The "live as it happens" Budget comment thread....

Jamie-b

Jamie-b wrote: »

Don't try to insult me please, I do know how this "thing" works. I do believe that public sector workers pay should be reduced, but not in the extreme way it was. I think under 30k it should not have been reduced, and that there should be extra levies on higher earners accross the board so that public and private sector workers earning higher salaries should all contribute

You don't have a clue. Like a lot of people though you think that because you have a voice you should use it no matter how awful the stuff you come out with is.

A few posts back you complained that you couldn't get a mortgage despite the fact you were losing your job next year. Next year you would be posting here giving out about how the GOVERNMENT got you into the mess you're in as your house you can't afford gets repossessed.

Keano

Jamie-b wrote: »

Don't try to insult me please, I do know how this "thing" works. I do believe that public sector workers pay should be reduced, but not in the extreme way it was. I think under 30k it should not have been reduced, and that there should be extra levies on higher earners accross the board so that public and private sector workers earning higher salaries should all contribute

Public sector pay accounts for something like 1/3 of the overall expenditure. It had to take a hit.

tudlytops

Jamie-b wrote: »

Don't try to insult me please, I do know how this "thing" works. I do believe that public sector workers pay should be reduced, but not in the extreme way it was. I think under 30k it should not have been reduced, and that there should be extra levies on higher earners accross the board so that public and private sector workers earning higher salaries should all contribute

yes agree that up to 30K should have been left alone, it's a nice wages by not by all means a wonderful wage.

And yes i know many in the private sector are getting a lot less, but that doesn't make the 30K a luxury.

richie is200

i have been on the dole for about 8 or 9 months does that mean mine is gone down to €150 as well?

tudlytops

tudlytops wrote: »

yes agree that up to 30K should have been left alone, it's a nice wages by not by all means a wonderful wage.

And yes i know many in the private sector are getting a lot less, but that doesn't make the 30K a luxury.

30k isn't a luxurious pay check, I'll admit that. But for the work that clerical staff do in the PublicS, compared to the same work that clerical staff would do in the PrivateS the difference in pay is FAR too wide. I mean you would start on 18-9k in the PrivateS and 24k in the PublicS. How anyone can justify that is beyond me?

tudlytops

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

You don't have a clue. Like a lot of people though you think that because you have a voice you should use it no matter how awful the stuff you come out with is.

A few posts back you complained that you couldn't get a mortgage despite the fact you were losing your job next year. Next year you would be posting here giving out about how the GOVERNMENT got you into the mess you're in as your house you can't afford gets repossessed.

as much as that was people fault buy houses well above their means and in many cases just trying to impress, it was also the government fault, for encouraging people to buy, buy, buy and allowing backs to lend so much.

Dubya89

No, you're not a new applicant. You will get 196.

ei.sdraob

this SF guy is delusional

Rb

richie is200 wrote: »

i have been on the dole for about 8 or 9 months does that mean mine is gone down to €150 as well?

Read the thread.

Digest the talk over the dole.

Then you'll have your answer. I know it's a bit of work, but hey, if you've got anything right now it's time.

tudlytops

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

30k isn't a luxurious pay check, I'll admit that. But for the work that clerical staff do in the PublicS, compared to the same work that clerical staff would do in the PrivateS the difference in pay is FAR too wide. I mean you would start on 18-9k in the PrivateS and 24k in the PublicS. How anyone can justify that is beyond me?

yes i agree but that's a different topic all together, if they were to pay a private firm to do a lot of the public sector work, they would get much better value for money.

Jamie-b

You don't have a clue. Like a lot of people though you think that because you have a voice you should use it no matter how awful the stuff you come out with is.

A few posts back you complained that you couldn't get a mortgage despite the fact you were losing your job next year. Next year you would be posting her giving out about how the GOVERNMENT got you into the mess you're in as your house you can't afford gets repossessed.

I was trying to demonstrate how as a public sector worker some people do not have all the alleged benefits, such as total job security, that other people seem t think we have. I feel like people here are insulting people in
public sector by making sweeping generalisations and I think it is important to dispel that rumour

Public sector pay accounts for something like 1/3 of the overall expenditure. It had to take a hit.

I do agree. But I think it should have been a lower cut, coupled with staggered levies accross both sectors so that higher earners in both sectors contribute.

tudlytops

Rb wrote: »

Read the thread.

Digest the talk over the dole.

Then you'll have your answer. I know it's a bit of work, but hey, if you've got anything right now it's time.

lol, sorry, just had to

DeVore

ei.sdraob wrote: »

this SF guy is delusional

and apparently talking to just 6 of the most bored people in the world....


DeV.

richie is200

Dubya89 wrote: »

No, you're not a new applicant. You will get 196.

thanks

Rb wrote: »

Read the thread.
Digest the talk over the dole.

Then you'll have your answer. I know it's a bit of work, but hey, if you've got anything right now it's time.

do i have to,
its 47 pages
:D

Jamie-b

Jamie-b wrote: »

I do agree. But I think it should have been a lower cut, coupled with staggered levies accross both sectors so that higher earners in both sectors contribute.

the top 4% pay over 50% of income tax. How much more should they be paying?

IrishLady

My dad is a carer for my mam and ive lost my job so now ill recieve 150 a week because im between 22-24 and wont find a job untill after christmas...Bad christmas for us :(Its hard enough as it is !!

Papa_Lazarou

I myself would have liked to have seen some sort of tax on students that do work a lot and earn over a certain amount. If they could do something where they dont tax those who say are paying for the full college fees or are living out of home for college purposes.

I can earn up to 300 euro some weeks depending on the days i work and dont have to pay a penny tax on it.I know so many students that get the full grants available then basicaly dont turn up to college and work plenty of hours and make quite a bit of money. Its these people are the first to complain when there is talks off any cuts in college then.

Just my two cents but as a college student living at home i would be more than willing to play my part and contribute to sort the mess that this country finds itself in.

nkay1985

IrishLady wrote: »

My dad is a carer for my mam and ive lost my job so now ill recieve 150 a week because im between 22-24 and wont find a job untill after christmas...Bad christmas for us :(Its hard enough as it is !!

I'm sorry to hear all of that. Unfortunately, with every budget, there are indivuals who will end up getting hit with mroe than most becasue of their circumstances.

Qs

To be fair Papa most people earning €300 a week pay minimal tax anyway so even if students were taxed like workers it wouldn't generate much money.

Grants should be dependant on attendance and results though, that'd stop the other thing you mentioned.

tudlytops

I love the 50c on prescriptions, wouldn't they save a lot more if medical card holders didn't have to go to the doc to get a prescription for a non prescription item?

Couldn't they just register their medical card with their chemist and get the medication, it would sale a lot of money.


Oh but then again the doctors wouldn't like that, sorry forgot

tudlytops

IrishLady wrote: »

My dad is a carer for my mam and ive lost my job so now ill recieve 150 a week because im between 22-24 and wont find a job untill after christmas...Bad christmas for us :(Its hard enough as it is !!

Again and again and again, it's only for new claims

efb

nkay1985 wrote: »

I'm sorry to hear all of that. Unfortunately, with every budget, there are indivuals who will end up getting hit with mroe than most becasue of their circumstances.

was careers hit? (I hope not) and I know its not easy but any chance at all of getting casual christmas work?

Qs

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

the top 4% pay over 50% of income tax.

Isn't that just an example of the divide in Irish society between the rich and the poor. Yet we hit the poor harder today and leave the rich be.

tudlytops

Papa_Lazarou wrote: »

I myself would have liked to have seen some sort of tax on students that do work a lot and earn over a certain amount. If they could do something where they dont tax those who say are paying for the full college fees or are living out of home for college purposes.

I can earn up to 300 euro some weeks depending on the days i work and dont have to pay a penny tax on it.I know so many students that get the full grants available then basicaly dont turn up to college and work plenty of hours and make quite a bit of money. Its these people are the first to complain when there is talks off any cuts in college then.

Just my two cents but as a college student living at home i would be more than willing to play my part and contribute to sort the mess that this country finds itself in.

Those students are the future unemployment specialists, it takes a lot of seating around to be really competent at being unemployed your know.

waffleman

Jamie-b wrote: »

No offence, but you shouldnt flatter yourself that you are better than the public sector workers. The only reason they don't hire people to do the jobs is because they don't want to make more people permanant

hilarious - either the public sector worker can't do the job or they are wasting fistfuls of money using outside contracting companies because "they don't want to make more people permanant"

which is it?

Jamie-b

the top 4% pay over 50% of income tax. How much more should they be paying?

Em... more??? I honestly don't care if someone is paying 50% tax on a huge salary. You cannot use a percentage to make it look unfair, it's peoples actual take home pay that is important. I think it more ethical to increase tax on higher earners than low paid workers, but obviously ethics is not an issue here.

My dad is a carer for my mam and ive lost my job so now ill recieve 150 a week because im between 22-24 and wont find a job untill after christmas...Bad christmas for us Its hard enough as it is !!

So sorry for you. I really am. I think it's people like you that demonstrate how wrong it is to make these cuts based on assumptions about young people (such as they will be supported by their parents). I don't know what to say to make you feel better...

sceptre

Papa_Lazarou wrote: »

I myself would have liked to have seen some sort of tax on students that do work a lot and earn over a certain amount. If they could do something where they dont tax those who say are paying for the full college fees or are living out of home for college purposes.

Students don't get any special tax exemption for any income they make - they fall into the tax net the same as anyone else if their income pushes them into the taxable bands for the year.

Jamie-b

hilarious - either the public sector worker can't do the job or they are wasting fistfuls of money using outside contracting companies because "they don't want to make more people permanant

Not really hilarious? Where I work loads of jobs are contract workers just in case at some point in the future they don't need the role anymore and can't be left with permanant employees

Jamie-b

Jamie-b wrote: »

Em... more??? I honestly don't care if someone is paying 50% tax on a huge salary. You cannot use a percentage to make it look unfair, it's peoples actual take home pay that is important. I think it more ethical to increase tax on higher earners than low paid workers, but obviously ethics is not an issue here.

I didn't mean 50% tax on their earnings. I mean the top 4% pay over 50% of all tax taken in by the government (Think it's 58%). 40% pay no tax. The top 4% are paying for an awful lot of people as it is.


It seems some people won't be happy until we're living in the USSROI...

Jamie-b

Students don't get any special tax exemption for any income they make - they fall into the tax net the same as anyone else if their income pushes them into the taxable bands for the year.

That's right, students usually don't pay tax because they don't earn enough. I don't think you get any special exemptions if you are working full time and are a student paying fees also