Budget 2017

kazamo wrote: »

An extra fiver a week !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.......omg that's like an extra three cent per hour they spend in bed.
That's way too generous, or perhaps when we look at the actual monetary increase rather than a percentage, we get a little more perspective.

Perhaps your 2% was a greater monetary value

kazamo wrote: »

I agree with that principle.
It should be related to the level of contributions made rather than the standard payment regardless of whether anything was paid.

Seems unfair that the minimum waged when made unemployed are given the same payment as those earning 80-100k for a number of years but are now jobless.

But it will never be reintroduced as it would cost more than the current system. So those unemployed on previous high salaries are subsidising those who never worked as they are being cheated out of the support they would have got in France, Netherlands or Germany.

Absolutely your payment should be based on your contibution , i get a statement every november from my private pension provider telling me what my expected annual pension will be ased on my contribution , somthing similar should be done by welfare.

Those able bodied who have never worked should get an absolute base amount or food voucher with the rest being tied to thier personal contribution on a reducing balance over 5 years. After that they go on base.

I've no problem with a welfare increase. It will help out people who have very little, carers, the disabled etc.

In terms of the increase for those on jobs seekers, imho it should only granted to those who engage with the system doing schemes, training etc. It shouldn't go to anyone able bodied who does nothing to improve their situation. In fact take a few quid off them to help fund it.

lawlolawl wrote:

Pay minimum wage workers more, pay those on the dole less.

That's a risky strategy which I suspect would fail. All for increasing minimum pay though

Musketeer4 wrote: »

Yes they should be €20 as far as I'm concerned. Smokers are a drain on society when they inevitably get ill from it and expect the rest of us to pay for their hospital bills.

I assume you're also in favour of exponentially increasing the cost of alcohol, too, then?

Its very ho hum everyone will get something small but nothing spectacular.

mariaalice wrote: »

Its very ho hum everyone will get something small but nothing spectacular.

yes, but it adds up, sadly, and as we learned during the boom, if you do this year on year, it ends up being completely unsustainable.

It feels like we're repeating the same mistakes as before.

Take money off the hard working who pulled the country out of recession. Give it to the pensioners and SW recipients who sat on their arse's for the last 8 years.

Welcome to politics, Irish style.

I agree, they can save their "we are all in this together" ****e. I really think working people will have had beyond enough and expect and hope for serious increase in the FG and potentially Renua vote. I sure as hell dont agree with them on everything, but look at the alternative, have the rest of the all for nothing bridgade continue to bleed us dry!

I understand the attempt at trying to buy grey vote. But going further any now trying to buy the entire welfare vote, when there was no need for it, is beyond a joke. Im sure its easier knocking at the doors saying "you are right, they are screwing everyone, thats why FF have fought for you" This weak governance now exposes the serious problem and cost of the current situation. We need to get back at least to a coalition government...

yes, but it adds up, sadly, and as we learned during the boom, if you do this year on year, it ends up being completely unsustainable.

It feels like we're repeating the same mistakes as before.

they want power at all costs, as per my post above. FF know it will be neck and neck with FG, the balance is trying to get their power, but not buying everyone off...

weldoninhio wrote: »

What's stopping you from, y'know, getting a job??

What's stopping you from, y'know, not being an arsehole?

kazamo wrote: »

My idea would not have a dividing line of whether you worked or not.
There are plenty of people in this economy who choose to remain below the tax threshold and I have worked with some of them.

This having a pop at the unemployed ignores the people who earn but pay little or no tax and this is a deliberate strategy.
My threshold would be the average industrial wage with the current 188\193 as the mean payment for those people and a graded scale above and below that point depending on contributions or lack of.

We put the threshold as to whether you have a job or not......the bar needs to be higher than that

So if you've never worked and choose social welfare as a lifstyle or have fiddled the books to dodge paying the correct levels of PRSI you loose , that seems fair to be honest. you either work contribute and pay tax fairly like those in PAYE sectors or if the worst comers to it then your massively out of pocket.

To be honest i think that's fair would disinsetivise people going strait from school to the dole or lone parents or under declaring their income from nixers etc to aviod paying the proper rate of tax that's a win win in my book. Paying a living wage to jthe unemployed is a nonsense idea , it should be purely based on your contribution and should be viewed strictly as a safety net and not an alternative to getting off your hole and going to work.

I think employers should be incentivised to hire Irish over forign workers in order to help reduce the numbers on the dole particularly in low skilled jobs and in the services industry.

additionally the increase on cigarettes is a positive , alcohol should have gone up also and the sugar tax is a progressive move , one of the few things i think FG got right in this budget

leahyl wrote: »

What a load of rubbish this first time buyers grant is - only if you buy a new build and you have to have a mortgage of at least 80%.

So, basically I have been saving for a house for the past 6 years and missed the boat when houses were going for a good price and now that prices have skyrocketed I can no longer afford to buy a decent 3 bed semi even with the amount of savings I have. This grant then comes in and basically only looks after people who have a big enough mortgage - encouraging people to take out bigger mortgages if you want to avail of the tax back!!! I want to take out as low a mortgage as possible so if I thought that I would get money back by throwing all my savings into buying (and I don't want to buy a new build either) it would be very attractive - what's there for people like me in the middle who have savings but still not enough to buy a house (ie. if I did it would be difficult to "kit out" said house as all my savings would be gone)

SIGH, frustrating to say the least.

Is this income refund linked to the price of the home rather than the earnings of the buyer?

pilly wrote: »

To be fair there are houses out there for under 400k.

in Dublin? Sweet feck all up here my friend.