General Irish politics discussion thread

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119827989#Comment_119827989

I never said means testing. I want to see the system of child benefit replace by a system of state support of children from birth to adulthood covering areas like truly free education, free childcare for working parents, free schoolbooks, free school meals, free tertiary education etc. That ensures that children get the benefits of the state expenditure.

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119828487#Comment_119828487

There is a logic to this (though elements of it such as free school meals are going to be exceptionally difficult to bring in and would require a massive infrastructure investment) but ultimately you are not going to be able to replace all parental provided support for kids with state provided support. People also use child benefit to buy nappies and make sure their babies get formula. That is not replaceable.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119828476#Comment_119828476

You run when confronted with the facts.

'A media watchdog has flagged up Mary Lou McDonald’s defamation case against RTE as a potential threat to press freedom.'

An international freedom of speech group has filed an alert with the Council of Europe alleging that a defamation action taken by the Sinn Fein leader Mary Lou McDonald against RTE should be categorised as an attempt to discourage or prevent discussion that is in the public interest.

You understand what 'potential' and 'should be' means blanch?

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119828546#Comment_119828546

True, but there may well be other ways of addressing those issues. The key principle is that the support goes to the child and for the child's wellbeing.

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119828687#Comment_119828687

Yup, it is clear, they are afraid of being sued by MLMD.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119828901#Comment_119828901

Sure. 😁😁

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119828898#Comment_119828898

Sure, and I do think we could increase our investment in children in terms of providing school meals etc.

But ultimately, I largely trust parents to receive money and use it to look after their children and edge cases don't dissuade me from that view.

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119828962#Comment_119828962

Yeah, wave it away if you want, but the outside world is looking at this threat to democracy.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119829206#Comment_119829206

The 'outside world' looks at a lot of things going on here blanch. Here's just two from yesterday.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40974836.html#:~:text=In%202019%2C%20Ireland%20spent%20an,at%20secondary%20compared%20to%20%2411%2C400.

Advocates for trans rights have called on the HSE to urgently address gaps in services, following a Europe-wide survey which placed Ireland last out of 27 countries.

And there is no threat to democracy, if RTE are correct, fight the case and win. If they can't do that then it is THEY who have questions to answer as they have had form for this in the past.

A society which enshrines 'free speech' must also have a robust right to redress, or it is a sham democracy. Do you support the right to redress?

Sam Russell

One difficulty of the Child Allowance is the amount of cash actually handed out.

It is paid once a month at €280 per child. So a mother with four children will get €1,120 each month. Now that is a lot of cash to put in a purse.

Now this week, it was paid on the double, so this mother of four would have got €2,240 which is a lot of cash to leave lying about. It would fund a good few nights out at the local boozer for herself or her partner. Many a slow horse could swallow much of it. The least worse thing it could be used for was a few one and ones at the local chipper - at least it would be providing food.

It would be better if there was a limit on the amount of cash paid out at any one time with payments paid weekly or fortnightly if the amount was large. If other weekly welfare payments were due, the children's allowance could be included in the payments due each week.

Now I do not begrudge the payments as I consider it does improve the lot of the vast majority of children.

Those who abuse the funding are probably up to much worse activities in their sad lives.

hotmail.com

It's normally 140 per month per child.

The double payment this week made it 280.

But yes a mother with 4 children under 18 still attending school will get over a grand this week. Some will have it spent by the end of the weekend.

Sam Russell

Sorry, I had used the double payment as the single one. That what comes of listening t the hype of newspapers and radio.

PommieBast

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119830706#Comment_119830706

Forgive my ignorance but what was the original notional purpose of a double-payment?

Hermy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119830706#Comment_119830706

But yes a mother with 4 children under 18 still attending school will get over a grand this week. Some will have it spent by the end of the weekend.

Yes, with fuel, rent and groceries all on the rise, and Christmas around the corner, that money will be quickly spent.

Murph85

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119821771#Comment_119821771

I totally agree. It's a brilliant use of resources. Working poor hit with losing fifty percent of their income over a pittance to pay for it. In fact, it's so beneficial, why dont we increase the marginal rate of tax to 75% and then even more money to flow from the pyjama brigade into the local economy...

I mean, working people have so much money, that you can take as much as you want from them, it wont effect their spend in the local economy...

Murph85

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119822764#Comment_119822764

Middle class in Ireland and higher earners in particular get crucified here. Imagine they get something back out of the system... it's a pittance compared to what they out in...

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119831458#Comment_119831458

I would wonder, going completely out on a limb and them some: how many of those talking about ski-trips and drinking benefit money away at the local pub are themselves recent parents. Cos to indulge in my own speculative anecdotes, I feel like anyone who has raised a kid under 5 in this economy since 2008 wouldn't be so glib in their presumption the money is being spent on anything except the purpose for which it's given. Christ the issue of childcare was a literal Headline item in the news up until recently. Being a parent is expensive, and getting more-so while the world says "you both gotta work and raise a child".

And anyone who is ignoring their child's needs isn't going to be chastened by switching the system to provision of the actual items. Some people are just shítty parents, no matter what the government gives them - better child services are what's needed there, not punitive measures WRT benefits. Cos unless you swap cash for actual substantive equivalents (nappies, clothes, bedding, formula [if needed], sanitary products - and figure out a fair quota for those per month!), conversations too easily become an inevitable "take the cash away from the type of people I don't like" answer.

But the reality is, no current government is going to announce more bureaucracy, more systems, in a country already allergic to the idea of increased civil service structure. What trust would exist if, tomorrow, one of the coalition partners announced a new government-run agency where branches would hand out discounted or free nappies etc. to parents who qualify? The lines to Joe Duffy would explode.

Sam Russell

Look, it is quite clear that there is a Gov philosophy that is basically financial help is needed by those at the bottom of earnings spectrum, but also more generally throughout the earnings spectrum.

If 'benefits' are restricted to those whose income is less than a specified level, those who just miss out are a lot less than happy and consider themselves hard done by. Raise the threshold and there is another group who consider themselves hard done by. Solution - give some benefits to all, and make some means tested - preferably by an existing means test.

So we have double payment weeks for pensions, child benefit, etc. Then we have €200 against every electricity bills, including holiday homes. But also, means tested fuel allowance is being extended.

So not so difficult to argue against except by those opposition TDs who claim they would have done more - and fully costed.

Peregrinus

Nearly all, if not actually all, developed-world social security systems do include some benefits - often a lot of benefits - which are universal and/or not means-tested. It has been found that it's much easier to get buy-in and political support for a system if everybody feels that it provides or would provide something to them.

Children's allowance, the primary universal benefit in the Irish social protection scheme, was 2 bn in 2021, out of a total social protection budget of 30.3 bn - that's 6.6%. If you're worried about social protection payments going to people who, financially speaking, may not need them, that's dwarfed by the 7.8 billion paid out in non-means tested old age pensions.

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119831869#Comment_119831869

To which I cynically points towards the respective targets of the debate: easier to get frustrated about the feckless Scobies and "pyjama brigade" taking our hard-earned cash, than getting angry about one's sweet, sainted Granny getting a few shekels to buy her teabrack in the café. It's oft-mentioned how big of a "ticking time bomb" the pension fund is yet it's political suicide to touch it.

Sam Russell

A bigger time bomb is the health service costs that rise and rise.

If the population are getting older, the health costs that are required to look after all those retired people will rise and rise. Add in those who suffer from dementia and cancer will continue to be a cost to the HSE and that cost will continue to rise.

To look after cancer patients using the latest medicines can be €1,000 or more per month. These new treatments prolong life by many years, which is great - providing it can be funded.

I think we must start looking at higher PRSI contributions from employers.

PommieBast

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119831965#Comment_119831965

When it comes to the HSE I question why so much is spent on it yet people still need health insurance.

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119831538#Comment_119831538

My youngest was five in 2008, so that pretty much demolishes your wondering.

The idea is exactly to swap cash for actual substantive equivalents - free childcare for working parents, free schoolbooks, free school meals, truly free education etc.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119831965#Comment_119831965

Not sure why this should be funded by higher employer PRSI, since many of the people who will need treatment will not be employees. Plus, employer PRSO is a tax on employment; on the fact of it taxing employment doesn't look like such a crash-hot idea. I think the arguments for funding health expenditure, like education expenditure, out of general taxation are compelling.

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119843658#Comment_119843658

Everything should be funded by general taxation, but it is handy to link tax with benefits.

So Motor Tax pays for the roads - only it does not as the roads cost a lot more. Water Tax pays for water - only it does not because of the campaign was run by some agitators to stop that. Perhaps fines could pay for the legal system,

Social Welfare and health are two huge headline spending areas for the Gov. PRSI is a good tax to tie into this spending, and employers get off lightly in Ireland compared with other member states.

Now, it is essential that we do not copy France where employer contributions act as a very strong disincentive to creating employment by small businesses.

Peregrinus

Healthcare isn't a benefit like unemployment benefit or pension - it has nothing to do with replacing your income when you can't work or have finished working. There's no rational link between earnings from employment and receiving healthcare.

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119848042#Comment_119848042

The result of Covid might say something else.

The Gov spent billions trying to mitigate the healthcare impact on employment. The cost of healthcare workers out of work through Covid related effects - either actually ill, or isolating because of infection.

Health impacts employment, or rather ill health impacts employment.

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119844378#Comment_119844378

PRSI should cover most of the social welfare bill, but outside of that, other forms of taxation should contribute.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119848215#Comment_119848215

Yes, of course healthcare affects employment. But education affects employment, obviously. Transport and communication infrastructure affects employment. Etc, etc. Nobody argues that these things should be financed by taxes on employment. They are funded out of general taxation.

From the point of view of the recipient, social welfare to a large extent supplements/replaces income from employment — sickness benefit, unemployment benefit, retirement pension — and these benefits are targetted at people who are or have been in employment. That's why social welfare is partly funded by taxes on employment — employer and employee social insurance contributions. But none of this is true of healthcare.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119849459#Comment_119849459

Healthcare isn't social welfare.

Sam Russell

Healthcare is not social welfare, but it is welfare.

Good healthcare affects employment levels in a society, and should be a concern for employers. It also has a larger effect on the lower wealth members of society. So it benefits society to have a healthy workforce, and members of society generally. So it is in the nations interest to invest in healthcare. Asking the employers to contribute directly as a percentage of the wages bill is not an outrage, and is the model in most EU countries.

Now how healthcare is funded is a political question, and linking one expenditure with a particular tax is very much a political question. The level of employer contribution to healthcare tax would only help with the healthcare costs - not pay for even a significant amount. It would just be a political gesture, that is all.

The are charitable collections to fund research into various maladies like cancer, motor neuron disease, hospices, and many more. The Crumlin Children's Hospital has been funded forever on the public donations but not a penny from the central Gov, because parents are willing to pay and the Gov says nothing to do with us.

There are no such collections for the pay and expenses of politicians, the Gardai, or the Defence Forces, or the Civil Service. I wonder why?