How to fix the economy.

MagicSean

Figured I'd start a thread to see some peoples ideas for repairing the economy. I'd appreciate if posters in this forum would refrain from merely insulting the public sector. There's plenty of threads to do that already. I'd also appreciate if people refrained from general and non-constructive ideas (i.e. cut ps wages, cut welfare, stop bailing out banks). Try and put some detail and reasoning into the posts.

My own thoughts are that we should not be freezing public service recruitment. The passport debacle has shown us how dependent the ps is on overtime. This seems to be a very expensive idea.

For example, lets take 10 public service workers on 30000 a year. Thats a total of 300k per year. Lets assume that each of these does 4 hours overtime a week at time and a half. They now have a salary of 34500 a year giving a total of 345K. Now lets assume that instead of workers doing overtime another worker is hired to take up the slack, straight from the dole. Now we have 11 workers on 30k totalling 330K with no overtime. Thats a reduction in ps wage bill by 15k and we also have a social welfare saving of 10K. In addition we have increased employment.

I've also spoken before about the idea of scrapping single mothers allowance (except in the cases of victims of sexual crimes) and making maintenance a mandatory requirement for fathers named on birth certs. Anyone unable to name a father on the birth cert would obviously get nothing. This would transfer the responsability of proof from the state to the applicant. I believe that this would severely reduce the social welfare bill.

Of course cuts can only go so far. This country is going nowhere if we can't get back in business. Unlike most countries we don't really have anything to export. I think the tourism industry should be one of our primary concerns here. God alone knows how many hotels have gone out of business and are lying empty. We have some great tourism destinations and I think the government should focus more on this. Tourism has the potential to make an awful lot of jobs, especially during our few summer months. Advertising campaigns are needed to promote the country. I also think the designation of tourist zones, such as Killarney and Galway city would be beneficial and tax breaks could be given to businesses working in tourism in these areas.

Ebonhoof

More public sector jobs is not the answer, for a start it means more public sector pensions long term. While your figures look good at first glance in reality what will happen is the one extra person will invariably get sick, take holidays (all paid of course) so really when it boils down to it its better to have 10 people doing a bit of overtime as you'll have one less public sector pension to pay for long term. Overtime is often seasonal depending on the job so may end up with someone twiddling their thumbs at times.

Anyway I like that this is a constructive post and dont want to seem all negative so I definately agree with you in regard to tourism, abolishing the travel tax is a must in my opinion and much more foreign advertising is required to generate a buzz. We have lots of golf clubs so I'd like to see the government subsidise people who want to go on golf holidays here, for example paying the price of transporting their own golf clubs here and home. People who go on golf holidays generally spend more than day trippers as they rent a car, stay for a couple of days etc.

Eliot Rosewater

Rationalizing Government expenditure is probably the best thing we can do. Services offered by the Government should be outsourced or privatized where possible.

Social welfare should be reduced significantly. The Government were happy to raise benefits by leaps and bounds when we were in an economic expansion; now that there is a recession benefits should be going the opposite way. A hard think about what social welfare is supposed to achieve needs to be had. At the moment benefits effectively encourage the things they are supposed to remedy. Also ,we need to ask why we give social welfare to people in cases where their need for it developed as a direct result of their actions. Why, for example, are we paying so much for children? Is it not the responsibility of parents to plan for their young ones?

We need to lower the minimum wage. This country isn't competitive any more. Dell didn't move just to piss us off you know.


This rationalization of Government spending will allow taxes to go down again, removing the need for tax breaks by instead incentivizing the whole economy.


But none of this will ever happen, of course. Talking on Boards is easy while fighting the plethora of special interest groups in this country is nearly impossible.

MagicSean

Ebonhoof wrote: »

More public sector jobs is not the answer, for a start it means more public sector pensions long term. While your figures look good at first glance in reality what will happen is the one extra person will invariably get sick, take holidays (all paid of course) so really when it boils down to it its better to have 10 people doing a bit of overtime as you'll have one less public sector pension to pay for long term. Overtime is often seasonal depending on the job so may end up with someone twiddling their thumbs at times.

About 15% of my gross goes to pension and prsi contributions. How much would someone in the private sector pay for these?

Do people in the private sector not got holiday pay too? I thought private sector workers got 8% of annual leave in holiday pay. Even with sick days and holidays though you're still eliminating the need for overtime for a large proportion of the year which I think would still be cheaper.

Perhaps the overtime would not be suitable in some depatments. But obviously for somewhere like the passport office it is as a ban on overtime since before christmas has led to this current massive backlog. And other departments like the welfare, that don't really have a busy season would also benefit. In those places that are seasonal, wouldn't the general nature of ps contracts allow for the transfer between departments who have seasonal busy periods.

MagicSean

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Social welfare should be reduced significantly. The Government were happy to raise benefits by leaps and bounds when we were in an economic expansion; now that there is a recession benefits should be going the opposite way. A hard think about what social welfare is supposed to achieve needs to be had. At the moment benefits effectively encourage the things they are supposed to remedy. Also ,we need to ask why we give social welfare to people in cases where their need for it developed as a direct result of their actions. Why, for example, are we paying so much for children? Is it not the responsibility of parents to plan for their young ones?

We need to lower the minimum wage. This country isn't competitive any more. Dell didn't move just to piss us off you know.

I think both of these could be blamed on vote getting policies. Appeal to the mothers and low paid and you have a large voter base.

MagicSean

I also think the automobile industry needs a boost. Maybe a good scrappage scheme for vehicles over 6 years old if traded off a vehicle under 2 years old.

number10a

I'm all for making Ireland competitive, and I understand that our minimum wage is far higher than a lot of our neighbours. But as far as I can see, lowering it would lower the standard of living for quite a few people. I would be more for leaving it as it is for a good number of years. That way we can restore our competitiveness (albeit gradually) without causing the lowest paid in the country to suffer any more. There's basically no such thing as inflation at the moment (and probably won't be for a while) so there is no need for it to go up.

Minimum wage is €8.65/hr (as I said, quite high compared to other countries). I currently earn €12.25/hr, work full time, no mortgage, rent is average and only one loan with monthly repayments of €128 and I'm just about comfortable on this wage. There's no such thing as massive splurges like spending €100 on a night out, or raping Brown Thomas (or even Dunnes for that matter), it's just the right amount basically. I cannot understand how anyone manages on the minimum wage to be honest.

While lowering it might bring some benefits like attracting a few manufacturing companies, it could also mean that a large number of people who already have jobs could face having their wages cut too. It would also widen the gap between the rich and poor. We'd still have CEOs and public sector fat-cats earning high wages and then a large group at the bottom working for let's say €6.50/hr. (edit: I know I might sound like I am, but I am not a trade unionist!!)

In short, it sounds like a great idea when first mentined, but I don't think it makes sense when it's thought through. I could be wrong though :rolleyes:

Ebonhoof

k_mac wrote: »

About 15% of my gross goes to pension and prsi contributions. How much would someone in the private sector pay for these?

Do people in the private sector not got holiday pay too? I thought private sector workers got 8% of annual leave in holiday pay. Even with sick days and holidays though you're still eliminating the need for overtime for a large proportion of the year which I think would still be cheaper.

Perhaps the overtime would not be suitable in some depatments. But obviously for somewhere like the passport office it is as a ban on overtime since before christmas has led to this current massive backlog. And other departments like the welfare, that don't really have a busy season would also benefit. In those places that are seasonal, wouldn't the general nature of ps contracts allow for the transfer between departments who have seasonal busy periods.

For a comparible pension a person in the private sector would need to contribute at least 30% of salary over 40 years (I am assuming they are not in a Defined Benefit arrangement as most of these schemes are closed). Civil servant pensions are exceptionally cheap considering the benefits they provide with no investment risk.

I think you are missing my point on the extra worker and holidays/sickdays. Those 10 workers already there can share the overtime between them if some of them are off, if the extra person is sick/on holidays then the original overtime work isnt been done so you are back to paying overtime. Also the introduction of an extra person in an office doesnt correlate into an extra 10% done, what happens is there is another person in the office to talk to/flirt with/email etc. Having worked in large offices, adding an extra person isnt always better than just getting your existing staff to do a bit of overtime.

We need to increase productivity in work practices to get our existing staff to do more for less/same either through simplifying processes, automation etc. not add another body to the wage bill (wage bills being consistantly the largest cost of any business/organisation.)

MagicSean

Here's another idea. Why don't the government subsidise the wages of people who are recruited from the dole. The government could offer to pay 25% up to a maximum €100 towards the wages of someone hired from the dole queue. Surely that would provide a good incentive for small businesses to hire some extra staff.

Eliot Rosewater

number10a wrote: »

I'm all for making Ireland competitive, and I understand that our minimum wage is far higher than a lot of our neighbours. But as far as I can see, lowering it would lower the standard of living for quite a few people.

The cost of living has gone down in Ireland, which means that in real terms those on the minimum wage are doing better off than last year. Reducing minimum wage by the cost of living should (in theory) have no impact on real standard of living.

Ireland cant be competitive with minimum wage as it is, in my opinion. Many of the services which determine the cost of living, such as the food supply, are operated by people on minimum wage. If you reduce it, the cost of these services will decrease. In effect its the opposite of raising wages to raise prices to raise wages as has been going on in Ireland for a while.

Bear in mind that many jobs base their wage level on the minimum. Theres a fallacy doing the rounds that states that only a tiny amount of workers are on the minimum wage and that reducing it will achieve little effect. However retailers like Aldi, who pay above the minimum, base their wages on those of Supervalu, who do pay the minimum.

k_mac wrote: »

Surely that would provide a good incentive for small businesses to hire some extra staff.

And then pay for the subsidy ... by taxing small businesses? Ive said it before, and I'll say it again, the best thing the Government can do for business is to get out of it: reduce regulation, red tape, tax and thus the cost of doing business here.

MagicSean

Ebonhoof wrote: »

For a comparible pension a person in the private sector would need to contribute at least 30% of salary over 40 years (I am assuming they are not in a Defined Benefit arrangement as most of these schemes are closed). Civil servant pensions are exceptionally cheap considering the benefits they provide with no investment risk.

I think you are missing my point on the extra worker and holidays/sickdays. Those 10 workers already there can share the overtime between them if some of them are off, if the extra person is sick/on holidays then the original overtime work isnt been done so you are back to paying overtime. Also the introduction of an extra person in an office doesnt correlate into an extra 10% done, what happens is there is another person in the office to talk to/flirt with/email etc. Having worked in large offices, adding an extra person isnt always better than just getting your existing staff to do a bit of overtime.

We need to increase productivity in work practices to get our existing staff to do more for less/same either through simplifying processes, automation etc. not add another body to the wage bill (wage bills being consistantly the largest cost of any business/organisation.)

But in effect we would be reducing the overall wage bill while increasing tax revenue and reducing unemployment. I know what you are saying about the lazy worker syndrome but I reckon its a good idea in theory and could work with proper management.

Ebonhoof

k_mac wrote: »

Here's another idea. Why don't the government subsidise the wages of people who are recruited from the dole. The government could offer to pay 25% up to a maximum €100 towards the wages of someone hired from the dole queue. Surely that would provide a good incentive for small businesses to hire some extra staff.

That is a good idea, its done in Germany but you need to put a time limit on it as the government cant indefinately subsidise small business.

MagicSean

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

And then pay for the subsidy ... by taxing small businesses? Ive said it before, and I'll say it again, the best thing the Government can do for business is to get out of it: reduce regulation, red tape, tax and thus the cost of doing business here.

They are already paying the potential employee €180 or so on the social welfare so they would in fact be lowering their total expenditure by €80 with no need to tax the business any further. So rather than pay him €180 for doing nothing, they are paying him €100 and he is employed. They would probably even make a lot of this back from the paye he pays.

MagicSean

Ebonhoof wrote: »

That is a good idea, its done in Germany but you need to put a time limit on it as the government cant indefinately subsidise small business.

I agree. There would also have to be conditions. Something like a requirement to retain the employee for a period after the subsidy ends.

Ebonhoof

k_mac wrote: »

But in effect we would be reducing the overall wage bill while increasing tax revenue and reducing unemployment. I know what you are saying about the lazy worker syndrome but I reckon its a good idea in theory and could work with proper management.

Sorry I disagree here, its harder to manage more staff than less staff, ideally you want your manager doing work too, not just running around making sure everyone else is working. I also have my original concern about an extra pension cost. I'd rather we stuck to paying 10 high cost public sector pensions than 11. The pensions timebomb is bad enough, we need more people providing for their own pensions.

MagicSean

Ebonhoof wrote: »

Sorry I disagree here, its harder to manage more staff than less staff, ideally you want your manager doing work too, not just running around making sure everyone else is working. I also have my original concern about an extra pension cost. I'd rather we stuck to paying 10 high cost public sector pensions than 11. The pensions timebomb is bad enough, we need more people providing for their own pensions.

I think you would find that many public sector employees would not have a problem contributing more to a pension scheme. Despite popular belief most of us don't want something for nothing. What we don't want is something called a pension contribution which doesn't actually contribute to our pension in any way and is just a pay cut with a fancy name. When I joined the public service the pension was not on my list of reasons at all and I think a lot of my colleagues would be the same. I think an agreement could be worked out to reduce the future cost of pensions with contributions from employees.

Ebonhoof

k_mac wrote: »

I think you would find that many public sector employees would not have a problem contributing more to a pension scheme. Despite popular belief most of us don't want something for nothing. What we don't want is something called a pension contribution which doesn't actually contribute to our pension in any way and is just a pay cut with a fancy name. When I joined the public service the pension was not on my list of reasons at all and I think a lot of my colleagues would be the same. I think an agreement could be worked out to reduce the future cost of pensions with contributions from employees.

Well ideally the civil servant would make a contribution that they could top up if they wanted and the government would make a significant employer contribution and the lot would be invested and whatever that came to at retirement would purchase pension benefits. The problem with this is;

1) The government effectively pays pensions on a pay as you go basis at present, if they had to put contributions aside now for future pensions, they would increase annual expenditure (something I doubt they have an appetite for)

2) While I accept your point that some civil servants would not mind paying more for their pension, I imagine at least a significant minority would rail against any deterioration in their terms and conditions.

The new legislation is a step in the right direction (new employees entering a hybrid scheme).

theg81der

"We need to lower the minimum wage. This country isn't competitive any more. Dell didn't move just to piss us off you know."

So your going to work for €338.43 per month?

changes

The government could increase subsidies to foreign companies willing to relocate to ireland. The reduction in social welfare payments to the unemployed would pay for this. They could pay a portion of the wages for first 3 years or so.

Also, The PS pension of 1/2 of final pay is too generous imo. The basic state pension plus quarter of final salary would be a fairer option.

MagicSean

theg81der wrote: »

"We need to lower the minimum wage. This country isn't competitive any more. Dell didn't move just to piss us off you know."

So your going to work for €338.43 per month?

Where did that figure come from?

MagicSean

Ebonhoof wrote: »

2) While I accept your point that some civil servants would not mind paying more for their pension, I imagine at least a significant minority would rail against any deterioration in their terms and conditions.

It would be a lot more acceptable and justifiable then the previous cut backs. And it would help to ensure the future of the economy.

Ebonhoof

k_mac wrote: »

Where did that figure come from?

No idea seeing as the minimum wage in Poland is €406 per month... would be hard to live on that though in fairness.

theg81der

k_mac wrote: »

Where did that figure come from?

Minimum wage in Poland. My friend is a primary teacher in Poland and this is what she is living on, she also has a second job and she still can`t afford to move out of her parents apartment.

Count Dooku

What will happen if investigation of welfare frauds will be outsourced to private company? They will get 40% of saving per year in case if they will have enough evidence for court and case will not be dismissed.
Main goal will not to save money to taxpayers, but punish welfare fraudster as hard as possible.

MagicSean

Count Dooku wrote: »

What will happen if investigation of welfare frauds will be outsourced to private company? They will get 40% of saving per year in case if they will have enough evidence for court and case will not be dismissed.
Main goal will not to save money to taxpayers, but punish welfare fraudster as hard as possible.

I don't think it would work. You need someone with powers akin to the Gardaí or customs to bring prosecutions.

Liam Byrne

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

The cost of living has gone down in Ireland, which means that in real terms those on the minimum wage are doing better off than last year. Reducing minimum wage by the cost of living should (in theory) have no impact on real standard of living.

Not strictly true; while it is on lots of smaller things, the so-called "green" taxes on petrol and the rises in health, home and car insurance and other significant and barely-avoidable charges has more than offset against those.

Throw in an interest rate hike and most people would be significantly worse off than they were.

MagicSean

changes wrote: »

The government could increase subsidies to foreign companies willing to relocate to ireland. The reduction in social welfare payments to the unemployed would pay for this. They could pay a portion of the wages for first 3 years or so.

Also, The PS pension of 1/2 of final pay is too generous imo. The basic state pension plus quarter of final salary would be a fairer option.

I don't think the EU would allow this. Something similar was done before via a lower tax rate and had to be reversed because it was unfairly competitive. Any subsidy agreement would have to be for all companies operating in ireland, not just foreign. ALthough that would be just as beneficial.

zielarz

k_mac wrote: »

For example, lets take 10 public service workers on 30000 a year. Thats a total of 300k per year. Lets assume that each of these does 4 hours overtime a week at time and a half. They now have a salary of 34500 a year giving a total of 345K. Now lets assume that instead of workers doing overtime another worker is hired to take up the slack, straight from the dole. Now we have 11 workers on 30k totalling 330K with no overtime. Thats a reduction in ps wage bill by 15k and we also have a social welfare saving of 10K. In addition we have increased employment.

This is a complete nonsense. There is much more than just a salary in the cost of a worker. The other mistake you're making is that efficiency doesn't scale well if you add in more people.. maybe in a factory it will.

k_mac wrote: »

Here's another idea. Why don't the government subsidise the wages of people who are recruited from the dole. The government could offer to pay 25% up to a maximum €100 towards the wages of someone hired from the dole queue. Surely that would provide a good incentive for small businesses to hire some extra staff.

You have to understand that more government intervention is not going to fix the economy. It is always the opposite, less intervention = higher growth. This is the answer you're looking for.

theg81der

"Also, The PS pension of 1/2 of final pay is too generous imo. The basic state pension plus quarter of final salary would be a fairer option."

Sorry but my understanding of it was that this was addressed and changed in the budget?

MagicSean

zielarz wrote: »

You have to understand that more government intervention is not going to fix the economy. It is always the opposite, less intervention = higher growth. This is the answer you're looking for.

But isn't the lack of intervention what allowed the property market to go the way it did?

Count Dooku

k_mac wrote: »

But isn't the lack of intervention what allowed the property market to go the way it did?

First it was excessive regulation, which started to drive prices up
Without abolishing regulation, prices never would return to normal as it now.
Problem is that PS payroll bill cannot be paid anymore without incomes from construction industry and FF gombeens want to bailout their friends from banks and development companies.

SeanW

k_mac wrote: »

I also think the automobile industry needs a boost. Maybe a good scrappage scheme for vehicles over 6 years old if traded off a vehicle under 2 years old.

We already have a scrappage scheme for this year. Expanding this (or even having started it in the firstplace) is a bad idea for 4 main reasons.

1. Ireland does not have any car manufacturing industry. The net beneficiaries, would be in the U.S, U.K, Germany and Japan.
2. Government scrappage schemes do not cause people to buy new cars. Rather, the possibility of a scrappage scheme in the future causes potential customers to delay their purchase while they wait to see what the government is going to do, also buyers who were planning to purchase the year after, bring their purchases forward. Rarely do people choose to buy a new car solely because of a scrappage scheme. In most cases they were in the market anyway and the scheme only distorts the pattern of sales.
3. It's an immoral assault on poor people. At a time when there is an oversupply of used cars, this drives the price down and is normally a good time for poor people to buy a pre-owned car, or to get repairs (i.e. 2nd hand parts) for an existing car. Government skews the market at the time it favours the poor, by destroying perfectly good cars and frequently putting all parts beyond use as well, driving up above market rates both the costs of a old car purchase the costs of existing vehicle repair.
4. The country is broke and cannot afford any extension to the existing scrappage scheme.

I'm sorry but the answer is blindingly obvious, we have to be prudent and live within our means. Only from this position can we hope to achieve prosperity in future.

murphaph

k_mac wrote: »

I also think the automobile industry needs a boost. Maybe a good scrappage scheme for vehicles over 6 years old if traded off a vehicle under 2 years old.

Ireland doesn't have an automobile industry.

It is a nonsense idea that would result in us importing even more vehicles (and in doing so supporting countries with automobile industries) and scrapping perfectly roadworthy vehicles. It is this sort of short term "celtic tiger" BS we need to avoid.

If we are going to spend taxpayers money in a 'stimulus' fashion (and borrowed money that our kids will be repaying at that) then it should only go into capital infrastructure projects that will have a lasting benefit for future generations.

MagicSean

murphaph wrote: »

Ireland doesn't have an automobile industry.

It is a nonsense idea that would result in us importing even more vehicles (and in doing so supporting countries with automobile industries) and scrapping perfectly roadworthy vehicles. It is this sort of short term "celtic tiger" BS we need to avoid.

If we are going to spend taxpayers money in a 'stimulus' fashion (and borrowed money that our kids will be repaying at that) then it should only go into capital infrastructure projects that will have a lasting benefit for future generations.

such as?

SeanW

k_mac wrote: »

such as?

More motorways, the Dublin Metro North, DART Interconnector, a school buildings programme ...

MagicSean

SeanW wrote: »

More motorways, the Dublin Metro North, DART Interconnector, a school buildings programme ...

In the long run these will be needed but they would do no benefit in the short term and can't be afforded. I think it would be better for the economy if we built up the demand for these capital projects first.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

thebman

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Agree with this TBH. My car is 10 years old and has no problems whatsoever.

Why should I have to get rid of it? I like it and it does everything I need it to.

I know people with older cars again with no problems. Why do some people think cars over 5 years old are bangers? Must never have been in one TBH.

Many are nicer than new cars being produced today.

MagicSean

It's a shame that it only took three pages in the thread before people started criticising ideas without giving any of their own. The idea of this thread was to give constructive ideas for rebuilding the economy. If you want to criticise someones idea go ahead but give your own alternatives.

Flamed Diving

k_mac wrote: »

It's a shame that it only took three pages in the thread before people started criticising ideas without giving any of their own. The idea of this thread was to give constructive ideas for rebuilding the economy. If you want to criticise someones idea go ahead but give your own alternatives.

No, if you idea was shown to be a poor suggestion that is sufficient. No alternative policy required, unless one wants to. What you are asking for is entirely unreasonable.

Count Dooku

k_mac wrote: »

But isn't the lack of intervention what allowed the property market to go the way it did?

Only at the end
property bubble started by excessive regulation and corruption in 1990's

MagicSean

Flamed Diving wrote: »

No, if you idea was shown to be a poor suggestion that is sufficient. No alternative policy required, unless one wants to. What you are asking for is entirely unreasonable.

Not really. It's the reason I started the thread. As it says in the first post.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Citizen_Cutback

Count Dooku wrote: »

Only at the end
property bubble started by excessive regulation and corruption in 1990's

I think that this quote from another thread is closer to the reason for the property bubble:
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055865091&highlight=dean21

Auctioneers-dropouts from school at an early age but were cute, no formal qualification. Knew how to manipulate people, set one against the other, found out personal financial details about prospective buyers from their friends in the banking sector, and then screwed them for every last cent in the sale.

Pete M.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Jaysus, you're a hard man to fathom Donegalfella. Half the time I'm agreeing with you and the other half of the time, I couldn't disagree more

Don't agree with any of the above BTW.
Privatising services etc. and as you put it... 'Let entrepreneurship and private wealth create jobs' would certainly not work IMHO, just lead to another bubble of some type, a few creaming it off the top and another crash.
If we are to turn things around and learn from this and create a new and better and financially fitter Ireland, this is precisely what we don't need to do.

We need to move towards a more sustainable model of development with profitability and growth being demoted in favour of sustainability and social justice.

As for the excess of regulation ever helping anything to occur, especially the property bubble, I would tend to disagree with this too. It was the complete lack of any resembling proper regulation in the financial sector which contributed in a far greater measure.

Jane5

The first and most important thing that needs to be done as a matter of urgency is to immediately remove the upward only rent reviews currently in place on commercial property.

Allow businesses and commercial landlords to renegotiate rents to reflect the current reality.

Remove the excessively high "rates" charges on businesses and restaurants-these are paid in exchange for...nothing.

Slash VAT. With a machete.

"Cash and Carry" type prices for electricity, gas and water to all businesses, restaurants, pubs and retail units, ie: low prices for bulk supply at a very low profit for the ESB/Bord Gais.

These measures would go a LONG way towards helping businesses to stay afloat, remain profitable, and pay their staff and drop their prices at the same time, which would make them more competitive.

Jane5

Introduce a tax break for retailers and shops to preferentially purchase Irish made goods to stock and sell. The tax break could apply to all Irish made goods or Irish produced foodstuffs, and increase per amount stocked.

Eliot Rosewater

Pete M. wrote: »

We need to move towards a more sustainable model of development with profitability and growth being demoted in favour of sustainability and social justice.

Social justice is one of the most overrated concepts in politics. In Ireland it has gotten us to the stage where we are paying 20+ billion a year for a vast myriad of programs that directly encourage the behavior they seek to remedy. Is it any surprise, for example, that we have so many children born into unsustainable (and often impoverished) family situations when the State pays for reckless parenting decisions, such as having a child at 18 outside of anything resembling a stable relationship?

Jane5 wrote: »

Introduce a tax break for retailers and shops to preferentially purchase Irish made goods to stock and sell. The tax break could apply to all Irish made goods or Irish produced foodstuffs, and increase per amount stocked.

Why not tackle the underlying issue: that Irish goods and services are vastly overpriced compared to foreign competitors?

Pete M.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Social justice is one of the most overrated concepts in politics.

Yeah, along with the concept of allowing women to vote, workers right legislation, anti discrimination and environmental protection laws.:rolleyes:

What a lot of old nonsense eh?

Eliot Rosewater

Pete M. wrote: »

What a lot of old nonsense eh?

Can you refute what I said rather than employing underhand debating tactics such as insinuating I am against women voting? Such things have the potential to ruin what has been a very interesting discussion so far.

Jane5

The reason Irish goods and services are so much pricier is because of the huge unsustainable costs of providing them in Ireland!

Which is why my suggestion of hugely decreasing the costs for businesses here would be a start at a solution.

Businesses could not only stay afloat, they could compete and remain profitable.

Tax breaks for supplying Irish only goods means that it costs less for the employer to supply them, which means that they can, if they wish, charge less for them and become increasingly competitive with places like Marks and Spencers, Tesco etc.