They wanted it 'Tough, but Fair'

NewApproach

Simple yes/no answer, did they succeed??

edit: I can't get a poll up

edit II: I'll say NO!

NatDonegal

I just read "child allowance will now be means tested" .... what ?? was it not means tested before ?? Disgraceful...

Sorry... simple answer... Yes... well sort of...

ncmc

They didn't go nearly far enough IMHO. I wouldn'r be suprised to see yet another budget in September.

hellboy99

We need a new government

super_furry

No, they gave us soft and pointless. We'll be back again in six months.

wolfpawnat

Childrens Allowance should be means tested - I say this as a mother. I wasnt too upset to see the Early Childhood Supplement go, the free pre school year isnt great but better than nothing. They were not too savage on the working class, but as said before - They'll be back again too soon.

The reason I dont think its fair is that they did not attack the upper bracket of society hard enough. And am I the only one who noticed they are not making the sacrifices the rest of society are???

The Prophet

They were looking to the next elections, trying to save their seats. All the while giving underhanded help to their banker/developer/investor pals.

A weak budget. A weak, cowardly, and guilty government.

misssaucie

Don't think child allowance should be means tested, I've no kids myself but a friend of mine is married to a tight p***k and he has plenty of money but he only gives my friend a measly allowance that has to cover the weekly shop, kids shoes, kids clothes, her clothes etc, she will be very affected by this. If her hubby was means tested there is just no way she's get a penny off the state. She relies heavily on the early child supplement.

NatDonegal wrote: »

I just read "child allowance will now means tested" .... what ?? was it not means tested before ?? Disgraceful...

Sorry... simple answer... Yes... well sort of...

super_furry

So the state should pay for that man's children because he doesn't want to?

NOGMaxpower

NO they've gotten it completely wrong yet again!

I don't know about you guys but i thought i earned a good salary but couple the budget with a 10% drop in salary ask Im down about 400 a month. What the ****!!!!

There's absolutely no incentive to stay in this country any longer if you're a professional.

Australia here i come!

Resi12

Let's get them out NOW!
Why do we stand for crap like this?!?!

NOGMaxpower

Resi12 wrote: »

Let's get them out NOW!
Why do we stand for crap like this?!?!

Here here, to the GPO everyone

Villain

No Wasn't tough in anyway

johnnyskeleton

I voted no becuase while it was reasonably fair, it wasn't very tough. It was far too easy on most of the things they really need to address but which would be politically difficult namely public sector wages and social welfare. Also, while it was reasonably fair, it could have been much fairer.

An entirely different question is does this budget address the difficulties this country is facing? Not at all. FF are, IMO, going to take all the developer loans into the new NAMA at above market value (if not face value), then settle with the developers for cents in the euro, leave us with a massive increase in national debt, the cost of borrowing for the Irish state will balloon and then they'll bail out and leave the country to its fate. This bad bank is the worst of all possible choices, and is effectively socialising private lossess.

Sparks115

Yet again the rich are getting away with a piddly effort by the govenment to tax them. How can it be fair to tax someone the same on 50K to someone on 290K!!! Its disgracefit !! Another joke of a government budget. I will be hit by the childrens allowance but it is something we will have to try and get through but someone earning 290k is not going to be crying over this budget. A Revolution is what is needed!! Out with the government ( still looking after their wealthy developer friends)

misssaucie

Thats not what I am implying at all, just wanted to make the point that whether parents are unemployed or whether parents are wealthy a child is a child and each child in Ireland should be treated the same. No one knows what goes on behind closed doors, some peoples childrens allowance goes on booze and drugs, my friends childrens allowance is spent on her kids. I work in the pub business and on childrens allowance day we see kids being given crisps by pi**ed parents for their dinner. I do however understand why you wrote that quote.

super_furry wrote: »

So the state should pay for that man's children because he doesn't want to?

Vegeta

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

This bad bank is the worst of all possible choices, and is effectively socialising private lossess.

That both scares me and makes me very angry at the same time

Pines

INCH wrote: »

How can it be fair to tax someone the same on 50K to someone on 290K!!! Its disgracefit !!

Not even remotely true.

A married couple with one income earning 50k will lose 3.8% from their current net income. The same couple, earning 300k, will lose 8.7% of their current net income.

The better off someone is, the bigger the drop in their salary in percentage terms. Because they're paying a higher percentage of a higher amount, the person on (say) 150k will pay much more than 3 times the amount of tax/PRSI/levies than the person on 50k. Which is as it should be, incidentally, don't get me wrong.

http://www.budget.gov.ie/2009SupApril09/downloads/Annex%20A%20-%20Details%20of%20Income%20Levy%20Health%20Levy%20&%20PRSI%20changes.pdf

Highsider

No is the answer. The dole should have been cut in half for all and public service pay should have been cut by a third for all on wages of 30k and over. Disgraceful spineless effort. No doubt they'll be back in October for more. The simple fact is the goverment is still playing politics trying to please everyone instead of trying to fix the problem. Pathetic :mad:

Kerly

They need to tackle the hugely inflated public sector pay levels. From top to bottom they are paid far too much, that includes teachers, nurses and a lot of the other sacred cows of the irish economy. They can console themselves with having a job when all around are on the dole.

Pay rates are 30-40% higher than our nearest neighbours, our countries money is being blown on already a bloated public sector.

johnp

I haven't been hit too hard, sure I'm down a couple of quid, but I though it would be worse.

nesf

Honestly, for a very tough budget I think they spread the pain relatively fairly with the impact percentage wise on the higher paid being around 11% while the lowest are facing 2% tax wise.


No one likes their income going down though so it's unlikely to be broadly perceived in this way.

moonbug33

“A 10% cut in political expenses, while long-term payments to TDs will be abolished
A review of top-level public sector pay rates.” http://www.rte.ie/money/budget2009/stories/2009/0407/budgetmeasures.html 8/4/09

I really thought the TD’s would have had a serious pay cut and not a “review” at some later date. 10% cut in expenses………that’s a joke.
What are The Greens thinking ……why are they continuing to back FF.

laurence997

No. They should have taxed the rich more, but still, not harsh enough overall.

OPENROAD

ncmc wrote: »

They didn't go nearly far enough IMHO. I wouldn'r be suprised to see yet another budget in September.

We are having the main budget in December, expect that to be even tougher with a new Carbon tax and property tax to be introduced.

narwog81

laurence997 wrote: »

No. They should have taxed the rich more, but still, not harsh enough overall.

baby steps first, remember we've 5 more years of budgets like this to go according to the government.

every person thinks they pay too much tax, and that everyone else pays too little!;)

O'Coonassa

Personally I feel 'Tough but Fair' would involve members of Dáil Éireann and their chums in the oligarchy swinging from lamposts on the streets of the capital. Or at least something to that effect.

mumof2

super_furry wrote: »

So the state should pay for that man's children because he doesn't want to?

No, the state shouldn't - the man should. There has to be some way of making men support their children, until they are 18 yrs of age - whether they wanted the children or not. Sounds harsh but why should the mothers be left picking up the pieces and scraping by ('despite stories of how good things are for them').

And NO this budget is not tough enough - hitting the wrong people again. They just can't get it right.

O'Coonassa

mumof2 wrote: »

No, the state shouldn't - the man should. There has to be some way of making men support their children, until they are 18 yrs of age - whether they wanted the children or not. Sounds harsh but why should the mothers be left picking up the pieces and scraping by.

Er perhaps the mothers in such cases are more culpable because they did want the children? Basically if it's wrong for the state to pay for their wilful stupididty it's just as wrong for an unwilling father to pay for it. Obviously if a man wanted a child and then changed his mind after it was born then that's another story.

mumof2

O'Coonassa wrote: »

Er perhaps the mothers in such cases are more culpable because they did want the children? Basically if it's wrong for the state to pay for their wilful stupididty it's just as wrong for an unwilling father to pay for it. Obviously if a man wanted a child and then changed his mind after it was born then that's another story.

And this is looking at it from a mans point of view??:rolleyes:

johnnyskeleton

laurence997 wrote: »

No. They should have taxed the rich more, but still, not harsh enough overall.

Let's not kill the goose that lays the golden egg here. After all, not only do the higher earners pay the a disproportionately high amount of taxes already (while the lower earners pay little or nothing (the lowest of all are paid money)) but realistically the higher earners include a lot of the productive, talented and wealth creating individuals in the country. True, a lot of them do not provide all that much benefit to the country, but if you think of the people who can actually bring us out of the recession, they are the ones who you are proposing to punish.