Should child benefit be taken from those earning above 40,000?

The_Conductor

Maebh wrote: »

I'm just waiting for someone to say, "Hey, let's not accept these cuts at all. While we're at it, I don't like this complete and utter lack of interest in the livelihoods of the Irish people, these statements constructed to confuse and dishearten the public and the attempts to turn the citizens against each other....Why not...do...something...about....it...."

But, the thing is, it's all very well and good for us to talk and talk on boards, but if that's all we're doing, well, we deserve to get what's coming...

*shrug*...I dunno.

There are whole brigades of people marching on the Houses of the Oireachtas several times a week- sometimes as many as 4 or 5 seperate demonstrations occuring simultaneously. These are all people imbued with the NIMBY culture- they don't mind cuts- but not their pension, not their children's benefit, not their dole, not their local A&E, not their cancer treatment......

People don't seem to realise that in isolation all their little pet projects may not break the bank- but when taken together, they are crippling the country.

We really have an appalling parochial mindset in this country- people refuse to look at what is good for Ireland as a whole- but only what can they grab for their own locality. This didn't matter so much when there were oceans of money to go around- but there aren't any longer......

If people choose not to get involved- they don't have the right to bitch and moan when they have things chopped- as they certainly will. But they shouldn't be rewarded for lobbying on behalf of a local A&E- at the cost of other more worthy areas of expenditure.......

We don't have a populace, or elected representatives, who have the foresight to think of Ireland Inc- and what is in the best interests of the country as a whole- and communicate with the populace.

Maebh

smccarrick wrote: »

There are whole brigades of people marching on the Houses of the Oireachtas several times a week- sometimes as many as 4 or 5 seperate demonstrations occuring simultaneously. These are all people imbued with the NIMBY culture- they don't mind cuts- but not their pension, not their children's benefit, not their dole, not their local A&E, not their cancer treatment......

People don't seem to realise that in isolation all their little pet projects may not break the bank- but when taken together, they are crippling the country.

We really have an appalling parochial mindset in this country- people refuse to look at what is good for Ireland as a whole- but only what can they grab for their own locality. This didn't matter so much when there were oceans of money to go around- but there aren't any longer......

If people choose not to get involved- they don't have the right to bitch and moan when they have things chopped- as they certainly will. But they shouldn't be rewarded for lobbying on behalf of a local A&E- at the cost of other more worthy areas of expenditure.......

We don't have a populace, or elected representatives, who have the foresight to think of Ireland Inc- and what is in the best interests of the country as a whole- and communicate with the populace.

Look, I'm not saying there aren't demonstrations, and I'm not saying there aren't people looking out solely for them and theirs, but I am saying that the government is not going about things in the right way. Instead of investing in the country, they're allowing it to sink further and further down.

I'm agreeing with you when I say that lobbying on behalf of your patch is silly, we should all be banding together to just get rid of the eejits in government...

And...ah yes...these little "pet projects" are "crippling the country"...
Sure, it had nothing to do with the bankers and government. It was all the fault of those feckless pension-seeking people, pesky A&E departments, those bad people who lost their jobs and are now on the dole, those damned cancer treatment centers.

People are fighting the little fights because they're worth fighting about.

OMD

Maebh wrote: »

*sigh*...people keep saying this.

And yet. It doesn't seem to make sense to me that the gov would be able to bail out the banks (blah blah, it was necessary, yeah, well, somehow I find it hard to trust them about it) and fund nama and have a huge bloody surplus for years and years only to find that, oh no! we can't pay for social welfare any more!

It's ridiculous.

Maeb, the government does not have the money to bail out the banks. If we actually have to pay out all the money we are guarenteeing or actually pay the entire cost of NAMA then the country will be bankrupt.

The 24 billion yearly debt has almost nothing to do with bailing out the banks. We are paying out too much every year, mainly in social welfare and public services. We are paying out 24 billion more than we are taking in. There is no magic solution. Massive cuts have to come.

OMD

Maebh wrote: »

And...ah yes...these little "pet projects" are "crippling the country"...
Sure, it had nothing to do with the bankers and government. It was all the fault of those feckless pension-seeking people, pesky A&E departments, those bad people who lost their jobs and are now on the dole, those damned cancer treatment centers.

People are fighting the little fights because they're worth fighting about.

Exactly. It was the fault of government to increase spending hugely to these areas and public service pay to help it getting re-elected.

Maebh

Stark wrote: »

You're just going to write a billion letters saying "don't do anything, continue as we are" and in a few years time the magic money tree (the ECB or whatever) is going to stop bearing fruit and we're going to be where we are now but with an extra €20bn or so in interest repayments. And what are you going to do then? Write a few letters saying "please magic me some food"? Maybe you should leave the policies to the people who don't plan on bankrupting the country for the sake of a few more years of comfort unless you have a better idea of where we're going to get the money to pay for your comforts.

NAMA is money put aside from the ECB specially for our economic recovery and kept off our loan books. All going well it mightn't cost us anything, in likelihood it may end up costing us a few billion but the trade-off from that is an upturn in the economy and greater tax yields as a result. All the money being borrowed to pay for current expenditure is money that we'll never see again and the ECB is only lending us it in the first place on the condition that we borrow less every year. What's your plan for when the ECB decides we're not playing ball and stops lending us that money? Where do you think your money is going to come from then?

Right, first off, I'm not saying "leave things as they are". Things are ridiculous, but not for the reasons you seem to think.

Perhaps, (and these are just loose ideas) get the money to pay for the "comforts" of social welfare from increased taxation on those who can afford it, for one thing. Also, from increased revenue if the government were to invest in business growth, or infrastructure, or anything that might make it worthwhile setting up a new industry in this country. There's a lot of potential being wasted in this country. Instead we have recommendations from the McCarthy report being seriously considered that would cripple business in a whole range of areas, rural areas are gonna get hit hard by losing some of those schemes that are merely "pet projects" to those in the Dail. The country's being pillaged, and repeating what the government's telling us isn't likely to convince me of very much, at the moment.

Stark

Maebh wrote:

Perhaps, (and these are just loose ideas) get the money to pay for the "comforts" of social welfare from increased taxation on those who can afford it, for one thing.

Have you done the figures on that? Do you know how much we'd have to broaden the tax base by in order to raise €24bn? You may think there's an army of "super rich" out there who can pay it all but this isn't the reality. "Those who can afford it" means you, yes you. You might get to keep your child benefit but you'll lose far more in extra tax and the economy will have continued to collapse meaning even more people on social welfare and less people earning and paying tax.

Maebh

OMD wrote: »

Exactly. It was the fault of government to increase spending hugely to these areas and public service pay to help it getting re-elected.

Are you honestly telling me that you think people shouldn't care about the things they will lose because they shouldn't have had them in the first place?

Maebh

Stark wrote: »

Have you done the figures on that? Do you know how much we'd have to broaden the tax base by in order to raise €24bn? You may think there's an army of "super rich" out there who can pay it all but this isn't the reality. "Those who can afford it" means you, yes you. You might get to keep your child benefit but you'll lose far more in extra tax and the economy will have continued to collapse meaning even more people on social welfare and less people earning and paying tax.

No, I'm not an economist, does that mean I can't have any sort of opinion?

I said they were loose ideas, nothing fixed in stone.

And no, I'm not naive enough to say there's an army of super rich people out there, but there are people who can afford to give more money than I can. That's a fact, and it's unfair to target the poor before targeting the rich.

OMD

Maebh wrote: »

Are you honestly telling me that you think people shouldn't care about the things they will lose because they shouldn't have had them in the first place?

Care all you want. It doesn't change the facts. As I said every family needs to either pay 24,000 a year extra in tax (even those unemployed) or else see a reduction in services equivalent to 24,000 per family a year.

Stark

Maebh wrote:

Are you honestly telling me that you think people shouldn't care about the things they will lose because they shouldn't have had them in the first place?

That's exactly what he's saying. The money that was used to pay for public services over the past few years was created by the construction bubble. Now that the bubble has burst, that money isn't coming in any more and we have to go back to the way we were spending in 2002/2003 before the bubble happened. The banks should never have helped create this bubble and if they didn't, we wouldn't be in the current mess but we also wouldn't have seen the massive social welfare and public sector pay increases we saw in the past few years.

Maebh wrote:

And no, I'm not naive enough to say there's an army of super rich people out there, but there are people who can afford to give more money than I can. That's a fact, and it's unfair to target the poor before targeting the rich.

Not as many as you might like to think. If we're going to increase tax yields, we have to bring more people into the tax net.

nesf

Stark wrote: »

we have to go back to the way we were spending in 2002/2003 before the bubble happened.

The bubble started well before 2002/2003.

Maebh

Stark wrote: »

That's exactly what he's saying. The money that was used to pay for public services over the past few years was created by the construction bubble. Now that the bubble has burst, that money isn't coming in any more and we have to go back to the way we were spending in 2002/2003 before the bubble happened. The banks should never have helped create this bubble and if they didn't, we wouldn't be in the current mess but we also wouldn't have seen the massive social welfare and public sector pay increases we saw in the past few years.



Not as many as you might like to think. If we're going to increase tax yields, we have to bring more people into the tax net.

Oh, there are all sorts of tangled problems surrounding this boom-bust period. You have a point that the boom was unsustainable, people were out of control in all sorts of ways. You're right. But that doesn't mean we have to go straight back, in one fell swoop, to 2002-2003 spending. Anyway, I don't think people can right away. It's too much, too fast.

The other thing, though, is that the government doesn't seem to be seeing any of this in terms of real people. That's what really annoys me. Never mind the ways I will be personally affected, I'm not saying these things out of some feeling of NIMBY, I'm saying that there are people in this country, not economic units, and not imbeciles, and not lesser-than-the-elite.

How do you increase the tax net? Investment. What have we heard so little about from FF? Investment.

97i9y3941

like the dole i think,when most of the country was working during the so called boom,bertie needlessly increased welfare...

OMD

Maebh wrote: »

Oh, there are all sorts of tangled problems surrounding this boom-bust period. You have a point that the boom was unsustainable, people were out of control in all sorts of ways. You're right. But that doesn't mean we have to go straight back, in one fell swoop, to 2002-2003 spending. Anyway, I don't think people can right away. It's too much, too fast.

.

Maebh we are not "going straight back in one fell swoop". As I keep on saying we need to cut 24 billion. We are actually going to cut 4 billion. The cuts are only starting.

Stark

Maebh wrote:

But that doesn't mean we have to go straight back, in one fell swoop, to 2002-2003 spending. Anyway, I don't think people can right away. It's too much, too fast.

That's why the transition is to be spread over several years. Vested interests want it delayed by another few years again though. By that time, we will be drowing in interest repayments.

Maebh wrote:

The other thing, though, is that the government doesn't seem to be seeing any of this in terms of real people. That's what really annoys me. Never mind the ways I will be personally affected, I'm not saying these things out of some feeling of NIMBY, I'm saying that there are people in this country, not economic units, and not imbeciles, and not lesser-than-the-elite.

The people of tomorrow who'll be paying for the lifestyles of the people of today will be just as real as the people of today.

Maebh

OMD wrote: »

Maebh we are not "going straight back in one fell swoop". As I keep on saying we need to cut 24 billion. We are actually going to cut 4 billion. The cuts are only starting.

Alright, alright, I don't mean that. But it's still a lot of cuts, you can't say it isn't. I'm not really focusing on two or three years of cuts, I'm focusing on the here and now because that's all I can plan for right now. But y'know, to be honest, I don't think I'll stick around to be shafted much longer. Just save up and take my unwanted enthusiasm and desire to be a productive citizen elsewhere...

The_Conductor

Maebh wrote: »

I don't think I'll stick around to be shafted much longer. Just save up and take my unwanted enthusiasm and desire to be a productive citizen elsewhere...

If I didn't have ties- I'd be on the plane or boat, after you...... This little country is screwed.........

Maebh

The people of tomorrow who'll be paying for the lifestyles of the people of today will be just as real as the people of today.

Yep, they will, but they'll also be the descendants of those crazy enough to stay.
Your point, I know, is that we should take the hardship, take the cuts, take the return to the good aul eighties, in the hopes that it will leave our children better able to cope in the future. But I don't see the logic. Where's the progress in these plans? Where's the emphasis on doing good for the people? It's interest groups that're being served, but not the interest groups that ordinary people care about.

Stark

I'm afraid your point has been that we return to the economic policies of the eighties with uncontrolled spending and ever increasing tax rates. My point is that we nip out of control spending in the bud asap and get ourselves back on track as quickly as possible. Policies like restoring the banking sector, keeping tax rates at levels that provide incentives to working and reigning in borrowing are part of that economic plan.

Maebh

Actually, I don't believe in uncontrolled spending, nor do I believe in ever-increasing tax rates. I'm saying people should be taxed accordingly. If you have benefited from this society enough to earn a high wage you should pay more taxes. If you have been unlucky in life and need a leg up, you should not be burdened unfairly.

And I'm also saying that because we are the people who pay their wages, the government should be listening to the ordinary folk. And that there are certain services that people should receive. And I'm saying they've made a right hash of it so far...

Stark

Maebh wrote: »

Actually, I don't believe in uncontrolled spending, nor do I believe in ever-increasing tax rates. I'm saying people should be taxed accordingly. If you have benefited from this society enough to earn a high wage you should pay more taxes. If you have been unlucky in life and need a leg up, you should not be burdened unfairly.

The other side of that coin is that those who've worked hard and taken risks in order to make successes of themselves shouldn't be punitively taxed in order to subsidize the lifestyles of people who couldn't be bothered. I'm all for giving generous welfare payments to the likes of the disabled and carers and the like, but did we really need to give generous dole payments to people during a time of full employment?
Make sure everyone pays their share but calls for "super tax rates" will only drive away the people who fuel the economy in the long run.

Why do we tax ourselves to throw the money back out to ourselves in the form of childrens allowance to:
A) people richer than ourselves
and
people who should be discouraged from having children i.e scumbag junkies and the like
do you reckon alcoholic parents and junkies spend the money on their kids or drink/drugs?

Have we really become dependent on childrens allowance? Why cant people survive without it?

Maebh

Maebh wrote: »

*sigh*...people keep saying this.

And yet. It doesn't seem to make sense to me that the gov would be able to bail out the banks (blah blah, it was necessary, yeah, well, somehow I find it hard to trust them about it) and fund nama and have a huge bloody surplus for years and years only to find that, oh no! we can't pay for social welfare any more!

It's ridiculous.

it is ridiculous but feck all protested against NAMA but how many protested the medical card and how many will protest tomorrow?
We need to start looking at the root of our problems.......

If we are dependent on allowances question why! Maybe our cost of living is too high hmmmn

dodgyme

Deleted User wrote: »

Why do we tax ourselves to throw the money back out to ourselves in the form of childrens allowance to:
A) people richer than ourselves
and
people who should be discouraged from having children i.e scumbag junkies and the like
do you reckon alcoholic parents and junkies spend the money on their kids or drink/drugs?

Have we really become dependent on childrens allowance? Why cant people survive without it?

I take it you dont claim CA

dodgyme

dodgyme wrote: »

I take it you dont claim CA

Should everything be about interest groups?
Maybe we could use our brains and get to the roots of our problems
we need to wake up we really do
fighting amongst ourselves

Maebh

Stark wrote: »

The other side of that coin is that those who've worked hard and taken risks in order to make successes of themselves shouldn't be punitively taxed in order to subsidize the lifestyles of people who couldn't be bothered. I'm all for giving generous welfare payments to the likes of the disabled and carers and the like, but did we really need to give generous dole payments to people during a time of full employment?
Make sure everyone pays their share but calls for "super tax rates" will only drive away the people who fuel the economy in the long run.

Ah, come on. I'm not saying anything about punitive taxes. I'm not a fecking communist here. I'm just saying that when tax cuts are being given, the right believes in a top-down approach, but when taxes are being raised, the rich are immune because "they drive the economy". All I'm saying is a little fairness wouldn't go amiss.

As for the original topic, though, I still stand by my assertion that a universal child benefit is a sign of a civilised country taking care of its future. However, I do think that an increased payment per each child one has is a crazy incentive to have more kids. There y'go, I'm not all for keeping the system intact ...

Maebh

Maebh wrote: »

Ah, come on. I'm not saying anything about punitive taxes. I'm not a fecking communist here. I'm just saying that when tax cuts are being given, the right believes in a top-down approach, but when taxes are being raised, the rich are immune because "they drive the economy". All I'm saying is a little fairness wouldn't go amiss.

As for the original topic, though, I still stand by my assertion that a universal child benefit is a sign of a civilised country taking care of its future. However, I do think that an increased payment per each child one has is a crazy incentive to have more kids. There y'go, I'm not all for keeping the system intact ...

You do realise how much of the tax bill is already being paid by the 'rich'?

Maebh

Deleted User wrote: »

how many will protest tomorrow?

Hardly any, most likely. That doesn't mean people aren't annoyed, it means that there's a day of protest organised on a day people are working.
Personally, I'd love to go, but alas, other things get in the way. Like the fact that it's on a Friday and I don't live terribly near to the places protests are organised for. So, that'd lead to me taking an entire day to go to something that's most likely not going to achieve very much...

Maebh

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

You do realise how much of the tax bill is already being paid by the 'rich'?

No, tell me. Hard figures would be nice.

Tipp Man

Maebh wrote: »

Hardly any, most likely. That doesn't mean people aren't annoyed, it means that there's a day of protest organised on a day people are working.
Personally, I'd love to go, but alas, other things get in the way. Like the fact that it's on a Friday and I don't live terribly near to the places protests are organised for. So, that'd lead to me taking an entire day to go to something that's most likely not going to achieve very much...

Can you tell me exactly your reasons for protesting? What's makes you say to yourself yeah I should be out there?