MrsD007 wrote: » Poor WB Yeats must be spinning in his grave today, first Michael Noonan was quoting lines from his poetry and now Pearse Doherty is at it.
Uriel. wrote: » Why? and Why?
Kerrydude1981 wrote: » Could at least have it mean tested? Instead of just getting rid of it? My cousin died a few years back and the grant was a big help in paying for some bit of the expenses.
Kerrydude1981 wrote: » Sure that is pure madness, Could there be a u-turn on this?
jester77 wrote: » So what you are saying is that someone who pays a serious amount into they system should not get anything out of it, while those who don't contribute should get as much as they can.
jester77 wrote: » Why shouldn't those who contribute so much get nothing out?
Otherwise all you have is a Robin Hood type system and it will just end up where the rich move their money to avoid paying taxes and the government will have even less to give out.
The childrens allowance payment is very small in comparison to what they pay into the system.
The real problem in Ireland is that those with low wages are paying almost nothing into the system, that needs to be changed.
bluewolf wrote: » Someone earning that much a year will be paying multiples of the other person's salary as tax, nevermind the other person's tax payments.
If anything, they should be getting multiples of the payment, if you want to be really fair about it
The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities, that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. Wealth Of Nations
dharma200 wrote: » 50 cent on wine is harsh. 10cent on fags is ridiculous. Wine sort of harms. Fags seriously kill....
jester77 wrote: » The real problem in Ireland is that those with low wages are paying almost nothing into the system,
P_1 wrote: » I'd have to disagree with that point to be honest. In terms of income tax, yes people on low wages would pay little but in terms of VAT, DIRT and excise IMO they are paying proportionally more in taxes.
ressem wrote: » Employer PRSI going from 4.25% to 8.5% for employees earning under €356 per week from the start of 2014, because that lower rate from 2011 isn't being renewed.
smcgiff wrote: » I wouldn't be surprised if this affected the funeral directors more than the bereaved. .
SCOOP 64 wrote: » This is news to me, you think your ok, then someone comes along to burst your bubble.
smcgiff wrote: » Shame on you for employing people on such low wages. :P
P_1 wrote: » Just on the point of the bereavement benefit. Having been in the unfortunate position recently of having to assist with the financing of a late relative's funeral, the €850 that it gives goes nowhere towards covering the full cost of a funeral. If you're lucky it might cover the cost of the hearse.
SueBoom wrote: » But jaysus, it was something at least.
tayto lover wrote: » Old and sick --- badly effected. Young --- badly effected. Super rich --- left alone again. Now which of the above are the Government standing up for?
Davidth88 wrote: » People , I hate to be the bearer of bad news.The 10c on a pint , for a pub to maintain the same profit margin , they will have to stick something like 30-40c on I don't understand it , but some accountant friends tried to explain it to me one time ( the last budget )... all be it after a few of the aforementioned pints. Watch this space ........ sure as eggs is eggs , the pint will have a large whack shoved on it.
P_1 wrote: » Yeah I know. I was pointing out the fact to those who were saying that it only gets spent on drinks and the like at the wake