Re: Budget
- From: "Cat(h)" <cathy_ie@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 14 Dec 2005 06:35:49 -0800
Eddie Wall wrote:
> I am impressed and appreciative of your detailed answers snipped
> temporarily. Of course I do not expect anyone to agree with me.. that
> is debate... but it seems, to me, at times, that my ( I would have
> thought very clear and plain ) statements are deliberately
> misinterpreted just for devilment !
Thank you for all your kind words... but I hope I did you more credit
than deliberately mistinterpreting your statements, seen as they were
generally pretty clear.
>
> snipped.....
>
> Cat..... one point you are missing... I don't care what anyone spends
> their money on ... it is none of my business. HOWEVER... when I am
> informed that I must contribute taxes to pay for generalised payments
> to people with kids, I made the point that I made about luxuries.....
> which to qualify, seems to be in agreement with yours except for a
> question of semantics. See below...!
Eddie, I don't think I missed that point - it was indeed the centre of
your argument.
>
> My view is that all such payments have to be means tested or allocated
> in such a manner that those that need a foot on the ladder of their
> primary house purchase get it and those that are no longer in this
> situation but are on house upgrades or second homes do not.... it
> should ONLY ever be paid as tax credit against income, after all the
> whole point is to encourage / facilitate entering the workforce.
>
I agree fully. I would add that I'm quite happy to contribute my taxes
for the public good, but for this kind of measure, I would like it to
go specifically to those who need it most. I do regret the
middle-class appeasing, vote-getting scattergun approach used for the
under sixes grant, but I am generally in favour of my taxes being used
to improve childcare facilities, whether or not I ever have cause to
use them.
> We still come back to the pair I mention that would not live in what
> was the only affordable property, a "dog box" of 950 sq feet,
> preferring to get a more upmarket 4 bed semi...in a "nicer" area.
> While I may not object to contributing taxes to help them move into a
> decent house.. I don't consider a 950 sq foot house a "dog box" and I
> am not interested in facilitating their purchase of a 5000 Sq foot
> hacienda on the Hill of Howth.
>
> Some other poster made a comment about "breeding" before they could
> afford it... I thought that the comments were in particularly bad
> taste and designed to inflame the situation...... they are not
> entirely without truth though.
I won't get dug into this one - all I'd say is that what governs how
and when people have kids often has bugger all with sensible financial
planning. Sometimes contraception lets you down and you're landed with
a kid faster than you intended. Sometimes the other half is just not
parent material, and you may either not "breed" at all, or find someone
later, perhaps much later, who is as anxious for babies as you are.
Sometimes, you try for years, and nothing happens. So my views would
be rather more nuanced in this matter than those of some punk with a
one-size-fits-all "breeding" policy.
>
> I know that there have to be some people struggling with young kids
> and mortgages and of course accidents happen and plans go wayward but
> you would have to wonder that in this more enlightened age and with
> the availability of contraception etc etc... that people would be able
> to manage their childbearing and house purchases a little better.
> Prior 1980 remember contraception was illegal in Ireland and then you
> had the "peace train" and all the rest of it and we stumbled into the
> twentieth centaury....
>
> You would think now that most people would get organised, get the
> house , get a few years of payments under the belt to make it more
> affordable and then consider the family. It seems a little naive to
> think that you can have it all without a struggle.
See above. I have neither the time, nor the energy to get stuck into
that one.
>
> The semantics !
>
> That said.. yes there are people in dire straits and need the help and
> should get it.... and there are also people who look on these payments
> as disposable income for luxuries... and the should absolutely NOT get
> it.. and then there are others somewhere between the two. The numbers
> are difficult to distill... but it does make you wonder at the
> numbers of new cars, holidays, second homes etc etc.... there are an
> awful lot of them....
For sure, there are more people in this country now than ever able to
afford luxuries. I am not saying they do not exist. I simply suspect
that few enough of them are likely to be young working mothers with
under sixes (as those are the ones you and I resent subsidising,
because if they earn enough to afford luxuries, they should be
financing their own child care).
Think about it. To take a second mortgage to finance a second home, an
extention, or whatever, you probably have to have finished paying the
first mortgage, or at least have made a pretty damn good dent in it.
If you are not super duper high earners - and with average earnings of
30k, there can't be a majority of super duper high earners - that is
likely to have taken you at least 20 years. So, unless they are one of
those super rational and hyper organised "breeders" you described
above, who only start to have kids between 34 and 40, what is the
likelihood of someone who has paid up or near-paid up mortgage no.1 to
still have under sixes for whom to collect 1,000 of your and my
precious tax euros?
>
> Finally if you think that the second worker and the struggling with
> kids for a mortgage is tough... think of the welfare recipient that is
> receiving a housing allowance ( typically minimum of ? 1200 / Month)
> for a nice house in a nice area.. an area they could not otherwise
> afford to live in, they are the real ones in the poverty trap because
> they cannot afford to work. If they start the lose the house allowance
> and are therefore trapped unless they can get a very high salary.
>
Which is the very reason why I am quite happy that my taxes be used to
improve the availability, and to subsidise the cost of quality
childcare for people in this situation.
> For many years the welfare system encouraged a mini industry in
> teenage pregnancies and a glut of new young kids ( statistically
> unlikely that all will become sterling captains of industry ) as this
> population matures into a welfare dependent sector, that cannot (if it
> wanted to ) work or afford to work... what message are we sending
> out now where essentially to have another kid is ? 6000 ( 1K /annum
> over 6 years ) and ? 150 / month for 18 years or ? 185 /month for the
> 3rd or subsequent kids. ( + the ? 20 per week welfare / child ).
>
> The question is, are we going to find in years to come that the
> "generosity" of the welfare system has created an inter-generational
> welfare culture.... or has the "generosity" helped people through the
> slight , short, difficulty blip in the lives, and not made them life
> dependent on it.?
How can we ensure that our taxes are wisely spent to help
constructively and give a leg up to the more disadvantaged, and not
squandered in vote-getting exercises ? It looks like you and I will
have to have a close chat with our local election candidates when they
come canvassing for our votes in a year or so...
Cat(h)
Herds twirl slow...
.
- References:
- Re: Budget
- From: boliath
- Re: Budget
- From: Cat(h)
- Re: Budget
- From: Cat(h)
- Re: Budget
- From: Cat(h)
- Re: Budget
- From: Cat(h)
- Re: Budget
- Prev by Date: Re: If Bertie doesn't sack McDowell forthwith, then he is complicit in McDowell's corruption of the state
- Next by Date: Re: If Bertie doesn't sack McDowell forthwith, then he is complicit in McDowell's corruption of the state
- Previous by thread: Re: Budget
- Next by thread: Re: Budget
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
