Budget 2009

keithm1

wingnut wrote: »

Vat increase encourages me to order more stuff from UK sites.

yep

KhanTheMan

luckat wrote: »

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.

I cant bring myself to complain about people who have driven themselves hard enough and made the right career choices to get a highly paid job. its the begrudgers who get on my nerves.

podge79

"I cant bring myself to complain about people who have driven themselves hard enough and made the right career choices to get a highly paid job. its the begrudgers who get on my nerves."

totally agree - what I cant stand is people who have highly paid jobs who look down their noses and begrudge those in society who get benefits from the state because of the socio-economic birth environment and/or the background they come from. Its a sad day when you begrudge people the chance to improve their prospects of a better life that they are willing to work/learn for.

jor el

podge79 wrote: »

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....

I think the increase in A&E charges is simply to get people out of the hospitals. In the recent years, the charge for visiting a doctor have increased to almost the same as the old A&E charge, so it really was no benefit to see a doctor for a referral to the hospital. Now, with the increased A&E charge, that will encourage people back to the doctors, and stop so many from going straight to hospital.

Now, the right thing for them to do would have been to impose a maximum charge for seeing a doctor, instead of letting them charge whatever they want. But this being Harney and the FF Mafia, that's never going to happen, is it?

Something that really pisses me off, and it wasn't touched on earlier on the Last Word (probably because it wasn't in the main announcement) is that their going to go ahead with Metro North. Where is the justification for spending an estimated €5bn on this? It hasn't even started yet, now is the time to shelve this, and not after it's cost 100s of millions in consultancy and other crap before they dig a single hole.

turgon

Presenter on Radio One had a neat one - something to the effect of "how can you justify the cuts on over 70's when professor Drum and co will be getting a pay rise?" She talked ****, even mentioned RTE executive. Shes another tosser of the lot.

Well anyway lets look at the reliefs:

• One third reduction in commercial property tax
• Incentives for people to buy homes

I wonder who this budget really looks after?

This is Fianna Fails mess, yet I am being punished with higher petrol costs (not diesel I wonder why??????) and a 50% retarded increase in "registration fees" (yes I know its a bollox term, just another stealth tax)

Flyer1

When Lenihan announced about incentives cycling to work I almost wet myself laughing. Looked out the window, lashing rain, gusty wind. I can see Lenihan cycling along on a winters morning in his €2k suit.......

Can't wait for the Green Card papers to come through

podge79

"When Lenihan announced about incentives cycling to work I almost wet myself laughing. Looked out the window, lashing rain, gusty wind. I can see Lenihan cycling along on a winters morning in his €2k suit......."

ha he'll be the c**t in his ministerial car getting the driver to splash all the fools who do start cycling to work...

why didnt they get rid of the fleet of ministerial cars? they cost a pretty penny...

luckat

Lost my temper a bit there, sorry, ateam.

I don't think, if you look at the proportion of tax paid, that it's valid to say that the rich pay for the poor.

Proportionally, the poor are paying for the rich, because they're paying a higher proportion of their earnings in tax.

As for better paid equalling more worthy, hmm. I've been both very highly paid and very low-paid in the last few years; I haven't noticed my virtueometer moving either way.

Catsmokinpot

genericgoon wrote: »

Cigs and Wine are luxury goods. Plus the former has significant health risks and thus longterm health costs to the state. The fact beer hasn't gone up as well is simply Fianna Fail pandering to 'average Joes' :rolleyes: and the pub trade.

Petrol is simply a stealth carbon tax, since Diesel is supposedly better in that regard. It will be seen as much as a Green Party initiative (whether that is true or not is debatable) as a Fianna Fail one and thus they can get away with it since it always seems to be the smaller partner who gets the blame. (see PDs) Similar thing with the airport tax, which is a bit shortsighted in light of the fact we are an island economy.

The revenue to the government from the sale of cigarettes is over €1 Billion per year, it simply can't cost that much to treat the illnesses caused by smoking cigarettes (being that only 26% of a population of under 5 million people smoke), putting it up again now means that more than 70% of the price of a cigarette is tax, it's a blatant ripping off of the consumer and shouldn't be allowed, apart from that - the price increase has done little to stop smokers, and since the ban of the 10 pack, more people are smoking more cigarettes.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/smoking-rate-has-risen-since-ban-on-the-10pack-1286383.html

I can't believe no-one is saying a word about it.

Petrol has gone up by 25 percent in the last 3 years by itself, what is 8c tax going to add? Cost to the little man is what.

It's really upsetting that there's nothing we can do about this

turgon

Catsmokinpot wrote: »

It's really upsetting that there's nothing we can do about this

At the height of my temper earlier I was spouting that I would drive to a FF office and throw eggs at it. There is nothing you can do. You might think that mauling FF at the local elections would help, but it wont. Local election, presidential elections, seaned elections all mean ****, cause we here dont really have such a democratic system.

Iago

luckat wrote: »

Proportionally, the poor are paying for the rich, because they're paying a higher proportion of their earnings in tax.

That's quite frankly rubbish. How can the poor be paying for the rich who don't get any of the benefits? How can the poor be paying for the rich when the rich are paying many multiples of the tax that the poor are charged?

If someone is a higher earner then they pay more income tax, this goes towards benefits that help out those less well off.

If someone is a higher earner they pay far more PRSI, this goes towards providing a health service for those that don't have private health cover.

If someone is a higher earner, the liklihood is that they are spending far more money on petrol, food, goods and services simply because they are in the position to do so. The duty received from these items allows more benefits to be paid to those in need.

KhanTheMan

Catsmokinpot wrote: »

The revenue to the government from the sale of cigarettes is over €1 Billion per year, it simply can't cost that much to treat the illnesses caused by smoking cigarettes (being that only 26% of a population of under 5 million people smoke), putting it up again now means that more than 70% of the price of a cigarette is tax, it's a blatant ripping off of the consumer and shouldn't be allowed, apart from that - the price increase has done little to stop smokers, and since the ban of the 10 pack, more people are smoking more cigarettes.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/smoking-rate-has-risen-since-ban-on-the-10pack-1286383.html

I can't believe no-one is saying a word about it.

Petrol has gone up by 25 percent in the last 3 years by itself, what is 8c tax going to add? Cost to the little man is what.

It's really upsetting that there's nothing we can do about this

Thats because they dont want people to stop smoking. If they did they would add €20 to the price of a pack and jail as well seriously painful penalties for those caught selling bootlegs. They add a few euro every now and again and it doesnt stop you smoking but keeps you addicted while they are getting more money for it from you.

dresden8

nesf wrote: »

Inelastic products where tax increases won't decrease consumption that much so it won't distort the market too much. Also easy options because of the green element of fuel increases (ditto with the motor tax increases) and the health element of cigarette and alcohol increases.

Increases on the above are par for the course for any Government needing to raise tax revenue. We need more tax intake and these taxes are less controversial and damaging than other options.

Hang on, you can't have inelastic products where increases won't decrease consumption too much and then claim they're green taxes. The purpose of green taxes is to convince people to expend less on this area, save money, taxes and the environment.

Green taxes are aimed at elastic areas. Tax people to make them spend less. Or else they're there to rape us up the ass.

Did anyone see the greens breaking their hole laughing as Lenihan was announcing their "demands" in the budget?

Is it legal to shoot these f*ckers if they come onto my property when they're canvassing in the next elections?

luckat

Iago wrote: »

That's quite frankly rubbish.

Well, thanks

How can the poor be paying for the rich who don't get any of the benefits? How can the poor be paying for the rich when the rich are paying many multiples of the tax that the poor are charged?

There are more poor people, and the rich use a lot of tax-funded services. Roads, schools, hospitals, universities, schools, etc.

If someone is a higher earner then they pay more income tax, this goes towards benefits that help out those less well off.

If someone is a higher earner they pay far more PRSI, this goes towards providing a health service for those that don't have private health cover.

If someone is a higher earner, the liklihood is that they are spending far more money on petrol, food, goods and services simply because they are in the position to do so. The duty received from these items allows more benefits to be paid to those in need.

All true. But the mass of poorer people, who are paying high prices for public transport, and who are paying a higher proportion of their meagre *individual* wages towards the tax bill, support all the wealthier people in their use of the national funds.

KhanTheMan

luckat wrote: »

Well, thanks



There are more poor people, and the rich use a lot of tax-funded services. Roads, schools, hospitals, universities, schools, etc.



All true. But the mass of poorer people, who are paying high prices for public transport, and who are paying a higher proportion of their meagre *individual* wages towards the tax bill, support all the wealthier people in their use of the national funds.

Would you listen to yourself

dresden8

Another thing.

I want all you right wing loonies to nail your colours to the mast here and now.

Hands up who actually believes the governments forecast of 2.5% inflation. There is no poll option so put your money where your mouth is now. I'll save this page reference and re-visit it in a year.

So, it's a simple question, what with the government's inflationary tax increases, who believes inflation next year will be 2.5%? Considering we're running at 4.5% this year.

Iago

luckat wrote: »

Well, thanks

That probably came across a bit harsher than I meant, but ultimately it just doesn't make sense.

There are more poor people, and the rich use a lot of tax-funded services. Roads, schools, hospitals, universities, schools, etc.

Are you saying that the poor don't use those services?

If we follow your rationale that there are more poor people, then only a small percentage of those need to use the same tax-funded services as the majority of the rich in order for it to be a neutral argument.

All true. But the mass of poorer people, who are paying high prices for public transport, and who are paying a higher proportion of their meagre *individual* wages towards the tax bill, support all the wealthier people in their use of the national funds.

I would disagree about the higher proportion argument. If we take nesf's post below then it looks like

someone on 20k a year will pay around 2.25% in income tax over the year
someone on 50k a year will pay around 19% in income tax over the year
someone on 100k a year will pay around 31% in income tax over the year

Even taking into account the fact that the "literal" remaining amounts differ greatly there is still no reasonable argument to be made for the position that the €540 contributed by the lower earner goes further towards providing services than the €30,696 from the higher earner does. I also think that if you proportion usage from all areas of society it would be difficult to see the better off members of society using those services by that level of percentage higher than lower earners.

nesf wrote:

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

So maybe we look at VAT increases and argue that the poor are more affected than the rich in this case? This is true in terms of the impact on disposable income, but it doesn't change the fact that a very small number of rich people buying their normal goods will add far more to the tax take than a far higher number of poor people buying their normal goods will.

In addition, the poor will benefit from various social welfare payments that aren't available to their better off neighbours. As well as that they will be able to benefit from cheaper healthcare services that are supplied as a result of higher PRSI contributions from better paid members of society. If we were to get really anal about it we could also argue that the "exit tax" will almost exclusively affect the richer members of the country which again will be pumped back into providing services to the poorer elements of society. No matter what way you look at it the rich will consistently provide a better life for the poor by the simple fact of the contributions made through both direct and indirect taxation levied by the government.

edit: of course this argument works on the provision that the government is effective and correctly allocates income to expenditure that improves the lives of all, which will ultimately provide a better standard of living for the less well off members of society.

karen3212

podge79 wrote: »

"I cant bring myself to complain about people who have driven themselves hard enough and made the right career choices to get a highly paid job. its the begrudgers who get on my nerves."

totally agree - what I cant stand is people who have highly paid jobs who look down their noses and begrudge those in society who get benefits from the state because of the socio-economic birth environment and/or the background they come from. Its a sad day when you begrudge people the chance to improve their prospects of a better life that they are willing to work/learn for.

I agree, genetics and chance also have a part to play in how much someone ends up earning for their hard work.

Flaccus

How will this 200euro tax for free parking in heavy urban areas be collected. So if i work in a manufacturing company in an industrial estate. e.g sandyford in dublin or raheen in limerick and my employer has a car park will i be hit. what if i have a car which the missus drives and i take the bus. what then?

muincav

child benefit should have been means tested,
ministers should only get smart cars and bikes and lay off at least half the cabinet, they are not worth a sh*te anyway. This country has too many over paid politicians and too many retired politicians on big pensions they dont deserve.
We have an Army who couldnt save themselves never mind the country, so get rid of 90% of them.
Make all people do at least some kind of work for their dole....

and last but not least shoot anyone who ever asks you to vote for the Green party again (traitors):mad:

luckat

I'm saying that 100,000 poor people paying tax pay more than 5 rich people paying tax.

Oh, please. Don't start talking about eugenics now.

Fair play to Lenihan, by the way, in taking a wage cut. I'm waiting for the mad rush of plutocrats to compete with his generosity. Anyone?

hellboy99

DarkJager wrote: »

What exactly is this Carbon Budget tomorrow? Is there a chance of further hikes on petrol?

I think theres a new carbon tax coming on petrol cars were this tax will be calculated by your yearly mileage, if thats true theres me ****ed !! :mad:

Húrin

I'm really ****ing angry about transport:

capital expenditure of over €900 million is allocated to fund public transport infrastructure. This is about €70 million less than the amount made available in 2008, but it is sufficient for progress on a wide range of projects, including:

capital expenditure of over €1.4 billion is being made available to the National Roads Authority. This allocation is €157 million less than in 2008, and while progress on some projects will necessarily have to slow down, key national routes will be delivered as planned, specifically:

the major inter urban roads connecting Dublin with the regional cities of Waterford, Galway, Limerick and Cork by end-2010; (motorways)

so the motorway projects are considered sacrosanct as social services are cut. These will inevitably increase our national carbon emissions which will result in more fines from Europe. Morons.

Hair Bear

Hi
I think this budget well help depress things even more.

Remember an increase in VAT increases all phone, GAS and ESB bills as well.

The tax take on these bills is quite substantial with the increases that are to come in to effect and then the increased VAT on them.

Tax on parking is sneaky. Many persons cannot get to work in a dependable way every morning. One depends on the use of their own car.

There is no way I could cycle every day a 40 mile round trip to benefit from the GREEN cycle tax. However, I do feel cycling should be encouraged, at least in schools. Start young and develop good practice!!

Just take the VAT off the bikes and enforce all school going children to use bike transport where it is safe! Provide cycle lanes to every school.

Just think of all the cars that could be taken off the road ......for school going children.

Wine etc is a very good price up North!!!

:(Just remember all this pain for the next few years is because builders and banks got greedy. Now everyone has to pay!!!:mad:

nesf

dresden8 wrote: »

Hang on, you can't have inelastic products where increases won't decrease consumption too much and then claim they're green taxes. The purpose of green taxes is to convince people to expend less on this area, save money, taxes and the environment.

I was using green in the sense of they can try to pass them off as "good for the environment" to try and make them easier to swallow and as more of a Green Party initiative than a FF initiative come the next election. Sorry I should have been more explicit.

Elasticity usually also with respect to the magnitude of price change. You can have goods that are inelastic to differing degree for psychological reasons among others. Petrol is inelastic to small change but large changes will change behaviour especially if the large change comes all at once. You could add a cent or two to the litre every year without drastically affecting consumption etc.

Hotblack Desiato

tabatha wrote: »

also children allowance has been taken away for children over 18 years of age

Ridiculous that they were getting it in the first place, tbh. Their argument against fees is that they should be treated as independent adults, after all... Mammy getting kiddie's allowance for you kinda punctures that argument.

also the early kids allowance that is given in now only for children under 5 and a half.

The early childcare allowance is a nonsense that should never have been introduced, and I speak as a parent who is being paid it!

I was disappointed that they only said they would look into taxing child benefit, again even though we would lose out substantially. Taxing child benefit would be a good way to ensure that any future increases would benefit those who need it, not those who use it as a college fund.

Yillan

"Trying to tax your way to prosperity is like standing in a bucket and attempting to pick yourself up by the handle" Winnie

Not in favour of most elements to the budget. Needed to be more proactive and positive. Very negative changes made

Labour made good points today. Fine Gael were good. Sinn Fein were a joke

hellboy99

When will this government get it into their heads that prices need to come down, thus increasing sales here, not putting everything up and driving more people to buy online from abroad and shopping up the north even more.

It will be interesting to see what the retail Xmas sales figures will reveal next year.

nesf

Iago wrote: »

So maybe we look at VAT increases and argue that the poor are more affected than the rich in this case? This is true in terms of the impact on disposable income, but it doesn't change the fact that a very small number of rich people buying their normal goods will add far more to the tax take than a far higher number of poor people buying their normal goods will.

Interestingly, the top rate VAT increases will affect a larger percentage of the consumption of the better off than of the low paid/pensioners etc who (in percentage of income terms) spend more on low and zero rate VAT goods than the wealthier in society. It doesn't mean that the VAT increase isn't going to make life harder for the worst off, it is (imho) the most negative change for them (along with the excise duties, more smokers are poor than not though this could be argued as a good thing if it gets people off them etc).

Again though I'd be of the view that the VAT increase and the levy are both unappealing choices because of their blunt "across the board" effect, I'd have preferred to see more of a focus on more targeted taxes personally.

AnotherHelenD

DA will no longer be paid to 16 year olds. A disabled person must now be 18 years to qualify. I believe Mary Hanafin tried to defend the decision in the Dail ..it's for their own good type of thing. Can't find a link can anyone help?

Budget '09 has left me very unimpressed - it lacked courage and imagination.
The response is interesting - there is a whole generation out there who have never asked 'How worse off am I now?' after a budget.

Knew they wouldn't put €2 on the ciggies. If everyone gave up smoking how would they pay for the pensions when we live for an extra 20 years? 50c on the wine will hit the working classes terribly though. A real double whammy.

Think the BIK changes, which have to be ironed out, will take a lot of SUVs off the road. It is true that the real impact will not be felt until gov departments have to cut back on spending next year.