Budget 2018 - Mod note in post #1

13-10-2017 12:26PM

VinLieger wrote: »

Its incredibly broken currently and entirely unsustainable in the long term, but no government is willing to try tackle it as the grey vote will take to the streets on their walkers

What should be done so?
Means test the contributory pension ? Have workers pay PRSI and than get no state pension?
But of course plenty will still get the non contributory pension which is essentially the dole for folks retiring from not working.

VinLieger · 13-10-2017 01:17PM

Augeo wrote: »

What should be done so?
Means test the contributory pension ? Have workers pay PRSI and than get no state pension?
But of course plenty will still get the non contributory pension which is essentially the dole for folks retiring from not working.

I'm not sure what the solution is, all i know is continuing to do nothing isn't going to change something that all experts acknowledge is broken, unsustainable and doomed to fail.

Whatever about means testing the contributory state pension everyone counting on it as their sole source of income once retired needs to be told straight up that it is not an investment where the money you contribute is being put away for you when you retire as many ignorantly assume. The money people pay in to it today is paid out tomorrow to someone retired and collecting their allowance

13-10-2017 01:40PM

Increasing PRSI from 4% to 6/7% would go a long way to solving the problem when we do have 5 pensioners for 2 folks of working age.

Coupled with a raising the retirement age from 68 to 69 or 70, which is inevitable.

You are now required to have 520 full-rate social insurance contributions, up from just 260 previously. The actual pension paid is then determined by the annual average number of contributions since you first joined the system. An average of 48 a year will give you the maximum weekly pension payment. To hit that average of 48 you'd need to be working full time from age 22 to 66, they can make that average requirement higher again which will reduce the total bill.

There are plenty options, increase tax a bit, lower the amount of people getting full whack, give them full whack only when they are 70 etc etc etc. Cutting the link from PRSI payments to getting a contributory pension won't happen though, IMO.

Like all timebombs in the media it's not that bad a problem.

James Brown · 13-10-2017 01:47PM

keane2097 wrote: »

What a load of auld rubbish.

I mean, honestly, I'd be fairly surprised if you could find five people saying the above but 'most people'? Give me a break.

In all fairness, if you are that bad at gauging the public mood it's no wonder you think everyone else is an idiot.

Agreed. Everyone I talk to anyway.
Any research published shows the housing and hospital wait times/trolleys as a very big issue. We are to believe that the 6% unemployed and those of pensionable age are pulling for an extra fiver and wanting more. I would suggest even in that demographic the hospital wait times and housing would be a major issue and despite the 'people want something for nothing' rhetoric, tackling housing and health are the big issues. Having the debate on the fiver distracts from the fact this budget is essentially using tax payer money to finance and bank roll private builds and passing it off as the government supplying housing. Technically yes I suppose, if you can afford it, but the tax payer will be expected to make up the difference. We can't continue like this. It's bad management.

djPSB · 13-10-2017 02:55PM

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Agreed. Everyone I talk to anyway.
Any research published shows the housing and hospital wait times/trolleys as a very big issue. We are to believe that the 6% unemployed and those of pensionable age are pulling for an extra fiver and wanting more. I would suggest even in that demographic the hospital wait times and housing would be a major issue and despite the 'people want something for nothing' rhetoric, tackling housing and health are the big issues. Having the debate on the fiver distracts from the fact this budget is essentially using tax payer money to finance and bank roll private builds and passing it off as the government supplying housing. Technically yes I suppose, if you can afford it, but the tax payer will be expected to make up the difference. We can't continue like this. It's bad management.

It's not really about pumping more money into the health service. It's about being efficient with the resources we have already invested.

There are people lieing in hospital beds every day that don't need to be there. There are people being referred to A&E that don't need to be there.

So we need to through the process from referral to discharge to the community care and fix each step:

- GPs need to cop on and stop referring every dog and devil to A&E. Put some incentive in place to make them take more responsibility.
- Processes within A&E need to be looked at to ensure patients are spending the least amount of time there. Anything beyond an average time of 2/3 hours stay is not acceptable.
- Inpatient wards need lower stay lengths for acute care. Doctors need to take on responsibility here. Average patient stay times should be benchmarked nationally. If there's a shortage of doctors to conduct discharges, hire more. If there's a shortage of doctors to hire, train more.
- More patients who are not acutely unwell need to be cared for in the community where possible. Nursing homes need to be utilised more.

Where hospitals are not performing, local management need to answer questions as to why and need to be replaced if showing no signs of progress.

pilly · 13-10-2017 03:00PM

djPSB wrote: »

It's not really about pumping more money into the health service. It's about being efficient with the resources we have already invested.

There are people lieing in hospital beds every day that don't need to be there. There are people being referred to A&E that don't need to be there.

So we need to through the process from referral to discharge to the community care and fix each step:

- GPs need to cop on and stop referring every dog and devil to A&E. Put some incentive in place to make them take more responsibility.
- Processes within A&E need to be looked at to ensure patients are spending the least amount of time there. Anything beyond an average time of 2/3 hours stay is not acceptable.
- Inpatient wards need lower stay lengths for acute care. Doctors need to take on responsibility here. Average patient stay times should be benchmarked nationally. If there's a shortage of doctors to conduct discharges, hire more. If there's a shortage of doctors to hire, train more.
- More patients who are not acutely unwell need to be cared for in the community where possible. Nursing homes need to be utilised more.

Where hospitals are not performing, local management need to answer questions as to why and need to be replaced if showing no signs of progress.

Very good suggestions, I would add to that that there should be walk-in clinics for minor injuries, these are the cause of major delays in A&E but where else do people go on a Sunday morning with a injury when they don't know if it's a sprain, break or fracture etc?

VinLieger · 13-10-2017 03:08PM

Augeo wrote: »

Coupled with a raising the retirement age from 68 to 69 or 70, which is inevitable.

This is the obvious solution, people are living longer in some specific cases there are people who will be actually retired for longer than they were working.

However ask a politician if they would ever suggest increasing the retirement age, they will laugh in your face, its a death sentence in politics as the grey vote will be on them before they've finished speaking.

13-10-2017 03:32PM

VinLieger wrote: »

............

However ask a politician if they would ever suggest increasing the retirement age, they will laugh in your face, its a death sentence in politics as the grey vote will be on them before they've finished speaking.

Well, it's gone from 66 to 68 for me and I've no doubt it'll go to 69/70 before I get to my late 60s if I'm still about.

keane2097 · 13-10-2017 03:38PM

VinLieger wrote: »

This is the obvious solution, people are living longer in some specific cases there are people who will be actually retired for longer than they were working.

However ask a politician if they would ever suggest increasing the retirement age, they will laugh in your face, its a death sentence in politics as the grey vote will be on them before they've finished speaking.

They raised the retirement age already from 65 to 68 a few years ago

Not sure why the grey vote would be up in arms since this sort of measure usually (and rightly) only applies from a long way out, i.e. it would only apply to people currently say 50 or younger.

Anita Blow · 13-10-2017 04:27PM

djPSB wrote: »

It's not really about pumping more money into the health service. It's about being efficient with the resources we have already invested.

There are people lieing in hospital beds every day that don't need to be there. There are people being referred to A&E that don't need to be there.

So we need to through the process from referral to discharge to the community care and fix each step:

- GPs need to cop on and stop referring every dog and devil to A&E. Put some incentive in place to make them take more responsibility.
- Processes within A&E need to be looked at to ensure patients are spending the least amount of time there. Anything beyond an average time of 2/3 hours stay is not acceptable.
- Inpatient wards need lower stay lengths for acute care. Doctors need to take on responsibility here. Average patient stay times should be benchmarked nationally. If there's a shortage of doctors to conduct discharges, hire more. If there's a shortage of doctors to hire, train more.
- More patients who are not acutely unwell need to be cared for in the community where possible. Nursing homes need to be utilised more.

Where hospitals are not performing, local management need to answer questions as to why and need to be replaced if showing no signs of progress.

The problems with the health service go far beyond these issues. We have neither the doctors nor the beds and the government seems to be unwilling to invest in either. Compounding that is woefully inappropriate allocation of resources so while the health budget as a whole is relatively large, the budget for frontline services is far below what is required.
Unfortunately I think the system is beyond repair because the only solution (let go admin staff and re-allocate the resources to frontline services) will absolutely never happen because it's politically unpalatable.

James Brown · 13-10-2017 05:04PM

djPSB wrote: »

It's not really about pumping more money into the health service. It's about being efficient with the resources we have already invested.

There are people lieing in hospital beds every day that don't need to be there. There are people being referred to A&E that don't need to be there.

So we need to through the process from referral to discharge to the community care and fix each step:

- GPs need to cop on and stop referring every dog and devil to A&E. Put some incentive in place to make them take more responsibility.
- Processes within A&E need to be looked at to ensure patients are spending the least amount of time there. Anything beyond an average time of 2/3 hours stay is not acceptable.
- Inpatient wards need lower stay lengths for acute care. Doctors need to take on responsibility here. Average patient stay times should be benchmarked nationally. If there's a shortage of doctors to conduct discharges, hire more. If there's a shortage of doctors to hire, train more.
- More patients who are not acutely unwell need to be cared for in the community where possible. Nursing homes need to be utilised more.

Where hospitals are not performing, local management need to answer questions as to why and need to be replaced if showing no signs of progress.

Agreed. That's what I meant by 'tear down' in an earlier posting. It's been acknowledged by Fine Gael and other parties that the problem can't be fixed with throwing money yet that's the band-aid we've got from this budget.
This budget is nothing new and solves nothing, nor looks to begin to.

Idbatterim · 13-10-2017 05:17PM

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Agreed. That's what I meant by 'tear down' in an earlier posting. It's been acknowledged by Fine Gael and other parties that the problem can't be fixed with throwing money yet that's the band-aid we've got from this budget.
This budget is nothing new and solves nothing, nor looks to begin to.

it attempts to solve their only concern ie re-election

lawred2 · 13-10-2017 05:50PM

Augeo wrote: »

Increasing PRSI from 4% to 6/7% would go a long way to solving the problem when we do have 5 pensioners for 2 folks of working age.

Coupled with a raising the retirement age from 68 to 69 or 70, which is inevitable.

You are now required to have 520 full-rate social insurance contributions, up from just 260 previously. The actual pension paid is then determined by the annual average number of contributions since you first joined the system. An average of 48 a year will give you the maximum weekly pension payment. To hit that average of 48 you'd need to be working full time from age 22 to 66, they can make that average requirement higher again which will reduce the total bill.

There are plenty options, increase tax a bit, lower the amount of people getting full whack, give them full whack only when they are 70 etc etc etc. Cutting the link from PRSI payments to getting a contributory pension won't happen though, IMO.

Like all timebombs in the media it's not that bad a problem.

All that for an extra 30 or so quid a week. The contributory pension is hardly a problem. The issue is the level of the non contributory pension.

noodler · 13-10-2017 05:56PM

Augeo wrote: »

What should be done so?
Means test the contributory pension ? Have workers pay PRSI and than get no state pension?
But of course plenty will still get the non contributory pension which is essentially the dole for folks retiring from not working.

Throwing 150m at the rates every year despite it fact it's unsustainable as it is isn't the solution anyway.

The solution, at a minimum, is too halt increases and look at different ways to increase contributions and reduce payments to those out of the 600,000 State Pension recipients who don't actually need an additional fiver a week.

And it's a massive problem.

It costs an additional 30m a year to stand still as 20,000+ additional people become eligible.

Another 400m has been added to this bill with the last three rate increases.

The ratio of people working Vs the number over 65 will terminate drastically over the next 20 years.

13-10-2017 06:07PM

noodler wrote: »

Throwing 150m at the rates every year despite it fact it's unsustainable as it is isn't the solution anyway.

The solution, at a minimum, is too halt increases and look at different ways to increase contributions and reduce payments to those out of the 600,000 State Pension recipients who don't actually need an additional fiver a week.

And it's a massive problem.

It costs an additional 30m a year to stand still as 20,000+ additional people become eligible.

Another 400m has been added to this bill with the last three rate increases.

The ratio of people working Vs the number over 65 will terminate drastically over the next 20 years.

You seem to be suggesting folk who are don't need it being treated differently ..... would you propose similar for maternity leave payments & children's allowance?

Increasing contribution is conceptually simple, increase PRSI... job done

Without a contributory pension many folk will get sfa from all the PRSI contribution they paid over the years.

Personally I'm all for a situation where you opt out and don't pay in .... if you're going to get nothing out.

13-10-2017 06:15PM

Another option.... don't take your pension but instead get a tax credit that would enable you to pay zero tax on your private pension up to 30/40k per annum.

A humongous tax credit

I'd go for that happily enough.

noodler · 13-10-2017 06:57PM

Augeo wrote: »

You seem to be suggesting folk who are don't need it being treated differently ..... would you propose similar for maternity leave payments & children's allowance?

Increasing contribution is conceptually simple, increase PRSI... job done

Without a contributory pension many folk will get sfa from all the PRSI contribution they paid over the years.

Personally I'm all for a situation where you opt out and don't pay in .... if you're going to get nothing out.

Im saying some of the 600,000 need an additional fiver a week but a huge number of them don't.

Giving fivers to people on massive Defined Benefit, Bank, CIE, Semi State pensions who absolutely don't need it is an incredible waste when we have huge problems in health, housing and affordable childcare.

And... Of COURSE I'd suggest people on child benefit over a certain income shouldn't get it. The States limited resources should be targeted where needed most, blanket increases go against this.

Increasing PRSI is simple, is it? I think you need to spend a few minutes on Excel. At the moment the old age dependency ratio is at about 4:1, it'll be 3:1 in about 12 years and 2:1 by 2050.

That's some increase I'm PRSI you are advocating.

No,sadly whats needed is more modest and targeted increases alongside an auto enrolment pension scheme to ensure the State Pension, in its weaker form, isn't all people have to rely upon in old age in the future.

Galwayguy35 · 13-10-2017 07:31PM

A doctor was on the radio this week and he said around 15 billlion is the amount the HSE gets this year.

We should have a world class health service for that kind of money.

Idbatterim · 14-10-2017 12:08AM

noodler wrote: »

Im saying some of the 600,000 need an additional fiver a week but a huge number of them don't.

Giving fivers to people on massive Defined Benefit, Bank, CIE, Semi State pensions who absolutely don't need it is an incredible waste when we have huge problems in health, housing and affordable childcare.

And... Of COURSE I'd suggest people on child benefit over a certain income shouldn't get it. The States limited resources should be targeted where needed most, blanket increases go against this.

Increasing PRSI is simple, is it? I think you need to spend a few minutes on Excel. At the moment the old age dependency ratio is at about 4:1, it'll be 3:1 in about 12 years and 2:1 by 2050.

That's some increase I'm PRSI you are advocating.

No,sadly whats needed is more modest and targeted increases alongside an auto enrolment pension scheme to ensure the State Pension, in its weaker form, isn't all people have to rely upon in old age in the future.

I totally agree about the unsustainably etc. But I highly disagree with means testing. Further discrimination against those that have been bled dry ...

14-10-2017 12:49PM

Augeo wrote: »

Increasing PRSI from 4% to 6/7% would go a long way to solving the problem when we do have 5 pensioners for 2 folks of working age.

Coupled with a raising the retirement age from 68 to 69 or 70, which is inevitable.
..................
............

Like all timebombs in the media it's not that bad a problem.

noodler wrote: »

Im saying some of the 600,000 need an additional fiver a week but a huge number of them don't.

...................

Increasing PRSI is simple, is it? I think you need to spend a few minutes on Excel. At the moment the old age dependency ratio is at about 4:1, it'll be 3:1 in about 12 years and 2:1 by 2050.

That's some increase I'm PRSI you are advocating.

No,sadly whats needed is more modest and targeted increases alongside an auto enrolment pension scheme to ensure the State Pension, in its weaker form, isn't all people have to rely upon in old age in the future.

I've quantified what increase I'm "advocating", Ill clarify that suggesting what might happen isn't actually advocating.

I'd sooner what I suggested over your idea of not giving folks the same level of contributory pension as others dependent on need.

It's a CONTRIBUTORY pension, you get it independent of your need as you've paid money to QUALIFY for it. I'm not advocating any looney left suggestions.

Again as someone else pointed out, the non contributory pension is much more of a money sucker than the contributory pension. And that's just dole for folks retired from not working.

However weak the contributory pension gets it will always be higher than the non contributory pension, unless the looney left run amok in the future.

Donal55 · 14-10-2017 02:09PM

Augeo wrote: »

I've quantified what increase I'm "advocating", Ill clarify that suggesting what might happen isn't actually advocating.

I'd sooner what I suggested over your idea of not giving folks the same level of contributory pension as others dependent on need.

It's a CONTRIBUTORY pension, you get it independent of your need as you've paid money to QUALIFY for it. I'm not advocating any looney left suggestions.

Again as someone else pointed out, the non contributory pension is much more of a money sucker than the contributory pension. And that's just dole for folks retired from not working.

However weak the contributory pension gets it will always be higher than the non contributory pension, unless the looney left run amok in the future.

In fairness you don't need the loony left to run amok, FG and FF have done quite enough damage between themselves since the foundation of the state.
The current govt composition just exemplifies it.

noodler · 14-10-2017 04:40PM

Augeo wrote: »

I've quantified what increase I'm "advocating", Ill clarify that suggesting what might happen isn't actually advocating.

I'd sooner what I suggested over your idea of not giving folks the same level of contributory pension as others dependent on need.

It's a CONTRIBUTORY pension, you get it independent of your need as you've paid money to QUALIFY for it. I'm not advocating any looney left suggestions.

Again as someone else pointed out, the non contributory pension is much more of a money sucker than the contributory pension. And that's just dole for folks retired from not working.

However weak the contributory pension gets it will always be higher than the non contributory pension, unless the looney left run amok in the future.

I'm still not sure you quite understand the time bomb coming down the road.

I reckon it will come to the stage, when we have two workers supporting two pensioners, that limited resources will have to be targeted at where there is most need.

On the child benefit point again, do you think taxpayers subsidising the cost of children for those on 100,000+ salaries is a good use of scarce resources?

Perhaps it comes down to a perspective on redistribution, but I would prefer, as a middle income earner, to see my taxes go where they are most needed.

Donal55 · 14-10-2017 04:52PM

noodler wrote: »

I'm still not sure you quite understand the time bomb coming down the road.

I reckon it will come to the stage, when we have two workers supporting two pensioners, that limited resources will have to be targeted at where there is most need.

On the child benefit point again, do you think taxpayers subsidising the cost of children for those on 100,000+ salaries is a good use of scarce resources?

Perhaps it comes down to a perspective on redistribution, but I would prefer, as a middle income earner, to see my taxes go where they are most needed.

I agree with you 100%. However there are those who wpuld argue that people who earn €100k also pay taxes on that €100k and so in fairness should get something back in return.

I work with a woman who is married to a barrister. €250k gross plus is their annual income. Her 3 kids also qualify for the doctors only medical card as they are all under 6.

The whole system is unsustainable.

14-10-2017 07:09PM

noodler wrote: »

I'm still not sure you quite understand the time bomb coming down the road.

I reckon it will come to the stage, when we have two workers supporting two pensioners, that limited resources will have to be targeted at where there is most need.

On the child benefit point again, do you think taxpayers subsidising the cost of children for those on 100,000+ salaries is a good use of scarce resources?

Perhaps it comes down to a perspective on redistribution, but I would prefer, as a middle income earner, to see my taxes go where they are most needed.

Can you not read? Seriously, I've detailed that I am aware in years to come we could have 2 pensioners for every 5 people of working age.

Those on 100k+ salaries are obviously paying a fair wack of tax themselves. They are paying in significantly more than they get out so I'm fully in favour of them getting children's allowance & I'm fully in favour of them getting a full contributory pension in years to come.

This crap about where your taxes is going is a tad horsesh1tty, someone on 100k could be paying 30k in tax... they're quite entitled to whatever they currently get in allowances etc.
You can't kill the golden goose....

lawred2 · 14-10-2017 07:09PM

Donal55 wrote: »

I agree with you 100%. However there are those who wpuld argue that people who earn €100k also pay taxes on that €100k and so in fairness should get something back in return.

I work with a woman who is married to a barrister. €250k gross plus is their annual income. Her 3 kids also qualify for the doctors only medical card as they are all under 6.

The whole system is unsustainable.

the cost of providing under 6 care to this family works out at maybe a few hundred quid a year - but they'll fund the system to the tune of close to six figures.

that's a perfectly sustainable situation.

what isn't is paying out far more than is ever collected from cradle to the grave for so many...

but the twisted logic plays it out that it's the net contributors being in receipt of very modest returns for their taxation that's unsustainable...

noodler · 14-10-2017 07:22PM

Augeo wrote: »

Can you not read? Seriously, I've detailed that I am aware in years to come we could have 5 pensioners for every 2 people of working age.

Those on 100k+ salaries are obviously paying a fair wack of tax themselves. They are paying in significantly more than they get out so I'm fully in favour of them getting children's allowance & I'm fully in favour of them getting a full contributory pension in years to come.

This crap about where your taxes is going is a tad horsesh1tty, someone on 100k could be paying 30k in tax... they're quite entitled to whatever they currently get in allowances etc.
You can't kill the golden goose....

Well your solutions, increase PRSI, keep giving out universal benefits to those who don't need them etc doesn't really tally with your understanding of a 2:1 dependency ratio.

Its a bit muddled. Tinkering around the edges with PRSI whilst still redirecting a much scarcer tax Base towards people who don't need it.

Seriously though, do a back of the envelope calculation on how much PRSI contributions alone would have to increase to make the system sustainable over the next 25 years. I'd say it'd be an eye opener for you and encourage you to cast the net a bit wider for solutions.

14-10-2017 07:26PM

noodler wrote: »

Well your solutions, increase PRSI, keep giving out universal benefits to those who don't need them etc doesn't really tally with your understanding of a 2:1 dependency ratio.

Its a bit muddled. Tinkering around the edges with PRSI whilst still redirecting a much scarcer tax Base towards people who don't need it.

Seriously though, do a back of the envelope calculation on how much PRSI contributions alone would have to increase to make the system sustainable over the next 25 years. I'd say it'd be an eye opener for you and encourage you to cast the net a bit wider for solutions.

I suggested almost doubling PRSI, increasing qualification requirements for the full contribution pension & raising retirement age.

Your suggestion is don't give it to those who don't need it, unless you start quantifying what that means it's you who needs to go scribbling on envelopes.

Donal55 · 14-10-2017 07:29PM

lawred2 wrote: »

the cost of providing under 6 care to this family works out at maybe a few hundred quid a year - but they'll fund the system to the tune of close to six figures.

that's a perfectly sustainable situation.

what isn't is paying out far more than is ever collected from cradle to the grave for so many...

but the twisted logic plays it out that it's the net contributors being in receipt of very modest returns for their taxation that's unsustainable...

I said the whole system is unsustainable.

noodler · 14-10-2017 07:31PM

lawred2 wrote: »

the cost of providing under 6 care to this family works out at maybe a few hundred quid a year - but they'll fund the system to the tune of close to six figures.

that's a perfectly sustainable situation.

what isn't is paying out far more than is ever collected from cradle to the grave for so many...

but the twisted logic plays it out that it's the net contributors being in receipt of very modest returns for their taxation that's unsustainable...

Its not twisted at all though.

The SIF is supposed to be self financing from PRSI receipts and is right now and, bar a couple of years during the recession when taxation had to plug the hole, generally is.

But when the problem becomes more structural as it will, the pension will certainly not be increasing by a fiver a year.

Whilst not advocating a cut, the unsustainablity of the problem is being exacerbated by the increases in recent years which have come after years where pension rates were ring fenced during the worst economic downturn the country has ever faced.

Whatever portion of the 400m it has cost to increase the SP by 13 euro over the last few years that goes to people on high incomes is completely wasted resources in my opinion.

I also think it is a little shortsighted of some to defend it on the merit basis when retirement for most people in the workforce at the moment won't be anywhere near as cushy.

lawred2 · 14-10-2017 07:35PM

noodler wrote: »

Augeo wrote: »

Can you not read? Seriously, I've detailed that I am aware in years to come we could have 5 pensioners for every 2 people of working age.

Those on 100k+ salaries are obviously paying a fair wack of tax themselves. They are paying in significantly more than they get out so I'm fully in favour of them getting children's allowance & I'm fully in favour of them getting a full contributory pension in years to come.

This crap about where your taxes is going is a tad horsesh1tty, someone on 100k could be paying 30k in tax... they're quite entitled to whatever they currently get in allowances etc.
You can't kill the golden goose....

Well your solutions, increase PRSI, keep giving out universal benefits to those who don't need them etc doesn't really tally with your understanding of a 2:1 dependency ratio.

Its a bit muddled. Tinkering around the edges with PRSI whilst still redirecting a much scarcer tax Base towards people who don't need it.

Seriously though, do a back of the envelope calculation on how much PRSI contributions alone would have to increase to make the system sustainable over the next 25 years. I'd say it'd be an eye opener for you and encourage you to cast the net a bit wider for solutions.

Tax all income including welfare.

No tax credits for anyone. Everyone pays something. No vote buying moves where people are 'taken out of the tax net'..

What could be wrong with a system where every single person pays in something according to their means? The USC was a step in the right direction but even that has been hollowed out after only a few years.

A little bit extra from everyone would fund the exchequer in the future much better than the meagre savings to be had from means testing benefits for a small subset of the population. (not to say anything of the administrative cost)

Budget 2018 - Mod note in post #1

Comments