Leftists and the road to ruin.

realitykeeper wrote: »

Leftist political parties are a lot like Anglo Irish Bank. Anglo was popular with borrowers because it lent recklessly during the good times, profits rolled in so the investors loved them also. Because Anglo were taking risks, other Banks followed (in order to compete) and they all crashed together.

Leftist political parties also appeal to the masses with populist policies and this forces main stream parties to do likewise or face electoral annihilation. It is a shame really because like the banks, the political parties will have to face their day of reckoning. When that happens, the economy will implode, social order will break down and instead of the solidarity seen during the water protests, society will turn on itself in an ugly and violent way.

Instead of complaining about austerity, people should be demanding it. Why is this not happening?

Excuse me why I ROTFLMFAO

realitykeeper wrote: »

Leftist political parties are a lot like Anglo Irish Bank. Anglo was popular with borrowers because it lent recklessly during the good times, profits rolled in so the investors loved them also. Because Anglo were taking risks, other Banks followed (in order to compete) and they all crashed together.

Leftist political parties also appeal to the masses with populist policies and this forces main stream parties to do likewise or face electoral annihilation. It is a shame really because like the banks, the political parties will have to face their day of reckoning. When that happens, the economy will implode, social order will break down and instead of the solidarity seen during the water protests, society will turn on itself in an ugly and violent way.

Instead of complaining about austerity, people should be demanding it. Why is this not happening?

You've answered your own question though.

I'm not going to re-answer it for you, but I'll give a clue: populist.

Biggest issue is politicians want to be popular all the time. Because of opinions poles etc politicians panic nowadays over little things. Because of our electoral system some politicians begin panicing straight after getting elected. They forget you need to be popular only once every five years. Also none have longterm views.

This showed in the last days of the 2011 General Election. Labour taught they were going to be squeezed out by FG. Instead of taking the long term view and considering the fact that they would be the largest party in opposition and could have created a real Left/Right divide they made unfullfillable promises that now have came back to haunt them

On attaining power they had not the nerve to cut headline welfare rate and bring in water charge straight away and then blame FF for all these problems. Instead they stored up problems by causing severe cuts elsewhere and taxing those that work and adding cost onto them instead of reducing government costs.

In one way workers are silly they are protesting over the wrong tax, instead of protesting over water charges they should be protesting over car tax or property tax as these hit those working only in general. By there failure to cut welfare Labour have stored up problems that in the long term are coming back to haunt them

It amazes me the way the way Labour, Sinn Fein and other left wing candidates talk about representing the working class. In reality they do not represent workers in general but rather the non-working class. Sinn Fein for the first time in NI are having to make political decisions about spending money ans as we can see they do not like having to make cutbacks. If they ever get into power in Ireland they will learn the hard truth about making decision.

Lots of people in Ireland need to realize on both the extreme Right and Left and too much cost is being burdened on a small group of workers and we need to address this. However we need a strong stable tax base as well. We also needto understand there is no magic bullet and those that work need to be rewarded. We went through this in the 70's and 80's and some who do not remember this are thing of voting for this again and what is worse is politicians that went through it then are again thinking of repeating the process.

braddun wrote: »

bank failures happen during right wing parties in power

Is that your whole post, or did the start and end both get pinched off..? (If so I recommend upping your fibre intake and maybe get some prep h in the meantime.)

pwurple wrote: »

I partly agree... The populism of sinn fein is grinding my gears slightly. Their followers are telling me that water charges, property tax and USC would be removed and social welfare payments Increased. Sounds like a utopia alright, but how da fok are they going to pay for it?

Tax the rich apparantly. Where "the rich" = everyone except me.

SF plan to increase income taxes on all workers over 32,800 who make pension conts.

This means maybe 500,000 workers??


Personally, on a fairly average household income, I would pay 1,400 more income tax pa under SF.

Geuze wrote: »

SF plan to increase income taxes on all workers over 32,800 who make pension conts.

This means maybe 500,000 workers??


Personally, on a fairly average household income, I would pay 1,400 more income tax pa under SF.

I believe the proposal is a third rate of tax (48%) on income over E100,000, increase employers PRSI by 5%, abolition of property and water taxes.


FG/Labour:
Universal Social Charge to stay, says Rabbitte

Middle-income earners to see no Budget benefit
Howlin signals talk on public sector pay rises


Sounds much worse to the majority of the population I'll wager.

The uncertainty of knowing what FG are capable of, depending on who they go into coalition with, disturbs me.

It's time for them to rule in a FG/FF coalition.

hfallada wrote: »

Our economy is the fastest growing in the EU. Our budget deficit is now under control. With the economy recovering so rapidly, gains made to the left will rapidly erode in the coming years. If you were unemployed and now earning a decent wage. Voting for the socialists and their high tax, little benefit polices arent in anyway attractive any more. When we have a lower tax economy and no budget corrections. How are the socialists appealing to the working majority in Ireland?

Our economy isnt going to implode. If it didnt during the crash. There is pretty much no risk of it happening now. Every economic indicator is suggesting a recovering economy,


People seem to forget who actually votes in elections. It people with money who like to protect it. Dublin central is a fine example. In the rich parts of Glasnevin and Drumcondra. There is huge turnout of people, where as the people in the inner city, who choose the socialists or SF, just dont vote. You would think Dublin central with its poor majority would vote in all socialist. But it mainly elects parties which benefit the wealthier in society

You could be right about growth being on the up - but there are warning signs out there that all might not be as good as it seems according to this article in yesterday's Sunday Independent, from which this is an extract:

Noonan's problem is that the puzzling first-half figures could prove to be a padded phantom - according to the FAC, at least. They believe that the growth numbers include a nasty little hand grenade that gives a false impression. The grenade is known as "contract manufacturing", a combination of two tortuous words that would prove impenetrable to any imaginable collection of ordinary mortals - except possibly to a cell of professors.

The professors are sceptical. They believe that so-called "contract manufacturing" exports could have artificially massaged growth figures for the first half of 2014 by as much as 2.5pc. If that is true, the Government's 4.9pc figure comes tumbling down to 2.4pc. Worse still, the Budget strategy is reduced to a shambles; all those 2014 goodies may have to be reversed in 2015.

The FAC (Fiscal Advisory Council) warnings about "contract manufacturing" (contracts placed abroad by Irish resident companies, from which the Irish economy derives no economic benefit) have yet to come home to roost - but, nonetheless, the warnings are there. Government choosing to ignore these warnings in its budget strategy is another thing altogether!

pwurple wrote: »

Tax the rich apparantly. Where "the rich" = everyone except me.

I think this pretty much sums up Anti Austerity Alliance/ Sinn Fein/ Socialist Party policy in one line.

Godge wrote: »

It will have a huge effect on public servants.

The higher rate of pension levy (up to 10%) imposed on higher earning public servants was designed that way to ensure that they didn't claw back too much of the cut in pension relief. At the margin, public servants are paying 16.5% in pension contributions and pension levy. The standardisation of the reliefs will cost them around 4% of gross pay at the margin. How many public servants realise that Sinn Fein are effectively imposing another pay cut on them?

What is worse for the public servants is that they don't have the option of stopping or reducing pension contributions until the madmen in SF have gone away.

What is great for the Public Servants is that the pensions are locked into Stone with everyone else paying for them hell or high water.

listermint wrote: »

What is great for the Public Servants is that the pensions are locked into Stone with everyone else paying for them hell or high water.

In most large organisations with defined contribution occupational schemes the employer AT LEAST matches the employee contribution. So in my case that'd mean an amount in excess of 33% of my salary going into my pension fund.

Only problems are:
1. There is no actual fund, so I just have to hope there's money there from somewhere to pay my pension when the time comes.
2. I have no way of knowing what changes will be made to the scheme / entitlements during the 30 or so years until I retire.
3. I have no choice, unlike with a DC scheme - I'd much rather have more of my money now, to buy a house and start a family, and increase my contributions later. But that's not an option, I pay 17%, like it or lump it, and have to hope I'm not being sold a pup.

(Of course, the 17% figure treats the PRD as a pension contribution, which is not actually the case, but I'm using the rationale of PS-bashers, ye can't have it both ways!)

hmmm wrote: »

I can't name a single firm that matches employee contributions. At best they will match a small percentage, with 10% being the highest I've seen - it's usually more like 5%.

Well the last year I can find a definitive stat for is 2006 (in Appendix C to Dept of Soc Welfare green paper on pensions) with a figure of €1.426bn in employee pension contributions to pension schemes and €1.338bn in employer contributions (94% of employee contribution).

So it's probably fair to say some employers don't match, some do, and some more than match, unless you've got a more recent stat suggesting otherwise.

The way I look at my PS pension - I don't recognise the PRD as a pension contribution (it's a pay cut I'm taking so that the current generation of pensioners can be paid their pensions) - I'm paying between 6.5% - 7% and my employer is implicitly paying somewhere around 12% - 13% on top.

It's definitely a decent benefit, but I'm not entirely sure that it fully bridges the gap between me and my private sector equivalent. Probably more or less does.

barneystinson wrote: »

Well the last year I can find a definitive stat for is 2006 (in Appendix C to Dept of Soc Welfare green paper on pensions) with a figure of €1.426bn in employee pension contributions to pension schemes and €1.338bn in employer contributions (94% of employee contribution).

So it's probably fair to say some employers don't match, some do, and some more than match, unless you've got a more recent stat suggesting otherwise.

The way I look at my PS pension - I don't recognise the PRD as a pension contribution (it's a pay cut I'm taking so that the current generation of pensioners can be paid their pensions) - I'm paying between 6.5% - 7% and my employer is implicitly paying somewhere around 12% - 13% on top.

It's definitely a decent benefit, but I'm not entirely sure that it fully bridges the gap between me and my private sector equivalent. Probably more or less does.

Employer contribution seems quite high. Reason being is some public servants and state employees top up there pension with AVC's etc. I wonder is employer contribution's catching self employed, solt traders contributions, as well over last 15 years lot of small companies set up to avail of coporation tax rate. Would contributions to directors (owners) pensions count as employer contributions. I like to see more detail on thing like this.

Your reading of the stastics give the impression that nearly all employee contributions are matched virtually completely by employers. Not sure if this is the case as anecdotal evidance would be different.

Often the devil can be in the detail

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

Employer contribution seems quite high. Reason being is some public servants and state employees top up there pension with AVC's etc. I wonder is employer contribution's catching self employed, solt traders contributions, as well over last 15 years lot of small companies set up to avail of coporation tax rate. Would contributions to directors (owners) pensions count as employer contributions. I like to see more detail on thing like this.

Your reading of the stastics give the impression that nearly all employee contributions are matched virtually completely by employers. Not sure if this is the case as anecdotal evidance would be different.

Often the devil can be in the detail

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Agree, my employer does 0, but no company I've worked for did more than 3.
/anecdote

I would imagine 5 would be plausible but very select, honestly never ever heard of 10 but I guess an exceptional CFO or CTO could demand it.

You're both missing the point.

Actuarial tables tell me I'd need to be contributing (or SOMEONE needs to be contributing) north of 15% of my salary to provide my DB pension.

If you subscribe to the "pension levy is a pension contribution, and rightly so because they've creamed it for long enough, bloody PS, grrrrr!" School of thought, then I'm currently paying plenty for my pension.

That's without ANY employer contribution. But the reality is, large employers, domestic and MNC's tend to match employee contributions either in part or in full, subject to some limit. So when you allow for that, either I'm overpaying or my employer is getting off very lightly, in contributing to my pension.

Personally I'd be very happy if I had a DC fund with me paying an amount variable at my discretion within some sort of range that would allow for me to accumulate a pension of 1/2 my projected salary at retirement, with it matched by an employer contribution. At least then I'd have certainty at any given point in time. Right now all I have is hope.

The reduction in tax relief makes up a significant chunk of SF's proposed budgets, and it has had very little comment - it will effectively mean that a middle income PAYE worker (who is paying high rate tax in their most productive years)

I dont see why there should be a reduction, the state OAP is already generous in the extreme IMO. I dont see why it is acceptable to have marginal rates at 52%, i.e extremely high on low incomes, and yet allow people to actually put away income at a far lower rate for their pension. Likewise with lump sums on retirement, I would have these taxed and with the money reduce the marginal rates of income tax and create several bands...

How much do pensioners need to live on? They are simply likely to squirrel it away, the young and youngish will probably have the vast majority of it recycled around the economy...

Idbatterim wrote: »

I dont see why there should be a reduction, the state OAP is already generous in the extreme IMO. I dont see why it is acceptable to have marginal rates at 52%, i.e extremely high on low incomes, and yet allow people to actually put away income at a far lower rate for their pension. Likewise with lump sums on retirement, I would have these taxed and with the money reduce the marginal rates of income tax and create several bands...

Most people would not find 12 grand a year "extremely generous" to live on. Most people would like to save for themselves and their families, not pay high rates of tax and hope that the government of the day will look after them.

Most reasonable commentators also believe that asking people to save for their retirement is a good thing, particularly as the dependency ratio grows - in the future, it is quite likely that the government will have to either cut the OAP, or restrict it only to those who have no savings whatsoever. We can't afford to do that if most people have no savings whatsoever.

Irish pensions are taxed as people take money out of the pension, and in return the money you put into a pension shouldn't be taxed a second time. If you're going to cut pension tax relief, and charge tax a second time on the way out, no-one will be stupid enough to save in a pension.

Unfortunately the Irish left (including SF) are like most Irish political parties and have no long term vision whatsoever, so it is quite likely that they would try for short term savings by restricting what people can save into their pensions, and 20 years down the road we're going to be commissioning tribunals to understand why there's a generation of old people with no savings to their name.

barneystinson wrote: »

I pay 17%, like it or lump it, and have to hope I'm not being sold a pup.

(Of course, the 17% figure treats the PRD as a pension contribution, which is not actually the case, but I'm using the rationale of PS-bashers, ye can't have it both ways!)

The view from within the PS is that the PRD is a pension contribution – you seem to want it both ways too!

Ref. C&AG Report on PS Pensions (P18):

For the purposes of relevant tables in this report the PRD is treated as a pension contribution

This same report also signals a huge increase in the cost of pensions as a percentage of GNP:

Gross benefit expenditure as a percentage of GNP will rise between 2009 and 2023 from 1.6% to 2.4% of GNP.
.......
Between 2038 and 2058 gross benefit expenditure is projected to increase from 2.5% to 3.6% of GNP.

barneystinson wrote: »

The way I look at my PS pension - I don't recognise the PRD as a pension contribution (it's a pay cut I'm taking so that the current generation of pensioners can be paid their pensions) - I'm paying between 6.5% - 7% and my employer is implicitly paying somewhere around 12% - 13% on top.

It's definitely a decent benefit, but I'm not entirely sure that it fully bridges the gap between me and my private sector equivalent. Probably more or less does.

There is no implicit employer payment – PS pensions are paid on a “pay as you go basis” – building up huge liabilities for taxpayers in the future as indicated in C&AG Report above.

PS pension benefits are also considerably better than “decent” as you describe. The fact that the current and future levels of spending on PS pensions are both unsustainable and hugely more favourable than other employment is also stated in the preamble to the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Act 2010, which refers to:

• the expenditure on public service pensions is unsustainable
• the benefit of public service pensions is and will remain, after the enactment of the following Act, significantly and markedly more favourable than those generally available in other employment

golfwallah wrote: »

The view from within the PS is that the PRD is a pension contribution – you seem to want it both ways too!

Ref. C&AG Report on PS Pensions (P18):


This same report also signals a huge increase in the cost of pensions as a percentage of GNP:




There is no implicit employer payment – PS pensions are paid on a “pay as you go basis” – building up huge liabilities for taxpayers in the future as indicated in C&AG Report above.

PS pension benefits are also considerably better than “decent” as you describe. The fact that the current and future levels of spending on PS pensions are both unsustainable and hugely more favourable than other employment is also stated in the preamble to the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Act 2010, which refers to:

How do I price the value of my remuneration package (for the purpose of me comparing with equivalent roles in the private sector), other than by imputing an employer contribution, seeing as there aren't DB schemes open to new entrants anymore...

Obviously there isn't actually an employer's contribution - but as I've said previously, I'd prefer to have a higher salary and a DC scheme with flexibility of contribution rates, than what I currently have, a stake in an "unsustainable" scheme that I won't be drawing from until nearly 2050. Do you think I'll actually get the benefits I'm currently being promised, when the time comes?

golfwallah wrote: »

You’re asking a lot of questions here – to which there are no “right answers” that I know of. To some extent, I guess, this is because this whole issue brings us into fairly uncharted waters. It raises the issue of risk and how various stakeholders (e.g. employees, lenders, voters, tax payers, political parties, etc.) view it. It prompts fundamental questions about government credibility as regards honouring its long-term promises and whether past behaviour is an accurate indicator of what will happen in the future, etc.

Up to now, government, regardless of its political party make-up, has had a lot of credibility in honouring its promises to repay debt, provide employment security, deliver on pension promises, etc. These issues have been placed far higher in the “pecking order” than other matters such as the level of social welfare or other public services provided.

Ultimately, it’s about money, our ability as a country to borrow, choices about how money is spent and how much various segments of the community have to pay to finance it all.

We now appear to be entering into a new political era where there is no guarantee that the “old certainties” will continue to hold. Ultimately, the choice is down to the electorate as to which political parties or coalitions of political parties and independents get into power.

Likewise the choice of employment in either public or private sector is down to the individual. There are no certainties as to the value of pension element of a PS remuneration package. That said, there are views such as those published by publicpolicy.ie (an independent body financed by Atlantic Philanthropies). I’ve also read opinions placing huge valuations on how much either employee or employer should be contributing to fund public service pensions (way above current levels) – so it might be a good idea to do your research and reach your own conclusions on all these issues.

You should be a politician, basically you've told me I'm wrong but won't get off the fence yourself! :rolleyes:

If as you say there's no certainty, I'm right not to value it on the basis of it being a certainty.

denlaw wrote: »

Just a little input On the op's thread.
the road to ruin if the lefties get in, as apart to what damage has the right and it's obsession with neoliberalism not already done, unless the op is one of the 1% ELITE of this country, the rights policies have ruined it for the other 99%...

realitykeeper wrote: »

Nationalizing the banks was a leftist policy. True capitalists would have let them fail and then imprisoned the bankers, the defaulting developers and the criminally negligent Fianna Failers. Its the principle, you see.

As I see it, the Irish people have demonstrated in election after election that there is no real appetite for either extreme rightist or extreme leftist forms of government.

Sure, the brands of the parties that we put into power change from time to time. But ultimately we seem to choose slightly differing forms of our own Irish style of social democracy as the preferred way of running the country.

And I don’t honestly think you would find much favour for tossing people into jail for failing in business or finding people criminally guilty without due process of law. It’s a risky world out there and we need people to take on calculated risks – no risk, no reward. And I accept that we need to learn from past mistakes, have more transparency / accountability and tighten up to mitigate against the recklessness that happened during the Celtic Tiger era.

Indeed, democracy is at times messy and imperfect, but to me and most Irish people, it is a lot more preferable and workable to extremist right or left wing forms of government.

That being said, with so much support for independents and SF in the opinion polls, who knows what kind of government will get into power next time out?

Interesting to note, that Ireland has featured in a positive light in the attached recent article in The Economist:

On our home turf of economics there have been some standout performances. Ireland and Iceland have both pulled clear of trouble, showing that democracies can, after all, implement painful decisions when they must.