IMF: social welfare benefits 'too high'

Boombastic

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Well you can towards proving it by providing a link to the application form, or even a link to a site(Citizens information for example) which provides details on how someone can claim back-dated childrens allowance.

If you make a late claim for Child Benefit and and can prove that you had a good reason for making a late claim, your Child Benefit can be backdated to the time you became entitled to the payment regardless of when you became entitled to the payment.

KINGVictor

waltermc wrote: »

Definitely agree that it should be for children resident in the country. I am aware of a woman who came from Poland and spent at least 2 years here before bringing her children over and she applied for back dated child benefit and got €20,000.

Sounds fishy to me, unless she had over 6 children, she wouldnt have got that much. It is even more astonishing that the department of social welfare would backdate it 2 years- one would have imagined that 6 months will be the maximum.

While I totally agree with you that CB should be for children resident in the state but the reality is that it EU freedom of movemement policy so essentially an Irish person can avail of the same right in other EU countries.

KINGVictor

mfitzy wrote: »

Oh I have no doubt this has gone on (and more). This country is unbelieveably generous to foreign nationals and so-called asylum seekers. And you're branded a racist of course if you question any of this. In your own country.
It's about time we had a proper debate on all this and the governemnt got tough. I'm quite frankly sick of watching it go on and our young people having to leave the state as they are (usually) entitled to nothing. There is something very wrong.

You will have to explain this 'genorisity' that the country provides foreign nationals. Asylum seekers get €19.80 a week and are given free accommodation in hostels till their cases are concluded. In many cases, parents and children stay in the same room so I would not exactly term that as being generous.

If you are referring to EU nationals that have a right to make social welfare claims after 2 years of exercising their EU treaty rights i.e been gainfully employed and pay their taxes or studying, then there is nothing the government can do about it unless there is a EU treaty change. Irish citizens can afford of the same priviledge in all EU member states which they often do.

Dannyboy83

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

I believe the current moves in the HSE are the start of the dismantling of the Croke Park agreement also.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/marc-coleman-let-down-by-imf-croke-park-copout-3175290.html

I spoke too soon.:D

Does anyone see the correlation between Moodys et al., who said we were Triple A :rolleyes:....and the IMF endorsing Croke Park while pushing tax rises and welfare reductions?

Dannyboy83

djpbarry wrote: »

Relative to where?

Lads, saying that the cost of something is high is completely meaningless unless you provide a frame of reference.

Now, looking at the latest Daft rental report, a 2-bed property in the most expensive part of Dublin, Dublin 4, will set you back an average of €1,372 per month. By comparison, a 2-bed property where I live in London, which is not a particularly expensive neighbourhood (SW4), will set you back in the region of £1,700 per month.

So, can people please explain to me why they think rents in Dublin are "crazy"?

What proportion of a person's net income is typically consumed by rent in Dublin?
To me, anything above 25% means there is a problem.
Anything above 40% means there is a serious problem.

I have friends in London who pay what I consider crazy rents;
you are talking 60% of their income on rent.

BUT - When you compare like for like:
Person in Dublin pays 40% of their income on rent and 20% on car tax/ownership/maintenance to live in a series of glorified villages called Dublin.
vs.
Person in London pays 60% of their income on rent and 0% on cars to live in 1 of the world's three global cities.


Maybe London isn't as crazy as it seems...

AlekSmart

KyussBishop wrote: »

Eh? Why should property cost even more? Government do not subsidize property here from what I can tell.

Owning a house is not an exorbitant luxury for gods sake, it should be achievable by anyone with a regular income, and judging largely by the material and construction costs, that's not an unreasonable target.

Successive Irish Governments have most definitely "subsidized" private property ownership,particularly since the 1960's when Mortgage Interest allowances began to form a core of every working persons future plans.

I certainly took full advantage of those allowances,particularly as for many years the allowance was available at ones marginal tax rate,which allowed the higher earners to get a bigger bang for their buck in purchasing terms.

In parallel with the direct subsidies came the removal of domestic rates and the absence of water charges,ground rent and other local charges which were all part and parcel of individual property ownnership elsewhere in Europe,if not the world.

Yessir,deciding to purchase one's own home in other juristictions was always a significant decision,and not one entered into lightly,specifically because in the rest of the UK,Europe and the World the expenses of property ownership were there laid bare for all to see,and accept,should they wish to go down that costly road.

Many millions,perhaps billions of ordinary Europeans,just as "ordinary" as "ordinary" Irish people thus decided that property ownership was simply far too much of a burden in comparison to renting (albeit within a far more civilized and structured infrastructure) and therefore decided to spend their money on actually living largely debt-free lifestyle.

Our State's Policy largely revolved around getting as many young persons as possible to take out mortgages on property at whatever cost,simply because it was preferable to paying "dead-money" in rent......:o

Owning a house,for substantial numbers of our population,IS an unaffordable luxure,and has been for a lot longer than is admitted.

The affordability of property ownership has to be viewed as a very long-term calculation with a considerable amount of extra cost-factors in addition to simply paying the mortgage...It is these extra's that Ireland Inc swept under the carpet for so long,a policy which has now landed us in the soup.....:(

MY suggestion to Government...Get the private rental sector sorted out.

Make it attractive for people to rent their resedential property.

Make it attractive for new Landlords,Individual and Corporate,to enter the sector,with State monitored and guaranteed support schemes for BOTH sides in a rental situation.

Provide transferable State backed guarantees to long-term trouble free tenants,allowing ease of movement,to facilitate work and social needs.

Provide Landlords with robust and fair means of monitoring and enforcing tenancy agreements without having to endure a death by a thousand missed-payments before finally managing to regain possession of a trashed,burned out shell.

The cost of providing such a Private Rental environment would,I suggest,be quite substantially lower than whatever the eventual figure for "restarting" the traditional "Buy your own little place" will be.

Property ownership is not a prerequisite for a happy life....there is life after property.;)

KyussBishop

AlekSmart wrote:

Successive Irish Governments have most definitely "subsidized" private property ownership,particularly since the 1960's when Mortgage Interest allowances began to form a core of every working persons future plans.

Mortgate Interest allowances are for help paying the interest on a mortgage, when you can't afford it; it is to help people keep up with the mortgage, not to subsidize mortgages generally.

If you claim that use of this was wide scale in the past as a mortgage subsidy, you'll need to back that up with a link or something (not saying it wasn't, just on initial look it doesn't seem setup that way, it's certainly not in any way a subsidy, more emergency funding).


None of the rest of your post explains why property ownership should not be attainable by everyone, just says "other countries make it too expensive".
In the course of a persons lifetime, they will spend more renting, than they would paying off a mortgage.

As things stand, yes property has been very expensive and out of reach of ownership for many people, but why should it stay that way?

You seem to advocate not just keeping the prices high, but increasing the prices even more; why? (what possible justification is there for that?) The material and labour cost of building a house/apartment/etc., make it seem largely like it should be affordable for almost everyone.

southsiderosie

mfitzy wrote: »

Oh I have no doubt this has gone on (and more). This country is unbelieveably generous to foreign nationals and so-called asylum seekers. And you're branded a racist of course if you question any of this. In your own country.
It's about time we had a proper debate on all this and the governemnt got tough. I'm quite frankly sick of watching it go on and our young people having to leave the state as they are (usually) entitled to nothing. There is something very wrong.

MOD NOTE:

If you want to have a 'proper debate', then start a thread on it based on actual, publicly available information. But please keep in mind that his forum is not the place for Liveline-style rants, and this particular thread is not about asylum seekers.

BKtje

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

What proportion of a person's net income is typically consumed by rent in Dublin?
To me, anything above 25% means there is a problem.
Anything above 40% means there is a serious problem.

Generally in Switzerland (as a comparison) agencies want you earning at least 3 times your rent and want a deposit of 3 times your rent as well. Student accomodation and directly renting from owners differs however.

jank

djpbarry wrote: »

Relative to where?

Lads, saying that the cost of something is high is completely meaningless unless you provide a frame of reference.

Now, looking at the latest Daft rental report, a 2-bed property in the most expensive part of Dublin, Dublin 4, will set you back an average of €1,372 per month. By comparison, a 2-bed property where I live in London, which is not a particularly expensive neighbourhood (SW4), will set you back in the region of £1,700 per month.

So, can people please explain to me why they think rents in Dublin are "crazy"?

Regarding to rent, in Sydney I pay $620 for a two bed apartment per week!
Per month that works out as $2666, about 2270 euro per month. One can pay ALOT more than that as well here in Sydney.

Heads the ball

Scofflaw wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0718/breaking55.html

I can see that's going to be highly popular with some people, and highly unpopular with others - in other words, politically divisive and requiring both careful analysis and courage.

The suggestion is that the 'low-hanging fruit' has gone, and it's time to start looking at those harder-to-reach areas:



Which means perhaps cuts in benefits, reductions of medical card access, narrowing the child benefit allowance:



Also, perhaps, further PS cuts:


and perhaps more taxes:



http://www.imf.org/external/np/ms/2012/071812.htm

Something upsetting in there for nearly everyone, which I suppose is a good thing - and unfortunately, yes, we've probably reached the end of the easy bit of the adjustment.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I find this sickening that the IMF (who have no democratic mandate) are pushing for a cut in welfare. Its sickening against the background of open-cheque-book-guaranteeing-of-banks which was forced upon us by the European authorities and ultimately pushed us over the edge.

Count Dooku

Heads the ball wrote: »

I find this sickening that the IMF (who have no democratic mandate) are pushing for a cut in welfare. Its sickening against the background of open-cheque-book-guaranteeing-of-banks which was forced upon us by the European authorities and ultimately pushed us over the edge.

1. Democratically elected government can always find alternative to IMF sources for subsidizing own populism
2. IMF was against protecting bondholders

Heads the ball

Count Dooku wrote: »

1. Democratically elected government can always find alternative to IMF sources for subsidizing own populism
2. IMF was against protecting bondholders

I find it amusing that notions of fairness and morality are referred to as "populism" here.

jank

Heads the ball wrote: »

I find it amusing that notions of fairness and morality are referred to as "populism" here.

Is it moral to give anyone what it wants all the time and not make the hard decisions to balance the books? Is it fair for those on the min wage to be subsidizing those on the dole no matter how long they have been "looking" for work?

Heads the ball

jank wrote: »

Is it fair for those on the min wage to be subsidizing those on the dole no matter how long they have been "looking" for work?

They are not subsidizing it. They are just paying their taxes like everyone else and the government is paying the dole! I dont really know why you have honed in on the minimum wage payers

Heads the ball

jank wrote: »

Is it moral to give anyone what it wants all the time and not make the hard decisions to balance the books?

I cant make any sense of this sentence

Stark

KyussBishop wrote: »

Mortgate Interest allowances are for help paying the interest on a mortgage, when you can't afford it; it is to help people keep up with the mortgage, not to subsidize mortgages generally.

If you claim that use of this was wide scale in the past as a mortgage subsidy, you'll need to back that up with a link or something (not saying it wasn't, just on initial look it doesn't seem setup that way, it's certainly not in any way a subsidy, more emergency funding).

He's referring to Mortgage Interest Relief. http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/owning_a_home/buying_a_home/mortgage_interest_relief.html

sarumite

Heads the ball wrote: »

I find it amusing that notions of fairness and morality are referred to as "populism" here.

If you were genuinely interested in 'moral' then I think you should be calling for a balancing of the books overnight which would require an even bigger adjustment of social welfare. Afterall it is immoral to have future generations pay for our excessive overspending.

golden lane

the IMF is a last resort........no country has to borrow off the IMF.....it is used when you can't get money elsewhere.....because the debt is too dodgy for other lenders to lend at reasonable rates.....

that means you cannot pay it back without spending adjustments....the IMF lends you money on condition that you make those adjustments...

Heads the ball

sarumite wrote: »

Afterall it is immoral to have future generations pay for our excessive overspending.

Absolutely. I just wouldnt blame those on the dole for that. And anyone who does is seriously misinformed.

sarumite

Heads the ball wrote: »

Absolutely. I just wouldnt blame those on the dole for that. And anyone who does is seriously misinformed.

I don't believe the IMF are correlating our current fiscal situation with people on the dole. However, they are saying that if we want to balance the books then adjustments in social welfare should be considered.

Count Dooku

Heads the ball wrote: »

sarumite wrote: »

Afterall it is immoral to have future generations pay for our excessive overspending.

Absolutely. I just wouldnt blame those on the dole for that. And anyone who does is seriously misinformed.

The only reason why creators of current mess escaped punishment is that they bought a peace through preserving welfare rates on expense of future generations

Heads the ball

sarumite wrote: »

I don't believe the IMF are correlating our current fiscal situation with people on the dole.

Good. OK. So leave welfare rates alone.

Tea drinker

jank wrote: »

Regarding to rent, in Sydney I pay $620 for a two bed apartment per week!
Per month that works out as $2666, about 2270 euro per month. One can pay ALOT more than that as well here in Sydney.

That's dog rough! But are Australia not in the middle of a property bubble also?

As for comparing us to other countries like Germany, the leases are generally longer and there may be other aspects to consider inherited from WW2, also it's had a relatively high and stable standard of living for a long time, whereas till early 90's Ire;and was an economic wastelend.
In fact we are quite reliant on our agriculture sector again for exports, 14% unemployment.... hello 80's.

Heads the ball

Count Dooku wrote: »

The only reason why creators of current mess escaped punishment is that they bought a peace through preserving welfare rates on expense of future generations

This makes no sense whatsoever. They "bought a peace"? They preserved "welfare rates on expense of future generations"?

You mean they are passing the cost on top future generations is that it?

If so, how?

Farmer Pudsey

Most posters are going around in circles. The reality is that we are bringing in around 35 billion in taxes and spending over 50 billion, 20 on welfare, 15 on health and over 15 billion on the rest of the government i think my figure may be a little out.

We cannot tax our way out of this. The government have decided that welfare rtaes must be maintained,the Croke park agreement must be honoured and there will be no incom tax increses. It dose not add up. The reality is that if it was all done farily we would have a chance

Our health service is failing as pay cannot be cut the same with education.

The government should
Reverse Bench marking as it was mostly higher paid CS that benifited would save about 2 billion I think. Stop Increments for 2 years.
Reduce social welfare by 10% and the side benfits by 20%
Introduce there propertyTax and water rates so that it average no more than 600 euro/house. for both.

If they want to means test child benfit then well and good but the will have to have an allowance towards creshe and childminding fees.

Reduce CS pensions in line with the reduction in wages that CS suffer

Increase Incom tax but be careful to open the gap between lower pay and welafre rates.

And then hope that growth will help to get us on target if they have to do it over two years then it should be done pro-rata.

Boskowski

Heads the ball wrote: »

I find this sickening that the IMF (who have no democratic mandate) are pushing for a cut in welfare. Its sickening against the background of open-cheque-book-guaranteeing-of-banks which was forced upon us by the European authorities and ultimately pushed us over the edge.

They continue to fund our overspending caused to a large degree by our exorbitant welfare spending. This gives them the mandate to comment on things.

Also the bank guarantee/bailout was NOT pushed onto us be the European authorities. Why do people keep repeating such nonsense? Does it make you feel better?

Stark

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

And then hope that growth will help to get us on target if they have to do it over two years then it should be done pro-rata.

The problem is all those corrections reduce growth.

sarumite

Heads the ball wrote: »

Good. OK. So leave welfare rates alone.

Wouldn't that be immoral and unfair to the future generations who will have to pay off our debt?

Tea drinker

Heads the ball wrote: »

They are not subsidizing it. They are just paying their taxes like everyone else and the government is paying the dole! I dont really know why you have honed in on the minimum wage payers

Well everyone, including the IMF expects that the taxpayers pay for the dole. The government can't pay for it as they don't have any money of their own - only what has been collected in tax from taxpayers, or what has been borrowed from Troika - who expect to be paid back by taxpayers. There is no "Government" money, only our money which we hope will be spent as best we can for Ireland and it's people.

Heads the ball

sarumite wrote: »

Wouldn't that be immoral and unfair to the future generations who will have to pay off our debt?

No. Because the same flawed line of reasoning could be applied to every cent spent by the government.

Heads the ball

Tea drinker wrote: »

Well everyone, including the IMF expects that the taxpayers pay for the dole. The government can't pay for it as they don't have any money of their own - only what has been collected in tax from taxpayers, or what has been borrowed from Troika - who expect to be paid back by taxpayers. There is no "Government" money, only our money which we hope will be spent as best we can for Ireland and it's people.

I agree with this. But what is so special about minimum wage earners? How is it that they are (seemingly exclusively, according to an earlier poster) subsidizing it?

Heads the ball

Boskowski wrote: »

Also the bank guarantee/bailout was NOT pushed onto us be the European authorities. Why do people keep repeating such nonsense? Does it make you feel better?

Because it WAS pushed onto us by the ECB

Heads the ball

Boskowski wrote: »

They continue to fund our overspending caused to a large degree by our exorbitant welfare spending.

It is misguided to scapegoat the unemployed as "causing" our overspending. They are entitled to live with dignity. Banks apparently are so important that we can pay them whatever we need to.

sarumite

Heads the ball wrote: »

No. Because the same flawed line of reasoning could be applied to every cent spent by the government.

Not really, capital expenditure is an obvious exception. Furthermore as long as the government is spending close to what it takes in on cash (and other factos like economic growth and inflation are taken into consideration) then future generations will not have to pay for out debt.

Now, to avoid the problem of future generations paying for our excessive spending, fiscal tightening is required. A part of such fiscal tightening will include cutting current expenditure which will more than likely also include cutting expenditure at the dept of social welfare.

AlekSmart

KyussBishop wrote: »

If you claim that use of this was wide scale in the past as a mortgage subsidy, you'll need to back that up with a link or something (not saying it wasn't, just on initial look it doesn't seem setup that way, it's certainly not in any way a subsidy, more emergency funding).

None of the rest of your post explains why property ownership should not be attainable by everyone, just says "other countries make it too expensive".
In the course of a persons lifetime, they will spend more renting, than they would paying off a mortgage.

As things stand, yes property has been very expensive and out of reach of ownership for many people, but why should it stay that way?

You seem to advocate not just keeping the prices high, but increasing the prices even more; why? (what possible justification is there for that?) The material and labour cost of building a house/apartment/etc., make it seem largely like it should be affordable for almost everyone.

As Stark has pointed out in a follow-up post,the relief KyussBishop refers to is Mortgage Interest Subsidy Payment,which is indeed an emergency measure funded by the State.

I am referring to the generally available PAYE Mortgage Interest Relief allowances,which are now at capped at the lowest tax rate and substantially reduced.

The reality,historically,was of hundreds of thousands of us (me included) availing of a direct Government subsidy to purchase our own wee plot of the Emerald Isle.

As I've stated,there is nothing at all wrong with the ownership of one's residence as long as it can be afforded.

It is my belief that the actual costs of resedential property ownership have been kept artifically low in order to keep a cabal of Politicians,Developers,Lawyers and associated property ownership related "Proffesionals" in clover.

Parallell to this has been the constant whittling away at the State's own public housing schemes,whereby perfectly content Local Authority tenants were enticed (bribed) to purchase their own houses at artifically low rates,with grants and low interest loans.

Often,for some, this "Golden Opportunity" was the beginning of a career as a "Property Speculator" as these lucky individuals quickly "flipped" their newly purchased property at substantial profit to some other poor numpty convinced of the need to "get on the property ladder".....sadly all of this was fully legal and encouraged by successive elected Governments made up of Property related "proffessionals".

All of the above,was taken directly from the Margaret Thatcher book of Economic Theory & Practice which throughout the 1980's had managed to convince millions of ordinary UK folk that they too could own their own "Home & Castle".

Eventually (and rapidly) the Local Authority properties rapidly descended into Social Sinkholes,seen only as the refuge of undesireables and low types,wishing to remain aloof from "Normal" society...

Oh yes,how we in Ireland grasped eagerly at the UK Conservative Party policies,we just could'nt get enough of property ownership in all it's manifestations.

As a long time property "owner" myself (courtesy of the Irish Permanent) I have no crusading zeal against the principle,but I now believe we have simply ben duped in order to fund the lifestyles of generations of our high-flying property entrepreneur's.

As to why I believe this...well Ireland as a productive entity,simply does not generate enough wealth to allow for ongoing universal resedential property ownership.

Yes,perhaps the average Sean/Mariead nurse-teacher combo,can just-about afford the purchase price of the Luxury 3 bed semi-d in "commuter belt land"...but can they then sustain the running of that property along with the unpredictable costs of their family ?...I'm suggesting that for a significant number of Irish people the answer is NO.

However official Irish policy has been to kick the can down the road,by facilitating this property purchasing bubble with incredible sums of "Magic Money" all borrowed or otherwise manufactured by the likes of C.McCreevy during the boom.

Now,the boom has boomed,and we are left in a significantly dangerous position socially,as lage numbers of those who considered themselves reasonably well-off now find themselves literally bankrupt.

Many thousands of people,good productive Socially aware citizens,now find themselves imprisoned within wall of never-ending debt,mainly (but not totally) based upon their residential borrowing.

It was never sustainable.

Our Country's demograpic reality couldn't ever support universal resedential ownwership without the accompanying high ongoing costs which come with it.

With those costs now suddenly starting to become an ongoing stark-reality for home-owners,the realization that there is an alternative to home ownership will need to be grasped.

sarumite

Heads the ball wrote: »

It is misguided to scapegoat the unemployed as "causing" our overspending. They are entitled to live with dignity. Banks apparently are so important that we can pay them whatever we need to.

Adjusting Social welfare rates as part of a larger program of fiscal tightening can hardly be described as 'scapegoating the unemployed'.

Colours

Farmer Pudsey's prescription sounds fairly sensible to me.

In addition they should tax to the hilt and severely cut the obscene salaries of certain highranking civil servants and public officers and this should extend to all those still at the helm of our banking institutions which have been bailed out and now part owned by us the tax payer who are still pumping money into them to keep them afloat .

The only argument given for not doing this already is that these "top class professionals" might leave and go elsewhere if their disgusting salaries were to be tampered with. Well I say let them leave and see how they fare elsewhere because I doubt they'd be able to walk into another job with such juicy remuneration and perks and no questions asked. There is no justification for paying these unremarkable execs in excess of €500,000 every year to go to the same committee and board meetings where they say the same things and push the same bits of paper around and enjoy their bottles of bollinger with the same cronies. And don't forget that many of these cowboys who are still living it up today were the ones at the helm of the ship before during and after it nosedived in 2008 and needed to be bailed out by us the long suffering and ever tolerant tax payer.

Heads the ball

sarumite wrote: »

Not really, capital expenditure is an obvious exception. Furthermore as long as the government is spending close to what it takes in on cash (and other factos like economic growth and inflation are taken into consideration) then future generations will not have to pay for out debt.

Now, to avoid the problem of future generations paying for our excessive spending, fiscal tightening is required. A part of such fiscal tightening will include cutting current expenditure which will more than likely also include cutting expenditure at the dept of social welfare.

So take every cent spent after we are in a deficit. Is it immoral to incur that expense (on the basis that future generations will have to pay for it) unless it is capital expenditure?

sarumite

Heads the ball wrote: »

So take every cent spent after we are in a deficit. Is it immoral to incur that expense (on the basis that future generations will have to pay for it) unless it is capital expenditure?

If you are using arguments based on 'fairness' and 'morals' it could be argued that we should pay our own way. Personally I believe it is right that the government undertakes a course of fiscal correction to reduce our deficit.

Heads the ball

sarumite wrote: »

If you are using arguments based on 'fairness' and 'morals' it could be argued that we should pay our own way. Personally I believe it is right that the government undertakes a course of fiscal correction to reduce our deficit.

Is that a "yes" or a "no" to my question?

sarumite

Heads the ball wrote: »

Is that a "yes" or a "no" to my question?

Your question doesn't get a simple yes or no answer. If you are going to resort to using 'fairness and morals' then you get a different answer than if you are basing your answer on the economic realities.

Heads the ball

sarumite wrote: »

Your question doesn't get a simple yes or no answer. If you are going to resort to using 'fairness and morals' then you get a different answer than if you are basing your answer on the economic realities.

Please answer yes or no:

Take every cent spent after we are in a deficit. Is it immoral to incur that expense (on the basis that future generations will have to pay for it) unless it is capital expenditure?

Heads the ball

sarumite wrote: »

Your question doesn't get a simple yes or no answer. If you are going to resort to using 'fairness and morals' then you get a different answer than if you are basing your answer on the economic realities.

Might i remind you that you have "resorted" to this notion of morality too:

sarumite wrote: »

Afterall it is immoral to have future generations pay for our excessive overspending.

sarumite

Heads the ball wrote: »

Please answer yes or no:

Take every cent spent after we are in a deficit. Is it immoral to incur that expense (on the basis that future generations will have to pay for it) unless it is capital expenditure?

Lets see if I can explain why your question is not a simple yes or no question a little better.

What is economically viable is not always what is 'fair or moral.'

If you are going to base your answer on whether it is 'fair and moral' the answer is probably no. If you are going to base your answer on whether it is economically viable the answer is probably yes. However, you will notice I have had to say 'probably' since even then there is no definitive yes or now answer.

Tabitha Tusdar

jobsbridge, transportation cost, childcare costs, lack of linguistic skills, and high cost of rents both private and commercial are what is keeping people on the dole.

steps the government need to do the get people in jobs.

1. scrap jobsbridge
2. offer free linguistic courses to those trained in IT and science fields
3. start renting nama property at reduced rents to force private landlords to reduce their rent to lower rent supplement payments.
4. reduce rates for retail units when they employ more staff.... the more they employ the bigger the cut in rates.
5. increase tax on prescription drugs such as Prozac, valium. xanax, and lithium.
6. reduce vat on energy supply services such as ESB and gas to reduce cost of doing business in Ireland to encourage more businesses to stay here and employ more people.

EchoO

Boskowski wrote: »

They continue to fund our overspending caused to a large degree by our exorbitant welfare spending.

But our spending on welfare is not exorbitant compared to other EU countries. In fact as a percentage of national income it's one of the lowest.


That's not to say that we can get to a budget deficit of 3.5% by 2015 without cutting the social protection budget, clearly we can't. But the argument that social benefits have to be cut on the grounds of affordability in the context of the bailout program is much more valid than saying they have to be cut just because they are "exorbitant".

Health is the one area area where we outspend our EU neighbours. Unfortunately our Health service doesn't reflect this

.

sarumite

Heads the ball wrote: »

Might i remind you that you have "resorted" to this notion of morality too:

Absolutely. I am fully aware of that. May I remind you that you agreed with me, however you seem to balking at the idea of actually having to implement it.

I agree with the current course, not because it is fair or moral but because an overnight correction (which would be more fair and moral) is economically nonviable.

Heads the ball

sarumite wrote: »

If you are going to base your answer on whether it is 'fair and moral' the answer is probably no. If you are going to base your answer on whether it is economically viable the answer is probably yes. However, you will notice I have had to say 'probably' since even then there is no definitive yes or now answer.

Well then your argument of "it is immoral to have future generations pay for it" doesnt hold any weight if you cant establish a basic principle.

sarumite

Heads the ball wrote: »

Well then your argument of "it is immoral to have future generations pay for it" doesnt hold any weight if you cant establish a basic principle.

How so? I also believe that what is moral and fair isn't always economically viable. It is not practical, however much desirable, to balance the books overnight.

May I remind you then when I said "it is immoral to have future generations pay for it" your response was

Heads the ball wrote: »

Absolutely.

yet now you are stating it doesn't hold any weight