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

Welfare cuts? What cuts?

Options
1234689

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    Cadiz
    Registered Users Posts: 454 ✭✭Cadiz


    thebman wrote: »

    Eh no thats bollocks. There are many reasons why someone would not want to disclose person information about themselves online. It is foolish to suggest that I should give the information because you want to verify my situation :rolleyes:

    For one thing, this is the Internet I can make anything up that I want so it doesn't verify anything by me typing it. If I said, I lived with Willy Wonka in his chocolate factory as a worker but he had to make me redundant so I had to find a new job, would that be acceptable to you?

    Welcome to the Internet, I don't have to tell you anything I don't want to and it doesn't make anything I say invalid except to you. I can just as easily turn around and spout the same rubbish at you or any other poster here saying everything everyone has said is invalid as there is no verification.

    Should we just delete boards.ie and save everyone some time? :rolleyes:

    Resorting to terming someone else's observations 'bollocks' or 'foolish' further confirms that your lack of a coherent argument.


  • Options
    #153
    iPink
    Registered Users Posts: 461 ✭✭iPink


    thebman wrote: »
    You've never had any savings? How did you get the mortgage with no money in your account?

    Who said I have a mortgage???? :confused::confused::confused:


  • Options
    #154
    thebman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,012 ✭✭✭✭thebman


    iPink wrote: »
    Who said I have a mortgage???? :confused::confused::confused:

    I thought you said it earlier, my mistake.


  • Options
    #155
    iPink
    Registered Users Posts: 461 ✭✭iPink


    thebman wrote: »
    I thought you said it earlier, my mistake.

    No worries ;)


  • Options
    #156
    thebman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,012 ✭✭✭✭thebman


    Cadiz wrote: »
    Resorting to terming someone else's observations 'bollocks' or 'foolish' further confirms that your lack of a coherent argument.

    No actually it doesn't mean anything other than I consider what he said to be bollocks.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    Cadiz
    Registered Users Posts: 454 ✭✭Cadiz


    thebman wrote: »
    No actually it doesn't mean anything other than I consider what he said to be bollocks.

    It does mean something else actually, - it means you can't argue your point well, you can't demonstrate your experience of what you're talking about, so you resort to being abusive instead.


  • Options
    #158
    Daithinski
    Closed Accounts Posts: 279 ✭✭Daithinski


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    These payments certainly won't cover these bills.

    The real fun and games will begin when the 300k recently unemployed start to realise they can't pay their bills and decide not to even try.

    I wonder what the total debt is for people on the social welfare? NAMA 2 here we come.


  • Options
    #159
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    Cadiz wrote: »
    It does mean something else actually, - it means you can't argue your point well, you can't demonstrate your experience of what you're talking about, so you resort to being abusive instead.

    I would agree with thebman on very little, but I think it's no biggie to describe an argument as bollocks if you then proceed to explain why you think it bollocks. And in the instance under discussion thebman did just that. It happens that I agree with his reasoning on this.

    It's time to go back to the substantive argument.


  • Options
    #160
    Daithinski
    Closed Accounts Posts: 279 ✭✭Daithinski


    gcgirl wrote: »
    its gonna be over 20 euros for a bag of coal, ...England's cost of living is cheap compared to here ..

    Its 9 sterling for a bag of coal in newry...


  • Options
    #161
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    Daithinski
    Closed Accounts Posts: 279 ✭✭Daithinski


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    This logic doesn't apply to landlords who are renting out houses to social welfare recipients.

    The social welfare will pay your mortgage, but only if you are a landlord.


  • Options
    #163
    Daithinski
    Closed Accounts Posts: 279 ✭✭Daithinski


    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    How to prepare for the possibility of unemployment:
    - don't buy a home using mortgage finance
    - don't have a car
    - save lots, and don't borrow for anything
    - learn and practise frugal habits
    - accustom yourself to an unheated environment

    If you lose your job, then you also need to
    - quit smoking
    - abandon all social life
    - cut out all recreation except for walks in the park and other free stuff
    - spend all your time looking for a new job
    - whatever else you do or don't do, do not complain about anything -- be invisible
    - it would be a good thing if you forgot to claim your JSA some weeks -- it's good for the soul
    -

    I would suggest one last item, put head in oven, turn on gas.


  • Options
    #164
    gcgirl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,044 ✭✭✭gcgirl


    Daithinski wrote: »
    This logic doesn't apply to landlords who are renting out houses to social welfare recipients.

    The social welfare will pay your mortgage, but only if you are a landlord.

    you can get your interest paid for!


  • Options
    #165
    Rev. BlueJeans
    Closed Accounts Posts: 600 ✭✭✭Rev. BlueJeans


    Daithinski wrote: »
    This logic doesn't apply to landlords who are renting out houses to social welfare recipients.

    The social welfare will pay your mortgage, but only if you are a landlord.

    This is a loophole that needs to be closed, nothing more than a subsidy to investors.


  • Options
    #166
    Rev. BlueJeans
    Closed Accounts Posts: 600 ✭✭✭Rev. BlueJeans


    gcgirl wrote: »
    you can get your interest paid for!

    For a set period.


  • Options
    #167
    thebman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,012 ✭✭✭✭thebman


    Cadiz wrote: »
    It does mean something else actually, - it means you can't argue your point well, you can't demonstrate your experience of what you're talking about, so you resort to being abusive instead.

    No I was called clueless first so I was responding in kind to his insulting comments TBH.

    You didn't pick up on that more likely intentionally than not IMO.


  • Options
    #168
    thebman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,012 ✭✭✭✭thebman


    Daithinski wrote: »
    This logic doesn't apply to landlords who are renting out houses to social welfare recipients.

    The social welfare will pay your mortgage, but only if you are a landlord.

    Thats paying for someones rent to keep a roof over their head which is different IMO.

    If social welfare covered mortgage payments it would probably pay some people to leave their jobs just to get the payment.

    People that don't rent are more likely to become homeless. Some people might be able to move in with their parents but it would depend on personal circumstances.

    I don't think its reasonable to assume they would be able to given family issues and families financial situations would differ massively.


    Personally I find my posts on here to be read by different people very oddly. I get accused of being left wing by the people that would call themselves right wing and right wing by the people that call themselves left. Personally I don't see myself as either.

    I'd love to give massive amounts of money to people that need it but the reality is we don't have it to give which is something the vast majority on here would agree it I would think.


  • Options
    #169
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #170
    AlekSmart
    Registered Users Posts: 14,005 ✭✭✭✭AlekSmart


    A letter from Cadiz...
    This is the third time you haven't answered my question, because you know that's not correct. That 50% does not refer to low earners exclusively. Instead of avoiding an answer you might have the grace to admit that.

    I`ll try for the 4-in-a-row so.

    The figure i`m referencing is 50% of Income Earners pay NO income tax.
    This is figure given to the Dáil by Minister Lenihan so I`m fairly OK with it`s veracity.

    It has nothing at all to do with the relative wealth of the taxpayers concerned but whilst it may grate to believe that a few "Fat Cats" pay nothing,the reality is that successive Governments have made an annual thing out of "removing" X% from the Tax Net altogether.

    It should not take a PhD to fathom out how if one constantly reduces the Taxation base whilst expanding the payments funded by those taxpayers then at some point the entire edifice implodes,as is curently happening.

    The make up of that 50% of non-taxpayers will most likely include a proportion of Dermot Desmonds and JP McManuses but in the main it will feature the Joe and Joan Soaps who were deemed to be earning an insufficient amount to warrant taxing.

    This is a totally undesirable situation for any administration committed to a fair and equitable taxation system to find itself in and is most likely the reasoning behind the Universal Social Contribution mooted for next year...Yay !! :D

    I think that`s enough avoidance for one night ?


    Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.

    Charles Mackay (1812-1889)



  • Options
    #171
    deadhead13
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,034 ✭✭✭deadhead13


    While I realise the level of cuts is an affront to your libertarian ideals OP and it would also appear, on the whole, to be the consensus of thread a recent Irish Times/TNS mrbi poll suggests not everyone would agree with you. When asked if social welfare should be cut in the budget 75% said no, 21% yes and 4% undecided.

    From what I understand, 4 billion cuts in public spending, of which 1.76 billion came from payroll and social welfare, this year followed by 3 billion in 2011 and 2012 are being made in an effort to bring the budget deficit down to a manageable level. Whether it works or not remains to be seen. I am not pretending to know how the these figures of 4 billion, 3 billion and 3 billion where arrived at but I assume there are reasons why it would be inadvisable to make substantially bigger cuts in each of those years.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #172
    Diarmuid
    Registered Users Posts: 3,981 ✭✭✭Diarmuid


    deadhead13 wrote: »
    While I realise the level of cuts is an affront to your libertarian ideals OP and it would also appear, on the whole, to be the consensus of thread a recent Irish Times/TNS mrbi poll suggests not everyone would agree with you. When asked if social welfare should be cut in the budget 75% said no, 21% yes and 4% undecided.
    TBH if you did a poll and asked should wages be cut, left the same or increased, I'd be very surprised if 80+% didn't go for the latter. That doesn't mean you can/should do it.
    I also would wonder if the poll was phrased to include the required increase in tax to pay for the social welfare, would the result still be 75%?


  • Options
    #173
    Daithinski
    Closed Accounts Posts: 279 ✭✭Daithinski


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.


    You come across as either purposefully having no empathy (or unable to) for others and unable to see a situation from someone else's perspective.

    I can imagine this type of mentality in Irish famine times....


    dublinfella: "While I don't agree with my fellow Irish people starving to death, like me, they should have foreseen the consequences only growing potatoes. This lack of crop diversity was obviously foolish. While I feel sorry not glad it happened to them, it is their own fault. Why couldn't they all be clever like me?"

    Maybe a little unfair, but you get the point.


  • Options
    #174
    KerranJast
    Registered Users Posts: 1,829 ✭✭✭KerranJast


    Daithinski wrote: »
    You come across as either purposefully having no empathy (or unable to) for others and unable to see a situation from someone else's perspective.

    I can imagine this type of mentality in Nazi Germany....





    Or in Irish famine times....



    Maybe a little unfair, but you get the point.
    Godwin's Law ahoy!


  • Options
    #175
    Daithinski
    Closed Accounts Posts: 279 ✭✭Daithinski


    KerranJast wrote: »
    Godwin's Law ahoy!

    I had to look up Godwins law.
    It was both Interesting and funny!


  • Options
    #176
    KerranJast
    Registered Users Posts: 1,829 ✭✭✭KerranJast


    Daithinski wrote: »
    I had to look up Godwins law.
    It was both Interesting and funny!
    Indeed it is. My 2nd favourite Internet law, the first being John Gabriel's Greater Internet F***wad Theory http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19/


  • Options
    #177
    whatisayis
    Registered Users Posts: 377 ✭✭whatisayis


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    There are approx 180,000 people in Ireland who have lost their job in the last year. Many of these are people who did buy a house, who have credit card/loan debts, may not have much savings (e.g. used the savings as a deposit for the house). People can argue all they want by saying - well, they shouldn't have taken on the debt. But the fact of the matter is they did.

    These people now have no option but to try and pay back their mortgage and loans while on social welfare. If you believe social welfare should not be used to repay these debts, what do you propose as an alternative?


  • Options
    #178
    Stark
    Registered Users Posts: 20,995 ✭✭✭✭Stark


    Mortgage repayment insurance.


  • Options
    #179
    whatisayis
    Registered Users Posts: 377 ✭✭whatisayis


    Stark wrote: »
    Mortgage repayment insurance.

    That lasts for a maximum of one year as far as I know. And the other debts?


  • Options
    #180
    Stark
    Registered Users Posts: 20,995 ✭✭✭✭Stark


    Most people aren't unemployed for more than a year. As for other debts, well I have a clever strategy for dealing with those. If I see something I might like but I know I won't be able to pay the credit card bill next month if I buy it, then I don't buy it. It's not my problem if other people decided to run up the bills on their credit cards.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #181
    whatisayis
    Registered Users Posts: 377 ✭✭whatisayis


    Stark wrote: »
    Most people aren't unemployed for more than a year. As for other debts, well I have a clever strategy for dealing with those. If I see something I might like but I know I won't be able to pay the credit card bill next month if I buy it, then I don't buy it. It's not my problem if other people decided to run up the bills on their credit cards.

    There are 420,000+ on the live register do you seriously think they will all get jobs next year?

    You have avoided the question. No one said it was your problem if other people decided to run up bills, but they did... so what is the alternative to them trying to pay them back while on social welfare?


Advertisement