Some basic concepts......

P. Breathnach

ionix5891 wrote: »

...why should I give the government €1 or €1000 or €10000 euro extra? the frackers do not deserve a cent for how this country was ran into a wall, and neither am i happy about my tax money being used to help bankers, when did they ever help us? :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

So, because you disapprove of what bankers did, you believe that the severe damage that our economy has suffered should become total destruction?

ionix5891

P. Breathnach wrote: »

So, because you disapprove of what bankers did, you believe that the severe damage that our economy has suffered should become total destruction?

let me see, speculators and builders with loads of houses have their assets deflating rapidly, serves them right

i dont see why my taxmoney (paid 15K for 2008) should be used to find the likes of Anglo Irish and rest, that money could have found a better home im sure

as for the public sector well tis too bloated, compared to rest of EU, they need to slim down whether they like it or not

we are in a period of readjustment, no amounts of money will stop this until things return to normal levels (e.g. houses at 3x income) just look at US they are pissing trillions against a wall and its not helping move the wall

silverharp

P. Breathnach wrote: »

10% of what? And how did you arrive at that figure?

10% of gov expenditure , Just picking up on the 10% paycut v reducing staff by 10% , which seem to be an arbitary number in any event. I'd prefer to see the gov step aside as it tends to be in the business of redistributing wealth (which costs) or running high cost companies eg RTE. the only way of regaining a competitive position is for the gov. to reduce its role in the economy by cutting taxes spending and borrowing.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Bord Fáilte is gone; we now have Fáilte Ireland. There is nothing much wrong with raising such questions, but they should be raised as questions rather than as answers. I don't know if our tourism promotion money is well spent (in fact, I'm quite sceptical) but I acknowledge that at least some of it might be effective. So, rather than chop it, I would challenge Fáilte Ireland to make a case for the continued existence of all its programmes; then I would be prepared to eliminate any elements that are not obviously yielding good returns.

And so on, for all government-funded programmes. I think I have just re-invented An Bórd Snip.

Its one thing introducing a zero based budgeting approach however I think the problem here is that unless you start of with rock solid economic principles, your sensible approach will get bogged down. Do you honestly think an organisation like Failte Ireland could come to the conclusion that net net it would be better for the economy if they closed up shop in the morning. its not an argument that they dont do anything positive, it comes down to your economic principles. Free market approach will say close it down , let the tourist industry orgainise their own association if they wish , whereas a big gov approach will say we must be involved in managing this industry and we will tax and spend as long as we can get away with it regardless if it works or not. You can look at numerous gov. organisations and policies in this light.

I'd have humoured this statist approach up until recently but now I see the whole apparatus as a threat. No country ever went broke with a balanced budget and low taxes. Personally I dont want to see anybody or any company bailed out at the risk of bringing the system down.

ionix5891

i have to agree with above

as a director and main employee of small company the choices that had to be made in last few months were tough

despite saving up reserves for a rainy day (oh how im glad that was done unlike other companies) the choices are stark

* continue as usual and be bankrupt in few months
* take a high interest loan but with the next 12 months being so uncertain the banks are reluctant to give and its not a good idea, i am a bit old fashioned and hate taking on loans
* cut the costs by a third and try to ride out this downturn by working harder and pursuing new revenue avenues

we went for the 3rd choice above
our hopes are not to even make a profit but to just breakeven :eek:


i dont see how the public sector cant cut their costs, they are already above average, just because they are in public sector doesn't have to mean they have a job for life and their wages will only ever go up

grr Ireland Teo is in a similar position that alot of companies are, just on a larger scale

P. Breathnach

silverharp wrote: »

Its one thing introducing a zero based budgeting approach however I think the problem here is that unless you start of with rock solid economic principles, your sensible approach will get bogged down. Do you honestly think an organisation like Failte Ireland could come to the conclusion that net net it would be better for the economy if they closed up shop in the morning.

It's rather easier to challenge what I say if you assume things that I never said. I never said that Fáilte Ireland should be be judge of whether or not they should continue: my reference to An Bórd Snip suggests otherwise. What I meant was that it is reasonable to consider a case for maintaining programmes before making a decision about continuing them or abolishing them. If some, or all, of Fáilte Ireland's programmes make a worthwhile contribution to the Irish economy, then it makes sense to continue them.

its not an argument that they dont do anything positive, it comes down to your economic principles. Free market approach will say close it down , let the tourist industry orgainise their own association if they wish , whereas a big gov approach will say we must be involved in managing this industry and we will tax and spend as long as we can get away with it regardless if it works or not. You can look at numerous gov. organisations and policies in this light.

There are a number of industry associations active in the Irish economy. I am not convinced that they serve us well. Many tend to be anti-competitive.

I'd have humoured this statist approach up until recently but now I see the whole apparatus as a threat. No country ever went broke with a balanced budget and low taxes. Personally I dont want to see anybody or any company bailed out at the risk of bringing the system down.

It is nonsense to demand a balanced budget in all circumstances. Sometimes a surplus should be the target, sometimes a deficit, sometimes balance. The exchequer should function (among other things) as a counter-cyclical mechanism.

Whether taxes should be low or high (within common-sense limits) is as much a cultural as an economic question.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

nesf

daveirl wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yeah a fundamental point that many miss is that the US can get away with enormous deficit funded fiscal stimulus because the bond market lets them. No other country is given this kind of fiscal leeway.

silverharp

nesf wrote: »

Yeah a fundamental point that many miss is that the US can get away with enormous deficit funded fiscal stimulus because the bond market lets them. No other country is given this kind of fiscal leeway.

the question is for how long going forward? over the next few years I'd be looking for long bond prices to fall hard. They will be able to borrow but the rates will be up

1huge1

Économiste Monétaire wrote: »

Just a quick note: Cut expenditure. Cut expenditure. Cut expenditure. Cut expenditure. Cut expenditure. This idea of covering the deficit with tax increases, which is being put forward by Labour from what I can see, is entirely stupid.

Look out: Mc's back in town

I agree, thats the only reason why parties like Labour and Sinn Fein are gaining in the polls with their left wing idea's. Sure it pleases the unions and public sector workers but its not realistic and wont help anybody.