The system, as it stands now, is unsustainable. We are beggaring our children by imposing the cost of our pensions on them. It is immoral and economically unsustainable. The return on the state pension does not reflects a lifetime for most people paying into the system, it reflects a lifetime of not paying for something and expecting those coming after us to pay for it. It's like the Celtic Tiger boom only much much bigger.To obtain a full pension under current rules you must meet minimum contributions to prsi, your personal record can be obtained direct from the Department, if you do not meet criteria then you may fall back on a means tested pension, to say there is only a €16 difference is simplistic, I am a long way off pension age, I have a complete history of contributions since age 18 and plan to ensure I do not miss any, it is fair to say the return from the state contributory pension is terrific but it reflects a lifetime for most people paying into the system, I speak to the situation now not speculating on future changes.
You are entitled to your opinion but in my view citizenship comes with responsibilities as well as rights and one of those is to contribute to society where one can. To opt out of working full-time in order to live off your fellow citizens shows, in my opinion, a lack of personal integrity and honour and is parasitic.People making the most from any system is not unusual, it is the responsibility of those that design the systems to have checks and balances, to decide anybody on the forum who has posted honestly as social parasites is demeaning, to include the same comment on the posters wife does not warrant any comment.
great to see you back
It also stands to reason that if an employer has a large pool of potential workers to chose from, he can keep wages down. Hence shop assistants earn a lot less than doctors.It stands to reason that if employers paid more wages to lower earners that they would begin to come out of social protection, reducing the (exaggerated) tax bill of high earners.
It is indeed. While I disagree with most of what he says his points have substance and are well made. It'a always good to read contrary opinions as it should make you question your own views.great to see you back
I think we all agree with that. Where there is disagreement is at what point we get into a negative cycle, at what point do taxes on work cause fewer and fewer people to work and so damage the economy and society. We also have to ask what sort of society do we want; do we want the State to give a hand up or a hand out.It's an awful article, totally devoid of any concept of social principles or understanding of how the society and economy are intrinsically linked. One cannot survive without the other.
Maybe it is a counterbalance to most of the media ignoring the numbers completely.As too often on this site, the issues of taxation, social protection, economic growth etc are re-hashed through a narrow accounting narrative.
We do have family income support so no couple with children ever has to survive on €25,000 a year.For example, no, or very little consideration is given to how a couple earning less than €25,000 with children, can actually survive in this country without social protection.
If I am making a product I have to sell it at a price people are willing to pay. If my costs of manufacture are higher than the price I can get for the product then my business will go under and the people working for me will have no job. The same goes if I'm running a shop. There is no point in ignoring market forces, they are the reason most Unionised businesses in the competitive sectors of the economy have gone bust.Or how wages are skewed to over paying higher earners and suppressing the wages of low earners.
It stands to reason that if employers paid more wages to lower earners that they would begin to come out of social protection, reducing the (exaggerated) tax bill of high earners.
even with a new moniker i think i would still spot the old TheBigShort We have not seen a post like no 46 in a long time
at what point do taxes on work cause fewer and fewer people to work and so damage the economy and society. We also have to ask what sort of society do we want; do we want the State to give a hand up or a hand out.
Maybe it is a counterbalance to most of the media ignoring the numbers completely
We do have family income support so no couple with children ever has to survive on €25,000 a year.
If I am making a product I have to sell it at a price people are willing to pay. If my costs of manufacture are higher than the price I can get for the product then my business will go under and the people working for me will have no job. The same goes if I'm running a shop. There is no point in ignoring market forces
keep looking. Look at how many are wealth creating, export focused indigenous Irish jobs and how many are in non wealth creating State sector or construction jobs.As we speak, without any real reform of the tax system, the unemployment rate has fallen from 15% to 6.6% and continuing to fall further with projected economic growth to be around 5% this year.
It's hard to see how the taxation system is the cause of fewer and fewer people wanting to work.
A minor report on an issue which should dominate the media.This topic originates from the media, basing it's detail on the numbers.
It can't. We need to concentrate on getting more people to a position where their skills command a good income instead of taking hard earned income from those who have valuable skills and giving it to people who don't have them.Yes, I know. The topic highlights how these people take out of the system more than they put in.
How could that possibly change?
if that happens they will leave and take jobs with people who pay the market value for their skills.True, unless you pay your high earners a lot less and redistribute that income amongst low earners.
No, that's nothing to do with market forces. It's a sign that an opportunist washed out trade unionists and a couple of communists and populists can lie and distort and our left wing media won't call them out on their lies. That enables them to feed into a general public disgruntlement about politics and politicians and turn a minor environmental charge into a major issue where dimwits and morons want a constitutional referendum about the ownership of a public utility. Meanwhile we still have no controls on water use and the people's front of Dun Laoghaire still get to trot out utter nonsense about area metering, unchallenged by the pinkos and stickies in the Public Sector BroadcasterSpeaking of market forces, it is such that market forces can bring thousands of people onto the streets to protest against things water charged. A sign that working people under certain income thresholds cannot sustain anymore cuts to that income.
keep looking. Look at how many are wealth creating, export focused indigenous Irish jobs and how many are in non wealth creating State sector or construction jobs.
Our economy was built on internationally traded goods and services jobs in the early 90's. That is the only sustainable economic model for a country like ours, the only one which can provide the income we need for the services we want.
A minor report on an issue which should dominate the media.
It can't. We need to concentrate on getting more people to a position where their skills command a good income instead of taking hard earned income from those who have valuable skills and giving it to people who don't have them.
if that happens they will leave and take jobs with people who pay the market value for their skills.
You are avoiding the point. More and more people are returning to work, in spite of the apparent unfairness of the taxation system. This is the reality.
You still like to propagate the view that fewer and fewer people are returning to work. This is myth.
Speaking of market forces, it is such that market forces can bring thousands of people onto the streets to protest against things water charged. A sign that working people under certain income thresholds cannot sustain anymore cuts to that income.
How can you argue this on the one hand, then argue that we need to keep wages low to remain competitive?
You are avoiding the point. More and more people are returning to work, in spite of the apparent unfairness of the taxation system. This is the reality.
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?