# total income of porter & nurse as per the sunday indo



## thedaras (12 Apr 2009)

Theres an article in the Sunday Independant today,where a couple are featured talking about the effects of the budget.One is a hospital porter and the other a nurse.
Here is what they wrote about their earnings..
" I get paid every two weeks.My last wage slip was for e1.109 before tax.On top of that I got overtime of e170 and e184 double time.After all the tax deductons I came out with e1.124 for two weeks.That would be on the higher end of what I normally get.Rosies basic pay was e1.571 a fortnight prior to the pension levy.IN the last pay cheque they took e131 for the pension levy".

So lets say then they both come out with a similar amount ,that would be e4496.Plus childrens allowence of about e500 plus the early childcare payment ,they have 3 kids age 4 ,3 and 1.total is approx 5.250e a month.

They say the morgage is 1200e a month,and busfares of 300 plus childcare of about e1200( from what I can make out,its kind of confusing) a month.( as nurse does shifts).and life assurance of about e42 a month.

And they are complaining??
They finish the article by saying..
 " we are facing a very bleak situation.we are almost scared to sit down and figure out how we are going to afford things because we know we are going to come up against a brick wall".
Why are they complaining??
Has anyone else read this article ? Am I missing something in it?


----------



## RMCF (13 Apr 2009)

All I can say is that a porter in RoI gets paid crazy money


----------



## thedaras (13 Apr 2009)

jaybird said:


> Well, 1200 a month for 3 kids, no way, that would barely pay for one baby in a creche. You'd be paying a lot more than for 3kids, no matter where they are.


 
"The pre-school is €35 for a morning and we were sending Josh there three mornings a week. We cut it back to one and now we are looking at cutting it out altogether. Our outgoings for child minding were €300 for the three children two days a week -- €50 per child -- and that was when Rosie managed to roster her shifts so that she would have two days at home with the children. The children's allowance didn't cover it. That came to €250 per child every three months or €750 every three months. ".

This is the section about childcare which was written,as I said it is a bit confusing...


----------



## thedaras (13 Apr 2009)

RMCF said:


> All I can say is that a porter in RoI gets paid crazy money


 
Agree, this is what was written about his pay:

I get paid every two weeks. My last wage slip was for €1,109 before tax. On top of that I got overtime of €170 and €184 for double time. After all the tax deductions, I came out with €1,124 for two weeks.


----------



## thedaras (13 Apr 2009)

Here is the whole article,would be very interested to see what others think of it;


While the Celtic Tiger roared, Brian Condra, 37, and his wife, Rosie, 36, invested in a modest home and raising their three children. Brian works as a porter at Beaumont Hospital in Dublin. Rosie is a nurse in the Lourdes Hospital in Drogheda. 
They borrowed within their means, skipped foreign holidays and harboured hopes of university educations for their children, Josh, 4, Jacob, 3, and Jill, who is one. Brian Condra tells how they were already struggling to live on their joint gross annual incomes of just over €60,000 when last week the Government rewarded their frugal lifestyle by pushing the family into the red. This is their story, as told by Brian:
"We never 'felt' the Celtic Tiger. We bought our house in Drogheda in November 2005. It was an old corporation house on a corporation estate. It has a scullery kitchen and we still don't have a proper one. Everything happens in the sitting room. We got a mortgage for €190,000. 
We never felt the house was really worth it. Back in 2005 we could see that the property market was about to fall on its face. When the banks were encouraging us to take a mortgage of €350,000, we went for as low a mortgage as we could. We were fortunate that we did. We have friends who now, through one of them losing work, are facing the possibility of their homes being repossessed. 
The first few years we were married, we were meeting our mortgage repayments, making sure it was paid every month and trying to get little bits and pieces done to the house. We concentrated on that and on the children. 
We always wanted a car, but never really felt we could afford one. Instead of putting money towards a car, we wanted to put money towards the kids. We were never in a situation where we could do both. This year was supposed to be the first year that we were go to go on a family holiday. We probably would have gone to Wales or somewhere in Ireland, but that's gone now.
At this point in time, we are finding ourselves going under. Before the pension levy was introduced in December, we came out with probably in the region of €300 a month that we could play with. Since December's Budget, we are down roughly between €350 and €450 in any given month, depending on what overtime I can get in Beaumont Hospital. 
That's only with the pension levy and the one per cent income levy, and before we take into account the Budget last week. 
We are both going to be hit with the two per cent income levy, the four per cent health levy and the higher PRSI contributions. If children's allowance is taxed, we will be hit on that too.
I get paid every two weeks. My last wage slip was for €1,109 before tax. On top of that I got overtime of €170 and €184 for double time. After all the tax deductions, I came out with €1,124 for two weeks. That would be on the higher end of what I would normally get. Rosie's basic pay was €1,571 a fortnight prior to the pension levy. In the last pay cheque they took €131 for the pension levy. 
We haven't yet sat down and looked at how Tuesday's Budget is going to affect us. At this point in time we are now looking at the possibility of taking our eldest child out of playschool because we can't cover the cost of it, what with all of our other outgoings, our mortgage, feeding the family and child-minding and travel for me because I have to get a bus to Dublin for work.
The pre-school is €35 for a morning and we were sending Josh there three mornings a week. We cut it back to one and now we are looking at cutting it out altogether. Our outgoings for child minding were €300 for the three children two days a week -- €50 per child -- and that was when Rosie managed to roster her shifts so that she would have two days at home with the children. The children's allowance didn't cover it. That came to €250 per child every three months or €750 every three months. 
We can still manage to cover the mortgage, but have to curtail everything else. Our mortgage repayments are €1,200 a month and our life assurance is about €42 per month. 
Interest rates have come down and we do have the option of availing of that, but we are trying to pay as much as we can. The reason is I have a fixed-term contract in Beaumont Hospital. 
Thanks to Brian Lenihan's stunt of cancelling all fixed-term contracts, there is a strong possibility that when my contract runs out I won't have any work. So we are trying to keep the mortgage payments up as high as we can. 
If we do eventually find ourselves in a position where I don't have work, we want to be a little bit ahead of where we should be. That way, we might be able to get some leeway from the bank.
We don't want to go into massive debt in the future -- that is our big fear at the moment. 
We are looking at every way we can to cut costs without affecting the children. At the end of the day, you should have an expectation to be able to look after your children. We would have shopped predominantly in Dunnes Stores. We were into buying Irish. 
We haven't gone up North (to shop) because we don't have a car, but we have taken to shopping at places like Aldi and Lidl. 
We have had to curtail our bins. We were paying a yearly bill for the bin collection of €290. Now we are looking at the prospect of scrapping that. We are going back to the tag system, squashing every thing into fewer bins. 
These things put so much stress on you as a couple. I love my job. Beaumont is a brilliant place to work. But coming home, I'm thinking, am I going to have a job this day next week or am I going to be let go. I'm carrying that burden home. And the same for Rosie.
If I lose my job, even if we cut the mortgage down we still won't be able to cover the repayments. Even if I retain my job and the next Budget comes in with more increases in tax, we are going to be in that situation anyway. Our biggest fear is losing our house. It doesn't seem to matter which way you look at it, there is no light on the horizon. 
The Government says the cost of living has come down. If it has, we haven't noticed it. Our wages have come down in between and there is no benefit that I can see. 
At the end of the day, we will endeavour to pay our bills and pay our debts, like most people. 
That's the difference between the common person on the street and the developer who is constantly getting bailed out. The average man or woman on the street pays for them. 
I am very angry, first and foremost at the banks. The banks acted so irresponsibly. Myself and Rosie went out, worked, we did our bit for society, we paid our taxes, never broke the rules, never broke the law. In terms of work, we abided by the agreements that were hammered out by the social partners. We have done nothing wrong. Yet we find ourselves in a situation where we are being asked to pay, as if we had done something wrong. 
Meanwhile, the people who have created the problem -- the banks and the developers -- seem to be getting away scot-free. 
I think, at best, the Government has shown itself to be blissfully unaware of the realities of life in modern Ireland. 
I don't think that's a surprise when you have a Taoiseach who is paid the amount he is paid. He talks about feeling the pain . . . for me to work, I have to take a bus from Drogheda. That costs me €300 a month. That's an expense that I pay and I pay it willingly because it means I have a job. 
Here we have TDs sitting in Dail Eireann lauding themselves as heroes because they have taken a 10 per cent pay cut. I find it offensive that they think a 10 per cent pay cut from a huge wage is some kind of big deal. 
Brian Cowen and Brian Lenihan don't seem to understand that they belong amongst the mega rich. They are not going to lose their homes. Their children will get to go through school and they will get to go to college. 
Our greatest hope for our children is that they would get to go to college . . . We are now facing a future where they may not. 
We are facing a very bleak situation. We are almost scared to sit down and figure out how we are going to afford things because we know we are going to come up against a brick wall."


----------



## carpedeum (13 Apr 2009)

Mrs Carpedeum is a nurse in a major Dublin hospital. One of the proposed changes is to remove the Saturday and Sunday allowances and probably other premiums too e.g. Night duty premium. The plan is to roster shifts 24/7 at the same hourly rate regardless of the day or time of day. Would other professions tolerate this? People are going to leave. Foreign nurses, who make up the staff shortages are leaving already. Even in the boom years of the Celtic Tiger this hospital was short of nursing staff! Sometimes two qualified nurses looked after 35+ patients on night duty! Work out the stresses and risks! HSE admin staff and out of control expenditure just kept on increasing.


----------



## thedaras (13 Apr 2009)

carpedeum said:


> Mrs Carpedeum is a nurse in a major Dublin hospital. One of the proposed changes is to remove the Saturday and Sunday allowances and probably other premiums too e.g. Night duty premium. The plan is to roster shifts 24/7 at the same hourly rate regardless of the day or time of day. Would other professions tolerate this? People are going to leave. Foreign nurses, who make up the staff shortages are leaving already. Even in the boom years of the Celtic Tiger this hospital was short of nursing staff! Sometimes two qualified nurses looked after 35+ patients on night duty! Work out the stresses and risks! HSE admin staff and out of control expenditure just kept on increasing.


Perhaps this should be a new thread,as honestly dont think it has any relevance to the original post.However you may notice that the porter got an amount of money for overtime and another large amount for double time!!
I also posted some time ago that when I was a patient in hospital that one of the nurses on duty slept while the other kept an eye on things!
And it was the nurses who wanted the 12 hour shifts in the first place!! I wonder how happy they would be to go on a normal 8 hour day?


----------



## RMCF (13 Apr 2009)

thedaras said:


> Perhaps this should be a new thread,as honestly dont think it has any relevance to the original post.*However you may notice that the porter got an amount of money for overtime and another large amount for double time!!*
> I also posted some time ago that when I was a patient in hospital that one of the nurses on duty slept while the other kept an eye on things!
> And it was the nurses who wanted the 12 hour shifts in the first place!! I wonder how happy they would be to go on a normal 8 hour day?



But before bonuses, his pay was €1109 for 2 weeks pay. 

That's nearly €29k per year for a porter's job. As someone who works in NI, if that's the sort of wages a porter gets for a basic month, then is it any wonder that the country is so uncompetitive.


----------



## thedaras (13 Apr 2009)

RMCF said:


> But before bonuses, his pay was €1109 for 2 weeks pay.
> 
> That's nearly €29k per year for a porter's job. As someone who works in NI, if that's the sort of wages a porter gets for a basic month, then is it any wonder that the country is so uncompetitive.


 Yes,and look at the amount he gets for overtime and then double time!
This is where a change in the mindset must come into play.

And if he does this overtime/double time every other  two weeks we will remain uncompetitive,bear in mind that we are paying for this out of our taxes.
I presume a porter would not have a need for a 3rd level qualifacation?If so ,thats not a bad salary .
Also when the two salarys are added up ,plus childrens allowence plus the early childcare supplement,they are not doing too badly at all,which was my original point.What are they complaining about??


----------



## Purple (13 Apr 2009)

carpedeum, they are currently some of the highest paid nurses in the world. It is also worth noting that by EU standards we are massively overstaffed with nurses.
Porters are unskilled, requiring less training or skill than a builder’s labourer. They should be minimum wage jobs.

The article typifies the all pervasive culture of moaning entitlement than blankets this country like a cancer. If you are finding it hard get a second (or third) job, work more overtime, get a different job, sell the car etc. Whatever you do realise that you are an adult and are responsible for your own life. A maternalistic state running after you to make sure you don't fall and hurt yourself just makes you weak.


----------



## liaconn (13 Apr 2009)

Purple said:


> carpedeum, they are currently some of the highest paid nurses in the world. It is also worth noting that by EU standards we are massively overstaffed with nurses.
> .


 
This is because our medical system is organised in a way which relies much more heavily on nurses than our EU counterparts. Basically, our nurses carry out functions which would be undertaken by doctors in other countries.


----------



## RMCF (13 Apr 2009)

Just noticed that they haven't got a car either.

So they don't have the petrol, insurance, tax, maintenance costs etc that most of us have to put up with.


----------



## liaconn (13 Apr 2009)

RMCF said:


> Just noticed that they haven't got a car either.
> 
> So they don't have the petrol, insurance, tax, maintenance costs etc that most of us have to put up with.


 
Eh, I hardly think that's a valid criticism.


----------



## micmclo (13 Apr 2009)

RMCF said:


> Just noticed that they haven't got a car either.
> 
> So they don't have the petrol, insurance, tax, maintenance costs etc that most of us have to put up with.



That's hardly fair, aren't we supposed to encouraged people to use public transport.
Not everybody drives and if you live in a town or city, often a car is of little use to you if you're going to be paying for parking every day at work.

Anyway they spend 300 per month on Bus Eireann.
Actually, they're getting ripped off for that, there are taxsaver tickets you can buy for good rates if you are working
Well maybe they have the correct rate, seems a lot anyway


----------



## Amygdala (13 Apr 2009)

liaconn said:


> This is because our medical system is organised in a way which relies much more heavily on nurses than our EU counterparts. Basically, our nurses carry out functions which would be undertaken by doctors in other countries.


    This statement is incorrect. As a doctor working in the Irish health system it is my experience that Irish nurses do not take bloods, cannulate patients or even give first doses of IV medications even if they have been on the relevant courses,it is done by junior doctors. If a porter is not available to bring a patient to theatre or to bring requests to the relevant departments then it is done by the junior doctor. The same applies if a phlebotomist or cardiac technician is similarly not available for whatever reason. I work approx 80 hours a week of which 25% of my time doing the above routine tasks ,40% of my time is spent on organising appointments/tests/chasing charts etc. The remainder of my working week is the clinical work I was trained for. Unlike others in the public system I do not want to work overtime. The 80 hours that I and other non-consultant doctors work provide basic medical cover in a Victorian health care system. This would not be so bad if the majority of my time was spent on clinical work.
  Current HSE employee ratio is 49,000 management/administrative staff cater for 62,200 health workers. Of which less than 2000 are Consultants and approx 5000 non-consultant doctors. Quite a few departments such as radiology and pathology require little or no clerical support as they utilise “speech-to-text” software for reporting. One consultant requires one secretary ,one ward requires one ward clerk. I will leave to others to explain the 40,000+ managers and admin staff.


----------



## Chocks away (13 Apr 2009)

Sorry to shoot you down Doc. Was in hospital for six days recently and the nurses took bloods. They also cannulated. But you were right about Irish nurses not doing it. One was Indian and the other was Phillipino. Unless they were heavily disguised and telling me lies. And they did a great job.


----------



## Pique318 (13 Apr 2009)

Amygdala said:


> Current HSE employee ratio is 49,000 management/administrative staff cater for 62,200 health workers. Of which less than 2000 are Consultants and approx 5000 non-consultant doctors. Quite a few departments such as radiology and pathology require little or no clerical support as they utilise “speech-to-text” software for reporting. One consultant requires one secretary ,one ward requires one ward clerk. I will leave to others to explain the 40,000+ managers and admin staff.



Holy Schmoly !!! 

Too many chiefs, not enough indians !


----------



## Purple (13 Apr 2009)

Amygdala, I heard a consultant who moved back to Ireland after years with the NHS in England describe Irish nurses as over-qualified and under skilled. She also said that many have a very bad attitude to work with a general "not my job" attitude (not her words, her words would be a breach of the posting guidelines).
She said that the whole structure of the Irish health system was 20-30 years behind best practice in the UK.  

She also said that they were massivly overpaid here. I pointed out that the same was true of consultants (and GP's) to which she agreed.


----------



## S.L.F (13 Apr 2009)

chocks away said:


> but you were right about irish nurses not doing it. One was *indian* and the other was phillipino. Unless they were heavily disguised and telling me lies. And they did a great job.


 


pique318 said:


> holy schmoly !!!
> 
> Too many chiefs, not enough *indians* !


 
lol :d


----------



## Yorrick (14 Apr 2009)

Maybe it is time to stop whinging, face reality and get on with it. A neighbour who was made redundant took the right attitude from the start. 
He and his wife got out the paint brush and decorated rooms in the house. They have signed up to take in foreign language students over the summer. His own kids will spend the summer in  tents and wooden houses in the back garden, which they love.
When the rush of summer students is over they will continue taking in one adult foreign language student out of season as he has a spare room. It is additional income coming in which will pay the bills while he continues looking for work.
I think this is a better alternative than ringing Joe Duffy and whinging that you are going to lose the apartment in Croatia


----------



## thedaras (14 Apr 2009)

Yorrick said:


> Maybe it is time to stop whinging, face reality and get on with it. A neighbour who was made redundant took the right attitude from the start.
> He and his wife got out the paint brush and decorated rooms in the house. They have signed up to take in foreign language students over the summer. His own kids will spend the summer in tents and wooden houses in the back garden, which they love.
> When the rush of summer students is over they will continue taking in one adult foreign language student out of season as he has a spare room. It is additional income coming in which will pay the bills while he continues looking for work.
> I think this is a better alternative than ringing Joe Duffy and whinging that you are going to lose the apartment in Croatia


 
I would agree with you,however i  do think some people have a valid reason to complain,but the porter and nurse dont seem to have any reason!! that i can see at least.
Theres no doubt that there will be a shortage of students available as more and more people apply to take them.ANd in fairness theres only so much paintng of a house one can do.


----------



## liaconn (14 Apr 2009)

Amygdala said:


> This statement is incorrect. As a doctor working in the Irish health system it is my experience that Irish nurses do not take bloods, cannulate patients or even give first doses of IV medications even if they have been on the relevant courses,it is done by junior doctors. If a porter is not available to bring a patient to theatre or to bring requests to the relevant departments then it is done by the junior doctor. The same applies if a phlebotomist or cardiac technician is similarly not available for whatever reason. I work approx 80 hours a week of which 25% of my time doing the above routine tasks ,40% of my time is spent on organising appointments/tests/chasing charts etc. The remainder of my working week is the clinical work I was trained for. Unlike others in the public system I do not want to work overtime. The 80 hours that I and other non-consultant doctors work provide basic medical cover in a Victorian health care system. This would not be so bad if the majority of my time was spent on clinical work.
> Current HSE employee ratio is 49,000 management/administrative staff cater for 62,200 health workers. Of which less than 2000 are Consultants and approx 5000 non-consultant doctors. Quite a few departments such as radiology and pathology require little or no clerical support as they utilise “speech-to-text” software for reporting. One consultant requires one secretary ,one ward requires one ward clerk. I will leave to others to explain the 40,000+ managers and admin staff.


 
That is strange as I have often been canulated and had bloods taken by nurses, as has my father who spends a lot of time in hospital. I wasn't criticising doctors by the way, I was saying that our health system does not rely enough on them, and they should. My comment about the way the health system is organised was on foot of a meeting I attended recently to discuss Government policy in relation to certain matters, and this point was brought up by experts in the labour market field.


----------



## Ron Burgundy (14 Apr 2009)

Yorrick said:


> Maybe it is time to stop whinging, face reality and get on with it. A neighbour who was made redundant took the right attitude from the start.
> He and his wife got out the paint brush and decorated rooms in the house. They have signed up to take in foreign language students over the summer. His own kids will spend the summer in tents and wooden houses in the back garden, which they love.
> When the rush of summer students is over they will continue taking in one adult foreign language student out of season as he has a spare room. It is additional income coming in which will pay the bills while he continues looking for work.
> I think this is a better alternative than ringing Joe Duffy and whinging that you are going to lose the apartment in Croatia


 
Thats the way to do it !!!


----------



## liaconn (14 Apr 2009)

I agree that a positive attitude is important. But I don't think its realistic to think that people with fairly recent mortgages would be able to meet their repayments and pay their bills on what they would earn from taking in foreign students. These people are entitled to feel panicky and upset and, yes, whinge a bit if they want. They're only human.


----------



## Ron Burgundy (15 Apr 2009)

jaybird said:


> Some of us with the large recent mortgages have very tiny houses stuffed with a couple of kids! No room for students I'm afraid, and I can't put the kids in a tent in the garden as a) I don't have a garden (couldn't afford a house with one of those!) and, b) as they are babies the social services would have me arrested.
> 
> Still thinking of ways to make some money though, one small, rapidly diminishing wage is not covering much these days, but I'll come up with something......


 
Its great to hear people talking like this instead of whinging on liveline or just blaming the government for everything from the recission to liverwho getting knocked out of europe last night.


----------



## woods (15 Apr 2009)

You are all getting away from the original post.
Why is nobody suggesting that while this couple made all the right decisions regarding what they could afford they missed a crucial one.
They could not afford 3 kids and so they should not have had 3 kids. Now that they have had them they will have to make all of the necessary sacrifices that having that number of kids entails.
I was only able to afford one kid as I never expected that other people should pay to raise kids for me.


----------



## Pique318 (15 Apr 2009)

woods said:


> You are all getting away from the original post.
> Why is nobody suggesting that while this couple made all the right decisions regarding what they could afford they missed a crucial one.
> They could not afford 3 kids and so they should not have had 3 kids. Now that they have had them they will have to make all of the necessary sacrifices that having that number of kids entails.
> I was only able to afford one kid as I never expected that other people should pay to raise kids for me.



Uh oh, now you've gone a done it....how dare you even suggest that people only have the number of children they can afford. Aren't we all meant to be delighted for the parents of entire teams of children


----------



## thedaras (16 Apr 2009)

woods said:


> You are all getting away from the original post.
> Why is nobody suggesting that while this couple made all the right decisions regarding what they could afford they missed a crucial one.
> They could not afford 3 kids and so they should not have had 3 kids. Now that they have had them they will have to make all of the necessary sacrifices that having that number of kids entails.
> I was only able to afford one kid as I never expected that other people should pay to raise kids for me.


 You dont collect your childrens allowance then.. maybe you could donate it to a more worthwhile cause..


----------



## Vanilla (16 Apr 2009)

jaybird said:


> Maybe we should either a) legalise abortion in this country, or b) means test people before they have sex?


 
An excellent suggestion. A great way to stimulate the economy as hoards of people fall over themselves in a bid to earn more. In fact we could increase the minimum threshold each year ( or at least during the recession).


----------



## woods (16 Apr 2009)

thedaras said:


> You dont collect your childrens allowance then.. maybe you could donate it to a more worthwhile cause..



It has been a long time since I was entitled to Children's allowance but I have to say that you are correct. I did badly need it for the first couple of years and have to admit that I used it but after about four years when I was no longer in need of it I allowed someone else the use of it.
I think that it is a totally ridiculous payment and should be done away with immediately.
If you can not afford to raise children then you should not have them. You should not expect others to make sacrifices so that you can indulge in more kids when the population of the world is well past the point that it can support.


----------



## woods (16 Apr 2009)

jaybird said:


> Maybe we should either a) legalise abortion in this country, or b) means test people before they have sex?



There is no need to do either. Just stop expecting the rest of us to subsidise it.


----------



## Caveat (16 Apr 2009)

jaybird said:


> So if you lose your job/take a massive pay cut, whatever, and your children need to eat you should......? Not have had them in the first place? Then perhaps its a time machine you need to invent!


 
OK, but job loss aside, what about people who have a couple of kids, find things are tight, have a few more, find themselves struggling but still think "Ah sure we'll just have another one" ?

Plenty of them around. IMO that attitude is simply grossly irresponsible, stupid bad parenting and plain selfish. In fact I think there was a thread a few months back that touched on a few real life examples like this.


----------



## Chocks away (16 Apr 2009)

Caveat said:


> OK, but job loss aside, what about people who have a couple of kids, find things are tight, have a few more, find themselves struggling but still think "Ah sure we'll just have another one" ?
> 
> Plenty of them around. IMO that attitude is simply grossly irresponsible, stupid bad parenting and plain selfish. In fact I think there was a thread a few months back that touched on a few real life examples like this.


That man with the quiet voice who does wildlife programmes touched on this subject on the BBC website just this week.


----------



## MOB (16 Apr 2009)

"There is no need to do either. Just stop expecting the rest of us to subsidise it."

This is a dangerous argument.  In many European countries the falling birthrate means that there is a looming crisis.  Today's workers are tomorrow's pensioners.  Today's children are tomorrow's taxpayers.   Those who resent subsidies being given to to today's children will one day find themselves relying on the tax receipts from those same children to pay for their state pensions and state-subsidised healthcare.


----------



## woods (16 Apr 2009)

MOB said:


> ".  In many European countries the falling birthrate means that there is a looming crisis.  .



They predict that there will be 10 Billion people on the planet by the end of the century so I would not loose any sleep over that one.


----------



## thedaras (16 Apr 2009)

woods said:


> You are all getting away from the original post.
> Why is nobody suggesting that while this couple made all the right decisions regarding what they could afford they missed a crucial one.
> They could not afford 3 kids and so they should not have had 3 kids. Now that they have had them they will have to make all of the necessary sacrifices that having that number of kids entails.
> I was only able to afford one kid as I never expected that other people should pay to raise kids for me.


 
How about we open some orphananges for all the little kiddies whose parents can no longer afford them 
Oh and what about the schools ? Dont we subsidise them through our taxes,could we make it a one child per family rule?
And do the same with the childrens allowence..one kid only.
And for third level ,one kid only entitled to go..that would soon put a stop to this nonsense of people having three eh..
One kid per car? Holidays 2 adults and one child?
Table for 3?
What about giving those who dont have any kids ,a kid from the overpopulated familys?
One child per family per creche?..
Really dont know why people have more than one,imagine thinking at any stage of your life that you could afford to have more than one.Utterly ridiculous!! We can let people know when we think they can afford to have maybe one more,but by god on your own head be it cos if theres another recession..well dont say you havent been warned


----------



## Chocks away (16 Apr 2009)

woods said:


> They predict that there will be 10 Billion people on the planet by the end of the century so I would not loose any sleep over that one.



The elephant in the room: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6087833.ece


----------



## thedaras (16 Apr 2009)

woods said:


> It has been a long time since I was entitled to Children's allowance but I have to say that you are correct. I did badly need it for the first couple of years and have to admit that I used it but after about four years when I was no longer in need of it I allowed someone else the use of it.
> I think that it is a totally ridiculous payment and should be done away with immediately.
> If you can not afford to raise children then you should not have them. You should not expect others to make sacrifices so that you can indulge in more kids when the population of the world is well past the point that it can support.


#

I always fasinated by people who say ,I really needed it,but now that I dont,its a riduclous payment.funny that eh!

What do you mean ,you allowed someone else to use it?  For what?
Its Childrens allowence,hint in the "childrens" bit..

Is there a lower income level you would suggest that people do not have children at?

Whats your definition of "afford to raise children" because that would need to be known,so we can make sure it meets the criteria before conception.

You definition of afford may be quite different to others.
I know someone who has only one child,had a great job,nice house blah blah and guess what he lost his job!! any idea now what he can do with the kid he can no longer afford?

I also know someone who has 6 yes six kids and he has a good job,nice house,blah blah, for now.he had those kids over 18 years ago,but who knows whats around the corner....


----------



## Purple (16 Apr 2009)

Just tax it!
At the moment the state takes a load of money from me in taxes and employs a load of people to give it back to me tax free... why?
Either don't take it in the first place or tax it but don't take it, provide a few jobs for the boys (and girls) and then give me back what's left.


----------



## thedaras (16 Apr 2009)

Purple said:


> Just tax it!
> At the moment the state takes a load of money from me in taxes and employs a load of people to give it back to me tax free... why?
> Either don't take it in the first place or tax it but don't take it, provide a few jobs for the boys (and girls) and then give me back what's left.


 
 Agreed.


----------



## MOB (17 Apr 2009)

woods said:


> They predict that there will be 10 Billion people on the planet by the end of the century so I would not loose any sleep over that one.



I would.  The global population growth is undoubtedly true - but the population growth is not coming from Western Europe.  Along with declining birth rates, Western Europe will, because of population growth elsewhere, continue to have a sustained period of immigration.  

If you end up with a two-tier country of old 'natives' and young immigrants, do you think the young immigrants will really want to subsidise the aged through their taxes?  There are tumultuous times ahead.


----------



## woods (18 Apr 2009)

thedaras said:


> #
> 
> 
> Is there a lower income level you would suggest that people do not have children at?
> ...



That would all depend on the standard of living you wanted to provide for them.
What I am saying is that you should not expect other people to help you to provide for them. Why should they.


----------



## Ancutza (18 Apr 2009)

Ah, come on Woods! So after you've convinced people that they shouldn't have had kids because they can't afford them and you've allowed them to grow old without children, are you then going to explain to them (aged 65) that they better hop off, quick, to the pearly gates so you don't have to pay contributions to their state pension? After all why should you pay? Such thinking is 'zero-sum'. 

In an ideal world we'd all be rich and well able to afford our kids, their education, our pension and both of our medical care payments. The reality of life is that we have an obligation to look after the weaker members of society. You are (like it or not) your brothers keeper.


----------



## Purple (18 Apr 2009)

Ancutza said:


> The reality of life is that we have an obligation to look after the weaker members of society. You are (like it or not) your brothers keeper.



We have an obligation to assist the weaker members of society to look after themselves.


----------



## Ancutza (19 Apr 2009)

And if they can't look after themselves in spite of our best efforts?  What are we going to do? Gas them?

I feel strongly about this issue as myself and my wife are god-parents to 3 abandoned kids here in Romania as well as having our own small kid.  I know their mother for many years but she doesn't want to know them.  For the moment they are (relatively) happily fostered and we do our best to support them by having them on holidays from school, checking up on them as often as possible, even if this only means going for an ice-cream or to the cinema together once a month.  They get slipped the odd few bob but since they are 3 amongst 14 we have to be careful not to pick them out to their peers.

We take the strain in alot of instances where their mother should.  Her attitude ****es me off personally and i've told her so, but what's the alternative?  Should we, having known them for 7 years now, (and they're really lovely kids) tell them that we won't have anything more to do with them because their mother was an idiot who didn't think ahead of the night on which they were concieved?

I know you're going to say 'Well isn't that a classic case of 'shouldn't have kids if you can't take care of them?'"  If only the human condition was so simply analysed! 

At the end of the day in probably 5 or 6 years time we'll be called upon to assist in putting them through college (something we are determined to 'inflict' on them) and you know what Woods? It will be an honour if we can afford it.  They weren't planned.  Their parents didn't have enough money to afford their up-keep but at the end of the day they're just little kids and we love them.

Sorry for straying so far off topic but I think that those who live in ivory towers should once in a while consider the _real _world outside their walls!


----------



## Purple (19 Apr 2009)

Ancutza said:


> And if they can't look after themselves in spite of our best efforts?  What are we going to do? Gas them?


 Nope, help them. If they can help themselves then help them to help themselves. If they can’t help themselves then look after them. If they can help themselves but choose not to then screw them.




Ancutza said:


> I know you're going to say 'Well isn't that a classic case of 'shouldn't have kids if you can't take care of them?'"  If only the human condition was so simply analysed!


 No, I’ve never advocated that or in any way supported that attitude. 



Ancutza said:


> Sorry for straying so far off topic but I think that those who live in ivory towers should once in a while consider the _real _world outside their walls!


 I agree completely. The smell of a shanty town (rot, sweat and stale sewage) stays with you for quite some time.


----------



## liaconn (19 Apr 2009)

I think bringing children down to an 'affordable' commodity is a bit sad. Half of us wouldn't be here if our parents had thought like that.

I do think, however, that children's allowances and benefits should be more tightly controlled. People who don't need them should not be entitled to avail of them. And a system which encourages young people to have children as an alternative to going out and earning a living is also dangerous.The number of kids pushing prams around shopping centres nowadays is frightening. (And yes,I know the money is only one element of a very, very large problem).


----------



## woods (19 Apr 2009)

There are exceptions to every rule. I am not a hard inconsiderate person. I am objecting to the way that society has developed in to one that assumes that society will help you to support your kids so go ahead and have them even when you can not afford them.
I am not objecting to helping kids who are in dire need. I am objecting to giving money to the parents. Any publican will tell you that children's allowance day is a bonanza day in the pubs.
When I say that I badly needed the children's allowance for a couple of years I should have said that it came in very useful when I was starting out in life but it was a very small amount in those days and I could have survived without it. I am a little sorry now that I used it even for the couple of years that I did as I do think that it should not be paid.


----------



## Padraigb (19 Apr 2009)

Purple said:


> Nope, help them. If they can help themselves then help them to help themselves. If they can’t help themselves then look after them. If they can help themselves but choose not to then screw them...



Means testing for the purpose of allocating welfare support can be expensive and unreliable.

Imagine how much greater would be the problem of determining who is capable of helping him- or herself but chooses not to.


----------



## Purple (19 Apr 2009)

Padraigb said:


> Means testing for the purpose of allocating welfare support can be expensive and unreliable.
> 
> Imagine how much greater would be the problem of determining who is capable of helping him- or herself but chooses not to.


That's why I think it should be taxable. Why do people on hundreds of thousands a year get social welfare payments? It's as bad as the greedy selfish rich pensioners who had a tantrum when the medical cards they never should have been given were taken back.
I think most people do not have a problem supporting children/families who cannot support themselves despite their own best efforts. The problem arises when people choose to live off welfare because they are too lazy to motivate themselves and care so little for their children that they have no aspiration that they will do any differently… and despite the mindless protests of upper-middle income socialists that this is not the case the reality is that there are tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of those people in this country.

BTW, what other welfare payments (with the exception of pensions) are not means tested?


----------



## gipimann (19 Apr 2009)

There are two types of Social Welfare schemes:

Social Insurance schemes are based on PRSI contributions - Jobseeker's Benefit, Illness Benefit, Maternity Benefit, Contributory Pensions, Treatment Benefit.

Social Assistance schemes are means-tested - Jobseeker's Allowance, One Parent Family Payment, Supplementary Welfare Allowance, Disability Allowance, non-contributory pensions.

Child Benefit, as currently paid, falls outside both of these groups - it's paid regardless of income or PRSI contributions.   It's known as a universal payment.


----------



## liaconn (20 Apr 2009)

Purple said:


> It's as bad as the greedy selfish rich pensioners who had a tantrum when the medical cards they never should have been given were taken back.


 
I think that's a bit unfair. The majority of people who got medical cards had worked their a*ses off during the sixties, seventies and eighties, paid punitive levels of tax and made huge sacrifices to raise and educate their children. This contributed hugely to the economic boom and they fully deserved to benefit in some way themselves. When things started to slow down, the first place the Government came with their axe was to them. I don't think they would have protested if it had been done in tandem with levies, clampdown on bonuses for bankers etc etc.


----------



## Purple (20 Apr 2009)

liaconn said:


> I think that's a bit unfair. The majority of people who got medical cards had worked their a*ses off during the sixties, seventies and eighties, paid punitive levels of tax and made huge sacrifices to raise and educate their children. This contributed hugely to the economic boom and they fully deserved to benefit in some way themselves.



They did benefit; they retired on over €70'000 a year. They also spent their working life in the Ireland of tax evasion and corruption. Did all the people up to their neck in such behaviour 20-30 years ago die young? If working families should pay tax on their children’s allowance (and I think they should) then OAP’s earning over €70’000 a year should have to folk out for their own subsidised (community rated) and tax deductable health insurance.


----------



## Padraigb (20 Apr 2009)

liaconn said:


> I think that's a bit unfair. The majority of people who got medical cards had worked their a*ses off during the sixties, seventies and eighties, paid punitive levels of tax and made huge sacrifices to raise and educate their children. This contributed hugely to the economic boom and they fully deserved to benefit in some way themselves. When things started to slow down, the first place the Government came with their axe was to them. I don't think they would have protested if it had been done in tandem with levies, clampdown on bonuses for bankers etc etc.



I am retired, but not yet at an age where the medical card might have come my way -- and now I don't expect to get one.

I worked during previous hard times (being always lucky enough to have a job) and paid my taxes, even when rates were very high. That does not make me a hero: I worked primarily for my own and my family's benefit, not as an act of selfless patriotism. Now I have a decent pension, and I can afford to pay my way, including medical expenses. Why should I get totally free healthcare, rather than largely free healthcare, when there are people in society with far greater needs than mine?


----------



## Caveat (20 Apr 2009)

Well said Padraigb.


----------



## liaconn (20 Apr 2009)

Purple said:


> They did benefit; they retired on over €70'000 a year. They also spent their working life in the Ireland of tax evasion and corruption. Did all the people up to their neck in such behaviour 20-30 years ago die young? If working families should pay tax on their children’s allowance (and I think they should) then OAP’s earning over €70’000 a year should have to folk out for their own subsidised (community rated) and tax deductable health insurance.


 
Yes, but the majority of people with medical cards were not evading tax etc. My parents lost their medical card despite the fact that my father is on huge amounts of medication. For the majority of his life he was not earning fabulous money,  did without and also remortgaged his house to pay for his family's third level education. He also paid every penny of tax he was due to pay, spent much of his free time doing charity work and eventually did well because of making a very good career decision when he was in his fifties.  I was objecting to you calling people like him greedy and selfish because they protested at being targetted at a time when other groups were still living brash elaborate lifestyles and no moves had been made to rein them in and make them 'share the pain'. The removal of the medical card should have been done as part of a package of cost cutting measures. Why was this done before there was any mention of means testing child benefit, reintroducing 3rd level fees for those who can afford it and tackling the issue of Ministerial pensions?


----------



## Purple (20 Apr 2009)

He can claim back his prescription expenses over €100 per month. The balance is tax deductable. Health insurance should cover most of the rest (if there’s anything left over its tax deductable). 
Anyone on over €70'000 a year who will march in the streets instead of paying a few quid a week in selfish... what other word is there?


----------



## liaconn (20 Apr 2009)

Purple said:


> He can claim back his prescription expenses over €100 per month. The balance is tax deductable. Health insurance should cover most of the rest (if there’s anything left over its tax deductable).
> Anyone on over €70'000 a year who will march in the streets instead of paying a few quid a week in selfish... what other word is there?


 

How dare you.


----------



## liaconn (20 Apr 2009)

I would just like to add that he, like a lot of people, lost all his savings practically overnight because of the corrupt behaviour of bankers and, unlike younger people, will have no second chance. 
The week before last he spent 24 hours lying on a trolley in A&E, without a pillow because they had 'run out', totally exposed to public view and left with no dignity. The walls were lined with old people lying on trollies, most of whom had probably paid taxes all their lives and had also probably lost most of their savings. The elderly have been treated like dirt in this country by a brash and greedy celtic tiger generation who have given new meaning to the word 'selfish'.


----------



## Sunny (20 Apr 2009)

To be fair if your parents lost the medical card it means they have an annual income of over €70,000. If your father has the high medical expenses that you say, they can also claim for the card under a hardship basis if they are struggling. I personally think that all social welfare payments and benefits should be means tested. I don't see why I should get child benefit if I don't need it. And its not a case of the Celtic Tiger generation picking on the older generation. All these new rules will affect us in the future as well.

The state of the health system is a different argument.


----------



## liaconn (20 Apr 2009)

The point I'm making is that elderly people were entitled to protest when they were being targetted in isolation of other well off people in the community. I said the medical card should have been removed in conjunction with other fiscal policies focussed on wealthy young parents, millionaire developers and bankers, overpaid and pensioned politicians etc. Of course anybody earning over €70,000 doesn't need a full free medical service. But fiscal policies should target everybody equally. I think a lot of elderly people, already bewildered by the loss of their savings, were terrified of becoming an easy target for Government. Its the use of the words 'greedy and selfish' to describe them all that I find offensive.


----------



## Sunny (20 Apr 2009)

liaconn said:


> The point I'm making is that elderly people were entitled to protest when they were being targetted in isolation of other well off people in the community. I said the medical card should have been removed in conjunction with other fiscal policies focussed on wealthy young parents, millionaire developers and bankers, overpaid and pensioned politicians etc. Of course anybody earning over €70,000 doesn't need a full free medical service. But fiscal policies should target everybody equally. I think a lot of elderly people, already bewildered by the loss of their savings, were terrified of becoming an easy target for Government. Its the use of the words 'greedy and selfish' to describe them all that I find offensive.


 
Fair enough


----------



## Shawady (20 Apr 2009)

Part of the problem was they initially set a low threshold for pensioners to lose their medical card but were to put in place a scheme were most pensioners would receive €400 a year. I think this confused a lot of people.
Their message was not very clear and if they had originally come out and said anyone earning under 70K would not be affected, there would have been no protests.


----------



## Purple (20 Apr 2009)

liaconn said:


> How dare you.





liaconn said:


> Of course anybody earning over €70,000 doesn't need a full free medical service.


 Make up your mind.

I agree that everyone should be targeted, with well off parents not getting tax free social welfare and well off pensioners not getting universal free healthcare. 
My own father is retired and after 55 years working has lost 85% of his pension fund. Them's the breaks.


----------



## liaconn (20 Apr 2009)

Purple said:


> Make up your mind.
> 
> I agree that everyone should be targeted, with well off parents not getting tax free social welfare and well off pensioners not getting universal free healthcare.
> My own father is retired and after 55 years working has lost 85% of his pension fund. Them's the breaks.


 
My how dare you related to your statement that they were being greedy and selfish. From my first post I made it clear that I felt the card should have been removed in conjunction with other measures. I have not changed my mind on that.


----------



## Purple (20 Apr 2009)

liaconn said:


> My how dare you related to your statement that they were being greedy and selfish. From my first post I made it clear that I felt the card should have been removed in conjunction with other measures. I have not changed my mind on that.



And I made it clear that I was talking about the rich pensioners who protested in front of the Dail about it... for feck sake, they were singing "we shall overcome" as if they were the victim of some egregious breach of basic human right instead of well healed pensioners who had a freebie taken away.


----------



## liaconn (20 Apr 2009)

Purple said:


> And I made it clear that I was talking about the rich pensioners who protested in front of the Dail about it... for feck sake, they were singing "we shall overcome" as if they were the victim of some egregious breach of basic human right instead of well healed pensioners who had a freebie taken away.


 
Well, I think you're being very harsh. You obviously don't agree with my view, I don't agree with your's. We'll just have to differ on this one.


----------



## spursfan1234 (20 Apr 2009)

from the bi weekly pay checks these two people get they earn a combined income of far more than 60k. this is the usual rubbish that people go on about. they take their basic pay even though they always earn more than their basic pay with over time and double time and all these other crazy allowances. 

if they cant afford a mortgage of 190k on this money etc then they are wasting an awful lot of money.

and as a side not i know several nurses who love night duty due to the fact that they get a lot more money for it and spend most of the night sleeping


----------



## Mommah (25 Apr 2009)

I'm pretty confident we have the highest ratio of nurses per capita in the OECD.
Pity so many of them are walking around in suits with clipboards.


----------



## lou2 (25 Apr 2009)

Mommah said:


> I'm pretty confident we have the highest ratio of nurses per capita in the OECD.
> Pity so many of them are walking around in suits with clipboards.



I think many people have this idea that there are loads of nurses walking around hospitals in suits with clipboards....that's just not the case. A very small minority of nurses are in management....but that's all...a small minority. Let's get real here.


----------



## room305 (26 Apr 2009)

MOB said:


> This is a dangerous argument.  In many European countries the falling birthrate means that there is a looming crisis.  Today's workers are tomorrow's pensioners.  Today's children are tomorrow's taxpayers.   Those who resent subsidies being given to to today's children will one day find themselves relying on the tax receipts from those same children to pay for their state pensions and state-subsidised healthcare.



One simple move would be to ask people to fund their own pensions rather than rely on the state to do it for them. Ditto healthcare.

Failing that, there is, as has been pointed out elsewhere, no shortage of individuals elsewhere in the world only too glad to travel here and work.



MOB said:


> I would.  The global population growth is undoubtedly true - but the population growth is not coming from Western Europe.  Along with declining birth rates, Western Europe will, because of population growth elsewhere, continue to have a sustained period of immigration.
> 
> If you end up with a two-tier country of old 'natives' and young immigrants, do you think the young immigrants will really want to subsidise the aged through their taxes?  There are tumultuous times ahead.



Why would young immigrants think any differently of subsidising the elderly than young natives?



liaconn said:


> The elderly have been treated like dirt in this country by a brash and greedy celtic tiger generation who have given new meaning to the word 'selfish'.



The elderly have largely been "treated like dirt" by the political party to which they lend the greatest support - Fianna Fail. They were also some of the greatest beneficiaries of the so-called Celtic Tiger. Not speaking of your father in particular, just in the general case.


----------



## Purple (26 Apr 2009)

liaconn said:


> The elderly have been treated like dirt in this country by a brash and greedy celtic tiger generation who have given new meaning to the word 'selfish'.


 That's a great sound bite but can you substantiate it in any way?


----------



## MOB (26 Apr 2009)

room305 said:


> Why would young immigrants think any differently of subsidising the elderly than young natives?.



Because the elderly would not be of immigrant stock.  I thought I made the point clearly enough.  But it is not something we need to worry about in Ireland.


----------



## room305 (26 Apr 2009)

MOB said:


> Because the elderly would not be of immigrant stock.  I thought I made the point clearly enough.  But it is not something we need to worry about in Ireland.



I still don't get it. If I moved from a country where I couldn't get work to one where I could, I don't think it would bother me too much that my taxes were being used to subsidise benefits for the elderly natives. Presuming of course I was subject to the same taxes and entitled to the same benefits upon retirement as everybody else.

Can you point to a real-world example country where such discontent reigns?


----------



## liaconn (26 Apr 2009)

Purple said:


> That's a great sound bite but can you substantiate it in any way?


 

Purple,I said, after our last heated debate, that we obviously can't agree on this. I have given my views and some personal examples
and acknowledged that, if you don't agree you don't agree. End of, surely??


----------



## MOB (27 Apr 2009)

room305 said:


> I still don't get it. If I moved from a country where I couldn't get work to one where I could, I don't think it would bother me too much that my taxes were being used to subsidise benefits for the elderly natives. Presuming of course I was subject to the same taxes and entitled to the same benefits upon retirement as everybody else.
> 
> Can you point to a real-world example country where such discontent reigns?




There is no country with a well developed welfare state yet facing a huge pension funding deficit as a result of a shrinking population, much less one where the working population has seen huge immigration to make up for the "shrinking natives".   But these things take ddecades


----------



## Purple (27 Apr 2009)

liaconn said:


> Purple,I said, after our last heated debate, that we obviously can't agree on this. I have given my views and some personal examples
> and acknowledged that, if you don't agree you don't agree. End of, surely??


Just because we don't agree it doesn't mean that we can't explore the others position.


----------



## liaconn (27 Apr 2009)

Purple said:


> Just because we don't agree it doesn't mean that we can't explore the others position.


 
We've already done that. I'm not going there again. Wasn't impressed with some of the things you said but agreed to differ rather than get any more heated and angry. Okay?


----------



## Purple (27 Apr 2009)

liaconn said:


> We've already done that. I'm not going there again. Wasn't impressed with some of the things you said but agreed to differ rather than get any more heated and angry. Okay?


This is a discussion forum. When you make sweeping statements and back them up with nothing but thin air you should not be surprised if people call you out on it.


----------



## room305 (27 Apr 2009)

MOB said:


> There is no country with a well developed welfare state yet facing a huge pension funding deficit as a result of a shrinking population, much less one where the working population has seen huge immigration to make up for the "shrinking natives".   But these things take ddecades



So you say it's never been an issue for anywhere else in the world and you stated it won't be an issue for Ireland in the future. 

Yet you felt confident enough to describe it as both a pressing and self-evident problem.

Contradictory, no?


----------



## MOB (27 Apr 2009)

Eh, no.    I don't think I said it was a problem in Ireland.  If I did convey this, sorry.

Demographic problems not only take decades to crystallise but can also be seen approaching decades in advance.  So they can be evident without necessarily being pressing.  I made my original comments in response to the assertion that it is not appropriate for a society to 'subsidise' children, to which I made the corollary point that it therefore follows that it is not appropriate to ask those children  ( in the future) to subsidise today's taxpayers\tomorrow's pensioners.  Of course, we in Ireland will continue to subsidise both children and pensioners-that is the way we do things;  and we have enought children coming through to be able to continue this model for at least another generation;  but we can already see countries where the changing demographic is a strong warning of choppy seas ahead.  Italy and France come to mind.


----------



## liaconn (28 Apr 2009)

Purple said:


> This is a discussion forum. When you make sweeping statements and back them up with nothing but thin air you should not be surprised if people call you out on it.



Purple

I had already backed them up, citing the way they've been treated by the health service and greedy bankers after a lifetime of paying taxes and, in many cases, doing without to provide for young families. You came back and disagreed with this view (fair enough,you're entitled to your opinion and you dont need to go over this again). I didn't agree with your comeback and said we should agree to differ - as I felt the argument was becoming heated and a bit personal (also fair enough I think). Now END OF!


----------



## mcaul (28 Apr 2009)

Many of these situations are printed in a much worse light than the actual situation.

In this situation, the gross salary of both (based on published figures) is almost €70k (not just over €60k). An average of €5k is earned by the porter in overtime / double time.

Pensions levy - this is taken from the gross. At €40800, the pension levy is €113 per 2 weeks (not €131) About €5000 of this salary is taxed at 40% this is now reduced by the gross amount of the pension levy, so in this case the net pension levy is €66.67  (€113 less 41%) 

Waste charges - 20% tax can be reclaimed

Mortgage - probably down to €1000 at this stge, but they choose to pay additional amount. (wise) TRS on this assuming 4 years into first mortgage is about €160/month so net is at €840 now where 6 months ago it was about €1100.

Early childcare allowance - this was only introduced in 2006 in the good times. Whilst the 4 year old won't benefit from the year of montessori, the other 2 will. 

So net changes over 3 months

Pluses - Mortgage reduction - €200 / month

Minuses - Pension levy €133 net, Income levy €60

Early childcare approx. €120.

Add in general price reductions across many things and this couple are at about the same level as they were last November. - Still no room for complacency, but nowheer near as bad as the article seems to suggest.


----------



## Purple (28 Apr 2009)

liaconn said:


> Purple
> 
> I had already backed them up, citing the way they've been treated by the health service and greedy bankers after a lifetime of paying taxes and, in many cases, doing without to provide for young families. You came back and disagreed with this view (fair enough,you're entitled to your opinion and you dont need to go over this again). I didn't agree with your comeback and said we should agree to differ - as I felt the argument was becoming heated and a bit personal (also fair enough I think). Now END OF!



I just don’t get your point when over the last few years pensions have increased massively, medical cards have been given to all over 70’s (even the rich ones) and general support services for the elderly have seem huge increases in funding. The fact is that the elderly have never been better treated by the state. To suggest otherwise is bizarre to say the least. How they are treated by their families is a different matter and not really something that the state can control.


----------



## Bronte (29 Apr 2009)

mcaul said:


> Many of these situations are printed in a much worse light than the actual situation.


 
I'm at a loss to understand the couple's situation.  They seem to have large salaries yet have no car, a modest house and no holidays or spare cash.  What are we missing.  Is it the fact that actually while the house is modest the mortgage is too large relative to salaries.  The only other thing that costs a lot is childcare.  

The only way to work it out would be to have their total incomes less their outgoings to make sense of this.


----------

