The 350 a week was a catastrophic and costly mistake

KyussB

Well, even though he's gone, still will reply to counter the misrepresentations of what I said.

Xertz wrote: »

Seems we are getting as bad as twitter



Don’t put words in my mouth.

I did not say that I woke prefer to have long term unemployment.

What I said was spending huge amounts of state money on something that will require building factories and attempting to recruit people into a sector that that would be extremely difficult to compete in just makes no sense.

If this industry, which would have to be a state one as (there isn’t very likely to be availability of any investors) were setup, and then it were to produce PPE at a signifiant higher price than the market cost, who’s going to buy it? Should we force the HSE to, this breaching EU and WTO rules on protectionism? We depend on those same market rules for the majority of our economy.

There are plenty of other state interventions can be made to stimulate the economy. Creating entire industries that we currently do not have and that we would struggle (severely) to compete on on price just makes no sense. You might as well just give the people involved money directly as create fake jobs as it doesn’t achieve any kind of sustainable economic activity. You end up with a state subsidy for an industry that can’t exist without it.

We need to stimulate the economy by supporting what we can do well. You don’t go off chasing things in areas where we have a huge competitive disadvantage and low cost manufacturing of goods like this is just not an area where Ireland can realistically compete.

You’re already seeing a huge ramping up of established PPE supply chains to meet demand by broadening manufacturing capacity in supply chains already exist.

There are so many other uses of public money in areas that are can and do compete well in

We are facing a huge Irish, European and global economic mess and a deep recession, but you target your use of public resources at projects that are likely to actually restore the economy. We’ve as much likelihood of becoming a massive manufacturer of PPE as we would have launching a steel industry.

Unless you’re looking at the roll back of world trade and a return to the 1950s, in which case Ireland, as a trading economy with huge dependence on all of that would be doomed anyway, it just makes no sense.

Anyway, fed up with boards at the moment.
Life’s miserable enough and I don’t appreciate a posts being targeted at me like that.

Taking a break from boards. Bye.

Never argued we should compete in the PPE sector, only alleviate the supply shortage - it's an emergency, after all... - then when the emergency is over, leave it to the private sector. You don't use public money to compete.

It's largely unskilled work, so the claims of complexity are spurious - and for the parts that are skilled and require manufacturing, for basic PPE we already have relevant industry/skills here and ample space for expanding manufacturing - this has all been covered already.

More bullshit - nobody said sell higher than market price. Again, when you can't successfully argue against something, you embellish the argument with straw men - made up shit that nobody said.

It's obvious to the whole world that PPE manufacturing is not ramping up fast enough - and that the whole world has absolutely loads of idle labour and resources thanks to unemployment and economic slowdown - so it is blindingly obvious that taking the unemployed, and the idle resources, to produce PPE, can lead to a rampup of PPE production an order of magnitude faster than what we're seeing.

You know perfectly well that what I'm advocating is temporary only - it is not to establish a permanent industry.

The entire thing pays for itself as well, not just through the extremely high market price for PPE, but even moreso through the cost of having our economy shutdown for so long - with ample PPE allowing us to open up the economy and production sooner, with far less risk, and without running head first into another outbreak and costly lockdown - that alone pays for it in many multiples.

Banana Republic 1

na1 wrote: »

How did you come to this conclusion?

what you're saying: even if you buy the first class airline ticket you still deserve the same seat & service as anyone else on the flight.

Again your conclusion equates money with equality, ie, the more money one has the more rights one deserves.

Banana Republic 1

KyussB wrote: »

Well, even though he's gone, still will reply to counter the misrepresentations of what I said.

Never argued we should compete in the PPE sector, only alleviate the supply shortage - it's an emergency, after all... - then when the emergency is over, leave it to the private sector. You don't use public money to compete.

It's largely unskilled work, so the claims of complexity are spurious - and for the parts that are skilled and require manufacturing, for basic PPE we already have relevant industry/skills here and ample space for expanding manufacturing - this has all been covered already.

More bullshit - nobody said sell higher than market price. Again, when you can't successfully argue against something, you embellish the argument with straw men - made up shit that nobody said.

It's obvious to the whole world that PPE manufacturing is not ramping up fast enough - and that the whole world has absolutely loads of idle labour and resources thanks to unemployment and economic slowdown - so it is blindingly obvious that taking the unemployed, and the idle resources, to produce PPE, can lead to a rampup of PPE production an order of magnitude faster than what we're seeing.

You know perfectly well that what I'm advocating is temporary only - it is not to establish a permanent industry.

The entire thing pays for itself as well, not just through the extremely high market price for PPE, but even moreso through the cost of having our economy shutdown for so long - with ample PPE allowing us to open up the economy and production sooner, with far less risk, and without running head first into another outbreak and costly lockdown - that alone pays for it in many multiples.

Would the unemployed in that scenario include the solicitors, hedge fund managers and the like or just plebeians on minimum wage.

na1

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

Again your conclusion equates money with equality, ie, the more money one has the more rights one deserves.

Are you suggesting that because all people are equal, they should get the same money regardless of what they're doing?

These are not rights, these are services!

The more you pay for the SERVICE the more you get from it.
The more you pay PRSI which is a social protection, the more you get back from the social protection. This is how it works in most normal countries!
You lose your job you get paid back what you were contributed.

Yo never worked in your life and struggling to survive? you'll get free food and shelter, but not the 52k a year and a "forever home"

KyussB

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

Would the unemployed in that scenario include the solicitors, hedge fund managers and the like or just plebeians on minimum wage.

It would be work free to anyone to accept or refuse, at a living wage - with standard unemployment payments supporting those that don't want the work.

Geuze

na1 wrote: »

Are you suggesting that because all people are equal, they should get the same money regardless of what they're doing?

These are not rights, these are services!

The more you pay for the SERVICE the more you get from it.
The more you pay PRSI which is a social protection, the more you get back from the social protection. This is how it works in most normal countries!
You lose your job you get paid back what you were contributed.

Yes, in many countries, benefits are tied to contributions.

USA unemployment payment = typically 50% of former wage

DE un payments are 60% or 67% of former net wages

This is common.

It often also applies to pensions.

Indeed, Irl is the only country in the EU28 to have a flat-rate State Pension.

RandomViewer

na1 wrote: »

Are you suggesting that because all people are equal, they should get the same money regardless of what they're doing?

These are not rights, these are services!

The more you pay for the SERVICE the more you get from it.
The more you pay PRSI which is a social protection, the more you get back from the social protection. This is how it works in most normal countries!
You lose your job you get paid back what you were contributed.

Yo never worked in your life and struggling to survive? you'll get free food and shelter, but not the 52k a year and a "forever home"

So if you smash your car you get the insurance premium back?

na1

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

Again your conclusion equates money with equality, ie, the more money one has the more rights one deserves.

You have completely overwritten my statement, making it false.
It is yourself who mixing the rights and services, making absolutely nonsense.
Services != human rights.

And where exactly did I say more money one has the more rights one deserves?

I said:
The more money you pay, the better service you get.
It doesn't really matter how much money you have

Do you disagree with this statement?

Now regarding the rights:

In Ireland the people who pay more taxes actually have less rights!

The people who contribute for HSE budget with their taxes, also pay for GP visits and pay for prescriptions in full (less tax credits).
The people who don't contribute for HSE budget, also don't pay for GP visits, and minimal fee on prescriptions.

Surprisingly in this criteria Ireland is again on its own.

na1

RandomViewer wrote: »

So if you smash your car you get the insurance premium back?

The car insurance is an excellent example!

Imagine you bought a brand new Bugatti Veyron, and you pay 20k to the insurance company (called "Ireland Ltd") for a full comprehensive cover
Your neighbor has bought a Nissan Micra and pay 300 euro to the same insurance company "Ireland Ltd"

You both had an accident with the both cars were fully scrapped.

When you go to "Ireland Ltd" you both get, for example: 15,000 as a compensation for you claim.
The "Ireland Ltd" says: you're already rich and can afford expensive cars, that's why your premium was high, but when the accident has happened you both, you and your neighbor are equal. We don't want to violate human rights

Plumbthedepths

na1 wrote: »

The car insurance is an excellent example!

Imagine you bought a brand new Bugatti Veyron, and you pay 20k to the insurance company (called "Ireland Ltd") for a full comprehensive cover
Your neighbor has bought a Nissan Micra and pay 300 euro to the same insurance company "Ireland Ltd"

You both had an accident with the both cars were fully scrapped.

When you go to "Ireland Ltd" you both get, for example: 15,000 as a compensation for you claim.
The "Ireland Ltd" says: you're already rich and can afford expensive cars, that's why your premium was high, but when the accident has happened you both, you and your neighbor are equal. We don't want to violate human rights

Your knowledge of insurance underwriting is on a par with Fred's understanding of economics.

Banana Republic 1

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

What your saying there is the less you earn the less value you has as a human.

na1 wrote: »

Where do I said this?

It is YOU who promotes inequality.

why the person who works 15 hours per week in a shop gets LESS gross payment than the doctor working 60 hours shifts per week? Is he LESS important person?

The woman who can’t survive on €350 already contributed to the society more than 100-s of Lidl shop assistants.
And now when 1000-s of part time workers who barely paying any tax are getting 350 and REFUSING to work, yo're suggesting that they should stay on the dole, and that woman start doing their work?

A. The Covid payment is an emergency payment to cover people who have been laid off because of it. Be they a judge or a hairdresser or migrant who only started working 3 weeks before the shutdown they all get the same.

B. Only those who lost their job as a result of the government mandated shutdown or those who are in risk categories and have received medical advice to isolate are entitled to the €350. If you know of people who just up and quit their job for no reason other than to get this payment then you should report them, simple as.

You said the person on €100 k a year cant live on €350 p/w cause of mortgages and so on well a pause on mortgages breaks have been announced by the banks again everyone, or at least thats whats meant to happen, can avail of this.

I suggested that if this €100k a year person isnt happy with the situation they find themselves in that they could go and get a one of the supermarket jobs on a temporary basis till things came down.

It appeared to me anyway that you like so many others here were maintaining that only the less well heeled by comparison to your €100k person should be forced out to work when their jobs have also been affected by covid.

Cheers....:D

Banana Republic 1

na1 wrote: »

Are you suggesting that because all people are equal, they should get the same money regardless of what they're doing?

These are not rights, these are services!

The more you pay for the SERVICE the more you get from it.
The more you pay PRSI which is a social protection, the more you get back from the social protection. This is how it works in most normal countries!
You lose your job you get paid back what you were contributed.

Yo never worked in your life and struggling to survive? you'll get free food and shelter, but not the 52k a year and a "forever home"

No I'm not suggesting that because all people are equal, they should get the same money regardless of what they're doing.

Paying more for a service doesn't mean you get more.
PRSI doesn't work like that.
Are you saying that I never worked in my life in the last point, I dont know if that a question or a statement.

na1

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Your knowledge of insurance underwriting is on a par with Fred's understanding of economics.

May I ask you a question:
What does PRSI stand for?

na1

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

PRSI doesn't work like that.

Correction:
PRSI in Ireland doesn't work like that.

And the reason is?

na1

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

I suggested that if this €100k a year person isnt happy with the situation they find themselves in that they could go and get a one of the supermarket jobs on a temporary basis till things came down.

The same reason as ANY other person on 350 will refuse part time job as it is rewarded less?
Why applying for a job where you get less than you get for doing nothing?

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

It appeared to me anyway that you like so many others here were maintaining that only the less well heeled by comparison to your €100k person should be forced out to work when their jobs have also been affected by covid.
Cheers....:D

wrong again. Nothing to do with forcing people. Just give everyone according to their contributions. And yes this doesn't violate human rights.

na1

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Fred's understanding of economics.

And your understanding of the economics is like:

1)lets give the "most vulnerable" free money
2)they'll start spending these free money, investing into the economy
3) ??
4) PROFIT!

enricoh

na1 wrote: »

And your understanding of the economics is like:

1)lets give the "most vulnerable" free money
2)they'll start spending these free money, investing into the economy
3) ??
4) PROFIT!

All these lads are missing is Apple's 13bn will fill the potholes!
Anyway let's keep giving everyone e350 a week n hope that everyone buying our bonds doesn't notice the pothole getting bigger n charge accordingly!

Banana Republic 1

na1 wrote: »

The same reason as ANY other person on 350 will refuse part time job as it is rewarded less?
Why applying for a job where you get less than you get for doing nothing?



wrong again. Nothing to do with forcing people. Just give everyone according to their contributions. And yes this doesn't violate human rights.

You should investigate how PRSI contributions are made.

RandomViewer

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

Would the unemployed in that scenario include the solicitors, hedge fund managers and the like or just plebeians on minimum wage.

Wouldn't be much point putting a solicitor making PPE, probably take 18 months to make one item and then tell you it will take another 6 months to deliver,

RandomViewer

na1 wrote: »

Are you suggesting that because all people are equal, they should get the same money regardless of what they're doing?

These are not rights, these are services!

The more you pay for the SERVICE the more you get from it.
The more you pay PRSI which is a social protection, the more you get back from the social protection. This is how it works in most normal countries!
You lose your job you get paid back what you were contributed.

Yo never worked in your life and struggling to survive? you'll get free food and shelter, but not the 52k a year and a "forever home"

Where yo getting €52k from, 10 k is the average welfare payment, very few Local authority houses built and rent is charged on them. Looking up figures on the social welfare site and adding them together isn't how it works,

RandomViewer

KyussB wrote: »

Well, even though he's gone, still will reply to counter the misrepresentations of what I said.

Never argued we should compete in the PPE sector, only alleviate the supply shortage - it's an emergency, after all... - then when the emergency is over, leave it to the private sector. You don't use public money to compete.

It's largely unskilled work, so the claims of complexity are spurious - and for the parts that are skilled and require manufacturing, for basic PPE we already have relevant industry/skills here and ample space for expanding manufacturing - this has all been covered already.

More bullshit - nobody said sell higher than market price. Again, when you can't successfully argue against something, you embellish the argument with straw men - made up shit that nobody said.

It's obvious to the whole world that PPE manufacturing is not ramping up fast enough - and that the whole world has absolutely loads of idle labour and resources thanks to unemployment and economic slowdown - so it is blindingly obvious that taking the unemployed, and the idle resources, to produce PPE, can lead to a rampup of PPE production an order of magnitude faster than what we're seeing.

You know perfectly well that what I'm advocating is temporary only - it is not to establish a permanent industry.

The entire thing pays for itself as well, not just through the extremely high market price for PPE, but even moreso through the cost of having our economy shutdown for so long - with ample PPE allowing us to open up the economy and production sooner, with far less risk, and without running head first into another outbreak and costly lockdown - that alone pays for it in many multiples.

Your plan creates a state owned industry ,anyone working in it will be a public servant and will expect all the public servant perks, pension, job for life etc...Don't choke on the free coffee

Antares35

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

So how much should bono get?

Maybe better to link it to contributions instead and that way he will rightly get f*ck all

Geuze

na1 wrote: »

Correction:
PRSI in Ireland doesn't work like that.

It used to.

We used to have pay-related UN benefits.

Geuze

RandomViewer wrote: »

Where yo getting €52k from, 10 k is the average welfare payment, very few Local authority houses built and rent is charged on them. Looking up figures on the social welfare site and adding them together isn't how it works,

https://twitter.com/Paddy_Mc_Kee/status/1050095981834973191/photo/1

Many families on welfare receive many tens of thousands.

My relations received 100,000 in uni fees and grants.

Tomrota

Stimulus like this would typically grow the economy, however when local businesses aren’t allowed to function, then Is the money actually going back into the economy.

I think that people either spend or save their weekly 350€. They spend as much as they need to survive and then some more, but save the rest. When we come out of this crisis, we’re going to need everyone ready to spend as much as when we went in.

Imagine if the emergency COVID payment did not exist? How would the economy recover quickly? How would people survive? Universal Basic Income is what we really need.

Also, the minimum wage is too low to make a living on.

KyussB

RandomViewer wrote: »

Your plan creates a state owned industry ,anyone working in it will be a public servant and will expect all the public servant perks, pension, job for life etc...Don't choke on the free coffee

Look stop playing childish games of pretending I said something else - I said very clearly that it's a temporary job program, not a permanent one - so stop making shit up.

KyussB

Tomrota wrote: »

...
Imagine if the emergency COVID payment did not exist? How would the economy recover quickly? How would people survive? Universal Basic Income is what we really need.

Also, the minimum wage is too low to make a living on.

A UBI at the current coronavirus payment rate would cost ~€90 billion a year - and the country is already going to axe the coronavirus payment as being too costly, despite only being a fraction of that.

That's only the first, and most blindingly obvious, thing - which it seems nobody ever does the most simple of maths to check before advocating a UBI - which makes it a stunningly bad idea.

Tomrota

KyussB wrote: »

A UBI at the current coronavirus payment rate would cost ~€90 billion a year - and the country is already going to axe the coronavirus payment as being too costly, despite only being a fraction of that.

That's only the first, and most blindingly obvious, thing - which it seems nobody ever does the most simple of maths to check before advocating a UBI - which makes it a stunningly bad idea.

UBI would be less than the COVID payment, it would be whatever the current poverty line is. According to EAPN, “The the 60% at risk of poverty threshold in 2017 was €12,521. (or €239.95 per week).”

Again you’re taking gross cost and not net costs of UBI. The majority of people would be net contributors to the payment, and the small minority would be net beneficiaries with the hopes of becoming a net contributor one day. It would remove the need for such a complex welfare system, college grant system, etc. It wouldn’t hinder work ethic or participation in the labour force. However, it does eradicate poverty overnight. It also allows people breathing space and the mental bandwidth to deal with the stresses of life. If someone lost their job unexpectedly or if someone needed to take a year out to study? Plus all the mental health, crime, health benefits of it. We are living in this society together, I would want everyone to be the best person they can be and we should, as a society, want that for everyone. I don’t think people realise how much talent and drive to work there is in underprivileged communities but no means, through grants or social welfare.

ShatterAlan

Fred Cryton wrote: »

No other country made people better off on welfare than when they had been working. 500,000 people are now better off taking the 350 and sitting on their backsides than they had been before this crisis when working. It's going to be enormously difficult to get these people back into the workforce now. Any politician trying to reduce the payment to incentivise work will be branded a right wing thatcherite by the usual suspects.



Who's going to go back to a minimum wage job 20 hours a week when they can earn nearly double that from the taxpayer while not having to work? This will starve businesses of much needed workers just when they need to get back going.



The costs to the exchequer are enormous. We could build a new hospital every month with the amount of money this is costing the state. Did anyone think of this? We have Regina Doherty, mother goose of the nation herself, to thank for this mess.


The key question is WHY IS IRELAND DOING THINGS DIFFERENTLY TO OTHER NATIONS?. When you have to ask this question, you know we've c**ked up.

I would imagine that the majority of the people who are getting 350 a week were earning more than that when they were working so I'll go out on a limb here and guess that they will be only too glad to go back to work for more money.


I'll go out on another limb and assume that those who are "happy to sit on their arses doing sweet FA" for 350 a week might not have the option when the payment is stopped after the economy opens up again. Did that ever cross your fcuking mind?

ShatterAlan

Fred Cryton wrote: »

I have a Masters in the subject, thanks so much. McWilliams is a charaltan and a spoofer, yeah free money into everyones account. Sure why not make everyone a millionaire so, what could possibly go wrong.

I'd ask for my money back if I was you.