Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

donalg1 · 02-05-2013 02:06PM

sarumite wrote: »

No, this was your argument (well, more a statement than an argument, which was the reason I asked you "Why?" in the first place).

Oh right sorry I misunderstood, SW should be cut because it is inequitable to ask one sector of society to take continuous cuts while leaving another completely untouched. The other being as high during the boom and now twice as high today yet no cuts to that sector.

woodoo · 02-05-2013 06:16PM

donalg1 wrote: »

Yes there are similarities between the two but one main difference in that those working are providing a service in return whereas those on Social Welfare provide nothing in return, hence the term "transfer payment".

I too do find it unfathomable that people can work full time and be worse off than those that never work, and why oh why cant they reduce SW after x amount of time on it, certainly would provide more of an incentive to come off it, instead like you say it tends to increase the longer you are on it.

Why if I leave school and work for 20 years and am made redundant do I get the same rate as someone that has left school and been unemployed for the same 20 years, hardly seems equitable to me.

The worst part about it is that we can all see the problems with SW, yet nothing is done about it year after year after year.

The government seem to believe that if you are on welfare then you are just scraping by. They don't seem to understand that if you have been on it a while and don't have a mortgage etc then its quite a comfortable life.

sarumite · 03-05-2013 07:27AM

donalg1 wrote: »

Oh right sorry I misunderstood, SW should be cut because it is inequitable to ask one sector of society to take continuous cuts while leaving another completely untouched. The other being as high during the boom and now twice as high today yet no cuts to that sector.

Just for my clarification. Are you suggesting that the SW pay rates should be reduced similar to the PS or are you suggesting the SW bill should be reduced in similar to the PS. A cut of x% to SW pay rates in a recession won't necessarily reduce the SW bill at all if the number of people claiming Sw dramatically increases during the same period.

Jawgap · 03-05-2013 07:58AM

sarumite wrote: »

Just for my clarification. Are you suggesting that the SW pay rates should be reduced similar to the PS or are you suggesting the SW bill should be reduced in similar to the PS. A cut of x% to SW pay rates in a recession won't necessarily reduce the SW bill at all if the number of people claiming Sw dramatically increases during the same period.

SW money also gets spent - a cut to high earners in the PS (over 100K) or increasing taxes for all high earners probably eats more into people's ability to save - Ronan Lyons estimates (in 2012), "the richest 10% of households earn typically just under €150,000 and save almost €65,000 of that."

SW rates could do with some very modest trimming (as could PS rates of pay) but slashing them only takes spending out of the economy. However, treating any SW paid to anyone earning above, for example, average earnings plus 20% might make some sense - especially for children's allowance.

donalg1 · 03-05-2013 08:35AM

sarumite wrote: »

Just for my clarification. Are you suggesting that the SW pay rates should be reduced similar to the PS or are you suggesting the SW bill should be reduced in similar to the PS. A cut of x% to SW pay rates in a recession won't necessarily reduce the SW bill at all if the number of people claiming Sw dramatically increases during the same period.

I am suggesting that if the SW bill was 18bn in 2007 and the PS bill was 18bn in the same year and is now 14bn then the SW bill should be reduced by 4bn, with those on it long term being targeted first.

sharper · 03-05-2013 08:44AM

donalg1 wrote: »

I am suggesting that if the SW bill was 18bn in 2007 and the PS bill was 18bn in the same year and is now 14bn then the SW bill should be reduced by 4bn, with those on it long term being targeted first.

If the PS bill increases to 20bn should social welfare spending increase to 20bn?

donalg1 · 03-05-2013 08:55AM

sharper wrote: »

If the PS bill increases to 20bn should social welfare spending increase to 20bn?

Hardly. The point is that those on SW have been cut zilch, zero, nada, while those out working are being targeted continuously and all this despite the fact that there are many on SW in far better positions than some of those being targeted.

Do you seriously think that SW should not be cut by way of reform or by blanket cuts across the board?

The biggest drain on Gov Expenditure should be left alone, I don't think so. It's time SW was made to be what it is in many other countries, a stop gap not a life long choice, its time they stopped targeting those in employment and start targeting those that have never contributed anything.

Surely a system that encourages people to work is better than one that encourages them to spend a lifetime on SW.

sarumite · 03-05-2013 09:05AM

donalg1 wrote: »

I am suggesting that if the SW bill was 18bn in 2007 and the PS bill was 18bn in the same year and is now 14bn then the SW bill should be reduced by 4bn, with those on it long term being targeted first.

This is an unfeasible and illogical suggestion. Unless you plan on restricting all new entrants to any SW payments whatsoever as well as removing people whom already receiving SW from receiving any SW, your suggestions is completely unworkable. Arbitrarily setting the SW budget to the PS budget during a deep recession is nonsensical in the extreme.

sarumite · 03-05-2013 09:07AM

donalg1 wrote: »

Hardly. The point is that those on SW have been cut zilch, zero, nada, while those out working are being targeted continuously and all this despite the fact that there are many on SW in far better positions than some of those being targeted.

It really would help if you dealth in facts. Child benefit has been cut. Some allowances have been cut. Access to allowances have been restricted. Could there be more cuts in the SW budget, yes. Has there been cuts, yes. Saying "SW have been cut zilch, zero, nada" makes you look uniformed at best.

donalg1 · 03-05-2013 09:11AM

sarumite wrote: »

This is an unfeasible and illogical suggestion. Unless you plan on restricting all new entrants to any SW payments whatsoever as well as removing people whom already receiving SW from receiving any SW, your suggestions is completely unworkable. Arbitrarily setting the SW budget to the PS budget during a deep recession is nonsensical in the extreme.

Seriously how do you miss the point so often, the point is now read carefully,

1. SW has not been cut

2. Working peoples income has been cut

3. They are asking working people to take more cuts

4. They are not cutting SW

5. This is unfair, SW needs to be cut, and needs to be cut today, its the biggest expense and provides nothing in return.

They say they want to cut the PS Pay bill by 1bn, and yet they aren't even talking about cutting SW.

The cut of 1bn should be made on SW, and then more cuts should be made on SW, starting with the long termers and when this system has been reformed and expenses driven down then look at making cuts to people getting up everyday and going to work.

Are you suggesting SW should not be cut? (I seriously doubt anyone could be this silly, but then I have read some doozies round here before)

donalg1 · 03-05-2013 09:15AM

sarumite wrote: »

It really would help if you dealth in facts. Child benefit has been cut. Some allowances have been cut. Access to allowances have been restricted. Could there be more cuts in the SW budget, yes. Has there been cuts, yes. Saying "SW have been cut zilch, zero, nada" makes you look uniformed at best.

I am talking about basic rates of SW, the Jobseekers Rates of 188, the 29.80 for children, the OPFP rates etc.

People on SW for 20+ years now should not be receiving the same as someone working for 20+ years who has just been made redundant, if you disagree with this I would love to hear your reasons.

sharper · 03-05-2013 09:30AM

donalg1 wrote: »

Hardly. The point is that those on SW have been cut zilch, zero, nada

That's not strictly true, there have been cuts albeit I would certainly agree not enough.

I would also say the problem isn't the basic rate (or at least, not just the basic rate) but the total benefits package and the criteria used for it. It's simply to easy to end up on a total package which will be paid indefinitely that rivals many low to average paying jobs depending on your circumstances.

I also agree that the brunt of the crisis has been borne by workers, even in the context of social welfare PRSI entitlements were cut in preference to cutting entitlements not linked to PRSI.

This is why I simply cannot support loading up yet more income taxes on workers who have few or no protections in order to support the lifestyle of public sector workers that are very well protected. Aside from anything else it's a complete disincentive to work hard in this country and get some benefit from it.

sarumite · 03-05-2013 09:34AM

donalg1 wrote: »

Are you suggesting SW should not be cut? (I seriously doubt anyone could be this silly, but then I have read some doozies round here before)

No. I am pointing out that you can cut social welfare rates and still see an increase in SW bill if more people rely on SW. Your idea to arbitrarily setting the SW bill to that of the PS bill even during a deep recession isn't just about cutting social welfare but would require the government to deny a large number of people access to any social welfare payments whatsoever. Cutting SW rates isn't the same as cutting he SW budget. You (and others) seem to be confusing the two.

sarumite · 03-05-2013 09:36AM

donalg1 wrote: »

I am talking about basic rates of SW, the Jobseekers Rates of 188, the 29.80 for children, the OPFP rates etc.

The SW budget is more than just the basic rates of SW payments for people on the dole. If you are going to cut the SW budget, then you need to accept that elements of SW budget has been cut.

donalg1 · 03-05-2013 09:50AM

sarumite wrote: »

No. I am pointing out that you can cut social welfare rates and still see an increase in SW bill if more people rely on SW. Your idea to arbitrarily setting the SW bill to that of the PS bill even during a deep recession isn't just about cutting social welfare but would require the government to deny a large number of people access to any social welfare payments whatsoever. Cutting SW rates isn't the same as cutting he SW budget. You (and others) seem to be confusing the two.

What should have been done is for example say there were 200,000 people on SW during the boom who had been in receipt of SW for over 5 years (Group A), the recession hits and you now have a further 200,000 looking for SW (Group

.

Instead of giving both groups the same amounts indefinitely, you say to Group A that Group B have contributed to the system and economy while you have not. So we now need to cut Group A's payments in order to partly fund Group B's payments meaning the impact on Gov Expenditure of the new demands on the SW Bill have been reduced, and also means those that have contributed are getting more than those that have not.

This also encourages Group A to start actively seeking employment yes its a recession and they will complain that they cant find work in a recession but if they wanted to work and to insulate themselves from cuts to SW they could have easily found work during the boom.

You also develop this system so that Group A receive further cuts after another couple of years and notify Group B they too will receive cuts to their SW after x amount of years, with those in employment the longest receiving the standard rate the longest.

Also these cuts go beyond standard rates, they include things such as Rent Allowance, Fuel Allowance etc.

woodoo · 03-05-2013 10:49AM

sarumite wrote: »

No. I am pointing out that you can cut social welfare rates and still see an increase in SW bill if more people rely on SW. Your idea to arbitrarily setting the SW bill to that of the PS bill even during a deep recession isn't just about cutting social welfare but would require the government to deny a large number of people access to any social welfare payments whatsoever. Cutting SW rates isn't the same as cutting he SW budget. You (and others) seem to be confusing the two.

Donalg1's overall point is valid, you don't seem to want to address it though. You are picking little bits to focus on like the linking of SW cuts to PS cuts. That was just one suggestion.

The point is SW is costing 21 billion a year now which is the biggest spend the government has to make. How can it make sense to go after PS pay alone when according to Godge the cost after pension levy, income tax, PRSI and USC is 10.8bn. The Welfare Bill is a monster and is never mentioned by the government and doesn't get the same column inches as PS pay in the media? Why not.

sarumite · 03-05-2013 11:03AM

woodoo wrote: »

Donalg1's overall point is valid

DonalG point that SW _budget should be reduced to the same expenditure as the PS budget in a deep recession is completely invalid. That is the overall point I have been discussing.

sarumite · 03-05-2013 11:14AM

donalg1 wrote: »

What should have been done is for example say there were 200,000 people on SW during the boom who had been in receipt of SW for over 5 years (Group A), the recession hits and you now have a further 200,000 looking for SW (Group .

Just to keep the SW budget even, you would need to cut all SW payments for all of the 200,000 in group A by 50% in your scenario and that just to provide the group B with the same 50% benefits. By doing that the budget remains the same. Now if you want to reduce the budget you need to reduce payments for all 400,000 people beyond the 50% level.

So, in your scenario, if we want to reduce the budget in line with PS during a deep recession all applicants (new or old) would need to take cuts in ALL SW payments >50%. And that assuming all on SW get the same payments. You will need even deeper cuts (perhaps >60-70%) if you want to have higher payments for those in group B while also reducing the SW budget.

ardmacha · 03-05-2013 11:37AM

DonalG point that SW _budget should be reduced to the same expenditure as the PS budget in a deep recession is completely invalid. That is the overall point I have been discussing.

It is no more invalid a point than those who talk of overall government expenditure and then proceed to the calculation that expenditure on constant PS services should decline as welfare expenditure rises. How many times have we heard that there have been no cuts because total expenditure is similar, when expenditure on the things that spending was previously on has declined although welfare has increased.

sarumite · 03-05-2013 11:51AM

ardmacha wrote: »

It is no more invalid a point than those who talk of overall government expenditure and then proceed to the calculation that expenditure on constant PS services should decline as welfare expenditure rises.

Fair enough. I guess its a tangental point, though not really sure how it relates to mine.

How many times have we heard that there have been no cuts because total expenditure is similar, when expenditure on the things that spending was previously on has declined although welfare has increased.

I can say I have never heard nor read this before. Its new to me.

donalg1 · 03-05-2013 01:22PM

sarumite wrote: »

Just to keep the SW budget even, you would need to cut all SW payments for all of the 200,000 in group A by 50% in your scenario and that just to provide the group B with the same 50% benefits. By doing that the budget remains the same. Now if you want to reduce the budget you need to reduce payments for all 400,000 people beyond the 50% level.

So, in your scenario, if we want to reduce the budget in line with PS during a deep recession all applicants (new or old) would need to take cuts in ALL SW payments >50%. And that assuming all on SW get the same payments. You will need even deeper cuts (perhaps >60-70%) if you want to have higher payments for those in group B while also reducing the SW budget.

I never mentioned anything about keeping the budget even, I said in order to lessen the impact, for instance:

Group A (200,000 * 188 = 37.6 million per week)

Group B (200,000 * 188 = 37.6 million per week)

Total 75.2 million per week or 3.9 billion per year

Reduce Group A to partly fund B as I said

Group A (200,000 * 150 = 30 million per week)

Group B (200,000 * 188 = 37.6 million per week)

Total 67.6 million per week or 3.5 billion per year

Savings = 7.6 million per week or 0.4 billion per year

Then in two years time you further reduce A to increase the portion of funding transferred to B, with B being reduced after 3 - 5 years to fund anyone in C.

sarumite · 03-05-2013 03:55PM

donalg1 wrote: »

I never mentioned anything about keeping the budget even, I said in order to lessen the impact, for instance:
.

You are right. You said that the budget should be reduced.

"I am suggesting that if the SW bill was 18bn in 2007 and the PS bill was 18bn in the same year and is now 14bn then the SW bill should be reduced by 4bn, with those on it long term being targeted first."

How do you plan on cutting roughly 7 billion from the current social welfare budget to bring it in line with 14bn figure you mentioned?

donalg1 · 03-05-2013 04:01PM

sarumite wrote: »

You are right. You said that the budget should be reduced.

"I am suggesting that if the SW bill was 18bn in 2007 and the PS bill was 18bn in the same year and is now 14bn then the SW bill should be reduced by 4bn, with those on it long term being targeted first."

How do you plan on cutting roughly 7 billion from the current social welfare budget to bring it in line with 14bn figure you mentioned?

I dont plan on doing that I suggested it should be cut by 4bn, it doesnt have to match the PS bill, the cuts could be somewhat equivalent however, that way everyone pays and not just one sector.

Obviously there will be an increase to the SW bill in a recession so cutting that by 7bn and the PS bill by 4bn would not be fair or equitable which is my point.

What has happened already is beside the point anyway, the basis of CP2 is to save a further 1bn off the PS pay bill over the next three years, my point is that this 1bn should be taken from the SW bill. Hence the countless times I have said leave those in employment alone and go after those in long term unemployment.

I have bolded the part above as this is the main point I have been trying to get across all along however, you seem to continue to miss this.

vinylbomb · 03-05-2013 04:15PM

donalg1 wrote: »

leave those in employment alone and go after those in long term unemployment.

But all men are not created equal.

Public Sector Vs Private Sector etc etc

donalg1 · 03-05-2013 04:31PM

vinylbomb wrote: »

But all men are not created equal.

Public Sector Vs Private Sector etc etc

All men are created equal and can choose which sector to work in.

carpejugulum · 03-05-2013 04:46PM

donalg1 wrote: »

All men are created equal and can choose which sector to work in.

But they can't choose not be fleeced by the public sector, right?

vinylbomb · 03-05-2013 04:57PM

donalg1 wrote: »

All men are created equal and can choose which sector to work in.

And when one sectors employer is bust..................?

You could carve this up into 3 segments:

Public Sector

Private Sector

Social Welfare Recipients

But don't lump Public and Private into "Taxpayers" or "net benefactors" and ask for them to be treated the same.
They are intrinsically different.

donalg1 · 03-05-2013 05:04PM

vinylbomb wrote: »

And when one sectors employer is bust..................?

You could carve this up into 3 segments:

Public Sector

Private Sector

Social Welfare Recipients

But don't lump Public and Private into "Taxpayers" or "net benefactors" and ask for them to be treated the same.
They are intrinsically different.

That sectors employer being bust mainly as a result of the actions of the other sector you mean?

vinylbomb · 03-05-2013 05:12PM

donalg1 wrote: »

That sectors employer being bust mainly as a result of the actions of the other sector you mean?

No. Believe or not the bank bailout is about 1/3 of the current debt

From (http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/seamus-coffey-ireland-is-not-in-a-position-to-move-to-zero-austerity-29219535.html)

Over the past five years government expenditure on making transfer payments to households, paying salaries and pensions to public sector employees, on providing goods and services to the population, and on undertaking public investment has exceeded government revenue by €60bn, €1bn a month.

donalg1 · 03-05-2013 05:26PM

vinylbomb wrote: »

No. Believe or not the bank bailout is about 1/3 of the current debt

From (http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/seamus-coffey-ireland-is-not-in-a-position-to-move-to-zero-austerity-29219535.html)

Over the past five years government expenditure on making transfer payments to households, paying salaries and pensions to public sector employees, on providing goods and services to the population, and on undertaking public investment has exceeded government revenue by €60bn, €1bn a month.

Well transfer payments would be SW not PS pay, are you telling me SW shouldnt be cut? Especially considering it has remained largely untouched for those five years.

Croke Park II preliminary Talks started today

Comments