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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
FrancieBrady wrote: » I am entitled to know ALL of it.
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.
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.
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.
efanton wrote: » We are being sold yet another lie and false promise.
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.
FrancieBrady wrote: » I'll stop reading right there. I am entitled to know ALL of it.
Ballso wrote: » You're some narcissist Francie. Bang of Gemma O'Doherty off your posts
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
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.
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.
