So you won't answer my questions then. Of course you don't have to but it does weaken your position when you won't give a view on these core issues.I was answering the question put in the thread. It would be good to know what your answer is, and the perhaps the basis for that answer.
To be fair, what I said above was not a proposal - it was a question.
Personally, I think a number of things need to change with the system including these two for starters :
(a) anyone who is working 40 hours a week should not require welfare support. They should be paid sufficiently to support their family (within reason). The idea of supplementary income support does not sit well with me - the employers should be paying their employees enough to live on. And this includes the Department of Defense !!
(b) Social Welfare needs to be split in two - into those who require a security blanket (for whatever reason) versus those who make it a lifestyle choice (those who are out of work for years and years or who have never worked). The benefits between both concepts should be very different.
So you won't answer my questions then. Of course you don't have to but it does weaken your position when you won't give a view on these core issues.
I stand corrected on the figures.
But the point still stands. A couple earning €50,000 - €80,000 between them, both working, with a mortgage and childcare will be hit very hard by this. It's possible you could tip thousands of such couples into mortgage arrears.
Others earning less will simply be queuing up for welfare supports to keep their head above water.
Wage demands on employers will increase.
Others will rely on more borrowing, re-mortgaging, credit cards, debt re-financing.
Others will become more prudent in their consumption, reducing consumer demand, putting small medium sized businesses under severe pressure.
"I support the removal of the personal tax credit of 1,650 euro per person to fund increased spending on public services"
Why do you keep trying to deflect from the overall substantive issue by deflecting/directing towards the specific? This is a discussion forum. We are not the Department of Finance. The discussion is about the general nature and balance of our taxation and welfare systems.Here is the question again. Anything from Yes/No/Dunno will suffice at this stage.
Why do you keep trying to deflect from the overall substantive issue by deflecting/directing towards the specific? This is a discussion forum. We are not the Department of Finance. The discussion is about the general nature and balance of our taxation and welfare systems.
The substantive issue from the OP was;I'm not diverging at all. A specific question was asked, I have answered the question and provided the basis for that answer. You can do the same if you want. If you don't want then fine. But to answer the specific question asked by the OP may go someway to understanding your position on other substantive issues.
Over the last few weeks, the usual budget discussions have occured were everyone wants increased spending using other peoples money. Maybe its time to decide what type of services we want, and how we fund them.
The substantive issue from the OP was;
There you go again.Yes, upon which a direct question was asked.
I am wondering if a poll was run for say 10,000 people, across all areas of society, and suggested the following wording how many would say yes:
"I support the removal of the personal tax credit of 1,650 euro per person to fund increased spending on public services"
So you won't answer my questions then. Of course you don't have to but it does weaken your position when you won't give a view on these core issues.
.... trying to deflect from the overall substantive issue by deflecting/directing towards the specific?
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?