Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
THE GROUP REPRESENTING retailers in Ireland has urged the government not to increase excise duty or shift the cost of sick pay on to businesses in its pre-budget submission today.
Retail Ireland has also urged the government to take “decisive action” to tackle diesel laundering and tobacco smuggling citing the “enormous savings” it would make for the Exchequer.
The group, which is affiliated to Irish Business and Employers Confederation (IBEC) and represents 3,000 retailers in Ireland, says the confirmation that VAT is to rise by 2 per cent in next week’s budget will hit upon consumer spending.
As a result, it has called on the government to halt any planned rise in excise duty.
Chairman Frank Gleeson said:
It is essential that excise is not increased in the budget. In addition, Government should not proceed with the proposal that employers pay the first four weeks of employees’ sick leave.This would represent a very significant additional annual cost for retailers and would damage the sector’s capacity to retain employment. The retail sector needs support, not measures that increase its costs.
The government has floated the idea that businesses and not the taxpayer meet the cost of initial sick leave as is the case in most other countries but there has been no confirmation of this.
Gleeson also pointed out that retail sales in Ireland have fallen by 20 per cent since 2008 while the savings ratio has increased by 10 per cent to 12 per cent overall because of weak consumer confidence.
He added: “As we enter the critical pre-Christmas shopping period decisive action is needed to encourage consumers to spend some of the 12 per cent of income currently saved.
“There should not be any further increases in taxation on consumers on budget day and the necessary adjustment in the public finances should be made through reducing public expenditure.”
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
It was burning. ‘She later used it a second time’. I put my hand in the fire. It burned. I took it out and ran it under a cold tap. I thought this was normal. I stick my hand in again. I s*^t you not. It started to burn again
@Dessie Curley: Given the product was a chemical skin peel it would be reasonable to expect some sensation.
Also, you know if you stick your hand in a fire you’ll be injured. It’s a reasonable expectation that of a expert you have paid recommends a product to you that it won’t cause extensive and lasting skin damage.
Every last one of these cosmetic products carry a warning on the packet to ‘apply a test patch’ or ‘discontinue use if skin irritation occurs’ not that isn’t just basic common sense…
With company out of business – who pays the €37K. Genuine question.
Retroactive claim from the liability insurance policy held by the business at the time of the incident.
They wouldn’t bother suing a wound down Ltd. company and joining the list of creditors.
But she didn’t have a facial. She opted for a chemical peel that works by burning off the top layers of your skin. BURNING OFF. Total rubbish. She didn’t deserve a penny.
The beauty therapist told her she had sensitive skin and then recommended the product. Clearly at fault. The amount awarded seems high to me though.
Saw a photo of her on another site. Poor woman looks destroyed :)
about 20% of white Irish women have rosacea. I could have an extra 35k now if only I’d the cop on!!! Was the Groupon facial!
Exactly – if she’d been diagnosed with contact dermatitis or some allergic response I’d say fair enough, but rosacea is a common condition of unknown cause.
@Tom the Bomb: A common condition which she didn’t have before she used the recommended product.
have your say