Have we given up?

Lenny Lovett · 20-10-2010 06:15PM

Valmont wrote: »

Too bad the street is owned by the council then.

It's owned by all of us!

DeVore · 20-10-2010 07:27PM

Sorry Lenny, I thought I had addressed the question to you but I see that it was another poster.

Though, to be fair, you could answer it too if you felt like it. You seem to want something done by someone else but I'm still waiting for someone to give me a realistic pragmatic outline of something that CAN be done.

DeV.

Lenny Lovett · 20-10-2010 07:53PM

DeVore wrote: »

How do you suggest we "change the country for the better", I mean how do we realistically achieve that? By what mechanism? Election? Revolution? Lobbying? How?
DeV.

It starts with a new Government. It continues with massive reduction in expenditure starting at the top ie The Dáil - reduction of the number of TD's, closure of the Seanad, and working the cuts down through the Civil Service and also offloading of non essential state assets. Then on downb the line. In immediate terms we could borrow, from the ECB @ 3%, the entire amount due to the famous bond holders at 7% and get rid of that expensive millstone.

DeVore wrote: »

Sorry Lenny, I thought I had addressed the question to you but I see that it was another poster.

Though, to be fair, you could answer it too if you felt like it. You seem to want something done by someone else but I'm still waiting for someone to give me a realistic pragmatic outline of something that CAN be done.

DeV.

If you read all my posts on this thread you will see that I don't expect others to do it for me. I am doing my bit for this country through employment etc.

LostinKildare · 20-10-2010 09:28PM

djpbarry wrote: »

Most mortgage-holders who become unemployed will be entitled to a mortgage interest supplement. If, having lost their job, a mortgage-holder (who qualifies for jobseekers benefit and interest supplement) suddenly finds that they are in serious financial difficulty, then they really only have themselves to blame for their very poor financial planning (that’s not to say they should be crucified for their mistake). Even ignoring the fact that everyone should have something put away to help themselves through a period of unemployment, there are quite a lot of welfare options to keep people ticking over while out of work.

From the Independent last month:

A total of 17,433 families are now getting mortgage interest supplement from the State, up from just 8,000 at the end of 2008. The payment covers only the interest portion of a mortgage, with average payments of €316 a month. . . . Earlier this week, the Financial Regulator revealed that almost 35,500 people have not been able to make repayments on their mortgages for three months or more. Almost 25,000 of these have not paid their mortgage for six months. . . This follows persistent criticism that the payment is too difficult to qualify for. Claims have been made that up to 1,000 people a month are turned down for the support, with enquiries from struggling homeowners often not even recorded by community welfare officers.

http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/huge-surge-in-homeowners-being-paid-mortgage-aid-2324415.html

So, a significant number of mortgage holders in trouble are turned down for the mortgage supplement --- we don’t know how many because the govt doesn’t keep records (handy!) --- but for those who are able to jump through the flaming hoops and qualify, the average payment is €316 a month. Pair that with the average payment on a typical mortgage in Ireland:

The average monthly repayment on a 30-year, variable-rate mortgage of €250,000 amounts to around €1,200 a month.
However, if you are unfortunate to still be on a fixed-rate mortgage, you will probably be paying considerably more at this stage.

http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/latest-news/give-us-a-break-1675177.html

Let’s take the example of a couple who years ago, in full employment, bought one of those typical houses, which they could easily afford. They were atypically responsible. They resisted urgings to buy a bigger house. They prudently put off having children until they were better situated, they accumulated absolutely NO debt other than their mortgage, and they saved money “to help themselves through a period of unemployment,” as you say. Would you accuse them of “very poor financial planning” and say they only have themselves to blame if they were to fall on hard times?

Fast forward a few years and they are both unemployed (they must both be unemployed in order to qualify for mortgage supplement). They have exhausted JSB, or perhaps they weren’t entitled to it because they had been self-employed. They have had to burn through their savings before they could qualify for means-tested JSA and mortgage supplement. They get €1,620.40 per month (jobseekers allowance x 1 + qualified adult x 1 + €316 average mortgage supplement). Let's say they also get the fuel allowance, which is €20 pw per household (winter months only), so €1,700.40. After they pay their typical €1,200 mortgage, they have €500.40 per month (€62.50 pw per person) to feed themselves and pay all of their living expenses except housing.
€62.50 per week, not €196 per week.

djpbarry wrote: »

So how many people are in such placements? [WPP] A few hundred maybe? I’m not really sure that’s a particularly strong argument against reducing that EUR 196 per week.

Well, it’s fully subscribed --- though the govt has been touting this as a centrepiece of their fab job creation program, it created only 2,000 non-paying “jobs,” and according to the govt in Sept, 1,916 people had commenced placements. (http://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2010-10-13.770.0&s=WPP#g772.0.r) Unlike you when you were enjoying the unemployed high life, those people deduct transport costs, clothes, and other associated “working” costs (childcare costs, for some) from that €196 per week (or €62.50 per week if you’re that average unemployed mortgage holder above).

djpbarry wrote: »

I just find it very hard to believe, with the vast array of social welfare payments available in this country, that large numbers of people are going to slip through the net into poverty and deprivation if we lower jobseekers benefit (for example). Particularly when we take into consideration the rapidly declining costs of essentials such as food and clothing.

No, food costs are not rapidly declining, they have been rising since last May. http://www.examiner.ie/business/kfcwqlidqlid/ Whether clothing costs are rising or falling is irrelevant to people who already have eliminated clothing purchases from their budgets.

Lenny Lovett · 22-10-2010 08:17AM

Of course another very sensible argument against cutting Welfare payments is that it will have a very damaging effect on the economy in General. Let's be honest with ourselves here: the majority of people that claim benefit of one kind or another spend (by neccessity) the entire amount each week(apart from people like djpbarry who puts it in the bank and lives off his Missus's earnings!) on essentials and utilities - thus keeping a lot of others in jobs - so are you guys saying that removing that much from the economy is a good and sensible move? Really?

_Kaiser_ · 22-10-2010 12:20PM

LostinKildare wrote: »

From the Independent last month:

So, a significant number of mortgage holders in trouble are turned down for the mortgage supplement --- we don’t know how many because the govt doesn’t keep records (handy!) --- but for those who are able to jump through the flaming hoops and qualify, the average payment is €316 a month. Pair that with the average payment on a typical mortgage in Ireland:

Let’s take the example of a couple who years ago, in full employment, bought one of those typical houses, which they could easily afford. They were atypically responsible. They resisted urgings to buy a bigger house. They prudently put off having children until they were better situated, they accumulated absolutely NO debt other than their mortgage, and they saved money “to help themselves through a period of unemployment,” as you say. Would you accuse them of “very poor financial planning” and say they only have themselves to blame if they were to fall on hard times?

Fast forward a few years and they are both unemployed (they must both be unemployed in order to qualify for mortgage supplement). They have exhausted JSB, or perhaps they weren’t entitled to it because they had been self-employed. They have had to burn through their savings before they could qualify for means-tested JSA and mortgage supplement. They get €1,620.40 per month (jobseekers allowance x 1 + qualified adult x 1 + €316 average mortgage supplement). Let's say they also get the fuel allowance, which is €20 pw per household (winter months only), so €1,700.40. After they pay their typical €1,200 mortgage, they have €500.40 per month (€62.50 pw per person) to feed themselves and pay all of their living expenses except housing.
€62.50 per week, not €196 per week.

Well, it’s fully subscribed --- though the govt has been touting this as a centrepiece of their fab job creation program, it created only 2,000 non-paying “jobs,” and according to the govt in Sept, 1,916 people had commenced placements. (http://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2010-10-13.770.0&s=WPP#g772.0.r) Unlike you when you were enjoying the unemployed high life, those people deduct transport costs, clothes, and other associated “working” costs (childcare costs, for some) from that €196 per week (or €62.50 per week if you’re that average unemployed mortgage holder above).

No, food costs are not rapidly declining, they have been rising since last May. http://www.examiner.ie/business/kfcwqlidqlid/ Whether clothing costs are rising or falling is irrelevant to people who already have eliminated clothing purchases from their budgets.

I can't emphasise how much I agree with all of this....

I genuinely don't get how half the posters here seem to think that being made redundant and on the dole is some "magical ticket to Easy Street" :rolleyes:. The ONLY conclusion I can make is that these are Celtic Tiger Cubbies who grew up sheltered by mammy and daddy's wealth and have never found themselves in genuine hardship.

Most people who have been laid off in the last 2 years (throgh no fault of their own I might add), and found their income quartered (if not more!) overnight aren't celebrating their good fortune at being given a medical card (whoopdedoo!) and "free" money from the State - they're panicking about how the hell they're going to meet this month's rent/mortgage payment, how they're going to pay the car loan/credit card, gas bills, esb bills, clothes for the kids, and (literally) put food on the table next week! (Argue all ye like about how the dole "isn't intended" for this, but these expenses don't just disappear with your job, despite what some may think!)

Now they find themselves treated like "junkie scum" by the very same system that they've been paying for while they worked. I seemingly can't repeat this enough on this forum - not everyone on the dole is a lazy, sponging waster who has no interest in working!

So after jumping through all the hoops they get a payment that (if they're lucky) will just about cover the weekly expenses and then only by ringing the aforementioned utility companies and banks and grovelling for reduced payment plans. Even THEN the norm is to be juggling money from one account/credit card to the other just so you can get through another week!

I'm no doctor, but I'm sure even the "experts" here can imagine the stress, worry and arguments this all causes as well.. and on top of all that, they somehow have to motivate themselves to find another job (not easy when you deal with the timewasting muppetry from many of the recuitment agencies).

Personally, I was working until last November, I even worked in the public sector, but I guess I was out the day they were handing out "jobs for life", "inflated salaries" and "gold-plated pensions". :rolleyes:

I made 5-10k less than the equivalent role in the private sector, contributed a sizeable portiton each month in "superannuation" and even "widows and orphans" payments, and since being made redundant - yep, no permanent contract for me (even though I ran the IT department of a sizeable organisation with only 2 others and all that work has now fallen apart) while receptionists and admin staff who were there less time were made permanent ahead of me, I've done nothing but worry about paying bills and trying to find something else. ... oh and moving home to Mammy and Daddy isn't an option for everyone either - certainly isn't for me!

I've been out in a pub ONCE in the last year, can't remember the last time I bought myself a new shirt or pair of jeans, and the medical card isn't worth anything to me seeing as I've never used it!

I'm certainly not "living it up" and I'm all too aware that the longer this goes on (despite my best efforts to find something else, and having come THIS close twice - only to lose out at the last hurdle), the harder it'll be to find something.

As for the WPP programmes.. in my opinion, all they are is a cynical way for certain employers to literally "cash in" on people's misfortune as most of the "jobs" I've seen require qualifications AND several years experience, all for no salary and to save them having to employ that same person properly.
Also, as LostinKildare says, unless you're "working" down the road, you'll also be out for travel expenses, suitable clothes, maybe lunch etc and for what? To work for nothing??

I think a phrase a lot of posters on this forum should familiarise themselves with is "there but for the grace of God go I" because from reading some of the posts on this thread, half of them wouldn't survive a month!

Lenny Lovett · 22-10-2010 03:25PM

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

I genuinely don't get how half the posters here seem to think that being made redundant and on the dole is some "magical ticket to Easy Street" :rolleyes:. The ONLY conclusion I can make is that these are Celtic Tiger Cubbies who grew up sheltered by mammy and daddy's wealth and have never found themselves in genuine hardship.

No, it's just that they have no grip on reality. They quote streams of bullsh1t "facts" that are facts just because a Government organisation (The CSO or OSI... whatever) churns them out. It doesn't occour to these people that it's in the Government's interest for the OSI to manufacture this rubbish in the hope that us plebs will swallow it. It's the old adage that they will piss on us and try and convince us it's raining.

The real facts are that it is extremely difficult for some and impossible for many to manage on €196 per week let alone cutting it. Also, as I said earlier, cutting Welfare and Pension payments will extract an enormous amount of cash out of the economy thus endangering hundreds of thousands more jobs in companies that will suffer from the reduction in spending. These guys are on another planet.

oscarBravo · 22-10-2010 03:35PM

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

Of course another very sensible argument against cutting Welfare payments is that it will have a very damaging effect on the economy in General. Let's be honest with ourselves here: the majority of people that claim benefit of one kind or another spend (by neccessity) the entire amount each week(apart from people like djpbarry who puts it in the bank and lives off his Missus's earnings!) on essentials and utilities - thus keeping a lot of others in jobs - so are you guys saying that removing that much from the economy is a good and sensible move? Really?

That's a compelling argument for doubling social welfare payments. Would you advocate doing that?

Lenny Lovett · 22-10-2010 06:32PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's a compelling argument for doubling social welfare payments. Would you advocate doing that?

No of course not.:rolleyes: But to cut it further does not make economic sense. If they cut it by, say, 5% it will hoover in the region €1.5billion out of the economy. Much of that is propping up jobs in the Tescos, Dunnes etc etc and a whole host of other shops and other business. You think that makes sense do you? It will actually increase the number of Welfare Claimants and it will also lead to a significant reduction in VAT and excise revenue. It's a dangerous move. Very dangerous.

oscarBravo · 22-10-2010 06:37PM

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

No of course not.:rolleyes: But to cut it further does not make economic sense.

You're essentially arguing that the level of social welfare we have right now is exactly right for our economic climate.

Isn't that a little... convenient?

Permabear · 22-10-2010 06:41PM

This post has been deleted.

Lenny Lovett · 22-10-2010 06:59PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

You're essentially arguing that the level of social welfare we have right now is exactly right for our economic climate.

Isn't that a little... convenient?

No, I'm not arguing that actually. So you obviously believe taking that much cashflow out of the economy right now makes sense do you? How do you propose to replace it or do you just think that the businesses and employers affected should just be let crash and add all those employees to the Dole queue?

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well we certainly shouldn't be borrowing it a 6% when we can get it at 3% from the ECB should we? So what do you suggest then? How do we make up that kind of cashflow and keep people off the Dole and keep the VAT and other taxes flowing? It isn't just minimum wage workers that would lose jobs as a result of these cuts it will reverberate throughout the workforce: Banks, Manufacturing, Telecoms/ISPs, and many companies won't need mid and top level Managers if they have no lower level people to manage will they? So considerably more income tax taken out of the pot. Again I contend that you guys are not in touch with reality. You should consider carefully, very carefully the result of these cuts. The cuts will result in the need for more Civil Servants to service the Unemployed and Courts (for business wind ups) which will increase the PS payroll and hence an increase in borrowing The cuts must be found elsewhere!

djpbarry · 22-10-2010 07:55PM

Ok, so we finally have some figures to work with...

LostinKildare wrote: »

Let’s take the example of a couple who years ago, in full employment, bought one of those typical houses, which they could easily afford. They were atypically responsible. They resisted urgings to buy a bigger house. They prudently put off having children until they were better situated, they accumulated absolutely NO debt other than their mortgage, and they saved money “to help themselves through a period of unemployment,” as you say. Would you accuse them of “very poor financial planning” and say they only have themselves to blame if they were to fall on hard times?

Of course not – perhaps you should re-read what I posted:

“If, having lost their job, a mortgage-holder (who qualifies for jobseekers benefit and interest supplement) suddenly finds that they are in serious financial difficulty, then they really only have themselves to blame for their very poor financial planning...”

LostinKildare wrote: »

Fast forward a few years and they are both unemployed (they must both be unemployed in order to qualify for mortgage supplement). They have exhausted JSB, or perhaps they weren’t entitled to it because they had been self-employed. They have had to burn through their savings before they could qualify for means-tested JSA and mortgage supplement. They get€1,620.40 per month (jobseekers allowance x 1 + qualified adult x 1 + €316 average mortgage supplement). Let's say they also get the fuel allowance, which is €20 pw per household (winter months only), so €1,700.40. After they pay their typical €1,200 mortgage, they have €500.40 per month (€62.50 pw per person) to feed themselves and pay all of their living expenses except housing.€62.50 per week, not €196 per week.

I’m not entirely sure what your point is? Are you arguing that €1,700.40 per month in welfare for a couple without dependants is too little? Because I honestly cannot believe that someone could argue that. Perhaps the hypothetical couple in question should consider renting their property and moving elsewhere (for lower rent, hence increasing their disposable income)? Or perhaps they should consider selling the property? Here’s a question: how high does a couple’s mortgage have to be before it is deemed unreasonable for the state to cover it?

LostinKildare wrote: »

Unlike you when you were enjoying the unemployed high life, those people deduct transport costs, clothes, and other associated “working” costs (childcare costs, for some) from that €196 per week (or €62.50 per week if you’re that average unemployed mortgage holder above).

So we should use 2,000 people in work placements as the benchmark for setting welfare payments?

LostinKildare wrote: »

No, food costs are not rapidly declining, they have been rising since last May.

Prices have stabilised somewhat since last December and they have certainly not changed significantly since May. However, since May 2008, food prices have dropped by approximately 8.7%, the steepest decline being from Jan – Dec 2009.

djpbarry · 22-10-2010 07:57PM

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

I genuinely don't get how half the posters here seem to think that being made redundant and on the dole is some "magical ticket to Easy Street".

Who said it was easy? I may have saved some money while unemployed, but only after I scaled back my spending. Admittedly, that probably wasn’t as difficult as it might be for others, because I wasn’t earning all that much in my last job.

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

The ONLY conclusion I can make is that these are Celtic Tiger Cubbies who grew up sheltered by mammy and daddy's wealth and have never found themselves in genuine hardship.

Oh, so it’s ok for you to make generalisations, but woe betide anyone who should cast aspersions on the unemployed:

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

I seemingly can't repeat this enough on this forum - not everyone on the dole is a lazy, sponging waster who has no interest in working!

Who has suggested any such thing?

djpbarry · 22-10-2010 07:57PM

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

No, it's just that they have no grip on reality. They quote streams of bullsh1t "facts" that are facts just because a Government organisation (The CSO or OSI... whatever) churns them out. It doesn't occour to these people that it's in the Government's interest for the OSI to manufacture this rubbish in the hope that us plebs will swallow it.

You’re accusing the CSO of fabricating data? That’s a pretty serious charge you’re making there.

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

The real facts are that it is extremely difficult for some and impossible for many to manage on €196 per week let alone cutting it.

You’re deliberately missing the thrust of the argument – EUR 196 per week is the bare minimum to which an unemployed person is entitled. That minimum, in my opinion, is too high and could easily be reduced by a few percent at least.

Lenny Lovett · 22-10-2010 08:55PM

djpbarry wrote: »

You’re accusing the CSO of fabricating data? That’s a pretty serious charge you’re making there.

I'm saying that statistics can be manipulated and interpreted to tell any story that anyone wants. You do know how they work don't you?

djpbarry wrote: »

You’re deliberately missing the thrust of the argument – EUR 196 per week is the bare minimum to which an unemployed person is entitled. That minimum, in my opinion, is too high and could easily be reduced by a few percent at least.

And you obviously haven't read what I said. We cannot afford to have that €1.5billion of almost guaranteed immediate spending taken out of the economy. It will collapse the remainder of the system and make hundreds of thousands of more people unemployed and incur many other costs on the state. It is a simple concept. Do you really not understand it? For example:If a person on the Dole gets €196 per week and spends, say, 90% of it in the local community on food, clothes, rent and whatever else. That money in turn pays wages for people in all those businesses and in turn generates VAT and other taxes. If it is sucked out of the economy then those people also lose their jobs. The local council will lose also through inability to pay rates so services will suffer. It would be catastrophic. Can you really not get that?

oscarBravo · 22-10-2010 10:52PM

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

No, I'm not arguing that actually.

It's the net effect of your argument. You're saying that we shouldn't raise social welfare rates, nor should we cut them. Therefore, you think they are exactly right.

So you obviously believe taking that much cashflow out of the economy right now makes sense do you?

I believe that when you can't afford to pay for something, then you can't afford to pay for it. It's utterly one-dimensional to say that the state has to keep pouring vast sums of money into the social welfare pit in order to save the economy. If the government runs out of money, there is no economy.

How do you propose to replace it or do you just think that the businesses and employers affected should just be let crash and add all those employees to the Dole queue?

There's no magic bullet (unlike what you appear to believe). The economy is severely, brutally damaged. The first thing we have to do is staunch the arterial bleeding that is our current deficit. We can't. Afford. To keep spending beyond our means as we are, whether at 3% or 7% interest.

Well we certainly shouldn't be borrowing it a 6% when we can get it at 3% from the ECB should we?

And you think the ECB will hand us limitless wads of cash at 3% with no strings? You don't think it would be conditional on, oh I dunno, slashing our budget deficit?

Austerity is going to happen. It won't be fun for anyone, but there's no point pretending that we can afford to pay the social welfare rates (and public sector pay bill) we have been paying.

Lenny Lovett · 22-10-2010 11:22PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Austerity is going to happen. It won't be fun for anyone, but there's no point pretending that we can afford to pay the social welfare rates (and public sector pay bill) we have been paying.

Well I guarantee you that cutting Welfare payments will dramatically increase the Welfare spend and increase the Public Service spend to service the swathes of newly unemployed people caused by the rapid decrease of money in the economy which will, also severly cut income tax revenue and VAT and Excise Duty. It is unavoidable however if you believe that won't happen please explain it to me how exactly.

And you think the ECB will hand us limitless wads of cash at 3% with no strings? You don't think it would be conditional on, oh I dunno, slashing our budget deficit?

Yes because they will do whatever it takes to keep us afloat because to not do so would most certainly damage the Euro as a currency and the overall credibility of the EU. I'm not saying we do not need to slash the Budget deficit, quite the opposite actually. It's just that for once we need to consider the consequence of our actions to so do. Reckless cuts will make a bad situation so much worse. The place to start the cuts (and this is imperative) is to rapidly dismantle or at least severly rationalise the Quangos. They are a major source of waste.

djpbarry · 23-10-2010 01:46PM

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

I'm saying that statistics can be manipulated and interpreted to tell any story that anyone wants.

No, you directly accused the CSO of “manufacturing rubbish”. Until someone produces a better set of figures, produced in an objective manner, then I’m going to go with the CSO figures, thanks very much.

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

We cannot afford to have that €1.5billion of almost guaranteed immediate spending taken out of the economy.

That makes zero sense. If that €1.5 billion was being provided to us interest-free, you might have a point. But it’s not.

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

It will collapse the remainder of the system and make hundreds of thousands of more people unemployed and incur many other costs on the state. It is a simple concept. Do you really not understand it?

So the way out of this crisis is to flood the economy with as much borrowed cash as possible?

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

For example:If a person on the Dole gets €196 per week and spends, say, 90% of it in the local community on food, clothes, rent and whatever else. That money in turn pays wages for people in all those businesses and in turn generates VAT and other taxes.

You forgot to mention profit. Suppose the person in question spends a hefty chunk of their €196 in Tesco, Lidl or Aldi – how much of it remains in the country?

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

If it is sucked out of the economy then those people also lose their jobs.

That’s a hell of a leap you’re making there. The rate of jobseekers benefit was revised downwards not too long ago – how many people lost their job as a direct result?

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

Well I guarantee you that cutting Welfare payments will dramatically increase the Welfare spend and increase the Public Service spend to service the swathes of newly unemployed people caused by the rapid decrease of money in the economy which will, also severly cut income tax revenue and VAT and Excise Duty. It is unavoidable however if you believe that won't happen please explain it to me how exactly.

How about you explain your scenario first. With figures please.

Lenny Lovett · 23-10-2010 04:33PM

djpbarry wrote: »

No, you directly accused the CSO of “manufacturing rubbish”. Until someone produces a better set of figures, produced in an objective manner, then I’m going to go with the CSO figures, thanks very much.

Thankfully it's still a free country so you can choose your source for information.

djpbarry wrote: »

That makes zero sense. If that €1.5 billion was being provided to us interest-free, you might have a point. But it’s not.
So the way out of this crisis is to flood the economy with as much borrowed cash as possible?

Zero sense eh? I never said anywhere that the economy should be flooded with borrowed cash. But if you feel I did then please quote where or else stop trying to divert the debate with contrived rubbish please. So what will the towns and cities throughout the country do on a week to week basis when that €1.5billion (at least) is taken out of circulation? Shut up shop. That's what. You sound like you have a better idea so let's hear it Sir.

djpbarry wrote: »

You forgot to mention profit. Suppose the person in question spends a hefty chunk of their €196 in Tesco, Lidl or Aldi – how much of it remains in the country?

So you don't believe business are entitled to make profit now eh? You're quite the Economist!!!

I'd say quite a substantial amount remains here actually. Probably about 80% going on their sales margins and the fact that they source much of their produce in Ireland, the wages they pay to Irish workers, Utilities, Rates etc etc etc. Ask your trusted sources at the OSI. They can tell you precisely.

djpbarry wrote: »

That’s a hell of a leap you’re making there. The rate of jobseekers benefit was revised downwards not too long ago – how many people lost their job as a direct result?

Well over 180,000 lost their jobs last year so go figure.

djpbarry wrote: »

How about you explain your scenario first. With figures please.

What? You don't understand what I said in my last post? Really? How can I simplify sufficently it for you? I'll think about it and try and post a simpler version later tonight.

By the way, I note your location is London W8. So you care so much about the welfare of the country that you relocated to London? What was all the "facts" you were quoting about managing fine on €196 here then? Guff was it??

djpbarry · 24-10-2010 03:21PM

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

Zero sense eh? I never said anywhere that the economy should be flooded with borrowed cash.

No, but you’re not arguing for an increase while arguing against a decrease. To paraphrase oscarBravo, you’re essentially stating that the current level of welfare is just right.

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

So what will the towns and cities throughout the country do on a week to week basis when that €1.5billion (at least) is taken out of circulation? Shut up shop.

How many towns and cities “shut up shop” as a result of the recent decrease in welfare rates?

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

So you don't believe business are entitled to make profit now eh?

Eh, I said nothing of the sort.

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

I'd say quite a substantial amount remains here actually.

Hmm... you’ve said quite a lot of things. The profits generated by Tesco, M&S, Lidl, Aldi, etc. remain in Ireland? I fail to see why.

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

Probably about 80% going on their sales margins and the fact that they source much of their produce in Ireland, the wages they pay to Irish workers, Utilities, Rates etc etc etc.

Much of their produce is not sourced in Ireland. The point is that, if you give a sum of money to an individual based in an economy as small as Ireland’s, you really cannot predict how that money will be distributed. Given the small, open nature of our economy, I don’t think it’s at all unlikely that a reasonable chunk will leave the country. Take something simple like pay your energy bills – you’re paying for heat and electric that has been largely derived from imported fuels.

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

Well over 180,000 lost their jobs last year so go figure.

How many of those jobs were directly attributable to the reduction in welfare rates?

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

By the way, I note your location is London W8. So you care so much about the welfare of the country that you relocated to London?

Yeah, you’re right. I should have remained in Ireland and claimed welfare indefinitely.

DeVore · 24-10-2010 03:49PM

two things:

1. attacking where someone lives is straight up Ad Hominem.

2. If the government gives a person a sum of money, a portion of it will be spent, possibly all of it, and of that a chunk will go to the government in tax. if the government DOESNT give that person that sum, ALL of it goes to the government.

So, your point that people will spend what they are given and that brings in more tax, is a false economy. Plus we would be paying interest on the money too.

DeV.

Lenny Lovett · 24-10-2010 08:10PM

DeVore wrote: »

two things:

1. attacking where someone lives is straight up Ad Hominem.

Maybe in your opinion but in this context I disagree. Someone sitting overseas being a keyboard warrior, knocking out missives as to how Ireland should be run and how the poor in our society should be treated is bull**** in my book. His opinion lacks credibility when he is not speaking from experience but from what he hears from others.

DeVore wrote: »

2. If the government gives a person a sum of money, a portion of it will be spent, possibly all of it, and of that a chunk will go to the government in tax. if the government DOESNT give that person that sum, ALL of it goes to the government.

Yeah. And every one Euro that the Government puts into the economy generates jobs, multiple sales and more and more taxes. Taking it out generates nothing. At least if they put money in it will multiply. So, your solution is to keep cutting. So, when they've cut it right down to the bone and there's no money left and no businesses or jobs - just half a nation on the Dole and the other half servicing it in a Public Service that is collecting No Tax because there is no income and no trade...Oh and because there's no taxes to pay the Public Servants.... What then Professor?

DeVore wrote: »

So, your point that people will spend what they are given and that brings in more tax, is a false economy. Plus we would be paying interest on the money too.
DeV.

And your solution is?

Lenny Lovett · 24-10-2010 08:25PM

djpbarry wrote: »

No, but you’re not arguing for an increase while arguing against a decrease. To paraphrase oscarBravo, you’re essentially stating that the current level of welfare is just right.
How many towns and cities “shut up shop” as a result of the recent decrease in welfare rates?

Sigh... No I am not! I am simply saying that while we cannot afford to increase it, it would be suicide to cut it further.

djpbarry wrote: »

Eh, I said nothing of the sort.

Whatever:rolleyes:

djpbarry wrote: »

Hmm... you’ve said quite a lot of things. The profits generated by Tesco, M&S, Lidl, Aldi, etc. remain in Ireland? I fail to see why.

Sorry, Is hould have said most of their income not profits. Still, I reckon well over half of their revenue remains in Ireland.

djpbarry wrote: »

Much of their produce is not sourced in Ireland.

I never mentioned M & S did I? Because virtually all of their products are imported from your country. However Tesco, Aldi, Lidl, Dunnes, Super Valu and Superquinn as well as the smaller multiples are sourcing the vast majority of their products in Ireland. I know because our company supplies quite a bit to them and I know many many other Ireiah suppliers who do.

djpbarry wrote: »

The point is that, if you give a sum of money to an individual based in an economy as small as Ireland’s, you really cannot predict how that money will be distributed. Given the small, open nature of our economy, I don’t think it’s at all unlikely that a reasonable chunk will leave the country.

Not for the everyday essentials that most of the Welfare recipients are purchasing.

djpbarry wrote: »

Take something simple like pay your energy bills – you’re paying for heat and electric that has been largely derived from imported fuels.
How many of those jobs were directly attributable to the reduction in welfare rates?

Sigh again!!! You choose the one expense that the Welfare Recipient cannot manage without. Your a genius alright aren't you!:rolleyes:

djpbarry wrote: »

Yeah, you’re right. I should have remained in Ireland and claimed welfare indefinitely.

Or perhaps just not spout on about how people here can survive on x amount of money when you haven't a clue given that you're not here to know!!

djpbarry · 24-10-2010 10:57PM

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

Sigh... No I am not! I am simply saying that while we cannot afford to increase it, it would be suicide to cut it further.

So we cannot afford to increase welfare, we cannot afford to decrease it ... help me out here.

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

Sorry, Is hould have said most of their income not profits. Still, I reckon well over half of their revenue remains in Ireland.

I’m guessing that’s another figure plucked from thin air?

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

djpbarry wrote: »

Much of their produce is not sourced in Ireland.

I never mentioned M & S did I?

I wasn’t referring specifically to M&S, was I?

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

However Tesco, Aldi, Lidl, Dunnes, Super Valu and Superquinn as well as the smaller multiples are sourcing the vast majority of their products in Ireland.

I doubt it – for example, in 2007, €4.2 billion worth of food was imported into Ireland.

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

Sigh again!!! You choose the one expense that the Welfare Recipient cannot manage without.

Yes. Yes I did. That’s kind of the point.

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

Or perhaps just not spout on about how people here can survive on x amount of money when you haven't a clue given that you're not here to know!!

First of all, I was in Ireland until a few weeks ago.

Secondly, anyone can form an opinion on the financial well-being of the average unemployed person in Ireland by surveying the relevant figures.

Thirdly, I doubt you have direct experience of all the issues you have posted about on this website, yet here you are espousing your opinions. Telling others to restrict their opinions to matters of which they have direct experience is somewhat hypocritical.

oscarBravo · 25-10-2010 12:41AM

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

Yeah. And every one Euro that the Government puts into the economy generates jobs, multiple sales and more and more taxes.

Once again, that's a compelling argument for the government to put two euros into the economy instead of one. Hell, why not five?

You've accepted that the government can't afford to spend two euros instead of one. What makes you so certain it can afford one?

Taking it out generates nothing. At least if they put money in it will multiply.

Will it multiply fast enough to pay the interest on the borrowings required to pay it out?

You seem unable to grasp that we, as a nation, have an incredibly severe cashflow problem. We're not going to solve that problem by chucking money at social welfare recipients in the forlorn hope that enough of it will eventually recirculate back to the government in the form of taxation on increased economic activity.

Again: austerity is going to hurt. It's going to hurt me, as a business owner, as my customers become less able to pay for what I'm selling (a phenomenon I've been becoming steadily more familiar with). But the economy is a bloody trainwreck, and I'm going to have to take the pain along with everybody else.

Lenny Lovett · 25-10-2010 09:58AM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Once again, that's a compelling argument for the government to put two euros into the economy instead of one. Hell, why not five?

You can't see the wood for the trees can you?

oscarBravo wrote: »

You've accepted that the government can't afford to spend two euros instead of one. What makes you so certain it can afford one? Will it multiply fast enough to pay the interest on the borrowings required to pay it out?

It's more a case of can they afford not to spend one not if they can. They have no choice but to find the money if they want to create growth. No choice!!

oscarBravo wrote: »

You seem unable to grasp that we, as a nation, have an incredibly severe cashflow problem. We're not going to solve that problem by chucking money at social welfare recipients in the forlorn hope that enough of it will eventually recirculate back to the government in the form of taxation on increased economic activity.

Oh I grasp it very well. But I also grasp the reality!!! That is that cutting vast amounts of money from the economy will kill it off. Surprisingly I'm not the only one of that opinion.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Again: austerity is going to hurt. It's going to hurt me, as a business owner, as my customers become less able to pay for what I'm selling (a phenomenon I've been becoming steadily more familiar with). But the economy is a bloody trainwreck, and I'm going to have to take the pain along with everybody else.

So you honestly believe your business will benefit in the long run by the Government taking this money out of the economy? You must have vast pots of cash in the bank to tide you over the next ten years for that is at least the leghth of time it will take to dig out of this if they kill off the economy. My business will survive because we export around half of our output and that is very stable and actually growing albeit minutely this year, however, we forecast that if the status quo changes here in Ireland we will lose substantial sales and that will result in redundancies. No question. It's about survival. And, I was at a meeting yesterday where at least forty other business people were giving similar predictions. So we may cut 5% or 10% in Welfare Payments but the overall spend will rocket in the next twelve months as a result. There is no other way it can go. It would make far more sense to apply income tax to low earners, cut universal benefits where they are deemed unneccessary, increase Corporation tax by 1 or 2% (that much wouldn't hurt Industry sufficiently to drive them out). Also we need to close down all the quangos. Many of w2hom are just grant givers propping up non productive and unneccessary rural projects. Take one case for example. Apparrantley, there are over twenty 'rural' broadband projects collecting nearly €300million in grant aid. Now why can't the rural dwellers use Broadband from, say, O2 or Vodafone? The Govt should also apply a levy to savings of, say, over 10,000. This would two things: 1. Either increase Tax revenue and 2. Increase money in the economy as people would be tempted to take money out of the banks and spend some thus injecting some life into the economy. You guys must realise that sucking the lifeblood (money) out of the economy is not going to help us at all. It's injecting money we need. You've heard of the saying
"Money makes the world go around".

Oh, yeah... by the way, they could also cut the 60, or so, "Tax Breaks" that would bring in almost €11billion immediately. Yes! €11Billion! So you see, cuts = Negative. Encouraging spend = Positive. As the Meercat says "Simples!"

djpbarry · 25-10-2010 11:07AM

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

You can't see the wood for the trees can you?

You can’t answer a simple question, can you?

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

It would make far more sense to apply income tax to low earners, cut universal benefits where they are deemed unneccessary, increase Corporation tax by 1 or 2% (that much wouldn't hurt Industry sufficiently to drive them out).

Have you not been arguing that we cannot afford to take money out of the economy?

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

Now why can't the rural dwellers use Broadband from, say, O2 or Vodafone?

Because it’s ****e?

Permabear · 25-10-2010 12:03PM

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo · 25-10-2010 12:43PM

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

It's more a case of can they afford not to spend one not if they can. They have no choice but to find the money if they want to create growth. No choice!!

Let me see if I can summarise your position so far. We can't afford to cut social welfare, as it would damage the economy. We can't afford to increase social welfare, because the money isn't there to do so. But you're not arguing that the current level of social welfare is the correct level.

I'm confused.

So you honestly believe your business will benefit in the long run by the Government taking this money out of the economy?

No, I believe that my business will benefit from the government taking the measures necessary to ensure that we continue to have a functioning economy. I won't benefit directly from a cut in social welfare rates - as I've already said, it will probably cause me some short-term pain - but if the government continues to spend beyond its means at an unsustainable rate, there won't be an economy.

You must have vast pots of cash in the bank to tide you over the next ten years for that is at least the leghth of time it will take to dig out of this if they kill off the economy.

You see, this is where we differ. I believe that a government that spends twenty billion euros a year more than it takes in is on course to kill off the economy. I don't believe that a government that reduces social welfare spending from celtic tiger levels is on course to kill off the economy.

Yes, a reduction in social welfare will contribute to slower growth in the short term. But a failure to reduce social welfare could well lead to the inability to borrow money next time we need it. So, what happens to the economy when the government quite simply doesn't have any money in its coffers to pay the social welfare?

It would make far more sense to apply income tax to low earners...

Won't that take money out of the economy? Haven't you been arguing that we can't afford to reduce the amount of money that people have available to spend? Are social welfare recipients bigger spenders than low earners?

Apparrantley, there are over twenty 'rural' broadband projects collecting nearly €300million in grant aid.

When was the last time a rural broadband project received a grant cheque from the government? Dates and amounts, please, otherwise I'll know for a fact that you're just making stuff up.

Now why can't the rural dwellers use Broadband from, say, O2 or Vodafone?

Because that's not broadband, and no other country in the developed world counts mobile dialup in its broadband statistics. Besides, the rural dwellers are not being subsidised, despite what you're claiming.

Have we given up?

Comments