dreamlogic wrote: » I think you'll find that €50 is a conservative estimate actually if you factor in that many people also opt to colour their hair(especially people who have lost their natural colour). I don't opt for this myself so I don't know what this costs typically. But many people do, and why would you want to deprive them of this? Do you want it to get to the stage where people stop caring about their appearance? Should people not be entitled to look presentable? Would you not want them to look presentable in the event of a job interview? Cutting dole payments does not make any sense if there is no work out there for people to do! When this situation changes, and work becomes available, then cutting dole payments makes sense. Until then, cutting the payments does not make sense. .
MikeC101 wrote: » Of course there is, in the form of rent allowance - maximum rate is €130 per week for Dublin and Wicklow for a single person living alone. It's lower for elsewhere in the country. If you're including single parents with one child, a maximum rate of €1000 per month applies to Dublin. Where are you getting the idea that there is no-one receiving this amount? There is, and I've dealt with them in my previous job.Rent relief rates
Are you eligible for Rent Supplement? You may be eligible for Rent Supplement if the accommodation is suitable for your needs, the rent is below the maximum rent level set for your county and you are: Assessed by a Housing Authority as having a housing need or Regarded by a Housing Authority as being homeless or A tenant of accommodation provided under one of the Social Housing Schemes or Aged over 65 years or On certain disability payments. That is, Disability Allowance, Blind Pension, Invalidity Pension and the equivalent payments from other EU countries or countries that Ireland has a bilateral social security agreement and Pass a habitual residence test Pass a means test Currently, if you do not fit into one of the categories above you will not be eligible for Rent Supplement unless you are already renting accommodation and have experienced a substantial change in circumstances beyond your control leading to you being unable to afford the rent. You must have been able to afford the rent from your own resources when you started to rent and you should have had a reasonable expectation that you would continue to be able to afford the rent into the future. However, as soon as relevant legislative provision allows, if you do not fit into one of the categories listed above, you will be required to have been an existing tenant for 6 months or have been placed on a local authority housing list following a full housing assessment. This change is expected to come into effect sometime in May.
kadman wrote: » The allowance is there, but its not an automatic entitlement according to this, you would have to satisfy a deciding officer that you fulfil certain criteria. kadman
MikeC101 wrote: » Where are you getting the idea that there is no-one receiving this amount? There is, and I've dealt with them in my previous job.
Rent relief rates
sunnyside wrote: » .... I kind of like Enda Kenny's plan to put unemployed people building schools and doing roadworks and other infrastructure improvements. Won't fix the economy but makes more sense to spend the money on that than on the social wefare budget which is basically "dead money".
dreamlogic wrote: » Which job was this you had?
dreamlogic wrote: » The amounts listed here are the maximum levels of rent that make a person eligible to apply for the supplement. What is paid out is less than this. In the case of a person applying at the maximum level - €130 per week - they would receive €106 towards their rent. They pay the remainder of the cost of the rent out of their dole payment.
astrofool wrote: » The problem is that the rich are the one part of society that can readily move country, increasing taxes on them often reduces the amount of tax that they pay.
France, for example, has a punitive tax on high earners with high assets, and has seen their tax received from this group fall steadily as a result
With 5% contributing 40% to our income tax, if that 5% move, we are f*cked, the burden has to be picked up by everyone equally, and that means cutting benefits as well as increasing taxes.
Of course, the last person who seized the assets of the rich people was in Zimbabwe, and we all know how well that has turned out.
astrofool wrote: » The problem is that the rich are the one part of society that can readily move country, increasing taxes on them often reduces the amount of tax that they pay. France, for example, has a punitive tax on high earners with high assets, and has seen their tax received from this group fall steadily as a result (it's a populist tax, nothing more). Many businessmen who work in france commute in from brussels daily. With 5% contributing 40% to our income tax, if that 5% move, we are f*cked, the burden has to be picked up by everyone equally, and that means cutting benefits as well as increasing taxes. Of course, the last person who seized the assets of the rich people was in Zimbabwe, and we all know how well that has turned out. Can anyone tell me, is the bank bailout being included in our day to day figures, or is it being included on the balance sheets as a loan?
Subsidising the cowboy economy April 18th, 2004 , Topics: Uncategorized E-Mail Article (No Ratings Yet) Loading ... Printer-Friendly Share Article Text Size The other week I was out for lunch with two friends - let’s call them Mr Radioman and the Builder. All three of us were in good form as there were things to talk about, issues to debate and we were looking forward to Easter weekend. Both men are from the Midlands and as a result, much of the talk revolved around developments beyond the Pale. Mr Radioman spoke enthusiastically about his hopes for a new radio licence he had just won.The Builder told us about a new development of holiday homes that he was about to launch. Both sensed that 2004 was already shaping up to be a good year. As we talked, it struck me that both men were involved in surprisingly similar businesses.What do holiday homes and local radios have in common? Despite all the talk about competition, both are operating in the protected sector of the Irish economy. Both benefit hugely from inexplicable government intervention and both these subsidised businesses make it harder for real businesses to survive and prosper in the free market. Quite simply, both my lunch mates are personally in receipt of extraordinary government largesse. The Builder is profiting enormously from a tax break given to final buyers of holiday homes all around the country. On his calculations, his golf-side apartments will cost �300,000, but after a ten-year tax break,the buyer will only actually forkout half of this after. So instead of the apartment costing the buyer �300,000, it will cost him, net of tax, �150,000.The state subsidises the other �150,000 in taxes foregone. Why does the state subsidise the Builder to this extent? Why does the building industry need this helping hand? Is it suffering under excessively high interest rates that are preventing expansion in the sector? Is there enormous uninsurable risk involved in building apartments? On the contrary,the building sector has never been more productive. So why the subsidy? Does it make economic sense in 2004? Ten years ago,when large swathes of our cities and rural towns were actually falling down, the urban renewal schemes worked brilliantly, and were probably the most successful public/private partnership ever witnessed. But today the opposite is true.We are building too many houses, and recent evidence indicates that supply is far outstripping demand. But the tax breaks incentivise more, not less, building. Therefore, the more the market is distorted the more supply will outstrip demand and the more stretched valuations will be. If we are worried about house prices, is this not counterintuitive? Well it is counterintuitive if the aim of government policy is to clarify for investors the risk in the second home market. But what if the opposite is the aim? What if the aim is to keep investors in the dark about the true risk, yield and valuations in the property market? If this were the objective, there would not be a better way of hoodwinking the punters - because valuations on Irish holiday homes only make sense in the context of the tax break.Therefore, the state is actively pulling the wool over investors’eyes bygiving them a Panglossian, tax-distorted notion of the real value of their assets. Meanwhile, the builder is laughing all the way to bank.
but I do take issue with your claim that no-one receives these amounts, particularly in light of that fact that you accused the poster who said they did of making up things as they went along.
MikeC101 wrote: » Sure, and the person receiving €1,000 per month (single parent with one child) has a maximum allowance of €230 per week, and though they won't receive that full amount, will be getting in excess of the €130 you claimed no-one would receive.
dreamlogic wrote: » If a law is passed saying that the rich have to pay a property/capital tax of X amount, and they don't like it, emergency legislation can be passed to deal with people who don't want to co-operate with the law of the land. Similar to how the criminal assets bureau that was set up to deal with people like this. Afterwards who cares if they then leave the country? As I said earlier, they should not be welcome here if they do not want to pay their fair share. The rest of us don't get to pick and choose what we want to pay or don't want to pay. If that's the case then we can lower the tax back to current levels for them when the country gets back on its feet. For the time being there are no jobs anyway. And we need tax revenue. We are not at all f*cked if they move. What are you basing this opinion on? Are you saying we need the expertise of celebreties in the country? As for the property speculators, bankers, politicians and the other super-rich businessmen, they are the ones who got us into this mess. They need to pay their way and take responsibility for their actions, simple as. Ireland is not Zimbabwe. At least compare like with like if you have a point to make. If someone is a criminal, their assets can be seized. Like I said, it happened with CAB.
dreamlogic wrote: » No one person receives this amount. This is a fact and this was why I accused that poster of being inaccurate. Take issue all you want, but you are wrong, sorry. single parent + 1 child = 2 people
MikeC101 wrote: » So you've changed your use of no-one to no one ? They don't mean the same thing, but hey, if you're willing to descend to use of such petty semantics then I have no interest in continuing discussion with you.
dreamlogic wrote: » Mike, "no-one" and "no one" are both equally acceptable usages to describe "no one person". If you don't consider a child to be a person, sorry but that's your problem.
no one –noun no person; not anyone; nobody: No one is home.
astrofool wrote: » I believe the dictionary would like to argue with you about this:http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/no%20one
This is how the less well off in society are after the recent cuts, Cumulative Impact on Private Sector Take-home Income The take-home income of people in the private sector has been affected by the taxation and social welfare changes in both the original 2009 budget and in this supplementary Budget. Chart 10.2 (page 10) sets out this cumulative impact of both budgets on private sector take-home income. No account has been taken of possible pay increases under the national agreements as many employess will not benefit from them. An assessment of the cumulative impact of the October and April Budget offers a more rounded insight into the distributive impacts Single people who are long-term unemployed are €6.50 a week (€339 a year ) better off in 2009. Those on €25,000 a year will see a reduction of €9.58 a week (€500 a year) in their take home pay while those on €50,000 will be €38.33 a week (€1,790 a year ) worse off in the coming year and those on €75,000 a year will be €70.54 a week (€3,681 a year) worse off in the coming year. Couples who are long-term unemployed are €10.80 a week (€564 a year) better off in 2009. Couples with one income on €25,000 a year will be €9.58 a week (€500 a year) worse off while those on €50,000 will be €34.30 a week (€1,790 a year) worse off in the coming year. Couples with two incomes on €25,000 a year will be €9.58 a week (€500 a year) worse off while those on €50,000 will be €38.33 a week (€2,000 a year) worse off in the coming year
MikeC101 wrote: You never mentioned you were referring exclusively to single people with no children, and as a result I stated that single parents can get in excess of 130 a week rent allowance.
Infront wrote: 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.
kadman wrote: » I dont see anywhere in that list that says the rich are worse off. The facts are that the less well off in society are being forced to pay. they dont have the benefits of tax breaks, as the rich do. Their cuts happen at source before they get any money ie., paye,pensions,levies,welfare payments. And then the presumption is that , we are all suffering proportionately.
dreamlogic wrote: » I was referring to what was posted by Infront below. He was the one who didn't mention whether or not "Jonny" was a single parent living with a child. The onus was not on me to ask if he was living with a child! It's very simple. He is incorrect to say that a single person living alone is entitled to receive €130, and it is very misleading to anyone who would be reading the thread. I really don't see why you have such a problem accepting this. Or would you rather that false information is let go by uncorrected? To me, a single person is a person on their own. To me, a single person with a child = 2 people living together. I am sorry if you hold a different view as to whether a child = a real person. But you are dragging the discussion off topic at this stage.
dreamlogic wrote: » I am sorry if you hold a different view as to whether a child = a real person.
astrofool wrote: The problem with the 5% moving is that they leave a 40% hole in our income tax receipts.
you can't seize their assets, we couldn't do it as a member of the EU (we would certainly lose the case once it went to the european courts),
it would only happen if we had a Chavez type figure take over the country
and remove us from the international community,
but I'd say that most people would have removed all their assets from the country before that became a possibility.
Anyway, your points are completely ridiculous and offer nothing in a thread about the dole. We need to cut our costs.
kadman wrote: » This is off topic, lets get back to the dole. I dont see anywhere in that list that says the rich are worse off. The facts are that the less well off in society are being forced to pay. they dont have the benefits of tax breaks, as the rich do. Their cuts happen at source before they get any money ie., paye,pensions,levies,welfare payments. And then the presumption is that , we are all suffering proportionately. The best thing that has come out of this thread so far, is the realisation that those that have little care more for those that have less. And that those that have more, are in fear of losing more to support those that have less. In the future we are going to have to rely more on helping each other, rather than helping ourselves, in essence we will realise that helping each other is the important thing. Hopefully helping each other, will give us the chance to remove the third party from making profit from our interaction with each other. Offering help, and receiving help, as outlined in your link, dreamlogic is more important than trying to convince some here that there is a huge divide between those that have , and those that have not. So I am going over there to contribute to that thread, and I am going to leave you folks to fight over keeping your marbles for your selves. kadman
dreamlogic wrote: » I didn't say the top 5%. The percentage I specified in my earlier post was the top 1%, who have € millions there waiting to be taxed; meanwhile the rest of the country is in a crisis. So Europe gets to decide how we make our tax laws now? I wasn't aware of this. Would you mind posting a link to some documentation outlining how this is covered in European law? Well obviously you think Bertie Ahern "type figures" represent ideal leadership? But comparing our country to Zimbabwe or Venezuela doesn't really contribute anything to a discussion about how we're going to get out of this mess. I think we need to be more practical here. The same international community that is also in a global recession at this time? And how would taxing our rich affect them anyway? Not if it is dealt with as with the CAB in the 90s. That worked quite well; there is no reason why it could not be done again to deal with people who don't want to co-operate with the law.
dreamlogic wrote: » For however long that might be. 6 months, 1 year, 2 years? people have no idea how long they are going to be left waiting...
Why should grown adults be forced by economic necessity to move in with complete strangers?
Yeah right. I've done that before and I came out with an uneven haircut. Never again!
I think you'll find that €50 is a conservative estimate actually if you factor in that many people also opt to colour their hair(especially people who have lost their natural colour).
why would you want to deprive them of this?
I live in the same area myself. I am glad that you've just moved into a new place and all and that you are happy with it. You are forgetting though that many landlords of such properties will turn people away
I agree with the last part - It isn't enough! But why are you are advocating a 7% cut in dole, but only a "1 to 2% rise in tax on the current higher income band"?!
maybe this is because you yourself are a student and haven't yet contributed enough to understand the concept of what is fair and what is not fair!
If a law is passed saying that the rich have to pay a property/capital tax of X amount, and they don't like it, emergency legislation can be passed to deal with people who don't want to co-operate with the law of the land. Similar to how the criminal assets bureau that was set up to deal with people like this. Afterwards who cares if they then leave the country? As I said earlier, they should not be welcome here if they do not want to pay their fair share.
kadman wrote: » 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.
Nothing has been set up by the government to help the ordinary paye worker
or those on social welfare[/B] dealing with a mortgage debt they have
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.
astrofool wrote: You can't tax people on what they have in their bank accounts, only what they earn.
It's taken over 10 years for the CAB to get assets from John Gilligan, a drug dealing murderer.
You expect to be able to do the same with people who have broken no law at all, and are not in jail, behind bars? ridiculous.
We are signed up to general agreements with Europe on tax, e.g. VAT can only go between 15 and 25%, corporation tax has a floor,
and we treat citizens according to european guidelines (e.g. we can't take something off someone, without legislature to back it up according to EU guidelines),
Yes, I think a Bertie Ahern type figure is better than a Mugable, Chavez, Castro, Stalin, Putin, Kim type figure, yes I do. Bertie Ahern was not a great leader, but the other ones have destroyed, or are destroying their country daily. Ridiculous.
The same international community that brought us up from being a third world country to a developed nation, that built most of our roads for us, that keeps our farmers farming, that enshrines human rights in our constitution. Or would you prefer us to be more like North Korea, Iran, Albania, closed off countries, with abject poverty. Ridiculous.
doesn't make it any less completely, and abso-positively ridiculous to be supporting a position based on such utterly ridiculous ideas.
dreamlogic wrote: » Since you mention it, our corporation tax is also extremely low compared to the rest of Europe. There is a good case to be made for increasing that substantially for a time at least.
InFront wrote: » The theories that Kadman and you are putting forward here are crazy, they make no economic sense and go far beyond the dreamworld realm of socialism into complete anarchy. Do you guys envisage an ideal Ireland with no business, no jobs and social welfare and free hair care for everybody?
Infront wrote: I already posted a thread from this site about some guy going and buying Italian leather shoes with his dole money
salon colouring. You're doing your case no favours with these arguments above.
Now take a manager working long hours, she is on €95000 per year. She is paying an enormous €36,720 in taxes and PRSI.
Someone has already said it, but with your approval of leting the banks go, and completely mad statements like this, you really would have the place become Zimbabwe.
The theories that Kadman and you are putting forward here are crazy,
they make no economic sense and go far beyond the dreamworld realm of socialism into complete anarchy.
kadman wrote: » Your trouble is, you think the less well off should pay the price. I happen to think the rich should.
dreamlogic wrote: » I thought we were supposed to be having a serious discussion here!
I am not referring to people on middle incomes. The people I was referring to - if you go back and read the last few pages - were the top 1% rich whose incomes amount to vastly more than that salary you just quoted.
You seem to be arguing towards protecting the top 1% of society. This doesn't make sense to me on any level of analysis.
What I am proposing is a state crackdown on those who have made their wealth off the backs of the rest of us during the boom years
