A very interesting paper on lifetime income inequality

Sarenco said:
I don't have a strong view as to what should be the exact balance between the two or at what rate benefits should diminish over time. I'm really just trying to establish the principle that the current balance is wrong.
Click to expand...

In the absence of any specifics, I have no inherent objection to what you are saying. I'm merely pointing out, as you can see from other posters, that there is a wide variance of ideas and, to my mind, contradictory set of ideas being put forward. From German style welfare programs to monitoring the coffee habits of welfare recipients! o_O
Those who contribute more should get more out of the system - that is the mantra, I have no issue there. But if someone who has contributed more then books a cheap flight to Madrid and funds a break from their own resources, then it's 'cut their welfare!" In other words, those that have contributed taxes are not to get more out of the system. They are to get the same, or even perhaps less than someone who hasnt contributed as much, or someone who has worked but squandered their own resources.
In the end, it's a complex business. I'll simply calling out the stupidity of thinking where a person who works 30yrs + working long shifts, supplementing that income at weekends, paying taxes, paid off mortgage, put two kids through college, is considered as someone with a 'devil may care' attitude and is 'reaping what he sowed!' If you can't agree that that level of thinking is nonsense, then yes, we are at an impasse.
 
Ok BS, here's a very simple proposal for debate - increase JSB by 15% and reduce JSA by 15%.

In the current economic context, that should be broadly cost neutral from the State's perspective.
 
Sarenco said:
Ok BS, here's a very simple proposal for debate - increase JSB by 15% and reduce JSA by 15%.

In the current economic context, that should be broadly cost neutral from the State's perspective.
Click to expand...

Yep, no problem there. Happy out!

(Can they drink, coffee?)!:)
 
Sarenco said:
Sure but a 15% cut to JSA would equate to around 10 cups of coffee per week.
Click to expand...

Or an extra 10 cups for JSB!

But back on track, if the 15% increase/decrease was implemented, do you think that would satisfy the rest of the punters on AAM?
I don't, but perhaps I would be pleasantly surprised.
 
The 15% increase \ decrease would be a step in the right direction and in the current political climate I think the only way a reduction could be delivered is via a carrot and stick...
 
TheBigShort said:
Which is completely different to what Gekko said. So which is it? If I'm on welfare, can I have a coffee or not? Or a pint? Or even a car and a foreign holiday?
Click to expand...


Of course you can.

But you can't simultaneously whinge about the fact that, for example, your children go to school hungry, ( or more accurately have social justice Ireland et al whinge on your behalf), while you spend your limited money on pints.
 
Taxpert said:
Of course you can.

But you can't simultaneously whinge about the fact that, for example, your children go to school hungry, ( or more accurately have social justice Ireland et al whinge on your behalf), while you spend your limited money on pints.
Click to expand...

The only whinging is by those that say people on welfare shouldn't be allowed a pint or a cup of coffee.
 
TheBigShort said:
The only whinging is by those that say people on welfare shouldn't be allowed a pint or a cup of coffee.
Click to expand...

Taxpert is spot on; if someone is having a pint or a cup of coffee, they either have enough money or they shouldn't be having such luxuries.
 
Gordon Gekko said:
Taxpert is spot on; if someone is having a pint or a cup of coffee, they either have enough money or they shouldn't be having such luxuries.
Click to expand...

That is not what s/he said. S/he said of course it is fine to have such 'luxuries' as long as the person availing of them isn't complaining about their children being hungry.
In other words, as long as the welfare recipient is not complaining, the Taxpert has absolutely no problem with them enjoying a pint or a coffee.
 
TheBigShort said:
That is not what s/he said. S/he said of course it is fine to have such 'luxuries' as long as the person availing of them isn't complaining about their children being hungry.
In other words, as long as the welfare recipient is not complaining, the Taxpert has absolutely no problem with them enjoying a pint or a coffee.
Click to expand...

Okay; so the welfare recipient should not receive anymore from the State.
 
TheBigShort said:
That is not what s/he said. S/he said of course it is fine to have such 'luxuries' as long as the person availing of them isn't complaining about their children being hungry.
In other words, as long as the welfare recipient is not complaining, the Taxpert has absolutely no problem with them enjoying a pint or a coffee.
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm better positioned to say what I mean than you are?

My point is simple. People are entitled to spend their money as they wish. If that means fags, booze, sky sports, whatever, fine.

But if you spend your money on fags, and have no money left over to give your kids breakfast before they leave for school, that's YOUR responsibility. Not the governments, not "society's" - YOURS.

But social justice Ireland and their fellow travellers in the poverty industry will never accept that.
 
Taxpert said:
Maybe I'm better positioned to say what I mean than you are?

My point is simple. People are entitled to spend their money as they wish. If that means fags, booze, sky sports, whatever, fine.

But if you spend your money on fags, and have no money left over to give your kids breakfast before they leave for school, that's YOUR responsibility. Not the governments, not "society's" - YOURS.

But social justice Ireland and their fellow travellers in the poverty industry will never accept that.
Click to expand...

Yes, you said as much already, why repeat? I'm not really sure why you are engaging with me in this discussion? I have no issues with what you are saying. I was merely pointing out that other posters think that welfare recipients shouldn't be able to spend money as they see fit. Perhaps take the discussion up with them?
 
TheBigShort said:
Yes, you said as much already, why repeat? I'm not really sure why you are engaging with me in this discussion? I have no issues with what you are saying. I was merely pointing out that other posters think that welfare recipients shouldn't be able to spend money as they see fit. Perhaps take the discussion up with them?
Click to expand...

My apologies.

I should have raised this with the whingers.
 
TheBigShort said:
Yes, you said as much already, why repeat? I'm not really sure why you are engaging with me in this discussion? I have no issues with what you are saying. I was merely pointing out that other posters think that welfare recipients shouldn't be able to spend money as they see fit. Perhaps take the discussion up with them?
Click to expand...

Apologies - I should have directed my post elsewhere.
 
Gordon Gekko said:
It's not their money; it's ours.
Click to expand...

I don't agree. Once given to them it's theirs, not ours.

Whether they should be given it or not (or as much) is a different issue.

What bugs me most about this debate is when poverty industry spokespeople start talking about kids going to school hungry.

No child goes to school hungry because of lack of money. If they do go to school hungry either their parents have spent the money on something else (their choice) or alternatively the parents couldn't be ar$ed giving them breakfast. Again, their choice. Nothing to do with "society".
 
Gordon Gekko said:
It's not their money; it's ours.
Click to expand...

So let me see if I can understand your view.
If you work say, 30yrs+, paying taxes, contributing PRSI etc - it's "your money". But if you are unfortunate to then lose your job and avail of welfare, it then becomes not your money? Is that correct?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top