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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

The 350 a week was a catastrophic and costly mistake

1356728

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    Is that like the way the USC was supposed to be a temporary tax?


    The usual suspects will try to make 350 the new baseline for welfare payments.
    This will be wound down and will be gone well before the end of August. Despite your outrage it's not welfare and it will be treated as taxable income. Anyone on it when things open up again will lose it and will switch down to the standard rates.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    FVP3 wrote: »
    He suggested a bank guarantee which was a temporary measure. We are paying off the debt because we rolled over that bank debt into sovereign debt.
    No, we're paying off more sovereign debt because we couldn't afford to run the country. The bank debt only accounted for a portion of that and apart from the €30bn of Anglo, will ultimately be repaid to the exchequer.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,622 ✭✭✭maninasia


    rossie1977 wrote: »
    1/4 of the Irish workforce were earning less than 18k a year?


    Part timers


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,187 ✭✭✭FVP3


    is_that_so wrote: »
    No, we're paying off more sovereign debt because we couldn't afford to run the country. The bank debt only accounted for a portion of that and apart from the €30bn of Anglo, will ultimately be repaid to the exchequer.

    We couldn't afford to run the country the way we were because of a financial crisis caused by banks and other shysters. Before that we had low debt per GDP and low deficit.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,478 ✭✭✭coolshannagh28


    FVP3 wrote: »
    We couldn't afford to run the country the way we were because of a financial crisis caused by banks and other shysters. Before that we had low debt per GDP and low deficit.

    No , ,most of the bailout was allocated towards running the country ie current spending , we were living beyond our means , this has been widely debated and we have possibly been doing the same again


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 56,664 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    I see our anti wealth and anti money and anti profit and anti anyone with a few bob are still looking for the money.....the irony

    https://twitter.com/RBoydBarrett/status/1258364345123209216


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 56,664 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    Has anyone yet come out with "let's us the Apple money!?"


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    FVP3 wrote: »
    We couldn't afford to run the country the way we were because of a financial crisis caused by banks and other shysters. Before that we had low debt per GDP and low deficit.
    Really not true at all and spanks of an agenda. Sure the banks misbehaved but the majority of the cash was to run the country. Are you really claiming the the banks caused 16% unemployment and accompanying foregone taxation? Why do you think the PS increment were reversed, why was there a PS embargo and why was there little extra spending on anything for nearly 5 years?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,478 ✭✭✭coolshannagh28


    salmocab wrote: »
    I think the 350 for part timers not earning that much was a mistake but it was a decision that had to be made quickly to help the shut down go smoothly. It was probably too blunt an instrument but it probably helped the setup to keep it relatively simple.

    Government needs to change the terms of the payment to encourage people to reopen businesses ie allow the covid payment in conjunction with wage payment otherwise part timers and lower paid will stay at home.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    walshb wrote: »
    I see our anti wealth and anti money and anti profit and anti anyone with a few bob are still looking for the money.....the irony

    https://twitter.com/RBoydBarrett/status/1258364345123209216
    Do they know it's going to be taxable?


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,074 ✭✭✭LoughNeagh2017


    Minimum wage isn't that bad if you live in fathers house but imagine what it would be like if you lived in rental accommodation earning low money, you would make zero profit. I will never pay rent as I will get partial ownership of this rural land and house as inheritance. I don't care if people hate on me for that, some people inherit fortunes and businesses from parents yet people never slag them but they slag the neckbeard bachelor as he is an easy target.

    I would love to be unemployed full term but it isn't an option unless I can get Depression Bucks or Autism Bucks someday. I am sure I have a shopping list of mental plagues so I will try to pull something out of the hat. To hell with being honourable in this hellish world, I have been walked over by humans my whole life.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 56,664 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    is_that_so wrote: »
    Do they know it's going to be taxable?

    Do they care is more the question?......


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,187 ✭✭✭FVP3


    is_that_so wrote: »
    Really not true at all and spanks of an agenda. Sure the banks misbehaved but the majority of the cash as to run the country.

    What I am saying is that the government was relatively prudent before the banks collapsed. Saying we overspent in that era is nonsense, unless you assume that all governments should run 20% surpluses all the time in case banks collapse.
    Are you really claiming the teh banks caused 16% unemployment and accompanying foregone taxation? Why do you think the PS increment were reversed, why there was a PS embargo and why there was little extra spending on anything for nearly 5 years?

    That is exactly what I am saying, the banks collapse was the catalyst that collapsed the whole economy. It was precisely because the bank credit inflated the economy so much that the fallout was so severe. And this is hardly a radical viewpoint, either.
    No , ,most of the bailout was allocated towards running the country ie current spending , we were living beyond our means , this has been widely debated and we have possibly been doing the same again

    We weren't living beyond our means pre recession, we were in surplus. If the GDP was inflated by bank lending then thats on the banks for inflating the economy. Not just Irish banks btw.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,947 ✭✭✭Jizique


    walshb wrote: »
    I see our anti wealth and anti money and anti profit and anti anyone with a few bob are still looking for the money.....the irony

    https://twitter.com/RBoydBarrett/status/1258364345123209216

    the Germans are going back to work, Austria is back open; even Italy and Spain are starting, construction here in a week - crisis over


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,940 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    If someone truly has a Masters in Economics and is comparing the USC to the Covid-19 payment then the country really is f*cked.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,152 ✭✭✭893bet


    The 350 a week is taxable.

    But really you won’t notice this.

    Your weekly tax free allowance is approx 350 or 17k per year if I recall.

    Should be a negligible impact on your pay packet when you return to work no?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    FVP3 wrote: »
    What I am saying is that the government was relatively prudent before the banks collapsed. Saying we overspent in that era is nonsense, unless you assume that all governments should run 20% surpluses all the time in case banks collapse.



    That is exactly what I am saying, the banks collapse was the catalyst that collapsed the whole economy. It was precisely because the bank credit inflated the economy so much that the fallout was so severe. And this is hardly a radical viewpoint, either.
    FF prudent between 2003 and 2009? :D:D:D:D:D:D I think you're reading a different version of history. I'll leave you one stat - stamp duty was in excess of 20% of the tax take during that time. I also believe that construction employment was in the order of 11-14% of the economy well above a normal construction sector.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,532 ✭✭✭HBC08


    listermint wrote: »
    No one with a master's in economics would phrase their opening post like that.

    I call shenanigans

    Shenanigans called and seconded.


  • Registered Users Posts: 38 Kangaroolala


    Is that like the way the USC was supposed to be a temporary tax?


    The usual suspects will try to make 350 the new baseline for welfare payments.


    USC was first introduced to help the government to lessen the heavy financial burden during 2008 recession. However, it never get cancelled even after the economy boom.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,187 ✭✭✭FVP3


    is_that_so wrote: »
    FF prudent between 2003 and 2009? :D:D:D:D:D:D I think you're reading a different version of history. I'll leave you one stat - stamp duty was in excess of 20% of the tax take during that time.

    The government was in surplus from about 1997 to 2007, with the exception of 2002. This meant we entered the crisis with low debt to GDP. It also meant we were living "within our means" by any reasonable measure.

    If I recall it was right wingers who cheered most of the tax cuts, and right wing economists, who at the time didn't see much wrong with the property market.

    Immediately after the banks collapsed, the same boyos were complaining about "beyond our means".

    You are right that the stamp duty was too much of the tax take but not because it was extremely large as a percentage of the housing cost, but because near unlimited credit pushed prices of houses to absurd levels, and the number of transactions even higher.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,187 ✭✭✭FVP3


    The right wing economists also championed reducing the stamp duty, if I recall, which would have put the country in a worse position coming into the crisis, as it would have lost that 20% tax take, but wouldn't have any effect at all on house prices except to make prices higher as people could have used the saved stamp duty for deposits.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,478 ✭✭✭coolshannagh28


    FVP3 wrote: »
    The government was in surplus from about 1997 to 2007, with the exception of 2002. This meant we entered the crisis with low debt to GDP. It also meant we were living "within our means" by any reasonable measure.

    If I recall it was right wingers who cheered most of the tax cuts, and right wing economists, who at the time didn't see much wrong with the property market.

    Immediately after the banks collapsed, the same boyos were complaining about "beyond our means".

    You are right that the stamp duty was too much of the tax take but not because it was extremely large as a percentage of the housing cost, but because near unlimited credit pushed prices of houses to absurd levels, and the number of transactions even higher.

    Benchmarking anyone ?the govt may have balanced the books but it gave sequential massive increases in PS pay based on stamp duty ,vat and tax income from property and MNC s ,when the tide went out the money wasn't there to pay the bills hence the deficit which ran up to 200 billion of which maybe 40 went on the banks .


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭Banana Republic 1


    No other country made people better off on welfare than when they had been working. 500,000 people are now better off taking the 350 and sitting on their backsides than they had been before this crisis when working. It's going to be enormously difficult to get these people back into the workforce now. Any politician trying to reduce the payment to incentivise work will be branded a right wing thatcherite by the usual suspects.



    Who's going to go back to a minimum wage job 20 hours a week when they can earn nearly double that from the taxpayer while not having to work? This will starve businesses of much needed workers just when they need to get back going.



    The costs to the exchequer are enormous. We could build a new hospital every month with the amount of money this is costing the state. Did anyone think of this? We have Regina Doherty, mother goose of the nation herself, to thank for this mess.


    The key question is WHY IS IRELAND DOING THINGS DIFFERENTLY TO OTHER NATIONS?. When you have to ask this question, you know we've c**ked up.

    Unlike sars 2 Ireland will never be rid of the begrudges but I suppose to be fare the poverty trap normally works the opposite way so people should really keep an eye on the sky case it falls in.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,620 ✭✭✭✭mariaalice


    The money will be spent when the county reopens and will lead to a mini-boom for a while.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,395 ✭✭✭GazzaL


    mariaalice wrote: »
    The money will be spent when the county reopens and will lead to a mini-boom for a while.

    I doubt the increasing numbers of people that won't have jobs to go back when the country reopens will share that sentiment.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,410 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    mariaalice wrote: »
    The money will be spent when the county reopens and will lead to a mini-boom for a while.

    What money? If you mean the 350 that will be gone already, people in the main are using it to pay bills and buy food.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,620 ✭✭✭✭mariaalice


    GazzaL wrote: »
    I doubt the increasing numbers of people that won't have jobs to go back when the country reopens will share that sentiment.

    Of course not, but all the teens and twenties who are now getting 350 a week when they use to get 150 from the job in the bar/ restaurant will, plus lots are saving a fortune in child care and commuting costs because of the home working and will spend the money when we reopen.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,069 ✭✭✭Xertz


    The payment is far better than a bailout for companies as it puts spending power into ordinary people's hands and keeps the economy flowing.

    Hopefully as the economy starts to open back up again it means those people are in a position to feel comfortable about spending. That's what drives a huge % of the jobs that are most severely impacted by this as they're mostly customer-focused side of the economy.

    If we'd had mass unemployment and no serious supports, apart from the human hardship, instability and damage it would have caused, it would also have left us in a far worse economic position, with diabolical consumer sentiment when we got back.

    Also, furloughing the jobs makes a lot of sense as it is genuinely much more difficult to get a job when you don't have one in the first place and it also makes it a lot less likely that companies would default to trimming the size of workforces if they actually have on going commitments to their staff.

    I think if you just took a laissez faire approach it would be very over simplistic and you would be returning in far worse state. Economies are part of societies and you can't really just see economics without the social dynamics, the psychology and all of those aspects too.

    A cushioned rollercoaster ride is far better than a hard wallop into a brick wall.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,478 ✭✭✭coolshannagh28


    mariaalice wrote: »
    The money will be spent when the county reopens and will lead to a mini-boom for a while.

    Showing up the divide in our country , very comfortable older class of semi and fully retired saving money now and a struggling younger class left behind when the ladder is pulled up .


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,345 ✭✭✭✭jimmycrackcorm


    FVP3 wrote: »
    The government was in surplus from about 1997 to 2007, with the exception of 2002. This meant we entered the crisis with low debt to GDP. It also meant we were living "within our means" by any reasonable measure.

    If I recall it was right wingers who cheered most of the tax cuts, and right wing economists, who at the time didn't see much wrong with the property market.

    Immediately after the banks collapsed, the same boyos were complaining about "beyond our means".

    You are right that the stamp duty was too much of the tax take but not because it was extremely large as a percentage of the housing cost, but because near unlimited credit pushed prices of houses to absurd levels, and the number of transactions even higher.

    We were in surplus due to unsustainable growth in consumption taxes. Public spending massively increased but couldn't be reduced sufficiently once those bubble taxes disappeared because no one is going to vote for a party that suggests sensible sustainable taxation policies.

    how much was the state pension in 1997? How much did it get reduced by following the economic crash?
    Health spending has balooned from a few billion to the middle teens in the intervening time - you'd think that waiting lists would disappear when we're spending 4 times as much on health now but don't have 4 times the population.

    To put the national debt from the banking crisi into perspective. It's less than 10 years worth of our social welfare budget alone.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,620 ✭✭✭✭mariaalice


    Showing up the divide in our country , very comfortable older class of semi and fully retired saving money now and a struggling younger class left behind when the ladder is pulled up .

    That is a good point.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,208 ✭✭✭LuasSimon


    If the likes of Larry Goodman who is making hundreds of millions out of the lease of his private hospitals paid tax in this country as opposed to some Micky mouse tax channelled through Luxembourg it would help .
    The same for JP McManus and all the other super rich tax avoiders that are allegedly Irish .


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,620 ✭✭✭✭mariaalice


    There may well be a very strong bounce back next year.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 226 ✭✭Steer55


    LuasSimon wrote: »
    If the likes of Larry Goodman who is making hundreds of millions out of the lease of his private hospitals paid tax in this country as opposed to some Micky mouse tax channelled through Luxembourg it would help .
    The same for JP McManus and all the other super rich tax avoiders that are allegedly Irish .


    Very well said, vast majority are humming and hawing about people getting a measly 350 a week when they failing to see the bigger picture. You don't need a master's to spot that.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 226 ✭✭Steer55


    mariaalice wrote: »
    There may well be a very strong bounce back next year.


    Hopefully, it's good to take positive stance :)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 226 ✭✭Steer55


    mariaalice wrote: »
    There may well be a very strong bounce back next year.


    Hopefully, it's great to have a positive outlook :)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,783 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    I have a Masters in the subject, thanks so much. McWilliams is a charaltan and a spoofer, yeah free money into everyones account. Sure why not make everyone a millionaire so, what could possibly go wrong.

    As you can see every country in the world, where it can, has tried to directly support their citizens as well as provide a shed load of supports to business. Tis fairly obvious to many why they did this. Providing cash directly to people is the best way to support them in the short term.
    A masters in economics? Or something else


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,655 ✭✭✭i57dwun4yb1pt8


    'i have a masters '

    basically

    ' i have thoughts in my head , that have never been put to practical use '


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,465 ✭✭✭MOH


    This is number of part time workers in the economy who earned less than 350 a week pre-crisis. Publicly available information, you shouldn't have to ask. You should have looked it up yourself.

    Or, you know, you could provide supporting links for the argument you're trying to make.

    You're 100% wrong. There's plenty of publicly available information proving this, go look it up yourself.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,775 ✭✭✭JamesM


    Showing up the divide in our country , very comfortable older class of semi and fully retired saving money now and a struggling younger class left behind when the ladder is pulled up .

    My parents lived through the early years of the State and WW2, worked hard and didn't have much. I started working in the mid 60s. I am now retired, having been self employed for over 40 years with no help from the state (I paid a lot of tax and gathered VAT for the Government). We might be in trouble if I hadn't received a share of the sale of my parents house after they died. The young have many years ahead of them to work and earn 'Comfortable'.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,918 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    Not quite understanding the OP.

    The measure is temporary and targeted so that seems to remove the premise of the thread?


  • Subscribers Posts: 41,837 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    Not quite understanding the OP.

    The measure is temporary and targeted so that seems to remove the premise of the thread?

    The premise of the thread is obvious.

    Its a shinners reaction to the kicking Mary lou got yesterday in the Dail.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    The premise of the thread is obvious.

    Its a shinners reaction to the kicking Mary lou got yesterday in the Dail.

    Whatever Fred is, he ain't a Shinner. Fred was appalled the commemoration for the RIC/ Black&Tans was cancelled.


  • Registered Users Posts: 455 ✭✭onedmc


    The bottom line is that this will need to be paid for.

    Either by us now in higher taxes

    or by our children in years to come


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,806 ✭✭✭satguy


    Some people just hate to see others do well..

    So some young teens that were serving tables or mind kids in a creche,, maybe doing 20 hours a week for €10 or €11 an hour are doing a bit better.

    In the 08 crash we bailed out the banks for Billions and Billions,, and all they did was give themselves a bonus and make people homeless.

    If these teens had any sense,, they would refuse to go back serving tables and minding kids until they got €350 a week in pay.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    satguy wrote: »

    If these teens had any sense,, they would refuse to go back serving tables and minding kids until they €350 a week in pay.

    They won't have to refuse. A good few cafes and restaurants will not reopen after this debacle anyway.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,573 ✭✭✭Infini


    onedmc wrote: »
    The bottom line is that this will need to be paid for.

    Either by us now in higher taxes

    or by our children in years to come

    Or the cost's from a national emergency to keep as many buisnesses from going under and people without jobs having no money are cordoned off on ultra long term bonds or loans.

    Despite all the arguing I expect Europe will eventually have to agree to some form of corona or euro-bonds for use in pure long term debts resulting from emergencies such as this. They tried Austerity before and all it did was make things worse as well as fuel the retard wing parties across Europe. They have to try something else this time and that's the logical one.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,918 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    Infini wrote: »
    Or the cost's from a national emergency to keep as many buisnesses from going under and people without jobs having no money are cordoned off on ultra long term bonds or loans.

    Despite all the arguing I expect Europe will eventually have to agree to some form of corona or euro-bonds for use in pure long term debts resulting from emergencies such as this. They tried Austerity before and all it did was make things worse as well as fuel the retard wing parties across Europe. They have to try something else this time and that's the logical one.

    Germany along with the other northern creditor countries will never agree to that (ever).

    That's like Italy saying "we want to borrow money on your credit card and when we screw it up we'll split the bill 50/50!"

    That's what that is.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,067 ✭✭✭✭fryup


    Steyr 556 wrote: »
    Have some sympathy for the long-term unemployed on 200 a week before the corona virus showed up. They showed amazing loyalty and tenacity to stay out of work, and how are they rewarded? :pac:

    but all jokes aside, its a bit unfair that those made unemployed before covid get 200 odd and those made unemployed after covid get 350....i know its exceptional circumstances but still


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    fryup wrote: »
    but all jokes aside, its a bit unfair that those made unemployed before covid get 200 odd and those made unemployed after covid get 350....i know its exceptional circumstances but still

    I genuinely don't see any unfairness.


Advertisement