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

Budget 2009

Options
13567…11

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    kenco wrote: »
    As a matter of principle I dont agree that someone earning 350 should have to pay any additional tax and certainly not at the same rate as someone earning €100,000

    If they have a family the increase in the Family Income Supplement will exceed the cost of the 1% levy for those earning 30K and less which is very important, for me anyway there's a huge difference between an individual earning 20K a year and a family with only one income of 20K trying to raise two kids. Things are a lot harder on the latter than the former.


  • Options
    #63
    Antrim_Man
    Registered Users Posts: 948 ✭✭✭Antrim_Man


    ateam wrote: »
    For someone earning €350 a week it will mean they will have to pay €3.50 for this levy. It's 1% not 20%.

    Add that to the increase in fuel and the increase on VAT, on drink and smokes etc and it is crippling, but then again you will say these people can do without a car a drink and a smoke probably. They may as well turn off their electric and gas as the cost of it has gone through the roof lately.

    Do you not realise that for low earners this is a disaster whereas high earners might just have to make do with changing their Mercedes SUV to a cheaper run around like a VW Touareg :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #64
    ateam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 986 ✭✭✭ateam


    luckat wrote: »
    It's a budget that attacks parents - after five-and-a-half, the early childcare help goes.

    It attacks education - €500 extra on university fees (and *please* don't call them 'registration' fees, they're just fees), plus an end to the children's allowance at 18.

    If you're a young mother trying desperately to get an education to be qualified for better-paying work, these three actions end your hope.

    Young mothers (single I presume you mean) won't pay a cent in college fees and will actually receive living grants. So they won't be affected.


  • Options
    #65
    ateam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 986 ✭✭✭ateam


    Antrim_Man wrote: »
    Add that to the increase in fuel and the increase on VAT, on drink and smokes etc and it is crippling, but then again you will say these people can do without a car a drink and a smoke probably. They may as well turn off their electric and gas as the cost of it has gone through the roof lately.

    Do you not realise that for low earners this is a disaster whereas high earners might just have to make do with changing their Mercedes SUV to a cheaper run around like a VW Touareg :rolleyes:


    People on low incomes get certain state help anyway that middle income earners don't - medical cards, free school books etc. I just don't feel it's the duty of the middle and higher income earners to pay more so the lower income people aren't affected.


  • Options
    #66
    luckat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,366 ✭✭✭luckat


    ateam wrote: »
    It's a fair system for once, the middle and high earners being treated the same as the lower income earners.

    ateam, may I point out that this isn't a fair system.

    When someone is earning €50,000, his food budget is probably €5,000 a year.

    When someone is earning €20,000, his food budget is also probably €5,000 a year.

    These *basic* amounts that people have to pay to live are much the same, no matter what your income.

    You might have a higher mortgage if you're a higher earner, but apart from that, your *non-optional* costs are the same as the low earner's - your food and your clothing.

    So a tax that costs a low earner and a high earner the same proportion of salary actually hits the low earner much harder.

    By the way, you need to be on an *extremely* low income to qualify for a medical card or other state help. Life can be very damn hard and you can still be above that means-tested level.

    It used to be that in this country we believed in giving each other a hand up.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    ateam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 986 ✭✭✭ateam


    luckat wrote: »
    ateam, may I point out that this isn't a fair system.

    When someone is earning €50,000, his food budget is probably €5,000 a year.

    When someone is earning €20,000, his food budget is also probably €5,000 a year.

    These *basic* amounts that people have to pay to live are much the same, no matter what your income.

    You might have a higher mortgage if you're a higher earner, but apart from that, your *non-optional* costs are the same as the low earner's - your food and your clothing.


    So a tax that costs a low earner and a high earner the same proportion of salary actually hits the low earner much harder.

    Not my problem. If you want to donate half your tax go ahead, vote for the socialist party. I believe people have a right to earn high incomes, they have usually worked very hard for it and don't need to be additionally penalised and subjected to paying huge taxes.


  • Options
    #68
    DublinWriter
    Registered Users Posts: 9,557 ✭✭✭DublinWriter


    Machholz wrote: »
    turgon wrote: »
    What we really need is a Revolution
    No, what we need to do is hand the country back to the UK tomorrow with a note attached that says "Sorry!".


  • Options
    #69
    luckat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,366 ✭✭✭luckat


    ateam wrote: »
    Not my problem. If you want to donate half your tax go ahead, vote for the socialist party. I believe people have a right to earn high incomes, they have usually worked very hard for it and don't need to be additionally penalised and subjected to paying huge taxes.

    Perhaps you might be more suited to life in the United States?


  • Options
    #70
    ateam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 986 ✭✭✭ateam


    luckat wrote: »
    Perhaps you might be more suited to life in the United States?

    How about the Soviet Union for you or Cuba?


  • Options
    #71
    luckat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,366 ✭✭✭luckat


    ateam wrote: »
    How about the Soviet Union for you or Cuba?

    Cuba sounds good, a place where people care for each other, yes.

    Did you take that H-Dip grant, by the way? Are you going to patriotically hand it back now?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    ateam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 986 ✭✭✭ateam


    luckat wrote: »
    Cuba sounds good, a place where people care for each other, yes.

    Did you take that H-Dip grant, by the way? Are you going to patriotically hand it back now?


    I never applied and why are you getting personal. And yes I did feel annoyed that I had to pay 5grand in fees when I knew someone from a lower socio-economic bracket paid zilch. I didn't receive a cent from anyone to fund that 5grand, I saved it.

    Your view is give the poor everything, I feel that that leads to a culture of dependency and "well I'm entitled to it" mentality. Story over for me.


  • Options
    #73
    luckyfrank
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,054 ✭✭✭luckyfrank


    Its quite surprising that the media have pretty much left biffo out of any criticism after all he was Minster of finance where billions upon billions of surplus exchequer money was wasted in oblivion

    I was actully one of those who thought he was doing a good job 'santa biffo' he was called a few times but little did i know he was squandering all the good work the celtic tiger had done for this country......


  • Options
    #74
    luckat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,366 ✭✭✭luckat


    ateam wrote: »
    Your view is give the poor everything, I feel that that leads to a culture of dependency and "well I'm entitled to it" mentality. Story over for me.

    Please don't tell me what my view is. Especially if you don't know what it is.

    My view is quite different - it's that the people who are having the toughest time shouldn't have to pay for the fat cats, which is the effect of this budget.


  • Options
    #75
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    luckat wrote: »
    ateam, may I point out that this isn't a fair system.

    When someone is earning €50,000, his food budget is probably €5,000 a year.

    When someone is earning €20,000, his food budget is also probably €5,000 a year.

    These *basic* amounts that people have to pay to live are much the same, no matter what your income.

    Actually their food budgets are probably very different considering one can afford more expensive food etc. A better point to make is that the percentage of their income taken up by food and other basics for a low income earner is much higher than the percentage for a middle income earner or a high wage earner.
    luckat wrote: »
    You might have a higher mortgage if you're a higher earner, but apart from that, your *non-optional* costs are the same as the low earner's - your food and your clothing.

    So a tax that costs a low earner and a high earner the same proportion of salary actually hits the low earner much harder.

    To put our tax system in perspective:

    A single person with no children in a PAYE job pays the following amount of tax next year at different income levels:

    20K a year will pay 540 euro in tax next year including the levy.
    50K a year will pay 9,696 euro in tax.
    100K a year will pay 30,696 euro a year in tax.

    A married couple with a single income and two children in a PAYE job (including the Family Income Supplement where applicable) pay:

    20K a year will gain 528 euro next year (they will continue to pay no income tax and the levy is more than cancelled out by the increase in the FIS)
    50K a year will pay 5,076 euro in tax
    100K a year will pay 26,076 euro in tax


    This levy does not substantially change the extremely progressive nature of our tax system. Yes it will affect single people on low incomes but those in the most precarious position (i.e. families with children on low incomes) are being protected and they are coming out better off after the changes.


  • Options
    #76
    luckat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,366 ✭✭✭luckat


    nesf wrote: »
    those in the most precarious position (i.e. families with children on low incomes) are being protected and they are coming out better off after the changes.

    Surely not?


  • Options
    #77
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    luckat wrote: »
    Surely not?

    Purely in terms of the income after tax and supplements (which is what we're talking about with respect to the effect of the levy), families with one income under 30K a year will come out with more money next year than they had this year.

    The Government didn't implement just a flat levy, they also implemented increases in certain supplements and the tax bands that mean that it doesn't work out simply as the same changes in tax take on the poorest and the wealthiest.


  • Options
    #78
    luckat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,366 ✭✭✭luckat


    And the old? Those people who actually go out and vote, carefully, thoughtfully, and at times vengefully?


  • Options
    #79
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    luckat wrote: »
    And the old? Those people who actually go out and vote, carefully, thoughtfully, and at times vengefully?

    The old aren't low income families trying to raise kids which was what I was talking about with respect to the most vulnerable people with low paying jobs. So do you agree that these familes aren't being screwed over by the levy and that the other changes in the Family Income Supplement mean that they're coming out better than they did last year (the amount depending on number of dependent kids etc)?


  • Options
    #80
    luckat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,366 ✭✭✭luckat


    nesf, it seems to me that the most destructive result of this budget for poor people with families is that they are going to abandon education - it's too expensive.

    As for the old - no, you weren't talking about their impoverishment.


  • Options
    #81
    heyjude
    Registered Users Posts: 1,030 ✭✭✭heyjude


    luckat wrote: »
    The main attacks are on the old, with the ludicrous medical card slashing. Not to mention that means testing will give lots of civil servants lots of enjoyable work bullying and humiliating elderly folk.

    And a 1% across the board tax is a tax on the poor. For anyone with plenty of money, it's just a few quid out of your pub and cigs. For people who are just getting by, that's their food budget cut by €1 in every €100 they have to spend. It's not a fair tax.

    True and any person(elderly or otherwise) without a medical card, now faces paying €100(up from €66) if they need to use their local A&E department.
    ArseBurger wrote: »
    It's an incentive to work harder and earn more.

    Equating how hard people work with how much they earn is okay in theory, but is nonsense in reality. Are you suggesting that an accountant earning 100k a year works five times as hard as a cleaner earning 20k a year ? In practice you would find that not only does the lower paid worker work harder, but they almost certainly work longer hours. How many professionals(doctors, accountants, solicitors) would fancy 40 hours a week making burgers in McDonalds, seeing as you're suggesting that low paid work is easier ? No matter how hard we all work, some will always earn far less than others. Hard work and high earnings aren't necessarily connected.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    luckat wrote: »
    nesf, it seems to me that the most destructive result of this budget for poor people with families is that they are going to abandon education - it's too expensive.

    Does the grant cover the registration fee? I can't remember. I do take the point though that it's making third level education for their children less attractive for poor families with the changes in child benefit. It's a small change (with child benefit) but for the worst off it'll be definitely noticed from the weekly income.

    I was only talking about the situation for poor families with respect to the introduction of the levy since the Government in fairness to them have done something to protect them from it. Whether they did enough is open to debate.


  • Options
    #83
    irish_bob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,271 ✭✭✭irish_bob


    luckat wrote: »
    The main attacks are on the old, with the ludicrous medical card slashing. Not to mention that means testing will give lots of civil servants lots of enjoyable work bullying and humiliating elderly folk.

    And a 1% across the board tax is a tax on the poor. For anyone with plenty of money, it's just a few quid out of your pub and cigs. For people who are just getting by, that's their food budget cut by €1 in every €100 they have to spend. It's not a fair tax.

    pensioners have been sacred cows due to the power of the grey vote for too long , thier are thousands of pensioners over 70 who are very well off and them having a medical card is a complete waste of state resources , a neighbour of mine has thier farm rented out and they have always driven a brand new car , if you can afford a new car , you can afford to pay a doctor , as far as im concerned , the only thing disgracefull about the changes in relation to pensioners was the 400 euro a year grant to those who fail to now qualify for a medical card , 400 will buy you a doctors appointment almost every month


  • Options
    #84
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    As an aside, I find it hilarious that Pat Rabbitte thinks that this was the harshest and cruellest budget we've seen in our lifetimes. It's like the 80s never happened or something.


  • Options
    #85
    cabinteelytom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 163 ✭✭cabinteelytom


    1.65 billion to 'help home owners' buy 'affordable housing'; in an austerity budget.
    This choice must have been more 'difficult' than most, because to an ordinary person it seems incomprehensible.
    House prices are falling, which they need to, and are becoming more affordable all the time. So why inject more public money into a bloated, over-inflated housing market?
    As far as I can make out, these are substantial sums of money. 1.65 billion euro is approximately 10% of the income tax take for year 2006 (last one published by revenue commissioners). Or, to put it another way, I calculate this is a 390 euro sub to the bottom rung of the housing ladder from each man, woman and child in the country (pop 4.2 million).
    Explainations, anyone? Corrections anyone? (It is easy for the amateur economist to be a factor of ten out in his calculations.)


  • Options
    #86
    stovelid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,252 ✭✭✭✭stovelid


    kenco wrote: »
    how some of the Independants and Greens are prepared to vote for this budget beggers belief.
    .

    At least they made a revolutionary step forward on the light bulb legislation front, I guess.


  • Options
    #87
    Mr.Micro
    Registered Users Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭Mr.Micro


    Is this the great budget that is going to get the country back on its feet or so it was suggested by Mr. Lenihan or maybe I got that wrong? Its more like a desperate budget to get a few euro to tide things over and pay a few bills. Where is the great plan? Oh I know, hope that the economy will take off with another construction boom. There is nothing there as regards an economic plan? Not to worry, hopefully by the next election there will be enough money to buy a third election with taxpayers money, that is if the naughty banks do not need another bailout. Pathetic. What did Biffo do with all the surplus money?


  • Options
    #88
    irish_bob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,271 ✭✭✭irish_bob


    Mr.Micro wrote: »
    Is this the great budget that is going to get the country back on its feet or so it was suggested by Mr. Lenihan or maybe I got that wrong? Its more like a desperate budget to get a few euro to tide things over and pay a few bills. Where is the great plan? Oh I know, hope that the economy will take off with another construction boom. There is nothing there as regards an economic plan? Not to worry, hopefully by the next election there will be enough money to buy a third election with taxpayers money, that is if the naughty banks do not need another bailout. Pathetic. What did Biffo do with all the surplus money?


    off course they will be able to buy the next election , breaking the country never done fianna fail any harm in the past , we vote fianna fail in this country , its what we do


  • Options
    #89
    Mr.Micro
    Registered Users Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭Mr.Micro


    irish_bob wrote: »
    off course they will be able to buy the next election , breaking the country never done fianna fail any harm in the past , we vote fianna fail in this country , its what we do

    you are right there Bob, at least I did one right thing in my life I did not vote FF.


  • Options
    #90
    podge79
    Registered Users Posts: 438 ✭✭podge79


    what p*ssed me off was listening to todayfm when they asked Mary Hanafin about the A&E charge going up to €100 plus for non medical card holders if they dont have a doctors referral... her reply was "well matt I dont think parents will be worried about the charge if little johnny has a broken leg".. ok true but it comes over to me as a sneaky way to get money out of people... as usual the ordinary joe bares the brunt....


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    mathie
    Registered Users Posts: 5,102 ✭✭✭mathie


    ateam wrote: »
    When there was a Labour Finance Minister in the mid 90s (Ruairi Quinn), they brought in a 1 pound increase in the pension rate. That's so called socialism for you. Labour voted against saving the banks which would have crippled the economy.

    Look, Lenihan warned it was not going to be an easy budget and it would never suit everyone.

    It's ok everyone one Lenihan warned us.
    :rolleyes:


Advertisement