Up to €2billion to be cut from Social Welfare: Times



paddywhack

Active member
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
280
Having worked for 30 + years and paid tax and prsi I was made redundant in 2009. I am now struggling to exist (not live) on €196 / week. Yet I would suffer a reduction in benefits if in return I could see the people and politicians who allowed us get into this mess, locked up behind bars.
Preferably also see them in the zoo where those who could afford to could visit and throw fruit,nuts and rotten vegetables at these idiots, in return for a small fee that would go to the exchequer.
Alas , not likely to ever happen and those who caused the mess will remain untouched as usual.
 

Baron von Biffo

Moderator
Joined
May 16, 2007
Messages
18,175
Having worked for 30 + years and paid tax and prsi I was made redundant in 2009. I am now struggling to exist (not live) on €196 / week. Yet I would suffer a reduction in benefits if in return I could see the people and politicians who allowed us get into this mess, locked up behind bars.
Preferably also see them in the zoo where those who could afford to could visit and throw fruit,nuts and rotten vegetables at these idiots, in return for a small fee that would go to the exchequer.
Alas , not likely to ever happen and those who caused the mess will remain untouched as usual.
You should feel very happy that you're answering Lenihans call to patriotic action by giving a little of your dole to pay €200k salaries to his friends who broke the country.
 

Harmonica

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 2, 2009
Messages
5,797
The Croke Park deal is directly responsible for the expected welfare cuts.

Welfare cuts should be targeted and areas such as disabilities should be ring fenced. Childrens allowance is the obvious area to cut drastically. It makes no sense whatsoever to get more money for 3rd and subsequent children, if anything it should be less. A 50% over 4 years would be a good target.
 

OCicero

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 24, 2010
Messages
752
The Croke Park deal is directly responsible for the expected welfare cuts.
I suspect that cutting welfare will be done as a step to eventually reducing the minimum wage as a "competitiveness boosting measure": a policy rather than a purely fiscal choice.
 

jacko

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
2,656
ok, let us get the calculators out.

2010 - Expenditure €50,000 million
+ for 2011 €3,000 million for bank bailout
Say €53 billion

2010 - Tax revenue between €30,000 million & €31,000 million

IF TAX REVENUE DOES NOT RISE WE NEED TO CUT OUR EXPENDITURE BY 22/53 TO BALANCE THE BOOKS - IE 40%

A 10% cut in social welfare is just the beginning.

PS pay needs to be cut by a further 40% etc........


THERE WILL BE NO RETURN TO 250,000 OR LESS ON THE LIVE REGISTER FOR AT LEAST 5/6 YEARS UNLESS ALL THOSE PEOPLE EMIGRATE.

Wake up and smell the coffee.
Public Service pay does not need to be cut - The Public service pay bill needs to be cut

You achieve that through a massive redundancy programme
 

hmmm

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Messages
2,831
Having worked for 30 + years and paid tax and prsi I was made redundant in 2009.
We need to move to a system where the dole is tapered, with those who are recently unemployed receiving the most. Our current perverse benefits system seems to reward most those who sit on the dole for life.
 

dotski_w_

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 28, 2004
Messages
2,474
Website
irishpollingreport.wordpress.com
Welfare cuts should be targeted and areas such as disabilities should be ring fenced. Childrens allowance is the obvious area to cut drastically. It makes no sense whatsoever to get more money for 3rd and subsequent children, if anything it should be less. A 50% over 4 years would be a good target.
Child benefit is a minority contribution towards the costs of children, the majority of that cost is borne by parents (certianly where the parents are working), particularly when you take into account the costs of childcare and/or foregone income from parents taking career breaks.

A family with 3 or more children has great net costs (after CB) than one with 1 or 2 children. Reducing the State contribution to their costs in order to keep down taxes is a redistribution of resources away from those with higher costs/responsibilities, to those with lower costs and responsibilities, to the detriment of families with more children, who are at greater risk of poverty, even if they are working.

So no, it shouldn't.
 

hiding behind a poster

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
52,477
If child benefit was kept at the same level for the first two children but cut totally for any child after that, how much would that save ?
Quite a lot. And that's before you factor in the VAT receipts from increased condom sales.....
 

dotski_w_

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 28, 2004
Messages
2,474
Website
irishpollingreport.wordpress.com
Quite a lot. And that's before you factor in the VAT receipts from increased condom sales.....
probably not as much as you'd think, as the signals are that they'll up the Child Dependant Allowance on welfare payments (like last time) to compensate, and I think if you take in SI based payments nearly 30% of families with kids are receiving where one of the parents has some sort of welfare payment or another. This has the side effect of increasing poverty traps (the main reason for this being a universal payment), so for some families it will be more sensible to just throw in that part-time job, increasing our welfare payments and reducing our tax take.
 

Cato

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 21, 2005
Messages
20,390
It means people will have no choice but to turn to the black economy just to survive.
That is already happening and to a huge degree. I know many many people working off the books or doing nixers - anything to survive this shít-storm and to keep their homes and food on the table. THe black economy is going to grow and grow.

In a sense it is probably working to your agenda as it is a sign of people turning from the state and the formal legal apparatus of earning a living. Next stop a communist revolution???
 

petervalhala

Well-known member
Joined
May 18, 2008
Messages
746
Taking 2billion out of the economy and in particular off the people that need it most will just lead to more unemployment. Its not as if there are any jobs out there.

Its not sustainable to keep deflating the economy like this or we will NEVER recover.
It is necessary to reduce the deficit, otherwise the country wont be able to borrow the money to pay welfare rates double that in NI

We need to break the link between JB and JA, protect those who have worked, but lost their jobs, and stop wasting money and those who never intend to work
 

petervalhala

Well-known member
Joined
May 18, 2008
Messages
746
We may be borrowing the 20 billion to pay welfare but we are also borrowing to pay our Politicians their huge wages and expenses, salaries must be halfed and expenses cut out completely for them
How much does it cost to pay our politicians and what percentage is it of 20b ?
 

gijoe

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 26, 2010
Messages
15,561
I wonder to what extent Social Welfare cuts are also an imperative so as not to be even more attractive to Northern residents after the UK cuts. To some extent the UK cuts are forcing their hand.
 

Harmonica

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 2, 2009
Messages
5,797
A family with 3 or more children has great net costs (after CB) than one with 1 or 2 children. Reducing the State contribution to their costs in order to keep down taxes is a redistribution of resources away from those with higher costs/responsibilities, to those with lower costs and responsibilities, to the detriment of families with more children, who are at greater risk of poverty, even if they are working..
I still fail to understand how say the 3rd child is more expensive than the 2nd. If anything the first child is the most expensive and after that there are basically economies of scale. It won't save much money in the context of the money required but it is a start.

Keeping the PS the same size while the remainder of the economy is reducing is going to force greater pain for everyone else than is really needed.
 

gijoe

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 26, 2010
Messages
15,561
I still fail to understand how say the 3rd child is more expensive than the 2nd. If anything the first child is the most expensive and after that there are basically economies of scale. It won't save much money in the context of the money required but it is a start.
I do not think it has anything to do with the 3rd child being more expensive than the 2nd. I think it has more to do with a family with 3+ kids being much less likely to have two incomes in the household as it is no longer really viable to have both parents working in most occupations and therefore have a much reduced household income, especially post tax individualisation.

But then again if this is the logic why is it being paid to Social Welfare claimants as well where neither parent is working? And is there some degree of discrimination as a result of this payment between differing household circumstances?
 

dotski_w_

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 28, 2004
Messages
2,474
Website
irishpollingreport.wordpress.com
I still fail to understand how say the 3rd child is more expensive than the 2nd.
it would help if you actually read what I typed... it's not that the 3rd child is more expensive, it's that having more than 2 children means that your net income is very significantly lower.

Take three families doing the same two jobs, with net monthly income of €4,000 (comprised of €2,200 and €1,800), and a mortgage of €1,500.

Family A has no children, Family B has 1 child, and family 3 has three. Even say they all have similar size houses and cars, ignoring the fact that this is less necessary for a small family than a large one, and assume that the non-childcare costs of a child is €200 per month, and the childcare costs are €500 per month (both of these are low).

Family A has no child related outgoings, and so has (4000-1500) €2,500 p.m. to pay for food, clothing etc and save for holidays etc.

Family B has €150 CB, putting cash up to €4,150, child-related outgoings of €700 and mortgage of €1,500, making their net figure €1,950 p.m.

Family C "enjoy" €487 p.m. CB. The savings for multiple children is lower than you think, but even if it's 25% of the non-childcare costs, that's (3X €150) + (3 X €500) = €1,950 p.m. Given mortgage is €1,500, their net outgoings are €3,450, which from €4,487 leaves €1,037 per month.

If you play around with theses figures you'll see it's starker for lower income families.

That's how it is now, and in fairness few in larger families are complaining, but what you propose would hit those families more than others. Cutting back disproportionately on bigger families increases the divergence, making these families worse off still. And remember, this ignore that such families generally need bigger houses and cars to enjoy the same standard of living, driving up their costs further. They've lost the Early Childcare Supplement, they've had cutbacks in CB already, and any cutbacks hitting the general population and/or PS pay has hit them also (and cuts in health and education hit them more than the general population).

And please don't give me the "if they can't afford the children, they shouldn't have them" rubbish. They could when they did, and it's not like you can send them back. The choices to have those children has already been made, and cutting the income of those families will hit children disproportionately. The only fair way is through taxes.
 

An Gilladaker

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
4,297
It is necessary to reduce the deficit, otherwise the country wont be able to borrow the money to pay welfare rates double that in NI

We need to break the link between JB and JA, protect those who have worked, but lost their jobs, and stop wasting money and those who never intend to work
Good to see the oul developers are being looked after that should bring you a little joy;)

NAMA 'does not specify individuals salaries' - RT News
 


New Threads

Most Replies

Top Bottom