thebullkf wrote: » whatrules???the employers rules???
how many jobs are currently offered in kerry????
about 10&of the jobs in dublin.....therefore that implies....move to dublin!!!!!!!!!!you're talkingvia your back door.
thebullkf wrote: » InFront wrote: » worked all me life. never ever ever got treble time for a sunday. in a well run unionised shop. you're talkin bollokcs exeunt Fair enough I'm sorry you haven't but I've been paid at that rate on a Sunday as a student and it is not unheard of in a high wage society like Ireland.
InFront wrote: » worked all me life. never ever ever got treble time for a sunday. in a well run unionised shop. you're talkin bollokcs exeunt
jank wrote: » Well it is what is is... The figures are right there. What is your reality....
jank wrote: » The loan was about 5000 euro... Yea thats right i lived on 5000 for about 8 months. That is well within the amount one would get on the dole. This covered rent, food and all other bills, yea it was ****...but I was studying and was still able to go on the pi$$ once and a while...
InFront wrote: » I’ll take your point on the Sunday issue, though the point stands that a social welfare recipient would be able to keep a dole payment and end up earning €84 greater than €204 per week by the Sunday work set out earlier – that’s €1152 for four weeks including dole. Four days are employment, the rest is the dole. That's a major issue as far as I'm concerned. But bak to our friend Robert and as regards the car issue, there are a number of problems with this on your behalf. Firstly, it doesn't cost have to cost €330per month to run a basic car. As it happens this is not very far off of his disposable income though. In any case, he could cut down on petrol costs (€125, seriously) and he doesn't really need monthly breakdown cover. I find it bizarre that you think he requires €80 per month for parts and a mechanic's attention? Get real. I haven't paid that much on parts or mechanics in the last six months for my car. But lets not forget that if you want to change the rules you have to change all the rules. By living in the country where the cost of living is lower, robert will not be paying Dublin prices in food and rent, nor his transport costs of €60. Eve though it looks as though he could afford a car on the dole if you adjust the cost of living from Dublin to Kerry, I propose nevertheless he uses his bike and public transport as much as possible. I'm sure he's still thinking about the environment. Also as a cost cutting measure, maybe save for car maintenance, maybe to save money to get a place in Dublin or a large jobs centre, maybe Robert could actually move in with his family for a while instead of living alone ten miles from the nearest town. And before you suggest so, most people are not orphaned, single, alone and living 10 miles from the nearest town while on the dole so this is dealing strictly with a minority to humour you. Excluding what's been said already about the ability to pay for a car while on the dole, what ever happened to buses? Most people do live within reasonable distance to a bus. And whatever happened to getting a lift? Bikes? If things are that bad maybe you should consider taking up Robert's old life in Dublin as per the dole example.
InFront wrote: » Now Roberts rent, accomodation, electricity, heating, travelling, mobile phone costs, haircut, broadband, clothes, and television licence have been paid for as well as his medical and drug expenses. He is left with a grand total of €243 per month for emergency spending and keping in contact with his family and adding to his savings
InFront wrote: » Oh for goodness sake... if he lives n his own he gets additional rental assistance from social welfare.
I would also like to point out that people such as Robert (above) are entitled to work on Sundays at a treble rate of pay without it impacting on dole payments, rent assistance, or medical card entitlement.
The ability to work for treble pay on a Sunday, which is a gross wage of €181.65 for seven hours without it efectng your dole payments, is absolutely fact.
Fair enough I'm sorry you haven't but I've been paid at that rate on a Sunday as a student and it is not unheard of in a high wage society like Ireland.
That's a major issue as far as I'm concerned.
In fact, they then pay the jobseekers allowance into your bank account, for some crazy reason.
Not everybody needs a car in the country and being on the dole is not a financial prohibition to maintaining one, even with a 7% dole cut
How generous is the dole really expected to be when there is such a growing demand for it?
The shortfall that's currently in excess of €20 bilion
The National Pensions Reserve Fund was established in April 2001 to meet as much as possible of the costs of Ireland's social welfare and public service pensions from 2025 onwards when these costs are projected to increase dramatically due to the ageing of the population. No money can be drawn down before 2025 and, from then on, drawdowns will continue until at least 2055 under rules to be made by the Minister for Finance. By spreading the Exchequer burden arising from Ireland's additional pension commitments over a lengthy period, these drawdowns will contribute to the long-term sustainability of the pension system. The Fund is controlled and managed by the National Pensions Reserve Fund Commission. The Commission's functions include the determination and implementation of the Fund's investment strategy in accordance with its statutory investment policy. This policy requires that the Fund be invested so as to secure the optimal total financial return provided the level of risk is acceptable to the Commission. In February 2009 the Minister for Finance announced that the Fund would finance a €7 billion bank recapitalisation programme. Investments made in financial institutions by the Fund under the programme are made under Ministerial direction and the Fund’s statutory investment policy is not applied to these investments. The Commission performs its functions through the National Treasury Management Agency, which is the Manager of the Fund.
kadman wrote: » Your argument is fundamentally flawed, because its based on Robert being subsidised in some of his bills, by his 2 flat mates. Roberts next door neighbour is Jonny. His weekly outgoings are, Rent 95. Utilities 20. Groceries 50 Bus Eirean 15 Dublin Bus. 5 Sundries. 20. Grand total...205 Jonny, by the way is not a fictitious character, lives in Dun Laoire, and is not on the dole. But we are delighted to see him come home at the weekends. I suspect that the reason for people wanting dole cuts is more to do with, make others pay, rather than me.Most people advocating dole cuts, do not know the reality of living on the dole. kadman
InFront wrote: » thebullkf wrote: » Fair enough I'm sorry you haven't but I've been paid at that rate on a Sunday as a student and it is not unheard of in a high wage society like Ireland. so after an 8hr shift you got 24hrs pay at basic?? don't know anyone that ever got that. anyone else?? i've gotten double time plus a day in lieu-(i.e. effectively treble pay) on bank hol MONDAY.. not good friday though.
thebullkf wrote: » Fair enough I'm sorry you haven't but I've been paid at that rate on a Sunday as a student and it is not unheard of in a high wage society like Ireland.
InFront wrote: » No, did you read the thread? or even the last few posts? "Changing the rules" meant changing the case studys fictional living conditions when another poster said he wanted the case study character to be based in Kerry.lets assume he's based in kerry...jobs?? - none I was suggesting that if Dublin is cheaper to live in, and there are more jobs in Dublin, then shouldnt that be even considered by someone like the character in the case study? Furthermore, I didn't just limit it to Dublin, I said a large jobs centre. This could mean Cork, Galway, Limerick, Waterford, and so on.If I could only get offered a job in Kerry or go on the dole, I don't think it would be unreasonable of me to even consider that move,i'd love to live in kerry..just not feasible.also if you have a family i think its definitely unreasonable to expect them to consider moving-for possibly twice the dole=min wage??min wage needs to be increased when more jobs arise.same fcukers that made millions during the boom are now usingthe recession to offer derisory wages for the few jobs out there.sickening. likewise moving back i with my parents until I got back on my feet. Ae these suggestions really so terrible? How generous is the dole really expected to be when there is such a growing demand for it?
dreamlogic wrote: » So what's your point? You were a student and you did the normal student living that just about every student in the country goes through during their college years, myself included. But what about someone who is 30+ (most people in other words) who has worked and paid their way and suddenly their livelihood is taken away through no fault of their own!. Are you saying all those people should go back to living like young lads who are students eating pot noodle, baked beans and cheap food as a way of life, drinking litres of cider for their entertainment, usually going home at the weekend with their mothers there to do their laundry etc? Get real!!
Originally posted by kadman Your argument is fundamentally flawed, because its based on Robert being subsidised in some of his bills, by his 2 flat mates.
Originally posted by kadman Roberts next door neighbour is Jonny. His weekly outgoings are, Rent 95. Utilities 20. Groceries 50 Bus Eirean 15 Dublin Bus. 5 Sundries. 20. Grand total...205 Jonny, by the way is not a fictitious character, lives in Dun Laoire, and is not on the dole. But we are delighted to see him come home at the weekends.
Originally posted by dreamlogic Also - if this unemployed person happens to be female - a haircut costs a lot more than €12! You're talking €50 as the minimum for a cut alone.
Originally posted by dreamlogic Also what hasn't been mentioned at all is that many people out there are ineligible for rent allowance. Anyone who wants to get rent allowance has to settle for the very cheapest of places, many of the single places barely fit to live in.
Originally posted by dreamlogic So why not tax the rich then? Would that not make more sense? They are the ones who have the millions!
thebullkf wrote: » so after an 8hr shift you got 24hrs pay at basic?? don't know anyone that ever got that. anyone else?? i've gotten double time plus a day in lieu-(i.e. effectively treble pay) on bank hol MONDAY.. not good friday though.
InFront wrote: » This is offtopic but since you brought it up..no, it wasn't for a full day. When I did work on Sundays it was for five hours at that rate. Therefore it was five hours that I applied to this Robert characters wage. Anyway, it isn't relevant. If you didn't earn it the only solution that I can hink of is, maybe we worked in different jobs for different employers???
kadman wrote: » The current increase in taxes, levies to pay for the bank bailouts is because your income tax is used to bail out the greed of banks. The current crisis is not caused by social welfare payments, its caused by the government raiding your pension fund for private corporations. kadman
thebullkf wrote: » some job. wonder if thats still the rate. IMO dole should not be cut. find alternative ways. for instance wealthy criminals should pay for their own incarceration. force our celebrities and superstars to pay tax relevant to their wealth-U2? long term dolers should be penalised-anyone unemployed during the boom that was medically fit for work should have their dole reduced. and people need to start outing their neighbours and family members that are abusing SW. i could be wrongly informed on this next point but... stop paying Child allowance to people who are claiming for children not even resident in this country....
InFront wrote: » Yes, all of these things! I can't speak for the person you're replying to, and I'm sorry if I'm presenting my case badly here but this would sum it up: [*]The Dole is firstly and most importantly emergency aid for those who find themselves in the unfortunate position of being unemployed [*]The current dole rate (JA) is a sufficient rate to allow recipients to live from day to day, paying for groceries and other essential items [*]The dole is not intended to preserve a qualit of life that existed when the individual was employed. This is instead a significant aim of Jobseeker's Benefit [*]In a period of consisent inflation, dole increases may have been justified under cetain circumstances [*]In a period of consistent and significant deflation, the dole must correspondingly fall JB rate is 204, how would that preserve your quality of life , prior to unemployment. He is not being 'subsidised' they are all paying their share. You are constantly ducking the point, most people renting like this are not living alone. If they are living alone, further social welfare aid is available. If this is not sufficient, maybe such people should consider, I don't know, looking for a cheaper alternative? This isn't rocket science. The dole is not there to preserve the life one used to have as a worker. Again, that's more closesly like the role of Jobseeker's Benefit. If you are sharing your bills with 2 others, you are being subsidised. If it costs 30 a week to heat a house, if he,s on his own he pays 30. JB is 204, JA could end up less, depending on means. The role of JB will not preserve the life one used to have. Actually, if his only source of income is Jobseeker's Allowance, Jonny will only have to contribute €18 towards his rent or €24 from the first of June if his current rent is €95 per week, so that now leaves him with an extra €308 per month than he would have under your inaccurate calculations. You clearly have not read the post regarding Jonny, and his source of financial support, as you are now quoting your own inaccuracies. When people quote a figure of €204 per week for JA they should remember o factor in the rent assistance provided by the Department of Social Welfare for such individuals - upto an extra €130 for a single person such as Jonny in Dublin, for example. That amounts to €330 for Jonny for the week. Jonny is not on the dole That's not right. Go to a training college, she might even get it for free. Either way, for a girl to get her haircut it's not going to cost a minimum of €50, and in my opinion, there are no grounds for arguing in favour of that expense when one is on the Dole. If it does cover it wonderful. But you cannot expect the dole to actively aim to cover that kind of thing. My rent in a nice, bright two-bedroomed shared apartment Ive just moved into in Portobello, with another professional, in South Dublin is €400 per month. At the moment if I were receiving rent allowance that is within the limit, so if I were Dole dependent, I would only be paying €18 per week for my apartment. Don't get me wrong here, I think that is only correct, in fact I think the Government should go further in some respects that I don't want to get into because it's off topic. I'm just pointing out what I think is a mistake in your statement. Places at the admissible rent levels are more than habitable and in fact, comfortable. Yes, and I believe in a 1 to 2% rise in tax on the current higher income band and a new higher tax bands on top of this at salaries above €95, 000 and again at salaries above €145, 000. But that isn't enough, and you can't fix this economy by taxing wealth out of it, you have to combine it with spending cuts. Look, even after your own altered calculations, this Robert character is coming out with €28 in pocket money for the week after everything essential and the miscellaneous items have been paid for. I'm sorry, but unlike you and Kadman, I don't think that is such an outrage. Nor would cutting that left over money be, if it meant a significant cut of millions for the exchequer over a period of time.
[*]The Dole is firstly and most importantly emergency aid for those who find themselves in the unfortunate position of being unemployed [*]The current dole rate (JA) is a sufficient rate to allow recipients to live from day to day, paying for groceries and other essential items [*]The dole is not intended to preserve a qualit of life that existed when the individual was employed. This is instead a significant aim of Jobseeker's Benefit [*]In a period of consisent inflation, dole increases may have been justified under cetain circumstances [*]In a period of consistent and significant deflation, the dole must correspondingly fall
He is not being 'subsidised' they are all paying their share. You are constantly ducking the point, most people renting like this are not living alone. If they are living alone, further social welfare aid is available. If this is not sufficient, maybe such people should consider, I don't know, looking for a cheaper alternative? This isn't rocket science. The dole is not there to preserve the life one used to have as a worker. Again, that's more closesly like the role of Jobseeker's Benefit.
Actually, if his only source of income is Jobseeker's Allowance, Jonny will only have to contribute €18 towards his rent or €24 from the first of June if his current rent is €95 per week, so that now leaves him with an extra €308 per month than he would have under your inaccurate calculations.
When people quote a figure of €204 per week for JA they should remember o factor in the rent assistance provided by the Department of Social Welfare for such individuals - upto an extra €130 for a single person such as Jonny in Dublin, for example. That amounts to €330 for Jonny for the week.
That's not right. Go to a training college, she might even get it for free. Either way, for a girl to get her haircut it's not going to cost a minimum of €50, and in my opinion, there are no grounds for arguing in favour of that expense when one is on the Dole. If it does cover it wonderful. But you cannot expect the dole to actively aim to cover that kind of thing. My rent in a nice, bright two-bedroomed shared apartment Ive just moved into in Portobello, with another professional, in South Dublin is €400 per month. At the moment if I were receiving rent allowance that is within the limit, so if I were Dole dependent, I would only be paying €18 per week for my apartment. Don't get me wrong here, I think that is only correct, in fact I think the Government should go further in some respects that I don't want to get into because it's off topic. I'm just pointing out what I think is a mistake in your statement. Places at the admissible rent levels are more than habitable and in fact, comfortable. Yes, and I believe in a 1 to 2% rise in tax on the current higher income band and a new higher tax bands on top of this at salaries above €95, 000 and again at salaries above €145, 000. But that isn't enough, and you can't fix this economy by taxing wealth out of it, you have to combine it with spending cuts. Look, even after your own altered calculations, this Robert character is coming out with €28 in pocket money for the week after everything essential and the miscellaneous items have been paid for. I'm sorry, but unlike you and Kadman, I don't think that is such an outrage. Nor would cutting that left over money be, if it meant a significant cut of millions for the exchequer over a period of time.
jimmycrackcorm wrote: » The taxation raised doesn't even cover the cost of S/W and public service expenditure; That's before we get into the whole banking situation. Even without the banks problems we'd still be living beyond our means.
kadman wrote: » Unlike you InFront, I believe in the protection and support of the less well off in society, even if it impacts on me , as its a societies moral duty to do so.
Jonny,s financial support for his location in Dublin is from his parents, as Jonny has no job, and is attending college. As jobs are now extremely thin on the ground for college students, he has been unsuccessful to gain employment of any sort for the current holiday period, but he will keep looking.So his parents must bear the burden of his financial commitments. He is not on the dole.
InFront wrote: » I do believe in the protection of those who are unemployed. I believe in protection and emergency aid for as long as they need it, and additional support where they can show that it is necessary. I don't support in excess of 300 euro a month to keep a car on the road, or they Government actively trying to cover the costs of 50 euro haircuts as one poster suggested they should, or the Government paying for Italian Leather shoes as per this thread.Italian Leather Shoes Thread I myself have been in a similar position, during five years of college I mainly relied on the support of my parents to cover the most significant costs of my attending college, such as books, equipment, food and so on. Part time and holiday work does not go far in such situations. The point is that my parents, and I'm sure this character's parents, work very hard to pay for college fees and get their children a thirld level education. They, like all taxpayers, deserve to know that their tax money is being spent most efficiently, on those people who need it the most - not on leather shoes. By the way, I'm not saying the example I linked to is common - but it does exist and it is one aspect of the social welfare system which, like any form of waste, will annoy people a great deal and gives everybody else a bad name.
kadman wrote: » True, but our expenditure bill has now been increased, because we are giving bilions from our pension fund to private corporations....banks. Not because of any social welfare increases. Its not rocket science. Why do we feel the need to blame those on social welfare, they are victims of the crisis, not the cause of it. kadman
kadman wrote: » If Jonny,s parents were on the dole, how would be finish college?
astrofool wrote: » Our expenditure bill increased because we raised the rate of social welfare, and public service wages so high when we were creaming it from stamp duty and VRT. People bought houses and cars using credit from the banks, and the banks are now finding out that they can't pay it back, the money supply is cut off, and the expenditure needs to return to a more normal level as a result. The bank bailout is absolutely necessary to keep the country going, and, in theory, all the money put into the banks, will eventually get paid back once the financial system returns to normality and banks become profitable again. Money given away by the government will never ever come back. The mathematics isn't hard, no matter what scenario "Johnny" finds himself in.
kadman wrote: » What about, heating , gas, car insurance, tax, petrol , clothes, car maintainence, phone, tv lisense, milk, medical. If you can put the figures up for all of that on 204E, then MABS would be delighted to talk to you, as you appear to have it cracked. kadman
truebluedub wrote: » Studies such as Wickham (2004) have shown that the lack of car ownership can adversely impact an individuals ability to get a job. It also plays a role in social exclusion.
kadman wrote: » You must be one of the only people that has ever posted on the issue of the banks paying back the money, when the country returns to financial stability. If you believe that is going to happen in the next couple of decades, you are indeed worthy of your avatar.The government doesn,t even know the level of guarantee. In case its slipped your mind, the maple 15 screwed the country out of 8 billion euro, and there is nothing more about them in the msm. Why. The countries banks are bankrupt, and any bail out given so far, has not been released by the banks to sme,s. And the best you can come up with is blame the social welfare. I guess selective amnesia is affecting your judgement. We have not even hit rock bottom yet, and you are talking about recovery. Give me a break. kadman
astrofool wrote: » If it's going to be decades before our economy recovers and the banks operate normally again, then you will see the dole cut to a fraction of what it is today. The country cannot operate at the current deficit level for more than a couple of years, before our bonds turn to junk status. We might as well leave the country today. Yes you may as well leave. Otherwise you will also be one of the dole recipients, on the pittance that you want given now There is two scenario's: The banks fail, the government can't guarantee the savings, Ireland is wiped out as an economic entity for decades, no money for basic healthcare, let alone the jobless. The banks don't fail, profits return, and provide an income to the tax payer for years as they pay back the recapitalisation money with interest. The banks already have profited. They have been guaranteed a bail out for amounts that no body knows. With money from the pension fund, now their petty cash box. Either way, the current deficit is so large, that social and public services have to be cut, even if the banks weren't getting bailed out .
If it's going to be decades before our economy recovers and the banks operate normally again, then you will see the dole cut to a fraction of what it is today. The country cannot operate at the current deficit level for more than a couple of years, before our bonds turn to junk status. We might as well leave the country today.
There is two scenario's: The banks fail, the government can't guarantee the savings, Ireland is wiped out as an economic entity for decades, no money for basic healthcare, let alone the jobless. The banks don't fail, profits return, and provide an income to the tax payer for years as they pay back the recapitalisation money with interest.
Either way, the current deficit is so large, that social and public services have to be cut, even if the banks weren't getting bailed out
kadman wrote: » Government gives my taxes to bail out the bank, by way of the private individual who has mortgage debt to the banks. He pays his mortgage to the bank as agreed. The bank gets its money to put back into circulation . This would have the effect of supplying money to the banks, and relieving the mortgage holder of his debt
InFront wrote: The Dole is firstly and most importantly emergency aid for those who find themselves in the unfortunate position of being unemployed
most people renting like this are not living alone.
If they are living alone, further social welfare aid is available. If this is not sufficient, maybe such people should consider, I don't know, looking for a cheaper alternative?
....Inaccurate calculations. When people quote a figure of €204 per week for JA they should remember o factor in the rent assistance provided by the Department of Social Welfare for such individuals - upto an extra €130 for a single person such as Jonny in Dublin, for example. That amounts to €330 for Jonny for the week.
Go to a training college, she might even get it for free.
for a girl to get her haircut it's not going to cost a minimum of €50,
and in my opinion, there are no grounds for arguing in favour of that expense when one is on the Dole.
My rent in a nice, bright two-bedroomed shared apartment Ive just moved into in Portobello, with another professional, in South Dublin is €400 per month.
Yes, and I believe in a 1 to 2% rise in tax on the current higher income band and a new higher tax bands on top of this at salaries above €95, 000 and again at salaries above €145, 000. But that isn't enough...
I'm sorry, but unlike you and Kadman, I don't think that is such an outrage.
..if it meant a significant cut of millions for the exchequer over a period of time.
If the banks were not re-capitalised, how do you propose industry would ever gain the capital to bring about new jobs? If the banks had no money, who would pay for student loans? Or car loans where people need a car to get to work?
astrofool wrote: Lol, FORCE our celebrities, I'd love to see what tax system would come up with that, ultimately they'd just leave Ireland forever, leaving the rest to foot the bill
(the top 5% of the workforce pay 40% of income tax)
Consider what is happening here. According to the Bank of Ireland, the richest 1pc in our country own 20pc of all the wealth. They have assets of €92bn. The top 2pc own 30pc of the nation's wealth and the top 5pc own 40pc. This is an extraordinary concentration of wealth in very few hands. While the wealth of the nation has gone up by 350pc in the past decade, those at the top have seen their wealth sky-rocket.
The bank bailout is absolutely necessary to keep the country going, and, in theory, all the money put into the banks, will eventually get paid back once the financial system returns to normality and banks become profitable again.
Money given away by the government will never ever come back.
The mathematics isn't hard
Either way, the current deficit is so large, that social and public services have to be cut, even if the banks weren't getting bailed out.
InFront wrote: » Are you talking about the taxpayer paying for all of these mortgages and never getting their money back? I would seriously hope not because that is a dreadful idea. The tax payer has been forced to pay the banks, with out the prospect of them getting their money back. How is that ok. Its a dreadful idea from the banks point of view. On the offchance that you actually mean that the creditor pays back the state, instead of saying the creditor's debt "is relieved", then that too is a bad idea. It's basically NAMA without the benefits. There are no benefits of NAMA at the present time, as the legal issues of what they propose have not been established, it may take years to do so. NAMA is there to help the banks by getting rid of their worrying debts, and also aims to help business and mortgage holders. Businesses are given new loan agreements which are more realistic which they pay back. They stay in business. They pay wages to their employees and their employees pay off their mortgages and reinject money into the economy through taxes. Everyone is happy. Correct, they are there to buy the worrying debts that the bank cant get rid of, with my tax money. Nothing has been set up by the government to help the ordinary paye worker, or those on social welfare dealing with a mortgage debt they have .They have already paid for any support they get with their PRSI payments. The banks have paid nothing.The leading institutions in the country could not get money from these debts. These same institutions have been established for decades here, so presumably are experts. Yet they cant generate income from them. So now we set up a new agency, and think NAMA can do it. Its accepted that there are major legal implications regarding taking these out standing accounts into NAMA, that may take years to resolve.In the meantime we are going down the pan. Its not there to help me pay my mortgage. If you are proposing that we just help mortgage holders, then mortgages get paid off, but wait, what about the businesses. Nobody bothered to help them out so they defaulted on their loans. The banks collaps. Nobody can get credit. Businesses have to let people go. Everybody is now on the dole and because we are all on the dole we can finally all agree that the dole should be increased. We should have helped everybody, we didn,t. We have guaranteed an income stream for the banks for decades. That nobody knows the size of.And in return we may be getting a heap of bad debts, that even the bank could not earn on. So the taxpayer, and social welfare recipients are taking the pain for it. Can you name any banker, government official, that is taking the same amount of pain. Where's the money?[/ QUOTE] First of all , you had it. Then the inland revenue got it. Then the NRPF got it. Then it was given to the banks. They now own the pension funds income stream, because we will continue to bail them out, and they will continue to ask for more. Sorry for going off topic mods. kadman
Are you talking about the taxpayer paying for all of these mortgages and never getting their money back? I would seriously hope not because that is a dreadful idea.
On the offchance that you actually mean that the creditor pays back the state, instead of saying the creditor's debt "is relieved", then that too is a bad idea. It's basically NAMA without the benefits.
NAMA is there to help the banks by getting rid of their worrying debts, and also aims to help business and mortgage holders. Businesses are given new loan agreements which are more realistic which they pay back. They stay in business. They pay wages to their employees and their employees pay off their mortgages and reinject money into the economy through taxes. Everyone is happy.
If you are proposing that we just help mortgage holders, then mortgages get paid off, but wait, what about the businesses. Nobody bothered to help them out so they defaulted on their loans. The banks collaps. Nobody can get credit. Businesses have to let people go. Everybody is now on the dole and because we are all on the dole we can finally all agree that the dole should be increased.
Where's the money?[/
dreamlogic wrote: » There is no-one receiving an extra €130 per week so can you please stop posting inaccurate information! If you are interested in debating this issue, at least get your basic facts right as to the amount of the entitlements that are being paid out instead of making it up as you go along!
dreamlogic wrote: » Astrofool, no-one is saying that the rich are not paying ANY tax. The issue here is that they are not paying their fair share of tax. Not by a long shot in fact!
