The 350 a week was a catastrophic and costly mistake

Eric Cartman

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Do you know what 'temporary measure' means?

USC was a temporary measure....

I don't agree with everything the OP says, but good luck finding me the politician with enough backbone to tell those on 350 a week who's jobs aren't coming back that they're going to 203 in a few weeks.

pgj2015

500,000 people are now better off taking the 350 and sitting on their backsides than they had been before this crisis when working.



What? I was earning a lot more than 350 euro per week before I took the covid payment. some people might be better off on the payment but I was earning a lot more before they payments started. im sure there are a lot of people in the same position. There are a huge number of big business owners on the payment, do you think the owners of say copper face jacks in Dublin wasn't making 350 euro a week? lol

Jizique

BoatMad wrote: »

the UK has very generous supports at present

The UK will be able to remove it

The Phantom Jipper

How much does it cost to hospitalise and treat people who are impacted by the virus? By easing pressure on people to go out and work, you reduce the spread and loss of life, so it isn't a complete waste.

GHOST MGG

The revenue commissioners will be looking for it all back and soon,nothing "free" in this country,people dont realise they will have to pay it back

Still waters

I'm on the 350 and its more or less gone every week, mortgage, esb and food eats it up fairly lively, the way i see it that money is probably back in the economy the week after it being paid out, its very hard to see anyone living on less when all bills are paid, 2 weeks of it are gone on mortgage for me, 70 weekly on food and miscellaneous items for the house, credit union loan, bank loan, there isn't a lot of room for saving anything out of it, at the very least it could be called a minor stimulus package to keep the country ticking over

FVP3

Fred Cryton wrote: »

Any politician trying to reduce the payment to incentivise work will be branded a right wing thatcherite by the usual suspects.

Literally reducing it next month,

The One Doctor

Outkast_IRE wrote: »

Educate yourself on economics , listen to some podcasts such as David McWilliams .

David McWilliams told us to get into debt in the first place.

jobeenfitz

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.

It just shows how badly paid some of our workers are.

FVP3

The One Doctor wrote: »

David McWilliams told us to get into debt in the first place.

He suggested a bank guarantee which was a temporary measure. We are paying off the debt because we rolled over that bank debt into sovereign debt.

By the way helicopter money is kind of the opposite to that, its the government/ECB bailing out the punter not the punter bailing out the banks ( via the government).

is_that_so

Fred Cryton wrote: »

Is that like the way the USC was supposed to be a temporary tax?


The usual suspects will try to make 350 the new baseline for welfare payments.

This will be wound down and will be gone well before the end of August. Despite your outrage it's not welfare and it will be treated as taxable income. Anyone on it when things open up again will lose it and will switch down to the standard rates.

is_that_so

FVP3 wrote: »

He suggested a bank guarantee which was a temporary measure. We are paying off the debt because we rolled over that bank debt into sovereign debt.

No, we're paying off more sovereign debt because we couldn't afford to run the country. The bank debt only accounted for a portion of that and apart from the €30bn of Anglo, will ultimately be repaid to the exchequer.

maninasia

rossie1977 wrote: »

1/4 of the Irish workforce were earning less than 18k a year?

Part timers

FVP3

is_that_so wrote: »

No, we're paying off more sovereign debt because we couldn't afford to run the country. The bank debt only accounted for a portion of that and apart from the €30bn of Anglo, will ultimately be repaid to the exchequer.

We couldn't afford to run the country the way we were because of a financial crisis caused by banks and other shysters. Before that we had low debt per GDP and low deficit.

coolshannagh28

FVP3 wrote: »

We couldn't afford to run the country the way we were because of a financial crisis caused by banks and other shysters. Before that we had low debt per GDP and low deficit.

No , ,most of the bailout was allocated towards running the country ie current spending , we were living beyond our means , this has been widely debated and we have possibly been doing the same again

walshb

I see our anti wealth and anti money and anti profit and anti anyone with a few bob are still looking for the money.....the irony

https://twitter.com/RBoydBarrett/status/1258364345123209216

walshb

Has anyone yet come out with "let's us the Apple money!?"

is_that_so

FVP3 wrote: »

We couldn't afford to run the country the way we were because of a financial crisis caused by banks and other shysters. Before that we had low debt per GDP and low deficit.

Really not true at all and spanks of an agenda. Sure the banks misbehaved but the majority of the cash was to run the country. Are you really claiming the the banks caused 16% unemployment and accompanying foregone taxation? Why do you think the PS increment were reversed, why was there a PS embargo and why was there little extra spending on anything for nearly 5 years?

coolshannagh28

salmocab wrote: »

I think the 350 for part timers not earning that much was a mistake but it was a decision that had to be made quickly to help the shut down go smoothly. It was probably too blunt an instrument but it probably helped the setup to keep it relatively simple.

Government needs to change the terms of the payment to encourage people to reopen businesses ie allow the covid payment in conjunction with wage payment otherwise part timers and lower paid will stay at home.

is_that_so

walshb wrote: »

I see our anti wealth and anti money and anti profit and anti anyone with a few bob are still looking for the money.....the irony

https://twitter.com/RBoydBarrett/status/1258364345123209216

Do they know it's going to be taxable?

LoughNeagh2017

Minimum wage isn't that bad if you live in fathers house but imagine what it would be like if you lived in rental accommodation earning low money, you would make zero profit. I will never pay rent as I will get partial ownership of this rural land and house as inheritance. I don't care if people hate on me for that, some people inherit fortunes and businesses from parents yet people never slag them but they slag the neckbeard bachelor as he is an easy target.

I would love to be unemployed full term but it isn't an option unless I can get Depression Bucks or Autism Bucks someday. I am sure I have a shopping list of mental plagues so I will try to pull something out of the hat. To hell with being honourable in this hellish world, I have been walked over by humans my whole life.

walshb

is_that_so wrote: »

Do they know it's going to be taxable?

Do they care is more the question?......

FVP3

is_that_so wrote: »

Really not true at all and spanks of an agenda. Sure the banks misbehaved but the majority of the cash as to run the country.

What I am saying is that the government was relatively prudent before the banks collapsed. Saying we overspent in that era is nonsense, unless you assume that all governments should run 20% surpluses all the time in case banks collapse.

Are you really claiming the teh banks caused 16% unemployment and accompanying foregone taxation? Why do you think the PS increment were reversed, why there was a PS embargo and why there was little extra spending on anything for nearly 5 years?

That is exactly what I am saying, the banks collapse was the catalyst that collapsed the whole economy. It was precisely because the bank credit inflated the economy so much that the fallout was so severe. And this is hardly a radical viewpoint, either.

coolshannagh28 wrote: »

No , ,most of the bailout was allocated towards running the country ie current spending , we were living beyond our means , this has been widely debated and we have possibly been doing the same again

We weren't living beyond our means pre recession, we were in surplus. If the GDP was inflated by bank lending then thats on the banks for inflating the economy. Not just Irish banks btw.

Jizique

walshb wrote: »

I see our anti wealth and anti money and anti profit and anti anyone with a few bob are still looking for the money.....the irony

https://twitter.com/RBoydBarrett/status/1258364345123209216

the Germans are going back to work, Austria is back open; even Italy and Spain are starting, construction here in a week - crisis over

Tell me how

If someone truly has a Masters in Economics and is comparing the USC to the Covid-19 payment then the country really is f*cked.

893bet

The 350 a week is taxable.

But really you won’t notice this.

Your weekly tax free allowance is approx 350 or 17k per year if I recall.

Should be a negligible impact on your pay packet when you return to work no?

is_that_so

FVP3 wrote: »

What I am saying is that the government was relatively prudent before the banks collapsed. Saying we overspent in that era is nonsense, unless you assume that all governments should run 20% surpluses all the time in case banks collapse.



That is exactly what I am saying, the banks collapse was the catalyst that collapsed the whole economy. It was precisely because the bank credit inflated the economy so much that the fallout was so severe. And this is hardly a radical viewpoint, either.

FF prudent between 2003 and 2009? :D:D:D:D:D I think you're reading a different version of history. I'll leave you one stat - stamp duty was in excess of 20% of the tax take during that time. I also believe that construction employment was in the order of 11-14% of the economy well above a normal construction sector.

HBC08

listermint wrote: »

No one with a master's in economics would phrase their opening post like that.

I call shenanigans

Shenanigans called and seconded.

Kangaroolala

Fred Cryton wrote: »

Is that like the way the USC was supposed to be a temporary tax?


The usual suspects will try to make 350 the new baseline for welfare payments.

USC was first introduced to help the government to lessen the heavy financial burden during 2008 recession. However, it never get cancelled even after the economy boom.

FVP3

is_that_so wrote: »

FF prudent between 2003 and 2009? :D:D:D:D:D I think you're reading a different version of history. I'll leave you one stat - stamp duty was in excess of 20% of the tax take during that time.

The government was in surplus from about 1997 to 2007, with the exception of 2002. This meant we entered the crisis with low debt to GDP. It also meant we were living "within our means" by any reasonable measure.

If I recall it was right wingers who cheered most of the tax cuts, and right wing economists, who at the time didn't see much wrong with the property market.

Immediately after the banks collapsed, the same boyos were complaining about "beyond our means".

You are right that the stamp duty was too much of the tax take but not because it was extremely large as a percentage of the housing cost, but because near unlimited credit pushed prices of houses to absurd levels, and the number of transactions even higher.