Sensible Budget Suggestions

Ali Babba · 06-12-2010 12:32AM

starbelgrade wrote: »

Hardly a money saving option.

I disagree, it would be a deterrent and keep people out of jail for starters and secondly it would save the state a fortune in accommodating prisoners. As you're probably aware prisoners in this country have more rights the the citizens of the state and cost the state something like 120,000 euros each a year to keep.

06-12-2010 12:38AM

Sauvignon82 wrote: »

Charge people who have medical cards a few quid (Maybe 5-10 euro) to see their GP.
.

Dependant on current state of health, those with chronic health problems may need to visit almost every week, these should be free.

Those in general good health, should have say two free visits a year then charged for others, unless they develop a chronic illness. This will weed out the "sick note" brigade.

tommyhaas · 06-12-2010 12:39AM

Ali Babba wrote: »

I disagree, it would be a deterrent and keep people out of jail for starters and secondly it would save the state a fortune in accommodating prisoners. As you're probably aware prisoners in this country have more rights the the citizens of the state and cost the state something like 120,000 euros each a year to keep.

Maybe we could all just take prisoners in to our house, like we do with the Spanish students every summer except they'd be far less annoying. 120k rent annually would be alright

Sauve · 06-12-2010 12:56AM

tatabubbly wrote: »

I think the whole point of getting the LTI medication free is to keep these people ALIVE...... For god sake... it's total unreasonable esp. if you don't know the financial cost of having to buy these medications. It would lead to total piss taking from the pharmaceutical companies who would take total advantage of these sick people..

That wasn't the point I was making at all. It was that it's not means tested. The DPS is capped at €120 p/m, people who can't afford this are given medical cards. There are plenty of people out there on the LTI scheme who can afford to pay €120 p/m for their medication. Also, I pointed out that there are many illnesses that aren't covered under this scheme......what about those with chronic asthma? heart disease?

orourkeda · 06-12-2010 01:03AM

free scoops for everyone

Sauve · 06-12-2010 01:30AM

orourkeda wrote: »

free scoops for everyone

Scoops of what?!

Porridge?
Flour?
Gruel?

Celly Smunt · 06-12-2010 01:31AM

Sauvignon82 wrote: »

Scoops of what?!

Porridge?
Flour?
Gruel?

cheese

starbelgrade · 06-12-2010 10:23AM

Ali Babba wrote: »

I disagree, it would be a deterrent and keep people out of jail for starters and secondly it would save the state a fortune in accommodating prisoners. As you're probably aware prisoners in this country have more rights the the citizens of the state and cost the state something like 120,000 euros each a year to keep.

The death penalty system in the States is much more expensive than imposing long term sentences of incarceration on prisoners - more than 10 times the cost in many states, so as a money saver, it's a no-go.

Neither is the death penalty a deterrent - the murder rates is states with the death penalty is an average of around 30% higher than it is in states which do not have the death penalty.

So while you may disagree, your argument falls flat on it's face when you actually look at the facts & figures.

The only thing the death penalty really serves to do is to quench people's lust for blood - a thing, which thankfully no longer exists in the civilised states of Europe.

Sources; http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates#stateswithvwithout

http://www.deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=42

http://www.uvm.edu/~vlrs/doc/deathpenalty.htm

SO if you are looking for sensible budget suggestions, yours would be far from it.. in fact, it is tipping the scales towards the ludicrous, expensive & anti human.

Ali Babba · 06-12-2010 10:27AM

starbelgrade wrote: »

The death penalty system in the States is much more expensive than imposing long term sentences of incarceration on prisoners - more than 10 times the cost in many states, so as a money saver, it's a no-go.

Neither is the death penalty a deterrent - the murder rates is states with the death penalty is an average of around 30% higher than it is in states which do not have the death penalty.

So while you may disagree, your argument falls flat on it's face when you actually look at the facts & figures.

The only thing the death penalty really serves to do is to quench people's lust for blood - a thing, which thankfully no longer exists in the civilised states of Europe.

Sources; http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates#stateswithvwithout

http://www.deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=42

http://www.uvm.edu/~vlrs/doc/deathpenalty.htm

SO if you are looking for sensible budget suggestions, yours would be far from it.. in fact, it is tipping the scales towards the ludicrous, expensive & anti human.

I think you'll find the Chinese system far more cost effective.

Amhran Nua · 06-12-2010 10:37AM

tommyhaas wrote: »

Its not about nailing the current generation as you're saying, its about the current generation paying their own way in a country that cant really afford to be paying it for them.

The vast majority of taxes are paid by higher earners, who are not by coincidence mostly third level graduates, so they already pay their own way. And they pay everyone else's way as well.

orourkeda · 06-12-2010 10:42AM

Sauvignon82 wrote: »

Scoops of what?!

Porridge?
Flour?
Gruel?

http://www.pintsakron.com/_borders/Pint%20Glasses.jpg

tommyhaas · 06-12-2010 10:51AM

Amhran Nua wrote: »

The vast majority of taxes are paid by higher earners, who are not by coincidence mostly third level graduates, so they already pay their own way. And they pay everyone else's way as well.

Thats probably true, but not all college graduates are high earners and I believe that someone who spent 4 years doing film studies and is now working in Tescos should contribute in the same way that someone who spent 4 years doing Engineering and is now in the higher income bracket

Capt'n Midnight · 06-12-2010 10:57AM

Ali Babba wrote: »

I think you'll find the Chinese system far more cost effective.

AFAIK they no longer bill the family for the bullet

Amhran Nua · 06-12-2010 10:58AM

tommyhaas wrote: »

Thats probably true, but not all college graduates are high earners and I believe that someone who spent 4 years doing film studies and is now working in Tescos should contribute in the same way that someone who spent 4 years doing Engineering and is now in the higher income bracket

Why? Engineering has a much higher cost per head than most arts courses. I do agree we need more of a focus on STEM subjects (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics), but the idea that graduates don't contribute to the economy is clearly not true. In many ways they are the main contributors to the economy, paying for the social welfare bill, paying for the hospitals, paying for the civil service and the public sector. Inflicting a further tax on them for the privelege of paying their taxes is self defeating.

tommyhaas · 06-12-2010 04:30PM

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Why? Engineering has a much higher cost per head than most arts courses. I do agree we need more of a focus on STEM subjects (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics), but the idea that graduates don't contribute to the economy is clearly not true. In many ways they are the main contributors to the economy, paying for the social welfare bill, paying for the hospitals, paying for the civil service and the public sector. Inflicting a further tax on them for the privelege of paying their taxes is self defeating.

I was just using engineering as an example. I wasent suggesting that graduates dont contribute to the economy.

Obviously graduates contribute greatly to the tax take, as do non-graduates. While those now graduated were studying, they were not contributing while their peers who didnt go to third level were.

Free third level education is a great thing, but its costs a lot and given the state of the country I think students should have to pay for their education in some way. I wouldnt advocate the reintroduction of fees as it prevents many from going to college, however a graduation tax would still make it possible for the less well off to attend.

Given that something has to give to fund this bailout, I dont think a graduation tax would be a bad idea

confusticated · 06-12-2010 05:33PM

tommyhaas wrote: »

I was just using engineering as an example. I wasent suggesting that graduates dont contribute to the economy.

Obviously graduates contribute greatly to the tax take, as do non-graduates. While those now graduated were studying, they were not contributing while their peers who didnt go to third level were.

Free third level education is a great thing, but its costs a lot and given the state of the country I think students should have to pay for their education in some way. I wouldnt advocate the reintroduction of fees as it prevents many from going to college, however a graduation tax would still make it possible for the less well off to attend.

Given that something has to give to fund this bailout, I dont think a graduation tax would be a bad idea

They already do though, the fee for registering for this "free education" is €2000. Not entirely opposed to the idea, but I think they should scrap the reg fee if they did introduce the tax, because the reg fee is hard going as it is...I'd much prefer to pay it back afterwards when working. (If working, at the rate we're going, but that's another story.)

dsmythy · 06-12-2010 06:43PM

starbelgrade wrote: »

Neither is the death penalty a deterrent - the murder rates is states with the death penalty is an average of around 30% higher than it is in states which do not have the death penalty.

Or is it that states with high murder rates feel the need to execute murderers.

tommyhaas · 06-12-2010 08:04PM

confusticated wrote: »

They already do though, the fee for registering for this "free education" is €2000. Not entirely opposed to the idea, but I think they should scrap the reg fee if they did introduce the tax, because the reg fee is hard going as it is...I'd much prefer to pay it back afterwards when working. (If working, at the rate we're going, but that's another story.)

Yea it should be scrapped.I remember paying €800 when I was in college. The regestration fee should be dramatically reduced and people allowed to pay fees after graduating. If anything, it would make third level education more accessable

mariaf24 · 06-12-2010 08:34PM

I do not agree that child benefit should be means tested. It is a payment for EVERY CHILD in the country.
Some people spend many years in education and work very hard throughout their lives to build a successful career and income. Why then should they be punished while others are freely given this allowance.
Those on social welfare with kids already receive financial support such school/clothing and footwear scheme (which i believe can be claimed for a 3 year old child :rolleyes:) and various other generous payments... (But that's for another thread).

Not sure if these have been mentioned:

- €0.50 increase on cigarettes
- Get rid of certain social welfare benefits such as 2x €150.00 payments to pregnant women for maternity clothing :eek:
-€5.00 charge for g.p. visit/prescription.

I am wondering would making contraception (the pill)free between the ages of 16-23 result in fewer teen pregnancies, thus reducing the number of young girls receiving welfare and getting caught in the poverty trap..
Not something for the budget but a possible idea....

tommyhaas · 06-12-2010 08:43PM

mariaf24 wrote: »

I do not agree that child benefit should be means tested. It is a payment for EVERY CHILD in the country.
Some people spend many years in education and work very hard throughout their lives to build a successful career and income. Why then should they be punished while others are freely given this allowance.

And who paid for that education? It was the state. Benefits such as child allowance should be paid only to those in real need of them. Taking away your childrens allowance isint a punishment, a punishment would be if they were to start charging you for having kids. People talk about being entitled to this and that and IMO its bullsh!t, you should only receive benefits if you really need them

starbelgrade · 06-12-2010 08:48PM

dsmythy wrote: »

Or is it that states with high murder rates feel the need to execute murderers.

I don't know. Either way, it doesn't prevent murders.

mariaf24 · 06-12-2010 08:50PM

tommyhaas wrote: »

And who paid for that education? It was the state. Benefits such as child allowance should be paid only to those in real need of them. Taking away your childrens allowance isint a punishment, a punishment would be if they were to start charging you for having kids. People talk about being entitled to this and that and IMO its bullsh!t, you should only receive benefits if you really need them

Then child benefit would just become social welfare with a different name.
I see that as giving money to people who have children but cannot afford to have those children.
The problem is that there would be alot of people who would unfortunately just be above the limit, e.g. two public sector employees with two children.. Keeping in mind that those above the limit are the ones faced with childcare costs etc...I think it would be desperately unfair, so better to keep the payment the same across the board...:)

c_man · 06-12-2010 08:57PM

starbelgrade wrote: »

I don't know. Either way, it doesn't prevent murders.

The re-offending rates are quite low though

tommyhaas · 06-12-2010 08:59PM

mariaf24 wrote: »

Then child benefit would just become social welfare with a different name.
I see that as giving money to people who have children but cannot afford to have those children.
The problem is that there would be alot of people who would unfortunately just be above the limit, e.g. two public sector employees with two children.. Keeping in mind that those above the limit are the ones faced with childcare costs etc...I think it would be desperately unfair, so better to keep the payment the same across the board...:)

Child care should be heavily subsidised, this would ensure families such as your own are not spending massive amounts on child care, while also offering single mothers the opportunity to return to work. The savings from the reduced benefit payments could cover the subsidy

Its a ridiculious situation where by people are better off claiming JSA and rent allowance then they would be if they worked

Sensible Budget Suggestions

Comments