Why are we not taking to the streets to protest at this?

jenzz

yes It could have been worse! It was bad but he could have paid more heed to the snip nua report & we all would have been in trouble.

But why have they attacked the lower paid? The social welfare? The kiddies allow? The medical card holders?

Efficiency is needed in Public sector. Everyone has been complaining about public sector workers doing nothing to earn their money.. sitting on tods drinking tea etc etc they are hardly going to be motivated now are they?

An oppertunity was there to get value for money in the public sector but i think all they have done is create more unrest, more demotivation, thus more money being spent on people not performing to the correct level they are being paid for.

A public sector friend said to me this evening... Im sick of it, i was cut a further 7.5%, propertytax, kiddies allowance cut & what .. while im wallowing in it tonight I can drink for cheaper !! Oh no I cant cos I cant afford the booze now full stop.

She had a point as had Joan... It was like a topgear budget, cheaper cars & cheaper booze.... Can these people afford to buy the cheaper booze.. not really if their wage was cut. Can they afford to trade in the car & avail of the scrappage scheme - not really if their wage was cut.Can they put money into an economy to kick start retail spending - No they come home with less. Less money for parents to spend on clothes & shoes with the kiddies allowance. So its just another circle starting with less coming in now from VAT due to the reduction & the reduction in money going around.

gandalf

jenzz we have all been living beyond our means for years now. Some are only realising that now, others haven't realised it yet. Until they do and accept that we have to have a few lean years we are not going to get out of this mess.

swampdonkey

why was my post deleted????

eddiehobbs

ste365 wrote: »

Are there people outside the Dail right now? We cannot accept this budget...the millionaires sit cozy in their homes having made their millions and now the lower classes are expected to pay back for something they never created or really benefitted from like the wealthy richer classes did during that celtic tiger. The cuts now will lead to even greater cuts in the future....this today is only the start!

Didnt cut enough imo

Id like to see the end of the recession in this lifetime

koHd

Drumpot wrote: »

Received this from a friend , who is an accountant . . .

I think it articulates the point very very well . . .

[FONT=&quot]Bar Stool Economics

Written by: Dr David R. Kamerschen
Professor of Economics
University of Georgia

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay $1.

The sixth would pay $3.

The seventh would pay $7.

The eighth would pay $12.

The ninth would pay $18.

The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.



So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20." Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men-the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.


And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).

The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).

The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).

The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).

The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).

The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).



Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "But he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I did!"

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a 20% tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up any more. In fact, they might start drinking overseas.


Dr David R. Kamerschen
Professor of Economics
University of Georgia


For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

Thats a nice story. And probably explains taxes well to a child. But does your friend also understand what a recession is and what causes it? Money doesn't disapear into thin air. it's just not distributed equally among the population and creates a money flow problem. This is because at the best of times 20 percent of the population control 80 percent of the wealth' but what causes recession is when 5 percent of the population control 95 percent of the wealth. So your friends story doesn't work in this situation. We need to be getting the higher paid bankers inestors etc. to redistribute their wealth, instead of cutting the already struggling majority with little money. This goes for worldwide, not just Ireland. Sorry for spelling errors. I'm on the mobile.

ste365

douglashyde wrote: »

I dont mean this in any offensive way ste, but the only way people with your level of intelligence could end up earning over 50,000 euro a year was by applying to the civil service.

And if you managed to read today's budget, you would see that the "rich" where targeted.

OH and the reason we are not taking to the streets tomorrow is because, the privite sector have work in the morning and we arnt sick so we can't really ring in... can we?

Ha love the way you ignorantly label me...you dont even know my background. Where did I say I was a private or public sector worker?! Questioning my level of intelligence!!...ignorant people annoy me....oh by the way....i dont mean that to offend you!ha

Explain how it is fair that if you are a private sector worker earning over 200,000 then that after this budget you are actually going to make more money out of this budget!!!

Seems you have a chip on your shoulder with the public sector...perhaps you now wish you had gone that direction and had more job security. I am in the private sector by the way.

Such a pity your "intelligent" arguement falls flat on your face....battles of who is the most intelligent now!!

Pathetic.

Drumpot

koHd wrote: »

Thats a nice story. And probably explains taxes well to a child. But does your friend also understand what a recession is and what causes it? Money doesn't disapear into thin air. it's just not distributed equally among the population and creates a money flow problem. This is because at the best of times 20 percent of the population control 80 percent of the wealth' but what causes recession is when 5 percent of the population control 95 percent of the wealth. So your friends story doesn't work in this situation. We need to be getting the higher paid bankers inestors etc. to redistribute their wealth, instead of cutting the already struggling majority with little money. This goes for worldwide, not just Ireland. Sorry for spelling errors. I'm on the mobile.

To be honest, I believe there are many people on these forums that need things spelled out for them . . Ignorance or lack of education/understanding makes us all "childish" in our own way . .

And anyways, it addresses the misconception that "taxing the wealthy" is the solution to the problem . .

Hey, I'm all for taxing the rich ( wouldnt cost me anything, I dont know what its like to be in those ivory towers!) but like you said its not just in Ireland this needs to happen , its worldwide . . For your suggestion to work (without driving many of those higher earners away to the countries that dont overtax them) it would need to be a collaborated effort internationally, which we know wont happen . .

When you factor in the "emigration" of profits from higher earners, it will of made a very small impact on overall savings (especially after factoring in the large amount of tax those higher earners would of contributed to the financial coffers). .

Thats not even factoring in the fact that it serves nothing to address our country's competitive issues . .

It's a fine balance and all factors have to be considered.

koHd

Drumpot wrote: »

To be honest, I believe there are many people on these forums that need things spelled out for them . . Ignorance or lack of education/understanding makes us all "childish" in our own way . .

And anyways, it addresses the misconception that "taxing the wealthy" is the solution to the problem . .

Hey, I'm all for taxing the rich ( wouldnt cost me anything, I dont know what its like to be in those ivory towers!) but like you said its not just in Ireland this needs to happen , its worldwide . . For your suggestion to work (without driving many of those higher earners away to the countries that dont overtax them) it would need to be a collaborated effort internationally, which we know wont happen . .

When you factor in the "emigration" of profits from higher earners, it will of made a very small impact on overall savings (especially after factoring in the large amount of tax those higher earners would of contributed to the financial coffers). .

Thats not even factoring in the fact that it serves nothing to address our country's competitive issues . .

It's a fine balance and all factors have to be considered.

i agree it's not as simple as taxing the super wealthy even more. For the real redistribution of wealth we need them to invest their money in business in this country, create jobs etc. But they will need an incentive. Because despite just doing it to be a hero, they will surely be thinking why lessen my wealth to help all those people I don't have any contact with. But borrowing for a stimulus isn't the answer. Investment will have to happen naturally from our super rich.

North_West_Art

its quite simple, check out the Irish Debt Clock

http://www.financedublin.com/debtclock.php

if we took to the streets it would fall on deaf ears

cson

koHd wrote: »

Thats a nice story. And probably explains taxes well to a child. But does your friend also understand what a recession is and what causes it? Money doesn't disapear into thin air. it's just not distributed equally among the population and creates a money flow problem. This is because at the best of times 20 percent of the population control 80 percent of the wealth' but what causes recession is when 5 percent of the population control 95 percent of the wealth. So your friends story doesn't work in this situation. We need to be getting the higher paid bankers inestors etc. to redistribute their wealth, instead of cutting the already struggling majority with little money. This goes for worldwide, not just Ireland. Sorry for spelling errors. I'm on the mobile.

That's pretty much a communist model you're advocating there. Redistribution of wealth is a core principle of communism.

skip79

i have read most of the posts relating to the budget this evening and i think the majority of people believe that the budget was fair and probably less harsh than they were expecting. i do understand that PS workers are feeling the pain on this one more than the private sector. unfortunately that is the reality of our current situation and no amount of striking will change that.

i think the private sector have already had their haircut. private sector is always quicker to adjust than the public sector. the 400k + on the dole queues is testament to this. the unions will argue that most private sector workers have not taken pay cuts. i know plenty of companies that have taken pay cuts. but unfortunately more companies in this country take the choice of redundancies rather than try to negotiate pay cuts. this in turn means that a lot of private sector employees are working much harder for the same salary. reform of parts of the public service needs to happen in the same way.

i am an employer myself in a retail business. we are seeing a big drop in sales in the last 12 months. we have reduced non payroll cost whereever possible but haven't made redundancies. mgt have taken a pay cut in the form of bonues. the shareholders have seen profits slump. recently i looked forward to 2010 with great pessimism.

However, i am quietly optimistic after today, that the worst may be over.

i think we finally have a politician who is willing to take tough decisions, who is credible and is showing leadership. it was always going to be extremely difficult to get 4 billion in savings in a "fair" way. i thought a 5 % cut for 30k employees was tough. but he had to do it in line with the SW cuts. i don't agree with everything in it but it was the best effort in years.

i have no political allegiances and am cetainly not a FF supporter. lenihan is surrounded by a cabinet of muppets. ( with a few exceptions). some of them are an embarrassment to our country. i also think that the majority of blame for our current predicament lies with the current gov in conjunction with regulator, bankers, unions......etc

for me though, the alternative is even worse! fg and labour government would be worse. EK is just not a leader of a country and joan burton as minister for finance???

hopefully there will be a rebound in consumer confidence and we can start to rebuild this mess. the quicker we can turn the economy around, the better for all private and public sector.

ps when all is said and done, i wouldn't like to live anywhere else!

cson

skip79 wrote: »

However, i am quietly optimistic after today, that the worst may be over

I very much disagree.

The legacy that NAMA will leave means the worst will be with us for some time yet.

zexstream

Anyone who thinks this was a good budget are fools.

Sure you may have escaped it fairly ok but look at the facts.

Our health service will be cut by 400 Million.
Our Education service will be cut by 600 Million.

In the year 2011 we will all pay higher rates of the new PRSI as the levies and old PRSI are combined to create a new supertax.

We will have water rates introduced.
We will have property taxes introduced.
We will have the Carbon tax coming into full effect next year.

And this is all based on the ecomony entering growth next year. No economist worth his salt thinks the Irish economy will enter growth next year so Lenihans figures will be way out ensuring Irish debt will get worse.

AIB, BOI and Anglo are also looking for 10 Billion extra capital, and we have NAMA about to come online!

slade_x

frman wrote: »

What exactly would you be protesting about

That protesting doesnt make one blind bit of difference :rolleyes:

skip79

cson wrote: »

I very much disagree.

The legacy that NAMA will leave means the worst will be with us for some time yet.

i suppose my optimism stems from the fact that i think lenihan is finally getting his head around it after the dismal mistakes he made when he started.

i agree that NAMA could end up being a disaster but after the last 18 months, i am willing to grasp at any sign of hope.

cson

skip79 wrote: »

i agree that NAMA could end up being a disaster but after the last 18 months, i am willing to grasp at any sign of hope.

It's not so much that it could end up being a disaster - it's the burden it'll put on the taxpayer for a couple of generations at the very least.

JasonBourne 2.0

Drumpot. although i do agree that if you tax the rich too much they will go elsewhere and not all the rich were to blame for this, there is an easy counter argument for your case as your theory does not take into account the source of a particular problem in specific detail e.g. poor regulation of the banking system and loose lending conditions by bankers concerned only with making bonuses via high sales figures. I'm in the middle class bracket myself and am thankfully not badly affected by the budget. I also think Fianna Fail got some things right for a change but anyway forget about wealth for a second:

Suppose two people, yourself and i go to the dogs and against all your advice i bet all my money and lose. Is it right for me to expect you to refund my losses.

In the above scenario, i took the risk and i lost, tough luck. The only foresight i had was greed, i deserve to be out of pocket.

Now lets look at the budget. The cause of the problem in Ireland was ridiculous lending practices. Now i don't think you'll find to many low or middle class people in high positions in the banking sector so why should they suffer the brunt of the problem. you have to remember these people are getting by as it is, never mind cuts. They didnt act recklessly wth the money they had.

Even though the wealthy were taxed the most, i dont think someone that was earning 250k down to 230k for arguments sake be struggling to run a family. Now as a partial liberalist i have no problem with people being wealthy or successfull as long as they work hard and act responsibly but what is happening in the world today is down right injustice and is why i agree with other posters like in the states for example people who acted recklessly are being chased down which is what should be happening here

cson

Just to provide an element of counter argument to that point - it takes two to tango and while banks were reckless in there lending a lot of people were reckless in their borrowing too. I've mentioned this before but leaving mortgages aside, the level of personal debt in the country is astounding and the banks are not solely to blame for it. There is a level of personal responsibility one must exercise.

Otherwise I fully agree and endorse what you say. One CEO is serving a 25 year prison sentence and another CEO is playing golf after his retirement off the back of multi millions that were fraudulently attained. What seperates Jeff Skilling and Sean FitzPatrick? The Atantic Ocean.

Drumpot

JasonBourne 2.0 wrote: »

Drumpot. although i do agree that if you tax the rich too much they will go elsewhere and not all the rich were to blame for this, there is an easy counter argument for your case as your theory does not take into account the source of a particular problem in specific detail e.g. poor regulation of the banking system and loose lending conditions by bankers concerned only with making bonuses via high sales figures. I'm in the middle class bracket myself and am thankfully not badly affected by the budget. I also think Fianna Fail got some things right for a change but anyway forget about wealth for a second:

Suppose two people, yourself and i go to the dogs and against all your advice i bet all my money and lose. Is it right for me to expect you to refund my losses.

In the above scenario, i took the risk and i lost, tough luck. The only foresight i had was greed, i deserve to be out of pocket.

Now lets look at the budget. The cause of the problem in Ireland was ridiculous lending practices. Now i don't think you'll find to many low or middle class people in high positions in the banking sector so why should they suffer the brunt of the problem. you have to remember these people are getting by as it is, never mind cuts. They didnt act recklessly wth the money they had.

Even though the wealthy were taxed the most, i dont think someone that was earning 250k down to 230k for arguments sake be struggling to run a family. Now as a partial liberalist i have no problem with people being wealthy or successfull as long as they work hard and act responsibly but what is happening in the world today is down right injustice and is why i agree with other posters like in the states for example people who acted recklessly are being chased down which is what should be happening here

Are you proposing taxing the "banking rich" then ? Or the ones who bet all their money on one dog ?

You see, I agree with you in principle, but thats just not the way modern day capitalism works . . If we do that, wheres the incentive for risk taking companies/entrepeneurs to take risks in Ireland ? Where will we stop ? (that will be a question of potential investors in our country)

Your idea is based on the idea of accountability for their actions. . Peoples discussions on paycaps on banks salaries are based on their personal desires to see the bankers "pay" for the mess . . I want to see this happen aswell, but it may not be the best thing overall . .

Part of the reason that we struggled to get an outsider to take a high bank position was because of the paycap. .A private sector job should be decided on by the market. The reason the government dont want to be involved in the running of the banks so much is because they are not qualified to run a bank and the markets want to see banks running like normal private sector institutions are run. Among other things Government interference doesnt instill confidence and can effect share price.

You see, theres alot of emotion (I feel it myself) about this kind of topic, but alot of it is misplaced . . There are certain things that "ideally" we could do to make the contry feel like it would be a better place to live, but we are hindered in many ways by what the markets want (we are a capitalist society). .

A better thing to do is to chase the bankers who can be legally pursued (and absolutely hammer them, jail, the works), then change legislation and regulation to bring in preventitive measures . .

anonymous_joe

There's a huge chunk of Irish people to blame for the current problem, and they're not just bankers.

Anyone who bought a property or rented in the last ten years is part of the problem. Because they fuelled the demand for unregulated banking and a property boom. They had no intention of doing that, it wasn't a plan, or anything of sorts, merely a succession of unfortunate events.

RedPlanet

Drumpot wrote: »

Part of the reason that we struggled to get an outsider to take a high bank position was because of the paycap. .A private sector job should be decided on by the market.

Completely speculation.
It may have been that a person would not countenance a move to Ireland due to the weather; the doom and gloom attitudes that are so pervassive here, or the reality that Dublin and Ireland generally are over-priced and do not represent value for money.

granturismo

Can anyone confirm if the 5% (up to €30K), 7.5% and 10% cuts on salary are applied to TDs as well.

Thanks

gandalf

anonymous_joe wrote: »

There's a huge chunk of Irish people to blame for the current problem, and they're not just bankers.

Anyone who bought a property or rented in the last ten years is part of the problem. Because they fuelled the demand for unregulated banking and a property boom. They had no intention of doing that, it wasn't a plan, or anything of sorts, merely a succession of unfortunate events.

Unfortunately you are right in this regard and I am one of the many guilty.

anonymous_joe

granturismo wrote: »

Can anyone confirm if the 5% (up to €30K), 7.5% and 10% cuts on salary are applied to TDs as well.

Thanks

They're professional politicians. They want to stay that way. Of course it will. They've already cut their wages a few times.

gandalf wrote: »

Unfortunately you are right in this regard and I am one of the many guilty.

It's depressing to be honest. People are so busy looking for scapegoats. There's no-one to blame, it's just the nature of a free-market system.

RedPlanet

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Anyone who bought a property or rented in the last ten years is part of the problem. Because they fuelled the demand for unregulated banking and a property boom. They had no intention of doing that, it wasn't a plan, or anything of sorts, merely a succession of unfortunate events.

Explain to me how renters are partly to blame?
Surely a man and woman need a place to live.
We can't all live with our mammy.

Renting does not require taking out huge loans from banks.

gent9662

ste365 wrote: »

Are there people outside the Dail right now? We cannot accept this budget...the millionaires sit cozy in their homes having made their millions and now the lower classes are expected to pay back for something they never created or really benefitted from like the wealthy richer classes did during that celtic tiger. The cuts now will lead to even greater cuts in the future....this today is only the start!

I didn't think it went too bad. I'm in the private sector and was very happy to see the necessary cuts to the public service.

I think if anything further public sector cuts should be taken for the high wage earners (hospital consultants, TD's, Guards, High ranking civil servants). But especially the Gardai, they have been the biggest takers while giving back very little.

nice1franko

anonymous_joe wrote: »

There's a huge chunk of Irish people to blame for the current problem, and they're not just bankers.

Anyone who bought a property or rented in the last ten years is part of the problem. Because they fuelled the demand for unregulated banking and a property boom. They had no intention of doing that, it wasn't a plan, or anything of sorts, merely a succession of unfortunate events.

IMHO it is the governments fault for letting this go for so long, unchecked. It's not like no one knew what was happening. Look back through the archives here on boards and the issue was raised many times. There should have been strict building regulations and controlled planning.

It happened because they didn't do their jobs.

hinault

Drumpot wrote: »

Are you proposing taxing the "banking rich" then ? Or the ones who bet all their money on one dog ?

You see, I agree with you in principle, but thats just not the way modern day capitalism works . . If we do that, wheres the incentive for risk taking companies/entrepeneurs to take risks in Ireland ? Where will we stop ? (that will be a question of potential investors in our country)

Your idea is based on the idea of accountability for their actions. . Peoples discussions on paycaps on banks salaries are based on their personal desires to see the bankers "pay" for the mess . . I want to see this happen aswell, but it may not be the best thing overall . .

Part of the reason that we struggled to get an outsider to take a high bank position was because of the paycap. .A private sector job should be decided on by the market. The reason the government dont want to be involved in the running of the banks so much is because they are not qualified to run a bank and the markets want to see banks running like normal private sector institutions are run. Among other things Government interference doesnt instill confidence and can effect share price.

You see, theres alot of emotion (I feel it myself) about this kind of topic, but alot of it is misplaced . . There are certain things that "ideally" we could do to make the contry feel like it would be a better place to live, but we are hindered in many ways by what the markets want (we are a capitalist society). .

A better thing to do is to chase the bankers who can be legally pursued (and absolutely hammer them, jail, the works), then change legislation and regulation to bring in preventitive measures . .

You continue to miss the point.

In the USA any bank which receive state funding from the US govt has a salary cap $500k pa for it's CEO.
This translates to approx € 385k.

I would suggest €500k pa for a CEO at AIB and BOI is a fair salary, given the fact that both banks are insolvent!

shteve

Just to give my tuppence worth on the situation. I believe the budget should have been harsher and cut back more on social expenditure.


This notion that social welfare is an entitlement is ridiculous. It is a benefit that should have the sole function of allowing a person to survive. It should be a place so bleak that if any job offer should arise, there should be no hesitation in accepting it. This is clearly not the case in Ireland where we have certain people refusing jobs as their benefits would be cut. Here, people clearly have the chance to get back on their feet but feel they are superior to the job on offer. In my opinion these people are as guilty as the bankers and developers.


This attitude is the reason Ireland will take years to climb out of recession.

nice1franko

shteve wrote: »

Here, people clearly have the chance to get back on their feet but feel they are superior to the job on offer. In my opinion these people are as guilty as the bankers and developers.

I don't think that's it Shtevie. It's mainly to do with the fact that financially you could simply be better off than if you took a low paying job. There's many people in that situation.

It's a badly flawed system in place at the moment. You can't really blame the people in that situation.

It's a man with more pride than sense who slogs his guts out for less than he'd get for remaining idle.