I think the Rolls Royce is in Cavan or close to Cavan,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 .
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
The employers contribution is paid by them, not you. Out of the 10.75% they pay the only thing they get, if it's worth anything really, is 0.75% towards our national training fund.
My mistake. For the 10.5% tax they paid employers used to get 50% back on redundancy payments they made. I think it was reduced to 25% then Joan Burton got rid of that. Now they get nothing; they pay into an insurance fund but get nothing back. Then again it's not pay related either as the benefits you get aren't related to the amount of insurance you pay.What did you say employers contribution was used for in post 46
Cyclists don't pay for their use of road infrastructure.
It was a Fine Gael senator that proposed Mr Watt be sacked, so perhaps you should address your concerns to the senator concerned.
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.
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?
Hi I got it out of you I suspected who you were on about The amount of Employers PRSI he pays would run twenty Aiirforce one jets for the last forty years good to know he is enjoying his free travel seeing he paid for it for fifty years bet you don't resent him sipping fine wine after using his free travel,I don't need to. The guy is one of Ireland's richest and most prominent beef barons. And I've never known anyone else in Cavan, from Sean Quinn in the west to the Kingspan Murtaghs in the east to drive a Rolls.
There is another reason there will be no changeOne thing i'll guarantee you and that is, no politician or civil servant will bring in any bill taking away or restricting the free travel pass. I'll put my Rolls Royce on that even though I might agree it should be done. As modern and fair minded as some would have you think Varadkar is, he's still stuck in reverse and as yet an unelected Taoiseach. It's always the unexpected that brings down politicians and parties.
I think it reasonable in this day and age to expect public policy to be evidenced-based to help in making the right choices. Otherwise you are just deciding resource allocation and other public policy issues on moral, sentimental, cronyism, cherry-picking, superstitious, prejudicial and other non-objective grounds, none of which are likely to produce efficient outcomes. It is reasonable to expect objective decision making in the public service at all levels.No. It was your comment here to which I responded.
Cyclists are similar to holders of the free travel pass in that they do not pay for use of transport infrastructure at point of use. By your standards that “the consumption of a service by a non-paying customer is axiomatically of a lower utility than that of another, paying, customer” their journeys also have a lower utility value. So why single out one group over another?Neither cyclists nor motor vehicle users travel for free on public transport.
Cyclists do not pay for the use of public infrastructure at point of journey, the same as travel pass holders, but they also impose a cost on other travellers by reducing the available road space, particularly at rush hours. It's unreasonable to focus on travel pass holders and not on others who also impose externalities.Non-national road infrastructure is funded by the Local Government fund, the only cyclists not contributing to that are those who pay no motor tax on other vehicles they own, pay no property tax, and make no contribution towards the Exchequer (source of ~16% of Local Government fund)
I think it reasonable in this day and age to expect public policy to be evidenced-based to help in making the right choices. Otherwise you are just deciding resource allocation and other public policy issues on moral, sentimental, cronyism, cherry-picking, superstitious, prejudicial and other non-objective grounds, none of which are likely to produce efficient outcomes. It is reasonable to expect objective decision making in the public service at all levels.
Cyclists are similar to holders of the free travel pass in that they do not pay for use of transport infrastructure at point of use. By your standards that “the consumption of a service by a non-paying customer is axiomatically of a lower utility than that of another, paying, customer” their journeys also have a lower utility value. So why single out one group over another?
Cyclists do not pay for the use of public infrastructure at point of journey, the same as travel pass holders, but they also impose a cost on other travellers by reducing the available road space, particularly at rush hours. It's unreasonable to focus on travel pass holders and not on others who also impose externalities.
All commuter journeys are for economic reasons or leisure or some mix thereof. We don't distinguish between the utility value of indicvidual passenger journeys, whether they do or do not pay at point of use. Singling out one class of transport users, ie. travel pass holders, as a problem, is just prejudice. (Unless you have some evidence that loads of travel pass holders are clogging up public transport at peak hours.) And even if it is a problem there is no reason to believe that banning the use of the travel pass at peak hours is the only or optimum solution.
Resource allocation is a common business problem. If there is a real problem here, and the public sector is unable or unwilling to produce an evidence-based solution, it need just go the the enterprise sector and buy in a solution. You see, there usually is a way to engineer a solution to a problem, but we are not particularly good at it in at the level of public policy in this country.
Cyclists do not pay for the use of public infrastructure at point of journey, the same as travel pass holders, but they also impose a cost on other travellers by reducing the available road space, particularly at rush hours. It's unreasonable to focus on travel pass holders and not on others who also impose externalities.
Does the State give them free bicycles?Cyclists do not pay for the use of public infrastructure at point of journey, the same as travel pass holders, but they also impose a cost on other travellers by reducing the available road space, particularly at rush hours. It's unreasonable to focus on travel pass holders and not on others who also impose externalities.
Yep, but some people just don't like cyclists. They seem to be okay with Irish Rail running services which cost €550 per passenger journey but people who cycle are the target of their ire.That's a complete misunderstanding of how public infrastructure is funded. Even those who pay for full price tickets getting on the bus aren't paying the full cost of the provision of that service. And more motor tax receipts are spent on the subvention to Irish Water than on local road infrastructure.
ep, but some people just don't like cyclists.
I happen to have good time for cyclist I still cycle myself if fact i cycle more now since I retired rather than use the bus from time to time as I already said Having paid PRSI for 47 years I don't need people who Begrudge me using the free pass having paid PRSI A1 for 47 years with only a five month break back around 1984 I am not a freeloader Begrudger's are used while the are useful and no one cares about them and the are not good at looking after them self spend all there life looking to see who they will Begrudge next some even begrudge the people who cleaned there bum before they were able to clean it them self there life is a vicious circle,Does the State give them free bicycles?
The cyclists during rush hour are almost all going to work. If they weren't cycling they would be driving or competing with the freeloading pensioners. Most cyclists also have cars and so pay for a road infrastructure they are not using. Therefore they are saving the rest of us money.
They reduce overall carbon emissions and if you hit one it does very little damage to your car!
We all have a vote and some know how to use it, when Dublin people who should know better want to shaft other Dublin people further down the pecking order like trying to dictate when the can travel on a bus you know yourself the type of TD you will finish up with,Ye can take nothin' from the Pensioners; they all vote.
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?