Feather beds for wealthy retired

[Sionnac]

And when I was your age I didn't have the things that you have come to take for granted nor did I have any sense of self entitlement, just got on with it.

I don't get your point???

Is that a chip I see on your shoulder o Madra Rua?

Could be! Or a genuine question as to why the very rich avail of state money which they can do without.

Is that a chip I see on your shoulder o Madra Rua?

You could call it a chip! I'm not a young man having a go at the elderly as some replies assume. I am in my sixties . I sit around the golf club lounge with ex CEO's listening to their Anglo tape type conversations where they laugh at the fact that they will use their weekly pension to fill the tank of the 5 Series BMW to get them to the K club. Or that they will bring the missus as carer on a free bus ride to the Mater Private for the annual check up. The truth is that these people are wealthy with golf club memberships, large cars, some have yachts, some have homes abroad, all have huge sums in shares and savings yet they receive the same benefits as the lady in 57 Fatima Mansions who hasn't a sole on her shoe. Can you lads really defend that situation?

 

[KlausFlouride]

And do you remember the queue outside the phone box. I bought a suitcase in Guineys lately. I ate my first Pizza in Port Authority with a knife and fork.

You had a phone box/suitcase/pizza box to live in? Mr La-di-dah. So, I tied an onion to my belt, which was the style at the time.

There is a valid point in means testing pensions/medical cards/children's allowance. It's a beguiling idea that "I worked my whole life, I deserve x". But rationally, we should direct resources to people who are most in need. It wouldn't save a ball of money, but at some point the Irish need to figure out we are a society, what benefits me deprives someone else (from a government spending viewpoint). If someone has enough, as counterintuitive as it seems, they don't need the extras that could be used to help someone, which would benefit everyone in the long run.

 

[inflation]

The most depressing thing about this budget (and most budgets) is the lack of long term analysis of its effects. 2 weeks after a report* stating that the state pension at current levels is unsustainable going forward it's increased by 3 euro per week. We really need to grow up as a nation and have a proper debate about our spending and tax levels instead of wetting our pants like some smitten teenager everytime we get a few sweeties at budget time. Alas I can't see this happening in my lifetime.

* not allowed to post links so just google McKinsey pension unsustainable

 

[KlausFlouride]

Older people vote. Young people don't. TD's typically have small majorities, the older constituency will always be kowtowed to. The time of the furore about "Benefits Street" in the UK, a commentator pointed out 60+% of social welfare spending goes to retirees. A more accurate program would be little old dears going out for tea in the afternoon.

 

[Fella]

The most depressing thing about this budget (and most budgets) is the lack of long term analysis of its effects. 2 weeks after a report* stating that the state pension at current levels is unsustainable going forward it's increased by 3 euro per week. We really need to grow up as a nation and have a proper debate about our spending and tax levels instead of wetting our pants like some smitten teenager everytime we get a few sweeties at budget time. Alas I can't see this happening in my lifetime.

* not allowed to post links so just google McKinsey pension unsustainable

Maybe Europe will get involved eventually and tell Ireland they need to keep X amount or lower state pensions , maybe thats a good thing been part of Europe so that its more central and limits can be imposed on spending.

 

[Leo]

You could call it a chip! I'm not a young man having a go at the elderly as some replies assume. I am in my sixties . I sit around the golf club lounge with ex CEO's listening to their Anglo tape type conversations where they laugh at the fact that they will use their weekly pension to fill the tank of the 5 Series BMW to get them to the K club. Or that they will bring the missus as carer on a free bus ride to the Mater Private for the annual check up. The truth is that these people are wealthy with golf club memberships, large cars, some have yachts, some have homes abroad, all have huge sums in shares and savings yet they receive the same benefits as the lady in 57 Fatima Mansions who hasn't a sole on her shoe. Can you lads really defend that situation?

Fair play to them buying fuel with their weekly pension and in effect giving ~60% of it straight back to the Government in the form of taxes.

The shares they bought... The massive savings they have... They were funded from income that was already taxed, they then paid more tax on any gains.They continue to pay tax as they spend it.

Those folks buying BMWs and yachts are a very, very small minority. But anyone spending that extravagantly, you can rest assured the benefits they receive are dwarfed into insignificance by the tax they pay on that spending. So effectively they are still massive net-funders of the tax system.

You know there are likely others sitting around looking at you with your fancy golf club membership thinking they were hard done by.

 

[Firefly]

Thankfully , because many private sector pensioners like me ( if I live long enough ! ) will receive the state pension in addition to my occupational pension

Mind you I've had good look in the garage & unless the merc is hiding in a shady corner then I must have misplaced it & as for the yacht I must really check the marina in Dunmore East as I have no conscious memory of buying same - could be a memory/symptom of age thing though !

Deise,

Let's make a weekend of it - sail down to me in the RCYC and we can carry on down to Baltimore!

 

[Sionnac]

The bottom line is that no government especially a FG one has.... or ever will have the balls to means test pensions and benefits for the people I am talking about. The ironic thing is that those same people would say " fair cop gov" if they were means tested and be the first to admit that they shouldn't have been getting state funds that they didn't need in the first place. No one will ever convince me that the super rich of Ireland are entitled to state benefits they have no need for . Call it a chip, call it begrudgery , call it what you like , it ain't right.

 

[PaddyBloggit]

Don't blame the super rich - blame the system.

Entitlements for state supports should always be means tested.

 

[Sarenco]

Entitlements for state supports should always be means tested.

Would that include entitlements to payments from the social insurance fund that have been paid for by way of social insurance contributions (PRSI) made over many years? This includes redundancy payments, job seeker's benefit, illness benefit, maternity benefit and the contributory old age pension.

Would you include the value of somebody's house and/or farm in the means test?

If somebody wants to opt out of these entitlements, should they still be required to make PRSI contributions? It would suit me fine to opt out of this system as I expect to be a net contributor over my lifetime.

 

[PaddyBloggit]

Nope .. if somebody wants to be supported by the State they should prove that they need the support.

Differentiation should be made between being entitled to something and proving that one is entitled to be supported under one scheme or other.

Redundancy payments are earned by way of service so no means test should be applied, likewise with others. Some should be means tested when there is no automatic entitlement.

I still don't blame the 'super rich' for claiming what is being offered to them. Nobody should have an automatic entitlement to free travel for example. If a person can afford it they should pay their way. If not, by all means give them full free travel.

 

[Sarenco]

Grand.

I don't want and won't need any State "supports" and am happy to forego any entitlements that I might otherwise have.

In that case, is it ok if I stop paying PRSI?

Please?

Redundancy payments, contributory pensions, etc. are entitlements - not supports. That's why it's called social insurance and not social welfare. You contribute to a notional fund for the former - like any form of insurance - whereas welfare is really just a more modern or polite word for charity.

 

[Sionnac]

You see that is the problem ... the difference between supports and entitlements. Do you take entitlements even if you don't need them? or do you take supports because you do need them? Some seem to think that you are entitled to take entitlements simply because you are entitled to them ....not because you need them. Even if you feel you deserve entitlements because of the taxes you have paid over your lifetime... if you don't need them now ....don't take them as you are depriving those who need them! That is the salient point that does not seem to be getting over to some of you who have replied to this opinion. If you need it fine... if you don't whether you are entitled to it or not is not the question...you don't need it so don't claim it ...leave it to those who do.

 

[PaddyBloggit]

Human beings being human beings will take what they are entitled to even if they don't need them.

Very few are outside the grand all society.

And Mother Teresa is dead.

 

[Sarenco]

Do you take entitlements even if you don't need them?

Of course!

An entitlement is a benefit that our democratically elected government has decided, in its wisdom, to grant to a group within society. Whether that government decision is correct or not is a political judgment and can be changed by the next government that obtains the required mandate.

Look at it this way - anybody that is earning an income is required to make contributions to a fund. The majority of people, in absolute numbers, will draw more from that fund then they will ever contribute. A minority of people will be net contributors to that fund.

So, what happens if the net contributors collectively say "Ah, here - I'm not getting anything out of this arrangement - I'm off!". Well, the system would collapse.

The idea that people should exercise some individual constraint in claiming an entitlement that society has already decided that they should have makes absolutely no sense. If society decides that a particular class of people shouldn't have a particular entitlement then by all means they can change the rules. The only problem is that the net contributors to the system might decide they have done enough and simply walk away from the party.

If it was any other way, where would you draw the line? Should people make their own subjective judgments how much they should contribute to or draw from society? Trust me, if that's the plan everybody will feel they deserve a greater share of the pot.

We have a pretty sophisticated system to make the rules that govern our society. If you disagree with the rules, then you have every right to seek a mandate to change the rules (or to vote for somebody that shares your views). But to expect anybody not to claim a benefit to which they are legally entitled makes absolutely no sense.

 

[Bronte]

You could call it a chip! I'm not a young man having a go at the elderly as some replies assume. I am in my sixties . I sit around the golf club lounge with ex CEO's listening to their Anglo tape type conversations where they laugh at the fact that they will use their weekly pension to fill the tank of the 5 Series BMW to get them to the K club. Or that they will bring the missus as carer on a free bus ride to the Mater Private for the annual check up. The truth is that these people are wealthy with golf club memberships, large cars, some have yachts, some have homes abroad, all have huge sums in shares and savings yet they receive the same benefits as the lady in 57 Fatima Mansions who hasn't a sole on her shoe. Can you lads really defend that situation?

But this is just guff, people trying to outdo each other in the club. It's obviously more convenient to take the free bus to the hosptial than to hop in the Mercedes, this saves clogging up traffic and helps to utilise the buses. Outside of Dublin and prestigous golf clubs most membership is just ordinary people. I have a nephew who along with other teenagers play golf at a very subsidised rate, couple of hundered I think, to foster talent and encourage health activity. The club itself has 18 + 9 holes and is part of the community.

If you feel that bad about the women with no soles on her shoes in Fatima Mansions you can resign from the golf club and send her the subscription fee.

I personally don't know anyone who owns a yacht. But I like looking at them in places like Marabella or Monaco. And my family were once members of a sailing club and my dad even bought a boat. My husbands uncle also has a boat, he used it for illegal salmon and eel fishing.

You don't have to be rich to have a decent car or a yacht. Some of us are happy with bangers or can live without a yacht to boast about to her pals. Some yachts seem to spend an awful lot of time moored. And that reminds me, I got the kids to do a sailing class one summer in Dunmore East. They hated it.

 

[KlausFlouride]

It's a case where a Government needs to lead, & it wouldn't be popular at the start. I'll put on my tin hat now, but I don't understand why we are spending so much on foreign aid when we have homeless people dying on the streets of Dublin. If (say) the Labour party (Labour, This post will be deleted if not edited immediately, as what speed are James Connolly & Jim Larkin revolving in their graves?) took a stand, said this situation is a National disgrace, no household with +120k is getting children's allowance/free travel/medical cards, and we going to ring fence it to house/care for the most vulnerable among us, it might start to change the thought process around entitlement vs. need. In the long run everyone would benefit, but it will take leadership and probably a kicking in the election, but it would be a start.

 

[Protocol]

Before people call for an abolition of PRSI, and the means-testing of all welfare, please note that there are valid economic reasons for the existence of social insurance.

 

[inflation]

Before people call for an abolition of PRSI, and the means-testing of all welfare, please note that there are valid economic reasons for the existence of social insurance.

Why not tax all income whether it comes from salaries or benefits. Use the existing tax system and at the end of the year add up all income and then apply tax (using the relevant rates & bands). Less bureaucratic than means testing and then high earners would pay the marginal rate of tax on any state benefits whereas those who need it most wouldn't pay tax on it. Seeing as you'd be recouping some of the costs of providing benefits in tax you could actually increase the payments which would target people who need it more. Never happen in my lifetime tho - too logical.

 

[Protocol]

Social insurance benefits are taxed, that happens already.

Child benefit is not taxed.

Social assistance is not taxed.