TheBigShort
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,789
Very good. But Germany spends considerably more on social welfare than Ireland does, according to;
[broken link removed]
Unemployment Benefit II (Arbeitslosengeld II) / Social Benefit (Sozialgeld)
All persons capable of work and eligible for benefits can receive unemployment benefit II (Alg II) from the age of 15 years until the legally stipulated age limit between 65 and 67 years. Persons not capable of work can receive social benefit. Alg II and social benefit are benefits to secure a livelihood. Legislation determined to what each individual is entitled to in the so-called "normal requirement" (Regelbedarf).
Normal requirement
The normal requirement globally covers the costs of food, clothing, household energy (without heating and warm watergeneration), personal hygiene, household effects, needs of everyday life, as well as to a reasonable extent also relations to theenvironment and participation in cultural life.
Singles, single parents, as well as adults with a minor partner are entitled to the full amount of normal requirement. Since 1January 2016, this is EUR 404 for all of Germany. The normal requirement for adult partners is EUR 364. Children younger than 6years receive EUR 237. Between 6 and including 13 years of age this is EUR 270. Children and young persons between 14 and 17 years receive EUR 306. For young adults from 15years on and below 25 years who live with their parents or who moved without the positive assertion of the municipal authority, this is EUR 324.
Young adults who are 25 years and older must file their own application for (Alg II), regardless of the fact whether they live in their own flat or with their parents. Persons living in their ownhousehold form a separate benefit community (BG) if they are at least 15 years old.
Social benefit
Persons not capable of work but in need of assistance receive social benefit, if a least one person capable of work but in need of assistance lives in their benefit community.
Accommodation and heating
The costs of accommodation and heating are, if they are reasonable, borne to the amount of the actual expenses.
If you own a house or a flat, the costs of accommodation include the costs connected with it, however, not the amortization payment for credits.
Persons below 25 years who want to move out of their parents' home only receive a refund of the costs of accommodation and heating, if the municipal authority agreed to the move. This agreement can be obtained from the contact persons responsible for your benefits. Agreement needs to be obtained if
Non-recurring benefits
- the persons concerned cannot live with their parents for "severe social reasons",
- the move is necessary for the integration in the labour market or
- another severe reason exists.
Beyond the normal requirement you can receive non-recurring benefits as credit, cash or non-cash benefit for
- initial equipment of the flat including household devices,
- initial equipment for clothing (also for pregnancy and birth) and
- the acquisition and repair of medical devices and renting of therapeutical devices.
What's your point?Very good. But Germany spends considerably more on social welfare than Ireland does,
Germany CAN spend more on social welfare because it collects a lot more in social insurance contributions.
Contribution rates are much higher than in Ireland
and (you may need to sit down for this BS) these high contributions start at a very low income level (but they are capped - it's almost as if the lower earners pay more so the high earners can be given a break).
if we do a deal with a few large national retailers to accept vouchers in return for groceries,
if we do a deal with a couple of the energy providers, I'm sure we could buy the vouchers at less than par value and then distribute the vouchers as part of the dole payment each week
I also continue to have concerns regarding people claiming the dole on a fraudulent basis. Am I the only one who suspects there may be people claiming the dole illegally ?
The company i work for supply parts to a German company last year we were on short time ,German company also had some of its operators on lay off ,From talking to the person we deal with, people who are there the longest usually get laid off first because the get there full net wages the longer you pay in to the system the more you get out,
It’s based on what everyone else does, what we have been advised to do by the OECD, the Troika and others who manage to run their countries in a way which avoids boom-bust cycles.What is being proposed is to cut the dole in order to reduce taxes on the higher paid and furthermore to radically change the PRSI system.
This is based on the premise that those with higher income pay more than their “fair share”.
Yes, and that 5% pay more income tax than the bottom 50% of earners, and no, they don’t earn more than them.As mentioned previously, only 0.27% of taxpayers had an effective rate of income tax and USC greater than 40% - the highest ER being 42.54%.
Only 5.36% of taxpayers had an ER greater than 30%.
I think there’s a lot wrong with a taxation system which tells people that if they work harder and try to better themselves the state will take over half of the fruits of their labour.There is not a lot wrong with our tax system
Yes, and our taxation system ensures that people who can and will create businesses which generate high incomes will be punished for their efforts.it is rather the nature of the Irish economy.
We are a small nation of mostly micro to medium sized businesses with limited capacity to create employment – much less well-paid employment.
The majority of taxpayers have low incomes.
In 2014, 1,206,851 or 54.26% of taxpayers had incomes of €30,000 or less.
412,519 or 18.55% had incomes of less than €10,000.
We have the most “progressive” taxation system in the developed world. We pay more tax sooner and no tax for longer. The argument that we are somehow special and so can and should do things which are economically stupid, and therefore socially destructive in the longer term, is delusional and dangerous.We have to deal with the situation in Ireland rather than looking to other countries whose population and business demographics and natural wealth bear no resemblance to Ireland’s.
It’s based on what everyone else does, what we have been advised to do by the OECD, the Troika and others who manage to run their countries in a way which avoids boom-bust cycles.
That includes part time employees so is meaningless.
I didn't say there was. There may well be but the post you quoted was not about that specific point.There is no advice anywhere, let alone from the OECD, Troika etc, that advocates imposing tax increases on lower earners to supplement tax breaks for higher income earners other than on askaboutmoney.com.
So if I work 5 hours a week for €50 an hour I'm low paid, I'm not a high earner?Why is it meaningless? These are the people that you want to impose taxes on in order to provide tax relief for higher earners.
So if I work 5 hours a week for €50 an hour I'm low paid, I'm not a high earner?
Someone on €20 an hour should have some of their income taken from them and given to me?
Incorrect.As you can see from my previous post, in 2014, very few people (5,905 or 0.27% of taxpayers) had an effective rate greater than 40%.
Incorrect.As mentioned previously, only 0.27% of taxpayers had an effective rate of income tax and USC greater than 40% - the highest ER being 42.54%.
Again, incorrect for the same reasons. For a single person in 2014, an effective rate of 30% (again excl PRSI for some reason – how hard is it to add 4% to a number?) kicked in around 61K income assuming no reliefs. So you would have to go way back in your revenue groupings before you could stop counting how many people had effective rates in excess of 30%.Only 5.36% of taxpayers had an ER greater than 30%.
Leaving aside the fact that your calculations of maximum effective rates and numbers paying them are incorrect, what makes you conclude this? Are you paying these levels of taxation? Do you have many friends/family paying these levels of taxation? Also, don’t forget to add the 4% PRSI onto what you are calling effective rates.I'm not sure that these rates are excessive or would act as a disincentive.
It would have to be across the board with retail grocers....Again, it would have to be across the board (re: energy suppliers).....Sounds like an inconvenience to everyone to implement such schemes, never mind the additional administration that would go with it......
Yes I do – I’ve said this a number of times in this and other threads – increased PRSI, low/no threshold, and an earnings cap on contributions (similar to the cap that existed pre-2011).So you are advocating that Ireland should collect more in social contributions?
Yes, sounds pretty definite, you want to increase PRSI contributions.
The primary beneficiaries of welfare payments are pensioners, those with no income and those in receipt of child benefit. None of these would be impacted by changed PRSI.Including on low income earners, who are the primary beneficiaries of welfare payments (by virtue of their low incomes).
You have very convoluted thought processes. Some thoughts:So if I have this straight, you want to increase PRSI on working people, including low income earners, so that low incomes earners will in turn have less disposable income and in turn, require increased welfare benefits, payable by increased PRSI contributions from higher earners who dont qualify for welfare benefits - and this will give those workers a break?
I’ve said a few times that I would re-introduce the cap that applied to PRSI contributions until about 2011. This is fair in the context of this ‘insurance’ having caps on benefits.…payable by increased PRSI contributions from higher earners who dont qualify for welfare benefits - and this will give those workers a break?
Yes I do – I’ve said this a number of times in this and other threads – increased PRSI, low/no threshold, and an earnings cap on contributions (similar to the cap that existed pre-2011).
The primary beneficiaries of welfare payments are pensioners, those with no income and those in receipt of child benefit. None of these would be impacted by changed PRSI.
A part time low earner is not necessarily part of a low income household and may not be in receipt of any welfare payments.
So for various reasons, many of those considered low income earners will either not be paying PRSI anyway or will not be eligible for increased (/any) welfare support as a result of changes in PRSI.
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?