Budget Day - The Official After Hours Thread - (Ireland's undisputed Voice of Reason)

Uriel.

Skylinehead wrote: »

You expect a charge to actually come down, ever?

various charges go up and down all the time depending on current circumstances and Government/Social Policy. Has the Top rate of tax always been 41% or was it ever higher?

zl1whqvjs75cdy

cherryghost wrote: »

Hello, I like money.

Well tough ****e you're about to lose some more of it.

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience

Hande hoche! wrote: »

I assume you're in favour of the sugar tax too?

Sugar and tobacco can't be lumped in together

Sugar has benefits when eaten in moderation, tobacco has none

Jarrod

ibarelycare wrote: »

I remember that too. I remember Phoenix Magazine had a picture of Charlie McCreevy dressed as Santa Claus on the front page after he delivered a particularly pleasant budget! I think it was 1999.

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/santa-cowen-has-sleigh-full-of-budget-goodies-26356980.html

You don't have to go back that far, this is 2006. Headline - ''Santa Cowen has sleigh full of budget goodies''

Jester252

It seem like young families are going to be the best off with this budget.

Grumpypants

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience wrote: »

Sugar and tobacco can't be lumped in together

Sugar has benefits when eaten in moderation, tobacco has none

So I've been eating a moderate amount of tobacco for nothing ?

Hande hoche!

Grumpypants wrote: »

So I've been eating a moderate amount of tobacco for nothing ?

Perhaps time to invest in a new spittoon?

Mint Sauce

danniemcq wrote: »

So last week the budget was gonna be around 2.1billion in cuts.

Its sent to Germany for "review"

Now Noonen says this morning its gonna be over 3 billion and quite tough on everyone. Wonder what changed in a week.

Christ this makes me sick

That must have been the surprise he was on about.

TheDoc

Not sure what else is going to directly affect me today.

Tobacco stuff is normally my grievance and I've covered that.

I'm in full time employment and performing well, so no major problems in terms of the reduction to social welfare for me. Thankfully my partner moved off the dole onto a job scheme that has been a massive success. So on that front I'm not too concerned.

I'm rarely sick ( touch wood) so the leaks on the change to sick benefit doesn't really concern me, although my company provide full sick pay so I'm covered there. No children so the under 5's GP card isn't any immediate benefit, nor the maternity cuts being immediate.

I don't save money for the interest since it's ****e anyway, so that's of zero concern.


I'm more concerned with the things I havn't heard yet, potential household charges or changes and changes for anything to do with my car. I'm renting and managing fine as a first time renter, I've got decent disposable income a month, so obviously anything that might inflate my rent would be a concern. I drive to and from work each day ( total of three hour commute in total) along with driving to activities and friends ( I moved away from my old area) so any hikes to car related taxes or finances would definitely be cause for concern.

Will listen with intent from 2:30, every year there is something that goes through not immediately picked upon, that ends up being pretty significant to me.

Lola18

SeaFields wrote: »

Yes, currently a medical card holder pays €1.50 an item (not €1 as the quote above says) and its capped at €20 a month. There is an initiative coming whereas medical card holders will be given a generic medicine when a brand is prescribed but can pay the difference between brand and generic if they wish. This should save the state money also.

It says rising by €1 not from €1 so it is correct

TheDoc

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience wrote: »

Or maybe just give up and get healthy!?

fags can't be expensive enough imo

Won't de-rail the thread into a discussion on tobacco, and how it's my conscious choice as a free-thinking adult.

But I wonder what the reaction would be if there was a year on year increase in tax on say, a bag of chips, a coffee, maybe breakfast rolls.

The point is the consistent annual targetting of a specific group that governments frequently alienated and de-popularise.

Mint Sauce

Don't smoke at all, and don't drink much, so from a personal point of view, no concerns there.

Although maybe if they reduced the price of cigarettes it might encourage people to buy them legally rather than of the black market.

Driving is where I'm mostly to be hit, can see the usual increase in fuel and motor tax, although I would support the motor tax being incorporated into the fuel, it would of course increase the price at the pumps, but would be based on price be drive/distance, cost would be spread over the year, and it would close all the loopholes for evaders.

Would also be in a support of a broadcast charge, instead of the TV licence, knowing our government though it would be more expensive, even though they would be taking in from alot more households.

Hopefully some incentives for first time buyers. An exemption from property tax till the current 2016, does not seem as appealing as exemption from stamp duty, purly because 3-4 years none property tax is worth alot less than the duty.

Finally social welfare, there defiantly does need to be more done, with focus on the career recipients, and childrens benefit to be means tested, I still believe, and argue, that its not right that someone getting 200k a year should be getting the exact same entitlement as someone getting 20k a year or less.

Idbatterim

Finally social welfare, there defiantly does need to be more done, with focus on the career recipients, and childrens benefit to be means tested, I still believe, and argue, that its not right that someone getting 200k a year should be getting the exact same entitlement as someone getting 20k a year or less.

I literally cannot believe this attitude! I believe and argue that its not right that the harder you work and more taxes that you pay, the less you get! Counter intuitive isnt it? This is the crux of the problem here... You want a higher standard of living, go out and work for it, dont expect others to hand it to you on a plate!

c_man

bluewolf wrote: »

Okay, I'll go off and max out my credit cards and try buy a few houses so

A sound economy is built on 100% mortgages don't you know.

Akrasia

Idbatterim wrote: »

I literally cannot believe this attitude! I believe and argue that its not right that the harder you work and more taxes that you pay, the less you get! Counter intuitive isnt it? This is the crux of the problem here... You want a higher standard of living, go out and work for it, dont expect others to hand it to you on a plate!

This 'tax childrens allowance' thing is such a waste of time and it just demonstrates how people can not join the dots at all.

Taking child benefit from rich people is the same as a very small tax increase, but it just pisses them off and it costs a fortune to administer.

Let them have the child benefit, and adjust everyone's tax credits so that people who can afford to pay more, do pay more.

Taking child benefit from middle income families while keeping the tax rates unchanged would just transfer even more wealth into the pockets of wealthy middle aged/elderly people who have higher incomes, and have fewer costs (Mortgage is paid off and kids are already grown up)

murphym7

ibarelycare wrote: »

I remember that too. I remember Phoenix Magazine had a picture of Charlie McCreevy dressed as Santa Claus on the front page after he delivered a particularly pleasant budget! I think it was 1999.

I remember 1998, 1999, 2000+ being very good to me. Every year you looked the next day on the paper and saw how much extra each week your take home pay would be. It is the opposaite now 10 years on. 2008, 2009, 2010 sore bum each and every year since.

Mint Sauce

Idbatterim wrote: »

I literally cannot believe this attitude! I believe and argue that its not right that the harder you work and more taxes that you pay, the less you get! Counter intuitive isnt it? This is the crux of the problem here...

Alot of people I know, and alot of posters on this website, share this attitude that CB should be means tested.

A person on 200k a year is in alot better position to afford the costs of having a child compared to someone on 20k. I'm not saying take it off them all together, but if JSA, and medical cards can be means tested, why not the CB.

Hell even Bono and the Boys from Westlife, multi millionaires, are entittled to the exact same amount as the single mother on minimum wage should they choose to receive it.

TheDoc

Idbatterim wrote: »

I literally cannot believe this attitude! I believe and argue that its not right that the harder you work and more taxes that you pay, the less you get! Counter intuitive isnt it? This is the crux of the problem here... You want a higher standard of living, go out and work for it, dont expect others to hand it to you on a plate!

I kinda fall on this line aswell in parts, lazy politics is gaining brownie points by saying the higher earners should take more of the burden.

But if you target high paid workers, who typically have gone through lengthy education, hard work and potential financial risk, the likely hood is people won't take those risks, or put in that hard work, which has just as hard an impact on the economy.

While I believe simply there does need to be taxation of proportion in order to provide for those on social welfare, people in long term receipt of social welfare shouldn't be expecting a high standard of living.

It's gas when you hear people being interviewed about social welfare being hit, they mention things like " we cant go on a holiday" and things like that. You hear of how they are struggling to pay their heating bill, but no problems paying the sky sports bill every month.

People need to get a reality check, if your on social welfare, your being provided money to essentially get by week to week with food, bills and clothing. Not to fund your Xbox , your TV and Saturday nights out.

Jester252

Mint Sauce wrote: »

Alot of people I know, and alot of posters on this website, share this attitude that CB should be means tested.

A person on 200k a year is in alot better position to afford the costs of having a child compared to someone on 20k. I'm not saying take it off them all together, but if JSA, and medical cards can be means tested, why not the CB.

Hell even Bono and the Boys from Westlife, multi millionaires, are entittled to the exact same amount as the single mother on minimum wage should they choose to receive it.

Why should anyone receive money because the have a kid? They are also getting free GP visits for the first five years and parents won't have to pay for school books with the rent scheme. We already have free education. It seem weird that this country does so much to protect kids but the second they become adults they just break them down.

jester77

Mint Sauce wrote: »

Alot of people I know, and alot of posters on this website, share this attitude that CB should be means tested.

A person on 200k a year is in alot better position to afford the costs of having a child compared to someone on 20k. I'm not saying take it off them all together, but if JSA, and medical cards can be means tested, why not the CB.

Hell even Bono and the Boys from Westlife, multi millionaires, are entittled to the exact same amount as the single mother on minimum wage should they choose to receive it.

So what you are saying is that someone who pays a serious amount into they system should not get anything out of it, while those who don't contribute should get as much as they can.

Not a very fair system.

Uriel.

Jester252 wrote: »

Why should anyone receive money because the have a kid? They are also getting free GP visits for the first five years and parents won't have to pay for school books with the rent scheme. We already have free education. It seem weird that this country does so much to protect kids but the second they become adults they just break them down.

Population is growing old. We need to maintain a decent birthrate to create the next generation of tax payers who will fund the country into the future along with the pensions timebomb

Chancer3001

I assume you get money for kids so you can afford to feed them and give them clothes and stuff.

krudler

Chancer3001 wrote: »

I assume you get money for kids so you can afford to feed them and give them clothes and stuff.

I know they only tell you kids cost money in the maternity ward once it pops out, it's kept secret until then.

Chancer3001

People always know kids cost money.

Poor people will still have kids.

RikkFlair

ibarelycare wrote: »

I remember that too. I remember Phoenix Magazine had a picture of Charlie McCreevy dressed as Santa Claus on the front page after he delivered a particularly pleasant budget! I think it was 1999.

This time it'll be Michael Noonan in a gimp suit.

wazky

RikkFlair wrote: »

This time it'll be Michael Noonan in a gimp suit.

And holding Joan Burton on a dog lead?

RikkFlair

wazky wrote: »

And holding Joan Burton on a dog lead?

Anything goes at this stage :eek:

jester77

The pint going up 10c and wine going up 50c :eek:

Ireland already has silly prices for wine.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

jester77 wrote: »

The pint going up 10c and wine going up 50c :eek:

Ireland already has silly prices for wine.

Seriously? Beyond ridiculous.

Mint Sauce

jester77 wrote: »

So what you are saying is that someone who pays a serious amount into they system should not get anything out of it, while those who don't contribute should get as much as they can.

Not a very fair system.

Are you saying someone earning millions a year, who should have no problem raising a child without further government assistance, gets the EXACT same amount for that child, as someone earning only 20k a year, who still has bills to pay, as well as contributing into the system through tax, USC, and PRSI.