Noonan "we cant go mad again"

Idbatterim

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/1213/492576-bailout/

I totally agree with him and his statement, as I'm sure everyone will. I saw him on prime time last night and really strikes me as someone calm, cool, collected and someone who has the situation under control. So starting from next years budget or the one thereafter, when there may be more money to be spent on certain areas or cut in taxes? what would you like to see?

My list would be:

1. Not another red cent of increases welfares rates or PS pay, let inflation eat into them. (unless it is increased welfare rates, linked to prior contributions) (I heard a suggestion of a return of the welfare christmas "bonus" yesterday)!!!
2. Increase in capital expenditure
3. Reduce cost of doing business
4. Reduce the scandalous marginal rate of tax (even Labour are suggesting this)
5. Take on more teachers, SNA's, guards etc (but on contracts, i.e. no more job for life etc)
6. Pay off national debt quicker
7. Far more support for couples with kids that are working (i.e. subsidised child care)
8. Reversing the cuts to the vulnerable i.e. disabled and handicapped (i.e. the actual vulnerable) If the cuts are found to be too damaging.

I am sure there are more I could think of, but those are the main ones for the time being.

Basically what I am saying is, I hope they dont go back to vote buying across the board, ala FF...

johnnyskeleton

Unfortunately we have to resist the idea that "out of the bailout" means healthy economic conditions.

We still need to make cuts to the tune of €9bn from the annual budget which is a lot (for comparison it's almost our total income tax take or nearly half the welfare budget).

The only area that we can really afford to increase spending on is the capital budget because it should create more jobs.

Idbatterim

I agree and I dont think there will be much to go around, but cutting the marginal rate of tax, seems to be first up on the list, if they have the ability, as Noonan was saying yesterday on prime time, that and job creation are priority number 1 in my opinion...

The only area that we can really afford to increase spending on is the capital budget because it should create more jobs.

Varadkar was saying this a few weeks ago and I agree, i.e. another area that will be prioritised when finances allow...

Dannyboy83

Do we actually have room for wish lists in our forthcoming budgets?
I was under the impression they'd been essentially mapped out for several years yet?

I'd love to see a tax cut, but we've learned to survive without the money now, so better to reinvest it imo. I think we should be heavily investing in infrastructure immediately.

e.g. Dublin needs that Metro North

Gambas

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Do we actually have room for wish lists in our forthcoming budgets?
I was under the impression they'd been essentially mapped out for several years yet?

I'd love to see a tax cut, but we've learned to survive without the money now, so better to reinvest it imo. I think we should be heavily investing in infrastructure immediately.

e.g. Dublin needs that Metro North

That's the one. Capital investment should be prioritised, because it has been plundered to avoid making the necessary payroll cuts in the past 5 years.

Outkast_IRE

Would like to see money spent WISELY on infrastructure and increased Garda numbers coupled with a reform of prison service in Ireland and some investment in new prisons. Theres no point in increased garda numbers if proper sentences cant be carried out.

Idbatterim

e.g. Dublin needs that Metro North

no doubt we will wait for things to be bursting at the seems again, before that gets off the ground, article below on big expected increase in dublins population over the next 20 years...

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/capitals-population-to-grow-by-300000-over-next-two-decades-29834348.html

mayoweb

It looks like people are already starting to go a bit mad. with the slight hint of recovery. this thing is not over by a long chalk

Celly Smunt

Cut or cap the student contribution, we dont want to have the best infrastructure and business framework with a brain drain ten years from now.

Manach

When he said go mad, does he mean people actually being the best to decide how and when to spend money earned themselves instead of having an increased tax regeime so as the state can spend on their own re-entrenchment so as to buy the next election by favouring their own clients.

The_Valeyard

I never 'went mad'.

But I still got stuck with some of the bill.

Idbatterim

Cut or cap the student contribution, we dont want to have the best infrastructure and business framework with a brain drain ten years from now.

I'd just introduce a loan system, let them pay it back over several years, treat everyone the same. It might stop us having to listen to the eternal, "poor" students :rolleyes:

Outkast_IRE

Celly Smunt wrote: »

Cut or cap the student contribution, we dont want to have the best infrastructure and business framework with a brain drain ten years from now.

are you talking about the €2500 fee per year ?
Most people will get that covered by a grant if its there first time at 3rd level anyway.

Idbatterim

I reckon he means just give away budget after give away budget, taking ridiculous numbers out of the tax net, year after year like FF. Having one off transactional taxes like stamp duty, massage the figures and then when **** hits the fan, having to borrow the money until you can rectify the situation in a budget. I HOPE this time it will be different...

Outkast_IRE

Idbatterim wrote: »

I'd just introduce a loan system, let them pay it back over several years, treat everyone the same. It might stop us having to listen to the eternal, "poor" students :rolleyes:

I was once an advocate of this system, but looking at whats happening with student loans in the UK and US, im not sure that's the way to go about it anymore.

I think starting people off in the working world with a mountain of debt just makes them slaves to financial institutions too early in life, and ties up a lot of their earnings.

What I wouldn't mind is an extra tax taken out of my weekly/monthly pay, for lets say 200 weeks of my working life after college, or up to X amount.

I think we would play right into the financial worlds plan if we let students get burdened by private banking so early in life.

Celly Smunt

Idbatterim wrote: »

I'd just introduce a loan system, let them pay it back over several years, treat everyone the same. It might stop us having to listen to the eternal, "poor" students :rolleyes:

Graduates pay more tax than than non-graduates when working, the fees for theor education is well and truly paid back over their careers.Its totally counter productive to charge excessively for education, there are more economic and social benefits to giving free education than to bring in a system like the US or UK.

Idbatterim

What I wouldn't mind is an extra tax taken out of my weekly/monthly pay, for lets say 200 weeks of my working life after college, or up to X amount.

I think we would play right into the financial worlds plan if we let students get burdened by private banking so early in life.

That is the kind of system I would have in mind...

Graduates pay more tax than than non-graduates when working, the fees for theor education is well and truly paid back over their careers.Its totally counter productive to charge excessively for education, theres more of an economic qnd social benefit to giving free education than to bring in a system like the US or UK.

Im not saying hammer them with 100k yearly fees, maybe the cost of their college place or part subsidise it. Certainly no more than 8-10k per year... It would make people who were thinking about going to college for the laugh or to do an almost worthless degree, think twice...

Celly Smunt

Idbatterim wrote: »

That is the kind of system I would have in mind...

Then you are restricting the spending power of those with a lot of disposable income, thus hurting economy more.Direct taxing would bring in less than tax on their spending would.

Celly Smunt

Idbatterim wrote: »

That is the kind of system I would have in mind...

Im not saying hammer them with 100k yearly fees, maybe the cost of their college place or part subsidise it. Certainly no more than 8-10k per year... It would make people who were thinking about going to college for the laugh or to do an almost worthless degree, think twice...

There is no economic benefit for the country who allow students to graduate with 40000 worth of debt, spending power is where you make your money back.

fliball123

Celly Smunt wrote: »

There is no economic benefit for the country who allow students to graduate with 40000 worth of debt, spending power is where you make your money back.

And what about the thousands of graduates emigrating yearly? who pays for them..If someone wants to go to college they should pay..They are the ones mainly benefiting.

Dannyboy83

Perhaps the finer details of that particular issue should be taken to a different thread?

This topic is pretty interesting and I'd like to hear what others have to say on the issue.
It certainly seems there is a lot of recognition of the need to revitalise Capital Expenditure.

Most people understand we need to improve our ability to create and attract jobs as our first priority. Self actualisation type projects can follow later.



What suggestions do people have as regards oversight/regulation?
We seem to have squandered so much of the boom money
How do we prevent that happening again?

Celly Smunt

fliball123 wrote: »

And what about the thousands of graduates emigrating yearly? who pays for them..If someone wants to go to college they should pay..They are the ones mainly benefiting.

Everybody benefits from graduates,not just the individual.As for the emigration, perhaps if we had the jobs to employ the graduates they would stay,however take into consideration that the graduates we keep well and truly cover the costs of those who emigrate through tax.

fliball123

Celly Smunt wrote: »

Everybody benefits from graduates,not just the individual.As for the emigration, perhaps if we had the jobs to employ the graduates they would stay,however take into consideration that the graduates we keep well and truly cover the costs of those who emigrate through tax.

How does it? How does their tax payment over the years differ from mine while they get tax payers money to go to college where as I have to pay for them to go..As I say college is a luxury option if anyone has the brains or determination to go then let them pay for it themselves they ultimately benefit and if they work in Ireland there taxes can go to pay what mine are currently paying ala..the public sector pay and pensions, welfare, public services and banks..We are still borrowing 10 billion next year so sorry we cant afford to be paying for billy or jenny to go to college..If the spotty teen billy or Jenny wants to go to college let him or her get a loan and pay for it himself/herself..At least it will make them pay attention as they will have to pass their courses as a year repeat will hit them and not the phucking tax payer in the pocket

Celly Smunt

fliball123 wrote: »

How does it? How does their tax payment over the years differ from mine while they get tax payers money to go to college where as I have to pay for them to go..As I say college is a luxury option if anyone has the brains or determination to go then let them pay for it themselves they ultimately benefit and if they work in Ireland there taxes can go to pay what mine are currently paying ala..the public sector pay and pensions, welfare, public services and banks..We are still borrowing 10 billion next year so sorry we cant afford to be paying for billy or jenny to go to college..If the spotty teen billy or Jenny wants to go to college let him or her get a loan and pay for it himself/herself..At least it will make them pay attention as they will have to pass their courses as a year repeat will hit them and not the phucking tax payer in the pocket

Higher earners = Higher taxes, Bigger wages = More spending power, More spending power = Cash regeneration, Cash regeneration = Healthy cash flow for businesses, Cash flow for businesses = employment, employment = More tax income and on and on it goes.

They are already indirectly getting a loan considering they will be paying their education back through taxes. By restricting their spending power when they graduate you reduce the amount of money circulating in the economy thus hurting businesses of all sizes.

Socially you also exclude the majority of the population from third level education as they cannot afford to go.Who benefits from an uneducated society?,it certainly doesn't help the appeal for foreign investment either.

Loan systems for students don't work or benefit anybody, they're completely counter-productive.

As far as i'm aware also, repeat years aren't covered by the state.

washman3

When things were 'going mad', Noonan and his ilk in FG and Labour stood idly by and allowed it to happen. Actually they insisted that 'the rate of madness' was too slow.!!
What a clown.

Idbatterim

When things were 'going mad', Noonan and his ilk in FG and Labour stood idly by and allowed it to happen. Actually they insisted that 'the rate of madness' was too slow.!!
What a clown.

of course they were going to do this, FF had hit the lotto effectively, what were they going to do, say vote us in and we will be responsible? implement broader tax bases, property tax? end the party? come on... I think the difference now is, we have learned a bloody harsh lessons as to to cost of short term thinking and gombeenism, and how the economy is a major factor in everybody's life (many of us have alwats known this, but a significant portion didnt IMO)...

ardmacha

1. Not another red cent of increases welfares rates or PS pay, let inflation eat into them. (unless it is increased welfare rates, linked to prior contributions) (I heard a suggestion of a return of the welfare christmas "bonus" yesterday)!!!

Whatever about welfare, PS pay will in some cases have declined by a third relative to the private sector at the end of this process and will have to be increased.

2. Increase in capital expenditure

Yes.

3. Reduce cost of doing business

How, exactly?
.

4. Reduce the scandalous marginal rate of tax (even Labour are suggesting this)

I think a middle rate of tax would reduce the marginal rate for those not very rich.

5. Take on more teachers, SNA's, guards etc (but on contracts, i.e. no more job for life etc)

Since teachers and guards are needed all the time, then of course their employment is for life.

6. Pay off national debt quicker

that depends on the relationship between growth, inflation and interest rates.

7. Far more support for couples with kids that are working (i.e. subsidised child care)

Playing devil's advocate, is it not more important to have one person working in every family than two in some and none in others?

8. Reversing the cuts to the vulnerable i.e. disabled and handicapped (i.e. the actual vulnerable) If the cuts are found to be too damaging.

Some sense of what you are trying to do would help this.

fliball123

Celly Smunt wrote: »

Higher earners = Higher taxes, Bigger wages = More spending power, More spending power = Cash regeneration, Cash regeneration = Healthy cash flow for businesses, Cash flow for businesses = employment, employment = More tax income and on and on it goes.

They are already indirectly getting a loan considering they will be paying their education back through taxes. By restricting their spending power when they graduate you reduce the amount of money circulating in the economy thus hurting businesses of all sizes.

Socially you also exclude the majority of the population from third level education as they cannot afford to go.Who benefits from an uneducated society?,it certainly doesn't help the appeal for foreign investment either.

Loan systems for students don't work or benefit anybody, they're completely counter-productive.

As far as i'm aware also, repeat years aren't covered by the state.

Once again who benefits the most..The student does. We are borrowing 10 billion we cant afford this..The country already provides free education for people up to the age of 17/18 In My Opinion that is more than enough for the tax payer to cover. College life is an option and as I say if that person wants to go to college that is their choice..I do not see why the tax payer should pay for this. The person ultimately will be able to get a higher paying job for themselves that is their reward for their hard graft and more power to them.

As for exclusion..the government should set up college loans and allow the student to pay back the loan once they are working...why are they counter productive?? you have made that argument without backing it up really..the loan could be paid before being taxed or at a lower interest rate.......That way you could be from the ar$ehole of nowhere and get a loan once you pay it back..This also is a good way of conditioning and putting a bit of pressure on college goers to actually stick to the curriculum and study..I guarantee you if that person has paid 10k for a course they are going to try and get their monies worth.

Celly Smunt

fliball123 wrote: »

Once again who benefits the most..The student does. We are borrowing 10 billion we cant afford this..The country already provides free education for people up to the age of 17/18 In My Opinion that is more than enough for the tax payer to cover. College life is an option and as I say if that person wants to go to college that is their choice..I do not see why the tax payer should pay for this. The person ultimately will be able to get a higher paying job for themselves that is their reward for their hard graft and more power to them.

As for exclusion..the government should set up college loans and allow the student to pay back the loan once they are working...why are they counter productive?? you have made that argument without backing it up really..the loan could be paid before being taxed or at a lower interest rate.......That way you could be from the ar$ehole of nowhere and get a loan once you pay it back..This also is a good way of conditioning and putting a bit of pressure on college goers to actually stick to the curriculum and study..I guarantee you if that person has paid 10k for a course they are going to try and get their monies worth.

How is this not getting through?

By giving them free college you make and generate money! by charging and applying loans you restrict that money being generated and cut a lump out of income tax intakes.

It's a privilege EVERYBODY benefits from.

If you're paying 1 euro to send them to college you're making 2 euro on them leaving college and reaping extra benefits.

Idbatterim

Whatever about welfare, PS pay will in some cases have declined by a third relative to the private sector at the end of this process and will have to be increased.

so shouldnt that be fair enough then, when you factor in the job security, lump sum, payment on retirement and pensions, this is a question, not a statement...

How, exactly?

possibly drop vat rate on electricity, cut rates, employers prsi etc...

I think a middle rate of tax would reduce the marginal rate for those not very rich.

I agree with this...

Since teachers and guards are needed all the time, then of course their employment is for life.

look at the cost when you want to get rid of them, like the government did a few years ago with the early retirement packages and perks etc, so yes they are always needed, but the numbers required may fluctuate as finances allow... By that logic, I dont see why some should be sheltered from reality and others not so, admin staff, shelf packers, bin men, bus drivers they are also all needed, should they be given jobs for life?

6. Pay off national debt quicker
that depends on the relationship between growth, inflation and interest rates.

agreed again. My points were generalizations, we could go into a multipage thread on any one point in its own...

fliball123

Celly Smunt wrote: »

How is this not getting through?

By giving them free college you make and generate money! by charging and applying loans you restrict that money being generated and cut a lump out of income tax intakes.

It's a privilege EVERYBODY benefits from.

How is this not getting through we are already over taxed and borrowing 10 billion for next years expenditure..We cannot afford it. By giving them access to loans they can go to college aswell ..there tax take in future years will be used to pay for our expenditure which is as I pointed out 10 billion out of kilter.

And as I say how does anyone benefit if the person fecks off to Oz after finishing college? So in a lot of cases we would get nothing back. So its a privalage they can benfit from in all cases therefore they should pay for it.

Celly Smunt

fliball123 wrote: »

How is this not getting through we are already over taxed and borrowing 10 billion for next years expenditure..We cannot afford it. By giving them access to loans they can go to college aswell ..there tax take in future years will be used to pay for our expenditure which is as I pointed out 10 billion out of kilter.

And as I say how does anyone benefit if the person fecks off to Oz after finishing college? So in a lot of cases we would get nothing back. So its a privalage they can benfit from in all cases therefore they should pay for it.

And around we go

Every year we have graduates adding to tax intake and actually contributing to helping the deficit by paying back their education through higher tax rates.They in turn spend their excess income in local businesses as they are not tied down by debts thus keeping them floating with people employed,again adding to tax intakes.Introduce a loan system and you've stagnated tax income.
As you said we're over taxed,how on earth would it make sense to take higher taxpayers out of the frame?

Graduates emigrating are having their fees paid back by graduates here also so we're breaking even on those,and if they return,we'll have more graduates to collect tax from rather than non-graduates coming home and working on lower tax rates.It's not a loss,if anything it's a small profit if they return or a break even if they stay abroad.

To say nobody but the student benefits from third level education is farcical,and if anything petty and misjudged.

fliball123

Celly Smunt wrote: »

And around we go

Every year we have graduates adding to tax intake and actually contributing to helping the deficit by paying back their education through higher tax rates.They in turn spend their excess income in local businesses as they are not tied down by debts thus keeping them floating with people employed,again adding to tax intakes.Introduce a loan system and you've stagnated tax income.
As you said we're over taxed,how on earth would it make sense to take higher taxpayers out of the frame?

Graduates emigrating are having their fees paid back by graduates here also so we're breaking even on those,and if they return,we'll have more graduates to collect tax from rather than non-graduates coming home and working on lower tax rates.It's not a loss,if anything it's a small profit if they return or a break even if they stay.

To say nobody but the student benefits from third level education is farcical,and if anything petty and misjudged.

By your argument then everyone for the first 4 years of their working life should have to pay (tax - what it would take to go to college) as they will also be contributing for the rest of their working life, they also contribute to the local economy..We are going around in circles as you have not even came up with a valid point of how we pay for this whilst still being 10 billion in deficit a year

Celly Smunt

fliball123 wrote: »

By your argument then everyone for the first 4 years of their working life should have to pay (tax - what it would take to go to college) as they will also be contributing for the rest of their working life, they also contribute to the local economy..We are going around in circles as you have not even came up with a valid point of how we pay for this whilst still being 10 billion in deficit a year

Jesus,they pay back their education through higher taxes and over a lifetime pay back a hell of a lot more than lower paid workers.

It's like you can't accept that it's creating money by sending people to college.By restricting college access we'd be borrowing more.

ardmacha

Idbatterim wrote: »

so shouldnt that be fair enough then, when you factor in the job security, lump sum, payment on retirement and pensions, this is a question, not a statement...

Idbatterim wrote: »

look at the cost when you want to get rid of them, like the government did a few years ago with the early retirement packages and perks etc, so yes they are always needed, but the numbers required may fluctuate as finances allow... By that logic, I dont see why some should be sheltered from reality and others not so, admin staff, shelf packers, bin men, bus drivers they are also all needed, should they be given jobs for life?

These two points are contradictory. The first one is that there are advantages in the PS that might mean that a lower salary would be acceptable. This is fair enough as far as it goes, but my point had more to do with the divergence, some private sector jobs have (or will have) significant increases while the PS was reduced, this changed the balance and the PS may not have been much out of line in the first place.

The second point is that an arbitrary insecurity should be created in the PS, which would almost certainly remove any justification for a lower salary as in point 1.

SCOOP 64

Until more jobs are created would should not do anything ,
surely we cant be giving pay rises, tax cuts, with unemployment around the 400,000 mark.

Flex

ardmacha wrote: »

Whatever about welfare, PS pay will in some cases have declined by a third relative to the private sector at the end of this process and will have to be increased.

Conversely, in areas (like the lower levels) where a substantial premium likely still exists would you like to see those corrected in the same manner as those areas which are likely underpaid compared the private sector (likely those in higher levels)?

Celly Smunt wrote: »

How is this not getting through?

By giving them free college you make and generate money! by charging and applying loans you restrict that money being generated and cut a lump out of income tax intakes.

It's a privilege EVERYBODY benefits from.

If you're paying 1 euro to send them to college you're making 2 euro on them leaving college and reaping extra benefits.

Id rather the loan system, I see the idea of providing completely free education to leave them with higher disposable income as a zero sum game; youre still reducing theyre disposable income in the future by making them pay higher taxes to cover the new students of the day. In the meantime youre reducing the present working populations disposable income by making them pay higher taxes to cover their costs

ardmacha

Conversely, in areas (like the lower levels) where a substantial premium likely still exists would you like to see those corrected in the same manner as those areas which are likely underpaid compared the private sector (likely those in higher levels)?

An honest benchmarking process could have merit, but what is the chances of that?

Celly Smunt

Flex wrote: »

Conversely, in areas (like the lower levels) where a substantial premium likely still exists would you like to see those corrected in the same manner as those areas which are likely underpaid compared the private sector (likely those in higher levels)?




Id rather the loan system, I see the idea of providing completely free education to leave them with higher disposable income as a zero sum game; youre still reducing theyre disposable income in the future by making them pay higher taxes to cover the new students of the day. In the meantime youre reducing the present working populations disposable income by making them pay higher taxes to cover their costs

The reduction in spending power for the populace supporting third level education is miniscule in comparison to the spending power that would be reduced if we were to impliment an individual loan system.Im talking about the 25-30's with little overheads and a pocket full of cash, when they eventually get to the stage where they have a mortgage etc., if we keep a free education system there'd be another batch of 25-30 year olds to take their place.

It really fuels the economy more than we think and above all it really is sustainable

Icepick

Idbatterim wrote: »

I'd just introduce a loan system, let them pay it back over several years, treat everyone the same. It might stop us having to listen to the eternal, "poor" students :rolleyes:

The loan would be written off if you work X years here (teachers, doctors, etc)

the_syco

Idbatterim wrote: »

5. Take on more teachers, SNA's, guards etc (but on contracts, i.e. no more job for life etc)

No more 24 hour shifts by doctors in hospitals; I want a fully alert doctor treating me!

murphaph

Celly Smunt wrote: »

Jesus,they pay back their education through higher taxes and over a lifetime pay back a hell of a lot more than lower paid workers.

It's like you can't accept that it's creating money by sending people to college.By restricting college access we'd be borrowing more.

In theory you're right but in practice it depends entirely on what people choose to study and what's in demand. Even "hard" courses can have poor job opportunities/pay afterward.

People who study things like archaeology, geology and so on often have to emigrate because there are so few jobs in those fields. They are (I presume) not easy courses, but the demand for the graduates is low in Ireland so graduates if those courses are far more likely to be paying tax in some over country.

realitykeeper

Today, Friday 13th December, 2013 Ireland officially leaves the bailout. The irony is we should never have entered in the first place.

There was absolutely no need to rescue the Irish banks because the banks stood to lose more by failing than they did by staying in business. For example, if the banks withheld depositors money, the state could have rushed through legislation effectively granting ownership to every mortgage holder in the country. That would have ensured even bigger losses for the banks and their shareholders. The very mention of such legislation would have forced them to stay in business and return the depositors funds on demand. Unfortunately that is history now but since the debt is odious it should not be paid - at least not by the taxpayer.

Sadly, the purpose of exiting the bailout was to appeal to the stupid and there are sufficient stupid people to make it worthwhile. Exiting the bailout only means one thing, Ireland pays more interest than it would if it stayed in the bailout. "We`ve exited the bailout!" - may yet prove to be the costliest piece of rhetoric this country has ever seen.

Ireland`s recent economic "recovery" is financed with borrowed money which has super inflated the bubble that tried to burst five years ago. Ireland`s downfall will coincide with rising interest rates and it will happen before the next general election. As for debt forgiveness, it ain`t gonna happen. The German`s are a people of principle and they rightly believe the borrower should repay as agreed.

Sheldons Brain

For example, if the banks withheld depositors money, the state could have rushed through legislation effectively granting ownership to every mortgage holder in the country.

Good plan. The banks withhold some money from depositors, so you give away their assets ensuring that they have nothing whatsoever for depositors. I'm surprised they didn't think of that.

realitykeeper

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

Good plan. The banks withhold some money from depositors, so you give away their assets ensuring that they have nothing whatsoever for depositors. I'm surprised they didn't think of that.

The banks were threatening to withhold deposits anyway, - if they weren`t bailed out. The government failed to up the anti with a threat to deprive them of mortgage repayments which would have cost the banks even more than they stood to lose by having to honor their commitments to their depositors. In other words the banks were owed much more than they owed to Irish based depositors and the government could and should have used that fact to force the banks to prioritize Irish based depositors over foreign lenders. Had they done so, the banks could not have carried out their threats and the government would not have had to bail them out.

Savage93

QUOTE=Outkast_IRE;87985926]are you talking about the €2500 fee per year ?
Most people will get that covered by a grant if its there first time at 3rd level anyway.[/QUOTE]

I , for one, with 1 child gone through college and another currently in the system have NEVER received one cent in grants for my kids because I am earning "too much" PAYE screwed in tax ,know numerous cases of cases of long term bludgers who WOULDN'T work to warm themselves , now or when the tiger roared having money handed to them and their kids,sick of the whole lot!!!!

Idbatterim

I , for one, with 1 child gone through college and another currently in the system have NEVER received one cent in grants for my kids because I am earning "too much" PAYE screwed in tax ,know numerous cases of cases of long term bludgers who WOULDN'T work to warm themselves , now or when the tiger roared having money handed to them and their kids,sick of the whole lot!!!!

This is exactly what I meant, when I suggested give them a loan, and let everyone be treated the same, not this situation of letting hard working parents, probably living on a pittance after expenses, being over the "threshold" while the other unfortunate or waster parents, who conttribute nothing, get everything at the expense of the hardworking taxpayer, who is "entitled" to virtually nothing in return!

Mr. teddywinkles

murphaph wrote: »

In theory you're right but in practice it depends entirely on what people choose to study and what's in demand. Even "hard" courses can have poor job opportunities/pay afterward.

People who study things like archaeology, geology and so on often have to emigrate because there are so few jobs in those fields. They are (I presume) not easy courses, but the demand for the graduates is low in Ireland so graduates if those courses are far more likely to be paying tax in some over country.

amazing that people on boards automatically presume you graduate from college your rolling in the bucks after. Hilarious

Outkast_IRE

Savage93 wrote: »

QUOTE=Outkast_IRE;87985926]are you talking about the €2500 fee per year ?
Most people will get that covered by a grant if its there first time at 3rd level anyway.

I , for one, with 1 child gone through college and another currently in the system have NEVER received one cent in grants for my kids because I am earning "too much" PAYE screwed in tax ,know numerous cases of cases of long term bludgers who WOULDN'T work to warm themselves , now or when the tiger roared having money handed to them and their kids,sick of the whole lot!!!![/QUOTE]

Ok not sure have you really went through the process properly, but my brother and I have both gotten grants with a parent on what I would call decent income.

Even currently with all the cuts in the last few years the Income limit on a family with less than 4 kids is still over €45,000 euro, and at that income limit you receive tuition fees, contribution fees, and 25% maintenance grant.

Even people with income of €54,000 will have tuition fees paid and student contribtion covered to 50%.

Also you claim to have never gotten anything from the government but did you cover the Tuition fees yourself ? If not then they covered them for you so you did get something.

Outkast_IRE

Idbatterim wrote: »

This is exactly what I meant, when I suggested give them a loan, and let everyone be treated the same, not this situation of letting hard working parents, probably living on a pittance after expenses, being over the "threshold" while the other unfortunate or waster parents, who conttribute nothing, get everything at the expense of the hardworking taxpayer, who is "entitled" to virtually nothing in return!

The threshold for nothing in terms of grant or contribution is income of around €55000, this is far from nothing.

Idbatterim

is the 55k before tax?