The costs of administration of a means tested 100 euro payment would probably be the same as costs of the contribution.
You could extend fuel allowance or increase it but that misses the squeeze middle and would be a disaster politically.
WFH has resulted in increased energy bills for a lot of people irrespective of hikes in prices.
Shenanigans
Huh! Marginalisation of the elderly - not on. Weāve paid out share over the years, not like many who are unhappy even if you gave them ā¬1k.
The ā¬100 is set up for all, itās up to everybody to do what they will.
Therein lies the problem. A bloated overpaid civil service that canāt introduce means testing for the likes of this. It should be a straight forward process. Iām guessing thereās no centralised database that all departments can access and thatās why the āadminā costs would be so high?
Spot on.
Whoa steady on there now.
The reason it canāt be means tested is because the department(s) responsible do not have the competence/capability to implement it. So itās the civil service that are the issue here. I heard the same argument from Joan Burton about child benefit 10 years ago, asking people not to collect it ffs. Civil service is not fit for purpose if this is how they operate.
Back off mate.
It costs more to arrange the giving out of the money than it does to just give it to everyone. You couldnāt make it up
to put it in your venacular: you need more staff on the desks to check one in 10 passports than youd need to check no passports at all
Thank you mate I get it now
Anyone putting themselves forward for the next citizen assembly?
A rep from here would be a huge addition (assume not kicked out for stating rows)
Eh, 100% towards retrofitting mate
Big Colm Brophy will enjoy the Mexican grub.
As long as the portly fucker isnāt dragged into a barrio in Nogales and devoured by rabid dogs.
You wouldnāt send em to the shops for youā¦the useless bastards.
Fuckers the lot of them
Chambers will be right at home in Compton
