Charlie McCreevy to become Euro Commissioner -- pity

Cork

Originally posted by AngelofFire
Only by the upper and business classes to whom he gave massive tax concessions who im sure are crying into their soups.

This is nonsense. Charlie McCreevy cut taxes for those on the AVERAGE industrial wage by €5000 in his first 5 budgets.

Long term unemployment fell due to good management of the ecomony. There was no need to maintain that level of jobs on CE schemes.

A lot of criticism is nothing more than begrudgery. We had the sad spectecle of an ex social welfare minister last week criticisng Charlie McCreevy. That very same ex social welfare minister was not known for very large social welfare increases.

The Irish education system did very little for our economy when FG and Labour were managing our econmy from 1982 to 1987. What helped our economy was fiscal policy - putting money bak into workers pockets.

Maintaining CE schemes and social employment schemes when unemployment is 4% is crazy.

It makes no sense. This government in all fairness has put more in to school buildings than previous administrations.

Avoid all the socialist inspired criticisms of Charlie McCreevy. He will indeed be remembered for achievemnt & history will remember him with Sean Lamass and TK Witiker.

AngelofFire

Lemass and Whitaker brought in the free education act. Giving free education to all primary and secondary school children,this was pivotal in creating the conditions which led to the economic boom, greater equity between social classes had been created by the time Lemass had left office.

In spite of the unprecedented economic growth there is much more inequality in irish society than there was 7 years ago, and its no accident.One cannot just say he has done a great job and ignore his culpability.I strongly refute any PD inspired statements that spending money to help create equity between social classes inhibits economic growth.Ok we do have low unemployment but lack of funding for CE schemes means that people who are currently unemployed are finding it difficult to find good jobs.It would of made more economic and social sense to cut back on the massive concessions given to racecourse owners.

Cork

You look at the big fall in long term unemployment. It was not nessary to maintain the level of CE jobs.

The Celtic tiger was of much more benefit to the long term unemployed than all the CE schemes that existed.

When you have skills shortages in areas - maintaining levels on CE schemes made very little social or economic sense.

AngelofFire

But what about unskilled people who have a stark choice between unemployment and a €280 per week job,Surely CE schemes would benefit them, they would be in a position to benefit from a wider choice of Jobs with better wages.

Cork

Originally posted by AngelofFire
But what about unskilled people who have a stark choice between unemployment and a €280 per week job,Surely CE schemes would benefit them, they would be in a position to benefit from a wider choice of Jobs with better wages.

CE schemes are still in existance with with the fall in long term unemployment. The number of places on such schemes was cut.

The celtic tiger brought many jobs to those who were long term unemployment. This is bourne out by quarterly household surveys. As a result of many long term unemployed getting jobs - the existing schemes were cut back.

As finance minister - you had to take cognisence of the falling numbers of long term unemployed.

Maintaining schemes in the face of falling unemployment made little sense.

AngelofFire

Originally posted by Cork

As finance minister - you had to take cognisence of the falling numbers of long term unemployed.

Maintaining schemes in the face of falling unemployment made little sense.

That is true. But in 2002 unemployment had risen marginally yet money was cut from CE schemes.Community employment has suffered, I know people working in my local enterprise centre who are finding it difficult in getting some people back to work because of lack of funding for the schemes.

Cork

Originally posted by AngelofFire
That is true. But in 2002 unemployment had risen marginally yet money was cut from CE schemes.Community employment has suffered, I know people working in my local enterprise centre who are finding it difficult in getting some people back to work because of lack of funding for the schemes.

CE schemes are not cheap. Unemployment was much lower in 2002 than when CE schemes where first introduced.

So, schemes had to be cut back. They simply could not be maintained and had to be cut back in line with the decrease in long term unemployment.

Returm to Education schemes for the long term unemployed remained uneffected.

I would much prefer to see the long term umemployed in jobs than in CE or FAS schemes.

This is what haapened with our economy. But some CE schemes were worthwhile and CE schemes are better for the long term unemployed than being on welfare.

AngelofFire

Originally posted by Cork


I would much prefer to see the long term umemployed in jobs than in CE or FAS schemes.

.

But the CE schemes give them a chance to avail of better jobs with higher pay.Therefore they would be earning more and paying more tax to the exchequer than they would be if they were in low wage jobs packing shelves in a super markets which would see them on and off the dole in between Jobs .Unemployed people deserve the dignity of having the opportunity to improve themselves with better and more secure jobs.

People are finding it hard to get a decent job these days because of lack of funding for CE schemes.Funding for these schemes isn`t proportional with the current rate of unemployment.

Cork

But the places on these schemes should coralate with the numbers of long term unemployed.

There is nobody doubting the value of some of these schemes but the arrival of the Celtic tiger and the robust proformace of the economy during the last couple of years - cutting back numbers was prudant.

Return to work programmes and courses such as FIT are better for re-skilling than many CE schemes.

But the CE schemes give them a chance to avail of better jobs with higher pay.

Return to work programmes often award qualifications such as Fetec. CE schemes are often more work that education orientated.

arcadegame2004

AngelofFire, you need to realise that economic inequality is inevitable in a capitalist society. There will also be poor people in any country - name one where there isn't. While it is not unfeasible for a Government to increase social-welfare by the rate-of-inflation each year, it is unreasonable to expect the increase to amount to the rate-of-increase in salaries nowadays. So economic inequality is inevitable. Social-welfare has increased considerably under this government. People themselves have to go out and look for jobs.

AngelofFire

So to sum it up arcadegame , you believe that society should make people work low pay jobs instead of giving them the support to put themselves in a position to get better jobs because its good for the economy?. I for one do not agree with that ideology.however i agree that there will always be some inequality but i dont believe that greater equity between socio economic backgrounds inhibits economic progress.

Typedef

Originally posted by Sand
Real shame to see him go - He wasnt perfect but he was without doubt the best Minister for Finance this country has ever been graced with. The fact that so many FF backbenchers blamed him should be confirmation of just how good he was.

Hopefully this wont signal a FF return to failed lefty spend and spend polices. The one good that might come out of it is that Ahern might ditch the crazed decentralisation plan.

Oddly enough, I totally agree.

Sand.... have you been reading my thoughts again?


Also AngelofFire, I have to say, that, in an economy with full employment, indeed an economy which should be importing people to make up for the shortfalls in the jobs market, it's a bit of a misnomer to 'feel' for the masses drawing the dole.

Whatever racist ideals may exist about foreigners defrauding the social welfware, the simple fact is that 'exponentially' more Irish people do so, in areas where there is endemic 'generations' of the perpetually unemployed. Perhaps twenty years ago, you, could have put a poor mouth on and said "there are no jobs", because there weren't, but, in modern Ireland, unless you are an invalid, if you don't have a job, it's because you won't work.

That's what full employment implies. Shockingly, though, the entire welfare system simply allows people to loaf off the State and spend their days, in the Betting houses, in the Public houses, getting stoned or doing whatever it is the people who won't work do.

Should those people get money for nothing? No. Do these people exist?

Try walking through Summer Hill or around Parnell street some Monday morning around about 11 am. Notice the queues of people for the pub, and the bookies and ask yourself, why it is exactly that men/women of a working age, should be 'allowed' and indeed sanctioned into doing nothing, drawing taxpayer's money and sponging off of the State?

This is by far the more henious crime, but, you'll notice since it's 'white' voters who are doing it, you don't get the chorus of 'not-racist' ideologues, decrying the 'white Irish' getting free cars/houses/money for the pub off of the State.

Of course, none of that is racist.

AngelofFire

I dont have much time for a minority of people who are drawing the dole without good reason. I just believe that people on welfare who want to should be given a chance to better themselves and get back into good jobs through employment schemes,rather than having a stark choice between being handed out €150 per week on welfare and earning €280 per week in low pay jobs. Having that stark choice is not much of an incentive to work and schemes could help them get into higher paying jobs which could serve as careers for life.

It would be more of an incentive to have a choice between €150 per week on the dole and €400 per week in a good secure Job than the stark choice between welfare and a low pay minimum wage job.

Im sure some of the unemployed who spend their days in the bookies could be attracted by that prospect.

Victor

Originally posted by Cork
He was & his record will put him up there with Sean Lameas. He brought down tax for somebody on the average industrial wage by €5000 in his first five budgets. He transformed both the taxation and pension systems.

You are being quiet assertive on this? Any back up?

Also note that there are very few people these days on the average industrial wage (the vast majority work in the lower paid services sector) and the average industrial wage includes pay to managerial grades.

arcadegame2004

AngelofFire. by working in lower-paid jobs they can attain vital experience that in time will help them qualify for better-paid jobs. I am not attacking the social-welfare system and I recognise that a just society cannot aim to put people in a state of perpetual poverty. I totally accept the need for disability-benefits, as well as unemployment-benefit. I don't think we should go down the harsh road the US has thread with regard to severe cuts in social-welfare. And of course, the elderly of this country have every right to their pensions (though in the long run, I believe that we will need to make a transition to compulsory private-pensions, such will be the strain created on the public-finances with regard to pensions due to the falling birth-rates and the consequent likely fall in the ratio of taxpayers to pensioners).

But governments must try to incentivise the unemployment to find jobs. A low tax policy is needed that does not make getting a job barely better financially than living on benefits, or even worse off.

AngelofFire

Im in favour of low taxes for those on the PAYE sector.And i applauded some of McCreevy`s economic measures,but i do believe that instead of cutting money from Welfare and special needs people taxation should increase slightly (2-3 percentage points perhaps) for those earning in excess of €80,000 in order to create equity between social classes.We really need three tax bands instead of the current two which see a lot of people in the PAYE sector paying the higher rate of taxation.

Cork

But governments must try to incentivise the unemployment to find jobs. A low tax policy is needed that does not make getting a job barely better financially than living on benefits, or even worse off.

Charlie McCreevy put money back into peoples pockets. He made the whole tax system fairer.

He trnsformed pensions and encouraged people to save. He also saw the merit of setting up the National Pensions Reserve Fund.

by working in lower-paid jobs they can attain vital experience that in time will help them qualify for better-paid jobs.

Agreed. I am currently working at a job that I have little interest in. I am not really getting any experience. But It pays the bills. I am certainly making little use of my qualifications. But It pays the bills & it gives me time to complete some study. I would love to sit around watching daytime TV and to claim a medical card, rent allownce etc, but it is far better to be out there working.

We had the spectacle of an Irish MEP denouncing Charlie McCreevy in the European parliament last week - but when this guy was social welfare minister - he was not known for his generosity to social welfare recipiants.

Yet Charlie McCreevy vastly increased the health, education and social welfare budgets while giving people more disposable income to spend.

AngelofFire

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
. And of course, the elderly of this country have every right to their pensions (though in the long run, I believe that we will need to make a transition to compulsory private-pensions, such will be the strain created on the public-finances with regard to pensions due to the falling birth-rates and the consequent likely fall in the ratio of taxpayers to pensioners).

I would agree with that if it meant lower PRSI and better value for money regardless of socio economic background, and that it didnt put a strain on low earners .ie if the government could intervene and pay for private pensions for people on low income.

Sand

Sand.... have you been reading my thoughts again?

Nah, youre just slipping deeper and deeper into conservatism as you get older. Before long youll be voting for collective punishment, bulldozing housing estates to deal with juvenile crime and increasing taxes on the poor so that they pull their weight and so on.

just believe that people on welfare who want to should be given a chance to better themselves and get back into good jobs through employment schemes,rather than having a stark choice between being handed out €150 per week on welfare and earning €280 per week in low pay jobs.

Wasnt there that Steve Martin filim Parenthood where Steves deadbeat brother in law was always holding out for that management position? Lets be clear here - the dole is there to act as a safety net, not as an alternative to work. Its not right that in a situation where jobs are available that the state should be wasting money on people, who in the words of Ned Flanders, "just dont feel like working, god bless them" - the money thats spent on them could be spent elsewhere more usefully and indeed vitally.

And of course, the elderly of this country have every right to their pensions (though in the long run, I believe that we will need to make a transition to compulsory private-pensions, such will be the strain created on the public-finances with regard to pensions due to the falling birth-rates and the consequent likely fall in the ratio of taxpayers to pensioners).

To be honest, this needs to be started now - the situation is grave long term so steps to alleviate the crisis are best taken sooner rather than later.