Madam, – As someone currently working in the private sector as a consultant, I earn in the region of €50,000 per year. Given the current economic crisis in the country, I could easily afford to pay more in taxes. If I thought that this would help to preserve public services and protect the vulnerable at this difficult time, I would be happy to do so.
However, the Government has chosen to let me, and many others in much better paid jobs, off largely scot free in yesterday’s Budget while lowering the pay of low-paid public servants, reducing benefits for people dependent on social welfare, decreasing support for families with children and forcing the young unemployed to consider emigration. Where is the fairness in that? In the light of the Government’s approach, it is no wonder that earlier this year it abolished the Combat Poverty Agency, thus removing an authoritative and independent voice on issues of poverty and inequality. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – It is a well-recognised fact that Ireland has a major problem with alcohol consumption. In addition, as a physician overseeing urgent medical admissions on a regular basis, I have been concerned about a very significant increase in alcohol-related admissions in parallel with the economic downturn over the past year.
I was therefore doubly astonished to see a reduction in the price of alcohol in the Budget. A major review of reducing alcohol-related harm in the Lancet in June of this year showed that policies regulating the environment in which alcohol is marketed (particularly its price and availability) are effective in reducing alcohol-related harm. Whereas school-based education policies are ineffective, making alcohol more expensive and less available, and banning alcohol advertising, are highly cost-effective strategies to reduce harm.
What kind of madness are we walking ourselves into, where the financial well-being of the off-licence trade and the drinks industry are promoted ahead of the public good, and in particular the associated scourges of under-age and binge drinking? – Yours, etc,
Madam, – The entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty on December 1st has resulted in the Charter of Fundamental Rights becoming part of EU law. Article 21 of the Charter prohibits discrimination on a number of grounds, one of which is age. The recent Budget provision to cut the jobseeker’s allowance of those aged under 23 years of age almost certainly discriminates on grounds of age.
Is this provision in breach of Article 21, and, if so, can we look forward to the courts ordering the Government to cease this discrimination and pay compensation?
If the measure is not in breach of Article 21 then why have a Charter of Fundamental Rights if the state can discriminate on such a fundamental issue as enabling the unemployed feed and clothe themselves? – Yours, etc,
Madam, – Why is this Government still in office? It has been a major contributor to our present problems, and the recent Budget is the latest proof that it has no idea how to resolve any of the crises we face. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – If evidence was needed, then Minister for Finance Brian Lenihan’s Budget proves the old saw that a leopard never changes its spots. Once again we are treated to the spectacle of Fíanna Fáil engaging in an economic cull of an entire generation of Irish citizens, a generation the economic gurus within the Soldiers of Destiny and their associates in the Green Party now consider surplus to requirements.
For the third time in my lifetime (I am 57) the citizens of Éire Teo will bear witness to whole families being torn apart by the spectre of the emigrant trail. The only sector within this age group to be spared would appear to be those who were unfortunate enough to have “secured” a mortgage during the recent past; a mortgage which, following the bursting of the “Galway Tent”-engineered property bubble, will ensure that they must remain in Ireland, ensnared as they are, as economic slaves of private banks well into old age.
The world must surely be watching open-mouthed at the concept of any government cutting social welfare rates, public service pay, education (particularly to the disadvantaged), public health services etc, in order to save €4 billion while at the same time “conjuring up” €54 billion in corporate welfare to stave off the collapse of, at best, very inefficiently-run private businesses. Surely this is a scenario even the infamous Robert Mugabe would be slow to consider. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – The decision in the Budget not to impose the income cuts on those currently in receipt of public sector pensions, while at the same time consigning widows, carers, the unemployed, children and struggling public sector workers to poverty levels, beggars belief! The sole reason for this is to ensure that serving TDs in receipt of pensions for being former ministers and junior ministers will suffer no discomfort.
While the ordinary folk of Ireland can look forward to years of hardship and inadequate retirement pensions (while still trying to pay off enormous mortgages, probably still owed after they retire) the patriots in the Dáil have ensured that their own cosy nests will stay well-feathered! As Orwell said, “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others”. Shame on them! – Yours, etc,
Madam, – Seeing the unions walk out of Merrion Street last week and hearing a decisive Budget speech delivered by a brave Minister for Finance, it struck me that for the first time in 20 years, our Government is doing what a Government is elected to do – governing. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – At first glance it is difficult to see the equity in the Minister’s Budget. However, if one looks closer it is easy to discern the even-handed way he has dealt with all strands of society through the reduction in excise duty on alcohol. Thus, those in receipt of social welfare or in the public sector can quaff more cheep beer to anaesthetise themselves to the savage cuts he has inflicted on them. While those who have benefited most from the follies of his predecessors’ ways can toast his good health, perhaps with a grand cru, for insulating them from the ravages of the economic downturn. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – The decision (a wise one!) of the Government not to countenance Colm McCarthy’s suggestion that it should hit the old age pension is proof positive that the pensioner is mightier than the “Bord”.
Yours, etc,
Madam, – The announcement that the Government has decided not to increase judges’ salaries must have softened the blow and brought huge comfort to all those less deserving mortals facing savage reductions in their modest incomes. The chief justice and the president of the high court incur “no compulsory charge”. Presumably all other “justices” will wriggle out of the net as well. Is this not the second time in recent Budgets that this issue has arisen, along with the hope that these individuals will “voluntarily” donate some of their vast wealth back into the pot? What an indictment of our system of treating all citizens equally! Are not the judiciary public servants as well? – Yours, etc,
Madam, – Like most public servants I am not pleased at having to take a further reduction in my take-home pay, but I know it is essential for the future financial viability of the State.
However, I noticed in the Budget there was no mention of cuts in the allowances earned by public servants including gardaí. Recently I remember PJ Stone of the Garda Representative Association (GRA) claiming that these allowances were central elements of Garda pay and that his members should have to take only the same pain as other public servants. On this basis, do you think we can expect the GRA to ask the Minister for Justice to reduce these allowances on a pro-rata basis in line with the wider pay cuts across the public service, or do you think the GRA’s definition of equality and core pay will have changed? – Yours, etc,
Madam, – I am a public sector worker who realises severe fiscal adjustments have to be made by the Government. Like many people, I am prepared to accept cutbacks and savings applied in an equitable fashion. I am also conscious that many in the private sector have already taken significant pay cuts. However, to the best of my knowledge there have been no salary cuts for bank staff. Surely this leaves the Government the opportunity to raise substantial revenue by imposing a tax levy on all bank staff?
If this were done in a way that matches the public sector pay cuts, it would generate significant income for the public purse, have no impact on operating profit (loss) and would allow less severe cuts in other areas. After all, if it weren’t for public money, these people would all be out of jobs. It is true that the average bank official had no hand, act or part in creating the current crisis, but neither did the average public sector worker. Is this an unreasonable or unworkable suggestion? – Yours, etc,
Madam, – It’s like a schoolyard joke: How do the Irish solve their economic problems? They reduce the price of booze. Sadly, it’s true. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – Alcohol cost this country €1 billion between 2000 and 2004 in hospitalisations due to alcohol alone. We are already the third highest consumers of alcohol in the world and we know, without doubt, that reducing the cost of alcohol will immediately lead to more alcohol-related harms, and subsequently costs. Any money kept in the country by reducing alcohol excise duty will go straight into paying for the hospitalisations that this cheaper alcohol will cause. So I can only presume this measure is to enable us to drown our sorrows over the rest of the Budget, because it certainly won’t save us any money! – Yours, etc,
Madam, – As the co-owner of a dental practice in rural Ireland, I wish to bring your readers’ attention to the following Budget provision.
In 2010, the entitlements under the Treatment Benefit Scheme will be limited to the Medical and Surgical appliances scheme and the free examination elements of the Dental and Optical Benefit schemes.
This scheme has delivered free or subsidised dental, optical and aural treatment to PRSI-paying workers and their dependant spouses for over 55 years. Last year over 400,000 individuals accessed dental treatment through this scheme and almost two million people were entitled to avail of it. It is now proposed to take a machete to this scheme and leave only a small element of it standing. This will come into effect in January 2010. This was one of the only tangible benefits to the PRSI insured person and will now be decimated. We are told that this abomination of a decision may deliver €52 million in savings. Contrast this saving with the €90 million being returned to the alcohol industry, which can hardly be accused of improving anyone’s health, or to €60 million being granted to horse and greyhound racing, which is enjoyed by a relative minority.
I would deplore the present Government’s commitment to dental and oral health (a fact in evidence for several years and demonstrated by the failure to secure a dental adviser or chief dental officer) and question its commitment to delivering that which was intended when PRSI was first designed. Would the Minister for Finance now please admit that this has been a grave error in judgment and apologise to the PRSI payers of the State, or failing that, admit that PRSI is now, ipso facto, a tax which delivers no actual benefits to the insured worker. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – While the Government is criticised for a lack of support for Irish industry, nobody has recognised the boost Aer Lingus and Ryanair received from yesterday’s Budget. With no initiative to create employment for young graduates, Terminal 2 will be busy helping emigrants launch their new lives abroad. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – In the UK: Darling soaks the rich. In Ireland: Lenihan soaks the poor. – Yours, etc,