(I don’t understand the logic in providing free healthcare etc to the unemployed but not the employed. Why not make it a universal benefit? Mind, this is my general attitude to public services.)

On cars, your actual point is right, and I realise you mean ROI – but there most certainly has been a car manufactured in Ireland in the last 40 years, and it was AWESOME, although admittedly completely pointless, absurdly wasteful, and only built as a scam to con the UK government…

The reason for this is essentially because people on the dole get a host of other benefits (which are not being cut) such as rent allowance, mortgage protection, free health and so forth. Whereas I suspect a lot of low paid public sector workers who lose one eighth of their income over the course of a few months are likely to find themselves in quite serious bother.

I don’t see this as wealth redistribution from the poor to the middle classes, though I accept that it can indeed be cast in that light. Rather I see it as collectively carrying a burden that must be distributed across all of our shoulders. This budget has reduced the weekly dole in Ireland to €196. That’s almost £180 per week, on top of the medical card and paid rent. Shaving another €6 or €7 off that weekly income is unlikely to have as significant an impact as the loss of €75 per week to the nurse currently earning €30k (which is what they’ve lost this year).

Again, I’m really not suggesting that either cut is desirable. Merely that we’ve found ourselves in a very deep hole indeed and disproportionately penalising the public sector (especially considering how much of that hole was dug bailing out our financial institutions) doesn’t seem like the best way of climbing out.

As I said, I do think a lot more of the pain should be borne by high earners and corporations. But I’d also shave a small amount off the welfare payment (still leaving it as one of the highest in the world) if it lessened the pain experienced by the public sector.

See, when you have a nation that is constitutionally obliged to redistribute wealth as equitably as possible (as is Ireland) then a government has two main strategies for achieving this. Firstly, through the welfare system for those unable (or unwilling) to find a job. Secondly, through the public sector by providing secure employment. The Irish public sector currently accounts for almost 20% of the entire workforce. Free marketeers will gasp in dismay at that figure, but I personally see it as wealth redistribution at its finest.

That doesn’t surprise me at all Merrick. And it makes a complete mockery of the scheme as the only result will be subsidise the car retail sector (as I said, there hasn’t been a car manufactured in Ireland for over 40 years). Why do they get a special subsidy, while the sellers of candles, pies or hats don’t?

I still think Citizen S is onto something with the “driving licence scrappage scheme”, but that only works if the government is genuinely interested in lowering emissions rather than subsidising unsustainable retailers.

This may be understating it a bit. George Monbiot cites

“A paper published in 2000 by the journal Transportation Research comes to even grimmer conclusions: that replacing old cars with new ones increases carbon pollution. Because between 15% and 20% of a car’s emissions are produced during its manufacture, the optimal age for a car, the paper says, is 19 years. (The average age of the UK’s fleet is 4.9 years). If the paper’s assumptions hold (they may be out of date now), it would make more sense for the government to pay us to keep our old bangers on the road.”

Surely your argument (ie that the unemployed’s standard-of-living is towards the top of the global tree) applies just as much to those lucky enough to have jobs, where even the most basic ones are paid many times more than the dole?