I'm not suggesting that the landlord broke any laws. I'm not looking at this from a legalistic perspective. I'm suggesting that landlords should be required to make the most economical energy supply option available to the tenant at no cost to the tenant.Yeah but removing the prepaid meter could have saved your son in the long term. Your son rented the property as it was.
Why when the lease was been agreed did your Son not mention the issue and let the landlord decide if he wished to proceed with the lease.
I know people who are on site during the night who are maintenance engineers clean room operators etc , yes there is a lot of automation but there are also a lot of employees, exact figures not officially released, but right now its estimated at 5000. Equally not all fixes can be done remotely either.You said the staff covering break downs were already on site. That is incorrect. It's a massively automated operation and there are support staff on site but also at home and overseas reacting to issues at all hours. That is a fact. Not all fixes require a mop or an on site presence.
This type of issue goes to the heart of the issues landlords face. It would have cost the landlord to install a prepaid meter (assuming he did) or the previous tenant.I'm not suggesting that the landlord broke any laws. I'm not looking at this from a legalistic perspective. I'm suggesting that landlords should be required to make the most economical energy supply option available to the tenant at no cost to the tenant.
I agree that landlords are in a difficult position. In this case I'm suggesting that the landlord should have to provide the cheapest option. If the tenant wants a more expensive option they should have to cover the cost. The cost of restoring the cheapest option should be covered by the departing tenant or deducted from their deposit before it is returned at the end of the tenancy.This type of issue goes to the heart of the issues landlords face. It would have cost the landlord to install a prepaid meter (assuming he did) or the previous tenant.
The landlord should have retained the cost of prepaid meter removal from the previous tenant.
No matter what a landlord does they are in the wrong. If they don't have a prepaid meter a tenant will want one. If they do a tenant will want it out. Tenants are responsible for themselves.
Point being made is that there are many jobs where remote working is possible. Where it's not possible then alternatives should be considered before removing fuel taxes and thereby promoting driving over alternatives (where alternatives exist).Another side argument gets legs...
The employees who are required to be on site have no choice but to be on site and so have to commute. The CSO and other State employees who can work from home see things from their own perspective. That's the point that was being made.
With the right IT set-up many diagnostic decisions in healthcare can be made remotely. An MRI or a X-ray can be read from home but there still needs to be doctors on site to treat the patient.
What exactly don't I know? I've never said that an on site presence is not needed. I said that many employees in Intel can and do work remotely. And for those tasks that require an on site presence then commuting alternatives should be explored before changing fuel taxes.I'm afraid you don't know, Intel and many pharma plants are big industrial complexes ,many things can go wrong , chemical leaks ,pumps stopping, the guy on his laptop from Malaysia can make mistakes that have to be rectified immediately by guys on site at 3am.
Yes you can switch on and off a pump at 3am but you can't fix downstream problems that result from this. Therefore these plants would always have critical processes controlled by guys on the ground never remotely. These people are not peripheral or inconsequential they are core workers.
Those guys don't get to their jobs on the 46a bus at 1am because no such service exists
The fuel poverty issue in the private rental market with the planned min ber ratings for rental properties is going to see more landlords exit.I agree that landlords are in a difficult position. In this case I'm suggesting that the landlord should have to provide the cheapest option. If the tenant wants a more expensive option they should have to cover the cost. The cost of restoring the cheapest option should be covered by the departing tenant or deducted from their deposit before it is returned at the end of the tenancy.
I agree. It's a nonsense rule.The fuel poverty issue in the private rental market with the planned min ber ratings for rental properties is going to see more landlords exit.
Unless a landlord can recoup the costs they are not going to invest.
I broadly agree but there are many jobs and many parts of the country where no such alternative is available or can be made available. he people in the ERSI making suggestions are from a rather narrow cohort and so see the world from that narrow perspective. It reminds me of all the talk about going back to the office post-Covid when the majority of the country don't work in offices but the majority of the people working in the State institutions making such comments and providing the narrative which leads to the setting of policy overwhelmingly do work in offices.Point being made is that there are many jobs where remote working is possible. Where it's not possible then alternatives should be considered before removing fuel taxes and thereby promoting driving over alternatives (where alternatives exist).
Problems with the ESRI aside what do you think about cuts to fuel taxes?I broadly agree but there are many jobs and many parts of the country where no such alternative is available or can be made available. he people in the ERSI making suggestions are from a rather narrow cohort and so see the world from that narrow perspective. It reminds me of all the talk about going back to the office post-Covid when the majority of the country don't work in offices but the majority of the people working in the State institutions making such comments and providing the narrative which leads to the setting of policy overwhelmingly do work in offices.
On balance I'm be in favour of a reduction in fuel taxes. I don't see a problem with it benefitting everyone. Yes, those who are better off will also benefit but so what, they already pay most of the taxes and we already have some of the highest levels of social transfer in the world.Problems with the ESRI aside what do you think about cuts to fuel taxes?
My take - for those (1) in fuel poverty and (2) with absolutely no alternative then some support should be provided.
Drawing up legislation for that is obviously not trivial.
It's worth remembering that most welfare goes to people who do work. The rate of long term unemployment is low and even within that cohort a significant proportion are working in the black economy. The massive increase in the number of people on disability benefit is, I think, also worth looking at.The elephant in the room is what should be a clear distinction between social welfare recipients who are genuinely looking for work/training for work/unable to work and those who are simply choosing to be parasitic on society without ever contributing anything. The former should be treated more generously and the latter more harshly. Most advanced European welfare states draw that distinction but in Ireland it seems somehow socially unacceptable to do so. Maybe because it recalls Victorian notions of "deserving" versus "undeserving" poor, but it's an irrational hangup. Having lived in Ireland for over 20 years it's one aspect of Irish culture I still don't understand.
I presume you mean long(er) term allowances versus shorter term benefits? Bear in mind that the former are means tested and may involve other conditions and the latter are PRSI linked. And some other qualifying conditions apply in both cases (e.g. Jobseeker's Allowance/Benefit are conditional on genuinely seeking work and engagement with agencies that check and assist with this).The fact that long term unemployment benefits are the same as short term benefits is indeed bizarre.
Yes, that's what I meant. The condition that the person is genuinely seeking work is hard to prove though. That said our extremely generous redistribution of incomes benefits a very large cohort of people, most of whom are working.I presume you mean long(er) term allowances versus shorter term benefits? Bear in mind that the former are means tested and may involve other conditions and the latter are PRSI linked. And some other qualifying conditions apply in both cases (e.g. Jobseeker's Allowance/Benefit are conditional on genuinely seeking work and engagement with agencies that check and assist with this).
It's worth remembering that most welfare goes to people who do work. The rate of long term unemployment is low and even within that cohort a significant proportion are working in the black economy. The massive increase in the number of people on disability benefit is, I think, also worth looking at.
The fact that long term unemployment benefits are the same as short term benefits is indeed bizarre. I think that within the EU only the UK and Ireland have such a system.
All of that is interesting but when it comes to fuel poverty, or poverty in general, I'd like to see a shift from looking at gross income to income per person net of taxes and housing costs. As I showed earlier a high income household can have a far lower net income than a lower gross income household when these factors are taken into account.
In any system there will be abuse. That's the price of providing help to people who need it. I don't think we are particularly bad when it comes to welfare fraud. I'd rather tolerate that then see people living in real poverty or for them to have to live with the indignity of an American style Food Stamps system.If you are on disability benefit then I don't believe you have to prove you are actively looking for work. I could be wrong however would make sense for the 'don't want to work (officially)' cohort to be on disability so as not to interfere with their 'work'.
In any system there will be abuse. That's the price of providing help to people who need it. I don't think we are particularly bad when it comes to welfare fraud. I'd rather tolerate that then see people living in real poverty or for them to have to live with the indignity of an American style Food Stamps system.
My issue with statistics around poverty, and this discussion about Fuel Poverty in particular, is that it only looks at gross income and excludes wealth. If we want real comparisons then we should be looking at after tax income less the cost of housing provision.
As I detailed in this post a working couple with two children and a mortgage with a household income of €130k can be significantly worse off than a retired couple who own their house with an income of €40k.
Of course you don't have to be actively looking for work if on disability or illness assistance/benefit but fraudulent claims would require the collusion of independent professional medical experts.If you are on disability benefit then I don't believe you have to prove you are actively looking for work. I could be wrong however would make sense for the 'don't want to work (officially)' cohort to be on disability so as not to interfere with their 'work'.
I understand where you are coming from. But there would be definition problems.All of that is interesting but when it comes to fuel poverty, or poverty in general, I'd like to see a shift from looking at gross income to income per person net of taxes and housing costs. As I showed earlier a high income household can have a far lower net income than a lower gross income household when these factors are taken into account.
Almost half the people applying for disability benefit are turned down but the number getting it is still massively higher than in other European countries. I wonder if this might be because it's easier to administer for social welfare offices (they don't have to pretend that they are encouraging recipients to look for work and recipients don't have to pretend either).The massive increase in the number of people on disability benefit is, I think, also worth looking at.