Budget 2009

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

10/12/2009, 1:52 PM
Reality Bites

ERSI say there has been no decrease in wages in the private sector, SME & IBEC say there has. Anyone who says there has been no wages reduction in the private sector is talking manure. Virtually no job security, not knowing month to month if your company is going to survive, a pension that is worhtless at this stage.[/QUOTE]

I can only compare my anger to the ESRI statement to that with Thierry Henry and Sepp Blatter.. As an unemployed private sector worker, to say that there has been no pay cuts in private sector is nothing short of a comparison with Holocaust deniers. The ESRI are a disgrace!

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeilMcD

How about a public works scheme that would prevent floods. It would both future proof the houses and business of thousands and also prevent employment and it could be a public private partnership with the insurance industry whose interest it would serve as it would prevent further claims in the future.

Holland spend over a billion a year on flood prevention.

Yes I agree, but not yet I think this will require huge planning and consultation, advice and budgetry examination before its put on the table. A huge Civil engineering undertaking in years to come but not a short /medium term boost.
10/12/2009, 2:03 PM
centre mid

I believe they changed the Planning Act a couple of years ago so that large captial projects that are deemed vital can be rushed through by the Minister for the Environment.
10/12/2009, 2:10 PM
Reality Bites

Quote:

Originally Posted by centre mid

I believe they changed the Planning Act a couple of years ago so that large captial projects that are deemed vital can be rushed through by the Minister for the Environment.

I'm talking more about the technical aspects rather then the legal planning issues.. I think the design engineering detail will be very complex and something that will take a long time in engineering planning before its viable and workable solution.
10/12/2009, 2:12 PM
NeilMcD

Can anyone defend the fact that yesterday that Ministers took an effective 2.5 per cent cut to their net income while those on less than 30,000 in the public sector took a 5 per cent cut to their net income.
10/12/2009, 2:19 PM
saint dog

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeilMcD

Can anyone defend the fact that yesterday that Ministers took an effective 2.5 per cent cut to their net income while those on less than 30,000 in the public sector took a 5 per cent cut to their net income.

Not a chance
10/12/2009, 2:21 PM
Macy

Quote:

Originally Posted by centre mid

I believe they changed the Planning Act a couple of years ago so that large captial projects that are deemed vital can be rushed through by the Minister for the Environment.

They only actually apply that to really important things, like co-located hospitals, where big business gets to benefit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by centre mid

ERSI say there has been no decrease in wages in the private sector, SME & IBEC say there has. Anyone who says there has been no wages reduction in the private sector is talking manure

It's actually CSO stats afaik that don't show a reduction. That followed an IBEC study that found only 9% of workers had taken reduction. Apart from that it's all anecdotal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeilMcD

Can anyone defend the fact that yesterday that Ministers took an effective 2.5 per cent cut to their net income while those on less than 30,000 in the public sector took a 5 per cent cut to their net income

Fellow workers in the public sector had their wages cut - don't spoil the party.
10/12/2009, 2:58 PM
bennocelt

Quote:

Originally Posted by Royal rover

I wouldn't expect an architect to work in supermacs - but at the same time if i had a choice between the dole and say 350 a week i know what i would do - F**K the pride thing - your right on the price of drink - i think this should of been cut significantly more 70/80 cents - the country wants to get rid of as many young people as possible - in fairness i can understand the logic of it - welcome back to the 1980's

by working in Super macs? :(

Quote:

Originally Posted by centre mid

I agree entirely but the wages bill had to be cut. Reform and value for money should be a prerequisite, not just done when times are hard. Value for money has to be achieved from the SME's right up to the largest of multi-nationals.

I agree, but shouldnt we start at the top - are we getting value for money from FF/Green frog coalition. What about Drumm getting over 400,000 for running the health service into the ground?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr A

I've never come across anyone who has never worked but has a new car and a lot of disposable income like you mention. I've heard a few people talk about them, but never actually come across them. Except maybe some criminals, but that's a whole different ball game.

Really? wow - I know loads of people like this. Sister has a good friend with her 2008 BMW, on the social, heading to the North the other day with over a 1000 euros for shopping!!!
Then I know a good few fellas spending there days drinking and gambling with their dole money - not that Im very against that idea (at least its a good recreational activity).
Then have a few relatives on the disability - jesus its hilarious considering the amount of money they have in the bank and there arent much wrong with them - certainly nothing physical
There is a good bit of abuse of this system
10/12/2009, 3:13 PM
NeilMcD

Lads we do need to seperate enforcement of the system and the policy of the system. All the anectotal evidence above suggests that more resources, and I am not necessarily saying more money but more staff and resources put towards greater enforcment of the social welfare rules. Combine it with revenue and you could save a fortue to the state.

However what we should not do is deny the rights of those who need and are entitled to it.
10/12/2009, 3:26 PM
dahamsta

Quote:

Originally Posted by bennocelt

Sister has a good friend with her 2008 BMW, on the social, heading to the North the other day with over a 1000 euros for shopping!!!

And you have of course reported them for this? Because unless you have, you have no right to complain about it.

It's the Oirish way, bitch about he-saids and she-saids in the pub, and never lift a feckin' finger to actually do something about it.
10/12/2009, 3:31 PM
osarusan

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeilMcD

Lads we do need to seperate enforcement of the system and the policy of the system.

Agreed. I'm not seeing the logic of the argument that the ease with which welfare fraud can be commited means that welfare should be cut.

How about investing a 5-10 million euros in a task force charged with fighting welfare fraud. It would pay for itself very soon.

I remember reading in the Irish Times about a year ago (so no link to a source, sorry) that tax evasion costs the government more than welfare fraud. The govt had revently cut the budget for the tax fraud task force (or maybe even doen away with the task force altogether), even though it had brought something like 600 million euros in revenue, and a % higher than 50 of tax evaders are repeat offenders.
10/12/2009, 3:33 PM
saint dog

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeilMcD

Lads we do need to seperate enforcement of the system and the policy of the system. All the anectotal evidence above suggests that more resources, and I am not necessarily saying more money but more staff and resources put towards greater enforcment of the social welfare rules. Combine it with revenue and you could save a fortue to the state.

However what we should not do is deny the rights of those who need and are entitled to it.

this is the bit that annoys the be jaysus out of me though
10/12/2009, 3:36 PM
osarusan

Quote:

Originally Posted by saint dog

this is the bit that annoys the be jaysus out of me though

It annoys the "be jaysus" out of you that the govt provides financial assistance to those that truly need it?
10/12/2009, 3:40 PM
NeilMcD

Quote:

Originally Posted by osarusan

Agreed. I'm not seeing the logic of the argument that the ease with which welfare fraud can be commited means that welfare should be cut.

How about investing a 5-10 million euros in a task force charged with fighting welfare fraud. It would pay for itself very soon.

I remember reading in the Irish Times about a year ago (so no link to a source, sorry) that tax evasion costs the government more than welfare fraud. The govt had revently cut the budget for the tax fraud task force (or maybe even doen away with the task force altogether), even though it had brought something like 600 million euros in revenue, and a % higher than 50 of tax evaders are repeat offenders.

Yeah says it all, this is the sort of intelligent and informative thinking we need in relaton to this. Not some guy next door to me is driving a great car and is on the rocking roll etc etc. That sort of anger while understandble does not achieve anyting both for the indidual and for society in general.
10/12/2009, 3:45 PM
saint dog

Quote:

Originally Posted by osarusan

It annoys the "be jaysus" out of you that the govt provides financial assistance to those that truly need it?

ah but the question is , do they ?
some might but believe me many dont
10/12/2009, 3:47 PM
osarusan

Quote:

Originally Posted by saint dog

ah but the question is , do they ?
some might but believe me many dont

The quote was saying it is important not to deny assistance to those who need it.

The whole point of his post is that the problems of welfare fraud should not have consequences for those truly in need.
10/12/2009, 3:57 PM
saint dog

Im not even talking about the fraud side of things im talking about the criteria that quilifies people to be "entitled" to hand outs
10/12/2009, 4:07 PM
NeilMcD

Another issue is the increase in the drugs repayment scheme. Instead of saving loads of money by buying generic brands of drugs and saving the state a fortune, they have favoured big business again and targeted the sick by increasing the ceiling by 25 per cent In an area where they are trying to drive down costs this is sicking, pardon the pun.
10/12/2009, 4:08 PM
osarusan

Quote:

Originally Posted by saint dog

Im not even talking about the fraud side of things im talking about the criteria that quilifies people to be "entitled" to hand outs

Fair enough, but in that case should you not be asking for the eligibility criteria to be reviewed, rather than just wanting cuts for everybody?
10/12/2009, 4:10 PM
NeilMcD

Quote:

Originally Posted by osarusan

I remember reading in the Irish Times about a year ago (so no link to a source, sorry) that tax evasion costs the government more than welfare fraud. The govt had revently cut the budget for the tax fraud task force (or maybe even doen away with the task force altogether), even though it had brought something like 600 million euros in revenue, and a % higher than 50 of tax evaders are repeat offenders.

Saint DOg have you just ignored this post then. Or is it that those that are defrauding the state millions of euros in tax are out of sight and out of mind and the guys who are commiting social welfare fraud are living near you. I am only presuming this from your posts by the way.
10/12/2009, 4:13 PM
saint dog

Quote:

Originally Posted by osarusan

Fair enough, but in that case should you not be asking for the eligibility criteria to be reviewed, rather than just wanting cuts for everybody?

Absolutely , and have stated this before along with the fact that there should be various different amounts paid out depending not just on your age but on the amount of time youve worked and be out of work for .
along with bringing in fingerprint ids so no-one can get away with fraud or at least cut it down

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page