Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
IMF: social welfare benefits 'too high'
Comments
-
Taxing welfare might be a useful compromise - headline welfare rates wouldn't actually be reduced and tax revenue would be increased. Win win.Farmer Pudsey wrote: »This is what I mean by the government tying it hands by FG not wanting to raise taxes and LAB not wanting to touch Croke Park and Social welafre benifits.0 -
Farmer Pudsey wrote: »This is what I mean by the government tying it hands by FG not wanting to raise taxes and LAB not wanting to touch Croke Park and Social welafre benifits. You will have severe cut on some sectors.You will find that 3rd level fees go up, petrol/diesel go up, child benfit get cut, household charge increase, waterrates all these will have a disapportionate effect on workers and families especially those who own there own homes.
But isn't that what the bulk of people want?
Very few proactive cost saving solutions being implemented.. most want everyone else to get cut, and are prepared to argue day in day out why they should continue to get what they get..
Easiest solution is to implement a boat load of new charges so that we can continue to fund the waste and extravagance...0 -
Taxing welfare might be a useful compromise - headline welfare rates wouldn't actually be reduced and tax revenue would be increased. Win win.
True, but it would take at least a couple of years to implement.Proposals to tax child benefit will not be implemented in the upcoming Budget, Social Protection Minister Joan Burton has said.
Minister Burton said that it could take several years before the Government can introduce a tax on children's allowance payments for people who earn more than €100,000.
It is because of the different computer systems in the Revenue and the Department of Social Protection.
Minister Burton said that she favours taxing the payment among wealthy parents.
However, speaking at the MacGill Summer School in Glenties last night, Minister Burton said it will not happen before December's Budget.
"You would have to have, like in the UK, if you changed systems, any change in social welfare and tax systems generally takes time to work in and to work through," she said.
"We can actually change the tax system further, but it takes time, and obviously, as I say, it is not in the context of this Budget."
http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/burton-change-to-child-benefit-would-take-time-560392.html0 -
-
-
-
It seems a bit long. Is there an explanation for why it is taking 2 years anywhere?
Two years is fairly realistic for two large systems that are running during integration, and which have a lot of their own built-in adaptations to their current tasks. A lot of the two years will be spent having meetings to coordinate the two systems and to try to eliminate any potential foul-ups.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Two years is fairly realistic for two large systems that are running during integration, and which have a lot of their own built-in adaptations to their current tasks. A lot of the two years will be spent having meetings to coordinate the two systems and to try to eliminate any potential foul-ups.
cordially,
Scofflaw
Not really. Appreciate your view and it may be a common one, but I'm aware of the scale of the systems and the requisite integration. I've managed larger system integrations in a lot less time. True there can be a lot of time consumed in planning etc, but there is no justification in taking 2 years to integrate these systems. It could be done in 9 months0 -
Not really. Appreciate your view and it may be a common one, but I'm aware of the scale of the systems and the requisite integration. I've managed larger system integrations in a lot less time. True there can be a lot of time consumed in planning etc, but there is no justification in taking 2 years to integrate these systems. It could be done in 9 months
In the private sector, certainly. In the public sector, not so much. That's not a piece of PS-bashing - the salient point is that it could be done in 9 months, but that assumes a lot of efficiencies that aren't there (such as the ability to hire expertise, non-restrictive licensing, fewer privacy concerns, greater fault tolerance and flexible working practices), a relatively narrow spread of both stakeholder engagement and project responsibility, neither of which are likely to be the case in the public sector, and a more agile approach compared to the 'document everything and only do what the documents say' approach of the PS.
I recall the example of a meeting which the consultants assumed was to determine a common vocabulary for two systems, but which the PS clients approached as an exploratory meeting to determine who the relevant stakeholders were in order to set up a working group to report on options for developing a common vocabulary.
In my experience with the public sector, the possibilities of agile IT development bow to the realities of highly inclusive working practices.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Advertisement
-
Good points and I agree fully.
Fact remains that this could be done in a fraction of the time.
Inhibting factor is the Public Sector work practices0 -
In the private sector, certainly. In the public sector, not so much. That's not a piece of PS-bashing - the salient point is that it could be done in 9 months, but that assumes a lot of efficiencies that aren't there (such as the ability to hire expertise, non-restrictive licensing, fewer privacy concerns, greater fault tolerance and flexible working practices), a relatively narrow spread of both stakeholder engagement and project responsibility, neither of which are likely to be the case in the public sector, and a more agile approach compared to the 'document everything and only do what the documents say' approach of the PS.
I recall the example of a meeting which the consultants assumed was to determine a common vocabulary for two systems, but which the PS clients approached as an exploratory meeting to determine who the relevant stakeholders were in order to set up a working group to report on options for developing a common vocabulary.
In my experience with the public sector, the possibilities of agile IT development bow to the realities of highly inclusive working practices.
cordially,
Scofflaw
Having worked in change management in both private and public I've experienced first-hand some of the issues that could well face this kind of project. The main one being the fact that structured project management was (and often still is) missing. The prevalence of the dreaded "work-arounds" or manual processes where automated ones could exist is another huge issue. I'd bet both systems have been chugging along independently for years with multiple work-arounds being put in place that are akin to holding the thing together with sticky tape. Trying to integrate 2 system like that isn't exactly pretty.
As for the meeting point above, I've never seen so many meetings with such little tangible outcome as I have in the public sector. At times when resources should be actually getting something done, instead they arrange a meeting to talk about it, make no decisions and arrange another meeting to try and wrap it up. And then decisions are made in meetings and not fully documented leading to huge confusion 6 months down the line.
While in the private sector you may estimate 9-12 months for a job like this depending on the complexity, the same rules just don't apply to the public sector. In some instances they'll get it done in 3 months and make a balls of it. In others they'll take years and might just get there in the end.0 -
Or not get there at all e.g. PPARS and e-voting0
-
Interesting discussion on matt cooper regarding young unemployed
all described it as financially very difficult and tough0 -
And? I found the first few years of employed life to be very tough financially speaking. What are they comparing to?0
-
And? I found the first few years of employed life to be very tough financially speaking. What are they comparing to?
There is no "and" - the point is that welfare entitlements, for these people are not excessive.
They were not explicitly comparing it to anything as such. They were just saying its factually difficult to manage.0 -
Advertisement
-
In the private sector, certainly. In the public sector, not so much. That's not a piece of PS-bashing - the salient point is that it could be done in 9 months, but that assumes a lot of efficiencies that aren't there (such as the ability to hire expertise, non-restrictive licensing, fewer privacy concerns, greater fault tolerance and flexible working practices), a relatively narrow spread of both stakeholder engagement and project responsibility, neither of which are likely to be the case in the public sector, and a more agile approach compared to the 'document everything and only do what the documents say' approach of the PS.
I recall the example of a meeting which the consultants assumed was to determine a common vocabulary for two systems, but which the PS clients approached as an exploratory meeting to determine who the relevant stakeholders were in order to set up a working group to report on options for developing a common vocabulary.
In my experience with the public sector, the possibilities of agile IT development bow to the realities of highly inclusive working practices.
cordially,
ScofflawGood points and I agree fully.
Fact remains that this could be done in a fraction of the time.
Inhibting factor is the Public Sector work practices
As regards lack of flexible work practices in the public service, section 1.10 of the Croke Park Agreement (CPA) contains a lot of aspirational “verbage” about fixing this problem. It’s almost as if it such fundamental change could be implemented effortlessly, without incurring additional costs associated with bringing in the necessary external expertise (in business transformation, etc.). Moreover, AFAIK, there no provision in the budget for such external expertise costs or any evidence of such change actually happening across all government departments.
Result: benefits are delivered to staff in terms of preserved pay and conditions plus generous payoffs for early retirement. But benefits to the state in terms of transformed “fit for purpose” work practices are undeliverable, meaningless words on paper (or take years and more money to deliver).
S 1.10 of the CPA: “In order to maximise productivity gains, both from how work is organised and from streamlining procedures, processes and systems to allow for shared services and e-government developments, a substantial commitment to the redesign of work processes will be necessary. The Parties will co-operate with the drive to reduce costs through organisational rationalisation and restructuring and by service delivery organised in different ways or delivered by different bodies. The aim is to minimise duplication of effort, reuse data within the public system and reduce information demands on the citizens and business. The introduction of new or improved technology, service provision online and electronic funds transfer will be regarded as the norm. Processes and service delivery will be improved by better collation and re-use of data and personal information and by centralising transaction and certain sectoral data handling support functions. Inter-operability and standardisation of specifications and systems (hardware and software) will be mandatory both to achieve cost savings and facilitate integrated approaches”.0 -
If no frame of reference was provided, it can't really be considered "factual", can it?Heads the ball wrote: »They were not explicitly comparing it to anything as such. They were just saying its factually difficult to manage.0 -
-
No, that’s their opinion. A fact is independently verifiable.Heads the ball wrote: »Sue it can. They were saying its tough to survive financially on the dole (as in, thats their fact).0 -
I never voted for the IMF to run my country.I want to live in a democratic country where the politicians are held accountable for things not faceless people in Brussels who do not give a dam about us.All they want to do is milk us like a cow.And take from us.0
-
Advertisement
-
No, that’s their opinion. A fact is independently verifiable.Heads the ball wrote: »Sue it can. They were saying its tough to survive financially on the dole (as in, thats their fact).
I dont agree with this. They are saying that they found it difficult. Thats a fact in itself.
Unless you just plain dont believe them, but if you take them at their word then this was difficult for them.0 -
Napoleon 101 wrote: »I never voted for the IMF to run my country.I want to live in a democratic country where the politicians are held accountable for things not faceless people in Brussels who do not give a dam about us.All they want to do is milk us like a cow.And take from us.
Agree with this.
There is a huge democratic deficit in Europe. Basically a entity (the IMF) who are in no way accountable to the Irish people are making key decisions (or at least heaping the pressure on) which affect us.
Its grossly offensive to our right to self determination.0 -
That they said it was difficult is a fact, yes. That it actually is difficult to survive on the dole is highly debatable, but unfortunately you seem unwilling to debate the issue.Heads the ball wrote: »I dont agree with this. They are saying that they found it difficult. Thats a fact in itself.
It is easily demonstrable that the basic rate of jobseekers allowance will comfortably cover the essentials. If a particular individual is finding it difficult to survive on this provision, then they need to assess their spending habits. If they are in genuine need of further assistance, then they can apply for additional benefits.
I’m not in the habit of taking anyone “at their word”. If someone tells me they found something difficult, my response is going to be “relative to what?”Heads the ball wrote: »Unless you just plain dont believe them, but if you take them at their word then this was difficult for them.0 -
No they’re not? The IMF are loaning money to Ireland, with certain conditions regarding deficit reduction attached. However, how Ireland goes about reducing the general government deficit is entirely up to Ireland.Heads the ball wrote: »Basically a entity (the IMF) who are in no way accountable to the Irish people are making key decisions (or at least heaping the pressure on) which affect us.0 -
That they said it was difficult is a fact, yes. That it actually is difficult to survive on the dole is highly debatable, but unfortunately you seem unwilling to debate the issue.
It is easily demonstrable that the basic rate of jobseekers allowance will comfortably cover the essentials. If a particular individual is finding it difficult to survive on this provision, then they need to assess their spending habits. If they are in genuine need of further assistance, then they can apply for additional benefits.
I’m not in the habit of taking anyone “at their word”. If someone tells me they found something difficult, my response is going to be “relative to what?”
I fully agree that it is debatable in that anyone can have an opinion on it. The only reason I used the word “fact” was that just because the caller didn’t say “it was difficult relative to [SOMETHING ELSE]” did not mean that they did not find it difficult. Which I think is fair enough and I may be wrong here, but I think you would give me that much.
Anyway we may be getting way too detailed here for what is a basic point.
There are many people out there who find it difficult on the dole.
Regarding it being easily demonstrable that people can live comfortably on the dole, I don’t know if people have posted on here a weekly budget that would show how easy it is to get by on the necessities alone. The problem with these type of assertions that “it easily covers the essentials” is that in the real world there is more to life than just buying milk and bread. People have to live too. Repairs may need to be done. Machines may break down etc. And in fact, people may in fact disagree on what the necessities are.
Regarding saying simply that these people need to reevaluate their spending habits. There are probably two different contexts in which you could take that statement: 1: they are finding it difficult so it would be advisable to review spending as would any person or business. However you may have meant it in the context of 2: Because you believe it is easily demonstrable that the dole should cover the essentials then these people must be doing something wrong.
And if it is the latter, I would think thats a little unfair and indeed would probably be evidence that your thesis of it "easily covering the essentials" is wrong.0 -
No they’re not? The IMF are loaning money to Ireland, with certain conditions regarding deficit reduction attached. However, how Ireland goes about reducing the general government deficit is entirely up to Ireland.
I would certainly accept that that is how it is on the face of it.
But when one looks a little closer one sees evidence of it interfering with the democratic process (and leaving the methodology of reducing the deficit to the govt):
1: They come over quarterly and only release money when they are happy with what has been done. These meetings are behind closed doors and as far as I know there are no minutes which could be obtained say under FOIA so Im not sure exactly what criteria they are using? How do we know there is not unwritten pressure on Noonan to reduce welfare in the next few months or no more money?
2: A draft of our budget (from last year/year before) was found floating around the German parliament.
3: Making comments like "welfare is too high" is certainly pressurising the government
4: Other European entities have made certain "policy decisions" on our behalf - ie the ECB saying that no European bank should fail.
Im conscious that this is going a little off topic so apologies and let me make it more relevant to the op:
Making comments like "welfare is too high" is un democratic and taken together with others factors means it becomes offensive to certain notions of modern democracy.0 -
Heads the ball wrote: »Making comments like "welfare is too high" is un democratic and taken together with others factors means it becomes offensive to certain notions of modern democracy.
I think telling people they can't say certain things is pretty offensive to my notion of modern democracy.0 -
Tell politicians do not borrow from IMFNapoleon 101 wrote: »I never voted for the IMF to run my country.I want to live in a democratic country where the politicians are held accountable for things not faceless people in Brussels who do not give a dam about us.All they want to do is milk us like a cow.And take from us.0 -
Heads the ball wrote: »Making comments like "welfare is too high" is un democratic and taken together with others factors means it becomes offensive to certain notions of modern democracy.
I think telling people they can't say certain things is pretty offensive to my notion of modern democracy.
I absolutely agree0 -
That’s what savings are for.Heads the ball wrote: »People have to live too. Repairs may need to be done. Machines may break down etc.
There you go again conflating opinion with fact. If a single person with no dependents cannot manage on €188 per week, then I would say that they are most definitely doing something wrong. Whether they believe it to be difficult or otherwise is irrelevant. The simple fact is that welfare rates should be based on the current cost of living. Based on current prices, €100 – 110 per week should cover rent and bills for one person (and that’s being generous), leaving €80 – 90 for food and whatever else. If someone cannot feed themselves on that amount then they either have a serious eating disorder and should seek medical advice, they’re wasting colossal amounts of food, or else they’re eating out a little too much.Heads the ball wrote: »However you may have meant it in the context of 2: Because you believe it is easily demonstrable that the dole should cover the essentials then these people must be doing something wrong.
And if it is the latter, I would think thats a little unfair and indeed would probably be evidence that your thesis of it "easily covering the essentials" is wrong.
But, all this is missing the point somewhat – there are forms of welfare other then the dole. Even if the rate of jobseekers assistance is left as is, there are still plenty of savings that could be made elsewhere.
The EU/IMF made a conditional offer of assistance. The Irish government accepted. They were under absolutely no obligation to do so. Simple as.Heads the ball wrote: »But when one looks a little closer one sees evidence of it interfering with the democratic process (and leaving the methodology of reducing the deficit to the govt):.0 -
Advertisement
-
Napoleon 101 wrote: »I never voted for the IMF to run my country.I want to live in a democratic country where the politicians are held accountable for things not faceless people in Brussels who do not give a dam about us.All they want to do is milk us like a cow.And take from us.
Nobody votes for the IMF - they vote for people who run the country in such a way that it can no longer borrow from the markets and must tap official lenders to fund its deficit. That money comes with conditions, which the government is free to reject - along with the money. That's what freedom is - willingness to take the consequences.
What gives the IMF the right to comment on our social welfare rates is exactly what gives the markets the right to pass judgement on us - we want to borrow their money, and they don't have to lend it to us.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Heads the ball wrote: »There is no "and" - the point is that welfare entitlements, for these people are not excessive.
They were not explicitly comparing it to anything as such. They were just saying its factually difficult to manage.
A lot of employed people find it difficult to manage, yet you seem to want them to take a higher cut to spare those on welfare.
I'll readily admit I've been lucky to have kept my job and have been lucky enough to have been on enough before the recession to be able to take the various hits I've had to take (pay cuts, increased taxes etc) and still be reasonably comfortable. I currently live off approx €900 to cover the day-to-day costs like food, bills etc (doesn't include mortgage and luxuries such as Sky). And I consider myself lucky to have that. With it I get to afford more than just the basics and don't really find myself counting every last cent. I've been able to (as a big rugby fan) follow Leinster to France twice and England once as well as the Irish team to England once in the season just gone. I'm a season ticket holder with Leinster and go to every home game too, and manage a couple of pints at each. Plus I'm not long back from a holiday to Lanzarote. The point being that on that €900 or so I've been able to afford a good amount of luxuries.
Someone on Social Welfare gets €752 a month. Based on my experience that is more than enough to cover the basics. It may limit people to a certain degree if they want to afford the few pints here and there, but it more than covers the basics. And that's all it's there for. In my experience it can be reduced without forcing people to starve. Issues may exist with other Social Welfare payments (Matt Cooper had people on yesterday re disability allowance and there seems to be serious issues there) but in terms of Job Seekers it's an amount that can be reduced.0 -
That’s what savings are for.
Certainly. However:
(i) Savings usually come from income (so if the income in inadequate, so too will the savings),
(ii) By definition vulnerable people may not have as much savings as more financially secure people,
(iii) Also long term unemployed people may not have savings.There you go again conflating opinion with fact. If a single person with no dependents cannot manage on €188 per week, then I would say that they are most definitely doing something wrong. Whether they believe it to be difficult or otherwise is irrelevant. The simple fact is that welfare rates should be based on the current cost of living. Based on current prices, €100 – 110 per week should cover rent and bills for one person (and that’s being generous), leaving €80 – 90 for food and whatever else. If someone cannot feed themselves on that amount then they either have a serious eating disorder and should seek medical advice, they’re wasting colossal amounts of food, or else they’re eating out a little too much.
Im not sure what conflation you are referring to. Lets look at a simplified chronology of the argument:
You: Welfare is too high
Me: Well I heard people who are in receipt of welfare say it is difficult to manage
You: But thats just their opinion, its not a fact because I have this thesis that welfare well covers the basics
Me: Im not sure I agree with that. I mean on one hand I have you who doesnt earn welfare (making an assumption), but on the other hand I have people on national radio explaining that it is tough.
So I would say the assertion that is closer to fact is the one which is NOT made by you. But again this is a very formal argument of fact versus opinion. I am willing to accept them both as arguments.
But what I do have issue with is your methodology. You have a theory that it covers the basics, so if people struggle with it then they are doing something wrong (like over eating or whatever) but the normal methodology for evaluation theories is to see IF the evidence supports the theory. And generally if the evidence doesnt support the theory, then the theroy is rejected.
So maybe, whatever model you have used has to re evaluated in light of this evidence.But, all this is missing the point somewhat – there are forms of welfare other then the dole. Even if the rate of jobseekers assistance is left as is, there are still plenty of savings that could be made elsewhere.
Thats a fair enough point but maybe we'll stay clear of that argument as it will end up being circular again as I will pull the morality card which we wont agree onThe EU/IMF made a conditional offer of assistance. The Irish government accepted. They were under absolutely no obligation to do so. Simple as.
Thats an oversimplification. This implies it was arms-length/bilateral transaction. But it wasnt. We were brought to our knees through following ECB policy and had to be rescused.
Anyway it doesnt really negate any of my points where it appears on the face of it to be prim and proper but in reality it is something more offensive.0 -
We were brought to our knees through following ECB policy and had to be rescused.
While this is somewhat off-topic, I have to point out that this is very much a pub-talk claim, which has no evidence behind it. On the contrary, all the evidence points to us having brought ourselves to disaster through our own actions between 1997 and 2007, and then capped it off with a unilateral gamble that went wrong.
regards,
Scofflaw0 -
A lot of employed people find it difficult to manage, yet you seem to want them to take a higher cut to spare those on welfare.
Well yes and no to be honest. There are other places I would like to see the money come from first, but assuming thats not enough, i have to be really honest here and say that "yes we should tackle every other class in society first before we go to the unemployed."
ONE of the rationales for this is, GENERALLY speaking, cutting higher earning classes causes the least social misery than cutting welfare. As you said yourself you arent on the breadline by any measure. And I am not saying you should be punished for doing well but if cuts need to be made then lets make the least misery-causing adjustments.
But certainly before we come to take a cut from you, we should cut the super rich, then the rich, then the middle class.0 -
Heads the ball wrote: »Thats an oversimplification. This implies it was arms-length/bilateral transaction. But it wasnt. We were brought to our knees through following ECB policy and had to be rescused.
The ECB did not fuel property prices or demand in this country.
The ECB didn't lend money irresponsibly in this country.
The ECB didn't fail to properly regulate banking in this country.
The ECB didn't spend our money at a greater rate than we were earning it.
And the ECB most certainly didn't continually elect the same Government that oversaw the whole show - despite there being serious question marks around them prior to their last successful election.
This desperate need for people to shift the blame and/or the responsibility of this whole mess on to anyone else or everyone else but themselves is a sad reflection on where our society is today. It's teenage in it's maturity and it's certainly not helping to resolve anything. Quite the opposite in fact.0 -
Well I'm from Liverpool, and when I was first told the rates of social welfare payments here, I was shocked. IMF states the obvious.0
-
While this is somewhat off-topic, I have to point out that this is very much a pub-talk claim, which has no evidence behind it. On the contrary, all the evidence points to us having brought ourselves to disaster through our own actions between 1997 and 2007, and then capped it off with a unilateral gamble that went wrong.
regards,
Scofflaw
Sorry I will accept this is off topic a little - I hope you can see from the earlier posts where I was going with this - that overallthe whole IMF thing (sorry if that sounds a little like Fr Ted) is a little unpalatable.
Again my basis for this statement is that we were forced to bail out the Irish banks by the ECB. And my source for that is statements by Coveney and indeed Dan Boyles book.
Certainly you can make the argument that WHAT CAUSED the need for the bailout was the actions between 1997 onwards in terms of reckless lending. I would say the following to that argument:
1: Yes that is true, but again, that is primarily the fault of the banks and the ECB. The banks are responsible for managing their risks and any bankruptcy of them
2: The actual guarantee and bailout is really what pushed us out of the market, nothwithstanding that yes it was caused by 1 above.0 -
Heads the ball wrote: »Well yes and no to be honest. There are other places I would like to see the money come from first, but assuming thats not enough, i have to be really honest here and say that "yes we should tackle every other class in society first before we go to the unemployed."
ONE of the rationales for this is, GENERALLY speaking, cutting higher earning classes causes the least social misery than cutting welfare. As you said yourself you arent on the breadline by any measure. And I am not saying you should be punished for doing well but if cuts need to be made then lets make the least misery-causing adjustments.
But certainly before we come to take a cut from you, we should cut the super rich, then the rich, then the middle class.
Or we could not scape-goat any particular groups and look at what is rational and reasonable. I was okay to take the cuts I've taken (increased taxes, USC, Pensions levy and pay cut). But now I know that Social Welfare payment can be cut, and our SW bill drastically reduced, I'm not willing to take on more cuts to continue to simultaneously fund and protect people who are getting more than they absolutely need. I've taken cuts, and will need to again, but to screw me for everything you can before looking to someone else is completely unfair on me. And it victimises me as a worker.0 -
Advertisement
-
The ECB did not fuel property prices or demand in this country.
The ECB didn't lend money irresponsibly in this country.
The ECB didn't fail to properly regulate banking in this country.
The ECB didn't spend our money at a greater rate than we were earning it.
And the ECB most certainly didn't continually elect the same Government that oversaw the whole show - despite there being serious question marks around them prior to their last successful election.
Yes sir. I agree. But what the ECB DID pursue policies of exceptionally low cost credit and they fulled the money supply.
But what was really fatal to us was the insistence by the ECB that we bail out the banks.This desperate need for people to shift the blame and/or the responsibility of this whole mess on to anyone else or everyone else but themselves is a sad reflection on where our society is today. It's teenage in it's maturity and it's certainly not helping to resolve anything. Quite the opposite in fact.
I absolutely agree with this. I will declare upfront that I place a huge amount of blame at the EU level (not that I needed to declare that says you). But do you not see that we are now trying to blame social welfare recipients and as I have said in another thread they are almost the most blame-less section of society in that they never took out mortgages and are so distant to the issues which occurred. So dont we owe them some stability Sir?0 -
Or we could not scape-goat any particular groups and look at what is rational and reasonable. I was okay to take the cuts I've taken (increased taxes, USC, Pensions levy and pay cut). But now I know that Social Welfare payment can be cut, and our SW bill drastically reduced, I'm not willing to take on more cuts to continue to simultaneously fund and protect people who are getting more than they absolutely need. I've taken cuts, and will need to again, but to screw me for everything you can before looking to someone else is completely unfair on me. And it victimises me as a worker.
I respect workers (Im a long suffering one myself!) and I find that any of us have had to take cuts is sickening against the background of "its ok to give billions upon billions to banks, bondholders and the EFSF and ESM"
Can I just say, I am not scapegoating anyone and before we come to you (assuming you are middle class) I think we need to demand a madatory dividend from the banks, cut some other government departments, and then make cutbacks on the various classes in society in descending order.
But just to be clear, my purpose of posting here is not to place any blame on ANY section of society (other than my ECB rant). But I would point out again that the unemployed are the most remote from the banking/mortgage crises.0 -
You’re trying to use exceptions to disprove the rule.Heads the ball wrote: »Certainly. However:
(i) Savings usually come from income (so if the income in inadequate, so too will the savings),
(ii) By definition vulnerable people may not have as much savings as more financially secure people,
(iii) Also long term unemployed people may not have savings.
I produced figures above (as has molloyjh) as evidence to support my theory. Figures which you have conveniently overlooked, I might add.Heads the ball wrote: »But what I do have issue with is your methodology. You have a theory that it covers the basics, so if people struggle with it then they are doing something wrong (like over eating or whatever) but the normal methodology for evaluation theories is to see IF the evidence supports the theory.
So basically, tax the bejesus out of everyone with an above average income, such that everyone ends up on the same take home pay?Heads the ball wrote: »But certainly before we come to take a cut from you, we should cut the super rich, then the rich, then the middle class.
That is incorrect. The decision to bail out the banks was made unilaterally.Heads the ball wrote: »Again my basis for this statement is that we were forced to bail out the Irish banks by the ECB.
I would say that the massive general government deficit was a pretty significant factor.Heads the ball wrote: »The actual guarantee and bailout is really what pushed us out of the market, nothwithstanding that yes it was caused by 1 above.
That’s like blaming McDonalds for obesity.Heads the ball wrote: »Yes sir. I agree. But what the ECB DID pursue policies of exceptionally low cost credit and they fulled the money supply.
No we’re not? Well, I’m not anyway. I’m blaming FF.Heads the ball wrote: »But do you not see that we are now trying to blame social welfare recipients...
Eh, mortgage interest supplement is a form of welfare.Heads the ball wrote: »...and as I have said in another thread they are almost the most blame-less section of society in that they never took out mortgages and are so distant to the issues which occurred.0 -
You’re trying to use exceptions to disprove the rule.
Nope. Just pointing out the obvious flaws in your answer that welfare recipients can cover emergencies through savings when they probably dont have savings.So basically, tax the bejesus out of everyone with an above average income, such that everyone ends up on the same take home pay?
No, I never said that and you know I didnt. Tax them equitably.I would say that the massive general government deficit was a pretty significant factor.
What pushed us out of the market was the fact that the soverign was saddled with the bank debt. Now that is certainly a fact that im afraid you will have to concede.0 -
When someone loses their job their savings mysteriously vanish?Heads the ball wrote: »Just pointing out the obvious flaws in your answer that welfare recipients can cover emergencies through savings when they probably dont have savings.
Taxing top earners as much as possible before moving down the earners list is anything but equitable.Heads the ball wrote: »No, I never said that and you know I didnt. Tax them equitably.
So how is it that Ireland has re-entered the bond markets? The bank debts have not been repaid? In fact, the national debt is still growing.Heads the ball wrote: »What pushed us out of the market was the fact that the soverign was saddled with the bank debt. Now that is certainly a fact that im afraid you will have to concede.0 -
When someone loses their job their savings mysteriously vanish?
Not overnight no. But what about people who are long term unemployed or the young unemployed. These people are less likely to have the savings needed to cover the emergencies. Or what about people who have been in relatively low-paid/unskilled work - they are unlikely to have a warchest of savings.
Again I think this is arguing for the sake of it (and perhaps I am guilty of that too) but to say that everyone on the dole should be able to cover all emergencies from savings is, in my opinion, crass.Taxing top earners as much as possible before moving down the earners list is anything but equitable.
No its not. Because it raises proportionately more revenue to human misery, compared to doing so on the lower classes.So how is it that Ireland has re-entered the bond markets? The bank debts have not been repaid? In fact, the national debt is still growing.
I think we are going around in circles here. You said it was our deficit that pushed us into the program. So if the deficit is still growing then and we have returned to the bond markets then that (if anything) is support for the proposition that it was NOT the deficit that pushed us out of the market. Like I said this one is getting a bit circular and tbh I actually forget the point i was making here so, Im fine with dropping it.0 -
Advertisement
-
Heads the ball wrote: »Sorry I will accept this is off topic a little - I hope you can see from the earlier posts where I was going with this - that overallthe whole IMF thing (sorry if that sounds a little like Fr Ted) is a little unpalatable.
Again my basis for this statement is that we were forced to bail out the Irish banks by the ECB. And my source for that is statements by Coveney and indeed Dan Boyles book.
Which carry no more weight than any other person's opinion, I'm afraid, partly because neither did anything more than repeat the same pub talk. Dan Boyle, at least, is trying to make himself electable again by trying the Fianna Fáil tactic of blaming the EU for their decision in 2008. Coveney, on the other hand, was referring to 2010.
If the ECB had ordered Ireland to save their banks in 2008, there would be written evidence, and there isn't - which is what makes the claim pub talk, because first it's necessary to believe that a sovereign country can be ordered to do something against its wishes by an international institution without creating any paper trail.Heads the ball wrote: »Certainly you can make the argument that WHAT CAUSED the need for the bailout was the actions between 1997 onwards in terms of reckless lending.
Well, recklessly weak regulation that allowed the banks to pile up risk.Heads the ball wrote: »I would say the following to that argument:
1: Yes that is true, but again, that is primarily the fault of the banks and the ECB. The banks are responsible for managing their risks and any bankruptcy of them
I'm not sure how that's the fault of the ECB - the Irish banks were regulated by the Irish Financial Regulator, whose job it was to ensure they weren't building up unacceptable risks, and who unfortunately left it to the banks to tell him whether they were. Naturally, they thought everything was just fine until everything exploded - an entirely predictable outcome, and the reason for having a regulator in the first place.Heads the ball wrote: »2: The actual guarantee and bailout is really what pushed us out of the market, nothwithstanding that yes it was caused by 1 above.
Er, no. The guarantee certainly played its part, because the Irish State guaranteed a banking sector several times the size of the Irish economy - but the guarantee was a unilateral Irish action based on inadequate appreciation of the risks in our banking sector, which in turn was the result of the inadequate Irish regulation of our banking sector. The guarantee was undertaken without consultation with the EU, something that's clear from all the documentary evidence surrounding it.
So, while you're free to believe it, your belief rests on no actual evidence, and flies in the face of a lot of evidence to the contrary. Such claims didn't even surface until 2010, when it became clear that the guarantee had played a part in bringing us into the arms of the IMF - as far as I can see, they're part of an attempted revision of recent history by Fianna Fáil.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Debt is not the same thing as the deficit. The deficit is falling and has been for a few years now due to increased taxes and savings. The debt is still rising however as there is still a deficit.
The fact that the deficit is falling along with possible favourable events elsewhere has allowed Ireland to tentatively re-enter the bond markets.0 -
I’m not referring to everyone, I’m referring to the majority. And once again, you are forgetting that anyone in genuine need of assistance above the basic rate can apply for further benefits.Heads the ball wrote: »...to say that everyone on the dole should be able to cover all emergencies from savings is, in my opinion, crass.
The problem here is that you are equating “in receipt of welfare” with “poor and vulnerable”, which is altogether far too simplistic an assumption.
Surely sharing the burden evenly would cause the least hardship? And I’m sure you’re aware that higher earners in Ireland already pay a disproportionately large amount of tax, whereas low earners pay virtually none?Heads the ball wrote: »No its not. Because it raises proportionately more revenue to human misery...
Referring to welfare recipients as “lower class” is a touch insulting, don’t you think? Never mind extremely simplistic (once again).Heads the ball wrote: »...compared to doing so on the lower classes.
I said it was a major factor.Heads the ball wrote: »I think we are going around in circles here. You said it was our deficit that pushed us into the program.
The deficit is not still growing – quite the opposite. The national debt is growing.Heads the ball wrote: »So if the deficit is still growing...0 -
Which carry no more weight than any other person's opinion, I'm afraid, partly because neither did anything more than repeat the same pub talk. Dan Boyle, at least, is trying to make himself electable again by trying the Fianna Fáil tactic of blaming the EU for their decision in 2008. Coveney, on the other hand, was referring to 2010.
If the ECB had ordered Ireland to save their banks in 2008, there would be written evidence, and there isn't - which is what makes the claim pub talk, because first it's necessary to believe that a sovereign country can be ordered to do something against its wishes by an international institution without creating any paper trail.
Well, recklessly weak regulation that allowed the banks to pile up risk.
I'm not sure how that's the fault of the ECB - the Irish banks were regulated by the Irish Financial Regulator, whose job it was to ensure they weren't building up unacceptable risks, and who unfortunately left it to the banks to tell him whether they were. Naturally, they thought everything was just fine until everything exploded - an entirely predictable outcome, and the reason for having a regulator in the first place.
Er, no. The guarantee certainly played its part, because the Irish State guaranteed a banking sector several times the size of the Irish economy - but the guarantee was a unilateral Irish action based on inadequate appreciation of the risks in our banking sector, which in turn was the result of the inadequate Irish regulation of our banking sector. The guarantee was undertaken without consultation with the EU, something that's clear from all the documentary evidence surrounding it.
So, while you're free to believe it, your belief rests on no actual evidence, and flies in the face of a lot of evidence to the contrary. Such claims didn't even surface until 2010, when it became clear that the guarantee had played a part in bringing us into the arms of the IMF - as far as I can see, they're part of an attempted revision of recent history by Fianna Fáil.
cordially,
Scofflaw
Look. The most I am willing to give you is:
There is no documentation surrounding the bailout and as a result I can accept that you would take the view that it was an above-board, cabinet decision made without duress and interference.
HOWEVER as a result of their being good evidence from TDs that we were forced into it and coupled with the fact that I dont believe any party in their right mind would have issued a blanket guarantee and coupled with the fact that there absolutely was no documentation (which makes me more worried about the bona fides of the transaction, not less worried!) I take the view that it was an ECB hatchett job.
Now I know you dismiss Dan Boyle and Coveney and thats fine that you dont want to rely on them. But to dismiss my opinion as "pub talk" just because you believe the opposite to be true is a bit silly in my opinion.
I think you are trying to kind of use the "innocent until proven guilty" approach here in that as there was no documentation that it was a dodgey deal, then it must have been all above board in your opinion and anything to the contrary is pub talk because it isnt backed up by evidence. I think thats a little naive personally. And I think if people pulled that card on these forums when debating anything which is questionable, then a lot of conversations would never get off the ground.
The way to seal the argument is: I am pointing to the evidence of TDs and that is much more weighty than your opinion which involves no more than pointing to the fact that no one chose to actually document what would have been a dodgey deal.
So on that basis I would say my opinion is further from pub talk than your see-no-evil opinion.0 -
I’m not referring to everyone, I’m referring to the majority. And once again, you are forgetting that anyone in genuine need of assistance above the basic rate can apply for further benefits.
1: I dont know how you arrive at the "majority"?
2: I would accept that SOME probably could meet emergencies through savings, but I dont know that its the majority.
3: Lets stick with "vanilla welfare recipients" now please. How are they supposed to fund emergencies if they dont have savings?The problem here is that you are equating “in receipt of welfare” with “poor and vulnerable”, which is altogether far too simplistic an assumption.
Not at all. I would say that this bracket of society has a higher % of poor and vulnerable. And thats true.Surely sharing the burden evenly would cause the least hardship? And I’m sure you’re aware that higher earners in Ireland already pay a disproportionately large amount of tax, whereas low earners pay virtually none?
Disproportionate relative to what?
Sharing the burden absolutely would be fair. I just think I could stomach a proposal to reduce welfare after we have done everything we can elsewhere.Referring to welfare recipients as “lower class” is a touch insulting, don’t you think? Never mind extremely simplistic (once again).
Yes it is. Im happy to retract that and refer to them as the "welfare-recieving classes."0 -
Advertisement
Advertisement