Budget: April 2009

[Mr A]

Joan Burton sums it up:


She said the First World War description of soldiers and generals as lions led by donkeys was the "perfect description for plight of Irish people today" .Richard Bruton was also correct in saying this was a bookkeeping exercise with no real vision or focus on employment.

On the other hand of course, First World War soldiers didn't vote the donkeys in. The problem with democracy is that you get the government you deserve, and clearly as a nation we've done some pretty unsavoury s**t to deserve these idiots.

[mypost]

Its shocking that they have taken away the bonus payment at Xmas for the long term unemployed . I for one remember that this payment was what made sure Santa brought what the child wanted.

Taking away the Christmas bonus is disappointing but it is bearable.

Telling people that there will be no more increases in the coming years, regardless of the circumstances, is more significant

[First]

Telling people that there will be no more increases in the coming years, regardless of the circumstances, is more significant

Agreed , its shockng how no matter what happens in this country it is the poorest that always end up worst off. The Celtic tiger bypassed them and now it is acknowledged that it is dead the poor are to bare to me what is more than their fair share.

The halving of the Jobseekers allowance for the under 20's smacks of forced emmigration.

[KevB76]

Yeah the diesel tax increase was something that jumped out at me as strange. He says people will buy their petrol in the North if he increases the tax on it, why petrol and not diesel?.

Because diesel in the UK is already about 12p / litre more expensive than petrol, in comparison to being 8 to 10 cent/litre cheaper than petrol here.

Didnt they put 8c on petrol only in the last mini-budget?

[Dodge]

Details now up

http://budget.gov.ie

http://finance.gov.ie

[NeilMcD]

Agreed , its shockng how no matter what happens in this country it is the poorest that always end up worst off. The Celtic tiger bypassed them and now it is acknowledged that it is dead the poor are to bare to me what is more than their fair share.

The halving of the Jobseekers allowance for the under 20's smacks of forced emmigration.

I would consider myself of left wing views but surely the poorest in sociey should be the worst off otherwise it would incentivise people to do feck all. By being poor you are by nature the worst off.

The dole has not been touched despite the fact we are in deflation which is in fact an increase so that is fair.

He has adjusted the pension levy which seems to be fair also.

There is a lack of stimulus to create jobs in my view. The mistakes were largely made by Bertie Ahern, Charlie McCreevey and Mary Harney and Brian Cowen but only half of those are getting the blame now. The big mess ups were done over the last 10 years.

[First]

So with your thinking the poor should be forced downwards in society. I beleive that you reap what you sow in life but you would have to be extremely out of touch if you do not see how any reduction in the base payments to the unemployed or the minimum waged is only going to cause long term hurt to Ireland as a whole.

The reduction of the bonus payment is the reducing the ability of people to manage at what is universally seen as a time in the year that is hard at the best of times.

Poverty leads to crime , that is a fact. Blue collar crime. We all know where white collar crime leads

Asking the poor to pay for the incompantance of the established ,so called educated ,in the form of tax increases to attempt to balance the books while bailing out the property speculators and banks is grossly flawed.

What is going to protect the workers of this country , as our numbers dwindle each day.

There is nothing in this budget that will improve the views of the outside markets and invesrtors that Ireland , a country that has seen economic boom so badly miss managed , as a place for long term viability .

The creation of an asset management group to chase these "toxic debts" is to me as bad as the tribunals , putting money into something that will show no returns. Not only are they bailing these people out with their property speculating in this country but also for there dealings in eastern europe .Saying that this will free the banks to be able to lend again is just a mask. The actions needed now to keep the small to medium businesses going I fear will come too late and by this the suggestions of Employer PRSI reductions would help.

It is time for change in this country , we are too willing to lie down and take the crap that is thrown at us. We could start with getting out the government who for the last 15 years have grossly mis-managed the country while basing all its projections on a property boom while the infastructure remains 3rd world. Ask anyone in the freight / import / export industry .

We have to wake up to the fact that the country is not a viable place any more and we are just trying to stave off the enivitable moves that will come from Germany to bail us out and cost us our low corporate tax. This will lead to the mass evacuation of the US based companies from our shores.

Low interest rates and low inflation will only for a short time blanket the real fact that today a new generation of Irish people will at first hand lose their jobs , the way of life and for many the over valued homes to the banks who caused this problem. 100% motgages don't seem so good now.

[NeilMcD]

That to me is a well articulated rant but its still a rant. I do not believe that you should push the poor down. In fact if you read my posts I do not believe in lots of the points I was making. I was basically saying its a view and its out there and its valid. What I do not think is valid is just giving out for the sake of giving out without any real plan to correct these things.

The job of any government is to make sure that there is enough enterprise in the economy so that people can create wealth for themselves and in turn for their workers but at the same time making sure that the bottom of society are looked after enough in order not to create public disorder. You also need systems in place that those at the bottom of the rung can also at least climb up one rung and in time maybe climb to the top of the ladder. Where people and countries differ is the emphasis on the former over the latter or vice versa.

[First]

Fair enough it is a bit of a rant but I beleive in my views and being able to articulate them is thanks to an education provided to me by parents who flirted with the poverty line for many , many years. The low waged and unemployed are things that are very close to my heart and it always angers me when the net effect of any budget is to hurt these people in our society.

You are correct that we need to provide these people , whose numbers are growing each day with the resources to be able to climb that ladder and achieve something or regain in life. This is proving harder and harder for some as the big boot of government steps on their head

[tricky_colour]

Sitting on a load of oil which makes situation a bit different. In the good times we paid off our National Debt but unfortunately will have borrow all the cash again in less than 2 years.

It is surprising that many people including politicians seem to think that a "super tax" will bring a lot of money. Adding even a new 50% tax for say those on 100k+ would not bring in much money.

IMO PAYE should never go above 50% at the absolute maxmium no matter how much someone earns. It would be bad enough that the state would take 1/2 your pay let alone more than you get.

I can see another emergency Budget before the next schedule one as I am not convinced the government know what they are doing.

Oddly enough the government have too much of a problem slapping 80% taxes on cigarettes, which hit he poorest hardest.

Once the poor man has paid his taxes on beer fags and petrol he is paying a higher rates of that tax than millionaires. Not to mention other non-in related taxes.

Of course the rich manage to avoid paying most of thier taxes through loopholes such as pension contributions etc....anyway

[NeilMcD]

If the poor choose to drink or smoke or the rich for that matter whell then that is their choice. There is a big difference between taxes like Paye and the tax on Fags. The only reason I would not have put up the tax on fags more is because it may have resulted in a lost of money due to the black market fags.

[Sheridan]

How can the targeting of those under twenty be constitutional? If you're an adult, you're an adult, and entitled to equal treatment by the state. Maybe because they don't expect them to get as much airtime on Joe Duffy's show as the pensioners did over the medical card issue? I'm astounded that such blatant age discrimination is going almost unremarked.

[NeilMcD]

Just playing devils advoicate here but is there not already pre cedent in this area in that over 65s get a pension from the state. Technicallyl this is age discrmination. I think most people are against disrimination if you ask the but actually it is a fundamental part of a modern society. I dont think there is not a society out there that does not believe or have polcies that involve discrimination usually its for the good of the people and society but not always.

[First]

How can the targeting of those under twenty be constitutional? If you're an adult, you're an adult, and entitled to equal treatment by the state. Maybe because they don't expect them to get as much airtime on Joe Duffy's show as the pensioners did over the medical card issue? I'm astounded that such blatant age discrimination is going almost unremarked.

You make a good point. I beleive it is seen as they have probably contributed the least to the economy in monetary terms .ie not long out of school and probably not third level inclined thus they have been the ones on the min wage and not contributing in tax payments. I also have a sneaking idea that the government sees these people as the potential next emigration candidates thus taking away the exspense of keeping them and eventually housing them.

Maybe I am just being cynical

[pete]

Tax relief on mortgages not applying to those who bought over 7 years while benefiting me is a little strange as I would have thought those who bought in recent years hit hardest by negative equity.

Haven't looked at details to know how affects me beyond the PAYE "levy".

From what I can see so far no imagination & innovation, just tax, tax & more tax. Also also no attempts to reduce government spending. I also don't think the money raised will be enough as economy will only get worse - I guess will have another budget around August this year.

If a poor person chooses to smoke tough luck. Any one who wants to quit can do it if they really want to. Smoking is a choice like drinking.

I also guess the government pay benchmarked to similar size countries will be a futile exercise. What are the odds they selectively choose high income Scandinavian countries to link their pay? What is it with this country that need to setup bodies to investigate everything? If Cowan wanted to reduce government pay why did he not just do it!

As predicted everyone wants taxes to rise but on themselves. :rolleyes:

[tricky_colour]

If the poor choose to drink or smoke or the rich for that matter whell then that is their choice. There is a big difference between taxes like Paye and the tax on Fags. The only reason I would not have put up the tax on fags more is because it may have resulted in a lost of money due to the black market fags.

It is a heavy regressive tax which hits the poorest hardest - furthermore they are taxing a highly addictive drug, they are little better than drug dealers.

If the poorest people can be expected to shoulder such an excesive rate of tax, why not the rich?
It is also a tax which results in many childen growing up in poverty, so the rich can aoid paying their fair share of tax - that's immoral.


Tax relief on mortgages not applying to those who bought over 7 years while benefiting me is a little strange as I would have thought those who bought in recent years hit hardest by negative equity.

Haven't looked at details to know how affects me beyond the PAYE "levy".

From what I can see so far no imagination & innovation, just tax, tax & more tax. Also also no attempts to reduce government spending. I also don't think the money raised will be enough as economy will only get worse - I guess will have another budget around August this year.

If a poor person chooses to smoke tough luck. Any one who wants to quit can do it if they really want to. Smoking is a choice like drinking.

I also guess the government pay benchmarked to similar size countries will be a futile exercise. What are the odds they selectively choose high income Scandinavian countries to link their pay? What is it with this country that need to setup bodies to investigate everything? If Cowan wanted to reduce government pay why did he not just do it!

As predicted everyone wants taxes to rise but on themselves. :rolleyes:

Yea, they will like their pay to most corrupt govenment they can find - maybe link it to MP's expense claims in the UK!

[dahamsta]

It is a heavy regressive tax which hits the poorest hardest - furthermore they are taxing a highly addictive drug, they are little better than drug dealers.And I'm sure their opinion is that smokers are little better than weak-minded morons.

(I'm being facetious. As it happens a good number of pols are smokers, and I'm an ex-smoker that still has a puff every few months in the pub. I'm guessing you're not being facetious though, and I have to wonder at that. Smoking is tricky to give up, but it's not coke or heroin; people don't need to be put in clinics to get off them, they just get a bit fat and snappy. If someone is a smoker and they consider fags a tax, they can take a hint from tax avoiders and stop paying tax: Quit.)

adam

[Ringo]

You make a good point. I beleive it is seen as they have probably contributed the least to the economy in monetary terms .ie not long out of school and probably not third level inclined thus they have been the ones on the min wage and not contributing in tax payments. I also have a sneaking idea that the government sees these people as the potential next emigration candidates thus taking away the exspense of keeping them and eventually housing them.

Maybe I am just being cynical

Its also better for the unemployment figures , if they can keep them in training , school, college etc. one point made, was that a guy of 19 who has never worker is entitled to the same amount as the guy who's worked 30 years and gets laid off.


Fair enough it is a bit of a rant but I beleive in my views and being able to articulate them is thanks to an education provided to me by parents who flirted with the poverty line for many , many years. The low waged and unemployed are things that are very close to my heart and it always angers me when the net effect of any budget is to hurt these people in our society.

You are correct that we need to provide these people , whose numbers are growing each day with the resources to be able to climb that ladder and achieve something or regain in life. This is proving harder and harder for some as the big boot of government steps on their head


I think we all know people who are recieving social welfare who deserve it & others who don't. Middle income families were hit worst yesterday , those who have to pay for everything because their working. The only thing that has hit welfare payments is the christmas bonus. They still have medical cards, social housing etc. The whole social welfare system needs to be changed, to give more help to those that need it & less to those that are lazy or milking the system. What incentive is there for a guy straight out of school to take up a job , when he can get €200 for nothing

[Macy]

It was a poor budget for my household, with the prospect of child benefit and further tax increases next year, we're going to have to severely cut our cloth. It'll probably drive us into the black economy for our childcare, and we'll be doing more than just beer runs to the North.

They're basing the "bad bank" model on countries that nationalised the banks first. It's a total nonsense to leave them in private ownership whilst taking their bad loans. I have no faith that they'll pay the right price for the tax payer, when they've a direct vested interest in helping out the bankers who so conveniently couldn't provide information for the tribunals, and helping the developers that have funded FF for decades (both up front and back hand). It looks nothing more than (yet another) bail out of their backers.

btw, nicotine is more addictive than smack.

[Sheridan]

They're basing the "bad bank" model on countries that nationalised the banks first.
And weren't in the midst of a recession at the time...

[bennocelt]

I think we all know people who are recieving social welfare who deserve it & others who don't. Middle income families were hit worst yesterday , those who have to pay for everything because their working. The only thing that has hit welfare payments is the christmas bonus. They still have medical cards, social housing etc. The whole social welfare system needs to be changed, to give more help to those that need it & less to those that are lazy or milking the system. What incentive is there for a guy straight out of school to take up a job , when he can get €200 for nothing

yeah def agree with this
Man what a silly budget - sure they wont save any money out of all this
Raising taxes again and still the social welfare hasnt been even touched - sure thats a joke
Still all the quangos, still all the junior ministers, still Fas and its nice budget, still the spending on the army, etc etc
Do they not realise that this country is bankrupt:mad:

[OneRedArmy]

It was a poor budget for my household, with the prospect of child benefit and further tax increases next year, we're going to have to severely cut our cloth. It'll probably drive us into the black economy for our childcare, and we'll be doing more than just beer runs to the North.

They're basing the "bad bank" model on countries that nationalised the banks first. It's a total nonsense to leave them in private ownership whilst taking their bad loans. I have no faith that they'll pay the right price for the tax payer, when they've a direct vested interest in helping out the bankers who so conveniently couldn't provide information for the tribunals, and helping the developers that have funded FF for decades (both up front and back hand). It looks nothing more than (yet another) bail out of their backers.

btw, nicotine is more addictive than smack.The banks are as good as nationalized Macy. Govt is on the hook for pretty much everything, political pressure is being applied on going easy on certain loans, they are being forced to increase their holdings of Govt sovereign debt. I'm not sure what nationalisation would add, unless you are talking about perpetual nationslisation?
In the Swedish example, it's worth noting that the new banks were private and Securum (the biggest bad bank) made a profit for the Government. The key issue is the price the bad bank pays for the loans. If it's done fairly, the banks will be pretty much bankrupted and will require further Govt investment.

As for the wider budget, as expected, painful. What worries me is that I see no way out of this with FF at the helm. They are so reactive, short-termist and lacking any vision whatsoever.

If the global economy picks up we will invariably see another lost generation leave Ireland.

[anto1208]

I think we all know people who are recieving social welfare who deserve it & others who don't. Middle income families were hit worst yesterday , those who have to pay for everything because their working. The only thing that has hit welfare payments is the christmas bonus. They still have medical cards, social housing etc. The whole social welfare system needs to be changed, to give more help to those that need it & less to those that are lazy or milking the system. What incentive is there for a guy straight out of school to take up a job , when he can get €200 for nothing

Im open to correction but i think they cut the 200 euro dole for under 20's to 100 euro unless you are trying to further yourself ie re training/ course's etc etc.


guess thats incentive.

[Lionel Ritchie]

I am just asking the question. There is an argument that if you overly tax the rich well then you "punish" the wealth creators and as a result you take out innovation out of the economy. Its not a view I would subscribe too but its an interesting dilema that we have in a recession. I really do believe in the idea that in a boom you should tax more and in a recession you should have more stimulus measures. ...Well we had a boom -and you'd have been shouted down at the time by Charlie McCreevy, Michael O'Leary, the McDowell , Bruton and Ahern Brothers, Biffo, IBEC, ISME and a whole host of others -many of whom have been vaunted of late in the media for roles in an emergency government of National unity.

"Don't you see Neil?", they'd have all said, "it's exactly because we're in a boom that we CAN'T raise tax ...to do so would be to pour sugar in the petrol tank of our roaring economy".

If I recall correctly -apparently it also wouldn't have sufficiently "rewarded" work, enterprise, entrepreneurialism and would have sent the "wrong signals" (like -we pay and charge commensurate tax here and expect you do so as well?) to the business community, wealth creators, tent attenders yadda-yadda-yadda...

For similar reasons we couldn't build the schools, hospitals and other trimmable fat the country can apparently cut back on as the construction workers weren't available or would've cost top dollar -as the government wasn't doing anything to deflate the construction bubble if it meant foregoing a penny of stamp duty.

Screwed either which way.

[NeilMcD]

They would have been wrong Lionel. If we had a more sustainable tax system all along rather than rely on short term taxes or transient taxes like Stamp Duty our situation would not be as bad as it is. The good times may not have been as good for the developers and we all might have been a little worse off during the good times but not much, but we would as a country be in a lot better situation than we are now.

[Macy]

The banks are as good as nationalized Macy. Govt is on the hook for pretty much everything, political pressure is being applied on going easy on certain loans, they are being forced to increase their holdings of Govt sovereign debt. I'm not sure what nationalisation would add, unless you are talking about perpetual nationslisation?
Nationalisation would give the State the upside as well. At the moment the Government seem more concerned with protecting investors rather than the tax payer - this has been the case since the stupid guarantee. I suspect you are right, it is inevitable that there'll be further state funds, so they may as well get it over and done with now.


The key issue is the price the bad bank pays for the loans. If it's done fairly, the banks will be pretty much bankrupted and will require further Govt investment.

I have zero faith that we'll get a fair price - there isn't the will from Government to pursue the banks or developers, and certainly the banks are all about protecting themselves and their investors. Which is why I think nationalisation is needed - take these people out of the picture sooner rather than later.

[Lionel Ritchie]

They would have been wrong Lionel. If we had a more sustainable tax system all along rather than rely on short term taxes or transient taxes like Stamp Duty our situation would not be as bad as it is. The good times may not have been as good for the developers and we all might have been a little worse off during the good times but not much, but we would as a country be in a lot better situation than we are now.

I know and I completely agree -but you'd have been accused of downright Bolshevism by the O'Learys, McCreevys et al for holding that opinion is all I'm saying.

[Ringo]

Im open to correction but i think they cut the 200 euro dole for under 20's to 100 euro unless you are trying to further yourself ie re training/ course's etc etc.


guess thats incentive.

Sorry , that was the point i was making in reply to Sheridan saying it was wrong to cut the level for young people.

[OneRedArmy]

Nationalisation would give the State the upside as well. At the moment the Government seem more concerned with protecting investors rather than the tax payer - this has been the case since the stupid guarantee. I suspect you are right, it is inevitable that there'll be further state funds, so they may as well get it over and done with now.


I have zero faith that we'll get a fair price - there isn't the will from Government to pursue the banks or developers, and certainly the banks are all about protecting themselves and their investors. Which is why I think nationalisation is needed - take these people out of the picture sooner rather than later.I just don't see an upside for the Govt to share in. The only thing they haven't done, which they should, is force regime change amongst senior management.

[Macy]

Maybe upside is the wrong term, but they're taking the risk whilst still giving investors potential return, which imo is very wrong.

[OneRedArmy]

Maybe upside is the wrong term, but they're taking the risk whilst still giving investors potential return, which imo is very wrong.Can continue this in financial crisis thread, but from what I've seen, even if the Govt pays an average of 80c in the euro (big overpayment IMO) this would effectively wipe bank shareholders out (and correctly so) as Govt shareholding would own 80% plus of BoI and AIB. Plus there is provision for a levy on future profits if NAMA ends up loss-making.

[monutdfc]

I've been thinking a lot about this and at this stage I agree with ORA on this one. But with everything this government has done regarding the banks the devil is in the detail.
The good thing about this NAMA is that it takes the workout of the bad loans out of the hands of the bankers that granted the loans in the first place. This is very important. Ideally they will employ a team of workout experts for this purpose - but I have no faith that they will. I am also scared of political interference in NAMA's work. Also, I really hope that Anglos loans are put in there (wouldn't surprise me if they are not.)

Whatever discount they pay it looks like it will probably bankrupt the banks (I've not seen the exact numbers of loans per bank versus available capital, but a back of the envelope calculation tells me it will) so they might end up being "nationalised" anyway (inverted commas used because there seems to be some idealogical problem with nationalisation, so they'll come up with another fudge); that being so, it shouldn't matter if they overpay or underpay as the taxpayer will lose on NAMA and gain through the nationalised bank, or vice versa (although that depends on what fudge they come up with - I'd prefer gain through NAMA than gain through a 'nationalised' bank; and I'm pretty certain they overpay).

[Macy]

On a lighter note, I've seen it suggested that Ahern should be brought back to manage the NAMA, seeing he's so good at managing assets without a bank. :D

[mypost]

still the social welfare hasnt been even touched - sure thats a joke

It's neither a joke, nor true. :rolleyes:

[OneRedArmy]

It's neither a joke, nor true. :rolleyes:

Christmas bonus taken away. Stands to reason as it'll be a tight Christmas for the majority of those in employment.

Hopefully the Commission on Taxation can come up with some real proposals to bring out tax base more in line with European averages. Which means bringing more people into the tax net.

[Longfordian]

You have to be on the dole for something like a year before you'd get the Christmas bonus anyway so a lot of people who've signed on in the past few months wouldn't be affected by this really. You can't lose something you didn't have.

[mypost]

Christmas bonus taken away. Stands to reason as it'll be a tight Christmas for the majority of those in employment.

It's not just the Christmas bonus either.

It'll be a tight Christmas for those working, but they're better able to deal with deflation than those relying on the state for a living.

The perception that dole receipients are a bunch of feckless, useless scroungers has to change in the current climate, where 1,000 jobs are been lost a day, including highly skilled workers at the likes of SR Technics, who can and want to contribute to the nation's recovery, but can't at the moment.

[NeilMcD]

A lot of this comes down to that it is worse to have money in your pocket and have it taken away then never have it all. People get used to money coming in and then when they lose it they find it hard to adjust. That is where the government in my view have messed up as they put too much money into peoples pocket over the last 10 years and now they are having to get loads of it back. In this case it is not best to have loved rather than never have loved at all.

[OneRedArmy]

It'll be a tight Christmas for those working, but they're better able to deal with deflation than those relying on the state for a living.For the reasons outlined by Neil I don't think this is true.

People enter into financial commitments based on their income which are almost impossible to change in the short-term.

The long-term unemployed are certainly better able to cope with this budget than either the newly unemployed or the average worker/family, precisely because of the non-existant change in the short-term.

[Macy]

It'll be a tight Christmas for those working, but they're better able to deal with deflation than those relying on the state for a living.
I don't see why deflation would be any easier to cope with if you're working. If you're working your money is down, whereas social welfare is the same. I still don't think there's deflation on day to day spending though either way.

[pete]

A lot of this comes down to that it is worse to have money in your pocket and have it taken away then never have it all. People get used to money coming in and then when they lose it they find it hard to adjust. That is where the government in my view have messed up as they put too much money into peoples pocket over the last 10 years and now they are having to get loads of it back. In this case it is not best to have loved rather than never have loved at all.

True. Once you give something it is very difficult to take it back e.g. medical card for pensioners, lower PAYE taxes, public sector state pensions.

Surprising it took them so long to come up with this budget given there is no imagination. PAYE income "levy" was 80% of the budget as all other measures put together don't bring in any money worth talking about.

Cowan continually talks about hard decisions to be made yet he keeps shying away from those decisions. FF have proven more concerned about summer elections than economic recovery.

I'll move bank posts back into Financial thread when I get time.

[bennocelt]

It's neither a joke, nor true. :rolleyes:

IMHO the social welfare is way to much - as I said before compared to what people get in the UK (about 60 pounds or so) and in other countries its a joke.

The government should be trying to encourage people to work and should cut the social welfare and a good few of the other benefits
1/3 of the government spending is now within social welfare

Please tell me how the hell 200 is too little? Poverty? - ha, give me a break:rolleyes:

[mypost]

The government should be trying to encourage people to work and should cut the social welfare and a good few of the other benefits

:rolleyes:

There are no jobs to encourage the unemployed to work. Ireland Inc. is shut. 5-6,000 people are losing their jobs EVERY week. Where do you suggest hiring these people??

England?? Recession. Europe?? Recession. America?? Recession. Australia?? Recession.


Please tell me how the hell 200 is too little? Poverty? - ha, give me a break

Please outline an individual's circumstances where €200 is too much? :confused: :rolleyes:

There's hundreds of thousands of unemployed in this country who would love a break too.

[OneRedArmy]

Please outline an individual's circumstances where €200 is too much? :confused: :rolleyes:someone who has been unemployed for more than 18 months. Anyone who was long-term unemployed between mid-90s and 2007, frankly, didn't really want a job.

I would agree it's a different ballgame now. There aren't many jobs.

[bennocelt]

:rolleyes:

There are no jobs to encourage the unemployed to work. Ireland Inc. is shut. 5-6,000 people are losing their jobs EVERY week. Where do you suggest hiring these people??

England?? Recession. Europe?? Recession. America?? Recession. Australia?? Recession.



Please outline an individual's circumstances where €200 is too much? :confused: :rolleyes:

There's hundreds of thousands of unemployed in this country who would love a break too.



yeah but spending too much of the country's budget on social welfare is not going to work either - sure lets bankrupt the country

either way the EU or the IMF will reduce it in the future if the FF clowns wont

200 a week!!!!!!! 800 a month, with rent paid, on top of children's allowance, amongst other things

funny how the bars are always full just after the social!!!!!!

or tell me why they are flocking over the border to draw the dole?
How so - its so terrible this social welfare?

[Block G Raptor]

200 a week!!!!!!! 800 a month, with rent paid, on top of children's allowance, amongst other things

I'm single but have 2 children. I have to give my ex(who works as does her husband) 60 euro a week in maintanance for my daughter but am not entitled to claim social welfare for her nor do I get children's allowance so thats 60 out of my Dole gone to someone who is in a 2 job household. when I was working I was only too happy to pay my way but now that I'm unemployed i'm still expected to keep up the payments how is this fair

[OneRedArmy]

I'm single but have 2 children. I have to give my ex(who works as does her husband) 60 euro a week in maintanance for my daughter but am not entitled to claim social welfare for her nor do I get children's allowance so thats 60 out of my Dole gone to someone who is in a 2 job household. when I was working I was only too happy to pay my way but now that I'm unemployed i'm still expected to keep up the payments how is this fairIts not fair, but what's not fair is your maintenance agreement (because of a ridiculously one-sided system, but that's another issue altogether). The problem isn't with welfare.

While we're at it, what's fairness got to do with anything? The budget was generally decidedly unfair!

[mypost]

yeah but spending too much of the country's budget on social welfare is not going to work either - sure lets bankrupt the country

You read, hear, and see the news I take it. If so, you will hear of every day where factories, shops and restaurants closing down, along with several other businesses in all sectors. Then there's businesses upping sticks and going to Eastern Europe and India. It's at a rate of 6k a week. If the government can't find work for them, (and it can't), they're entitled to claim social welfare.

There's no bigger leveller than the dole. Whether you're a 20-year old apprentice, or a 55-year old qualified physician, whether you're a single man or have 5 kids, you're entitled to the same €200 payment as everyone else. And try to support yourself on that amount. €200 doesn't get you very far on the dole if you have commitments, you need other benefits to merely survive. And you have to endure sitting for months on end having other companies doors shut in your face. There are thousands of applicants for every job going.


either way the EU or the IMF will reduce it in the future if the FF clowns wont

How many other Eurozone countries have the IMF bailed out yet?? None, and won't be in the foreseeable future. .


tell me why they are flocking over the border to draw the dole?

Evidence??

Given the strict location criteria, I don't see that happening.

[pete]

The minimum wage should have been cut as it is ridiculously high compared to other EU countries. High minimum wage level feeds into the cost of everything in this country. Any one above the new minimum wage would then pay income tax.

[Dodge]

The minimum wage should have been cut as it is ridiculously high compared to other EU countries. High minimum wage level feeds into the cost of everything in this country. Any one above the new minimum wage would then pay income tax.

What came first, high prices, or a high minimum wage? I'd guess it was the chicken, but I'm no expert on fowl