5) PRSI no longer entitles people to dental benefits
Parents of kids attending private schools pay the full cost of their education.
I agree. Why should the taxpayer be subsidising these?
surely those entirely dependent on social welfare are the least well off.2) Is the protection of those entirely dependent on social welfare misguided in light of the fact that such people may not be even the least well off social/economic group in this country anymore?
Correct and since the new government came into power they are even less well off.surely those entirely dependent on social welfare are the least well off.
Yes that's true. If all children were educated publicly, the state would have to pay all costs (building upkeep etc.) rather than just the teachers's salaries. Having a private school system saves the state money. So no taxpayer is 'subsidising' those in private education - they pay less because the parents pay fees on top of their taxes which should entitle their children to a full eductaion.On the surface I would agree with this. However, from what I hear, the state just pays the teachers' salaries - which it would have to do if those children were schooled publicly. The other costs (such as school upkeep) etc is paid for via the fees thus saving the state. Again, this is from what I hear..can anyone confirm/refute this?
I think that's what DerKaiser is questioning - are we in danger of reaching a point (maybe we passed it some time back) where some of those in work would be better off out of work and/or those on benefits are better off staying there?surely those entirely dependent on social welfare are the least well off.
Very good post, orka. Spot on.
i thought the govenment had a survey carried out some time ago which clearly showed that those even in very low paid jobs are still far batter off then those on social welfare
i thought the govenment had a survey carried out some time ago which clearly showed that those even in very low paid jobs are still far batter off then those on social welfare
Esri study reported that about 3 per cent were better off on the dole.
[broken link removed]
A foolish decision in my opinion; you'll never get a pay rise or promotion on social welfare. Working is a long term choice, SW should be a short term choice. Now we have people viewing it the the other way round....friend of mine had to refuse a job...
A foolish decision in my opinion; you'll never get a pay rise or promotion on social welfare.
How about something radical? instead of attacking the weakest and poorest in society by savage stealth taxes and heavy welfare cuts (o.k. there has to be reform of some welfare payments etc.)
Use something that is equitable a.k.a. progressive taxation...where the wealthier pay more in tax than the low paid
Apologies I forgot, in Ireland thiose who can afford to pay, don't!..tax is only for the little people and middle income earners
Esri study reported that about 3 per cent were better off on the dole.
[broken link removed]
Heard the guy from the ESRI on with Matt Cooper a few weeks ago, and he confirmed that the report didn't take into account the incremental household costs incurred when people go back to work - costs of commuting / motor, childcare, clothing etc.. which would not be incurred otherwise.
So, he had to admit that the figure could rise substantially if those factors were taken into account...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?