Want to save the country money?

mackg · 04-02-2013 10:12PM

UCDVet wrote: »

Require a license before having children that demonstrate the would-be parents are financially and emotionally ready to raise a child. Otherwise, don't allow it.

Would clear up a lot of problems in 20 years.

Abortions for all!

Apparently...

UCDVet · 04-02-2013 10:18PM

mackg wrote: »

Abortions for all!

Apparently...

I was thinking of an optional incentive program.

If someone wants to have a child and is ready/willing to apply for a license they'd get all sorts of tax benefits to help them raise the child. Child tax credits, eligibility in social programs and all that jazz.

If someone who isn't able or willing to pass the test and show that they can financially provide for a child - forfeits those benefits. If someone wants to have a child - that is no business of mine....or the governments. But if they want taxes from my pocket to help raise their kid; then it's everyone's concern.

Life isn't predictable. Bad things happen. So if someone falls on hard times, someone who seemed like a good candidate for having a child; let's all chip in and help them.

But if someone isn't financially or emotionally ready - let's not encourage them to have more children. There are people whose full-time career is to produce children and do a poor job of raising them.

mackg · 04-02-2013 10:24PM

That sounds a lot like penalising children with unfit parents from the off.

shruikan2553 · 04-02-2013 10:45PM

UCDVet wrote: »

I was thinking of an optional incentive program.

If someone wants to have a child and is ready/willing to apply for a license they'd get all sorts of tax benefits to help them raise the child. Child tax credits, eligibility in social programs and all that jazz.

If someone who isn't able or willing to pass the test and show that they can financially provide for a child - forfeits those benefits. If someone wants to have a child - that is no business of mine....or the governments. But if they want taxes from my pocket to help raise their kid; then it's everyone's concern.

Life isn't predictable. Bad things happen. So if someone falls on hard times, someone who seemed like a good candidate for having a child; let's all chip in and help them.

But if someone isn't financially or emotionally ready - let's not encourage them to have more children. There are people whose full-time career is to produce children and do a poor job of raising them.

I had the exact same idea before. We cant stop people from having children but we can give people incentive.

DylanII · 04-02-2013 10:55PM

Milk & Honey wrote: »

We should apply the 20% rule to the public service.

20% cut in numbers.
20% cut in pay.
20% more hours to be worked.
20% longer service before a pension is awarded.

The thing is that when the private sector employees are looking for a reduction in pay in the public sector they are essentially seeking a pay reduction for the private sector too. If the public service pay is reduced then the private sector doesnt have such a high wage to compete with. So they will offer a lower wage (or wont give any pay increases for a while)

Cut the public service by 20% and that will be 20% more people looking for jobs in the private sector making it harder for you to keep your job or get a new one. And once again pushing the wages down in the private sector.

The public service already pay towards their pension so why bother make them wait longer?

Your selfishness will turn around and bite you in the ass take a huge chunk out of your ass.

And no, Im not in the public sector!

tayto lover wrote: »

Increase Corporate Tax by 2%.

Bad idea, it gives a message to international companies that we are open to the idea of increasing their taxes (one of the main reasons they choose to locate here)

zef · 04-02-2013 10:56PM

Mandatory abortions for all, while yiz are at it. Save a fortune on child benefit.

tayto lover · 04-02-2013 11:01PM

zef wrote: »

Mandatory abortions for all, while yiz are at it. Save a fortune on child benefit.

Why not go ahead and cull old people then.

zef · 04-02-2013 11:02PM

Exactly, cull the unemployed too.
(and i'm currently unemployed)

looksee · 04-02-2013 11:15PM

Chemical Burn wrote: »

Abolish Pavee Point
Abolish Women's Council
Abolish Immigrants Council
Abolish Foreign Aid
Abolish Dole for people on it for more than a year, who REFUSE to get a job
Put price of 20 fags up to 15 Euro
Stop non-citizens from removing money from Ireland via cash or bank accounts
Only pay dole to Irish citizens or to foreigners who have been living here for >5 years and working
Abolish Seanad
Decrease ALL tax to a blanket 15%

Ah! so Chemical Burn is a settled, male, Irish, employed, highly paid, non-smoker?

Milk & Honey · 04-02-2013 11:43PM

DylanII wrote: »

The thing is that when the private sector employees are looking for a reduction in pay in the public sector they are essentially seeking a pay reduction for the private sector too. If the public service pay is reduced then the private sector doesnt have such a high wage to compete with. So they will offer a lower wage (or wont give any pay increases for a while)

Cut the public service by 20% and that will be 20% more people looking for jobs in the private sector making it harder for you to keep your job or get a new one. And once again pushing the wages down in the private sector.

The public service already pay towards their pension so why bother make them wait longer?

Your selfishness will turn around and bite you in the ass take a huge chunk out of your ass.

And no, Im not in the public sector!

Bad idea, it gives a message to international companies that we are open to the idea of increasing their taxes (one of the main reasons they choose to locate here)

The private sector pay as little as they can which is well below the public sector levels. The private sector will not be hiring dossers from the public service if public service pay is cut or numbers are reduced.

Public servants do not pay for their own pensions. Their pensions are paid out of current government revenue i.e. by the taxpayer. No way does every public servant contribute to a fund that will pay his pension.

tayto lover · 04-02-2013 11:48PM

Milk & Honey wrote: »

The private sector pay as little as they can which is well below the public sector levels. The private sector will not be hiring dossers from the public service if public service pay is cut or numbers are reduced.

Public servants do not pay for their own pensions. Their pensions are paid out of current government revenue i.e. by the taxpayer. No way does every public servant contribute to a fund that will pay his pension.

Would you have a link to that please as i'm interested. Thanks.

Chemical Burn · 04-02-2013 11:49PM

looksee wrote: »

Ah! so Chemical Burn is a settled, male, Irish, employed, highly paid, non-smoker?

Who worked to have what I have.

Milk & Honey · 04-02-2013 11:59PM

tayto lover wrote: »

Would you have a link to that please as i'm interested. Thanks.

http://www.inmo.ie/Article/PrintArticle/7729
http://www.finance.gov.ie/viewdoc.asp?fn=/documents/psp/pensch3.htm
http://www.audgen.gov.ie/documents/vfmreports/68_Central_Gov_Pensions.pdf

666irishguy · 05-02-2013 12:00AM

I've always thought we should have something like a Civil Works Corps or a construction army in other words, which would basically be a body of 20-30,000 construction workers who would construct all state projects such as motorways, hospitals, etc. There would be places for graduate engineers and other over-seers to design and coordinate the works. They would have a capped wage, which may not match the private sector, but it would not be meager. It would result in guaranteed work for a lot of people who need jobs badly these days. It would put an end to the laughable tendering process that sees construction firms just screw the state for government money.

Ledger · 05-02-2013 12:04AM

Milk & Honey wrote: »

The private sector pay as little as they can which is well below the public sector levels. The private sector will not be hiring dossers from the public service if public service pay is cut or numbers are reduced.

Public servants do not pay for their own pensions. Their pensions are paid out of current government revenue i.e. by the taxpayer. No way does every public servant contribute to a fund that will pay his pension.

Public sector dossers? No. Come down, that horse doesn't look steady.

And no Im not a public servant.

looksee · 05-02-2013 12:09AM

Chemical Burn wrote: »

Who worked to have what I have.

Indeed, and weren't you lucky in your accidents of birth, and opportunities.

Durz0 Blint · 05-02-2013 12:16AM

1. More immigration
We have the agricultural capacity to support a much higher population than we currently do.

2.Increased investment in third level education.
A well educated population is key to success in a world where more and more manual work is being outsourced.

As a rough rule of thumb countries with higher populations are more economically powerful (excluding africa), more likely to produce great minds that define new paradigms and shape the future and are able to better stand up for themselves in the political landscape.

This would probably take us about 100 years of immigration to achieve though.

woodoo · 05-02-2013 12:25AM

Milk & Honey wrote: »

Public servants do not pay for their own pensions. Their pensions are paid out of current government revenue i.e. by the taxpayer. No way does every public servant contribute to a fund that will pay his pension.

I pay 3 separate pension contributions and i'm a public servant.

Milk & Honey · 05-02-2013 09:07AM

woodoo wrote: »

I pay 3 separate pension contributions and i'm a public servant.

Into what fund?
Deductions shown on a payslip do not mean payments into a fund.
What fund are you paying into?
Who manages it?
What are the benefits?
Do the benefits depend on the performance of the fund?

Who do you think you are fooling?

Annasopra · 05-02-2013 09:53AM

Milk & Honey wrote: »

We should apply the 20% rule to the public service.

20% cut in numbers.
20% cut in pay.
20% more hours to be worked.
20% longer service before a pension is awarded.

And this causes more unemployment, more deflation and longer recession - yep great idea B-)

Annasopra · 05-02-2013 09:55AM

Chemical Burn wrote: »

Abolish Pavee Point
Abolish Women's Council
Abolish Immigrants Council
Abolish Foreign Aid
Abolish Dole for people on it for more than a year, who REFUSE to get a job
Put price of 20 fags up to 15 Euro
Stop non-citizens from removing money from Ireland via cash or bank accounts
Only pay dole to Irish citizens or to foreigners who have been living here for >5 years and working
Abolish Seanad
Decrease ALL tax to a blanket 15%

NWCI, Pavee point and ICI can't be abolished by anyone but their members but yeah - keep coming up with silly pointless ideas..<3

Logical_Bear · 05-02-2013 09:58AM

increase employment in the printing industry and print more money..simples.

Just dont tell anyone else we are printing sh1tloads of money,problem solved

Gumbo · 05-02-2013 10:06AM

Milk & Honey wrote: »

The private sector pay as little as they can which is well below the public sector levels. The private sector will not be hiring dossers from the public service if public service pay is cut or numbers are reduced.

Public servants do not pay for their own pensions. Their pensions are paid out of current government revenue i.e. by the taxpayer. No way does every public servant contribute to a fund that will pay his pension.

Milk & Honey wrote: »

Into what fund?
Deductions shown on a payslip do not mean payments into a fund.
What fund are you paying into?
Who manages it?
What are the benefits?
Do the benefits depend on the performance of the fund?

Who do you think you are fooling?

LOL, out of 1,895 posts, its these two posts alone that show how naive you are and that you havent a clue what your barking on about.

05-02-2013 10:12AM

UCDVet wrote: »

If someone wants to have a child and is ready/willing to apply for a license they'd get all sorts of tax benefits to help them raise the child. Child tax credits, eligibility in social programs and all that jazz.

Life isn't predictable. Bad things happen. So if someone falls on hard times, someone who seemed like a good candidate for having a child; let's all chip in and help them.

So if a young girl has an unplanned pregnancy she can go through it knowing she'll be draining her parents dry (if they stand by her) and will never get any aid. That her child will be substantially disadvantaged through not only a lack of aid but the contrast between that absence of aid and the presence of aid for other families.

Secondly, who said that the people purposely making a living from having children wouldn't be good parents who'd pass the test? Surely you're more likely to pass the test when you're home all day and are completely child-focused?

I'd say cut child benefit altogether and instead provide a means tested supplement in which children are included. I don't understand why someone living perfectly comfortably should be getting money for having a child (especially when it could have been a planned pregnancy), and I don't see how it would be any help to anyone to push bad parents into a situation where they're also financially struggling parents.

I do think we should be trying to cut down on the number of people making a living from having children, but I would suggest a stringent means test on a child-based supplement would be more effective than testing people. I also think there'd be a loss of money for the government from all the parents who'd want to sue when told they're not good parents according to some test. I don't even know how such a test could be carried out and it would probably be pretty expensive.

Annasopra · 05-02-2013 10:14AM

Who actually tries to make a living from having children?

05-02-2013 10:18AM

mango salsa wrote: »

Who actually tries to make a living from having children?

People do, honestly. Most that I know make no secret of it because they don't see anything wrong with it.

Ray Palmer · 05-02-2013 10:48AM

true-or-false wrote: »

People do, honestly. Most that I know make no secret of it because they don't see anything wrong with it.

Are they really that stupid? The state by no means pays enough to care for a child to make a profit. So a single child can mean your combined benefits are equal to a 35k salary. The 2 nd child doesn't double the benefits nor double your costs.

I am sure some have a child for the " freedom" but not quite for a profit. I guess it could be better than a minimum wage job.

Milk & Honey · 05-02-2013 09:33PM

kceire wrote: »

LOL, out of 1,895 posts, its these two posts alone that show how naive you are and that you havent a clue what your barking on about.

Is that so? Still no answer to my questions.

tayto lover · 05-02-2013 09:37PM

Milk & Honey wrote: »

Is that so? Still no answer to my questions.

When rubbish is posted it shouldn't be replied to. Simple as.
Haters hate and that's sad. Everyone should not be tarred with the same brush.

Milk & Honey · 05-02-2013 09:40PM

tayto lover wrote: »

When rubbish is posted it shouldn't be replied to. Simple as.
Haters hate and that's sad. Everyone should not be tarred with the same brush.

It is not a question of hating. The problem with the public service is that it cannot withstand scrutiny.
There is loads of bleating about paying for their own pensions which is baloney.

Want to save the country money?

Comments