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

An Bord Snip Nua

Options
24567…12

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Time Magazine
    Registered Users Posts: 8,452 ✭✭✭Time Magazine


    granturismo wrote: »
    Every little helps. It will be interesting to see if a board chaired by an academic recommends any closures or mergers within the third level sector
    He's not a fan of Sociology. We'll see what happens there. Your pre-emptive swipe still remains a pre-emptive swipe. I don't particularly like McCarthy but he's as independent as you get. If he concludes there should be cuts in third-level expenditure I'm sure he'll say it.
    Just like you, I'm entitled to my opinions and cynicism, this is a public forum. As a moderator you should know that personal attacks are not encouraged on most forums.
    Your entitlement to an opinion doesn't render it correct. Personal attacks are only allowed on one forum and this isn't it, but modding other forums is irrelevant here -- I am just a standard user on this forum. But I do know that that wasn't a personal attack, it was an attack on the opinion/cynicism that dribbled from your post. I'm sure you're a lovely person.


  • Options
    #33
    Time Magazine
    Registered Users Posts: 8,452 ✭✭✭Time Magazine


    Sparks wrote: »
    A good explanation from the Examiner:

    That's not from a journalist, by the way, it's a letter written by David Morgan, the Professor of Law in University College Cork. So I give it some weight myself...
    But I don't read that as saying you may lower their pay, merely that you may tax them at the same rate as everyone else. So afaik, and IAMAL, and I can use many more acronyms, but I don't think it's a case that you can lower their pay, merely that you can apply taxes on them.


  • Options
    #34
    Darragh29
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,097 ✭✭✭Darragh29


    Am listening to RTE1 here, Jesus I'm sick of all these union representatives queueing up to pick a fight. Peter Mc Loone now weighing in for a row after the break.

    What parrallel universe are these people living in???? Half of my mates are now unemployed! These guys on the radio still have their snouts in the trough, they've bullied pay increases out of us for years and now the chickens have come home to roost.

    We need a TV documentary along the lines of Channel 4's "Wifeswap", but instead of two couple's swapping their wives for a week, we get a public sector worker and a private sector worker to swop roles for a week.

    We'd soon see how the public sector worker would cope with coming in to work on a Saturday FOR FREE, seeing their colleagues being let go because the company can't afford to keep them on, and then you having to do their job FOR FREE as well!!!

    How would be public sector worker deal with being handed a wages cheque on Friday but being told not to lodge it until the following Tuesday because the bank won't honour it until then???

    This is what is going on in the private sector up and down the country. I've a mate with three weeks wages cheque's up on his bedroom wall, they've all bounced, but he's still working (basically for free), to see if he can help get his employer out of the hole he is in at the moment...


  • Options
    #35
    deadhead13
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,034 ✭✭✭deadhead13


    turgon wrote: »

    Social Welfare. Oh, how many times have I been nearly called a nazi for suggesting a social welfare cul. The statistics tell us that Social Welfare increased disproportionately to inflation in the boom years - child benefit increased at 2.5 times the rate of inflation asfaik. Yet any suggestion of real cuts in social welfare and you are labeled an angel of the rich. This social welfare cut should never have been necessitated. Living on welfare should never have become the viable career choice it is today.

    And all these crap welfare programs. Back to work incentive scheme - excuse me? So not only were we forced to give them welfare, we have to incentivize them to work. Thankfully this ones gone.

    No I don't think you have nearly been called a "nazi" for suggesting social welfare cuts. I think it has more to do with your judgemental tone and the sweeping generalizations you make when you refer to the unemployed. How many of the 400,000 currently on the live register consider "living on welfare to be a viable career choice". You ignore the years of PRSI contirbutions most of them will have made. And don't seem to know the difference between jobseekers benefit and jobseekers allowance. That said, I agree that cuts in the social welfare bill need to be made.


  • Options
    #36
    Darragh29
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,097 ✭✭✭Darragh29


    It's beyond me how on earth a state can give child benefit to a yummy mummy who can afford to drop her kid's to school in a 09 Range Rover worth over 100K. This is social and fiscal recklessness in my opinion.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    is_that_so
    Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    Colm McCarthy on RTE radio now explaining it. Very comprehensive range of proposals where it is "possible" to make cuts. It also sounds like they took a cold hard look at what needs to be done and avoided the wimpishness that politicians would show. Full report is here.


  • Options
    #38
    Mr.Applepie
    Registered Users Posts: 2,079 ✭✭✭Mr.Applepie


    Please correct me if my figures are wrong:

    Estimated spending: 60bn
    Of Which:
    Public Service: 20bn
    Social Welfare: 20bn
    Other: 20bn

    Estimated Income: 35-40bn

    So if we don't cut social welfare or the public service are we just going to get rid of everything else?


  • Options
    #39
    Hellrazer
    Moderators, Arts Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,679 Mod ✭✭✭✭Hellrazer


    deadhead13 wrote: »
    I think it has more to do with your judgemental tone and the sweeping generalizations you make when you refer to the unemployed. How many of the 400,000 currently on the live register consider "living on welfare to be a viable career choice". You ignore the years of PRSI contirbutions most of them will have made. And don't seem to know the difference between jobseekers benefit and jobseekers allowance. That said, I agree that cuts in the social welfare bill need to be made.


    Well said--There seems to be an attitude in this country that the unemployed are all scroungers.While this may have been true in the past when there were jobs to be had I firmly believe that nowadays its not as clear cut.
    As Darragh says "half my mates are now unemployed"

    Most of my mates are unemployed aswell--these were lads who worked their backsides off and to see them in the depths of depression over losing their jobs is a killer.

    For anyone who thinks the dole should be cut--You try and live on the dole money with a mortgage,kids ,bills to pay etc and then tell me it should be cut.

    I guarantee that that attitude would change very very quickly.


  • Options
    #40
    spank_inferno
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,892 ✭✭✭spank_inferno


    Its down to the strange almost peverse idea of "social equality" that the rich get such benefits.


  • Options
    #41
    is_that_so
    Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    Darragh29 wrote: »
    It's beyond me how on earth a state can give child benefit to a yummy mummy who can afford to drop her kid's to school in a 09 Range Rover worth over 100K. This is social and fiscal recklessness in my opinion.

    The Commission on Taxation will be reporting this month and that is expected to come up in it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    KerranJast
    Registered Users Posts: 1,829 ✭✭✭KerranJast


    Personally I think the Science Innovation & Technology, and Green Energy areas should be ringfenced or at least rationalised rather than simply slashed.


  • Options
    #43
    turgon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,762 ✭✭✭turgon


    deadhead13 wrote: »
    I think it has more to do with your judgemental tone and the sweeping generalizations you make when you refer to the unemployed.

    This group of unemployed, whom I apparently judge and make generalizations about, include myself, for your information.
    deadhead13 wrote: »
    How many of the 400,000 currently on the live register consider "living on welfare to be a viable career choice".

    How many of the 150,000 that were on it during an economic boom considered it a career choice?

    If you really think I am on about those who recently lost their jobs then I would have to say you read my post with a view to hearing something you wanted to hear.
    deadhead13 wrote: »
    You ignore the years of PRSI contirbutions most of them will have made. And don't seem to know the difference between jobseekers benefit and jobseekers allowance.

    Forgive me, I speak entirely of the jobseekers allowance, its my fault for rarely making that explicit. If someone makes PRSI contributions then they are obviously entitled to the fruits of those contributions.


  • Options
    #44
    turgon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,762 ✭✭✭turgon


    Darragh29 wrote: »
    It's beyond me how on earth a state can give child benefit to a yummy mummy who can afford to drop her kid's to school in a 09 Range Rover worth over 100K. This is social and fiscal recklessness in my opinion.

    Why stop at the "rich"? If you want a child, surely it is your responsibility to ensure you can pay for, not the states?


  • Options
    #45
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,424 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Darragh29 wrote: »
    It's beyond me how on earth a state can give child benefit to a yummy mummy who can afford to drop her kid's to school in a 09 Range Rover worth over 100K. This is social and fiscal recklessness in my opinion.

    Its not economical to tax child welfare or to means test it. the money you would save would be eaten up in admin costs. What they should do instead, is let them keep the child ben but increase the top rate of tax, which would also hit the older generation who are on the biggest bucks, have a significant share of the blame for the current mess and don't have the expense of rearing a family.

    Leave the universal payments alone, increase the rates of tax and abolish all of the tax breaks and loopholes that allow the over wealthy to squirrel their wealth away.


  • Options
    #46
    Sparks
    Registered Users Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    The Economist wrote: »
    But I don't read that as saying you may lower their pay, merely that you may tax them at the same rate as everyone else. So afaik, and IAMAL, and I can use many more acronyms, but I don't think it's a case that you can lower their pay, merely that you can apply taxes on them.
    Well David Morgan IAL, and he says you're wrong.


  • Options
    #47
    spank_inferno
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,892 ✭✭✭spank_inferno


    Mr.Applepie wrote: »
    Please correct me if my figures are wrong:

    Estimated spending: 60bn
    Of Which:
    Public Service: 20bn
    Social Welfare: 20bn
    Other: 20bn

    Estimated Income: 35-40bn

    So if we don't cut social welfare or the public service are we just going to get rid of everything else?

    Your figures are pretty much on the nose.
    The last figure I saw was from May and that anticipated a 2009 income of just 37 billion and that was after the tax hikes in the emergency budget.

    Depending on social welfare costs and the costs of public sector pay raises (and they are getting raises) Spending could be between 58 - 62 billion for the year.

    So 2009 defecit = 20 billion at least
    2010 deficit = guessing less but in the same region, mabey 15 billion.

    And thats excluding the 7billion paid to AIB & BOI
    1.5 billion to Anglo-Irish
    the Costs of NAMA
    the costs of the Government banking garauntee


    Save us IMF.... save us!


  • Options
    #48
    is_that_so
    Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    turgon wrote: »
    Why stop at the "rich"? If you want a child, surely it is your responsibility to ensure you can pay for, not the states?

    We need kids to pay for our elderly, otherwise we end up with an ageing population supported by a smaller and smaller working population. Incidentally there is a proposed cut of €500 million in child benefit in that report (p. 77), by standardising the rate.


  • Options
    #49
    Darragh29
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,097 ✭✭✭Darragh29


    is_that_so wrote: »
    The Commission on Taxation will be reporting this month and that is expected to come up in it.

    You see this is more of it... How much are we paying that quango to tell us the blinding f*cking obvious?!??!?!?

    Do we in all seriousness need another quango to tell us that a woman who can afford to drive a 100K top end truck to bring her kids to school in the morning, doesn't actually need, and should not be receiving, child benefit???


  • Options
    #50
    Time Magazine
    Registered Users Posts: 8,452 ✭✭✭Time Magazine


    Sparks wrote: »
    Well David Morgan IAL, and he says you're wrong.

    Where does he say you can cut their pay?


  • Options
    #51
    is_that_so
    Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    Darragh29 wrote: »
    You see this is more of it... How much are we paying that quango to tell us the blinding f*cking obvious?!??!?!?

    Do we in all seriousness need another quango to tell us that a woman who can afford to drive a 100K top end truck to bring her kids to school in the morning, doesn't actually need, and should not be receiving, child benefit???

    I wouldn't lump it in with the rest. Their remit is much wider than just child benefit and their work will finish soon, unlike most other quangos. Unlike many other quangos what they say is important and IMO essential in addressing the problems with our narrow tax base.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    turgon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,762 ✭✭✭turgon


    Akrasia wrote: »
    increase the top rate of tax

    And give innovation and entrepreneurship another kick in the balls?
    is_that_so wrote: »
    We need kids to pay for our elderly, otherwise we end up with an ageing population supported by a smaller and smaller working population.

    Im not advocating the banning of children. Removing child benefit wouldn't reduce the population seriously imo, it would just make the people aware of the responsibilities of parenthood.

    In the current system anyone who doesnt have children is forced to pay for those who do. Is that "equality"?


  • Options
    #53
    Darragh29
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,097 ✭✭✭Darragh29


    turgon wrote: »
    Why stop at the "rich"? If you want a child, surely it is your responsibility to ensure you can pay for, not the states?

    Dead right, I take exception to people driving around in 100K cars, and getting state money handed to them because they made a decision to have a family. If you decide to have a family, then you pay for it and don't expect me to subsidise that decision!
    Akrasia wrote: »
    Its not economical to tax child welfare or to means test it. the money you would save would be eaten up in admin costs. What they should do instead, is let them keep the child ben but increase the top rate of tax, which would also hit the older generation who are on the biggest bucks, have a significant share of the blame for the current mess and don't have the expense of rearing a family.

    Leave the universal payments alone, increase the rates of tax and abolish all of the tax breaks and loopholes that allow the over wealthy to squirrel their wealth away.

    People over a certain income should simply not receive it, no need for a means test or taxing it or major admin costs. Revenue have income records for all people, run run a report off a computer and if you are in a household earning over 75K or some reasonable figure, then you aren't getting child benefit and that's the end of that... If you feel you badly need it, then you can apply for it and be assessed for it. If you are on the dole, then the child benefit element of it should be increased but the actual childrens allowance disbanded as a payment altogether...


  • Options
    #54
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,424 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Hellrazer wrote: »
    Well said--There seems to be an attitude in this country that the unemployed are all scroungers.While this may have been true in the past when there were jobs to be had I firmly believe that nowadays its not as clear cut.
    As Darragh says "half my mates are now unemployed"

    Most of my mates are unemployed aswell--these were lads who worked their backsides off and to see them in the depths of depression over losing their jobs is a killer.

    For anyone who thinks the dole should be cut--You try and live on the dole money with a mortgage,kids ,bills to pay etc and then tell me it should be cut.

    I guarantee that that attitude would change very very quickly.

    Without trying to be provocative, how many of your hard working friends were gouging during the boom, charging extortionate rates per hour as tradespeople, and taking that money and wasting it on overpriced ego trip houses and 'investments' (money for nothing) How many of those people woild have been sitting around a bar stool moaning about the scroungers on welfare and saying the dole should be cut. The people who demanded everything during the bubble they helped create are now demanding help when their fantasy comes back to reality.

    There an awful lot of people playing the victim card here, and all fighting amongst themselves while our fearless leader, Cowen makes statements like "I will sign any cheques required to ensure confidence returns to the banking industry"

    We are all being trained on each other, turned against one another while the Bastards in government are pissing away untold billions on bailing out the true criminals in all of this. As long as NAMA and the bank bail outs continue, nobody should be prepared to accept 1 cent in cutbacks. As long as FF refuse to leave and insist on taking their craven salaries and their extended vacations, there should be fierce resistance by everybody to every measure they try to introduce.

    Quietly accepting these 'cutbacks' of 5 billion with the disasterous consequences they are going to have for ordinary people, will be the biggest mistake we as a nation can make, because every penny we scrimp to save is just another penny the criminals can steal for themselves before the state is declared bankrupt.


  • Options
    #55
    RobFowl
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 11,667 Mod ✭✭✭✭RobFowl


    http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0716/Volume%201.pdf

    The full report :eek:


  • Options
    #56
    turgon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,762 ✭✭✭turgon


    Akrasia wrote: »
    As long as FF refuse to leave and insist on taking their craven salaries and their extended vacations, there should be fierce resistance by everybody to every measure they try to introduce.

    So force our country further into recession and debt just because of the governments refusal to resign. Shooting yourself in the foot tbh.


  • Options
    #57
    is_that_so
    Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    turgon wrote: »
    And give innovation and entrepreneurship another kick in the balls?



    Im not advocating the banning of children. Removing child benefit wouldn't reduce the population seriously imo, it would just make the people aware of the responsibilities of parenthood.

    In the current system anyone who doesnt have children is forced to pay for those who do. Is that "equality"?

    Any more than someone who is not unemployed is "forced" to pay for the long-term unemployed?
    The French bit the bullet some years back because of that very problem and paid women up to €1000 a month to have a third child.


  • Options
    #58
    techdiver
    Registered Users Posts: 3,204 ✭✭✭techdiver


    turgon wrote: »
    In the current system anyone who doesnt have children is forced to pay for those who do. Is that "equality"?

    Especially when many of these "career welfare recipients" are the ones spitting out kids left right and centre. They are not going to do much to plug the pensions gap in the future, far from it.


  • Options
    #59
    Darragh29
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,097 ✭✭✭Darragh29


    is_that_so wrote: »
    I wouldn't lump it in with the rest. Their remit is much wider than just child benefit and their work will finish soon, unlike most other quangos. Unlike many other quangos what they say is important and IMO essential in addressing the problems with our narrow tax base.

    We have too many "experts" in this country and not enough people in authority prepared to just make a logical decision and execute it.


  • Options
    #60
    whippet
    Registered Users Posts: 7,687 ✭✭✭whippet


    Akrasia wrote: »
    there should be fierce resistance by everybody to every measure they try to introduce.

    Quietly accepting these 'cutbacks' of 5 billion with the disasterous consequences they are going to have for ordinary people, will be the biggest mistake we as a nation can make, because every penny we scrimp to save is just another penny the criminals can steal for themselves before the state is declared bankrupt.

    fierce resistance will find the missing €20bn !!!! attitudes like that will serve the country no use and will actually bring us further in to the financial cesspit.

    you have contridicted yourself, you started off by blaming the workers who over charged and squandered and then later laid the flat of the blame on the bankers and developers .... pointless argument !


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    is_that_so
    Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    Darragh29 wrote: »
    We have too many "experts" in this country and not enough people in authority prepared to just make a logical decision and execute it.

    I agree but like An Bord Snip the Commission is politically detached, which cannot be said for many of our so-called "experts". Both also make very good sense in light of the complete inability of the government to come up with coherent decisions or thinking.


Advertisement