General Irish Government discussion thread [See Post 1805]

Bannasidhe · 23-02-2020 4:40pm

Bit cynical wrote: »

I don't mean to suggest that the SF surge and Brexit are the same, but there are some parallels. To a certain extent with Brexit there was also a rejection of the neo-liberal consensus although due to differences in the political landscape in the UK and own-goals from the Left in that country it has taken a different form.

Ah, my mistake.
I think though in England they are rejecting a perceived EU neo libaralism by embracing a Tory neo Mercantilism on the grounds it was successful for them when they had an Empire.
Agree that the Left just couldn't get it's act together.

One significant difference here is that we have never experienced a government of the Left. We did have a mish mash where centerist parties undertook the kind of national projects that would be considered left but tbh that was many decades ago.
Both FF and FG adopted a sell off the family silver approach more in tune with Thatcherism from at least the 90s.

The reality is that there is a significant voter base that is completely disillusioned with thins like light touch regulation (it brought us the banking crisis and now people are looking at insurance/vulture funds etc) and vast profits going untaxed/offshore while they struggle to pay rent on the average wage.
Those people want a government that considers the welfare of the citizens over that of the corporation's. If FF and FG don't address those concerns they will continue to lose voters.

Essentially Brexit was an Us vs Johnny Foreigner scenario, what's happening here is Us vs Dominant political ideology.

is_that_so · 23-02-2020 7:27pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Everyone knows FG swept in on back of a protest vote in 2011. We all know why.
FF messed up. FF knew they messed up. Now, in that situation FG had run enough candidates and the the swing was well flagged.

Yes, a great component of the 2020 (GE # 1 ) may have been a protest vote (probably was) but what seems to be missing from the narrative is any discussion from the FG (and by extension FF as due to C&S they were seen as being 'part' of the FG govt) camps as to whether their policies played a role in that.
The whole focus seems to be (and I say this as someone who didn't give FF/FG/SF as much as a preference vote) on slagging SF and acting like there is nothing whatsoever wrong with any FG policy.
FG and their supporters appear to be sharing the same message which says it's more an issue of ungrateful, ill-informed voters who don't know how good they have it; don't understand how 'unfit' SF are because x,y, Ra-Ra; and there is no workable alternative to their neo-liberal(ish) policies.

Yet, FG don't seem so convinced their chosen ideological path is the best for the country that they are exploring every avenue to get back into govt. That message seems to be we are going to lick our wounds on the Opposition Benches unless there really is no other way to keep SF out.

As PR it's a disaster. And PR is important. FG knows that, hence why Leo spent so much money on it during his tenure. €1.8m in his first 18 months alone https://www.irishpost.com/news/varadkar-spent-e1-8m-self-advertising-first-18-months-taoiseach-compared-enda-kennys-e16k-177658.

I think FG, like every other party, has adopted a position that suits them best, it's the nature of the game. They are also right in that it is up to bigger parties to work out deals, which they may or may not be part of. They don't have the numbers to form anything themselves and a drop of a dozen or so seats is a rejection by the electorate.

The SF stance will not change, it's not just the party, it's how many of their voters feel as well. SF have not gone anyway towards building any level of trust on that with their standard press releases saying nothing. They also see a coalition with FG as all but impossible and the diametrically opposed policies is all you need to see why.

I must admit I haven't heard anyone insult any voters but one would assume that voters had at least informed themselves. Poll-topping failed or rejected councillors suggested some really didn't bother. Subsequent details about certain TDs just confirms that.

Peregrinus · 24-02-2020 7:49am

Bannasidhe wrote: »

. . . The reality is that there is a significant voter base that is completely disillusioned with thins like light touch regulation (it brought us the banking crisis and now people are looking at insurance/vulture funds etc) and vast profits going untaxed/offshore while they struggle to pay rent on the average wage.
Those people want a government that considers the welfare of the citizens over that of the corporation's. If FF and FG don't address those concerns they will continue to lose voters.

And this may be the key to it.

FF was at one time a left-f-centre party. Not in the last 30 years or so, certainly, but it once was. And while FG was never left of centre economically, it was (mildly) socially progressive at a time when FF wasn't.

Now for the past 30 years or more, I grant you, they have been tweedledum and tweedledee to the right of the centre - a centre which itself has moved somewhat to the right, I think.

But, my point is, they don't have to be. FF in particular has always been noted as a party, activism in which requires no ideological commitment or convictions whatsoever. And FG is aligned with the Christian Democratic movement internationally, a political tradition which makes space for much more communitarian and community-oriented politics than FG has been practising for the past couple of decades. Within their own traditions, there is space for both of them to move leftwards. Not to revolutionary communism, obviously, but definitely to the left of where they are now.

And the incentives to do so, it seems to me, are quite strong. Sinn Fein is on the rise because (a) a large part of the electorate (though not yet a decisive majority) is disillusioned with the right-of-centre nostrums that tweedledum and tweedledee offer them; (b) the really nasty parts of SF's history are sufficiently far in the past that a substantial number of voters, rightly or wrongly, are prepared to look past them; and (c) SF are very effective political organisers and activists. This last point has enabled them to become the dominant party among the slew that reject the right-of-centre offering.

It seems to me that the rational strategy for FF/FG is (1) raise doubts about SF's fitness for office (which isn't difficult, and which seems to be happening) while (2) stealing some of their left-of-centre clothes, particularly on housing and health. If - and I grant that it's a big if - they can put together a viable coalition government that can take office and implement policies that will make a significant improvement on social matters like housing and health before the next election, who knows how a grateful electorate might reward them? There would also be opportunities for other parties of the left to challenge SF's dominant position as the left opposition.

mr_fegelien · 24-02-2020 8:50am

Can someone explain why Ireland has such high taxes comparable to Canada yet we don't have half of the benefits when it comes to healthcare and housing?

Peregrinus · 24-02-2020 8:59am

mr_fegelien wrote: »

Can someone explain why Ireland has such high taxes comparable to Canada yet we don't have half of the benefits when it comes to healthcare and housing?

We don't. Taxes in Ireland represent 22.3% of GDP, whereas in Canada they represent 33% of GDP; the Canadians are much more heavily taxed than we are.

People who argue otherwise are usually just looking at selected taxes - e.g. they compare Irish income tax with income tax in some other country, but ignore e.g. property taxes or payroll taxes.

Hotblack Desiato · 26-02-2020 12:02pm

Usual caveat about inflated Irish GDP figures applies, though.

In reality we would be in or around the European norm, taxation wise. It's very common for people to only look at marginal income tax rates and ignore that the low paid pay less tax here than they would in our counterparts; or just ignore entirely the very substantial local taxes other countries have.

Water John · 26-02-2020 12:10pm

The FDI cmpanies distort the Irish GDP. Revenue dug into this and a major portion is down 4 pharma cos.

An Ciarraioch · 26-02-2020 6:24pm

The Dáil has agreed NOT to hold a vote for Taoiseach tomorrow week:

https://www.thejournal.ie/no-vote-for-taoiseach-5022987-Feb2020/

Peregrinus · 27-02-2020 2:11am

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Usual caveat about inflated Irish GDP figures applies, though.

In reality we would be in or around the European norm, taxation wise. It's very common for people to only look at marginal income tax rates and ignore that the low paid pay less tax here than they would in our counterparts; or just ignore entirely the very substantial local taxes other countries have.

The usual corrective for the inflated Irish GDP figures is to compare countries by Gross National Income (GNI) rather than GDP.

On this measure, Ireland's tax/GNI ratio is 24.8%; Canada's is 32.1%. So we are still less heavily taxed.

is_that_so · 27-02-2020 9:26am

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

The Dáil has agreed NOT to hold a vote for Taoiseach tomorrow week:

https://www.thejournal.ie/no-vote-for-taoiseach-5022987-Feb2020/

Pearse seems to think they should have one as it'll "help" push government formation.

is_that_so · 27-02-2020 9:28am

Peregrinus wrote: »

The usual corrective for the inflated Irish GDP figures is to compare countries by Gross National Income (GNI) rather than GDP.

On this measure, Ireland's tax/GNI ratio is 24.8%; Canada's is 32.1%. So we are still less heavily taxed.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/tax-burden-on-irish-households-among-lowest-in-eu-1.4185833

Hotblack Desiato · 27-02-2020 12:54pm

"The new data, by looking at income and indirect taxes as a percentage of disposable income, eliminates this problem. However it does not account for the varying level of services provided by the State in different countries in areas such as health and childcare, which can also be significant. Households also face other taxes in areas such as property and local charges."

Bishop of hope · 27-02-2020 2:48pm

The latest ibec report, while good economically, highlights a lot of issues which were important in the election campaign, health, housing, transport and education as being in need of much investment if we, are to attract new businesses here.
Food for thought for any new Govt, and validation of voter concerns before and during the campaign.
https://www.ibec.ie/connect-and-learn/media/2020/02/27/ibec-econ-outlook-q1-2020

An Ciarraioch · 27-02-2020 10:23pm

Interestingly, if the D'Hondt principles were applied to the Dáil, it would be roughly 4 each for FF and SF, 3 for FG, 2 Greens and 1 each for Soc Dems and Labour (possibly slightly harsh on FG, and leaves Independents as the Opposition).

beggars_bush · 28-02-2020 12:05am

Peregrinus wrote: »

We don't. Taxes in Ireland represent 22.3% of GDP, whereas in Canada they represent 33% of GDP; the Canadians are much more heavily taxed than we are.

People who argue otherwise are usually just looking at selected taxes - e.g. they compare Irish income tax with income tax in some other country, but ignore e.g. property taxes or payroll taxes.

The people who usually complain about paying taxes, pay very little taxes.

An Ciarraioch · 28-02-2020 6:24pm

It appears there won't be a vote for Taoiseach for virtually the next month:

https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/1233434434965254146

is_that_so · 28-02-2020 6:27pm

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

It appears there won't be a vote for Taoiseach for virtually the next month:

https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/1233434434965254146

Well, they'd be off for Paddy's Day the week after next and Easter is a couple of weeks out. No bad thing really as it gives them all space to work on options.

ThunbergsAreGo · 05-03-2020 12:04am

Why do county council's get away with being the most incompetent part of government?

Banner2theend · 22-03-2020 9:30pm

Lots of anger on social media (and quite rightly so) about Leo's continued reticence on Sinn Fein. "They shall have no role on being part of any national unity govt in this unprecedented crisis" says Mr Leo

So much so about the FG narrative of togging out the green jersey in these most uncertain of times. Selfish and egotistical approach to life, that these boys in FG continue to indulge in this huge crisis and national emergency.

Wonder will the Indo and the right wing media scrutinize blatant elitism by Leo and FG on this issue of a much needed national unity government that even the anti-shinners outside of FGland admit that FG's approach is anti-democratic? By their continued refusal to acknowledge SF and the movement for change here, they are giving an extra 5% or more to SF in GE2020 2.0.

A shameless crowd that FG most certainly are sadly, even in these dark times.

beggars_bush · 23-03-2020 12:00am

Banner2theend wrote: »

Lots of anger on social media (and quite rightly so) about Leo's continued reticence on Sinn Fein. "They shall have no role on being part of any national unity govt in this unprecedented crisis" says Mr Leo

So much so about the FG narrative of togging out the green jersey in these most uncertain of times. Selfish and egotistical approach to life, that these boys in FG continue to indulge in this huge crisis and national emergency.

Wonder will the Indo and the right wing media scrutinize blatant elitism by Leo and FG on this issue of a much needed national unity government that even the anti-shinners outside of FGland admit that FG's approach is anti-democratic? By their continued refusal to acknowledge SF and the movement for change here, they are giving an extra 5% or more to SF in GE2020 2.0.

A shameless crowd that FG most certainly are sadly, even in these dark times.

Really?
Are the bots generating all this anger?

mr_fegelien · 23-03-2020 5:43pm

Can someone explain what is wrong with the healthcare system in Ireland? Is it a lack of funding, incompetence by bureaucrats?

beggars_bush · 23-03-2020 7:27pm

mr_fegelien wrote: »

Can someone explain what is wrong with the healthcare system in Ireland? Is it a lack of funding, incompetence by bureaucrats?

Why? Our healthcare system seems to be adapting very quickly to the new demands placed on it

Good loser · 24-03-2020 1:18am

Banner2theend wrote: »

Lots of anger on social media (and quite rightly so) about Leo's continued reticence on Sinn Fein. "They shall have no role on being part of any national unity govt in this unprecedented crisis" says Mr Leo

So much so about the FG narrative of togging out the green jersey in these most uncertain of times. Selfish and egotistical approach to life, that these boys in FG continue to indulge in this huge crisis and national emergency.

Wonder will the Indo and the right wing media scrutinize blatant elitism by Leo and FG on this issue of a much needed national unity government that even the anti-shinners outside of FGland admit that FG's approach is anti-democratic? By their continued refusal to acknowledge SF and the movement for change here, they are giving an extra 5% or more to SF in GE2020 2.0.

A shameless crowd that FG most certainly are sadly, even in these dark times.

Leo called M Lou out today 'You should know better than to come out with this rubbish'.
Re using the Apple 'money in escrow' for the virus measures.
The people made a bad error of judgement in the recent election.

tatoo · 24-03-2020 2:22am

Banner2theend wrote: »

Lots of anger on social media (and quite rightly so) about Leo's continued reticence on Sinn Fein. "They shall have no role on being part of any national unity govt in this unprecedented crisis" says Mr Leo

So much so about the FG narrative of togging out the green jersey in these most uncertain of times. Selfish and egotistical approach to life, that these boys in FG continue to indulge in this huge crisis and national emergency.

Wonder will the Indo and the right wing media scrutinize blatant elitism by Leo and FG on this issue of a much needed national unity government that even the anti-shinners outside of FGland admit that FG's approach is anti-democratic? By their continued refusal to acknowledge SF and the movement for change here, they are giving an extra 5% or more to SF in GE2020 2.0.

A shameless crowd that FG most certainly are sadly, even in these dark times.

Who decides SF policy, if SF were involved in a government of national unity would every decision have to be referred back to the AC?

ThunbergsAreGo · 24-03-2020 10:09am

Banner2theend wrote: »

Lots of anger on social media (and quite rightly so) about Leo's continued reticence on Sinn Fein. "They shall have no role on being part of any national unity govt in this unprecedented crisis" says Mr Leo

So much so about the FG narrative of togging out the green jersey in these most uncertain of times. Selfish and egotistical approach to life, that these boys in FG continue to indulge in this huge crisis and national emergency.

Wonder will the Indo and the right wing media scrutinize blatant elitism by Leo and FG on this issue of a much needed national unity government that even the anti-shinners outside of FGland admit that FG's approach is anti-democratic? By their continued refusal to acknowledge SF and the movement for change here, they are giving an extra 5% or more to SF in GE2020 2.0.

A shameless crowd that FG most certainly are sadly, even in these dark times.

I have seen very little of this on social media.

Most are concentrating on the national crisis we have

CrabRevolution · 24-03-2020 1:31pm

Banner2theend wrote: »

Lots of anger on social media (and quite rightly so) about Leo's continued reticence on Sinn Fein. "They shall have no role on being part of any national unity govt in this unprecedented crisis" says Mr Leo

So much so about the FG narrative of togging out the green jersey in these most uncertain of times. Selfish and egotistical approach to life, that these boys in FG continue to indulge in this huge crisis and national emergency.

Wonder will the Indo and the right wing media scrutinize blatant elitism by Leo and FG on this issue of a much needed national unity government that even the anti-shinners outside of FGland admit that FG's approach is anti-democratic? By their continued refusal to acknowledge SF and the movement for change here, they are giving an extra 5% or more to SF in GE2020 2.0.

A shameless crowd that FG most certainly are sadly, even in these dark times.

I've seen none of this, even from people who spammed my facebook and twitter with sharing every SF post going both before and after the election. Even the people who post "But what about the homeless?!" with bot-like regularity have gone quiet.

Rosahane · 24-03-2020 6:56pm

tatoo wrote: »

Who decides SF policy, if SF were involved in a government of national unity would every decision have to be referred back to the AC?

The answer is yes!

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/old-question-of-who-pulls-the-strings-comes-back-to-haunt-sinn-féin-1.4163060

Good loser · 03-05-2020 9:23pm

Very unimpressed with the Green proposals for a new Govt.

Years ago in Germany the Greens were considered to have two contending factions - the fundies and the realists.
It seems like we have the same here now. Does anyone know how the Dail 12 break down?
Overall their behaviour seems amateurish and scattered.

hotmail.com · 03-05-2020 9:27pm

Good loser wrote: »

Very unimpressed with the Green proposals for a new Govt.

Years ago in Germany the Greens were considered to have two contending factions - the fundies and the realists.
It seems like we have the same here now. Does anyone know how the Dail 12 break down?
Overall their behaviour seems amateurish and scattered.

It's certain that Eamon wants to be a minister again.

Banner fights back · 24-05-2020 10:43am

It appears according to the Sunday Times newspaper that the Minister for finance Pascal Donohue will bring proposals to cabinet next week regarding the covid -19 unemployment payment of 350 euro.

It looks like that for those that were earning less than 350 euro a week before covid-19 struck that they will go transferred back on the normal jobseekers benefit. This could come into force by the 9th of June when the payment is due to expire.

Once again the vested narrow minded interests of the Business community to which Fg are a bit too cosy with trump the interests of ordinary hard working citizens. The FG narrative that "this payment disincentivises people going back to work" will get no leeway with people as once again it's the poorest in society that will suffer the greatest hardship.

It proves the point that FG have not changed one slight despite their disastrous GE showing last February. The Greens will be most foolish to join with this elitist party who once again put the vested interests of big business and those with deep pockets ahead of those struggling to put food on the table.

ThunbergsAreGo · 24-05-2020 11:48am

Banner fights back wrote: »

It appears according to the Sunday Times newspaper that the Minister for finance Pascal Donohue will bring proposals to cabinet next week regarding the covid -19 unemployment payment of 350 euro.

It looks like that for those that were earning less than 350 euro a week before covid-19 struck that they will go transferred back on the normal jobseekers benefit. This could come into force by the 9th of June when the payment is due to expire.

Once again the vested narrow minded interests of the Business community to which Fg are a bit too cosy with trump the interests of ordinary hard working citizens. The FG narrative that "this payment disincentivises people going back to work" will get no leeway with people as once again it's the poorest in society that will suffer the greatest hardship.

It proves the point that FG have not changed one slight despite their disastrous GE showing last February. The Greens will be most foolish to join with this elitist party who once again put the vested interests of big business and those with deep pockets ahead of those struggling to put food on the table.

How does not paying more to people for not working than working prove that point?

I don't think this is about people on the minimum wage, it's about those working one or two days a week mostly.

Seems to indicate this might be longer term then expected

Banner fights back · 24-05-2020 12:48pm

ThunbergsAreGo wrote: »

How does not paying more to people for not working than working prove that point?

I don't think this is about people on the minimum wage, it's about those working one or two days a week mostly.

Seems to indicate this might be longer term then expected

Many people would agree with that point you made. But we are talking about FG here and they always seem to have this fixation agenda against low paid workers. While you are correct in saying that it would be mostly part time workers that will be mainly affected with this change, as Richard Boyd Barrett pointed out in many cases part time jobs are the only solution for many workers due to issues getting alternative childcare one such prime example.

FG have major issue with people who are getting less paid in work than in receipt of some form of Social welfare. But it's such a shame they can't be as vocal on tackling tax exiles or introducing more progressive economic policies. It's a question of trust and as I said in my last post, vocal corporate interests are getting too much say in govt policy but we we know Fg have a far too cosy relationship with big business and corporations which spells bad news for hard working citizens who for many feel that FG continue to neglect them.

ThunbergsAreGo · 24-05-2020 12:58pm

Banner fights back wrote: »

Many people would agree with that point you made. But we are talking about FG here and they always seem to have this fixation agenda against low paid workers. While you are correct in saying that it would be mostly part time workers that will be mainly affected with this change, as Richard Boyd Barrett pointed out in many cases part time jobs are the only solution for many workers due to issues getting alternative childcare one such prime example.

FG have major issue with people who are getting less paid in work than in receipt of some form of Social welfare. But it's such a shame they can't be as vocal on tackling tax exiles or introducing more progressive economic policies. It's a question of trust and as I said in my last post, vocal corporate interests are getting too much say in govt policy but we we know Fg have a far too cosy relationship with big business and corporations which spells bad news for hard working citizens who for many feel that FG continue to neglect them.

We have the second highest minimum wage in the EU. Many would agree because its true

Would be very interesting to see the percentage of the cases this will affect though

Banner fights back · 24-05-2020 1:46pm

ThunbergsAreGo wrote: »

We have the second highest minimum wage in the EU. Many would agree because its true

Would be very interesting to see the percentage of the cases this will affect though

Having the second highest minimum wage in the EU is irrelevant as long as the cost of living continues to spike. Imagine imposing further austerity on those workers who are on the bread line which seems to be FG favorite choice at times of economic hardship. "Ah sure they won't cause much fuss" those politicians would argue.

Yet senior cabinet ministers are so reticent to take pay cuts. It's firmly one law for politicians along with their political elite and friends. While they expect thousands of workers to get considerably less a week from June. Where's the fairness in all this?

The budget may be 4 and a half months away. But already the signs are not good for those low paid workers who appear to lose the most in any austerity measures implemented while FG are in govt in some form.

CrabRevolution · 24-05-2020 3:43pm

Banner fights back wrote: »

It appears according to the Sunday Times newspaper that the Minister for finance Pascal Donohue will bring proposals to cabinet next week regarding the covid -19 unemployment payment of 350 euro.

It looks like that for those that were earning less than 350 euro a week before covid-19 struck that they will go transferred back on the normal jobseekers benefit. This could come into force by the 9th of June when the payment is due to expire.

Once again the vested narrow minded interests of the Business community to which Fg are a bit too cosy with trump the interests of ordinary hard working citizens. The FG narrative that "this payment disincentivises people going back to work" will get no leeway with people as once again it's the poorest in society that will suffer the greatest hardship.

It proves the point that FG have not changed one slight despite their disastrous GE showing last February. The Greens will be most foolish to join with this elitist party who once again put the vested interests of big business and those with deep pockets ahead of those struggling to put food on the table.

If you earned less than €350 for working before the pandemic, why should you get even more for not working during it?

Good loser · 24-05-2020 7:07pm

Banner fights back wrote: »

Having the second highest minimum wage in the EU is irrelevant as long as the cost of living continues to spike. Imagine imposing further austerity on those workers who are on the bread line which seems to be FG favorite choice at times of economic hardship. "Ah sure they won't cause much fuss" those politicians would argue.

Yet senior cabinet ministers are so reticent to take pay cuts. It's firmly one law for politicians along with their political elite and friends. While they expect thousands of workers to get considerably less a week from June. Where's the fairness in all this?

The budget may be 4 and a half months away. But already the signs are not good for those low paid workers who appear to lose the most in any austerity measures implemented while FG are in govt in some form.

This is your third post in a row comprising fact free, broad brush, attacks on FG. Have you any facts and figures that support your opinions?
If you are impressed by ANYTHING Boyd Barrett says - as you seem to be - I doubt if you have.
While searching you might keep in mind that Fg brought the unemplyment rate from 15% to 5% and balanced the books while doing so.
Credit where credit is due.

tatoo · 24-05-2020 8:40pm

Good loser wrote: »

This is your third post in a row comprising fact free, broad brush, attacks on FG. Have you any facts and figures that support your opinions?
If you are impressed by ANYTHING Boyd Barrett says - as you seem to be - I doubt if you have.
While searching you might keep in mind that Fg brought the unemplyment rate from 15% to 5% and balanced the books while doing so.
Credit where credit is due.

Maybe he is Richard BB!

Geuze · 24-05-2020 10:58pm

Some info from Seamus Coffey:

https://twitter.com/seamuscoffey/status/1264606577115488256

For start of 2020, CSO estimate there were 482,000 part-time workers in Ireland (with 80% not seeking more hours).

Average hours worked per week by P-T workers is c.18.5.

Eurostat 2014 figures show median hourly earnings for P-T employees in Ireland (ex PS) of €16

27-05-2020 6:37pm

Banner fights back wrote: »

Yet senior cabinet ministers are so reticent to take pay cuts. It's firmly one law for politicians along with their political elite and friends. While they expect thousands of workers to get considerably less a week from June. Where's the fairness in all this?

Is this you calling for public sector pay cuts?

It must be you calling for public sector pay cuts since you already know Minister and TDs pays are tied to the pay of the public service.

Eric Cartman · 27-05-2020 7:11pm

CrabRevolution wrote: »

If you earned less than €350 for working before the pandemic, why should you get even more for not working during it?

RBB and Paul Murphy really are just determined to kick the bottom rungs out of the job ladder. Between this and mandating 15 euro an hour minimum to return to work.

The second that payment came in I said it would be a nightmare hauling it back and that nightmare has already begun. Between PT workers milking more out of it and the estimated over 1000 people claiming it from a foreign country, it was a good idea on paper thats causing some serious negative effects.

is_that_so · 27-05-2020 7:15pm

CrabRevolution wrote: »

If you earned less than €350 for working before the pandemic, why should you get even more for not working during it?

They had a simple rule about it, if it stopped you working you got paid the PUP. It was crude, flawed but very fast to implement and it's taxable income.

Sir Oxman · 27-05-2020 8:36pm

I understand why they brought it in and without checks so quickly but I don't believe mandating employers to electronically send in average basic wages over say 4-6 weeks previously could not have been implemented thereby eliminating people who earn say 150e per week normally getting 350e per week.

Or at minimum, that the whole govt apparatus could not have come up with refinements to the emergency payment over the past 10 weeks.

In no way should someone earning say 100 quid a week be receiving 350e a week.

Eric Cartman · 27-05-2020 10:43pm

Sir Oxman wrote: »

I understand why they brought it in and without checks so quickly but I don't believe mandating employers to electronically send in average basic wages over say 4-6 weeks previously could not have been implemented thereby eliminating people who earn say 150e per week normally getting 350e per week.

Or at minimum, that the whole govt apparatus could not have come up with refinements to the emergency payment over the past 10 weeks.

In no way should someone earning say 100 quid a week be receiving 350e a week.

pay batches are automatically sent to revenue for tax purposes, working out somebodys average weekly would have been pretty easy to do

CrabRevolution · 28-05-2020 12:13am

is_that_so wrote: »

They had a simple rule about it, if it stopped you working you got paid the PUP. It was crude, flawed but very fast to implement and it's taxable income.

I understand that and it's reasonable enough, but the poster I was responding to said that it's wrong for the government to taper the payments down to better reflect the earnings people had before the pandemic,i.e. the actual money they are down because of the pandemic.

I just don't see the reasoning for paying people more for doing nothing than they were earning for actually doing work. What aspect of the pandemic justifies that?

Peregrinus · 28-05-2020 1:32am

CrabRevolution wrote: »

I understand that and it's reasonable enough, but the poster I was responding to said that it's wrong for the government to taper the payments down to better reflect the earnings people had before the pandemic,i.e. the actual money they are down because of the pandemic.

I just don't see the reasoning for paying people more for doing nothing than they were earning for actually doing work. What aspect of the pandemic justifies that?

The aspect that the point of this is not just to protect individuals from the economic impact of the pandemic on them, but to protect the wider economy by injecting funds which will maintain consumer spending, and doing so as early as possible.

Ireland isn't the only country where some very low earners get more through pandemic payments than they were previously earning - it happens also in Australia, and I wouldn't be in the least surprised to find it happening elsewhere. The purpose isn't to confer particular good fortune on the individuals concerned, but to have a simple, quick-to-implement system that will rapidly inject funds that are widely spread in the economy. The particular good fortune to the individuals is a by-product.

The usual objection - that this disincentivizes work - is met by pointing out that this is a temporary and short-term scheme. The incentive to work will be restored before very long, and in the meantime it's not a big problem, since a labour shortage is one of the few challenges that the economy doesn't face.

Good loser · 28-05-2020 10:58pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

The aspect that the point of this is not just to protect individuals from the economic impact of the pandemic on them, but to protect the wider economy by injecting funds which will maintain consumer spending, and doing so as early as possible.

Ireland isn't the only country where some very low earners get more through pandemic payments than they were previously earning - it happens also in Australia, and I wouldn't be in the least surprised to find it happening elsewhere. The purpose isn't to confer particular good fortune on the individuals concerned, but to have a simple, quick-to-implement system that will rapidly inject funds that are widely spread in the economy. The particular good fortune to the individuals is a by-product.

The usual objection - that this disincentivizes work - is met by pointing out that this is a temporary and short-term scheme. The incentive to work will be restored before very long, and in the meantime it's not a big problem, since a labour shortage is one of the few challenges that the economy doesn't face.

Interesting - and relevant. You are making a macro economic point.
I would, though, prefer to direct the money towards the SMEs and the self employed. For instance the LA rates could be paid for directly by the State for all SMEs.

Peregrinus · 29-05-2020 12:55am

Good loser wrote: »

Interesting - and relevant. You are making a macro economic point.
I would, though, prefer to direct the money towards the SMEs and the self employed. For instance the LA rates could be paid for directly by the State for all SMEs.

Possibly. I think a key factor in this is the ability to hit the ground running - get the money paid out as early as possible. The advantage of distributing it through the social welfare system and/or the PAYG system is that those systems are already up and running and payments are constantly flowing through them; I don't know if there's an existing comparable and rapid distribution system that covers the SMEs (and that identifies SMEs separately from other participants). The other point, of course, is that paying rates doesn't provide any cash flow benefits to SMEs until the due date for rates payments arrives (and I have no idea when that is).

Still, your basic point is sound. A direct and immediate subsidy to SMEs to keep as many of them trading as is possible would be very beneficial. Again, there would be unintended good fortune for those SMEs who would have remained trading anyway, and for those that actually enjoy better trading conditions as a result of the pandemic.

Hotblack Desiato · 29-05-2020 1:27pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

The aspect that the point of this is not just to protect individuals from the economic impact of the pandemic on them, but to protect the wider economy by injecting funds which will maintain consumer spending, and doing so as early as possible.

And a good amount of it probably went on highly excised goods

This was an emergency scheme and it had to be as simple as possible. My sis works in DEASP and they were balls to the wall for weeks.

Banner fights back · 31-05-2020 6:46pm

The mood music 're the government formation talks appears less rosy in the garden than what was the case around a week or 10 days ago.

The consequences of no government by the end of June are huge as social welfare payments won't roll over a month, unless the Seanad can meet and of course we need a permanent Taoiseach for that to happen, so to pass the social welfare estimates into law and other legislation.

Could Mary Lou McDonald still become Taoiseach if the govt formation talks collapse or one of the 3 of FF, FG or Greens can't get the programme for government through their party membership? Don't rule anything out in the most drawn out of processes.

The prospect of GE 2020 2.0 remains very high IMO.

ddarcy · 31-05-2020 7:58pm

Banner fights back wrote: »

The consequences of no government by the end of June are huge as social welfare payments won't roll over a month, unless the Seanad can meet and of course we need a permanent Taoiseach for that to happen, so to pass the social welfare estimates into law and other legislation.

If the government dissolved tonight, the earliest an election would be if 3 weeks. Then you’ll need a seanad election, etc. There would be no way this is possible before the end of August.

Out of curiosity, as I don’t think this has ever happened, if the government was dissolved without the Taoiseach nominees, would we be back in the scenario as last time? So effectively the Seanad can pass legislation? I wouldn’t think the former 11 would be brought forward and it would only be the sitting members. If that is the case then August is the earliest for something to happen legislation wise.

General Irish Government discussion thread [See Post 1805]

Comments