Madam, - No one can doubt the serious economic situation the country finds itself in. Most other states are equally affected. It serves no purpose to attach blame at this time.
It is unsightly to watch Opposition parties scoring cheap points. It is also obvious that the Government parties lack the ability to tackle our problems.
If the political parties have any interest in leading the nation out of this crisis, they had better start working together. Failure will be the fault of each of them, democracy will suffer, and the electorate will punish them.
So let the Government seek the help of all parties and let each opposition party cease its vulgar attacks. The country deserves better. - Yours, etc,
Madam, - I largely agree with the suggestions from Manus O'Riordan of Siptu (October 30th). There is, however, one glaring omission. He says nothing about tax individualisation, and he presents no analysis of possible tax savings for lower and middle earners if individualisation were to be scrapped.
Successive ministers for finance have, since 1999, systematically widened the gap in tax treatment between two-income and one-income families on the high rate of tax. Siptu appears to me to have colluded with this discriminatory treatment. I think I can see why: the more two-income families, the more trade union members.
There is probably a similar arithmetical explanation for Opposition parties's silence on the issue: the potential loss of votes from the two-income families affected by the scrapping of individualisation.
I am now retired and on a pension, and no longer affected by individualisation, though I have felt very sore about it for the past nine years. I am not, therefore, writing this out of self-interest. It seems, rather, a matter of simple justice: those who gained from individualisation were the top PAYE earners, and the substantial benefits they received were on top of all the tax reductions which they shared with the rest of us. Are they not the obvious group to target for tax savings at this time? Yet no politician, and no trade unionist, has a word to say on the matter. - Yours, etc,
Madam, - There is a simple, fair and time-tested way to correct the public finances. It is to increase the top rate of income tax by 1 per cent, or even 2 per cent, with adjustments to tax credits and bands to protect lower earners. Many people expected such a measure in the Budget. Instead we were treated to a shoddy confidence trick called the employment levy, wrapped in a call to patriotic action.
I know some people will say even a 1 per cent increase in the top rate of income tax would discourage enterprise and drive people into the black economy. But what do they think the employment levy will do?
Is the dead hand of the PDs' "low tax" legacy so heavy that there is not one political party in the Dáil with the courage to try to escape it, rather than submit to yet another stealth tax and the further erosion of public services? - Yours, etc,
Madam, - I know this will come as a shock to my fellow citizens in the teaching profession, who seem unable to cope with a return to 2007 staffing levels. Believe it or not, private-sector employees are constantly challenged to find ways to do more with fewer resources; their jobs and futures depend on it.- Yours, etc,
Madam, - Presumably the vast majority of last September's new pupil intake to national schools was at the most junior level. This would also have applied to most of those with language and other special needs. These young children, and their teachers, currently have the shortest school day.
Would extending that school day by, say, one hour help to ameliorate the impact of increased class sizes by allowing teachers to spend more time with their young pupils?
In the stroll to the benchmarking ATM, many routine daily duties were categorised as "extras" to justify the payment of significant salary increases to teachers. It has been clear for some time that any fresh benchmarking exercise, conducted objectively, would result in salary reductions for many in the public service. That would probably include many teachers.
In those circumstances, is it not reasonable for the Government to expect teachers and their unions to come forward with constructive proposals to help resolve the current problems without incurring extra cost to the taxpayer? - Yours, etc,