Dole

kadman

InFront wrote: »

It isn't that the less well off should pay the price, they need to pay part of it. A small part - beginning with the twelve euro per week you are so opposed to.

You are saying 12 euro as though its a small amount. It may be to you. Its not to someone on JA.

I and many others are sick to death of hearing red card holding opportunists coming up with the same empty statements about making everyone else pay.

I would ask you in the interests of this discussion, to take back that statemment, as you know nothing about me, and stick to the facts of the thread. Its statements like this that cause trouble in a thread. And I won,t rise to the bait, as I dont want to derail this thread. thanks

Earlier I gave an example of an hardworking employee who is paying just under €40,000 in taxes and PRSI alone - over one third of her salary wiped out before she puts anything aside for a pension or a mortgage.
This is what people like you call 'high earners'.
30% of her salary automatically goes to the state. 100% of social welfare comes from the state and you say the taxpayer is still not doing enough!

If she has a salary of E 95k per year, and disposable income of over 55k, thats a little over 1k a week, I,d call her wealthy. What would you calll her.
You are already insinuating through your posts, that those on 204 a week are sufficiently supported. Thats a little over 10k a year. And your friends having problems with an additional 45k. You keep conveniently forgetting that those on the dole, are not their by choice, they are there by circumstances. If I have a disposable income of 5 times the level of support for the poor in our society, I,d consider my self rich. But then again I never had any problem paying my tax in support of society.

Moreover, there is one more small point that must be made and it has to do with subprime mortgages. Nobody held a gun to the heads of those taking out irresponsible mortgages, not even bank managers. The culpability of these people is not absolute, but negligent debtors should not be regarded as innocent bystanders any more than their creditors.
Even Ireland has its negligent debtors in the form of low paid workers and they must share the blame responsibly

.

No firearms were not used, subterfuge was, creative form filling was done in order that mortgages were given. It was widely publicised on the television recently. I,ll find a link if I can for it.

kadman

thebullkf

astrofool wrote: »

You can't tax people on what they have in their bank accounts, only what they earn. It's taken over 10 years for the CAB to get assets from John Gilligan, a drug dealing murderer. You expect to be able to do the same with people who have broken no law at all, and are not in jail, behind bars? ridiculous.

We are signed up to general agreements with Europe on tax, e.g. VAT can only go between 15 and 25%, corporation tax has a floor, and we treat citizens according to european guidelines (e.g. we can't take something off someone, without legislature to back it up according to EU guidelines), there's plenty of documentation on this, have a look through http://europa.eu/ when you get a chance. Again, ridiculous.

Yes, I think a Bertie Ahern type figure is better than a Mugable, Chavez, Castro, Stalin, Putin, Kim type figure, yes I do. Bertie Ahern was not a great leader, but the other ones have destroyed, or are destroying their country daily. Ridiculous.

The same international community that brought us up from being a third world country to a developed nation, that built most of our roads for us, that keeps our farmers farming, that enshrines human rights in our constitution. Or would you prefer us to be more like North Korea, Iran, Albania, closed off countries, with abject poverty. Ridiculous.

Having ridiculous "new" ideas (and they aren't new, they've been tried and failed many times around the world already) doesn't make it any less completely, and abso-positively ridiculous to be supporting a position based on such utterly ridiculous ideas.

thumbs up fort he thread with the word "ridiculous" used most often.:D:D

its very simple-penalise long term dolers first.

penalise law-breakers financially
.
enforced large pay cuts across the board,incl politicians,esb staff.

increasetax for people earning over 60k by 10-15%

over 100k by 25-30%

encourage investment,(i'm sure our wholely corrupt system is a major turn off to would be investors.) by jailing these [EMAIL="b@stards-i.e. adopt"]b@stards-i.e. adopt[/EMAIL] and enforce a zero tolerance policy to corruption.

maybe we wouldn't have so many tribunals...

decrease dail holidays....

force students who study here (in specialised courses)to work here @ basic rate for a minimum 2 years when qualified..
seeing as how we boast some of the best universities/educational systems in the world it should be mutually beneficial.

kadman

[QUOTE=

InFront;60360608]It isn't going to take years, nobody would accept that. The principle of NAMA is sound and every unemployed person the country should be counting down the days for NAMA to begin its operations so that employers can put some shape and recovery into what is an incredibly elastic labour market. The sooner NAMA begins, the sooner business recovers, the sooner people get back on their feet and get their mortgages paid.

Well the leading economists in the country wouldn,t agree with you. I,m inclined to listen to them.

To conclude, we consider that the Government’s approach of limited recapitalisation supplemented by Nama represents only a partial solution to our banking problems, and one that is unlikely to protect the taxpayer. A nationalised banking system with a mandate to restructure and reprivatise would be a preferable approach at this time.

List of signatories

This commentary has been written by a group of Ireland’s leading academic economists, several of whom have analysed and commented on the banking and financial crisis on these pages and elsewhere over the past year. They are:

Karl Whelan, professor of economics, dept of economics, UCD; John Cotter, associate professor of finance, Smurfit School, UCD; Don Bredin, senior lecturer in finance, Smurfit School, UCD; Elaine Hutson, lecturer in finance, Smurfit School, UCD; Cal Muckley, lecturer in finance, Smurfit School, UCD; Shane Whelan, senior lecturer in actuarial studies, school of mathematics, UCD; Kevin O’Rourke, professor of economics, Trinity College Dublin; Frank Barry, professor of international business and development, school of business, Trinity College Dublin; Pearse Colbert, professor of accounting, school of business, Trinity College Dublin; Brian Lucey, associate professor of finance, school of business, Trinity College Dublin; Patrick McCabe, senior lecturer in accounting, school of business, Trinity College Dublin; Alex Sevic, lecturer in finance, school of business, Trinity College Dublin; Constantin Gurdgiev, lecturer in finance, school of business, Trinity College Dublin; Valerio Poti, lecturer in finance, DCU business school; Jennifer Berrill, lecturer in finance, DCU business school; Ciarán Mac an Bhaird, lecturer in finance, Fiontar, DCU; Gregory Connor, professor of finance, department of economics, finance and accounting, NUI Maynooth; Rowena Pecchenino, professor of economics, department of economics, finance and accounting, NUI Maynooth; James Deegan, professor of economics, Kemmy School of Business, Limerick; and Cormac Ó Gráda, professor of economics, UCD

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0417/1224244902514.html

kadman

InFront

kadman wrote: »

You are saying 12 euro as though its a small amount. It may be to you. Its not to someone on JA.

It's 6% of their 'wages'. The higher rate of tax is 41%! I've already said that should be raised to 43%, meaning that someone on €95,000 paying almost €40,000 in taxes, that's €725 per week to the state. So €12 is a small and nominal contribution to ask dole recipients to return, especially where they are young and unattached like Robert.

Or do you insist that 25 year olds living at home with their parents, and with no bills deserve about €1000 for a month of unemployment? Do you stand over that, really?

If she has a salary of E 95k per year... I,d call her wealthy. What would you call her.

It depends on her circumstances. She is handing almost 40% of her salary straight to the Government before she can even think about a mortgage, a pension, or raising a child.
Say she has a very responsible mortgage relative to wages - €349k over twenty years at variable rate <=50%... that's €21, 600 annually. That's less than she pays in taxes.

So far this woman, lets call her Kate, is down €58,360 per annum just on taxes (mostly) and one very responsible mortgage for her salary, which would have bought a small house in a housing estate in North Dublin.

She now has to think about a pension. She is forty and wants to invest in a contributory pension that will provide her with just over the average industrial wage from contributions (she is a responsible citizen and doesn't want to rely on the taxpayer). If she wants a total pension of half her current salary, with private contributions amounting €35,000 (approx industrial wage) she must pay €14,000 per year.

Kate has now paid for her taxes, responsible mortgage and a very average pension. Her €95,000 has shrunk to just over €20,000. Most of it has gone on tax, the rest on being a self-sufficient citizen planing for her future. She has €20,000 to live on and save for the future, pay for her medical expenses, her car, her utility bills and other absolute essentials.

The most fascinating aspect of this case is that for someone on €95,000 per year, when her tax, mortgage and pension are taken away, she is only €10 thousand better off in salary than someone who is 25, at home, on the dole.

No firearms were not used, subterfuge was, creative form filling was done in order that mortgages were given. It was widely publicised on the television recently. I,ll find a link if I can for it.

I would really love to see objective evidence of that. Do you deny that irresponsible mortgage debtors in low paid work have to accept some of the blame or not?
Do you not think it's remotely possible that greed might have got the better of them?

thebullkf wrote: »

increasetax for people earning over 60k by 10-15%

If you did this (even retaining the middle tax band to minimise damage), Kate, as in the example above would now be only about 5 grand better off than someone on the dole. She'd be paying approximately €6000 more in taxes, bringing her take home pay down by almost half. Way to encourage consumer spending and keep low earners in their jobs:rolleyes:

professore

astrofool wrote: »

If the dole was reduced by a reasonable figure (say 5-10% for now):
People may not be able to go on holiday
People may have to move house, or sell their home
People may have to cancel Sky
People may have to send their kids to a public rather than private school
People may not be able to buy clothes as often
People may have to drink less
People may have to stop smoking
People may have to give up their car and use public transport
People may have to buy store brand food rather than name brand
People would not starve

You're joking, right? It's 205 per week not per day.

InFront

kadman wrote: »

Well the leading economists in the country wouldn,t agree with you. I,m inclined to listen to them.

That's not really what I'm talking about. I'm not proposing either NAMA in favour of Nationaisation or vice versa because I don't have any ideological contribution to make in that regard. I'm presuming that NAMA is the plan that's going ahead and stressing its advantages over your plan of bailing out grassroots mortgage holders, which is mad. That's not what these economists are proposing.

If their proposal were somehow to go ahead, large debtors and employers should still be given maximum priority because they are the well from which jobs will pour. I'm not opposed to either NAMA or partial nationalisation - just your idea of writing off mortgages.

dreamlogic

InFront wrote:

...than expecting your government to pay for your hair colouring as you have suggested.

See you are descending into childishness now. It was your idea in the first place, several pages ago, to do a breakdown of a dole recipient's living costs.
And we have already covered this aspect of personal grooming at length.
Rather than get into repeating myself, I am going to quote for you what I said earlier:

dreamlogic wrote:

If you dispute the cost of a female haircut, you can do a search online or walk into any salon and see what the going rate is. I think you'll find that €50 is a conservative estimate actually if you factor in that many people also opt to colour their hair(especially people who have lost their natural colour). I don't opt for this myself so I don't know what this costs typically. But many people do, and why would you want to deprive them of this? Do you want it to get to the stage where people stop caring about their appearance?

And by the way I take exception to your trying to make this personal in your remark above. As stated, I do not colour my hair myself, and I have no interest in doing so. However in the interests of giving a balanced argument here, I am taking into consideration the fact that many(most, probably) people do. It is part of making themselves presentable to the world.
Nobody has said that anyone should be enabled to purchase designer outfits etc as per your Italian shoes assertion. People should not though, be prohibited from being able to make themselves presentable along the lines of basic human dignity. Whereas you think this falls into the category of pampering and lavishness, I do not. And lets keep this in perspective here - a box of hair colouring is probably around €10 - €15. It is reasonable to allow this expense to be part of a section of the budget set aside for floating purchases - biweekly, monthly, bimonthly etc. Similar to how men need to buy shaving equipment etc. And maybe they colour their hair too, it's hard to tell these days. :pac:

At this point InFront I think maybe we should move the debate on from the day-to-day budget as it has been shown to any reasonable observer that the current level is barely enough to get by.
Or maybe you would like to introduce another case study here... Someone earlier touched on the single parent co-habiting with child example, so maybe we could do a breakdown of expenses there and see if we can make some cuts in their living costs, if you want to further explore the practicalities of the situation.
I'm not sure where else we you want to go with this debate tbh...

If an employer has seven hundred mortgage holders on his payrol, I don't agree in taxing him out of business, no. Do you see how that works yet?

You could tax his personal wealth though. I imagine he would deal with his business finances and his personal finances separately.

You make it sound like there was never any economic success. Everyone benefitted.

I wouldn't be so quick to put the short years of the celtic tiger in the category of "economic success". Look at us today. To me, economic success would be gradual, sustainable growth. Progress, where people can look forward to their futures instead of being expected to go backwards. As for everyone benefitting, sorry, but I'd say you're basing your observations there on a more superficial level. As I pointed out in detail earlier, the wealth gap between rich and poor has widened massively. etc.

InFront

dreamlogic wrote: »

At this point InFront I think maybe we should move the debate on from the day-to-day budget as it has been shown to any reasonable observer that the current level is barely enough to get by.

It depends on your definition of barely enough. Even n your generous calculations, our Robert friend was left with €90+ per month after all of his non-necessary and necessary spending was factored into account. I'm not even suggesting taking that away. The pay cut I'm suggesting for dole recipients at 6% - 7% is well within that.

Or maybe you would like to introduce another case study here... Someone earlier touched on the single parent co-habiting with child example, so maybe we could do a breakdown of expenses there and see if we can make some cuts in their living costs, if you want to further explore the practicalities of the situation.

Well, of course it is true that additional provisions do arise for such situations and families do actually get by on such provisions. However, as I said earlier my main focus is cutting the dole from single individuals or those who could feasibly depend more heavily on a spouse or a parent.

You could tax his personal wealth though. I imagine he would deal with his business finances and his personal finances separately.

There are lots of businessmen out there who are not even drawing a personal salary this year but living on their savings to protect their business and ergo their employees. Furthermore, personal incomes for various commercial reasons often do not adequately represent the real success of a business, and it would not be uncommon for there to be complex business practices meaning that a successful businessman may not be drawing a lot more in wages than our old friend Kate in North Dublin. (case study, employee)

As I pointed out in detail earlier, the wealth gap between rich and poor has widened massively. etc.

As I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, the ESRI have pointed out that the current Government have recently increased the incomes of the poorest fifth of the ppulation by 5%. They have cut the incomes of the top fifth by 10%. I gave details of someone on 95k per year ending up giving almost 40% of her salary to tax and ending up with a disposable income only a few thousand more than someone at home on the dole in a (virtually) free house with no medical costs. I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm saying it is definitely more than fair to such individuals as that are on the dole in those circumstances.

kadman

InFront wrote: »

Or do you insist that 25 year olds living at home with their parents, and with no bills deserve about €1000 for a month of unemployment? Do you stand over that, really?

Deserve has nothing to do with it. Please read the following sentences.

He has paid for his support with his PRSI. Pay Related Social Insurance. The banks have paid for nothing . Show me the levy that the banks have paid in order to draw down billions please.
I want you to answer the following questions without avoiding them, with a yes or no answer, please.

1. Has the working 25 year old paid for his right to have social welfare support, by paying his PRSI contributions.

2. Has the bank paid any contributions to the state for their right to draw down billions of tax payers money.

Thank you.

Kate has 55k disposable income after taxes. She has choices, what she does with her money is neither here nor there in the equation. She is wealthy in my opinion. Any one on social welfare, does not have the choices she has with that income. Why should i feel sorry for her, and not for some one on 10k per year. She has over 1ooo euro a week, sw recipient has 204. Give me a break.




kadman

InFront

kadman wrote: »

Deserve has nothing to do with it. Please read the following sentences.

He has paid for his support with his PRSI. Pay Related Social Insurance. The banks have paid for nothing . Show me the levy that the banks have paid in order to draw down billions please.
I want you to answer the following questions without avoiding them, with a yes or no answer, please.

1. Has the working 25 year old paid for his right to have social welfare support, by paying his PRSI contributions.

You don't have to have paid PRSI to collect this. The Dole is over ten thousand euro per year without that condition. So the answer is No.

Has the bank paid any contributions to the state for their right to draw down billions of tax payers money.

Yes. This money is what is keeping us solvent as a nation. They are paying us back in solvency as well as in preferential shares and don't forget to take any repayments into account.

Please be clear. What is your sustainable alternative?

Thank you.

You're very welcome.

Kate has 55k disposable income after taxes. She has choices, what she does with her money is neither here nor there in the equation.

We could say the same about someone on the dole. You could say that Kate doesn't need such a responsible, thought out mortgage and she could live with her parents, but then again, you could say someone on the dole doesn't need rent from the taxpayer like Kate, and could live with their parents. Choices.

kadman

InFront wrote: »

You don't have to have paid PRSI to collect this. The Dole is over ten thousand euro per year without that condition. So the answer is No.

I think you need to read the original question asked , in relation to your answer, as you have clearly mis understood the question.

Yes. This money is what is keeping us solvent as a nation. They are paying us back in solvency as well as in preferential shares and don't forget to take any repayments into account.

Can you show me the fund that the banks have contributed to, in order to draw down billions in tax payers money. As you clearly have not done so. name the fund, or contribution type if you like.

You could say that Kate doesn't need such a responsible, thought out mortgage and she could live with her parents, but then again, you could say someone on the dole doesn't need rent from the taxpayer like Kate, and could live with their parents. Choices.

When you get put on to the dole, your choices tend to disappear. kate has 55k to do with what she likes. Dole recipient has 10k.

kadman

InFront

kadman wrote: »

I think you need to read the original question asked , in relation to your answer, as you have clearly mis understood the question.

No, I haven't. Jobseekers allowance has nothing to do with PRSI. You just go to a social welfare office and get it, even if you have never paid PRSI. You don't have a point here.

Can you show me the fund that the banks have contributed to, in order to draw down billions in tax payers money

You appear to be having some difficulty with the concept of recapitalisation. The idea is that the banks are given money in exchange for, among other things, preferential shares for the taxpayer. It also allows us to survive as an economy. The banks didn't buy this money for cash though. Not as yet. I'm not sure you understand this.

When you get put on to the dole, your choices tend to disappear. kate has 55k to do with what she likes. Dole recipient has 10k.

She is being a responsible worker.
By being a responsible worker, over 40% of her wages have gone on tax to fund jobseekers and pay for infrastructure.
By not depending on the government for a house, she has taken out a responsible mortgage that she can pay.
By not depending on the Government for her pension, she has contributed to a modest pension that will provide her with an average industrial wage in her old age.

For all of this, do you know how much more she has per day than a guy with no job, on the dole who lives at home with his parents?
Thirty euro more.
She might have started off with a good salary, but taxes and PRSI (she has no choice) and her own responsibility see her better off than the unemployed by no more than thirty euro per day. Incredibly, this must cover all of her essential expenses.

The well off do pay. The unemployed must too.

Again, I'll ask. Would you let the banks collapse or come to their help?

speedy1999

Can anyone explain to me why if someone looses there job because of this recession and lack of work. They can't apply for a Community Employment scheme untill there a year out of work. I think this is so stupid. Theres loads of Community Employment Schemes out there on the FAS website and they are meant to be helping people get back to work. Why a person has to wait a year to qualify is frustrating.....:mad:

gary the great

The crazy thing is the governemnt actaually INCREASED the dole payments in January, from 197.80 to 204.30, when the cost of living was rapidly falling and we were in recession.

Madness of the highest order. A joke of a government.

InFront

speedy1999 wrote: »

Can anyone explain to me why if someone looses there job because of this recession and lack of work. They can't apply for a Community Employment scheme untill there a year out of work. I think this is so stupid. Theres loads of Community Employment Schemes out there on the FAS website and they are meant to be helping people get back to work. Why a person has to wait a year to qualify is frustrating.....:mad:

I guess it is there to provide special access back to employment for the medium to longterm unemployed.
That was fine when most regular jobseekers could get employment quite easily and the dole was a brief encounter, but you are right, keeping the one year condition in place is stupid and obviously irritating.

kadman

InFront wrote: »

No, I haven't. Jobseekers allowance has nothing to do with PRSI. You just go to a social welfare office and get it, even if you have never paid PRSI. You don't have a point here.
You appear to be having some difficulty with the concept of recapitalisation. The idea is that the banks are given money in exchange for, among other things, preferential shares for the taxpayer. It also allows us to survive as an economy. The banks didn't buy this money for cash though. Not as yet. I'm not sure you understand this.


She is being a responsible worker.
By being a responsible worker, over 40% of her wages have gone on tax to fund jobseekers and pay for infrastructure.
By not depending on the government for a house, she has taken out a responsible mortgage that she can pay.
By not depending on the Government for her pension, she has contributed to a modest pension that will provide her with an average industrial wage in her old age.

For all of this, do you know how much more she has per day than a guy with no job, on the dole who lives at home with his parents?
Thirty euro more.
She might have started off with a good salary, but taxes and PRSI (she has no choice) and her own responsibility see her better off than the unemployed by no more than thirty euro per day. Incredibly, this must cover all of her essential expenses.

The well off do pay. The unemployed must too.

Again, I'll ask. Would you let the banks collapse or come to their help?

I think you need to go back to my original post, and re read the two
questions, because you clearly have mis read them so far so far. Either that or you are trying to avoid giving a simple answer to both,so I,ll post them again for you.

1. Has the working 25 year old paid for his right to have social welfare support, by paying his PRSI contributions.

2. Has the bank paid any contributions to the state for their right to draw down billions of tax payers money.

kadman

kadman

speedy1999 wrote: »

Can anyone explain to me why if someone looses there job because of this recession and lack of work. They can't apply for a Community Employment scheme untill there a year out of work. I think this is so stupid. Theres loads of Community Employment Schemes out there on the FAS website and they are meant to be helping people get back to work. Why a person has to wait a year to qualify is frustrating.....:mad:

You should consider that there is a possibility that you will be worse off financially by going on a community employment scheme, if you opt for one that has an element of travelling attached to it.
You should also enquire as to the courses, and participation that the scheme allows you to take part in. Its up to you to ensure that your requirements are met by the schemes involvement in further training for you.

The scheme was set up to assist you first, and the community second. Lots of them tend to think its the other way around. I know I,ve been on some of them over the years. Last one in 1997 thankfully.

kadman

dreamlogic

Infront wrote:

You're talking about people with wealth comparable to say Tony O Reilly or JP McManus I take it? You really think that only taxing those people - mass employers - will fix things?

I said the top percentage. I didn't mention any names, nor do I wish to turn this into a discussion about personalities. We all know that there is plenty of privately owned wealth at the top which could be looked at as a possible source of revenue. I am saying look there first before looking anywhere else. You seem to be saying that the government doesn't need to bother looking at this as an option.

For all of this, do you know how much more she has per day than a guy with no job, on the dole who lives at home with his parents?

Most people who are unemployed are not in their early 20s living with their parents. That is simply an unfair set of assumptions on which to base an argument in favour of applying widespread cuts.

Generally speaking, people work full-time age 20 - 60. In order to have a fair argument here which takes the majority of those affected into account, we'd need to make the age of a typical person a bit older than 25. I would suggest at least 10 years older.

You keep coming back to this Robert character as your typical case. Bizarrely, you are reimagining Robert now as someone who has had to forego independent living in the real world, to move back in with his parents.

So you are basically conceding that the dole must remain at current levels for the majority.
You are making a new and separate case for a cut in payments for those who are under 25 yrs and living with their parents.

Or do you insist that 25 year olds living at home with their parents, and with no bills deserve about €1000 for a month of unemployment? Do you stand over that, really?

€1000???? Where are you getting this figure from?

kadman

I think this about sums up my feeling on the bailout, I know I am going completely off topic on this one, maybe another thread. But I would guess that there are lots already on the bail out.

Full Article.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/banks-giving-us-two-fingers-dont-deserve-state-bailout-1715200.html

The banks are still giving the State the two fingers. Having both the NAMA and the guarantee gives absolutely no incentive for the banks to get their house in order.

To rectify this dilemma at the heart of monetary policy and to make sure we don't end up with a zombie banking system, now that the NAMA has been set up, the State has got to rescind the guarantee.

It should limit the guarantee to depositors. The debt holders will be okay so long as the banks don't go bust, which they shouldn't with the NAMA in place. The State has no business using our money to bail out or protect in any way the equity or subordinated debt holders.

Subordinated debt is a risky asset, which was bought by rich mates of the banks. These are rich men's IOUs. Bank of Ireland alone issued €15bn of these IOUs. They should not be underwritten by taxpayers. This is a classic example of poor people subsidising millionaires. It is wrong.

If the guarantee is not rescinded as soon as the NAMA is set up the whole thing will be an oligarch's bonanza because the taxpayer is on the hook for the €450bn in bank liabilities and the €90bn bad debts. This is paying for the banking system twice. Once you take out their bad debts, the banks should be able to go to the market and finance themselves. If they cannot, they should not be in business.

kadman

dreamlogic

gary the great wrote: »

The crazy thing is the governemnt actaually INCREASED the dole payments in January, from 197.80 to 204.30, when the cost of living was rapidly falling and we were in recession.

No longer an issue now. Rent supplement has been CUT in the recent budget. This effectively overcompensates for that 'loss' since January.

A number of changes to the Rent Supplement scheme have been introduced.

• From the end of May 2009, the minimum household contribution that recipients of Rent Supplement (and Mortgage Interest Supplement) make towards their rent/mortgage is being increased from €18 to €24.
• Also from the end of May 2009, the maximum rent limits that will apply to new Rent Supplement payments will be reduced by between 6% and 10%, depending on geographical area and household size.
• Rent Supplement payments currently being made to tenants will be reduced by 8%.

Also note that there was a massive 50% cut for people up to 20 years old.

InFront wrote:

There are lots of businessmen out there who are not even drawing a personal salary this year but living on their savings

Can you back this up at all? Otherwise I just have to take your word for it that these people have no income to tax.

the ESRI have pointed out that the current Government have recently increased the incomes of the poorest fifth of the ppulation by 5%.

Is there something wrong with this? I mean, shouldn't people who are hovering around the poverty line not be given an extra few euro in line with cost of living increases? You are making out it seems that this is somehow wrong of them.
Also - and I'm not doubting what you're saying here - but can you post a link to this ERSI report so that I can read it in context please?

dreamlogic

kadman wrote: »

I think this about sums up my feeling on the bailout, I know I am going completely off topic on this one, maybe another thread. But I would guess that there are lots already on the bail out.
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/banks-giving-us-two-fingers-dont-deserve-state-bailout-1715200.html

Not off topic at all I'd say; many of the same people who want to cut welfare want to spend our money to protect crooks.
Good article. Everyone should read it.
Some more extracts:

This is not an economic policy, but a silent takeover.
...our Government allowed themselves to be run around by the banks that benefited from the guarantee -- without extracting any concessions.
...foreign investors won't touch us with a bargepole.

InFront

kadman wrote: »

1. Has the working 25 year old paid for his right to have social welfare support, by paying his PRSI contributions.

2. Has the bank paid any contributions to the state for their right to draw down billions of tax payers money.

You have come to a dead end with your argument.

1. Jobseekers Allowance Recipients are not making this money from their PRSI payments. The money from PRSI payments is recouped instead in Jobseeker's Benefit. If such a person has PRSI contributions he is receiving Benefit. This conversation has been about Jobseeker's Assistance. So again, No.

2.Yes. This money is what is keeping us solvent as a nation. They are paying us back in solvency as well as in preferential shares and don't forget to take any repayments into account. Do you understand re-capitalisation? It's basically a loan to the banks and to the economy. If we as bank customers and our banks had this money, they wouldn't need re-capitalisation.

Please be clear. What is your sustainable alternative?

The scheme [CE Scheme] was set up to assist you first, and the community second. Lots of them tend to think its the other way around.

If a person cannot get any other employment, and are on the dole for 1year+, it wouldn't actually hurt to give something back to the community, you know?

Originally posted by dreamlogic
So you are basically conceding that the dole must remain at current levels for the majority.

No. That's your idea. This Robert guy is representative of a lot of people who could move back in with their parents. As for those who cannot, I suggest shared rental accommodation as opposed to renting on their own which is more expensive. Everyone must cut corners. Where a individual has a mortgage, mortgage relief is available for welfare recipients.

You are making a new and separate case for a cut in payments for those who are under 25 yrs and living with their parents.

There are so many cases for cutting it I can't disagree with you here.

€1000???? Where are you getting this figure from?

Taking the JA payment at about €1,000 per month is right. In January, the first month of 2009, a dole recipient would have been paid for 27 days of unemployment (Sundays do not count) This amounts to €918 for one month. Take an adult living alone in Dublin and receiving the full rent allowance, that's over €400 extra that the taxpayer is paying.

Also - and I'm not doubting what you're saying here - but can you post a link to this ERSI report so that I can read it in context please?

Of course
PDF Link to below

Average incomes for the poorest one-fifth of the population are set to rise by close to 5% above the benchmark. For the next one-fifth of the population incomes on average are broadly unchanged – though there are of course gains and losses within that group. Average losses for the middle and upper income groups range from 2½ per cent to over 7 per cent. For the top 10 per cent of income earners, the losses are greatest, at close to 9
per cent.

I am not saying this isn't how it should be, to a point, but that this society is taxing higher earners and giving it to the low paid. The total tax take needs to go up, and that has to hit both ends of the spectrum. The Dole cut I am suggesing would cost recipients €1.75 per day. That is not too much to ask.

many of the same people who want to cut welfare want to spend our money to protect crooks.

I don't care about personality or crooks, but the three biggest issues for this economy are 1) capital for credit (2) saving money public expenditure and (3) protecting employers - in no particular order

MikeC101

speedy1999 wrote: »

Can anyone explain to me why if someone looses there job because of this recession and lack of work. They can't apply for a Community Employment scheme untill there a year out of work. I think this is so stupid. Theres loads of Community Employment Schemes out there on the FAS website and they are meant to be helping people get back to work. Why a person has to wait a year to qualify is frustrating.....:mad:

Same thing I was told when I asked if I could take a course or do some more study - have to wait till I'm on the dole a year. As the best chance I have at the moment to get back to work is taking contract work I'm looking at a situation where I might be better off staying on the dole for a year instead of working a few months, then back on welfare, then another few months, and not having the option of some kind of back to education support.

I'd really much prefer having the option of receiving a much lower level of dole payments and instead having the training / educational support available to me.

But in fairness, I can see how a system like that would be open to abuse.

dreamlogic

InFront wrote: »

Taking the JA payment at about €1,000 per month is right. In January, the first month of 2009, a dole recipient would have been paid for 27 days of unemployment (Sundays do not count) This amounts to €918 for one month.

Unemployment payments are made on a weekly basis to cover 7 days of the week.
(204 / 7) * 31 = 903

€903 for a 31-day month is what the person has to budget from here.

We've already covered your technicality about Sunday in sufficient detail. The work isn't there though - Sunday or any other day of the week. So the reality is that the person's budget is €903 for the month. And not €918 as you are trying to suggest above. And not €1000 as you presented as factually correct a few posts ago.

Please correct your arithemetic here if you want to proceed with the debate rationally.

Several pages ago you made another significant error in your calculation of the rent allowance. In that instance you were presenting as fact a figure which contained a weekly discrepancy of €24. I pointed this out to you at the time. You never acknowleged it which was okay; it was a mistake.
This time I'm not letting you away with it because the impression you are giving at this stage is that you're deliberately trying to mislead people.

Do you think it's acceptable to base your argument on such errors? Yes or No.
If yes, then how are we to accept any other percentages and tax deduction calculations etc that you want to present in support of your argument?

If you are unaware of the real figures, or how they are calculated in budgetary terms, all you have to do is ask.

InFront

dreamlogic wrote: »

Unemployment payments are made on a weekly basis to cover 7 days of the week.
(204 / 7) * 31 = 903

No, dole payments are made for six days per week actually. People do not receive dole for Sundays. Check it out.
I gave the example of January and the maths are perfectly correct.
27 dole days in January
1 dole day = €34
27 dole days = €34 x 27 = €918

If you read my post again, I said this is about €1,000 which it is.

In fact when you take rent aid into account, it can get up to about €1,400 or more for that month.

So the reality is that the person's budget is €903 for the month

Budget is different to salary. The salary is €34/ day and the budget is closer to €30/ day. These are the facts.

Please correct your arithemetic

I'd invite you to re-examine that statement. This is simple arithmetic that all adds up.

Several pages ago you made another significant error in your calculation of the rent allowance. In that instance you were presenting as fact a figure which contained a weekly discrepancy of €24.

You're chasing your own tail here. Oh and it's actually not €24 yet nor has it been, it's still €18 for now.;)

kadman

InFront wrote: »

You have come to a dead end with your argument.

1. Jobseekers Allowance Recipients are not making this money from their PRSI payments. The money from PRSI payments is recouped instead in Jobseeker's Benefit. If such a person has PRSI contributions he is receiving Benefit. This conversation has been about Jobseeker's Assistance. So again, No.

I asked you a specific question, and you have avoided answering it. I dont have to ask the questions you want asked. I asked you about a working 25 year old. So answer it as I,ve asked it

2.Yes. This money is what is keeping us solvent as a nation. They are paying us back in solvency as well as in preferential shares and don't forget to take any repayments into account. Do you understand re-capitalisation? It's basically a loan to the banks and to the economy. If we as bank customers and our banks had this money, they wouldn't need re-capitalisation.

You clearly are not reading my questions, so I assume you know you are giving incorrect information on some of your posts.But I,ll shall try again and answer them for you.

Originally Posted by kadman
1. Has the working 25 year old paid for his right to have social welfare support, by paying his PRSI contributions.

2. Has the bank paid any contributions to the state for their right to draw down billions of tax payers money.

I asked about a working 25 year old rights if he has paid PRSI.
Fact.
1.
If he has paid prsi, and goes on social welfare, he is entitled to social welfare benefit in the form of Jobseekers Benefit for 15 months. I said nothing about jobseekers allowance, so please answer the question as I asked it.

2.
The bank has paid no contributions to the state , to draw down billions form the taxpayers pension fund. If they have, what fund did they pay into, and whats the name of the contribution.I know about re capitalisation. I want to know how has a private corporation earned the right to draw millions from the taxpayer.

You are clearly unable to answer the questions, because you know that you are incorrect in your attempts to do so. Banks have never paid into any fund in order to access tax payers money. They are now getting it, in the hope that they can pay it back. Leading economists dont believe that the taxpayer is being protected.

kadman

johnnyskeleton

InFront wrote: »

It isn't going to take years, nobody would accept that. The principle of NAMA is sound and every unemployed person the country should be counting down the days for NAMA to begin its operations so that employers can put some shape and recovery into what is an incredibly elastic labour market. The sooner NAMA begins, the sooner business recovers, the sooner people get back on their feet and get their mortgages paid.

That's a pretty big assumption you're making right there.

The principle of NAMA is not sound. The principle of NAMA is, according to the most up to date information, that a new agency will be set up backed by government bonds (ultimately taxpayers money) to buy unspecified loans at an unspecified cost. I wouldn't mind this so much if it was the case that they hadn't calculated the amounts yet, but I suspect they have, and are holding back so as to drip feed this information to the unsuspecting public (ala boiling a frog). I've set out my views on why the arguments used in favour of NAMA are illogical here. Suffice it to say that if NAMA were to buy the assets at market value they may as well just force the banks to sell the assets to private investors, and if they are paying above market rates that is a waste of taxpayer's money. Equally, banks have whole collections departments, legal departments, networks of local solicitors and debt collection agencies so if NAMA is going to force the repossession and sale of the assets, there is no reason why this couldn't be done through the banks (particularly since they are bankrolled by the government).

Next, let's look at the realistic, as opposed to the purported, result of NAMA. Is it going to get credit flowing again? Unlikely I would say. The banks, after being battered and torn by the last few years, are going to become ultra conservative with their lending, and, assuming that NAMA does leave them with a healthier balance sheet, they are simply going to sit on their assets and rebuild a more stable base for themselves. The imagery used by politicians of NAMA coming along and unblocking the pipes and thus allowing credit to flow once again from the taps is rubbish, and shows a severe misunderstanding of how banks operate.

Now, even if NAMA causes the banks to open the credit taps, let's look at the argument of jobs being created, well this means one of two things: either we ressurect the jobs lost in the last 2.5 years, or else we have to create new jobs in new industries.

A) Ressurect old jobs
Would you accept that the majority of people who have lost their jobs in the last 2.5 years were in the construction, property and retail sectors? Would you also accept that the "boom" years were a mere credit fulled spending spree? If so, and only the most devout Fianna Failer could try to deny these things, in order to get these jobs back, we would need to restart the credit bubble again. That is not a very sensible way to do things.

Create new jobs
If we are to increase the number of jobs in Ireland, it seems to me that we have to be looking to create jobs that weren't here before. So what can we do? Well, basic manufacturing is out because our costs are too high, and I wouldn't rely on US FDI to save us either, what with the Obama proposals and the new competition of the new accession states. It seems to me that domestic innovation in high tech areas is, if you believe the government, the best option or, if you are more realistic, the only option. That in itself is fine but for the fact that new technology industries are high risk from bank's and investor's points of view, and banks and investors will be extremely cautious in the next few years. Even if they do, the amount of people trained for these high tech jobs is limited, and you can't send a brickie to a 6 week fas course and expect him to be able to do a €50k p.a. high tech job.

Maybe I'm missing something, so would you care to illustrate how NAMA will benefit workers?

kadman

Here is the reality of the level of poverty in Ireland, and probably set to get worse, what with the prospect of impending cuts in child benefit, social welfare, back to school allowance, increase costs for carbon tax, property tax ect.

If you are on social welfare , and not lucky enough to be on 95K per year, some of this information is probably going to resonate with you,

Full Article here.
http://www.cpa.ie/publications/submissions/2008_Sub_PBS2009.pdf

The latest poverty data (2006) show that 17 per cent of the population (equivalent to 721,000 persons) are ‘at-risk-of-poverty’ using a threshold of 60 per cent of median income (estimated to be €220 per week in 2008 values1). A smaller figure of 6.9 percent of the population (293,000 persons) is in ‘consistent poverty’ (at risk of poverty and experiencing enforced deprivation of basic necessities2). The figures for children (0-18 years) in poverty are 22.4 per cent ‘at risk of poverty’ and 10.8 per cent in consistent poverty (282,000 and 69,000 children).3Meanwhile, research by the Vincentian Partnership for Social Justice shows that only 15 out of a sample of 27 low-income household types are able to afford minimum essential budgets.4The remaining 12 households experience significant budget shortfalls and are vulnerable to indebtedness in order to make ends meet.

Policy approach to Budget 2009 The key policy objective for Budget 2009 should be to protect the living standards of those at-risk-of-poverty. As well as targeted improvements in welfare benefits and social services, there are three other policy issues which Combat Poverty wishes to highlight. In relation to the labour market, it is critical that policy seeks to minimise the duration for which people are unemployed, as long-term inactivity will diminish work skills and make re-employment more difficult. Also, long-term welfare dependence will extend the time spent in income poverty and increase the likelihood of deprivation. It is proposed therefore that state education, training and employment programmes are targeted at the recently unemployed who are likely to face greatest difficulties in returning to work

kadman

kadman

If Nama is the answer, why does Professor Brian Lucey say that,

Full article.

http://www.tribune.ie/business/news/article/2009/apr/12/brian-lucey-expect-a-return-of-nama-rama-and-80s-g/

This raises the third element. The summer of 2009 is shaping up to be a Cruel Cruel Summer for the Irish taxpayer. Banks are funded by three sources of finance: deposits, equity capital and loan capital. The equity capital of the banks is nominally of the order of €20bn plus the €7bn preference shares injected. The loan capital of the banking system is of the order of €10bn. Thus, there is in principle enough risk capital in the banking system to absorb the losses the system has run up. Of course, this would bankrupt the banks, and thus require the state to engage with the N-word, and nationalise them.
That would probably take €15bn or so more of taxpayers' money, but at this stage who's counting.
Doing what the government proposes lets the providers of the risk capital off the hook. It is entirely disingenuous and shows both a contempt for the taxpayer and an ignorance of the precepts of business to do other than require this capital to be the first line of loss-absorption.

I suspect that brian knows what he,s talking about.

InFront

kadman wrote: »

I asked you a specific question, and you have avoided answering it. I dont have to ask the questions you want asked. I asked you about a working 25 year old. So answer it as I,ve asked it

Oh come off of it! Lets not act like you've been talking about Jobseeker's Benefit all along.

Job seekers benefit is a contributory fund that PRSI contributors have paid into and it is always more that €204 (jobseeker's allowance). I don't have an issue with the principle or practice of Jobseeker's Benefit, these people deserve their contributions back obviously.
However, this Robert guy, like a lot of people in this country, is drawing about €1400 per month in rent and salary without having made contributions via PRSI - that is what is being discussed and that is what I'm saying should be cut.

The bank has paid no contributions to the state , to draw down billions form the taxpayers pension fund. If they have, what fund did they pay into, and whats the name of the contribution.I know about re capitalisation. I want to know how has a private corporation earned the right to draw millions from the taxpayer.

It's not a right, it's our privelege that we have banks that we can recapitalise for our sake.
You don't seem to be able to comprehend the fact that the banks don't have the money. Among other things, this is largely down to irresponsible lending on the behalf of developers and on the behalf of a heck of a lot of lower paid of mortgage holders who have been living beyond their means and may now be unemployed. If you can't understand the concept of recapitalisation or the fact that there is no 'money swap' because that would (and for most everyone this is kind of obvious) defeat the purpose of recapitalisation, then I or nobody else can try to help you.

I don't know why I am still repeating myself because you just won't understand. All you seem to be able to repeat is some odd meandering about a twentfive year old and his PRSI and the genuinely crazy idea of Government writing off mortgages. I'm glad to see that particular demand has fallen silent for your own sake.

When are you going to provide us with a link to your proof of "subterfuge" and "creative form filling" to get mortgage holders caught up in irresponsible borrowing? I'm still waiting for that chestnut.
Do you really have a problem with recapitalisation and if so - in economic terms, not bleeding heart terms - why?

Brian Lucey, by the way, supports nationalisation of the banks. As I've said already (but hey whats more repitition to Kadman) I don't have a problem with partially nationalising the banks. If NAMA is what the Government has chosen, and indeed it is, that's the one we should be discussing. Ok?

Your link to the combat poverty agency is meaningless in the context of this thread.

Originally posted by jonnyskeleton
The principle of NAMA is not sound. The principle of NAMA is, according to the most up to date information, that a new agency will be set up backed by government bonds (ultimately taxpayers money) to buy unspecified loans at an unspecified cost. I wouldn't mind this so much if it was the case that they hadn't calculated the amounts yet, but I suspect they have, and are holding back so as to drip feed this information to the unsuspecting public (ala boiling a frog). I've set out my views on why the arguments used in favour of NAMA are illogical here.

With respect I'm not going to go through another thread to establish your opinion on NAMA in order to respond. In relation to the above quote, that's some of the principle and some of the detail of NAMA.
I said I am in favour of the principle. By this I'm referring to the principle of setting up a facility of removing toxic or worrying debts (including good debts) of a specified magnitude from our main banks backed up with Government bonds with the aim of improving credibility issues which capital investors have with the Irish banking system.

The exact magnitude of troublesome debt is in the detail, of course there are issues with that as well as the NAMA levy and contingent liability which might scare off investors. Not to mention the inexcusable delay in legislation to let international investors at least know what the hell is going on. Lets discuss all of that in another thread perhaps?

As for resurrecting old jobs - no that it is not the aim of any credibly economic strategy unless we want to go back to a Tiger Economy which I'm sure we don't given our open market, small size and basically all of the associated problems we're now seeing.

You are correct about competitiveness but the Obama policy is not actually going to do a great deal of damage to our economy relative to anywhere else in Europe in terms of US investment. With regard to competitiveness there have to be wage cuts and govt. sponsored salary subsidies extending right across the board because this is a huge aspect of our labour costs compared to say, Germany. We are not really in the same market as Poland or Slovenia, for example, for high technology/ R&D employers.

I'm not of the opinion that this is a fast process, or that banks will return to their old 'generosity' (for want of a better term) with their loan policies. Ths is going to be a very slow and gradual process but I still maintain it is in the best interest of employees and the unemployed and mortgage holders everywhere that NAMA works.

I'm not approaching this from an ideological p.o.v I'm not favouring nationalisation over (basically) a toxic debts bureau. All I'm saying is that we must protect employers by helping them with their debts, and ergo help their employees. This thing of putting our employers in debtors' prisons and writing off everyone's mortgages that some people (not you particularly) would seem to favour, is absolute nonsense.