Budget 2011 ideas

gurramok

Jessibelle wrote: »

And if the worker is unwilling to support the other? You cannot force another person to support someone else against their will. Parents may be willing to house their children, but not willing to subsidise their food/clothing etc regardless of what level of income they're earning.

How is that societys problem?

If you have kids, look after them. When they reach 18, why should a parent have the strain to feed them?

They should get out and find a job, their adults now. Time to fly the nest and support yourself.

Speak Now

gurramok wrote: »

How is that societys problem?

If you have kids, look after them. When they reach 18, why should a parent have the strain to feed them?

They should get out and find a job, their adults now. Time to fly the nest and support yourself.

Lots of 18 year olds are still in full time education though.

Sea Sharp

cut minimum wage to 7.00 per hour or keep it as it is and start taxing these people so that they only get 7.00 per hour after tax.
Cut social welfare payments to 170 p/w or 100 p/w for people signing on for 3 years plus.


Then have a June 2011 budget where
minimum wage is cut or taxed so that people are coming out with 6.50 per hour.
Reduce social welfare payments further 80 euro p/w for people signed on for more than 3 years 145 p/w for everybody else.

the groutch

big increase in tax on booze & petrol, people won't go up north for the booze because it'll cost them too much on petrol

gurramok

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: »

Lots of 18 year olds are still in full time education though.

Lots move out into shared accommodation for said education. Again, its not societys problem if a parent refuse to feed an 18yrold man or woman who just happens to be their offspring.

groutch wrote:

big increase in tax on booze & petrol, people won't go up north for the booze because it'll cost them too much on petrol

Probably won't happen as the VFI/LVA have such a powerful lobby and the govt relies alot on booze revenue.

Plus, it will increases booze smuggling just like in Al Capone times

bryaner

Sea Sharp wrote: »

cut minimum wage to 7.00 per hour or keep it as it is and start taxing these people so that they only get 7.00 per hour after tax.
Cut social welfare payments to 170 p/w or 100 p/w for people signing on for 3 years plus.


Then have a June 2011 budget where
minimum wage is cut or taxed so that people are coming out with 6.50 per hour.
Reduce social welfare payments further 80 euro p/w for people signed on for more than 3 years 145 p/w for everybody else.

Thats it and while you have them down that low
kick their teeth out, nothing like keeping people
down..:rolleyes:

Sea Sharp

bryaner wrote: »

Thats it and while you have them down that low
kick their teeth out, nothing like keeping people
down..:rolleyes:

5 euro is being spent for every 3 euro being taken in. The government needs to make more drastic cuts than what I've described in my post to balance the books. If they don't do it the IMF will.

bryaner

Sea Sharp wrote: »

5 euro is being spent for every 3 euro being taken in. The government needs to make more drastic cuts than what I've described in my post to balance the books. If they don't do it the IMF will.

The IMF will start at the top.

Speak Now

gurramok wrote: »

Lots move out into shared accommodation for said education. Again, its not societys problem if a parent refuse to feed an 18yrold man or woman who just happens to be their offspring.

Actually i was thinking of leaving cert students due to so many schools making transition year compulsory.

Sea Sharp

bryaner wrote: »

The IMF will start at the top.

They started at the top in the last budgets. Public sector employees take home less than what they used to.
If we want to improve competitiveness we need to start at the bottom.
We should aim for a scenario where the money given and earned by the 'bottom' comes into line with the European average.

bryaner

Sea Sharp wrote: »

They started at the top in the last budgets. Public sector employees take home less than what they used to.
If we want to improve competitiveness we need to start at the bottom.
We should aim for a scenario where the money given and earned by the 'bottom' in line with the European average.

They hit the low paid public sector workers the hardest last time..

Shave 200k of BC and then were talking changes..

Sea Sharp

bryaner wrote: »

They hit the low paid public sector workers the hardest last time..

Shave 200k of BC and then were talking changes..

Well it'd be good for PR if the top politicians give themselves pay cuts while cutting everyone else's pay but in the grand scheme of things it won't really make a difference on the books.
We as a country are fecked, over the next few years we have to make nasty cuts that will effect everyone, not cuts that effect a portion of the population that doesn't include you.

feicim

Sea Sharp wrote: »

cut minimum wage to 7.00 per hour or keep it as it is and start taxing these people so that they only get 7.00 per hour after tax.

The thing is if we cut our minimum wage to stimulate companies investing in a labour intensive industries here, will poland / china / india etc just cut their wages by 20% to keep themselves ahead?

The UK has a lower minimum wage, has that helped their situation? No, because it is not the real problem.

The real problem is our "open economy" and loosely "regulated" financial system which combine to create a cocktail that is lethal to our economic fortune. When combined with an incompetent long term government these factors practically guaranteed to create highs and lows such as we have / and are experiencing.

These are the areas that need to be addressed, until they are we will be sinking slowly deeper into the mire for the foreseeable future.

But back on topic for budget 2010 ideas, we should sell the country as a going concern to the chinese.

bryaner

Sea Sharp wrote: »

Well it'd be good for PR if the top politicians give themselves pay cuts while cutting everyone else's pay but in the grand scheme of things it won't really make a difference on the books.
We as a country are fecked, over the next few years we have to make nasty cuts that will effect everyone, not cuts that effect a portion of the population that doesn't include you.

All you have mentioned is social welfare and minimum wage..

Spudmonkey

Jessibelle wrote: »

And if the worker is unwilling to support the other? You cannot force another person to support someone else against their will. Parents may be willing to house their children, but not willing to subsidise their food/clothing etc regardless of what level of income they're earning.

And if parents aren't willing to care for their children, why do you think a total stranger should be subsidizing their food/clothing??

OS119

Jessibelle wrote: »

And if the worker is unwilling to support the other? You cannot force another person to support someone else against their will. Parents may be willing to house their children, but not willing to subsidise their food/clothing etc regardless of what level of income they're earning.

if the 'child' is in the frame for getting Jobseekers (of whatever amount), then they aren't really a child anymore - they are an adult with the same responsibilities to feed, house and clothe themselves as every other adult has.

Jessibelle

OS119 wrote: »

if the 'child' is in the frame for getting Jobseekers (of whatever amount), then they aren't really a child anymore - they are an adult with the same responsibilities to feed, house and clothe themselves as every other adult has.

Exactly, therefore even if they're living in the parental home, they cannot be expected to be fully supported by any other workers in the home.
As to why strangers should be obliged to help when family won't? In an ideal world all familys would be big happy smiling units willing to help one another at the drop of a hat. This is not an ideal world.

ETA: In the original point, the OP wrote that anyone living with their parents should have dole reduced to practically nothing and the parents expected to support them. In the case of an 18/19 year old that may be one thing (I still wouldn't agree but fools differ etc), but what of the instance, more common now than before where someone in their 20's-30's plus, returns home? Are they to be expected to ask for pocket money again,and full financial support from any working parent/family member given they may have worked and contributed for the previous years?

Stabshauptmann

Denzil2222 wrote: »

This is what i think minister lenihan should do in budget 2011, abolish dole for under 21s, half dole from 21st till 25th birthday

A single person who finishes college at 25 would be on twice as much dole as a married person who didnt go to college and worked for 5 years after school.

Not everyone has the same lifestyle choices.

I agree in principle to means testing the dole.

cut state pension by 6 percent, abolish free tv licence and phone line rental for oaps and others, change medical card limits for over 70s to €450 per week for a single person and €900 for married couple

Why target the old for so much?!

€2 on sim cards

Actually a good idea. Perfectly inelastic tax.

analbeads

Stabshauptmann wrote: »

Why target the old for so much?!

pensions were not cut in the last budget while all other social welfare recivers were cut.
a pensioner recieves around €220 personal rate which someone on the dole is getting €196 personal.
i think its criminal to cut all social welfrae recivers while leaving pensioners without any cut for a second year!!

most pensioners have no morgage and hardly any outgoings, have a free tv licence, free phone line rental, living alone allowance so how dose this seem fair?

the country is crippled in debt and everyone needs to suffer as equaly as possible.

i am a single mother that gets €225 a week (€196 personal rate and €29.80 per dependant child) which is the same as a person on the dole and i do think it should be lowered slightly maybe €5-€8 a week.

but i do have a problem with people that say cut child benefit to €50-€100 a month. in the last budget it was cut by €16 a month and the year before that the early childcare supp was abolished which was €84 a week so i dont think child benefit should be reduced by more than €10 a month

this benefit is to give children a better life. children that grow up in poverty and in a disadvantaged area uaually (not always) go on to claim the dole with no education or job skills. we need to give children the best start that we can and to encourage their passion and talents eg. educational classes,art ,sport. they are the future leaders of the country and there are the future tax payers that will be paying the debts that we are encuring right now in this recession

changes

Whatever happens in the next budget working people should not be hit hard. OAP's got off lightly last time and can afford to give something in this next budget.

The social welfare system is a mess and hands out money wily nily. It accounted for 22 billion last year... a truely astronomical figure.
Long term dolers should be cut severely, welfare frausters punished and nobody should be allowed to spend their life on the dole.

Also, mothers on OPFP should get significantly less money for their 3rd 4th, 5th 6th etc child. The only people i know these days having 4 or more children are the very well off or those that let the taxpayer pay for their childrens upbringing.

Stabshauptmann

feicim wrote: »

The thing is if we cut our minimum wage to stimulate companies investing in a labour intensive industries here, will poland / china / india etc just cut their wages by 20% to keep themselves ahead?

NO.

These places dont even look at Ireland, and their wages are relative to their cost of living rather than any internalional competitiveness plan

Stabshauptmann

analbeads wrote: »

pensions were not cut in the last budget while all other social welfare recivers were cut.
a pensioner recieves around €220 personal rate which someone on the dole is getting €196 personal.
i think its criminal to cut all social welfrae recivers while leaving pensioners without any cut for a second year!!

You got cut, so you want other people to get cut to, just to suffer?

The difference is, someone on the dole can get a job or do further education. Someone on the OAP cant get any younger

analbeads

changes wrote: »

Also, mothers on OPFP should get significantly less money for their 3rd 4th, 5th 6th etc child. The only people i know these days having 4 or more children are the very well off or those that let the taxpayer pay for their childrens upbringing.

you need to get your facts straight!!
a lone parent gets €196 personal rate and €29.80 per dependant child. a person that that has lost their job and is on the dole, illness benefit gets €196 personal rate and €29.80 per dependant. its the exact same amount!!

you cannot cut the amount for a dependant child if the mother is claiming lone parents and not cut it for a person on the dole.

im sick of everyone blaming lone parents for scaming the system and yet no one mentions the fact the many lone parents are forced to claim as a result of their childs father refusing to support the children. maintenance orders are not being forced because of legistation.

analbeads

Stabshauptmann wrote: »

You got cut, so you want other people to get cut to, just to suffer?

The difference is, someone on the dole can get a job or do further education. Someone on the OAP cant get any younger

read my post again. i said that i think i should be cut again €5-€8 in the budget. but how can you say that someone should be on €220 personal rate while someone else living next door that is getting €196 should be cut again and again while the first guy still gets €220.
wheres the logic in that.

i dont belive that someone else should be cut just because i am.....if everybody in the country takes a small hit its better that only some being hit hard and other being untouched

so in next years budget do you think a pensioner should still get €220 if someone on the dole gets cut to €190 this december and 2 €180 next year...maybe €170 the next....€160 the next?????

Idbatterim

id agree with cutting the minimum age once the high cost of rent has been reduced. I think its safe to say that anyone one minimum wage or thereabouts wont be paying a mortgage, they will live at home or be renting. Cut rent allowance first! There are also a ton of empty properties, that could be finnished and rented out by the state or used to house those in receipt of rent allowance. The bloody cost of property here, is one of the main reasons costs here got so out of control, so if we wish to regain competitiveness, it would seem to a good place to start!

changes

analbeads wrote: »

you need to get your facts straight!!
a lone parent gets €196 personal rate and €29.80 per dependant child. a person that that has lost their job and is on the dole, illness benefit gets €196 personal rate and €29.80 per dependant. its the exact same amount!!

you cannot cut the amount for a dependant child if the mother is claiming lone parents and not cut it for a person on the dole.

im sick of everyone blaming lone parents for scaming the system and yet no one mentions the fact the many lone parents are forced to claim as a result of their childs father refusing to support the children. maintenance orders are not being forced because of legistation.

But the difference has been that the lone parent can get social welfare and accomodation mainly paid for by the state. They can get all these payments for anything from 1 to 30 years depending on how many children they have.

I specifically said from 3rd child on. Many couples only have 2 or 3 children nowadays anyway, why should someone else decide to have 5 or 6 children and let the state pay for them.

analbeads

changes wrote: »

But the difference has been that the lone parent can get social welfare and accomodation mainly paid for by the state. They can get all these payments for anything from 1 to 30 years depending on how many children they have.

I specifically said from 3rd child on. Many couples only have 2 or 3 children nowadays anyway, why should someone else decide to have 5 or 6 children and let the state pay for them.

well i have a child and i dont claim rent allowance and have no problem with having my lone parent allowance cut. anyone on the dole can claim rent allowance not just lone parents. if the state would force the other parent to pay maintenance it would greatly reduce the amount of lone parent allowance they have to pay out eg. if i was being given €50 a week maintenance by my ex then my lone parent would be reduced by €25 a week and rent allowance would be reduced also

on your second point...if a couple has 5 kids and the mother was a stay at home mum while the husband worked full time and the husband (or wife) ran off with someone else and refused to support their kids. so that leaves 1 non working parent with 5 kids what happens? its not just a black and white situation, some abuse the system but other simply would not be able to survive without help from the state

rent allowance is given to lone parents to freely these days and no checks are done to check if the claimant has a partner living with them. this needs to be tackled

changes

analbeads wrote: »

on your second point...if a couple has 5 kids and the mother was a stay at home mum while the husband worked full time and the husband (or wife) ran off with someone else and refused to support their kids. so that leaves 1 non working parent with 5 kids what happens? its not just a black and white situation, some abuse the system but other simply would not be able to survive without help from the state

rent allowance is given to lone parents to freely these days and no checks are done to check if the claimant has a partner living with them. this needs to be tackled

I agree with you that the ex's should have to pay and that its not always black and white.

My gripe is with the people who have a child, get the council house and then have another 3 or 4 children and have absolutely no intention to work at all for the next 20 or 30 years. Its even more galling when the father claims to be living at his parents house but cohabits, claims dole himself etc. Also that he is not even identified as the father at all so doesn't have to pay the MRU anything.

Something needs to be done about welfare fraud in the budget. More social welfare inspectors and much tougher punishments.

analbeads

changes wrote: »

I agree with you that the ex's should have to pay and that its not always black and white.

My gripe is with the people who have a child, get the council house and then have another 3 or 4 children and have absolutely no intention to work at all for the next 20 or 30 years. Its even more galling when the father claims to be living at his parents house but cohabits, claims dole himself etc. Also that he is not even identified as the father at all so doesn't have to pay the MRU anything.

Something needs to be done about welfare fraud in the budget. More social welfare inspectors and much tougher punishments.

council houses are given to families with a low income in need of housing which otherwise they would never be able to aford to buy a home.

i did apply for a concil house and was told that i would be allocated a 2 bed house when 1 is free (only 2 in the town).1 year later no sign of a 2 bed while there has being 3 3 beds renovated and empty 2 for 1 year and the other empty for 3 years. i was actually told by the housing department that i would only be given 1 of the 3 beds if i was to have another child which is crazy! i came straight off the housing list and im still living with my parents

the MRU is the biggest joke ive ever heard of! my ex refused to go on the birth cert but i gave his name, date of birth, parents address (he lived there at the time), his phone number to social welfare. i didnt have his pps number or work address. i told them he was getting a fas payment at the time so all it would have taken them is 5 seconds on the computer to find out the other information but ive never heard a thing from them in 2 years and neither has he.

Dob74

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Rather than increase tax the government should look at scrapping as many tax credits as possible to increase the tax base. I would scrap all the following tax credits:

• PAYE Employee Tax Credit
• Personal Tax Credit
• Rent Credit
• Seafarers Credit
• Service Charges
• Trade Union Subscription
• Job Assist Credit
• Married Persons Taxation
• One Person Family Tax Credit

There's also a wide range of Tax Relief and Employee Expenses Reimbursement that could be done away with. Things like Meal Allowances and Travel Expenses for instance.

More here:

• Income Tax Credits
• Reliefs and Exemptions
• Employee Expenses
• Rental Income

If anyone thinks some tax credits listed above should be kept then I'd appreciate your comments.

The economy would come to complete stop if you wanted to abolish tax credits.
It puts about 70 euro a week into the hand of everyone employed.
Income tax only accounts for 35% of the tax take. Vat would be affected if you raise income tax, everyone would stop spending.

Everyday you listen "experts" form the big accounting firms advocating higher tax for low paid workers. Thats because the higher you get paid the more tax breaks you can take advantage of. And of course they are clients of the big accounting firms where these "experts" work.

I am sick of listening to Ivan Yeats and co wanting to raise taxes on the lower paid.
It is a self defeating exercise, the price of everything in this country is expensive, insurance. professional fees, Real Estate should be looked at first before attacking the average worker.