Budget: April 2009

Originally Posted by mypost

JA/JB is the lowest possible rung of the economic ladder though, and should be the very very last area to take a hit, instead of the first.

1) You aren't on the economic ladder if you aren't working.
2) By not reducing welfare and hitting everyone else, you make people in low paid fulltime employment lower on the ladder than the unemployed.

Just like most of your arguments on here this one falls apart when you get into the financial reality of everyday life as opposed to baseless rhetoric.

You should consider running for Sinn Fein, you'd go far with such immovable ideologies combined with zero financial groundings or realpolitik.

Originally Posted by OneRedArmy

The bottom line is that all other thing being equal (note to everyone trying to compare apples and oranges), you shouldn't be better off on social welfare than in fulltime employment.

Yet that's exactly what this budget will do. And that's wrong, morally financially and any other way you want to look at it.

I have been out of work for three years and was made redundant from my last job and the two previous jobs before that.

I wish someone would show me how I am better off drawing the dole than working seeing as personally I would take a minimum wage job and pay 10% levy if need be as it would virtually double my income doing that. Unfortunately when I go for interviews I usually get the you are overly qualified piece and are you just using this as a stop gap until something better comes along.

Its that bad I am thinking of going back to college.

Originally Posted by OneRedArmy

1) You aren't on the economic ladder if you aren't working.

You are. On the lowest one.

You're still receiving a fixed amount on a weekly basis. With no possibility of increases until 2012 under this government.

By not reducing welfare and hitting everyone else, you make people in low paid fulltime employment lower on the ladder than the unemployed.

Most people prefer to be in low-paid employment, than sitting at home doing nothing.

Originally Posted by Battery Rover

I have been out of work for three years and was made redundant from my last job and the two previous jobs before that.

I wish someone would show me how I am better off drawing the dole than working seeing as personally I would take a minimum wage job and pay 10% levy if need be as it would virtually double my income doing that. Unfortunately when I go for interviews I usually get the you are overly qualified piece and are you just using this as a stop gap until something better comes along.

Its that bad I am thinking of going back to college.

Im gonna presume you dont have kids?

Its simply a fact for some families now that it makes more sense to not work and draw the dole that be on minimum wage or a 4 day week and pay for 1/2/3 kids in childcare(especially with childcare benefits also being cut).

Obviously for someone alone without these considerations any job will be worth more than the dole to you.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...244812773.html

THE GOVERNMENT is backdating the new, higher income levy rates to the start of 2009, despite earlier indications that the rates would only come into force on May 1st.
Among those affected may be people who took redundancy in the first four months of the year. Figures from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment state that almost 21,000 people had been made redundant in the first quarter of 2009. That figure is likely to exceed 27,000 by the end of April.

The devils in the detail. Wonder what else will come out.

Originally Posted by Ringo

The devils in the detail. Wonder what else will come out.

Is that Budget 2009 v2.1?

Originally Posted by Ringo

Wonder what else will come out.

They aren't actually hitting TD's at all. Long Service Increment will not be stopped. They aren't going to stop ministerial pensions for sitting TD's afterall. They won't be closing the loophole for former teachers getting the difference in salary. They don't know when they will reduce the number of committee's. Any Junior Ministers not reappointed will get a severence package. How's that for sharing the pain?

http://www.independent.ie/national-n...w-1710159.html

Aside from all the other issues why would a TD get a bonus payment after 10 years service? WHy does he/she get paid more than a new TD?

Hows about the voters no vote for any sitting TD? Maybe we could get 166 new TDs?

How can Junipr Ministers get severance payments from a political position?

I don't think 100k on its own is too much to pay a TD although expenses need to be cut dramatically & all Committee payments should be scraped. Lets face it is they are not a member of a committee they don't have much to do. Ministerial pay should be slashed as it is far to high.

Interesting letter in todays indo - another interesting perspective on the budget.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/le...k-1708412.html

[MOD EDIT: Read the rules.]

Makes a mockery of some of the posts on this thread.

Also a key factor as to why we don't have an entrepreneurial culture.

Originally Posted by Real ale Madrid

Interesting letter in todays indo - another interesting perspective on the budget.

His case is very different to the ones I highlight. He has a big family, and has access to a number of supplements.

When people think of the "unsustainable" sw bill, they instantly think of those whose sole means of supporting themselves, is the JA/JB area of it. They don't include the various supplements in their calculations. That's what costs the €20 billion, not the €200 a week.

Originally Posted by mypost

His case is very different to the ones I highlight. He has a big family, and has access to a number of supplements.

When people think of the "unsustainable" sw bill, they instantly think of those whose sole means of supporting themselves, is the JA/JB area of it. They don't include the various supplements in their calculations. That's what costs the €20 billion, not the €200 a week.

Do you know what percentage of unemployed people are entitled to only JA/JB?

You are talking about a fairly small subset of the population. No wife, no kids, living with parents....

Not when it's at 11% and rising.

Younger, less experienced staff, are more vulnerable to the chop, in companies with a last in, first out policy.

Originally Posted by mypost

Not when it's at 11% and rising.

Younger, less experienced staff, are more vulnerable to the chop, in companies with a last in, first out policy.

But in fairness, someone with no kids, or mortgage should be able to get by on a low enough amount while looking for a job. They manage it in britain on around 60pounds and no ones convincing me things cost 3 times as much here.

Just to recap, here's how this discussion has gone, for at least 3 whole circles:
Poster 1: €200 a week is more than enough to survive on
Poster 2: Try living on that with a family and rent/mortgage
Poster 1: you get separate payments for each of those, €200 is more than enough for someone with no dependents

Have I missed anything?

Originally Posted by OneRedArmy

Have I missed anything?

A couple of sighs here and there, and the odd jibe at public servants

Originally Posted by OneRedArmy

Makes a mockery of some of the posts on this thread.

Also a key factor as to why we don't have an entrepreneurial culture.

From a brief look, I wouldn't have thought he was very good at managing his tax bill if he's coming in that low. Also, I think some of those supplements are using the maximum amounts rather than what someone would actually get.

Probably takes the arguement about job security out of the equation when it comes to things like the pension levy, if you're better off on the dole.

This rubbish has been roundly rebutted on Boards.ie.

Originally Posted by Real ale Madrid

Interesting letter in todays indo - another interesting perspective on the budget.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/le...k-1708412.html

[MOD EDIT: Read the rules.]

"roundly rebutted"? The figures used by the letter writer have been exaggerated and assumed a scenario that whilst may be in theory possible, is so unlikely as to render it irrelevant.

BUT the principle that
1) the incentive to work is not sufficiently rewarded at the margin; and
2) as a country at a macro level we can't afford our current welfare spend

are as relevant now as they were before that letter was published.

This is better debated in the economic recovery thread as that's where it will hit us. The short-sighted approach of increasing revenue to meet expenditure rather than reducing expenditure to meet revenue might make us feel warm and fluffy inthe short-term but will simply prolong the economic pain in the long-run and stifle growth for at least a generation to come.

I don't necessarily agree with your principle, but I wasn't arguing that, and as you suggest that debate is better held elsewhere.

I was dealing with the letter that was reposted here, which was "roundly rebutted". Some elements were true and others were exaggerated, however some of it was simply fabricated and not based in reality, not even in theory. More importantly, the way it was packaged was downright malicious, almost certainly a plant for political purposes. At least you're able to debate the topic in question reasonably, the person that planted that drivel should be working for the Star. It's about their level.

We have rules against "unsubstantiated allegations" on Foot.ie precisely to stop this kind of crap perpetuating. It's a pity old media doesn't live up to the promises of luddite morons like Terry Prone.

adam