T McGibney
Registered User
- Messages
- 6,963
Why are those with free travel allowed to use it during rush hour?
- Thread starter Brendan Burgess
- Start date
RETIRED2017
Registered User
- Messages
- 756
Remember he pays 10.75% of total payroll in PRSI for every 10 people he employed he cut a check for another persons wage and sent it to the government along with paying his own prsi ,
He would want to be using The bus it is costing him more than the Rolls Royce ever will,
RETIRED2017
Registered User
- Messages
- 756
I bet The person looking out at him starting it up cost more for the same amount of timeHardly given the size of the Rolls.
It probably costs a tenner to start it.
Last edited:
RETIRED2017
Registered User
- Messages
- 756
As far as I am concerned the bus pass is not free you told me on another post you were paying PRSI for over 30 years so you know how much was taken in total each week from payroll In my own case it was around 18% ,
RETIRED2017
Registered User
- Messages
- 756
Purple I would agree totally it is the people in ther 20's 30's are probably the best you will notice it was this generation who came out in support of the people already retired,[/QUOTE]
Leo is in his late thirties
Leo is in his late thirties
Last edited:
My PRSI pays your pension, not mine. At least it pays for part of it. The money raised in PRSI also has to cover disability allowances, welfare and other costs. It comes nowhere near to covering the cost of a pension. Unless you earn an average of €100,000 a year for 40 years then you wouldn't fund the cost of your State pension, even of all of your contributions went towards your pension, which they don't. Therefore lets stop with the whole "I paid PRSI for 40 years; I paid for my pension" lark because for the vast majority of us we didn't and we won't.
The employer's PRSI contribution is for State redundancy payments, not our pensions.
Is this really an issue? And while there are calls for Mr Watt to step down https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/calls-for-robert-watt-to-be-fired-after-suggesting-ban-on-free-bus-holders-from-public-transport-in-rush-hour-37032725.html for proposing that the free travel pass should not be used during rush hours, surely he should be asked to step down because it is inappropriate for a senior public servant to propose a policy initiative without any evidence to back it up?
Evidence-based policy making is concerned with public policy goals being established based on rigorous examination of evidence, rather than on prejudice, sentiment or cherry-picking. Mr Watt's proposals appear to be based on prejudice. It is my understanding that the tag-on terminals in buses can be interrogated to determine the use of the travel pass, so it would not be a major or expensive task to determine what proportion of passengers use the travel pass in rush hours; it is a widespread problem; is limited to certain routes, etc. With this evidence, which should not be too difficult to obtain, you can then decide if this is a problem and, if so, what is the best way to alleviate it.
Furthermore MR Watt's proposal assumes that a journey of a retiree is of a lower utility than that of other passengers. This may or may not be so, but similar thinking is not used in determining the allocation of funds between other passenger types in spending on public transport.
Evidence-based policy making is concerned with public policy goals being established based on rigorous examination of evidence, rather than on prejudice, sentiment or cherry-picking. Mr Watt's proposals appear to be based on prejudice. It is my understanding that the tag-on terminals in buses can be interrogated to determine the use of the travel pass, so it would not be a major or expensive task to determine what proportion of passengers use the travel pass in rush hours; it is a widespread problem; is limited to certain routes, etc. With this evidence, which should not be too difficult to obtain, you can then decide if this is a problem and, if so, what is the best way to alleviate it.
Furthermore MR Watt's proposal assumes that a journey of a retiree is of a lower utility than that of other passengers. This may or may not be so, but similar thinking is not used in determining the allocation of funds between other passenger types in spending on public transport.
T McGibney
Registered User
- Messages
- 6,963
What a load of codswallop.
The idea that a senior executive in any organisation be fired for suggesting or proposing a cost-saving measure in their employer organisation is utterly laughable and if acted upon would quite rightly precipitate both an astronomical damages claim for unfair dismissal, and a flight of their senior management colleagues from that organisation for fear of the same punishment being meted out to them in the future.
The consumption of a service by a non-paying customer is axiomatically of a lower utility than that of another, paying, customer.
There's a cost associates with providing public transport, it's not like water!
I don't get the bus into town to drink water! Either I'm in there working or I'm having dinner or drinks, the government can't lose between income tax, VAT, excise, commercial rates etc
Just wondering if you counted his money or have access to his bank accounts? I'm saying that because there were a fair few of those Rolls Royce people around during the Celtic Tiger years and other times too and know what? They hadn't a brass farthing to rub together, never did either. There's a fair few of them still doing the rounds with most of them if not all in the rush hour areas where they can always find a donkey or two who has moved east along with themselves. Not too many of them down the west these days, we tend to spray the weeds with quare stuff down here now so they're dying out and "they" know better than hang around anyway. We can smell them a mile away every bank holiday when they make their way wesht to (hide) get away from the hectic travveckin they're at .
RETIRED2017
Registered User
- Messages
- 756
Last edited:
Of the €70 million can you tell us what %'age is used at peak times and by exactly who? Is it old age pensioners, disabled people, other free transport recipients or maybe even our very own public representatives who use it and can collect the cost back from the taxpayer as well, that's free transport too? Might be an idea to start with them and see their reaction and how it goes down? Just saying like.
Yea, but it covers far more than your pension.
- State Pension (Transition)
- State Pension (Contributory)
- Widow’s, Widower’s or Surviving Civil Partner’s (Contributory) Pension
- Guardian’s Payment (Contributory)
- Invalidity Pension
- Occupational Injuries Benefits
- Treatment Benefit (Dental or Optical)
- Jobseeker’s Benefit
- Illness Benefit
- Carer’s Benefit
- Maternity Benefit
- Adoptive Benefit
- Health and Safety Benefit
RETIRED2017
Registered User
- Messages
- 756
Back in 2006 when the extended the free travel total cost around 2 to 3 million per year it is costing us around one euro per year per person,
We may need to make a collection if the bank of mom and dad cant afford 50 cent each,
Last edited:
RETIRED2017
Registered User
- Messages
- 756
Google Brennan lifts Restrictions from free travel passes , you will see in twelve years the cost including all the extra people went up from 58m to 70 million there are a lot more poeple using it including your good self next year hopefully,
you can see it is not the rush hour free travel that is driving this judging by some posters,
Last edited:
It was a Fine Gael senator that proposed Mr Watt be sacked, so perhaps you should address your concerns to the senator concerned. I suggested that this was the wrong reason - that public servants should propose policy changes based on evidence. And we should expect senior public servants to do so. What has been proposed is not really an evaluatable proposal; it's just prejudice.
Cyclists. Cyclists don't pay for their use of road infrastructure.
Cyclists travel for free, so by your standards their travel is of a lower utility value. But we spent about 30 million in the last three years on cycling infrastructure and about eight million planned for this year on - by your standards - travel by people whose trips are of a lower utility to society than those trips of paying passengers in public transport and motor vehicles.
Last edited: