FG extend tax relief to Rich & Plan to Cut Social welfare again

liammur

Kristopherus wrote: »

That what I find crazy. All parties telling us that we have to live on less. Try telling that to:
1 Local Authorities. Service charges have gone up . Parking charges have gone up. Refuse charges have gone up.
2. Health service providers. In addition to HSE price increases, private nursing homes have raised their prices, GPs have not reduced charges. Occupational Health Proffessionals have not reduced charges.
3.Gov. sponsored inflationary charges must be reduced. Crazy charges for a change of details in the likes of a passport should be abolished.

Until the next Govt gets a grip and examines all strands of charges clinically and fairly, the we will never have the prospect of a level playing field.:mad:

All of the above should be first to be cut. What's the standard rate of dole at the moment?

Kristopherus

liammur wrote: »

All of the above should be first to be cut. What's the standard rate of dole at the moment?

Thats essentially what I'm trying to say.Dole for the single person is €188.00 per week.

menopausal iano

When Fine Gael came for the unemployed ,
I remained silent;
I was not unemployed .

When thcame for the lone parent
...I remained silent;
I was not a lone parent.

When they came for the employed ,
I did not speak out;
I was not employed .

When they came for the disabled,
I remained silent;
I wasn't disabled.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

menopausal iano wrote: »

When Fine Gael came for the unemployed ,
I remained silent;
I was not unemployed .

When thcame for the lone parent
...I remained silent;
I was not a lone parent.

When they came for the employed ,
I did not speak out;
I was not employed .

When they came for the disabled,
I remained silent;
I wasn't disabled.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

What about when they came for the young one living in a 3 bed apartment with her 2 kids, claiming rent allowance and single parents despite having her boyfriend who was also claiming the dole living with her and the father of her kids handing up money to support them? What did you do when they came for her?

axer

pocketvenus wrote: »

That is what I said fraud needs to be tacked first, along with areas such as people avoding paying tax in this country, CPA, etc

Why would you do one thing first? makes more sense to tackle them all together. That way you make progress each direction.

pocketvenus wrote: »

He has dumbed down his CV, I had to do same with mine but they stilll know even by looking at the degrees etc.
Also when you are on dole you are desperate to take any job even it is what is classes as a low skilled.

You left the degrees on your CV?

Killer Pigeon

alejandro1977 wrote: »

Labour want to have a marginal rate of tax of 55%

Why should anyone hand over more than half his salary to the government?

I'll leave before I do.

(I'd leave to find work before I'd claim the dole also BTW)

Technically you won't be handing over half your salary to the government. If you are earning 150,000 euro per year then they'll be a greater tax on the amount that 100,000 plus, so in this case it'll be 55% of 50,000 plus the lower rate of tax for the 100,000.

snubbleste

Dunno if anyone was listening to Newstalk this morning but Ivan Yates was saying that all the parties financial plans and cost saving measures do not stack up. He'd gone through the manifestos and their figures. He said that the wool is being pulled over our eyes.

Basically things will be far more austere than what we are being told.

Monty Burnz

Kracken wrote: »

Any one that says social welface has to be cut is a moron

Good start to your argument :rolleyes:

Kracken wrote: »

with no social aware or ability to see what state the country is in. You need to offer a solution first before you cut anything.

Solution to what? Overspending? Cuts and tax rises are the solution, at least in the short term. In spite of what people seem to think, the government can't create jobs. Entrepreneurs do that.

Kracken wrote: »

I am employed in a job that is a little above minimum wage and my wife is on JB, however we are living hand to mouth, we have no debts bar a mortgage which is is less that the national average (we did not over borrow and did not take 100% one either).

If they slash welfare what am I do, starve myself and live in the cold because i can't afford utilities.

Ok, firstly I have to say that I sympathise with your situation. However, for the greater good, you have to say that it's not surprising in this day and age you can't buy a very expensive (assuming you bought during the bubble) house on one wage. If I go out and try to buy a house on Shrewsbury Road for €10 million, they will tell me to get lost if I don't have the money, and I will have no choice in the matter. You are in the same boat - if you don't have the money to pay the loan, then you can't have the house. It's simple. In the short term, it's right that you should be given help to tide you over for a year while your wife seeks work. But if, in the long run you can't afford the house, they you just can't have it - same as I can't have the house on Shrewsbury Road. That's just how the world works. Having said that, I do sincerely hope that your situation improves soon.

Kracken wrote: »

So I ask if you think welfare needs to be slashed, justify why i shouldn't be allowed to eat, live in any form of comfort or be entitled to any form of happiness.

You can't have what you can't afford. And nobody is 'entitled' to happiness. I don't know where you get the idea that you are

Kracken wrote: »

Why not instead slash all TD salaries to 60,000 a year regardless of position, reduce an civil servants wage above 60,000 a year.

TD's and ministers salaries are too high, I agree.

Kracken wrote: »

Start selling state assets on a lower rate lease back method.

It's usually a bad policy to privatise a monopoly - but there is some merit in selling some state assets.

Kracken wrote: »

Use the profits raised by bailed out banks to supplement the states coffers, how about any of those suggestions?

The bailed out banks aren't making any profits, they are making huge losses. Anglo posted another loss of something like €15 billion the other day.

Monty Burnz

menopausal iano wrote: »

When Fine Gael came for the unemployed ,
I remained silent;
I was not unemployed .

When thcame for the lone parent
...I remained silent;
I was not a lone parent.

When they came for the employed ,
I did not speak out;
I was not employed .

When they came for the disabled,
I remained silent;
I wasn't disabled.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

Godwin's Law fail. FG = the Nazis? :rolleyes:
Ridiculous post.

nesf

pocketvenus wrote: »

I agree there is no shame in being unemployed due to recession but you are def made to feel that way by some people. Even collecting your weekly payments and signing on makes you feel ashamed etc.

It's not a bad thing though, it just means that deep down you feel like you should be working which is what we want every able bodied person to feel. The problem is the people for whom signing on feels normal.

Will_H

nesf wrote: »

It's not a bad thing though, it just means that deep down you feel like you should be working which is what we want every able bodied person to feel. The problem is the people for whom signing on feels normal.

Not just that - when you can't provide for your family - that's a real feeling of shame....

Monty Burnz

Will_H wrote: »

Not just that - when you can't provide for your family - that's a real feeling of shame....

Only the good people will feel (misplaced) shame about that. You are in good company.

Hector Mildew

Monty Burnz wrote: »

if you don't have the money to pay the loan, then you can't have the house. It's simple. In the short term, it's right that you should be given help to tide you over for a year while your wife seeks work. But if, in the long run you can't afford the house, they you just can't have it - same as I can't have the house on Shrewsbury Road. That's just how the world works. Having said that, I do sincerely hope that your situation improves soon.

You can't have what you can't afford. And nobody is 'entitled' to happiness. I don't know where you get the idea that you are

.

Tell that to the banks and NAMA developers...

Monty Burnz

Hector Mildew wrote: »

Tell that to the banks and NAMA developers...

Two wrongs don't make a right. I don't think too many people agree by now that NAMA and the bailout was a good idea.

Snakeblood

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Two wrongs don't make a right. I don't think too many people agree by now that NAMA and the bailout was a good idea.

Yeah, the bailout was a terrible idea. Our problem now is everyone is saying you can't take money from them, but money has to come from somewhere, high earners to the unemployed, public and private.

Hector Mildew

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Two wrongs don't make a right. I don't think too many people agree by now that NAMA and the bailout was a good idea.

True, but it's still in operation so in this country there are different rules of capitalism depending on how much you owe and how recklessly you gambled. The more the better, the others get to pay for your mistakes- hardly the basis of a fair society.

Hopefully FG have better ideas for correcting this than the last lot

Catsmokinpot

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

196 a week, 100 less than a min wage week (before tax) and transport cost. No incentive to work.

Also about 3 times the UK, is our cost of living three times theirs?

As already mentioned the SW rent allowance means 50% of the market is controlled by the state and maintained at excessively high prices as a result.

two simple examples.

I've been working since I left school, my job wasn't going so well (I was working there for 8 years and was sick of it and getting depressed and the doctor wouldn't give me anymore time off so i had to quit) I left and went home to look after my Gran, now i'm back in college doing my first year of a science degree and I'm on back to education allowance, (by the way the budget has kicked in and its 188 a week) I don't get rent allowance and i pay 400 a month excluding bills, you try to live on less €50 a week. its not like people on the dole go out and party every day. I cant afford a single luxury. In fact my car got stolen and I cant afford to replace it, I need new shoes, I need a bike to get me to college which I can't afford (so i'm using a lend off someone else) I stay at home, I can't go home to visit my family or friends on the weekend because it costs over 30 quid to do so. yeah us dole birds have an easy life don't we.

I'm not looking for your sympathy i'm looking for some god damn understanding.

Not everyone is a scumbag drug-dealer with 4 kids collecting child support for 6 in 5 different counties, some of us have genuine reason for being where we are now.

If welfare goes down then cost of living should go down, but it won't of course, if anything, cost of living will rise. minimum wage shouldn't have been cut, people are living on the bread line as it is. this crisis was not caused by me, I was working all the way through I don't owe any money because I didn't take any loan out, so why should I be penalized for relying on the social welfare made available to other citizens in the past when they needed it.

When I get a job and am off the dole I hope its still there, because maybe there will be someone else in a similar situation to me that needs the help and the fact is, this current government and greedy business stole our money, not the people on the dole. the next government will not do any better until the people unite.

Monty Burnz

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Only the good people will feel (misplaced) shame about that. You are in good company.

Perverse logic..

liammur

snubbleste wrote: »

Dunno if anyone was listening to Newstalk this morning but Ivan Yates was saying that all the parties financial plans and cost saving measures do not stack up. He'd gone through the manifestos and their figures. He said that the wool is being pulled over our eyes.

Basically things will be far more austere than what we are being told.

Unfortunately neither did his own.
Everything changes, and anyone thinking that these plans will hold through is backing the wrong horse.

sollar

I agree with the welfare cuts as welfare is still too generous imo.

But i heard Leo V say that they would not be cutting disability etc. This will just result in many of the long term dolers looking for sick notes for a bad back to get the extra few euros.

axer

sollar wrote: »

I agree with the welfare cuts as welfare is still too generous imo.

But i heard Leo V say that they would not be cutting disability etc. This will just result in many of the long term dolers looking for sick notes for a bad back to get the extra few euros.

Disability Benefit is different to the dole. The dole is temporary support to give some sort financial help to those inbetween jobs. Disability benefit is for a permanent issue that is stopping someone from being able to work in the first place thus they have no other income to rely on and that this inability to go out and work like other people is not expected to change for the claimant. This is a massive difference and means that the disabled have no choice.

What you should be calling for is more inspection for incidents of frauding the system. This is completely separate to cuts or lack of cuts in payments.

sollar

axer the point i'm making is that some of the people out there who have no interest in working will be up to the doctors now with madey up conditions in order to avail of disability benefit (or is it allowance??) if it pays better than the dole.

johnie89

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Sounds sensible to me, need to encourage people to invest in pensions

And 41% affects anyone over ~33k, not just "high earners"

As for welfare rates, nearly every aspect of welfare in this country is still at crazily high levels and needs to come down. Taxes and min wage rate has already been changed much more than welfare levels were touched and rent allowance still create a high artificial floor to rents costing us all hundreds a year.

Social welfare has been cut by 10%
and the contribution to rent allowance has doubled. Also many people I know renting under rent allowance scheme are pay below market value rents.

I myself moved from Dublin to Louth purely because the cost of renting is lower there.

What more do you want?

johnie89

sollar wrote: »

axer the point i'm making is that some of the people out there who have no interest in working will be up to the doctors now with madey up conditions in order to avail of disability benefit (or is it allowance??) if it pays better than the dole.

There are no 'made up' conditions. A person is either ill or not.

If they try to pretend they are suffering from mental health difficulties, I know of a 10 page questionnaire that will detect if someone is healthy, unhealthy or trying to fool the test. Sure its not 100% reliable. But generally the sort of people who don't want to work long term aren't educated enough to fool it.

The number of claims being processed and awarded have actually dropped in recent years owing to the conditions being tightened up.

flutered

when one looks for diablity benifit, one has to get a cert from their doc, after a few weeks they have to present to a sw doctor, if the sw doctor says they are entitled to it then they are examined every five months, also they recieve an unannounced visit from a social welfare inspector three times per year, which is pretty hard to convince every one that they are ill.

nesf

johnie89 wrote: »

There are no 'made up' conditions. A person is either ill or not.

If they try to pretend they are suffering from mental health difficulties, I know of a 10 page questionnaire that will detect if someone is healthy, unhealthy or trying to fool the test. Sure its not 100% reliable. But generally the sort of people who don't want to work long term aren't educated enough to fool it.

The number of claims being processed and awarded have actually dropped in recent years owing to the conditions being tightened up.

More than that, any competent psychiatrist could tell you someone is faking (since they need to be disabled not merely a bit down to qualify for disability and the condition needs to be expected to last a year which rules out a lot of more minor mental health problems). Further, the medication for long term mental health difficulties is not very pleasant to be on, there are side effects and believe me that no sane person would go on these meds and risk the side effects if they did not need the drugs.

If you have bipolar or schizophrenia (which would be common illnesses to have on disability as a mental health patient) you'll a) have probably seen a psychiatrist and been diagnosed, b) have a heavy prescription of meds that are not trivial side effect wise and c) have very clear patterns of mood variance that if absent would immediately be spotted by their psychiatrist.

A "bad back" is a far more likely route for people to follow when seeking disability.

crebel81

sollar wrote: »

axer the point i'm making is that some of the people out there who have no interest in working will be up to the doctors now with madey up conditions in order to avail of disability benefit (or is it allowance??) if it pays better than the dole.

Well maybe if the proper controls were in place this would not be allowed to happen Mr Sollar...If genuine people require these benifits then they should get it, does who don't should simply not get it...

But we live in a country which has an overall inefficient system...

fat__tony

Will_H wrote: »

I think a number of you giving out about the SW rate need to get the facts straight here and to put things in perspective....

There is approximately 14% of the workforce unemployed today. Approx. 3 years ago. it was 4%. So let me do the math for you to make it easy - that's an extra 10%. This does not take into account the 100,000 or so who have emigrated to date, although it does include the self-employed who can't find work but are not entitled to JB/JA.

The original 4% would have been the long-term unemployed, who, for whatever reason [too lazy, genuine reason, claimed illegally] stayed on the dole & received their benefits.

After more that 25 years working, I, sadly, am one of the 10% who is now on the dole. I was receiving 196 a week, however, with the cuts in SW to date, I am now on 160 per week.

I HATE being unemployed but I cannot find work.
It's demoralising, it's shameful, it's stressful. We can barely get by.

So -
DO NOT tell me I'm not entitled to my measly 160 a week - particularly after paying my taxes for the past 25 years!

DO NOT tell me I have "no incentive to work" because I receive too much on welfare.

Do any of you honestly think that someone who has been made unemployed over the past 24 months actually wants to be on the dole!!!?!! Get ****ing real....:mad:

I can fully relate to these circumstances.

In my opinion there needs to be a severe overhaul of the whole social welfare system.

For example, people who lose their jobs after years working should be paid 75% of their salary for the first 6 months, then 50% for up to 1 yr unemployed.

This is the model thats used in France. (perhaps not those exact figures)

It is grossly unfair that a person who loses his/her job after working for several decades should only recieve the same weekly amount as some layabout who never worked a day in their lives.

Kracken

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Good start to your argument :rolleyes:

Solution to what? Overspending? Cuts and tax rises are the solution, at least in the short term. In spite of what people seem to think, the government can't create jobs. Entrepreneurs do that.

Yes but I ask you this, they can reduce the tax on film production, like section 481 and that would encourage film production again bring in millions in wages and secondary taxes can be gain from that. Countless other areas like this. So I would like to ask you provide examples of such solutions.

Ok, firstly I have to say that I sympathise with your situation. However, for the greater good, you have to say that it's not surprising in this day and age you can't buy a very expensive (assuming you bought during the bubble) house on one wage. If I go out and try to buy a house on Shrewsbury Road for €10 million, they will tell me to get lost if I don't have the money, and I will have no choice in the matter. You are in the same boat - if you don't have the money to pay the loan, then you can't have the house. It's simple. In the short term, it's right that you should be given help to tide you over for a year while your wife seeks work. But if, in the long run you can't afford the house, they you just can't have it - same as I can't have the house on Shrewsbury Road. That's just how the world works. Having said that, I do sincerely hope that your situation improves soon.

I would like to state that the cost of my house was under the national average I only borrowed €154K, I ensured not to over borrow like the rest of the nation.

You can't have what you can't afford. And nobody is 'entitled' to happiness. I don't know where you get the idea that you are

This is were I completely disagree with you, what is purpose of life. Do you delight in the suffering of others, I doubt that you do.

Please give a valid reason why anyone is not entitled to be happy.

Do you think ppl should slap every person they see as being happy? What I do have I can afford, however I have paid my taxes and continue to do so. However i believe that I i pay them then I should equal right to the return of those in the form of social welfare. If not then why pay them. Why have a government at all.

You say you can't have what you can't afford, agreed. That's why I have never over borrowed or over spent, i work hard I help others. I live within my means. But why should I be force to drop those means because other greedy citzens have caused this is state of affairs?

TD's and ministers salaries are too high, I agree.

It's usually a bad policy to privatise a monopoly - but there is some merit in selling some state assets.

You seem to have missed the point, you are selling physical assets such as buildings or lands that are leased back saving money, you can also have a buy back clause to prevent over priced buybacks issues. You see you can do things to help the state.

The bailed out banks aren't making any profits, they are making huge losses. Anglo posted another loss of something like €15 billion the other day.

The fact is they need to do something not stick they head in the sand, actually sit down and find a solution not the typical half arsed method

...

nesf

Kracken, please don't respond to posts like that, it makes it much harder to read than regular quotation/response and makes your responses very difficult to quote in order to reply to your post.