Sir, – The abolition of the €127 relief on employee weekly PRSI contributions is, in my view, the most unfair element of the 2013 Budget. The net result is that whether you earn €385 or €3,850 a week both earnings will down by €5.08.
With the introduction of the Universal Social Charge in 2011 the allocation of health levies resulted in a complete change in the operation of the PRSI system. In effect the system of classes of earnings was the same 4 per cent for everyone. I am fully aware that regardless of any global financial crisis, we as a nation are spending more than we are collecting from the various sources of revenue.
However, I am deeply disappointed that the Government has not addressed this injustice. It’s a real slap on the face for low earners. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – If one measure in this Budget stands out as a stark and truly nasty example of how disconnected are those who decide upon the measures from those who must bear their brunt, then surely this has to be the €50 cut in the back-to-school clothing allowance.
This is a measure that affects only the poor, no one else. It is possible to imagine the scene when discussion was taking place among ministers and officials, a group well used to throwing €50 notes over the counter at the Horseshoe Bar in the Shelbourne and similar hostelries, and assuring each other, as they note the cut to be imposed, saying, “Sure it’s only €50. It’s nothing.” It is reasonable to say that it won’t be the poor that are tossing €50 notes over the bar and certainly not in the Shelbourne.
What a mean, nasty, shameful cut. This cut defines the Labour Party of today. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Responding to a question on the cuts to the back to school allowance, Minister for Finance Michael Noonan stated on Prime Time: “People were getting back to school allowance and not spending it on the expense of going back to school.” What evidence is there to support such a claim? Even if this has happened on a rare occasion, the logic of cutting back to school allowance for everyone is flawed. This decision needs to be reversed with immediate effect. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – “Every Child Matters” was the Government’s thoughtful poster caption in the recent children’s rights referendum. This same Government has now slashed child benefits in the Budget. A family with one child down €120, two children down €240, three children down €456 and a family of four children down €696 per annum. The Government has punished families with three or more children the hardest. “Every child matters” indeed! – Yours, etc,
Sir, – As your Editorial (December 6th) put it, “budgets are subjective affairs”. However bad this budget may be for the whole country, a look at the Portuguese budget, which was voted on last week, may be of some comfort to many. There, no cuts in MPs’ allowances. No job creation measures. No reduced VAT rate for anyone. No help for the weakest. It could be worse. – Yours, etc,
JEAN FERNAND,
Avenue Eng. Mendonça,
Macedo de Cavaleiros,
Portugal.
A chara, – In bludgeoning child benefit across the board, Joan Burton has committed a shocking disservice to vulnerable families and reveals a poor understanding of poverty and its prevalence in our time.
Many families rely on this payment to put food on the table and the cutting of it will only encourage further hardship; the spiralling consequences of which could reverberate for years through costs to social services, health, crime prevention and more.
This is before we even consider the damage to local business as people simply stop spending because there’s nothing left to spend.
You cannot cut in an equal measure because children in Ireland are not economically equal. The child benefit should be there to assist in feeding and clothing the vulnerable children of this State, not a privilege for the privileged.
What would be so difficult about drawing a means-tested line through household incomes and defining once and for all who truly deserves this crucial payment? – Is mise,
DAVE DORAN,
Gorey, Co Wexford.
Sir, – We are “well on the road to recovery”. We are “in a very difficult place”. There is “some light at the end of the tunnel”. These are some of the meaningless phrases uttered by members of the Government when defending the sixth austerity budget since 2008. My personal difficulty will now involve searching for €144 per month (the new threshold for people claiming relief on costs under the Drug Payment Scheme) in order to buy the medications which are deemed necessary to keep me alive, well and kicking in the dark tunnel. Light? What light? Stop the lights – I want to get off! – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Tables compiled by the Department of Finance showing the impact of the Budget on various incomes say it all.
Here is an extract for a married couple with a house, without children and paying full PRSI: On a gross income of €45,000, the reduction in income will be €422 a year (1.2 per cent of gross). On a gross income of €175,000, the reduction in income will be €872 a year (0.9 per cent of gross). So, for someone earning four times more, the impact of the budget is only doubled. Inequity is even greater for people further down the income scale.
How can this budget be viewed as fair? – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Be still, be quiet, listen. Is that the distant rumble of Santa and his reindeers coming from afar? No, it’s the sound of James Connolly turning in his grave. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Michael Noonan claims the reason for not increasing Universal Social Charge on high earners is that multinational chief executives would not like it and would consider relocating to another jurisdiction (Breaking News, December 5th). He seems less concerned that the failure to impose such a tax on the wealthy is necessarily borne by those who are struggling daily to remain within this jurisdiction. Then again, they are not corporations but merely citizens. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Enda Kenny assured us that the most vulnerable had been protected in this Budget. He obviously has no idea of what the “vulnerable” – sick, disabled and elderly as well as those low income parents depending on child benefit – were already struggling with.
The pre-budget comment was a cynical “false prophecy” to befuddle and hearten these groups only to hammer them on Wednesday. There was no “wriggle room” for these groups before the budget and now they have been plunged into the abyss. Barnardos, the SVP, the Carers Association, Older and Bolder, Age Action and disability organisations have all come out to roundly criticise the targeting of vulnerable groups. Far from “protecting the most vulnerable” Enda Kenny and the Fine Gael-Labour coalition has brought fear and terror to people least able to “stretch” their dwindling resources. It won’t be TDs or bankers, or the troika going to bed tonight in utter despair.
Medicines won’t be taken, fuel won’t be bought, people will become sicker and more distressed, increasingly seeking help from hospitals, psychiatric institutions and nursing homes. This, is the end result of Mr Kenny’s farcical statement that the “vulnerable have been protected” in this budget. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – As the Government obviously has an anti-child policy, with reductions in child benefit, tax on maternity benefit, a property tax where larger households will pay more, increases in college registration fees, a reduction in the back-to-school allowance, etc, could it perhaps have considered free contraception for the population, or a one-child family policy as in China? – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Two things can be deduced from the Budget: Fine Gael has problems understanding four-letter words such as “fair”, and Labour obviously could not find the room in which the discussions on the formation of the Budget were being held. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – The purpose of the independent wine shop is to provide shrewd, thought-provoking and technically excellent wine to the consumer at a fair and reasonable price. The imprudent increase on duty, will, in the long run, result in the mutilation of our industry, and hold the consumer hostage to normality and average wines for decades to come. – Yours etc,
GREGORY HIGGINS,
Retail Manager,
Bubble Brothers,
English Market, Cork.
Sir, – Winston Churchill once said, “I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle” (Michael Anderson, Letters, December 1st), but then again, “A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul” (George Bernard Shaw). – Yours, etc,
Sir, – The Minister said yesterday that he sees no reason why the taxpayer should subsidise private pensions over €60,000. Does that set a precedent for ministers’ pensions? After all, what’s good for the goose, is good for the gander. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – We are stunned and very disappointed at the decision to put only a 10-cent tax increase on a packet of cigarettes, particularly when the public was expecting more.
Ten cent is the lowest possible increase, really a nominal increase. It will have no impact on smoking rates, even though international research shows us that a sharp increase in the price of cigarettes does result in a drop in smoking and in particular discourages young people from starting.
In fact it will probably encourage the tobacco industry to hide its own price increase behind it.
Every year €2 billion from the health budget is spent dealing with the effects of smoking. Lung cancer, the vast majority of it preventable, is the biggest cancer killer. More women are now dying of lung cancer than breast cancer.
And the Government does not use one of the most effective weapons available, price, to discourage smoking. Why? We don’t know why. We certainly hope the Government is not listening to the spurious arguments and figures being peddled by the industry and its mouthpieces.
Like the one about how high price is resulting in smuggling. As we pointed out in our pre-budget meetings, cigarette smuggling is a criminal issue and if the industry is so concerned about it, why is it consistently putting up prices itself? The industry is having it both ways, and the Government is letting it. Meanwhile, today, tomorrow and every day, 16 people will die – unnecessarily – as a result of smoking. – Yours, etc,