Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.

IMF: social welfare benefits 'too high'

24567…28

Comments

  • #32
    antoobrien
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    Farmer Pudsey wrote: »
    I asked a question earlier about at what level CB should be means tested at, the issue with CB is the same as third level fees/grants/medical cards/ dental benfits/ the price of car fuel the couples working on 30-100k suffer disportionally and the same with local charges.

    I think there's a few things that could be done:

    All welfare should be means tested with graded support levels based on the various factors. For arguments sake full benefits stop at the average wage, with graded reductions up to 75k where there are no benefits paid.

    For those in employment I think we should not pay cash but, at least partially, use tax credits instead. So for someone earning say 25k, you'd get 50% cash, 50% tax credits.

    I think we also need to have a serious look at tax credits for childcare.


  • #33
    Mr. teddywinkles
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,635 ✭✭✭Mr. teddywinkles


    Did I not just read in the Irish Independant yesterday that SOME civil servants are getting more now than during the boom years :rolleyes:
    The government needs to grow a pair and deal with this foolish rewarding and bonus system for just doing your job like everyone else


  • #34
    Tipp Man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,025 ✭✭✭Tipp Man


    Farmer Pudsey wrote: »
    The reality is that social welfare has gone down by only 10% since the start of the recession ( and they got a rise at the start of it). Pay rates in the private sector have gone down by10-50% depending on sector and tax has gone up so take home pay is reduced further.

    I asked a question earlier about at what level CB should be means tested at, the issue with CB is the same as third level fees/grants/medical cards/ dental benfits/ the price of car fuel the couples working on 30-100k suffer disportionally and the same with local charges.

    The reality is that unless you are hungry ( metophorically) you will not change. Also both parents of a family are unemployed then there is too much of a loss if one goes back to work especially if they have childern going to college.

    We have one of the highest rate of welfare in europe and the highest paid civil Servise and the higher grades are paid about twice the rate that there EU counterparts get. Also we have pro rate a bigger no of TD's Senators, more councillors and a bigger no of local authority's pro rata. We have over 800 quang'o compared to around 400 in Great Britian ( we even set one up to collect Farm plastic instad of contracting it out for 3-5 years). And the present government want to set up more quango's. What happens to all the money Repak collect???

    Unless the government start tackling all the issues it is not a matter of more tax and reduced benifits on workers or else there will be less workers

    You raise a hugely important point which is being missed

    If you means test the child benefit then it is yet another reason not to come off the live registrar

    The simple case being 2 working parents have to pay for childcare - yet they will be the 1's who would loose out if it means tested - yet 2 parents not working get the child benifit yet their child costs are much much lower.

    so means testing the CB could actually be (yet another) encouragment not to get work

    The arguement could easily be made that if both parents aren't working then no (or greatly reduced) child benefit should be paid - they don't have to pay for childcare - that would probably save us more money than means testing it - and far easier to implement

    Why in this state are those that are working being constantly punished for doing so - the mentality is all wrong - work should be rewarded and those not working so not expect anywhere near the same standard of living as those in work - that is most definately not the case in this country


  • #35
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 3,925 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Great insights to what the 'man in the street' might think of any adjustment right here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056704981


    To say that say a builder must be flexible enough to retrain as a software developer is a total fallacy. What I think must happen (jobs are kept simple for simplicity's sake) is that SOMEONE trains as the software developer and in turn a job is created in his local computer shop, say.

    The link we're missing is that the builder must be flexible enough (i.e. it must be worth his while to get straight back into employment) to take the job in his computer shop and begin to retrain in computer sales.

    Where we are now is that the builder was making up to 100k PA a few years ago, and is picking up ~ 30k worth of benefits. He isn't going to take a job for 25k, even if it could lead to a managerial role etc eventually - because payments are at a point where he can continue to live comfortably (i.e. with pretty much every creature comfort - sky/internet/booze) and has no real drive to go and make the sacrifice of taking what he might consider to be a crap job. Why would he?


  • #36
    Geuze
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,529 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    An anecdotal case:

    Retired couple, gross income = 1000 pw, 52k pa

    They pay maybe 10% income tax, maybe a bit less

    They receive:
    • two medical cards
    • two travel passes
    • the Household Benefits package (free TV licence, telecom allowance, elec allowance)
    I wouldn't mind giving them all these benefits if they pay more tax, but about 10% is too little!!!


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    bbam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,408 ✭✭✭bbam


    I think some great points have been made here such as capping welfare payments at the average ind wage.

    However the big problem is still that there is no work out there. I still feel that we need to be careful cutting rates too much as well just be driving portions of society into poverty. Yes there probably are numbers of jobs there currently unfolded as for many the economics of taking them don't stack up, however the solution surely is more return to work support rather than cutting rates and forcing families into low standards of living.
    And really how many jobs are there at present? If we cut welfare by 30% it would force many out to low paid positions, there are no jobs for the rest so they have less money and no job prospects, ye result is poverty for the sake of it and the rise in social problems that are associated.

    It's too simplistic to say cut SW rates and the lazy feckers will go out and get a job. There are genuinely very few jobs out there and if you're unlucky to be unemployed and living in a rural area the outlook is bleaker.
    I fully support SW reform but great care needs to be taken before radical steps are taken to ruin the lives of the 400,000+ unemployed and their families.


  • #38
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Dave! wrote: »
    How would that scheme save the state money (billions, no less) if we're giving out the same amount? Surely we'd just get less tax back from booze and cigarettes...

    How much would it cost to set it up?

    And what unions do we need to get on board for your plan? :confused: I don't think there are any unions for unemployed people

    I think we need to flesh out the details before we implement that scheme...

    The unions in the public sector. Such technology is available already however to implement it would need the unions to get on board. We all know the unions answer when it comes to automation and efficiency.

    Money would be saved by making the process more efficient (less overheads), less money would be spent on imported products such as cigarettes and beer and other crap the unemployed might buy. The dole is a means to survive and not starve, not some commodity where one enjoys all the luxury trappings of before.


  • #39
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Nody wrote: »
    Beyond the issues raised above the simple fact is that the dole receipent would sell them on at a slight discount to get cash to buy it anyway.

    What would they sell?


  • #40
    Nody
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,556 CMod ✭✭✭✭Nody


    jank wrote: »
    What would they sell?
    The card/voucher/what ever you'd implement that would only be used to buy food products with but not alcohol/tobacco/<insert item people want to restrict>. And before you bring it up; yes they would also get to borrow the ID if that's required and no, it would be checked seriously. This is what is done already in UK with dole receipents borrowing money on their future dole payments (and the loan shark gets their ID and collects their dole for them to pay back the loan that they are owed).


  • #41
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Well if people receiving dole payments begin to "sell" their future credits for a few beers and fags then whatever befalls them is their own fault.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Farmer Pudsey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,326 ✭✭✭Farmer Pudsey


    Tipp Man wrote: »
    You raise a hugely important point which is being missed

    If you means test the child benefit then it is yet another reason not to come off the live registrar

    The simple case being 2 working parents have to pay for childcare - yet they will be the 1's who would loose out if it means tested - yet 2 parents not working get the child benifit yet their child costs are much much lower.

    so means testing the CB could actually be (yet another) encouragment not to get work

    The arguement could easily be made that if both parents aren't working then no (or greatly reduced) child benefit should be paid - they don't have to pay for childcare - that would probably save us more money than means testing it - and far easier to implement

    Why in this state are those that are working being constantly punished for doing so - the mentality is all wrong - work should be rewarded and those not working so not expect anywhere near the same standard of living as those in work - that is most definately not the case in this country

    This is the issue most working parents use child benfit for to partially pay for childcare directly or indirectly. It is 140 euro's/ child if it is means tested will both parents income be taken into account, strictly it is paid to the mother so you could have a situtation where a couple earning 70K lose CA but a unworking mother who's husbands earns 100k getting it. If you have two childern in a year it is 3340 euro's a working couple on the higher rate will need over 6700 in taxable income to replace same while on lower rate they would need around 5K to replace it. And we have no childcare/creche setup in place.

    Also it will cause working couples to put off haveing a family or reducing there family size but if you are unemployed there is no disencentive so you can have any size family especially if you want the local authority to give you a bigger house or get higher on the list.


  • #43
    General Atomic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37 ✭General Atomic


    This race-to-the-bottom mentality with regards to our social safety net is incredibly stupid. It's a bad thing that we provide better for our unemployed than other countries? I think that's something to be proud of, frankly. It's also something that the people in this thread will appreciate when they need to avail of it.

    http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2012/01/3012012-irish-long-term-unemployment.html

    This post shows statistics for long-term unemployment pre-crisis. Long-term unemployment refers to a period of unemployment greater than 12 months, that being the disabled, single parents and, yes, people taking advantage of the system. Pre-crisis our long-term unemployment numbers were some of the lowest in Europe, it's only the recession that's changed that. If we have such an attractive social welfare system, why didn't people just leave their jobs en-masse prior to the collapse and avail of this fantastic cushion?

    It's a complete mischaracterization by the IMF and people in this thread to say that our unemployment problem stems from the sheer comfort of €188 per week. This is the same organization that thinks imposing austerity measures fixes economies, I wonder how many of you agree with that too? There are very few jobs available right now outside of a select few sectors that are inaccessible to most of the unemployed; we're not a country of moochers, people want to work and feel some degree of dignity and purpose but that work simply isn't available anymore.

    And by the way, cutting social welfare would not be good for our already struggling economy. What do you think would happen to local demand and businesses if you were to cut 10% or more of the income for 400,000 people? Do you think it would be a good thing? Wake up and realize that paying down our debt really isn't the most important thing we can do right now, getting people back into work is.


  • #44
    spud_gunner
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 22 ✭spud_gunner


    Geuze wrote: »
    An anecdotal case:

    Retired couple, gross income = 1000 pw, 52k pa

    They pay maybe 10% income tax, maybe a bit less


    They receive:
    • two medical cards
    • two travel passes
    • the Household Benefits package (free TV licence, telecom allowance, elec allowance)
    I wouldn't mind giving them all these benefits if they pay more tax, but about 10% is too little!!!

    a retired couple over the age of seventy can bring in 1400 euro per week and still recieve a medical card

    this should be tackled before looking at issues like child benefit or dole, its obscene


  • #45
    spud_gunner
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 22 ✭spud_gunner


    General Atomic wrote: »
    This race-to-the-bottom mentality with regards to our social safety net is incredibly stupid. It's a bad thing that we provide better for our unemployed than other countries? I think that's something to be proud of, frankly. It's also something that the people in this thread will appreciate when they need to avail of it.

    http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2012/01/3012012-irish-long-term-unemployment.html

    This post shows statistics for long-term unemployment pre-crisis. Long-term unemployment refers to a period of unemployment greater than 12 months, that being the disabled, single parents and, yes, people taking advantage of the system. Pre-crisis our long-term unemployment numbers were some of the lowest in Europe, it's only the recession that's changed that. If we have such an attractive social welfare system, why didn't people just leave their jobs en-masse prior to the collapse and avail of this fantastic cushion?

    It's a complete mischaracterization by the IMF and people in this thread to say that our unemployment problem stems from the sheer comfort of €188 per week. This is the same organization that thinks imposing austerity measures fixes economies, I wonder how many of you agree with that too? There are very few jobs available right now outside of a select few sectors that are inaccessible to most of the unemployed; we're not a country of moochers, people want to work and feel some degree of dignity and purpose but that work simply isn't available anymore.

    And by the way, cutting social welfare would not be good for our already struggling economy. What do you think would happen to local demand and businesses if you were to cut 10% or more of the income for 400,000 people? Do you think it would be a good thing? Wake up and realize that paying down our debt really isn't the most important thing we can do right now, getting people back into work is.


    the goal should be to look at each case individually , blanket cuts or benefits are neither affordable or the right thing to do


  • #46
    Count Dooku
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,419 ✭✭✭Count Dooku


    General Atomic wrote: »
    And by the way, cutting social welfare would not be good for our already struggling economy. What do you think would happen to local demand and businesses if you were to cut 10% or more of the income for 400,000 people? Do you think it would be a good thing? Wake up and realize that paying down our debt really isn't the most important thing we can do right now, getting people back into work is.
    Do you mean default and balance books overnight?


  • #47
    bbam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,408 ✭✭✭bbam


    Why not like for like reductions.
    So, for the vast majority on SW it's not by choice and they would rather be working, so too those working would like to stay working.
    If SW is cut by say 20% then why shouldn't PAYE rates be increased likewise, I mean for most in jobs it's mostly luck they are still there rather than on SW.
    Wouldn't it be a great dig out for public finances if PAYE was increased by 20%. I mean if your working why would you need Internet access, and apparently meat dinners are just for the odd day.
    It's essentially the same argument, yes we're borrowing money to pay SW, but we're also borrowing to have hospitals for the PAYE workers and their children so why shouldn't they suffer too.

    Those in employment need to think hard before calling for cuts against the less fortunate in society.

    And I'm PAYE.


  • #48
    Sleepy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 24,620 ✭✭✭✭Sleepy


    Yeah, it's "luck" that those of us who invested time and money in our educations still have jobs while those who left school to work on the sites / did a BA in Irish History to help persue their career in retail management / jumped on the construction bubble with a civil eng/architecture degree and haven't done a conversion course since 2008 don't. :rolleyes:

    Boards.ie need your help to survive, subscribe here



  • #49
    bbam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,408 ✭✭✭bbam


    Sleepy wrote: »
    Yeah, it's "luck" that those of us who invested time and money in our educations still have jobs while those who left school to work on the sites / did a BA in Irish History to help persue their career in retail management / jumped on the construction bubble with a civil eng/architecture degree and haven't done a conversion course since 2008 don't. :rolleyes:

    Not all on SW were in the building bubble. A sizeable number have manufacturing and industury backgrounds. There are plenty with qualifications on SW payments. You make it sound like those on the dole deserve it.
    If your willing to impose severe hardships on those unfortunate to loose their jobs due to the exonomic downturn then why shouldn't the Emoyed shoulder an equal burden of hardship.
    Lots calling for these cuts seem to forget that most are ordinary hard working families who have paid their dues through the years. It's essentially saying "cut their modest payments so my tax isn't increased. "

    If people are making genuine efforts to become re employed then they deserve to be supported to do so, yes fraudsters and those hacking the system need to be weeded out but I believe these are a small minority of the 400,000.


  • #50
    Terrontress
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,931 ✭✭✭Terrontress


    All we hear is anecdotal information about people going to other eurozone nations and paying less for a variety of items than they pay in Ireland. "Cost of doing business" we're told. High wages, high rents. This is what leads to a requirement for high social welfare. Cut SW, up income tax. People have less to spend, consumption falls, prices fall, rents fall, things even out with the same standard of living as at present.


  • #51
    bbam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,408 ✭✭✭bbam


    Terrontress wrote: »
    All we hear is anecdotal information about people going to other eurozone nations and paying less for a variety of items than they pay in Ireland. "Cost of doing business" we're told. High wages, high rents. This is what leads to a requirement for high social welfare. Cut SW, up income tax. People have less to spend, consumption falls, prices fall, rents fall, things even out with the same standard of living as at present.

    In theory yes.
    But if your family income is hit with the idea to force you out to take a job that probably isn't there, the time lag between your income being cut and living costs coming down would be a terrible time of poverty and social exclusion. In many cases your throwing the less fortunate and vounerable in society to the wolves just to reduce the cost of living.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    bbam wrote: »
    In theory yes.
    But if your family income is hit with the idea to force you out to take a job that probably isn't there, the time lag between your income being cut and living costs coming down would be a terrible time of poverty and social exclusion. In many cases your throwing the less fortunate and vounerable in society to the wolves just to reduce the cost of living.

    Phased reductions might help there, perhaps? A reduction doesn't have to be an all-in-one-go-straight-to-poverty huge cut, after all. Give people time to adjust, and the economy to adjust to them as well.

    On the other hand, assuming people on low wages but earning more than SW will probably take advantage of any fall in prices, which would have a retarding effect on any such fall - and so on up the chain. So a reduction wouldn't ever be fully compensated for - it will still be a reduction even after prices hit a new equilibrium.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #53
    bbam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,408 ✭✭✭bbam


    Yes phased reductions would ease the changes.
    I was making the point about increasing PAYE because many posters seem to look down on those on SW as spongers. We are a society as a whole and if major cuts are called for in SW then the portion of Society in employment should expect to shoulder equal cuts to their income. All too many on boards seem to think they are somehow superior just because they have retained their jobs, whether through luck or better education. If your
    Not willing to take the cuts from your own income then you shouldn't be calling for cuts in the incomes on those less fortunate.


  • #54
    ardmacha
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,476 ✭✭✭ardmacha


    If SW is cut by say 20% then why shouldn't PAYE rates be increased likewise, I mean for most in jobs it's mostly luck they are still there rather than on SW.
    Wouldn't it be a great dig out for public finances if PAYE was increased by 20%.

    Taxes will be increased on those working, perhaps not PAYE tax rates but reduced allowances and property taxes. People on welfare will not pay these things so they get their cut directly. Everyone will have to lose something.


  • #55
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    bbam wrote: »
    Yes phased reductions would ease the changes.
    I was making the point about increasing PAYE because many posters seem to look down on those on SW as spongers. We are a society as a whole and if major cuts are called for in SW then the portion of Society in employment should expect to shoulder equal cuts to their income. All too many on boards seem to think they are somehow superior just because they have retained their jobs, whether through luck or better education. If your
    Not willing to take the cuts from your own income then you shouldn't be calling for cuts in the incomes on those less fortunate.

    There isn't really a way of imposing pay cuts in the private sector, though, which means it's never going to be like for like. In theory the government could just ask everyone to put wages and prices down by 5% in a gesture of national solidarity, with a simultaneous 5% cut in PS wages, SW benefits, and government contracts. Even that would be legally impossible in some cases, though.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #56
    christmas2012
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,827 ✭✭✭christmas2012


    Social welfare benefits are too high in Ireland and need to be revised to encourage people back to work, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has said.

    If you cut dole it doesnt mean you will be more likely to get a job in this climate,what they are really trying to say is their cutting the dole ,and not going after the big fish and their type of welfare,what about the FAS pensions being payed out by the state for example?


  • #57
    bbam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,408 ✭✭✭bbam


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    There isn't really a way of imposing pay cuts in the private sector, though, which means it's never going to be like for like. In theory the government could just ask everyone to put wages and prices down by 5% in a gesture of national solidarity, with a simultaneous 5% cut in PS wages, SW benefits, and government contracts. Even that would be legally impossible in some cases, though.
    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    I know that they can't force private sector wages down, it would achieve nothing anyway. They can increase the tax levels similar to the cuts being enforced on SW. This would reduce the income of the employed and unemployed families, in solidarity as you put it. Less SW spend and a higher tax take, win win.
    I'm not in favour of crazy cuts in SW or similar increases in PAYE, I was merely making a point.

    I strongly feel that the solution to our situation will be from economic recovery and not cuts and tax increases. It would fit the IMF and our government better if they focused on proper job creation rather than creating mass poverty
    ]


  • #58
    Terrontress
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,931 ✭✭✭Terrontress


    bbam wrote: »
    I strongly feel that the solution to our situation will be from economic recovery and not cuts and tax increases. It would fit the IMF and our government better if they focused on proper job creation rather than creating mass poverty

    So do we just sit it out? And what if economic recovery is dependent on those very things which you seem to suggest are the opposite.

    I believe that welfare shouldn't in any circumstance bring about more money than the minimum wage, or even close to it.

    I think the government needs to look at reducing prices of everything to a level competitive with other EU member states. Whether that's bread, fruit and veg, a bottle of coke. Incomes chase wages chase prices so the government need to reduce those incomes which it has control over. Unemployed people should not have the luxury of alcohol, cigarettes, takeaways. If people are addicted to cigs, give them patches on prescription.

    No matter what people are given by the social welfare, they'll always feel hard done by.


  • #59
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Lets look at just one component in the cost of living: Food and general groceries.

    One of the places I imagine most people shop is Tesco, and they have a litany of criticism with regards to their business practices, and they're extremely profitable in Ireland:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesco_Ireland#Criticisms

    I'm only just looking at this now, so haven't seen all of that before, but it signifies that this particular market could probably do with some greater transparency and regulation (and particularly, much more harsh fines for breach of regulation), to bring this in line somewhat.

    They have a pretty dominant position in the market as well, which means there's not much competition to balance out their high prices; reform in that general market seems like it's a good place to look not just for reducing one of the most significant parts of the cost of living (food/groceries), but for clamping down on competition abuses and other unfair practices.


  • #60
    Mongfinder General
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,992 ✭✭✭Mongfinder General


    Taxation. What a wonderful tool. Covers all manner of sins.

    So lets get this straight. Johnny Paye goes to work and starts paying USC at €4k. He then gets hit with PAYE at approx €15k. And then there's PRSI. So if he's lucky enough to make €33k he might take home €500 a week. Anything after that gets hit at a rate of more than 50%. Waste of time working from here on in.

    So John O'Dole is unemployed. Married with 3 kids. That family doesn't pay tax on weekly benefits. It doesn't pay tax on child benefit. The medical card is not seen as a benefit in kind, nor the back to school allowance.

    My point is that all income, earned or unearned should be subject to the income tax metrics. It's banal that the State still hands out money tax free for not working while it taxes labour at penal rates. Surely it must be better to encourage reward for work


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Tipp Man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,025 ✭✭✭Tipp Man


    Mongfinder General wrote: »
    Taxation. What a wonderful tool. Covers all manner of sins.

    So lets get this straight. Johnny Paye goes to work and starts paying USC at €4k. He then gets hit with PAYE at approx €15k. And then there's PRSI. So if he's lucky enough to make €33k he might take home €500 a week. Anything after that gets hit at a rate of more than 50%. Waste of time working from here on in.

    So John O'Dole is unemployed. Married with 3 kids. That family doesn't pay tax on weekly benefits. It doesn't pay tax on child benefit. The medical card is not seen as a benefit in kind, nor the back to school allowance.

    My point is that all income, earned or unearned should be subject to the income tax metrics. It's banal that the State still hands out money tax free for not working while it taxes labour at penal rates. Surely it must be better to encourage reward for work

    Post of the day - well said


Advertisement