nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

FG to just do nothing for the next 5 years.

satguy

It seems FG will be very happy to just sit on their hands for 5 years. Would FG voters be happy with this, as it means all those FG votes mean nothing, and do nothing.

Having been in power for 9 years, they did nothing, people have no homes, people still on trollies.

FG may have given some of their rich buddies some tax breaks.

But other than that, they did what FG do best, are their poor hands not numb by now.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

James Brown

Bishop of hope wrote: »

That's racist Brendan.
Taxpayer loses one way or tother, work till your sixty eight, yea that's a free ride too.

A good one is a comment posted regarding how the housing market is advertised to foreign business and all some can do is attack the messenger. You'd not be wrong to think some had zero, nada interest in issues at all.

McMurphy

Bowie wrote: »

A good one is a comment posted regarding how the housing market is advertised to foreign business and all some can do is attack the messenger. You'd not be wrong to think some had zero, nada interest in issues at all.

And very noticeable that was Mr Bowie, very noticeable indeed.

FrancieBrady

Bowie wrote: »

A good one is a comment posted regarding how the housing market is advertised to foreign business and all some can do is attack the messenger. You'd not be wrong to think some had zero, nada interest in issues at all.

That seems to be the tactic alright..as well as spinning the debate left right and centre in defense of the mighty FG.

efanton

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Correct cc, like when those canny canines, the dogs in the street, know that with longer life expectancy the country can’t afford the current pensions projected exposure.

Every half backed actuarial projection tells you that.

But no, Pearse, with the big lollipop head on him goes populist and ignores all that.

“Shure I’ll be lying back in Gweedore in the big 6 bedroomer with the gold plated wedge every month, before John Q Taxpayer figures out what happened”

Simple innit, Pat will always bite on the short term return.

the question is not whether the country can afford it, it certainly can.
Do you envisage at any point that pension payments plus all necessary payments will exceed the €80 billion a year the government collects?
I dont and I cant see how anyone else could. It would mean having less to spend on other things though, there is no doubt of that.

But it will cost a lot of money to keep the retirement age at 65. Where does that money come from?
Their will also be a social and health cost to raising the pension age. Many people in physically demanding jobs will be incapable of doing their job at 65-70 years of age.
Neither is an ideal solution.

I don't think there ha be a sensible and rational debate about raising the retirement age, or keeping the existing retirement age and that is what is needed. Exactly how much will it cost in either scenario, in financial, social and healthcare terms?

What are the hidden costs of raising the retirement age? What would it take in additional taxation and PRSI contribution to make retirement at 65 realistic?
Is there another affordable way of paying for the additional cost?
There's little point in raising the pension age to avoid paying pensions and at the same time have an increased number drawing unemployment benefit because many older people might be physically unable to do they job they have done for years before. Who will employ unskilled people that are over 60 and incapable of doing jobs that demand a high degree physical labour?

Personally I dont think the argument has been properly made for raising the pension age, nor indeed keeping it at 65.

Its not as simple as saying we will have to pay more pensions so we must raise the age so that less people are getting their pension. All that does is kick the can down the road 5 or 6 years. What happens then when we then have as many people claiming their pension at 70, as we would have had drawing it at 65. All you have done is delayed the inevitable by 5 years. In the meantime the work force has not increased by the same increase in those claiming a pension. so we are back to square on, needing to raise the pension age yet more. As a solution simply raising the pension age makes no sense, you will also have to make sure there is enough in the kitty to pay those pensions when they are due and I haven't seen a rational argument made as to how the additional 5 years income taxation as it stands now will fully pay for pensions.

christy c

Bowie wrote: »

Sure is JF, sure is...

There's not a wan of them can have a discussion without being bitter or losing the rag JF.

No bitterness or anger in my post. I've thought Pearse Doherty was an idiot for years.

christy c

Bowie wrote: »

A good one is a comment posted regarding how the housing market is advertised to foreign business and all some can do is attack the messenger. You'd not be wrong to think some had zero, nada interest in issues at all.

You asked about Pearse Doherty and I gave my opinion. If you want to discuss housing fire away.

christy c

@efanton, some good points on the pension. But the options we the electorate had were: 1. Raise the pension age, 2. reduce it and bury our heads in the sand.

Unfortunately many presented option 2 as viable.

PommieBast

efanton wrote: »

I don't think there ha be a sensible and rational debate about raising the retirement age, or keeping the existing retirement age and that is what is needed. Exactly how much will it cost in either scenario, in financial, social and healthcare terms?

With stats like two workers per pensioners the whole debate about retirement age is just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. The reality is that retirement as it is recognised today is simply not going to exist in 20 or so years time.

dundalkfc10

FrancieBrady wrote: »

More grist to the mill that FG don't care about the ordinary citizen:

https://twitter.com/PearseDoherty/status/1271474565609373697

Not one response from any FG supporter, says it all :rolleyes:

James Brown

The big problem with Fine Gael is, (get yisser popcorn out) the attitude. All the crony, foot in mouth, bad deals and over runs aside, there's an idea that looking after the general public is a waste of money and there's a fear if they get spoiled they'll become complacent and anyone receiving state aid is likely a gouger who doesn't want to work nor 'get up early of a morning'.
We should be ensuring people get a livable wage and be able to put a little away for retirement. Some incentives wouldn't be a bad idea. Currently and more so by the day hard working tax payers are finding they can't save or invest towards retirement. These people will need a state pension to live and on that note they shouldn't be penalised down the road because FG are indifferent to them now.
The number one goal is looking after the affairs of the state and everyone in it. Helping multinationals and billionaires gouge the tax payer suffering through crises is biting more as time passes and will bite us all down the road, but FF/FG don't seem to think far ahead or aren't arsed once their own are being looked after.

efanton

christy c wrote: »

@efanton, some good points on the pension. But the options we the electorate had were: 1. Raise the pension age, 2. reduce it and bury our heads in the sand.

Unfortunately many presented option 2 as viable.

Minor correct the option was to continue raising it, or restore it back to 65.

My stance on it is simple really. I would prefer to see it kept at 65. But I want to know exactly what that would involve.

Those advocating raising the pension havent made a reasonable argument as to how that's actually going to fix anything bar kick the can down the road.

Likewise I understand that resetting it back to 65 will cost considerable sums of money. But here again no one has costed that in a way that makes any sense.

But using the pension argument to beat Pearse Doherty over the head with, is a bit ludicrous and frankly pure stupidity when the alternative they are advocating not only fails to address the problem but also incurs additional problems other than those that are a financial. If you call kicking a can down the road for 5 years and then still having to implement the same measures as those that wish the pension to remain at 65 a solution, then how could you possibly criticise those that advocate resetting the pension age at 65.

Raising the pension age without actually following through with a policy that will make sure there is sufficient funding for pensions once people reach the pension age is even more idiotic than what Pearse Doherty is advocating.

If you want to make the argument that raising the pension age is the only thing to do, then you also have to show how that is going to solve the problem which you cant possibly do.

Likewise Pearse Doherty has to show where this money is going to come from. The sooner we address this issue the less painful its going to be in the long run.

The problem is no party has actually put forward a solution that addresses anything.

christy c

efanton wrote: »

Those advocating raising the pension havent made a reasonable argument as to how that's actually going to fix anything bar kick the can down the road.

Not going to reply to the whole thing, but on this point, raising the pension age won't fix anything, but it would be a start.

I'm using fake numbers for arguments sake, but say life expectancy is 85 for men and women. Leaving the pension age at 65 would mean 20 years of pension payments. But raise that by 2 years and there would only be 18 years of pension payments (a 10% reduction in pension cost).

But the problem is the demographics shifting to the point where there will be only 2 workers for every pensioner as another poster pointed out. And that is the scary part, and hence why I used the pension age as a stick to beat Pearse D given he is taking the head in the sand approach.

James Brown

christy c wrote: »

No bitterness or anger in my post. I've thought Pearse Doherty was an idiot for years.

There was a topic there but rather than address it you went on the attack. Just pointing it out as one example.
There's a lot gets by many on here.
Councilor O'Leary admiring fascists. Eamo dropping the 'N' bomb. Varadkar saying the civil service is 'very white'. There's more about ignoring and sidestepping the shenanigans of FG and it's affiliates than discussing them. Odd considering the thread.

christy c

Bowie wrote: »

There was a topic there but rather than address it you went on the attack.

No I think you may have misunderstood. There was the topic, and then you said something like you like the cut of Pearse's jib.

If anyone tries to paint Pearse as someone who knows his stuff, I will point out the nonsense he has come out with over the years. Simple as that. Discuss housing till the cows come home if you want, but don't try to make a hero out of "your pension at 65" Pearse.

FrancieBrady

christy c wrote: »

No I think you may have misunderstood. There was the topic, and then you said something like you like the cut of Pearse's jib.

If anyone tries to paint Pearse as someone who knows his stuff, I will point out the nonsense he has come out with over the years. Simple as that. Discuss housing till the cows come home if you want, but don't try to make a hero out of "your pension at 65" Pearse.

I know the FGers and sympathisers (no need to pretend you aren't defending FG anymore) hate the notion that there are politicians to compete with and you need to diminish the man etc etc etc, but any comment on what he was tweeting about?

efanton

christy c wrote: »

Not going to reply to the whole thing, but on this point, raising the pension age won't fix anything, but it would be a start.

I'm using fake numbers for arguments sake, but say life expectancy is 85 for men and women. Leaving the pension age at 65 would mean 20 years of pension payments. But raise that by 2 years and there would only be 18 years of pension payments (a 10% reduction in pension cost).

But the problem is the demographics shifting to the point where there will be only 2 workers for every pensioner as another poster pointed out. And that is the scary part, and hence why I used the pension age as a stick to beat Pearse D given he is taking the head in the sand approach.

I totally get what the problem will be.

I just fail to see how anyone could advocate a policy that fixes nothing, probably will introduce new issues and costs (older workers incapable of physical labour drawing other benefits instead, mothers no longer have granny as a child minder, etc ), and at the end of the day will still have to introduce the EXACT SAME measures that those that advocate a retirement at 65.

Changing the pension age is not a start, its smoke and mirrors, pantomime, play acting, pretending to have done something yet done nothing, but all the while portraying that as some sort of fiscally responsible action.
Its pure and utter lunacy. Or ironically they very thing you accused others of, an excuse to bury your head in the sand,

christy c

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I know the FGers and sympathisers (no need to pretend you aren't defending FG anymore) hate the notion that there are politicians to compete with and you need to diminish the man etc etc etc, but any comment on what he was tweeting about?

I defend FG as best of a bad lot, have said that before. I'm not too keen on when people try to paint me as a huge FG fan when I'm not.

Nothing really to say about the tweet, but a situation where some people are paying a prince's ransom in rent is not good or sustainable.

christy c

efanton wrote: »

I totally get what the problem will be.

I just fail to see how anyone could advocate a policy that fixes nothing, probably will introduce new issues and costs (older workers incapable of physical labour drawing other benefits instead, mothers no longer have granny as a child minder, etc ), and at the end of the day will still have to introduce the EXACT SAME measures that those that advocate a retirement at 65.

Changing the pension age is not a start, its smoke and mirrors, pantomime, play acting, pretending to have done something yet done nothing, but all the while portraying that as some sort of fiscally responsible action.
Its pure and utter lunacy. Or ironically they very thing you accused others of, an excuse to bury your head in the sand,

Pension age increase will reduce pension costs as I outlined. Its fairly simple maths. Im not denying there will be other costs but it's better than standing with a sign at your party's manifesto launch.

Edit: the measures would not be the EXACT SAME, the overall pension costs would be reduced as I said.

FrancieBrady

christy c wrote: »

I defend FG as best of a bad lot, have said that before. I'm not too keen on when people try to paint me as a huge FG fan when I'm not.

Nothing really to say about the tweet, but a situation where some people are paying a prince's ransom in rent is not good or sustainable.

But your primary concern was to attack the messenger. The message being why the people are paying a 'prince's ransom'.

Sorry Christy but I am not seeing the defense of 'the best of a bad lot' as being an excuse for that. FG don't care about 'some people'..simple as that imo.

christy c

FrancieBrady wrote: »

But your primary concern was to attack the messenger. The message being why the people are paying a 'prince's ransom'.

Sorry Christy but I am not seeing the defense of 'the best of a bad lot' as being an excuse for that. FG don't care about 'some people'..simple as that imo.

My primary concern was to point out that Pearse was an idiot after someone said they liked what they saw in him. He should not be painted as someone who is competent. Had they just talked about housing i probably wouldnt have responded.

PommieBast

FrancieBrady wrote: »

FG don't care about 'some people'..simple as that imo.

Same can be said of all parties. The only difference is who they pander to and who they intend to screw over.

efanton

christy c wrote: »

Pension age increase will reduce pension costs as I outlined. Its fairly simple maths. Im not denying there will be other costs but it's better than standing with a sign at your party's manifesto launch.

Edit: the measures would not be the EXACT SAME, the overall pension costs would be reduced as I said.

How would they reduce costs?
Are you simply saying by pushing back pensions by 5 tears we save 5 years of pension cost? If that's your point yes I would agree with you. but it solves nothing, and the way its is being implemented will probably cost as much as it saves.

But what happens on the 6 year? Now you are back to square one. Only when it happens unlike those that argue for retention of the pension age of 65 who have a few decades to get funding sorted out, you would have absolutely no time to sort it out. Its not only reckless its totally idiotic.

As said before I am not convinced that any party has put a solution that would work forward. The demographic argument is an equally stupid argument to make unless we are about to have a truly ginormous baby boom in within the next decade. We could do a reverse Chinese policy, where every couple must have two additional children or face heavy fines. that how stupid that idea is.

The reality is that we are going to either have to raise taxation, or PRSI and start doing that in a hurry and ring-fence that money specifically for pensions.
But if you are going to have to do that I wonder what the difference would be then by leaving the pension age at 65, or gradually raising it as is happening till it reaches 70.

The two points I am making here is to argue any party's policy on pension is wrong while advocating another party's policy is stupid. None of the policies have any chance of working because none of them actually deal with the problem.
You can only argue another party's policy on pensions is stupid if you are equally prepared to accept the policy you are supporting is equally stupid.

The second point is there has been on proper debate on this topic, nor has the time and effort been put in to come up with a solution that works.

Personally I think the idea of raising pension ages without additional measure is down right dangerous. It benefits no one, is detrimental to many, and it will leave us as a country in a trap in a few decades time when the real baby boomers (those born in the 1960's early 70's) start claiming their pensions. Better to leave things lone, and come up with a solution that has some chance of working before adjusting anything, but that requires the issue becoming a priority which it certainly is not at the moment.

FrancieBrady

christy c wrote: »

My primary concern was to point out that Pearse was an idiot after someone said they liked what they saw in him. He should not be painted as someone who is competent. Had they just talked about housing i probably wouldnt have responded.

My primary concern was to point out what he was pointing out. But as yet, you just want to shoot the messenger and say nothing of waht he was drawing attention to.

Brendan Bendar

Bowie wrote: »

The big problem with Fine Gael is, (get yisser popcorn out) the attitude. All the crony, foot in mouth, bad deals and over runs aside, there's an idea that looking after the general public is a waste of money and there's a fear if they get spoiled they'll become complacent and anyone receiving state aid is likely a gouger who doesn't want to work nor 'get up early of a morning'.
We should be ensuring people get a livable wage and be able to put a little away for retirement. Some incentives wouldn't be a bad idea. Currently and more so by the day hard working tax payers are finding they can't save or invest towards retirement. These people will need a state pension to live and on that note they shouldn't be penalised down the road because FG are indifferent to them now.
The number one goal is looking after the affairs of the state and everyone in it. Helping multinationals and billionaires gouge the tax payer suffering through crises is biting more as time passes and will bite us all down the road, but FF/FG don't seem to think far ahead or aren't arsed once their own are being looked after.

We are already one of the most expensive countries in the Euro Zone.

What would paying everyone the ‘living wage’ do?

Create price rises as businesses pass on the cost to the consumer and the whole thing spirals up again, that’s what.

The auld ‘money tree’ argument again, my friend.

Competitiveness is the key, controlled cost base, luckily FG were in power when this happened otherwise the country would be a basket case.

Wake up folks, and smell reality.

christy c

FrancieBrady wrote: »

My primary concern was to point out what he was pointing out. But as yet, you just want to shoot the messenger and say nothing of waht he was drawing attention to.

I've already explained myself so I'll leave you to whatever you're up to now.

christy c

efanton wrote: »

How would they reduce costs?
Are you simply saying by pushing back pensions by 5 tears we save 5 years of pension cost? If that's your point yes I would agree with you. but it solves nothing, and the way its is being implemented will probably cost as much as it saves.

But what happens on the 6 year?

In the example I gave pension costs would be reduced by 10% because we would be paying out for two years less- what the actual figures would be I don't know. So even if nothing else was done that would be a saving, but i agree it doesn't solve anything on its own.

christy c

efanton wrote: »

You can only argue another party's policy on pensions is stupid if you are equally prepared to accept the policy you are supporting is equally stupid.

This part is incorrect, as I have pointed out there will be savings from raising the pension age alone, but other measures will be needed. One takes the do nothing approach, the other makes a start.

Bishop of hope

It will be interesting to see where it sits in the forthcoming agreement for Govt.
No guarantees that even if a deal is reached there will be a Govt, so in the event its not ratified, three party's may have to contest an election based on at least some if not all of that agreement hanging over them.
It would certainly be a big canvas issue yet again.

Idbatterim

PommieBast wrote: »

Same can be said of all parties. The only difference is who they pander to and who they intend to screw over.

They all plan on screwing the workers, theres very little difference between any of them in this country!

Brendan Bendar

Idbatterim wrote: »

They all plan on screwing the workers, theres very little difference between any of them in this country!

What do you mean by “screwing the workers”.

That’s a very broad kind of statement.

Could you flesh it out a bit.