Welfare cuts? What cuts?

ei.sdraob

Thats insurance for ya

they would do anything not to pay

Nehaxak

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

If I remember rightly, a fair while ago (on AH I think it was) you were going on about how the minimum wage should be lowered so you can employ people on lower wages in whatever business you run and that the social welfare was paying people more than you were willing to do for a weeks work.
Suit your agenda much to blame the easiest group to take a potshot at these days ?

Self employed or greedy small businesses who have added people to the welfare by running your business badly, badly financed, horrible low wages and constant whining and blaming everyone else for their own business failings are as much to blame for the crap we're in now as the bankers.

If your business is failing, just close it and and get it over with, stop blaming everyone else and taking it out on people who for the most part have just lost their jobs and are perfectly entitled to the paltry sum they get from the dole for working their arses off for decades.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Nehaxak

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Apologies then if that's case

Sandvich

What people like Donegalfella basically believe as I said in another thread, is that blind people should get a kick in the balls, but the bankers that caused the mess should get off without even a slap on the wrist. I know that sounds horribly emotionally weighted, but it's essentially true. This budget did nothing with income tax in terms of people earning ridiculous amounts, but it did decide people on disability should get that bit less(with more possible cuts to come, or at least there would be if Donegalfella had his way).

There comes a time when differing opinions end and a lack of basic ethics begins.

Rev. BlueJeans

Donegalfella has never said that the wunch of bankers and the tax avoiders should not be brought to book.

People are just trying to demonise him, and those of us who don't see de welfare as a means to maintain ones lifestyle, rather than as a support to someone and an incentive to do that themselves.

It hasn't taken a recession to bring that thinking to the fore, people have always looked at the scroungers, the rampant increases, the lack of support to the genuine unemployed, despite FAS blowing a billion a year-and keeping their cronies in cushy courses training people how to put out traffic cones, and the rise in costs of everything in this state (and ergo affecting everybody) to miles above the EU baseline.

starbelgrade

whatisayis wrote: »

Actually I did mean house insurance policies - not mortgage protection policies. Quite a few years back, my OH was made redundant and, as we had mortgage protection insurance, we decided to use it to help pay the mortgage.

It came as quite a surprise to find that, although the house was in both our names, the bank had taken out the protection insurance in only one name without telling us. It was in my name only so therefore we could not claim it.

I would suggest everyone who has this type of insurance to check their policy as the bank told us at the time that it can only be taken out in one persons name. Maybe they had just made a mistake and put it in one name only but for whatever reason, it was worthless to us at that time.

Some house insurance policies will give you the option of mortgage protection cover, but it's still a seperate type of insurance from your house insurance.

Dr Kamikazi

I had a loan and a credit card, the missus had a loan and a credit card, add to that the mortgage and you quickly realise just how much money you're paying out for the fraud that is repayment protection insurance.
Mostly overpriced and useless you're better off putting the money towards paying off your debt faster.
I was made redundant, so just paid off the credit card and loan along with hers so just have the mortgage to worry about.
And even if there was insurance, you can be sure there is a catch. You get nothing for nothing and for everything they do for you, the bill's in the post.
The only bigger con out there used to be "consolidate all your loans into one and pay less each month"
Who would fall for that? Only a yoghurt!
So the debts gone and there won't be any new loans taken out, we're going back to "saving up", like my parents used to do, way back in them olden days.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Valmont

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That should be the tagline for the Irish Libertarian party. I can see it now, hoards of concerned citizens marching on Leinster house, chanting in unison-

"Revive the Goose!"

P. Breathnach

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Indeed. The piece from which I abstract this sentence is emotive rhetoric and guileful twaddle.

whatisayis

starbelgrade wrote: »

Some house insurance policies will give you the option of mortgage protection cover, but it's still a seperate type of insurance from your house insurance.

Yes I know. What happened with us was that when we took out our mortgage, the bank told us it was a condition of the agreement that we would have to have a mortgage protection policy and they could offer us one.

When we were discussing it with them we were asked did we want to include optional extra cover in case of redundancy and we agreed. When we went to claim we were told that even though the protection policy was in both our names, the redundancy part was only in my name as main owner (or some such terminology) and therefore we couldn't claim because I wasn't the one who was made redundant. I would add that at no time did we tell the bank who we considered the main owner to be, it was a joint policy as far as we were concerned.

Whether this was right or wrong I don't know but my OH got a job within a matter of weeks so we didn't need to pursue it and, quite frankly, forgot all about it. In retrospect, we should have renegotiated the policy.

Sorry for going off topic but for us mortgage protection in case of redundancy was a complete waste of money so I would suggest that people check their policies.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Padraig Mor

Sandvich wrote: »

What people like Donegalfella basically believe as I said in another thread, is that blind people should get a kick in the balls, but the bankers that caused the mess should get off without even a slap on the wrist. I know that sounds horribly emotionally weighted, but it's essentially true..

What a crock of ****. Why is it that those who refuse to open their eyes to economic reality always accuse those who do of being in league with the bankers?

I agree with the PS pay cuts (I'm PS) and social welfare cuts (which should have been far more 'savage' IMHO); hell i even read about that couple in Waterford having their house repo'ed and think "tough". However I also think the top levels of the banks should be jailed, or even given the ol' Mussolini treatment.

starbelgrade

whatisayis wrote: »

Yes I know. What happened with us was that when we took out our mortgage, the bank told us it was a condition of the agreement that we would have to have a mortgage protection policy and they could offer us one.

When we were discussing it with them we were asked did we want to include optional extra cover in case of redundancy and we agreed. When we went to claim we were told that even though the protection policy was in both our names, the redundancy part was only in my name as main owner (or some such terminology) and therefore we couldn't claim because I wasn't the one who was made redundant. I would add that at no time did we tell the bank who we considered the main owner to be, it was a joint policy as far as we were concerned.

Whether this was right or wrong I don't know but my OH got a job within a matter of weeks so we didn't need to pursue it and, quite frankly, forgot all about it. In retrospect, we should have renegotiated the policy.

Sorry for going off topic but for us mortgage protection in case of redundancy was a complete waste of money so I would suggest that people check their policies.

So the bank, as a condition of your mortgage obliged you to take out mortgage protection insurance to pay the mortgage in case of redundancy, then wouldn't pay it when one of you was made redundant?!!!! What a shower of absolute chancers. I've heard it all now.

P. Breathnach

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Not particularly.

Why is it guileful twaddle?

It's guileful twaddle because that is how you wrote it: emotive language, rhetorical devices, the absence of a clear statement of foundational position.

This sort of post seems to me to be better made in the Political Theory forum, where it might be subjected to critical examination -- but not by me, because I don't like that place.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Dr Galen

anyone else getting that feeling that we used to get in school, when you know there was the possibility of an after school fight going to happen.........

P. Breathnach

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You speculate correctly: I disagree.

I have also indicated that I am not particularly interested in discussing this.

RedPlanet

As much as a don't like Laissez Faire and donegalfella's Ayn Randism; i do think he's won the round.

P. Breathnach

RedPlanet wrote: »

As much as a don't like Laissez Faire and donegalfella's Ayn Randism; i do think he's won the round.

Bollocks. He wanted a fight, and I'm a pacifist.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

P. Breathnach

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I know that. I also expect that you understand metaphor.

murphaph

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Bollocks. He wanted a fight, and I'm a pacifist.

He won, give him the credit he's due.

Dr Galen

you two are no fun. We haven't had a good proper row here in ages. You know one based on ideaologies and all that political theory stuff as opposed to my pension is smaller than yours

P. Breathnach

murphaph wrote: »

He won, give him the credit he's due.

Don't try to kick me when I am down, for you are sadly mistaken. I have no interest in discussing libertarianism. That's one of the reasons why I don't bother with the Political Theory forum.

P. Breathnach

Mystik Monkey wrote: »

you two are no fun. We haven't had a good proper row here in ages. You know one based on ideaologies and all that political theory stuff as opposed to my pension is smaller than yours

I understand your disappointment.

But there would not actually be a row between myself and DF. While I disagree with his political position, and think that the post I attacked was disingenuous, I respect him for his honesty and good manners. I would like to think the respect was reciprocated -- his posts give me that impression.

I am simply not interested in getting into a tangled political debate where our basic beliefs about the nature of society are so different that the arguments would have no reasonable chance of converging on some consensus that might be truth. And if an argument has little chance of being resolved, I don't think it is worthwhile conducting it.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

whatisayis

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That is probably the most uplifting, postive post I have read in a long time.

Fair play to both of you, long live chivalrous debate!