Sir, – Congratulations to the current Government for giving departments authority to act logically and beginning the most obvious of database interfaces.
The decision not to exchange data between the departments of Welfare and Revenue must have been taken consistently since the mid 1990s, because the notion that management in the public sector had an insufficient understanding of relational databases is silly. It is unfortunate that the first success of these changes is one that was negatively perceived by the public.
This is the kind of efficiency, we, the public have been asking for – the ability for one department to know what the other is doing. I’m sure we can look forward to all kinds of logical exchanges of data with and within local authorities, with the Garda Síochána, immigration and naturalisation services, and so on. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – The recent discussion about whether or not people in receipt of State pensions have been tax-compliant has diverted attention from other important matters concerning State pensions. While we are all required to pay our fair share of taxes, in a society that seeks to treat citizens equally, all those in receipt of pensions funded by the State should be subject to the same general pension rules.
For most of us this means entitlement to a contributory or non- contributory pension after the age of 65 (soon to be increased). For a select few however, many of whom are in receipt of multiple pensions and/or salaries from appointments to State bodies, there is no such age requirement.
If, as some of our politicians claim, we want a fair and equal society then let us see some real leadership from them on the subject of State-funded pensions. Rather than stand by and watch 150,000 senior citizens be intimidated, let the Government and all genuine politicians focus on changing their own general pension rules such that every State- funded pension – including those paid to former politicians – is paid only to those above a stipulated pension age applied equally to all citizens. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – While I am in total agreement that it is disgraceful to treat vulnerable pensioners badly, after seeing the number of letters in your paper, I am left wondering who exactly are the vulnerable ones.
After all, there seems to be a lot less rage and spitfire when the Government proposed to take tens of thousands of euros out of the normal taxpayers’ pockets over the next 20 years than there is when the Government takes a few hundred euros or a medical card from pensioners.
Sadly, these pensioners seem less inclined to stand up for their even more vulnerable grandchildren who we are condemning to debt. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – I am one of those who, apparently, have become non-tax-compliant without being aware – having done all deemed necessary to advise the Revenue that I had qualified for the State pension in 2010. My wife also qualified for the State pension in 2011. We both also have pensions from previous employment.
To be quite honest, I am fed up with all the hype surrounding this issue.
The argument that the “poor old pensioners” are being targeted once again just does not stand up to scrutiny. If people were not paying their fair tax, whether knowingly or unknowingly, then they must face up to their civic responsibilities.
Media commentators are helping to fuel an attitude of outrage that the pensioners are being treated unfairly. Opposition parties are also jumping on the band-wagon to try to make the State and the Revenue look like the bad guys.
We must all pay our fair taxes, and not just because the State is in dire need of the funds – we should always have been paying our proper taxes. I will pay my fair share, not happily but with acceptance that it is the correct thing to do. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – There is yet another aspect of the now notorious “Revenue letters” which can be very confusing or misleading, especially for those who are not familiar with the procedures of joint assessment. The letter addressed to a husband whose wife has a State pension reads “Dear Mr. ---------, I note that YOU are a recipient of one of these pensions . . .” Apart from being confusing, this is factually incorrect by any normal usage of English. – Yours, etc,