Wealthy DCU Econimist targets Social Wel Recipients in Budget

teddy_303

Ciaran Mac an Bhaird, a lecturer in business and management in DCU, sais that it is of the utmost importance that correct budgetary decisions are made immediately by the Government.

Mr Mac an Bhaird warned that we must make cuts to social welfare if necessary, or we risk losing sovereign control of the State.

"If we don't deal with this now, fast, you could be looking at the IMF and EU telling us what to do," he said.

"If we've got to make cuts to social welfare, we'll make them. If the EU or IMF come in, they will top-slice everything. They will cause untold social harm."

The IMF will top slice everything. Would that not be fairer than simply persecuting the weakest members of our society so the millionaire benefactors of the boom can contribute a disproportionately small amount, as they have done so far? 4000 people who earned over €100,000 in wages last year payed no tax at all in this unfair taxation system as it is.

Would the IMF taking over be better for 98% of the population, rather than the muppets who landed us where we are?

mikom

The dole is gonna be cut in the budget, that's for certain.

galwayrush

Until we stop voting mupets to the Dail, we'll never recover. The future therefore looks bleak.

Latchy

teddy_303 wrote: »

Would the IMF taking over be better for 98% of the population, rather than the muppets who landed us where we are?

it might be but for how long ? And what other rules and regulations might the IMF introduce into the country ?

That's the worry for Ireland ok .

teddy_303

This top slice business sounds a lot fairer though, no? Take it from the haves, instead of the nots as per..

ballsymchugh

how do you know he's wealthy? or are you just annoyed that someone with a well respected job may be better off than you?

zapata

Social welfare rates are pretty generous in this country at the moment.
Fingerprinting the welfare recipients and forcing them to scan their finger when collecting payments should also be considered to cut down on social welfare fraud.

My name is URL

teddy_303 wrote: »

This top slice business sounds a lot fairer though, no? Take it from the haves, instead of the nots as per..

It isn't fairer that way, it causes those with more money to stop spending what they have too, which in turn causes even more problems. Cuts should be spread fairly throughout all echelons of society. If the people most like to set up businesses are targeted above everyone else then they'll simply sit on their money instead

teddy_303

ballsymchugh wrote: »

how do you know he's wealthy? or are you just annoyed that someone with a well respected job may be better off than you?

No, Just that he is very quick to point his finger at the lass well off, and not his own tax bracket..

Anita Blow

"Wealthy DCU Econimist targets Social Wel Recipients in Budget"
Why is his wealth relevant?

IMF would ruin the country. They'd make the corrections but I believe it would be such a shock to the economy in the space of time the corrections would be made that it would have a long lasting, terrible effect on the economy.
Public Sector numbers will be slashed, the rest will have their pay slashed. Taxes will rise for everyone which will put more people on the breadline. Biggest hit would be corporation tax which would no doubt rise. That would put many SMEs out of business who are already struggling and you could easily park up by the airport and literally watch multi-nationals pack up and fly out of the country leaving our export-led economy in tatters.

Yes the government were assholes the way they dealt with our economy in the past few years, but they know they won't get back in so in my opinion they are making the necessary cuts because they can.
Sure they're still making a few asshole decisions but overall the necessary cuts are being made.

Social Welfare includes things like Child Benefit which has to be cut. There is no need for middle-income or high-income families to be getting that money. etc. etc.

sock puppet

teddy_303 wrote: »

No, Just that he is very quick to point his finger at the lass well off, and not his own tax bracket..

How on earth would you know? You think you know his entire economic vision for Ireland based on those two lines? If there's a link to him saying that no wealthy person should have to suffer in the budget post it.

Cavehill Red

I wouldn't mind seeing the budget target wages at the top end of the third level education sector, myself.
Some of these duffers are on 400K per year, ffs.
Ivory towers wouldn't be in it.
Meanwhile, of course the bulk of the work is actually done by poor junior lecturers on temporary part-time contracts for buttons, peanuts and magic beans.
When I see one of these turkeys suggesting that the 3rd level sector be restructured to get rid of the dead wood and properly remunerate the actual educators, I'll be impressed. But of course they don't vote for Christmas, do they?

Latchy

Anita Blow wrote: »

"
Social Welfare includes things like Child Benefit which has to be cut. There is no need for middle-income or high-income families to be getting that money. etc. etc.

That's the way David Cameron saw it in UK , by going ahead with cutting the Child Benefits to middle and some high income families.Different much larger emonomy I know and how that would pan out in Ireland remains to be seen .

Freddie59

teddy_303 wrote: »

This top slice business sounds a lot fairer though, no? Take it from the haves, instead of the nots as per..

I can't agree. The SW issue has to be tackled. A major issue is the number of people in receipt of "invalidity" or "disability" payments. Many of these are in receipt of free travel for both them and their partners. It's ludicrous. I was speaking to a chap who travelled on a bus recently. Only he and one other paid. Everyone else had free travel.

A Joe Duffy programme revealed the same during the year. This situation is untenable. We are borrowing a half billion euro each week to fund this.

I was speaking to a chap the other day who was made redundant in the final year of his apprenticeship. His application for job seekers allowance is being dragged out, with DFSA looking for statements of his parent's bank accounts, etc. He himself has friends who are on €200 SW per week for years and they're never touched.

This nettle MUST be grasped - before it is too late for this country.

starbelgrade

There needs to be cuts right across the board, including to social welfare & those on state pensions. It's a hard but necessary move.

teddy_303

sock puppet wrote: »

How on earth would you know? You think you know his entire economic vision for Ireland based on those two lines? If there's a link to him saying that no wealthy person should have to suffer in the budget post it.

Conspicuous by its absence I said..

Freddie59

Cavehill Red wrote: »

poor junior lecturers

Most lecturers in ITs are grossing €96k per year. Imagine what it must be in a Uni.

Einhard

I'm on the dole. it needs to be cut. Anyone saying otherwise is living in a different reality.

Having said that though, and this isn't out of self interest, I think that, while the dole should be cut, the greater bulk of savings should be made in the myriad assortment of additional benefits the state provides to those on SW. And the system made more efficent and accountable. For example, I know of one person who gets rent allowance for a two bedroom apartment. He pays €15 a week towards it. That's for the whole place. Were he to advertise for someone to take the other room, then the allowance could be halved. But SW didn't do any investigation before they granted him the allowance, and haven't checked on him since. Were loopholes and oversights like this examined and dealt with, then significant savings could be found in the SW budget, without too great an impact oin peoples' lives.

Cavehill Red

Freddie59 wrote: »

Most lecturers in ITs are grossing €96k per year. Imagine what it must be in a Uni.

I doubt you're correct there. I know plenty of junior lecturers, not one of them in a permanent contract, all living hand-to-mouth on part-time temporary contracts.
It's a classic pyramid structure, with a well-off few at the top of the pile, trousering the sort of wages you mention while doing little actual work and plenty of 'research' and sabbaticals, and the real educating being performed by many untenured people for little remuneration.

starbelgrade

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I doubt you're correct there. I know plenty of junior lecturers, not one of them in a permanent contract, all living hand-to-mouth on part-time temporary contracts.
It's a classic pyramid structure, with a well-off few at the top of the pile, trousering the sort of wages you mention while doing little actual work and plenty of 'research' and sabbaticals, and the real educating being performed by many untenured people for little remuneration.

True. But it's easier to make shit up & invent figures than to post something based on reality.

Max Power1

We need to drasticlaly cut the SW bill.

I say the fairest way to do this is to leave JSB untouched, and cut JSA by 10% minimum.

Also reduce the myriad of benefits available like Lone Parents etc.

Cavehill Red

Max Power1 wrote: »

We need to drasticlaly cut the SW bill.

I say the fairest way to do this is to leave JSB untouched, and cut JSA by 10% minimum.

Also reduce the myriad of benefits available like Lone Parents etc.

Why can't we just let Anglo and AIB swing instead?
More money to be saved there than if you slashed the social welfare bill to zero.

ejmaztec

...and there are still people legitimately getting multiple benefits, for this that and the other, and earning a hell of a lot more than they would if they had a full-time job.

Max Power1

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Why can't we just let Anglo and AIB swing instead?
More money to be saved there than if you slashed the social welfare bill to zero.

would you like to have a banking system?
EDIT: Anglo could have been let fail IMO, but not AIB.

Cavehill Red

Max Power1 wrote: »

would you like to have a banking system?
EDIT: Anglo could have been let fail IMO, but not AIB.

Counterfactual assertion there. We'll never know. But looking at Iceland, their country didn't collapse overnight when they let their banks fail. Rather, they're in recovery already. By nationalising these private banking losses, on the other hand, we're going to be screwed for generations.
In any case, there are plenty of other banks in Ireland than those two (or indeed BoI).
I bank with Ulster, a very good bank imo, and of course there are options like Rabo if you'd rather not have your money exposed to what has now become a real sovereign debt calamity.
And we had other options too, like Halifax, until the banking bailout skewed the market and actually drove out healthy competition.
So I very much dispute your suggestion that the banking system in Ireland would have collapsed. Two toxic banks would have collapsed, and we'd be 50 billion euro better off as a state if we'd let them.

Cavehill Red

gizmo wrote: »

And what happens to peoples money invested in those banks in the meantime?

Deposits were already protected up to a level of tens of thousands by existing legislation.

gurramok

Einhard wrote: »

I'm on the dole. it needs to be cut. Anyone saying otherwise is living in a different reality.

Having said that though, and this isn't out of self interest, I think that, while the dole should be cut, the greater bulk of savings should be made in the myriad assortment of additional benefits the state provides to those on SW. And the system made more efficent and accountable. For example, I know of one person who gets rent allowance for a two bedroom apartment. He pays €15 a week towards it. That's for the whole place. Were he to advertise for someone to take the other room, then the allowance could be halved. But SW didn't do any investigation before they granted him the allowance, and haven't checked on him since. Were loopholes and oversights like this examined and dealt with, then significant savings could be found in the SW budget, without too great an impact oin peoples' lives.

Agree, just look at what welfare aka single parents get
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66188084&postcount=337

JSB should be increased to reward workers who contributed and JSA should be decreased especially to those who never worked.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Why can't we just let Anglo and AIB swing instead?
More money to be saved there than if you slashed the social welfare bill to zero.

That does not solve the public finance deficit one iota. Those billions that were poured into the banks was added onto the national debt.

Cavehill Red

gurramok wrote: »

That does not solve the public finance deficit one iota. Those billions that were poured into the banks was added onto the national debt.

Anglo bailout alone is costing 26 billion plus. It's not our debt and we shouldn't pay it, especially in the current economic climate.
Rescind the guarantee now. Let them go to the wall if they must. Speculators gambled and lost. The state doesn't return my money when I lose a bet with Paddy Power. So why should we pay for Roman Abramovich's losing punts?

gurramok

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Anglo bailout alone is costing 26 billion plus. It's not our debt and we shouldn't pay it, especially in the current economic climate.
Rescind the guarantee now. Let them go to the wall if they must. Speculators gambled and lost. The state doesn't return my money when I lose a bet with Paddy Power. So why should we pay for Roman Abramovich's losing punts?

I agree with you that it should of been closed a long time ago. If it was closed or the banking situation never existed(no billions used), it would have had nothing to do with the deficit as the deficit is the difference between revenues and income.

Jesus Wept

teddy_303 wrote: »

Ciaran Mac an Bhaird, a lecturer in business and management in DCU, sais that it is of the utmost importance that correct budgetary decisions are made immediately by the Government.

Mr Mac an Bhaird warned that we must make cuts to social welfare if necessary, or we risk losing sovereign control of the State.

"If we don't deal with this now, fast, you could be looking at the IMF and EU telling us what to do," he said.

"If we've got to make cuts to social welfare, we'll make them. If the EU or IMF come in, they will top-slice everything. They will cause untold social harm."

The IMF will top slice everything. Would that not be fairer than simply persecuting the weakest members of our society so the millionaire benefactors of the boom can contribute a disproportionately small amount, as they have done so far? 4000 people who earned over €100,000 in wages last year payed no tax at all in this unfair taxation system as it is.

Would the IMF taking over be better for 98% of the population, rather than the muppets who landed us where we are?

What group are the 4000 who don't pay tax?
Is this the artists exemption? And what is the reasoning behind that particular exemption?

Cavehill Red

gurramok wrote: »

I agree with you that it should of been closed a long time ago. If it was closed or the banking situation never existed(no billions used), it would have had nothing to do with the deficit as the deficit is the difference between revenues and income.

Indeed, and that brings us to a discussion as to how the deficit was created in the first place.
McCreevynomics ('If I have it, I spend it') were to blame, along with reducing levels of income tax to depend on property taxes and corporation tax.
Of course, with the collapse in the property bubble, the property tax take slumped too, leaving us with a hefty deficit.
I see plenty of room for manouevre even in the current climate. The public sector protected jobs scam is one. Why can't people be sacked? It's ludicrous to offer blanket job security to the entire public sector. We have, for example, around eight times as many administrators in the health service as it requires. Sack seven in eight of them.
Then the income tax take needs to be adjusted back up to take account of the property tax slump.
Social welfare benefits do need to be addressed, but we do currently have half a million people on the dole and biting cuts in this area is guaranteed to lead to genuine suffering, poverty and the sort of scenes we denigrate in so-called less developed countries - homelessness, malnutrition and a stark rise in crime.
It's way too easy to scapegoat the poor, and it's especially unfair when there is little or no work out there for the unemployed.
And it's also not a particularly smart way out of our current crisis, since as I said, reneging on the bank debts alone would correct the exchequer in a far more significant way than any social welfare cuts ever could.

Einhard

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Rescind the guarantee now. Let them go to the wall if they must. Speculators gambled and lost. The state doesn't return my money when I lose a bet with Paddy Power. So why should we pay for Roman Abramovich's losing punts?

And what happens next year when, after cancelling a gaurantee made in good faith, we go back to the self same investors looking for money?!

Cuddlesworth

I'd be happy for it. High Social Welfare causes problems for everybody. My rent is propped up by the minimum SW payment. Groceries propped up by the dole. And the minimum wage.

Cavehill Red

Einhard wrote: »

And what happens next year when, after cancelling a gaurantee made in good faith, we go back to the self same investors looking for money?!

The Uruguay precedent indicates that markets have short memories.
Furthermore, it's not the banking investors we're borrowing from currently, since the bulk of Irish bonds seem to be taken up by the ECB and similar European entities.

gurramok

Re: Cavehill Red. Not all welfare is too high. If you have kids, you are better off on welfare by a mile.

Both welfare(for those milking it legally and illegally) and the public sector needs to be slashed. They won't be in poverty after.

mfceiling

According to todays sunday times almost 1 million workers pay no tax....not a cent.

Even if they paid 2-5% would it not be a help?

Cavehill Red

gurramok wrote: »

Re: Cavehill Red. Not all welfare is too high. If you have kids, you are better off on welfare by a mile.

Not true in all cases as you suggest. True in some cases, but people on here aren't suggesting a close analysis of the margins, but across the board cuts.

gurramok wrote: »

Both welfare(for those milking it legally and illegally) and the public sector needs to be slashed. They won't be in poverty after.

Well, firstly those claiming benefits illegally ought to face legal enforcement for fraud as already legislated for.
Those claiming it legally aren't milking anything. Social welfare exists to prevent people descending into poverty because they cannot find work, and there are half a million of those in Ireland today.
There are already indications of genuine poverty resulting in Ireland, as the queues for food at St Vincent de Paul centres indicate. Savage slashing of the social welfare bill will only exacerbate that, and won't, as I've already suggested, do much to significantly correct the country's finances.

i_love_toast

personally I would like to see social welfare slimmed down to the bone and top earners paying more. Im sick and tired of the working/lower middle class being the backbone of this country and being hit the most on taxes every single time.

Mr Benevolent

As someone mentioned yesterday, the UK was bailed out by the IMF during the 1970's. They survived and prospered.

KindOfIrish

Anita Blow wrote: »

"Wealthy DCU Econimist targets Social Wel Recipients in Budget"
Why is his wealth relevant?

His wealth is relevant because he is paid by taxpayers from private sector like me. And in my opinion (i know rate of payment in DCU) they are grossly overpaid. Much more than SW recepients.

gurramok

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Not true in all cases as you suggest. True in some cases, but people on here aren't suggesting a close analysis of the margins, but across the board cuts.

Is true, did you not see the table for parents with kids on welfare?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66188084&postcount=337

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Well, firstly those claiming benefits illegally ought to face legal enforcement for fraud as already legislated for.
Those claiming it legally aren't milking anything. Social welfare exists to prevent people descending into poverty because they cannot find work, and there are half a million of those in Ireland today.
There are already indications of genuine poverty resulting in Ireland, as the queues for food at St Vincent de Paul centres indicate. Savage slashing of the social welfare bill will only exacerbate that, and won't, as I've already suggested, do much to significantly correct the country's finances.

The illegals do it via the black economy, that is fierce hard to counteract just like in the 80's. The legals like single mothers milk every cent with partners living with them on the quiet.
As for the people on food parcels, I bet they are single with no kids. Get the drift? To avoid real poverty in this country, you're better off having a kid as it will pay for Rent Allowance and all the benefits that goes with been a parent.

Pherekydes

Jeez, who'd have thunk it? There's two of the feckers!

C Mac an Bhaird

C Mac an Bhaird

I thought my old pal from Maynooth had gone and gotten himself wealthy.

He's right, though. People on SW haven't taken much of a hit, while the cost of living has dropped.

Cavehill Red

gurramok wrote: »

Is true, did you not see the table for parents with kids on welfare?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66188084&postcount=337

I'm aware of one single parent who was made redundant in June and went from around 700 a week in their hand to around 220 overnight. This may go up to 300 if and when they ever get an appointment for their one parent family claim interview.
So, no, what you suggest is not true.

gurramok wrote: »

The illegals do it via the black economy, that is fierce hard to counteract just like in the 80's. The legals like single mothers milk every cent with partners living with them on the quiet.

Then they're not legally entitled to it and are as illegal as the others.

gurramok wrote: »

As for the people on food parcels, I bet they are single with no kids. Get the drift?

No, I don't. You're suggesting people with more mouths to feed have less need of assistance? That seems unlikely, and contradicts the experience of St Vincent de Paul.

gurramok wrote: »

To avoid real poverty in this country, you're better off having a kid as it will pay for Rent Allowance and all the benefits that goes with been a parent.

People without kids qualify for rent allowance too. I really don't see what you're driving at, except some sort of blanket hatred of single parents.

Max Power1

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Counterfactual assertion there.

Not really.
Anglo is a small time property related bank, with little or no public face to private or commercial deposits. AIB on the other hand is the second most common bank (behind BOI) and has many depositors.

Letting Anglo fail would result in a lot of speculators losing money. Letting AIB fail would result in disaster for the economy.

Cavehill Red

Max Power1 wrote: »

Letting Anglo fail would result in a lot of speculators losing money. Letting AIB fail would result in disaster for the economy.

Whereas a 50 billion bailout is what, exactly? Economic happy days?
My assertion, based on the Icelandic experience, is that we should jettison these banks immediately. Their country didn't collapse when they did so, and they are already in recovery.
We owe nothing to the likes of the bondholders of either bank, and the deposits in both were already secured under legislation to the tune of tens of thousands per depositor.

Max Power1

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Whereas a 50 billion bailout is what, exactly? Economic happy days?
My assertion, based on the Icelandic experience, is that we should jettison these banks immediately. Their country didn't collapse when they did so, and they are already in recovery.
We owe nothing to the likes of the bondholders of either bank, and the deposits in both were already secured under legislation to the tune of tens of thousands per depositor.

While this is somewhat off topic, you cant let AIB fail. The second biggest bank in the country. Pension funds, salaries, savings etc all possibly wiped out.

If the 50billion figure quoted refers to Anglo, I already said that was a stupid decision.

gurramok

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I'm aware of one single parent who was made redundant in June and went from around 700 a week in their hand to around 220 overnight. This may go up to 300 if and when they ever get an appointment for their one parent family claim interview.
So, no, what you suggest is not true.

Wait for their interview then. They'll be means tested and if that person has savings/assets, they'll get alot less than those who have nothing.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Then they're not legally entitled to it and are as illegal as the others.

Can't be enforced.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

No, I don't. You're suggesting people with more mouths to feed have less need of assistance? That seems unlikely, and contradicts the experience of St Vincent de Paul.

No. People with more mouths to feed get over and above more than they need via child supports than those that don't.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

People without kids qualify for rent allowance too. I really don't see what you're driving at, except some sort of blanket hatred of single parents.

Haha. I state the facts and you accuse me of having a blanket hatred. The benefit system financially discriminates in favour of parents with kids especially with qualification for Rent Supplement. Look at the table again.

Biggins

Speaking on money, for those that missed it...

TDs' €2.3m in summer expenses

They are 'living in a parallel universe' and lack 'moral authority', says leading economist

THE nation's TDs received over €2.3m in expenses payments between June and September, despite the Dail's 12-week break, the Sunday Independent can reveal.
Figures published by the Houses of the Oireachtas showed that between the beginning of June and the end of September, members claimed €2,303,138, in total, between them -- even though the Dail rose on July 8 and only returned on September 29. The figures also showed that despite there being no committee hearings in August, as well as no Dail sittings, the 163 members of the lower house claimed €575,000 in expenses during the month.

The amount paid to members was heavily criticised yesterday. "They are living in a parallel universe and such revelations erode their moral authority," leading economist Jim Power said.

Overall, the top claimant was Fine Gael Cork South West TD PJ Sheehan, who received €21,180.
Mr Sheehan recently resigned as his party's deputy spokesman on agriculture, after the Sunday Independent revealed that he was involved in a drunken incident with a female garda who claimed he threatened her.
"I have no comment other than to say I am the furthest TD from the Dail (don't forget - when he was also on holidays from the Dail!!!) and the closest to the White House. You would want to cop on. . ."

The next two highest claimants were independent Jackie Healy Rae and Fine Gael's Dinny McGinley, who each received €20,932 in expenses payments. Both face round trips of over 700kms from their homes to the Dail.

Behind them is Mr Sheehan's Cork South-West rival FF's Christy O'Sullivan, who received €20,680. Four TDs -- Niall Blaney (FF Donegal North East), Jimmy Deenihan (FG Kerry North), Michael Moynihan (FF Cork North West) and Tom Sheahan (FG Kerry South) -- all claimed €20,428 in expenses over the summer months.
According to the official figures, 17 TDs claimed in excess of €20,000 between June and September.

Of the party leaders, FG leader Enda Kenny led the way, receiving €16,616.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/tds-euro23m-in-summer-expenses-2372912.html

The madness continues...

ilovemybrick

teddy_303 wrote: »

No, Just that he is very quick to point his finger at the lass well off, and not his own tax bracket..

I'm not convinced you understand how tax brackets work. The vast majority of the tax take is paid by a minority. The welfare culture in Ireland is ingrained and nationally damaging. Some of the savings have to come from cutting welfare.

galwayrush

Max Power1 wrote: »

While this is somewhat off topic, you cant let AIB fail. The second biggest bank in the country. Pension funds, salaries, savings etc all possibly wiped out.

If the 50billion figure quoted refers to Anglo, I already said that was a stupid decision.

Many peoples pension funds have already been wiped out.No bail out for them.....

sock puppet

teddy_303 wrote: »

Conspicuous by its absence I said..

He hasn't spelled out what he thinks the government should do though. Lots of other things are also absent, which is expected given that it's a two line quote! Also how do you know he wasn't responding to a question on whether or not social welfare should be reduced? Maybe the journalist didn't ask him whether or not he thinks taxes should be increased?