit more..

Plus Peter kept a few people in employment and off the social through his spending. Go Peter.

TheW1zard

They both on paper have had a privileged life