Budget 2018 - Mod note in post #1

boardsuser1

Idbatterim wrote: »

My opinion is there is no justification for welfare increases. We live in a country where you lose over half your income on a low amount. Scandals like that. Like the appalling infrastructure. Like the insane debt. Housing, all endlessly morevsesecing of the Money. Maybe even certain welfare like carers are worthy of increases. But these blanket rises, throw it out like confetti vote buyers are a disgrace!!!

In another generation welfare will probably be €300 a week basic if the annual increases carry on.

Tony EH

Idbatterim wrote: »

My opinion is there is no justification for welfare increases. We live in a country where you lose over half your income on a low amount. Scandals like that. Like the appalling infrastructure. Like the insane debt. Housing, all endlessly morevsesecing of the Money. Maybe even certain welfare like carers are worthy of increases. But these blanket rises, throw it out like confetti vote buyers are a disgrace!!!

I think what's clear is that Fine Gael are terrified of a looming general election. They're scared of Fianna Fail pulling the plug and ending their party, so they're chucking fivers at a group that wouldn't usually vote for them.

Even though I've argued against the dole naysayers on here, even I don't think that they should have increased the payment by 5 Euro, if the truth be known. But I know the reasons why they did it. However, I think what they should have done was leave the payment as it is and put unemployment benefit back up to 12 months, where it was before 2012. Reducing benefit to 9 months was a brutal stroke, especially when there are people rotting away on unemployment assistance for years.

I agree with you in that tax bands seriously need to be looked at, with a better incremental system studied, and that's been needed for a long time now. But, there was never a chance that Fine Gael were going to do that in this budget.

Tony EH

Cork Truck Driver wrote: »

In another generation welfare will probably be €300 a week basic if the annual increases carry on.

If Pascal Donahue is right, it's only gone up twice in 10 years, so relax.

MayoSalmon

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

That's true.

But I have seen a lot of people say how come the social welfare got more than me, instead of how come they didn't invest in public services instead of giving a 5er to the social welfare.

Ah i dunno. It's a bit of a mess.

Imagine if taxation was a voluntary system....would love to see how much all these "keep your fiver" people are willing to fork over instead of it being taken from them.

My bets would be far less than 40% percent.

jimmycrackcorm

keane2097 wrote:

In reality, the vast majority of Irish people I see or hear commentating are saying there's no point giving everyone a fiver, we should just spend the money on services.

It depends on who you are talking to. People on welfare day they haven't seen the recovery. People working are saying they aren't getting enough services for their taxes. Public servants are complaining that any extra money that would go into services isn't being used to restore their pay.

Tony EH wrote:

I think what's clear is that Fine Gael are terrified of a looming general election. They're scared of Fianna Fail pulling the plug and ending their party, so they're chucking fivers at a group that wouldn't usually vote for them.

FG aren't terrified at all. They're all too well aware that their core vote will stay because the economy has been improving since they took over from FF.

If any party is terrified then it is SF based on their bleating about the budget. They're terrified that lack of austerity will stall their growth. They've promised their members that they can achieve their aims through politics alone.

Mr.Micro

Cork Truck Driver wrote: »

I’d say Varadkar’s smooth talking is what will prevent the FG party from sinking.

If Enda was still on the bridge, the ship would have sunk long ago and Leo as well as Simon knew that.

Are you going to go SF next?

If Gerry retires more people will probably vote for them admittedly.

That is probably the sum of Varadkar, talk. What's s the difference between FF and FG at the minute.....a G.

Idbatterim

Tony EH wrote: »

I think what's clear is that Fine Gael are terrified of a looming general election. They're scared of Fianna Fail pulling the plug and ending their party, so they're chucking fivers at a group that wouldn't usually vote for them.

Even though I've argued against the dole naysayers on here, even I don't think that they should have increased the payment by 5 Euro, if the truth be known. But I know the reasons why they did it. However, I think what they should have done was leave the payment as it is and put unemployment benefit back up to 12 months, where it was before 2012. Reducing benefit to 9 months was a brutal stroke, especially when there are people rotting away on unemployment assistance for years.

I agree with you in that tax bands seriously need to be looked at, with a better incremental system studied, and that's been needed for a long time now. But, there was never a chance that Fine Gael were going to do that in this budget.

Ending their party? Come on! I reckon fg without this pathetic budget would still win more seats than ff. what they are worried about is not being the senior party in government. Ff won't go in with sf... we are left with tweedle dee and dum. Even if Renua win a few seats, it would do nothing game changing. The left have had wind taken out of their sales. Ff and fg won't go in with sf. Labour are done. Is there a point or would the people even accept this form of sham governed again?

See it's a bit of a balancing act in my opinion. I wouldn't have increasesd any welfare other than pensioners and carers etc. Pensioners is a scandal, but I get politically they want to buy them off. I wouldn't have dropped prescription charge, increases fuel allowance or anything. Use the rest for areas other than welfare, far more needed and far more deserving....

Idbatterim

Tony EH wrote: »

If Pascal Donahue is right, it's only gone up twice in 10 years, so relax.

Yeah when tje country was stone broke. Boo boo. Capital spending was decimated to facilitate the still world class payments. Tens of billioms borrowed to maintain it. I don't want to hear anyone on welfare and their opinions. My dad is German and lives here. He is a pensioner recently. Can't get over the outrageous welfare and other perks he gets. Thats probably German honesty versus the Irish though ...e70 a week Is what he gets from German pension, based on what u pay in... anyone who has the gall to complain about welfare here is ignorant to f**k over it. If they knew what they'd be getting in other non bust, world class economic powerhouses , Germany for example ...

Tony EH

Idbatterim wrote: »

...e70 a week Is what he gets from German pension, based on what u pay in... anyone who has the gall to complain about welfare here is ignorant to f**k over it. If they knew what they'd be getting in other non bust, world class economic powerhouses , Germany for example ...

Again, I have to repeat this. Germany and Ireland are not comparable at all in employment/unemployment. Germany is a country that generates consistent labour for its workforce, even after two devastating world wars, they still managed to come back. Ireland continually fuck up our employment systems to the point that we routinely go through deep troughs of joblessness, with high unemployment figures and thousands forced to leave our shores.

It's also FAR cheaper to live in Germany, easier to get work and companies do more for the employees than they do over here. I know a chap who emigrated to Germany without a word of German and little in the way of experience. He's now working in a large company and is comfortably speaking German...all because his job helped facilitate that. Fat chance something like that happening here.

On this island, we absolutely need a robust welfare system, because we simply cannot manage our labour situations. Without it, the country would be in chaos.

Germany can do with a different welfare system, because their employment systems are handled differently.

crossmolinalad

Tony EH wrote: »

If Pascal Donahue is right, it's only gone up twice in 10 years, so relax.

2008 it was 196 took away 10 euro`s so now it is 2018 they got ONE euro MORE than they had in 2008
What did the rest got in those 10 years??? , think a lot more
And a lot of needed things like groceries fuel electrics is gone up incredible in those 10 years
So let them be happy with their one Euro payrise

boardsuser1

crossmolinalad wrote: »

2008 it was 196 took away 10 euro`s so now it is 2018 they got ONE euro MORE than they had in 2008
What did the rest got in those 10 years??? , think a lot more
And a lot of needed things like groceries fuel electrics is gone up incredible in those 10 years
So let them be happy with their one Euro payrise

It was as high as €204 before they reduced it.

I was on it myself at the time.

From what i remember of it back then, it went from 185 to 196 to 204 and then back down.

Mr.Micro

Idbatterim wrote: »

Yeah when tje country was stone broke. Boo boo. Capital spending was decimated to facilitate the still world class payments. Tens of billioms borrowed to maintain it. I don't want to hear anyone on welfare and their opinions. My dad is German and lives here. He is a pensioner recently. Can't get over the outrageous welfare and other perks he gets. Thats probably German honesty versus the Irish though ...e70 a week Is what he gets from German pension, based on what u pay in... anyone who has the gall to complain about welfare here is ignorant to f**k over it. If they knew what they'd be getting in other non bust, world class economic powerhouses , Germany for example ...

FF knew it could rely on the pensioners votes. Hence several elections in the past bought, at a great cost to the country. Once given, it is very difficult to take back. What does it really matter, €60 plus billions to bail out Anglo, plus billions more for the other crook banks. Apple do not have to pay €14.5 billion tax. Don't ever try and apply logic to the Irish economy or fiscal management.

dublinman1990

For those who are saying that small amounts of money are being given to people pockets from this year's budget. The government are continuously attempting to spend that money on new services like on improving current infrastructure like roads & building new infrastructure like MN & BusConnects.

MN is expected to go ahead for construction in 2021. It is being used as one measure to clamp down on Climate Change.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/metro-north-to-open-by-2027-in-climate-friendly-overhaul-36219519.html

Other new infrastructure measures include:

€4.2 Billion for improving bottlenecks in the road network.
€750 million for funding of BusConnects projects in Dublin.
€35 million for pilot projects like biofuel and electric buses.
€110 for new walking & cycling facilities around the country.

People here need to be aware that their money is being spent if it is being used on improving the country's infrastructure. There could be another time that an increase in their wage packets will be available. But people probably just need to be more patient to see it come to them to make a difference in their circumstances. I'd say that because there is a serious lack of patience among a lot of Irish people about having a serious amount of money going back into their pockets to spend on themselves or their families after an announcement from the budget comes into existence.

People here need to recognise the supposed windfalls that you are getting into back into your pocket will take time to make a lasting difference to you. If your own money is being spent on improving services here but by no means that public services should be regularly referred to as black holes. That puts the country into an us vs them argument many times over and it will never stop because some Irish people can continuously get very bitter about how their money is being spent to improve their own lives. What is with the bitterness surrounding money in this country. Does it mean that much to you that money gives you a happy life while living here? People here sometimes just need to learn their limits rather than spout off rubbish that damages other people's perception of a decent hard working Irish society.

blackwhite

dublinman1990 wrote: »

For those who are saying that small amounts of money are being given to people pockets from this year's budget. The government are continuously attempting to spend that money on new services like on improving current infrastructure like roads & building new infrastructure like MN & BusConnects.

MN is expected to go ahead for construction in 2021. It is being used as one measure to clamp down on Climate Change.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/metro-north-to-open-by-2027-in-climate-friendly-overhaul-36219519.html

Other new infrastructure measures include:

€4.2 Billion for improving bottlenecks in the road network.
€750 million for funding of BusConnects projects in Dublin.
€35 million for pilot projects like biofuel and electric buses.
€110 for new walking & cycling facilities around the country.

People here need to be aware that their money is being spent if it is being used on improving the country's infrastructure. There could be another time that an increase in their wage packets will be available. But people probably just need to be more patient to see it come to them to make a difference in their circumstances. I'd say that because there is a serious lack of patience among a lot of Irish people about having a serious amount of money going back into their pockets to spend on themselves or their families.

Listening to the radio this morning, there was a point made that schemes from the past that are glorified now (such as rural electrification, replacing the tenements with social housing) were all long-term projects that took over 20 years to complete.
Imagine any politician now announcing a major scheme that would take 20 years to complete - they'd be eviscerated for it.
Lack of patience is very true alright!

James Brown

listermint wrote: »

100% agree,

Im not sure what think tank they get their advice from but the idea that the majority of people cant see the bigger picture his laughable.

I think the vast majority of people are more intelligent than whats in the Dail tbh.

Completely agree. I think they want the conversation about the fiver. Most budgets we hear about things being tough and taking responsibility, (like we don't) then we see PR payments.
Everybody I know would prefer value for money. You get what you pay for, we seem to only get money moved around and little in the way of results.
A real conscious effort to create more affordable/social housing, a tear down of the HSE etc. would be a vote winner if some party took their job for more than a four year grab. It's not the public thinking short term, it's politicians looking to throw bones and quick fixes.

NIMAN

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Completely agree. I think they want the conversation about the fiver. Most budgets we hear about things being tough and taking responsibility, (like we don't) then we see PR payments.
Everybody I know would prefer value for money. You get what you pay for, we seem to only get money moved around and little in the way of results.
A real conscious effort to create more affordable/social housing, a tear down of the HSE etc. would be a vote winner if some party took their job for more than a four year grab. It's not the public thinking short term, it's politicians looking to throw bones and quick fixes.

sorry, but got to disagree. I think most haven't a baldies.

I think a lot of people don't understand what it takes to run a country and the finances that are involved. Most are very active on social media.

Most seem to want us to to have got €100 extra per month instead of €20, they expect every homeless person housed, they expect every single person on a trolley sorted, they expect every person on a waiting list to have their operation this year, they expect free water, free GP visits, no property tax, free bin collections etc...I do think there is a section of people out there who thinks all this is possible.

Thats why they are then on radio saying "they can shove their fiver ...... " because they wanted more. But politicians offer them this 'free' money in the hope of buying their favour, because yes the public and those who vote are generally that fickle. I do believe that is POD had told us all there was no fivers for anyone and that every penny was going to the homeless and the HSE, he wouldn't be in office next election.

keane2097

NIMAN wrote: »

Most seem to want us to to have got €100 extra per month instead of €20, they expect every homeless person housed, they expect every single person on a trolley sorted, they expect every person on a waiting list to have their operation this year, they expect free water, free GP visits, no property tax, free bin collections etc...

What a load of auld rubbish.

I mean, honestly, I'd be fairly surprised if you could find five people saying the above but 'most people'? Give me a break.

In all fairness, if you are that bad at gauging the public mood it's no wonder you think everyone else is an idiot.

Idbatterim

Idbatterim wrote: »

.......Pensioners is a scandal..................

What's scandalous about the contributory pension?

eagle eye

Cork Truck Driver wrote:

I’d say Varadkar’s smooth talking is what will prevent the FG party from sinking.

Not a chance. I'd liken him, appeal wise, to Mitt Romney. He can talk the talk for sure but him being gay, like Romney being mormon, is a huge detractor. You just have to look at the results of the gay marriage referendum to see how many people are anti-gay.

When the election comes around you will hear the other parties talk about the 'family man' to get around mentioning he is gay but reminding people that he is.

VinLieger

Augeo wrote: »

What's scandalous about the contributory pension?

Its incredibly broken currently and entirely unsustainable in the long term, but no government is willing to try tackle it as the grey vote will take to the streets on their walkers

VinLieger

VinLieger wrote: »

Its incredibly broken currently and entirely unsustainable in the long term, but no government is willing to try tackle it as the grey vote will take to the streets on their walkers

What should be done so?
Means test the contributory pension ? Have workers pay PRSI and than get no state pension?
But of course plenty will still get the non contributory pension which is essentially the dole for folks retiring from not working.

VinLieger

Augeo wrote: »

What should be done so?
Means test the contributory pension ? Have workers pay PRSI and than get no state pension?
But of course plenty will still get the non contributory pension which is essentially the dole for folks retiring from not working.

I'm not sure what the solution is, all i know is continuing to do nothing isn't going to change something that all experts acknowledge is broken, unsustainable and doomed to fail.

Whatever about means testing the contributory state pension everyone counting on it as their sole source of income once retired needs to be told straight up that it is not an investment where the money you contribute is being put away for you when you retire as many ignorantly assume. The money people pay in to it today is paid out tomorrow to someone retired and collecting their allowance

Increasing PRSI from 4% to 6/7% would go a long way to solving the problem when we do have 5 pensioners for 2 folks of working age.

Coupled with a raising the retirement age from 68 to 69 or 70, which is inevitable.

You are now required to have 520 full-rate social insurance contributions, up from just 260 previously. The actual pension paid is then determined by the annual average number of contributions since you first joined the system. An average of 48 a year will give you the maximum weekly pension payment. To hit that average of 48 you'd need to be working full time from age 22 to 66, they can make that average requirement higher again which will reduce the total bill.

There are plenty options, increase tax a bit, lower the amount of people getting full whack, give them full whack only when they are 70 etc etc etc. Cutting the link from PRSI payments to getting a contributory pension won't happen though, IMO.

Like all timebombs in the media it's not that bad a problem.

James Brown

keane2097 wrote: »

What a load of auld rubbish.

I mean, honestly, I'd be fairly surprised if you could find five people saying the above but 'most people'? Give me a break.

In all fairness, if you are that bad at gauging the public mood it's no wonder you think everyone else is an idiot.

Agreed. Everyone I talk to anyway.
Any research published shows the housing and hospital wait times/trolleys as a very big issue. We are to believe that the 6% unemployed and those of pensionable age are pulling for an extra fiver and wanting more. I would suggest even in that demographic the hospital wait times and housing would be a major issue and despite the 'people want something for nothing' rhetoric, tackling housing and health are the big issues. Having the debate on the fiver distracts from the fact this budget is essentially using tax payer money to finance and bank roll private builds and passing it off as the government supplying housing. Technically yes I suppose, if you can afford it, but the tax payer will be expected to make up the difference. We can't continue like this. It's bad management.

djPSB

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Agreed. Everyone I talk to anyway.
Any research published shows the housing and hospital wait times/trolleys as a very big issue. We are to believe that the 6% unemployed and those of pensionable age are pulling for an extra fiver and wanting more. I would suggest even in that demographic the hospital wait times and housing would be a major issue and despite the 'people want something for nothing' rhetoric, tackling housing and health are the big issues. Having the debate on the fiver distracts from the fact this budget is essentially using tax payer money to finance and bank roll private builds and passing it off as the government supplying housing. Technically yes I suppose, if you can afford it, but the tax payer will be expected to make up the difference. We can't continue like this. It's bad management.

It's not really about pumping more money into the health service. It's about being efficient with the resources we have already invested.

There are people lieing in hospital beds every day that don't need to be there. There are people being referred to A&E that don't need to be there.

So we need to through the process from referral to discharge to the community care and fix each step:

- GPs need to cop on and stop referring every dog and devil to A&E. Put some incentive in place to make them take more responsibility.
- Processes within A&E need to be looked at to ensure patients are spending the least amount of time there. Anything beyond an average time of 2/3 hours stay is not acceptable.
- Inpatient wards need lower stay lengths for acute care. Doctors need to take on responsibility here. Average patient stay times should be benchmarked nationally. If there's a shortage of doctors to conduct discharges, hire more. If there's a shortage of doctors to hire, train more.
- More patients who are not acutely unwell need to be cared for in the community where possible. Nursing homes need to be utilised more.

Where hospitals are not performing, local management need to answer questions as to why and need to be replaced if showing no signs of progress.

pilly

djPSB wrote: »

It's not really about pumping more money into the health service. It's about being efficient with the resources we have already invested.

There are people lieing in hospital beds every day that don't need to be there. There are people being referred to A&E that don't need to be there.

So we need to through the process from referral to discharge to the community care and fix each step:

- GPs need to cop on and stop referring every dog and devil to A&E. Put some incentive in place to make them take more responsibility.
- Processes within A&E need to be looked at to ensure patients are spending the least amount of time there. Anything beyond an average time of 2/3 hours stay is not acceptable.
- Inpatient wards need lower stay lengths for acute care. Doctors need to take on responsibility here. Average patient stay times should be benchmarked nationally. If there's a shortage of doctors to conduct discharges, hire more. If there's a shortage of doctors to hire, train more.
- More patients who are not acutely unwell need to be cared for in the community where possible. Nursing homes need to be utilised more.

Where hospitals are not performing, local management need to answer questions as to why and need to be replaced if showing no signs of progress.

Very good suggestions, I would add to that that there should be walk-in clinics for minor injuries, these are the cause of major delays in A&E but where else do people go on a Sunday morning with a injury when they don't know if it's a sprain, break or fracture etc?

VinLieger

Augeo wrote: »

Coupled with a raising the retirement age from 68 to 69 or 70, which is inevitable.

This is the obvious solution, people are living longer in some specific cases there are people who will be actually retired for longer than they were working.

However ask a politician if they would ever suggest increasing the retirement age, they will laugh in your face, its a death sentence in politics as the grey vote will be on them before they've finished speaking.

VinLieger

VinLieger wrote: »

............

However ask a politician if they would ever suggest increasing the retirement age, they will laugh in your face, its a death sentence in politics as the grey vote will be on them before they've finished speaking.

Well, it's gone from 66 to 68 for me and I've no doubt it'll go to 69/70 before I get to my late 60s if I'm still about.

keane2097

VinLieger wrote: »

This is the obvious solution, people are living longer in some specific cases there are people who will be actually retired for longer than they were working.

However ask a politician if they would ever suggest increasing the retirement age, they will laugh in your face, its a death sentence in politics as the grey vote will be on them before they've finished speaking.

They raised the retirement age already from 65 to 68 a few years ago

Not sure why the grey vote would be up in arms since this sort of measure usually (and rightly) only applies from a long way out, i.e. it would only apply to people currently say 50 or younger.

Anita Blow

djPSB wrote: »

It's not really about pumping more money into the health service. It's about being efficient with the resources we have already invested.

There are people lieing in hospital beds every day that don't need to be there. There are people being referred to A&E that don't need to be there.

So we need to through the process from referral to discharge to the community care and fix each step:

- GPs need to cop on and stop referring every dog and devil to A&E. Put some incentive in place to make them take more responsibility.
- Processes within A&E need to be looked at to ensure patients are spending the least amount of time there. Anything beyond an average time of 2/3 hours stay is not acceptable.
- Inpatient wards need lower stay lengths for acute care. Doctors need to take on responsibility here. Average patient stay times should be benchmarked nationally. If there's a shortage of doctors to conduct discharges, hire more. If there's a shortage of doctors to hire, train more.
- More patients who are not acutely unwell need to be cared for in the community where possible. Nursing homes need to be utilised more.

Where hospitals are not performing, local management need to answer questions as to why and need to be replaced if showing no signs of progress.

The problems with the health service go far beyond these issues. We have neither the doctors nor the beds and the government seems to be unwilling to invest in either. Compounding that is woefully inappropriate allocation of resources so while the health budget as a whole is relatively large, the budget for frontline services is far below what is required.
Unfortunately I think the system is beyond repair because the only solution (let go admin staff and re-allocate the resources to frontline services) will absolutely never happen because it's politically unpalatable.

James Brown

djPSB wrote: »

It's not really about pumping more money into the health service. It's about being efficient with the resources we have already invested.

There are people lieing in hospital beds every day that don't need to be there. There are people being referred to A&E that don't need to be there.

So we need to through the process from referral to discharge to the community care and fix each step:

- GPs need to cop on and stop referring every dog and devil to A&E. Put some incentive in place to make them take more responsibility.
- Processes within A&E need to be looked at to ensure patients are spending the least amount of time there. Anything beyond an average time of 2/3 hours stay is not acceptable.
- Inpatient wards need lower stay lengths for acute care. Doctors need to take on responsibility here. Average patient stay times should be benchmarked nationally. If there's a shortage of doctors to conduct discharges, hire more. If there's a shortage of doctors to hire, train more.
- More patients who are not acutely unwell need to be cared for in the community where possible. Nursing homes need to be utilised more.

Where hospitals are not performing, local management need to answer questions as to why and need to be replaced if showing no signs of progress.

Agreed. That's what I meant by 'tear down' in an earlier posting. It's been acknowledged by Fine Gael and other parties that the problem can't be fixed with throwing money yet that's the band-aid we've got from this budget.
This budget is nothing new and solves nothing, nor looks to begin to.

Idbatterim

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Agreed. That's what I meant by 'tear down' in an earlier posting. It's been acknowledged by Fine Gael and other parties that the problem can't be fixed with throwing money yet that's the band-aid we've got from this budget.
This budget is nothing new and solves nothing, nor looks to begin to.

it attempts to solve their only concern ie re-election

lawred2

Augeo wrote: »

Increasing PRSI from 4% to 6/7% would go a long way to solving the problem when we do have 5 pensioners for 2 folks of working age.

Coupled with a raising the retirement age from 68 to 69 or 70, which is inevitable.

You are now required to have 520 full-rate social insurance contributions, up from just 260 previously. The actual pension paid is then determined by the annual average number of contributions since you first joined the system. An average of 48 a year will give you the maximum weekly pension payment. To hit that average of 48 you'd need to be working full time from age 22 to 66, they can make that average requirement higher again which will reduce the total bill.

There are plenty options, increase tax a bit, lower the amount of people getting full whack, give them full whack only when they are 70 etc etc etc. Cutting the link from PRSI payments to getting a contributory pension won't happen though, IMO.

Like all timebombs in the media it's not that bad a problem.

All that for an extra 30 or so quid a week. The contributory pension is hardly a problem. The issue is the level of the non contributory pension.

noodler

Augeo wrote: »

What should be done so?
Means test the contributory pension ? Have workers pay PRSI and than get no state pension?
But of course plenty will still get the non contributory pension which is essentially the dole for folks retiring from not working.

Throwing 150m at the rates every year despite it fact it's unsustainable as it is isn't the solution anyway.

The solution, at a minimum, is too halt increases and look at different ways to increase contributions and reduce payments to those out of the 600,000 State Pension recipients who don't actually need an additional fiver a week.


And it's a massive problem.

It costs an additional 30m a year to stand still as 20,000+ additional people become eligible.

Another 400m has been added to this bill with the last three rate increases.

The ratio of people working Vs the number over 65 will terminate drastically over the next 20 years.

noodler

noodler wrote: »

Throwing 150m at the rates every year despite it fact it's unsustainable as it is isn't the solution anyway.

The solution, at a minimum, is too halt increases and look at different ways to increase contributions and reduce payments to those out of the 600,000 State Pension recipients who don't actually need an additional fiver a week.


And it's a massive problem.

It costs an additional 30m a year to stand still as 20,000+ additional people become eligible.

Another 400m has been added to this bill with the last three rate increases.

The ratio of people working Vs the number over 65 will terminate drastically over the next 20 years.

You seem to be suggesting folk who are don't need it being treated differently ..... would you propose similar for maternity leave payments & children's allowance?

Increasing contribution is conceptually simple, increase PRSI... job done

Without a contributory pension many folk will get sfa from all the PRSI contribution they paid over the years.

Personally I'm all for a situation where you opt out and don't pay in .... if you're going to get nothing out.

Another option.... don't take your pension but instead get a tax credit that would enable you to pay zero tax on your private pension up to 30/40k per annum.

A humongous tax credit

I'd go for that happily enough.

noodler

Augeo wrote: »

You seem to be suggesting folk who are don't need it being treated differently ..... would you propose similar for maternity leave payments & children's allowance?

Increasing contribution is conceptually simple, increase PRSI... job done

Without a contributory pension many folk will get sfa from all the PRSI contribution they paid over the years.

Personally I'm all for a situation where you opt out and don't pay in .... if you're going to get nothing out.

Im saying some of the 600,000 need an additional fiver a week but a huge number of them don't.

Giving fivers to people on massive Defined Benefit, Bank, CIE, Semi State pensions who absolutely don't need it is an incredible waste when we have huge problems in health, housing and affordable childcare.

And... Of COURSE I'd suggest people on child benefit over a certain income shouldn't get it. The States limited resources should be targeted where needed most, blanket increases go against this.

Increasing PRSI is simple, is it? I think you need to spend a few minutes on Excel. At the moment the old age dependency ratio is at about 4:1, it'll be 3:1 in about 12 years and 2:1 by 2050.

That's some increase I'm PRSI you are advocating.

No,sadly whats needed is more modest and targeted increases alongside an auto enrolment pension scheme to ensure the State Pension, in its weaker form, isn't all people have to rely upon in old age in the future.

Galwayguy35

A doctor was on the radio this week and he said around 15 billlion is the amount the HSE gets this year.

We should have a world class health service for that kind of money.

Idbatterim

noodler wrote: »

Im saying some of the 600,000 need an additional fiver a week but a huge number of them don't.

Giving fivers to people on massive Defined Benefit, Bank, CIE, Semi State pensions who absolutely don't need it is an incredible waste when we have huge problems in health, housing and affordable childcare.

And... Of COURSE I'd suggest people on child benefit over a certain income shouldn't get it. The States limited resources should be targeted where needed most, blanket increases go against this.

Increasing PRSI is simple, is it? I think you need to spend a few minutes on Excel. At the moment the old age dependency ratio is at about 4:1, it'll be 3:1 in about 12 years and 2:1 by 2050.

That's some increase I'm PRSI you are advocating.

No,sadly whats needed is more modest and targeted increases alongside an auto enrolment pension scheme to ensure the State Pension, in its weaker form, isn't all people have to rely upon in old age in the future.

I totally agree about the unsustainably etc. But I highly disagree with means testing. Further discrimination against those that have been bled dry ...

Augeo

Augeo wrote: »

Increasing PRSI from 4% to 6/7% would go a long way to solving the problem when we do have 5 pensioners for 2 folks of working age.

Coupled with a raising the retirement age from 68 to 69 or 70, which is inevitable.
..................
............

Like all timebombs in the media it's not that bad a problem.

noodler wrote: »

Im saying some of the 600,000 need an additional fiver a week but a huge number of them don't.

...................

Increasing PRSI is simple, is it? I think you need to spend a few minutes on Excel. At the moment the old age dependency ratio is at about 4:1, it'll be 3:1 in about 12 years and 2:1 by 2050.

That's some increase I'm PRSI you are advocating.

No,sadly whats needed is more modest and targeted increases alongside an auto enrolment pension scheme to ensure the State Pension, in its weaker form, isn't all people have to rely upon in old age in the future.

I've quantified what increase I'm "advocating", Ill clarify that suggesting what might happen isn't actually advocating.

I'd sooner what I suggested over your idea of not giving folks the same level of contributory pension as others dependent on need.

It's a CONTRIBUTORY pension, you get it independent of your need as you've paid money to QUALIFY for it. I'm not advocating any looney left suggestions.

Again as someone else pointed out, the non contributory pension is much more of a money sucker than the contributory pension. And that's just dole for folks retired from not working.

However weak the contributory pension gets it will always be higher than the non contributory pension, unless the looney left run amok in the future.

Donal55

Augeo wrote: »

I've quantified what increase I'm "advocating", Ill clarify that suggesting what might happen isn't actually advocating.

I'd sooner what I suggested over your idea of not giving folks the same level of contributory pension as others dependent on need.

It's a CONTRIBUTORY pension, you get it independent of your need as you've paid money to QUALIFY for it. I'm not advocating any looney left suggestions.

Again as someone else pointed out, the non contributory pension is much more of a money sucker than the contributory pension. And that's just dole for folks retired from not working.

However weak the contributory pension gets it will always be higher than the non contributory pension, unless the looney left run amok in the future.

In fairness you don't need the loony left to run amok, FG and FF have done quite enough damage between themselves since the foundation of the state.
The current govt composition just exemplifies it.

noodler

Augeo wrote: »

I've quantified what increase I'm "advocating", Ill clarify that suggesting what might happen isn't actually advocating.

I'd sooner what I suggested over your idea of not giving folks the same level of contributory pension as others dependent on need.

It's a CONTRIBUTORY pension, you get it independent of your need as you've paid money to QUALIFY for it. I'm not advocating any looney left suggestions.

Again as someone else pointed out, the non contributory pension is much more of a money sucker than the contributory pension. And that's just dole for folks retired from not working.

However weak the contributory pension gets it will always be higher than the non contributory pension, unless the looney left run amok in the future.

I'm still not sure you quite understand the time bomb coming down the road.

I reckon it will come to the stage, when we have two workers supporting two pensioners, that limited resources will have to be targeted at where there is most need.


On the child benefit point again, do you think taxpayers subsidising the cost of children for those on 100,000+ salaries is a good use of scarce resources?

Perhaps it comes down to a perspective on redistribution, but I would prefer, as a middle income earner, to see my taxes go where they are most needed.

Donal55

noodler wrote: »

I'm still not sure you quite understand the time bomb coming down the road.

I reckon it will come to the stage, when we have two workers supporting two pensioners, that limited resources will have to be targeted at where there is most need.


On the child benefit point again, do you think taxpayers subsidising the cost of children for those on 100,000+ salaries is a good use of scarce resources?

Perhaps it comes down to a perspective on redistribution, but I would prefer, as a middle income earner, to see my taxes go where they are most needed.

I agree with you 100%. However there are those who wpuld argue that people who earn €100k also pay taxes on that €100k and so in fairness should get something back in return.

I work with a woman who is married to a barrister. €250k gross plus is their annual income. Her 3 kids also qualify for the doctors only medical card as they are all under 6.

The whole system is unsustainable.

noodler

noodler wrote: »

I'm still not sure you quite understand the time bomb coming down the road.

I reckon it will come to the stage, when we have two workers supporting two pensioners, that limited resources will have to be targeted at where there is most need.


On the child benefit point again, do you think taxpayers subsidising the cost of children for those on 100,000+ salaries is a good use of scarce resources?

Perhaps it comes down to a perspective on redistribution, but I would prefer, as a middle income earner, to see my taxes go where they are most needed.

Can you not read? Seriously, I've detailed that I am aware in years to come we could have 2 pensioners for every 5 people of working age.

Those on 100k+ salaries are obviously paying a fair wack of tax themselves. They are paying in significantly more than they get out so I'm fully in favour of them getting children's allowance & I'm fully in favour of them getting a full contributory pension in years to come.

This crap about where your taxes is going is a tad horsesh1tty, someone on 100k could be paying 30k in tax... they're quite entitled to whatever they currently get in allowances etc.
You can't kill the golden goose....

lawred2

Donal55 wrote: »

I agree with you 100%. However there are those who wpuld argue that people who earn €100k also pay taxes on that €100k and so in fairness should get something back in return.

I work with a woman who is married to a barrister. €250k gross plus is their annual income. Her 3 kids also qualify for the doctors only medical card as they are all under 6.

The whole system is unsustainable.

the cost of providing under 6 care to this family works out at maybe a few hundred quid a year - but they'll fund the system to the tune of close to six figures.

that's a perfectly sustainable situation.

what isn't is paying out far more than is ever collected from cradle to the grave for so many...

but the twisted logic plays it out that it's the net contributors being in receipt of very modest returns for their taxation that's unsustainable...

noodler

Augeo wrote: »

Can you not read? Seriously, I've detailed that I am aware in years to come we could have 5 pensioners for every 2 people of working age.

Those on 100k+ salaries are obviously paying a fair wack of tax themselves. They are paying in significantly more than they get out so I'm fully in favour of them getting children's allowance & I'm fully in favour of them getting a full contributory pension in years to come.

This crap about where your taxes is going is a tad horsesh1tty, someone on 100k could be paying 30k in tax... they're quite entitled to whatever they currently get in allowances etc.
You can't kill the golden goose....

Well your solutions, increase PRSI, keep giving out universal benefits to those who don't need them etc doesn't really tally with your understanding of a 2:1 dependency ratio.

Its a bit muddled. Tinkering around the edges with PRSI whilst still redirecting a much scarcer tax Base towards people who don't need it.

Seriously though, do a back of the envelope calculation on how much PRSI contributions alone would have to increase to make the system sustainable over the next 25 years. I'd say it'd be an eye opener for you and encourage you to cast the net a bit wider for solutions.

noodler

noodler wrote: »

Well your solutions, increase PRSI, keep giving out universal benefits to those who don't need them etc doesn't really tally with your understanding of a 2:1 dependency ratio.

Its a bit muddled. Tinkering around the edges with PRSI whilst still redirecting a much scarcer tax Base towards people who don't need it.

Seriously though, do a back of the envelope calculation on how much PRSI contributions alone would have to increase to make the system sustainable over the next 25 years. I'd say it'd be an eye opener for you and encourage you to cast the net a bit wider for solutions.

I suggested almost doubling PRSI, increasing qualification requirements for the full contribution pension & raising retirement age.

Your suggestion is don't give it to those who don't need it, unless you start quantifying what that means it's you who needs to go scribbling on envelopes.

Donal55

lawred2 wrote: »

the cost of providing under 6 care to this family works out at maybe a few hundred quid a year - but they'll fund the system to the tune of close to six figures.

that's a perfectly sustainable situation.

what isn't is paying out far more than is ever collected from cradle to the grave for so many...

but the twisted logic plays it out that it's the net contributors being in receipt of very modest returns for their taxation that's unsustainable...

I said the whole system is unsustainable.

noodler

lawred2 wrote: »

the cost of providing under 6 care to this family works out at maybe a few hundred quid a year - but they'll fund the system to the tune of close to six figures.

that's a perfectly sustainable situation.

what isn't is paying out far more than is ever collected from cradle to the grave for so many...

but the twisted logic plays it out that it's the net contributors being in receipt of very modest returns for their taxation that's unsustainable...

Its not twisted at all though.

The SIF is supposed to be self financing from PRSI receipts and is right now and, bar a couple of years during the recession when taxation had to plug the hole, generally is.

But when the problem becomes more structural as it will, the pension will certainly not be increasing by a fiver a year.

Whilst not advocating a cut, the unsustainablity of the problem is being exacerbated by the increases in recent years which have come after years where pension rates were ring fenced during the worst economic downturn the country has ever faced.

Whatever portion of the 400m it has cost to increase the SP by 13 euro over the last few years that goes to people on high incomes is completely wasted resources in my opinion.

I also think it is a little shortsighted of some to defend it on the merit basis when retirement for most people in the workforce at the moment won't be anywhere near as cushy.

lawred2

noodler wrote: »

Augeo wrote: »

Can you not read? Seriously, I've detailed that I am aware in years to come we could have 5 pensioners for every 2 people of working age.

Those on 100k+ salaries are obviously paying a fair wack of tax themselves. They are paying in significantly more than they get out so I'm fully in favour of them getting children's allowance & I'm fully in favour of them getting a full contributory pension in years to come.

This crap about where your taxes is going is a tad horsesh1tty, someone on 100k could be paying 30k in tax... they're quite entitled to whatever they currently get in allowances etc.
You can't kill the golden goose....

Well your solutions, increase PRSI, keep giving out universal benefits to those who don't need them etc doesn't really tally with your understanding of a 2:1 dependency ratio.

Its a bit muddled. Tinkering around the edges with PRSI whilst still redirecting a much scarcer tax Base towards people who don't need it.

Seriously though, do a back of the envelope calculation on how much PRSI contributions alone would have to increase to make the system sustainable over the next 25 years. I'd say it'd be an eye opener for you and encourage you to cast the net a bit wider for solutions.

Tax all income including welfare.

No tax credits for anyone. Everyone pays something. No vote buying moves where people are 'taken out of the tax net'..

What could be wrong with a system where every single person pays in something according to their means? The USC was a step in the right direction but even that has been hollowed out after only a few years.

A little bit extra from everyone would fund the exchequer in the future much better than the meagre savings to be had from means testing benefits for a small subset of the population. (not to say anything of the administrative cost)