Government "looking more like a planned €6bn reduction " in borrowing / spending ?

jimmmy

How big will the cuts be in the December budget ? I thought 4 billion. However, a respected and regular contributer to this forum yesterday afternoon, on another thread corrected me ( about my statement " the EC has told our govt to cut spending / borrowing by 4,000,000,000.00 in the next budget alone" ) and wrote
That is why the EC has told our govt to cut spending / borrowing by 4,000,000,000.00 in the next budget alone. "nope...the Government put forward that plan to the EU who approved it

its now looking more like a planned €6bn reduction "

Someone else looked for a link and he wrote

"no link

its pretty much just based on talk around the public sector orgs i am involved in; the Head of an org mentioned €6bn in a recent talk "

What size do you think any possible cuts in the budget will be ? Anyone got any thoughts or inside information ? Personally, I think 6 billion is unlikely... maybe the 6 he mentioned was 6 million in the case of his pension, 600,000 in the case of his salary or 60k in the case of his junket expenses in Florida ? Or 6 hours work a week not surfin' the net, or 6 hundred quid govt tip to the expatriate in the limousine ferrying his mate the minister between terminals at Heathrow ?

Given the pension levey has saved the govt only half a billion net of tax , I cannot see 6 billion in cuts , can you? But yet a reliable source ( even though I very seldom agree with him I would respect him and he comes across as genuine and reliable ) has it that the "Head of an org mentioned €6bn in a recent talk" .

cyclopath2001

Here's one for you, jimmmy, what will the effect be of taking 6bn euro out of circulation this Christmas?

Sand

6 billion less in borrowing, plus interest on that 6 billion borrowed, plus taxes to pay for that 6 billion and to service it?

Theres no use crying over spilt milk. That 6 billion is gone. We dont have the money. We cant borrow forever without cost. Ireland is a very small open economy so any "stimulus" effect from spending money we dont have is next to nothing.

johnnyskeleton

jimmy wrote:

What size do you think any possible cuts in the budget will be ?

Whatever it will be, unless its in the region of €20bn we will still have a whopping budget deficit.

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Here's one for you, jimmmy, what will the effect be of taking 6bn euro out of circulation this Christmas?

What Sand said, plus:

1) More or less the same effect as at any other time of year, except without the public sector emotional heartstrings;

2) increased efficiency in the public sector;

3) reduced wage expectations and cost of living leading to job creation in the private (wealth generating) sector.

leninbenjamin

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

2) increased efficiency in the public sector;

I once had a woman in the dole office spend about 10 mins tippexing a form she made an error one when i was applying (her bottle wasn't the right colour or something and she insisted finding a new one). Given the time she actually took to actually talk to me was less than 5 mins, she could have gotten through at least twice as many people if she just had a bit of cop on her shoulders.

I dunno if that type of incompetence can ever be gotten rid of without wholesale firings.

cyclopath2001

Sand wrote: »

6 billion less in borrowing, plus interest on that 6 billion borrowed, plus taxes to pay for that 6 billion and to service it?.

Yes, what will the effect be?

Say we shut down a few hospitals, close loss-making schools, stop subsidising unprofitable bus routes, sell our inefficient road network to the Chinese and the electricity and gas networks to the Russians and then we flog the water and sewage services to the Arabs.

For example, say we fire, at random, half the public service. Will there be any private-sector job losses as a result? Perhaps as an indirect effect? How will this impact the banks?

johnnyskeleton wrote:

[1) More or less the same effect as at any other time of year, except without the public sector emotional heartstrings;

You obviously don't have a commercial mind...think about the effect on shopping and the hospitality trade.

johnnyskeleton

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Yes, what will the effect be?

Say we shut down a few hospitals, close loss-making schools, stop subsidising unprofitable bus routes, sell our inefficient road network to the Chinese and the electricity and gas networks to the Russians and then we flog the water and sewage services to the Arabs.

Say we cull the hospital administration and refuse to be beholden to the consultants wage demands. Schools aren't out to make a profit, but if you mean close schools that are an inefficient use of resources then why not, I don't think public transport should be touched, we have already sold our roads to friends of FF, further efforts to create competition in energy provision is a good thing and if the Arabs ran our water and sewage services they would be much more efficient.

But there is so much unneccessary administration and overpayment in the public sector, that hitting front line services is unnecessary to make such savings.

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

For example, say we fire, at random, half the public service. Will there be any private-sector job losses as a result? Perhaps as an indirect effect? How will this impact the banks?

Ultimately it will increase private sector jobs with lower taxes and lower cost of living.

cyclopath2001 wrote:

You obviously don't have a commercial mind...think about the effect on shopping and the hospitality trade.

Let's shop our way to wealth, and drink our way to efficiency. It really does sound like you're saying if there are cuts to public sector wages then public sector employees will have less money for shopping, drinking and fancy resteraunts. Meanwhile, private sector families live in fear of the postman.

Diarmuid

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

For example, say we fire, at random, half the public service.

Well considering we doubled the spend on the public sector in inflation adjusted terms (€25bn vs €63bn in real terms) between 2000 and 2009, I would hazard a guess ,and say it would bring us back to a 2000 public sector service. We'd survive.

What's your alternative? Borrow and let my kids and grand kids pay for it? Or repeat the 80's and kill the economy for a decade with tax increases (which even then wouldn't close the gap)

cyclopath2001

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Say we cull the hospital administration and refuse to be beholden to the consultants wage demands.

The hospitals stop funsctioning. Nobody to book appointments, arrange repairs. the consultants go to Australia or set up in private practice where they can make more momey.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Schools aren't out to make a profit,

that's so 'old economy'.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I don't think public transport should be touched,

Sorry, no more freebies

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

we have already sold our roads to friends of FF,

There's plenty of roads out there to be tolled.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

further efforts to create competition in energy provision is a good thing and if the Arabs ran our water and sewage services they would be much more efficient.

And expensive.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Ultimately it will increase private sector jobs with lower taxes and lower cost of living.

Bless your innocence. Not going to happen. You'll be paying for NAMA and the bank bailout plus whatever the foreign owners of oyr privitised utilities can get out of you.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Let's shop our way to wealth, and drink our way to efficiency.

Private sector tried that, didn't work.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

It really does sound like you're saying if there are cuts to public sector wages then public sector employees will have less money for shopping, drinking and fancy resteraunts. Meanwhile, private sector families live in fear of the postman.

Sounds like nobody will be eating in any restaurants this Christmas. (Except bankers that is....)

Sand

Yes, what will the effect be?

Say we shut down a few hospitals, close loss-making schools, stop subsidising unprofitable bus routes, sell our inefficient road network to the Chinese and the electricity and gas networks to the Russians and then we flog the water and sewage services to the Arabs.

For example, say we fire, at random, half the public service. Will there be any private-sector job losses as a result? Perhaps as an indirect effect? How will this impact the banks?

The effect will be our spending will come back in line with our tax take, people will gradually regain confidence that they wont be facing additional taxes and will begin planning towards investment and spending again - not on the same scale as before obviously, but that was a false scale - spending financed by borrowed money.

Will there be a deflationary effect? Maybe, maybe not. 6 billion saved in spending is 6 billion saved in taxes - that money is still in the economy, its just spent by people, not governments. Theres talk of a multiplier effect in government spending, but thats a dubious proposition that isnt supported by empirical evidence and even theoretically doesnt hold water in a tiny open economy like ours. Even the UKs quantitive easing programme is failing - UK investors are taking the "free" money but arent spending it in the UK, theyre investing it abroad. The stimulus you refer to from public sector wages - tbh, I know quite a few people in the public sector. They are furious over the cuts to them so far ( God love them, theyve seen nothing yet) but I note they spend quite a bit on foreign holidays so the "stimulus" effect of their wages goes abroad with them.

The above assumes of course the 6 billion is coming from taxes. But its not, its being borrowed. That is finite only reinforces the need to control the spending, but it is being borrowed. Borrowed from whom? People who want to lend money and get a return. If the government is not borrowing it, then that money is still looking for a return - its available to the private sector to borrow instead to invest in creating jobs and wealth. As opposed to simply servicing ever increasing debt mountains and the day to day expenses of the public sector, JODs expense bills and an incredibly generous social welfare regime.

The other benefit for the state is that borrowing for investment (note investment, not simply to cover day to day bills) will also become easier as international markets will regain confidence in the Irish states ability to repay the debt. Less of our money will have to go to servicing debt and can be used for productive spending. We are currently borrowing at a peremium because investors consider us a risky bet, like lending your own money to a junkie is risk.

I also note you immediately assume cuts of 6 billion are entirely going to be in terms of loss of infrastructure. The two biggest budget items are the wages of the public sector and the cost of social welfare. Massive savings can be made in both.

Do you really think that we can simply continue borrowing, and borrowing and borrowing and borrowing and borrowing and devoting more and more and more and more and more of our taxes to servicing that debt, meaning we need to borrow more and more and more.

Eventually, you have to face facts. You cant spend what you dont have. We are borrowing 2 billion per month. 2 billion per month at hefty interest rates. That has to stop - sooner the better.

All youre doing here is telling people what we already know - that the cuts will be painful. We know they will be painful. But they are necessary. We are spending something like 58 billion a year and only brining in something like 34 billion a year. Even if an economic miracle occurs, and our tax revenue grows by 10% per year on a consistent basis, and we get our spending stabilised and it only grows by 2% a year itll still take the best part of 2 decades for us to be able to cover our spending. We cannot grow our way out of this, we cant simply borrow over the short term on the assumption we will get the money back later. We wont.

cyclopath2001

Sand wrote: »

We cannot grow our way out of this, we cant simply borrow over the short term on the assumption we will get the money back later. We wont.

Isn't that how NAMA is supposed to work?

Given that the public sector is paying PAYE and VAT and levies, I'd say to get that 6bn net, you really need to cut 18bn. Then put some money aside for the social welfare support and another bank bailout to cover the mortgage defaults. So, that's, say 25bn? We might just get that if we sell everything now.

Sand

Isn't that how NAMA is supposed to work?

NAMA is'nt going to work.

Well, actually - that depends on what you believe its purpose is. If its to rob the taxpayer blind to benefit the bankers, yeah, itll work fine. Otherwise, no its a theft on a scale previously unknown in Ireland in modern times. Maybe Cromwell stole more wealth from Irish taxpayers during his little rampage when calculated in todays money. Maybe. I doubt it given much of it was agricultural land of little value...but its conceivable.

Given that the public sector is paying PAYE and VAT and levies, I'd say to get that 6bn net, you really need to cut 18bn.

Public Servants paying PAYE and Levies arent paying taxes - theyre just giving back some of the money they were given. I give you 100, you give me 20 back. Youre not giving me 20 I didnt have before I gave it to you.

The real tax revenues are raised from wealth creation, in the private sector. The public sector doesnt have profit maximisation as a goal ( I note the Dept of Education is being criticised for not having spent all the money assigned to it as opposed to being praised for exercising some discipline in these harsh times), the private sector does. Guess where the wealth that pays for everything else comes from?

The assumed tax take from public servants is just a bit of a money laundering exercise.

Then put some money aside for the social welfare support and another bank bailout to cover the mortgage defaults. So, that's, say 25bn? We might just get that if we sell everything now.

Social welfare support is getting cut too matey so well still come out waaaaaay ahead.

Why am I doing a bank bailout for mortgage defaults? If anything Id argue Ireland needs new legislation to make filing for bankruptcy less punitive, less of a criminal act. The banks bear responsibility for making bad loans, they should accept the loss. If that forces them to collapse, oh well. As Stiglitz has pointed out, the owners change, the leadership change, but the banks will simply be relaunched, hopefully somewhat chastened.

ardmacha

We are spending something like 58 billion a year and only brining in something like 34 billion a year.

The GNP of the Republic of Ireland is around €140billion. If the government is only getting €34bn from this, then taxation is 24% of GNP. This is not enough to run a country.

There are two components to the decline, the property inflation and the decline caused by the general world recession. The property boom is gone and cuts need to be made to reflect this, the world recession will end in due course. The question is not only is expenditure appropriate for this long term but is the tax system capable of raising enough tax to run a civilised West European country.

Sand

The GNP of the Republic of Ireland is around €140billion. If the government is only getting €34bn from this, then taxation is 24% of GNP. This is not enough to run a country.

GNP has fallen about 12% so far IIRC, and is predicted to keep on falling. Again, as I noted - trying to tax our way out of this is A) not going to work because the gap between revenue and spending is so huge and will choke any private sector recovery at birth.

That doesnt mean we dont need to look at the tax system, but unfortunately on the tax side of things theres very little that can be done *effectively* without discouraging investment and job creation.

The problem, and thus the solution, is on the spending side of the equation.

ardmacha

GNP has fallen about 12% so far IIRC, and is predicted to keep on falling.

This includes a 10% drop from 2008. Most recent predictions suggest that GNP will stay about the same next year and increase from then onwards.

That doesnt mean we dont need to look at the tax system, but unfortunately on the tax side of things theres very little that can be done *effectively* without discouraging investment and job creation

Ideas such as the property tax in the report of the Commission on Taxation have been completely ignored.

Sand

I dont disagree with a property tax, but theres a problem - it contradicts the government strategy of trying to prop up property prices and keep banks afloat at *any* cost. But then that contradicts the government strategy of trying to regain competiveness.

Actually, its safe to say the government doesnt have a strategy. Just a panicked reaction.

But property taxes will either be so light that they wont raise much money, or so heavy that they force bankruptcies and foreclosures. Thats what I meant when I said theres not much that can be done on the tax side of things - either the taxes wont raise that much, or if they do theyll bankrupt the private sector exposed to them. Neither is all that useful. Look at the VAT boost last year - VAT revenues have actually decreased. Taxes need to be smart and effective and in tune with a strategy.

Theres no real escaping the reality that the problem and the solution is 99% on the spending side.

Amhran Nua

ardmacha wrote: »

The GNP of the Republic of Ireland is around €140billion. If the government is only getting €34bn from this, then taxation is 24% of GNP. This is not enough to run a country.

Tax take is at 32% of GDP, according to the OECD, which is a more realistic measure than GNP. It has been around that region since 1990, and actually dropped during the boom. This is about 4% lower than the UK or Germany, but this is a difference which can be explained by our lower corporation tax, without which we would have great difficulty bringing in FDI to the country. And as differences go, its really not much, certainly not enough to cause the country to be impaired in any realistic sense.

Raising taxes is not the answer, and raised income taxes would hit public sector workers as well, having the same effect on their mortgages one way or the other. And it might be worth looking into how many of those are investment or speculation mortgages as well.

The bottom line is, if we were to drop to 2004 levels of expenditure, we'd be breaking even right now. Its not too hard to reach that level.

pearcider

Raising taxes is not the answer, and raised income taxes would hit public sector workers as well, having the same effect on their mortgages one way or the other. And it might be worth looking into how many of those are investment or speculation mortgages as well.

The bottom line is, if we were to drop to 2004 levels of expenditure, we'd be breaking even right now. Its not too hard to reach that level.

What's your opinion on:

1) property related tax breaks introduced by Fianna Fail and extended in 2004 Finance Bill eg Section 23/Section 27; tax reliefs on hotels and nursing homes. These laws were purely to aid the wealthy in tax avoidance...see Ansbacher and the non resident account scandals. See http://www.joanburton.ie/?postid=213.

3 related questions:
- (a) to what extent did these reforms and extension cause the boom and bust in irish property?
- (b) did this cause the structural imbalance in our tax base evidence by the 20bn deficit?
- (c) should we in your opinion reverse these tax breaks for the super rich?

2) tax relief on pensions. 32.5Bn sequestered by 6,500 super wealthy since the scheme was capped at 5m. Before it was capped, some pension pots were estimated to be 100m + with an estimated 10-15,000 individuals involved. See http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055704578

3) No wealth tax - unlike the majority of the EU15.

4) Wealthy property investors (€5m+) being bailed out by NAMA and 12Bn of taxpayers money this year (so far).


Finally, what was the inflation rate between 2004 and 2010? How has this impacted on our public expenditure? Last but not least, how much has our population increased between 2004 and 2010? The answer is 500,000+...not that easy to cut the public expenditure back to 2004 levels now is it? Unless we exterminate half a million of our citizens and reverse 6 years of inflation...are you suggesting that?

Diarmuid

pearcider wrote: »

2) tax relief on pensions. 32.5Bn sequestered by 6,500 super wealthy since the scheme was capped at 5m.

That's bullsh1t. Did you even read the link you included?

If each of the wealthy individuals benefiting from the scheme put in the maximum of €5.4m, it would add up to €32.5bn.

pearcider wrote: »

3) No wealth tax - unlike the majority of the EU15

More bs. 3 of the EU15 have wealth tax. France, Netherlands and Greece.

Some European countries have abandoned this kind of tax in the recent years: Austria, Denmark, Germany (1997), Sweden (2007), and Spain (2008). On January 2006, wealth tax was abolished in Finland, Iceland and Luxembourg. In other countries, like Belgium or Great Britain, no tax of this type has ever existed, although the Window Tax of 1696 was based on a similar concept.

BTW CPI between 2004 and 2008 was running at 3.54% average. 2009 figures yet to be finalised but expected to be negative. Since 2000 government expenditure has been running on average around 10.25%. That's a massive difference.

pearcider

Diarmuid wrote: »

That's bullsh1t. Did you even read the link you included?

Quite right lad, apologies. The total figure is unknown at this point but 30Bn mightn't be far off considering that estimate doesn't include the thousands of people utilizing the scheme before it was capped. Some individuals have amassed pots of €100m+ under the old rules. Additionally, I note the Greens have forced FF to introduce blanket 30% relief on pensions for earners in both the lower and higher taxbands. This represents the removal of a gross injustice. Pity the scam has already gone down and it's extremely unlikely that we will be able to recover any tax on the billions accrued during the boom. Ah well, better luck next time lads! :pac:

pearcider

More bs. 3 of the EU15 have wealth tax. France, Netherlands and Greece.

Instead, all the other countries taxed high earners way more on their income.

BTW CPI between 2004 and 2008 was running at 3.54% average. 2009 figures yet to be finalised but expected to be negative. Since 2000 government expenditure has been running on average around 10.25%. That's a massive difference.

What about providing services and infrastructure for the vastly increased population during this period?

hmmm

pearcider wrote: »

Additionally, I note the Greens have forced FF to introduce blanket 30% relief on pensions for earners in both the lower and higher taxbands. This represents the removal of a gross injustice.

Yes, it means that the poor worker on a Defined Contribution pension gets screwed by being taxed twice even after seeing their pension halved last year, while those on Defined Benefit are singing to retirement.

In unrelated news, the vast majority of those on Defined Benefit pensions are in the public sector.

Diarmuid

pearcider wrote: »

Instead, all the other countries taxed high earners way more on their income.

way more? Many have heavier soclal insurance but few have significantly higher income tax. Marginal rate in Ireland is 53% now. In any case, we have seen what the government did with the huge tax takes over the past 10 year. Why the fcuk would you give them another penny?

pearcider wrote: »

What about providing services and infrastructure for the vastly increased population during this period?

Care to present links to this "vastly increased" population? A quick look on the CSO shows an increase of 2% each year between 2002 and 2006.

NewDubliner

hmmm wrote: »

Yes, it means that the poor worker on a Defined Contribution pension gets screwed by being taxed twice even after seeing their pension halved last year,

For this to be true, it would mean that their entire occupational pension scheme had been wiped out and their only pension is the state-guaranteed, defined benefit plan where the amout of the pension is not financially linkd to the amount payed in.

hmmm wrote: »

In unrelated news, the vast majority of those on Defined Benefit pensions are in the public sector.

Not so, most workers in the private sector are members of the state-guaranteed, social welfare pension scheme, which is effectively 'defined benefit' and many are also members of defined-benefit occupational pension schemes.

Amhran Nua

pearcider wrote: »

Finally, what was the inflation rate between 2004 and 2010? How has this impacted on our public expenditure? Last but not least, how much has our population increased between 2004 and 2010? The answer is 500,000+...not that easy to cut the public expenditure back to 2004 levels now is it? Unless we exterminate half a million of our citizens and reverse 6 years of inflation...are you suggesting that?

Inflation ran at around 2% to 3% for 2004 through to 2008, ignoring current deflation. The 500,000+ you are referring to are mostly short term economic migrants, of a robustly young and healthy nature, and thus wouldn't be using as many services as the average. Even if they were, thats still only a 14% growht in population, which can in no way explain the 100% growth in expenditure since then.

pearcider

Inflation ran at around 2% to 3% for 2004 through to 2008, ignoring current deflation. The 500,000+ you are referring to are mostly short term economic migrants, of a robustly young and healthy nature, and thus wouldn't be using as many services as the average. Even if they were, thats still only a 14% growht in population, which can in no way explain the 100% growth in expenditure since then.

How much did house prices rise by?

lmimmfn

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Inflation ran at around 2% to 3% for 2004 through to 2008, ignoring current deflation. The 500,000+ you are referring to are mostly short term economic migrants, of a robustly young and healthy nature, and thus wouldn't be using as many services as the average. Even if they were, thats still only a 14% growht in population, which can in no way explain the 100% growth in expenditure since then.

yep and this years deflation wipes out 2 years of that inflation also

pearcider

Diarmuid wrote: »

way more? Many have heavier soclal insurance but few have significantly higher income tax. Marginal rate in Ireland is 53% now. In any case, we have seen what the government did with the huge tax takes over the past 10 year. Why the fcuk would you give them another penny?

The Government did a lot with the tax take. We had major infrastructure projects over this period. Motorways, rail services, luas, port tunnel, various facelifts and upgrades all over the country. Don't pretend it all went on public sector pay. Marginal rates were low 30% back then even for high earners. Jeez a few income levies and you're saying we can't take any more. Whatever! A quick glance at our european neighbours shows we can take a lot more. Companies are still only paying the lowest tax rates in the world here. This is a massive indulgence to rich corpoartions and we the citizens are gonna have to start taking up the slack.

This isn't even mentioning our obligations under the banking guarantee of 30th Sept 2008.

NewDubliner

pearcider wrote: »

Motorways, rail services, luas, port tunnel, various facelifts and upgrades all over the country.

A billion to the private sector contractors for PPARS, a third of a billion to property developers for the pointless 'decentralisation' scam, more again lost in damage to the public sector's knowledge capital as Dublin workers were replaced by FF-voting, job-grabbing culchies. PULSE? - how much did the contractors get?

pearcider

NewDubliner wrote: »

A billion to the private sector contractors for PPARS, a third of a billion to property developers for the pointless 'decentralisation' scam, more again lost in damage to the public sector's knowledge capital as Dublin workers were replaced by FF-voting, job-grabbing culchies. PULSE? - how much did the contractors get?

Disaster I know. Our government mismanaged our economy. Who'd argue with ya there? Sigh...I can't take any more depressing economy talk.

*emigrates*

ghost_ie

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

For example, say we fire, at random, half the public service. quote]

If you were to fire half the nurses, the HSE would forced to avail even more of agency nurses whose wages are higher and who can pick and choose where and what hours they work. Also, I assume the agency they work for would charge for supplying the nurses. On top of this, you would add to those claiming the dole

Diarmuid

pearcider wrote: »

A quick glance at our european neighbours shows we can take a lot more.

You don't even have to look outside our country, just look back to the good old 80s. Worked a treat then. :rolleyes:

What would you suggest? 60% marginal? 70%? Take every penny about €80k?

Diarmuid

NewDubliner wrote: »

A billion to the private sector contractors for PPARS, a third of a billion to property developers for the pointless 'decentralisation' scam, more again lost in damage to the public sector's knowledge capital as Dublin workers were replaced by FF-voting, job-grabbing culchies. PULSE? - how much did the contractors get?

A well balanced NewDubliner. Chip on both shoulders.

cyclopath2001

ghost_ie wrote: »

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

For example, say we fire, at random, half the public service. quote]

If you were to fire half the nurses, the HSE would forced to avail even more of agency nurses whose wages are higher and who can pick and choose where and what hours they work. Also, I assume the agency they work for would charge for supplying the nurses. On top of this, you would add to those claiming the dole

Ah yes, but this would be presented as being 'public sector reform' and securing of 'flexible work practices'.

Amhran Nua

pearcider wrote: »

How much did house prices rise by?

House prices and wage rates are not linked in any meaningful fashion.

Riskymove

Amhran Nua wrote: »

House prices and wage rates are not linked in any meaningful fashion.

that's completely naive.....and you are putting forward as a Political alternative?

Amhran Nua

Riskymove wrote: »

that's completely naive.....and you are putting forward as a Political alternative?

Compare a graph of house prices rises 2000 to 2006 and a graph of wage rises in the same period, then get back to us.

Riskymove

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Compare a graph of house prices rises 2000 to 2006 and a graph of wage rises in the same period, then get back to us.

if your point is that house price increases were far higher than wage increases then say that

but that's very different from

House prices and wage rates are not linked in any meaningful fashion.

you are speaking like a veteran politician already!

Amhran Nua

Riskymove wrote: »

if your point is that house price increases were far higher than wage increases then say that

:rolleyes:

Riskymove

Amhran Nua wrote: »

:rolleyes:

definitely a veteran politician!

Amhran Nua

Riskymove wrote: »

definitely a veteran politician!

It was abundantly clear what I was saying. I've already had the peanut gallery literally begging to be let off the hook on the thread in politics, my advice would be to stick to the topic of the thread and not try to start an argument.

Riskymove

Amhran Nua wrote: »

It was abundantly clear what I was saying.

not to me it isn't

why dont you clarify....

Amhran Nua

Amhran Nua wrote: »

House prices in Ireland for the last ten years and wage rates in Ireland for the last ten years are not linked in any meaningful fashion.

There you go.

Riskymove

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Originally Posted by Amhran Nua
House prices in Ireland for the last ten years and wage rates in Ireland for the last ten years are not linked in any meaningful fashion.

ah...thats not what you said; you said:

House prices and wage rates are not linked in any meaningful fashion.

if you had posted the former I would have seen where you were coming from. The latter suggests something quite different.

besides even if the increases in house prices are far more than the increases in wages, it does not mean they are not linked....for starters mortgage affordability (at elast in theory) is based on a multiple of salary not a one-to-one relationship

certainly I believe the clamour for more and more wage increases was related to the ever increasing price of a house

Amhran Nua

Riskymove wrote: »

if you had posted the former I would have seen where you were coming from.

So eh, what country and general time period (the only adjustments I made to that comment) did you think I was referring to?

Riskymove wrote: »

certainly I believe the clamour for more and more wage increases was related to the ever increasing price of a house

No, the clamour for more wage increases on the public sector side at least was to keep up with presumed increases in the private sector. Is that not what benchmarking was all about. Its only now that we hear the cry of costly mortgages, and I'd be very interested to see what percentage of those mortgages are for non PPR purposes.

Riskymove

Amhran Nua wrote: »

So eh, what country and general time period (the only adjustments I made to that comment) did you think I was referring to?

places and times did not come into it. based on your post I interpreted it as a simple statement that "house prices and wage rates are not linked"

I believe they are linked

however you are now saying that you are talking about statistics rather than economic theory

No, the clamour for more wage increases on the public sector side at least was to keep up with presumed increases in the private sector. Is that not what benchmarking was all about.

oh, the Unions wanted money for that too alright, but it was mainly "keep everyone happy" bertie ploy rather than a union initiative

Its only now that we hear the cry of costly mortgages, and I'd be very interested to see what percentage of those mortgages are for non PPR purposes.

if you are saying you did not hear people moaning about hous eprices or how much their mortgage was for the last decade...fair enough

in relation to PPR...figures are difficult to produce obviously but I'd be pretty certain that the majority of younger public servants do not have numerous properties...some older or higher level may have been in a position to speculate (like some private)

Amhran Nua

Riskymove wrote: »

places and times did not come into it.

So what you're saying is that the thread should be retitled to "Irish Government in 2009 "looking more like a planned €6bn reduction " in borrowing / spending to and from the exchequer ? is that it. Or were you just failing to get in a cheap dig about my group by being pedantic, and wasting everyone's time and bandwidth in the process.

Riskymove wrote: »

if you are saying you did not hear people moaning about hous eprices or how much their mortgage was for the last decade...fair enough

That would be an easier argument to defeat alright.

Riskymove wrote: »

in relation to PPR...figures are difficult to produce obviously but I'd be pretty certain that the majority of younger public servants do not have numerous properties...some older or higher level may have been in a position to speculate (like some private)

Hows that, in terms of equivalency the perceived security of public sector jobs gave them an immediate advantage in the lending free for all of the past decade. Figures haven't been researched yet but it wouldn't be too hard to put that together.

Riskymove

Amhran Nua wrote: »

So what you're saying is that the thread should be retitled to "Irish Government in 2009 "looking more like a planned €6bn reduction " in borrowing / spending to and from the exchequer ? is that it. Or were you just failing to get in a cheap dig about my group by being pedantic, and wasting everyone's time and bandwidth in the process.

alright so you just dont want to see how you might have misrepresented what you were saying and its all my fault etc.....grand

Hows that, in terms of equivalency the perceived security of public sector jobs gave them an immediate advantage in the lending free for all of the past decade. Figures haven't been researched yet but it wouldn't be too hard to put that together.

well as I say i am talking about younger members who have been first time buyers over the last decade or so and have quite enough to do handling that mortgage without buying more property

most public servants I know do not have more than the primary residence, indeed some dont have any..but thats the same for the private sector people I know

Amhran Nua

Riskymove wrote: »

well as I say i am talking about younger members who have been first time buyers over the last decade or so and have quite enough to do handling that mortgage without buying more property

In an environment of double digit percentage capital appreciation on properties they probably felt it was a safe bet though, lord knows everyone was telling them that, and no doubt the banks felt that their jobs were likewise a safe bet. We don't have the figures at the end of the day, but I'd be very interested to find out.

jetfiremuck

Everyone is so excited over Nama. 20-30 years is not long for the gov to hold assets held in lieu of a bailout is not a big deal. These assets will probably be used to fund civil servant pensions in the future and probably will be sold in time anyway. Regarding taxation etc. The private sector creates jobs (They generate wealth for the country) whereas the public sector are service providers. There will be no recovery until the private sector feel secure regarding taxes etc. It is the uncertainty that is stalling everything. Certainly with vat rates so much higher than the UK, off the wall carbon taxes, etc etc, one can see that the present Gov needs to be voted out. Its time for a fresh approach. FF have presided over the boom/bust and are rewarded with being kept in power.?

97i9y3941

i have a feeling in the december budget that the taxpayer will get taxed again to make up for the pay of public servants,the policticans will put on crocodile tears when saying they will take another 10 percent paycut*which in honesty means fu#k all to their massive pay packages*,diesel will probably get an slight increase since its bit cheaper than petrol at the mo,theres talks of cutting child benefit,which makes me think they are trying to say is,well we cant afford to hire people to means test it so we do it this way....