Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

I want one of these for Ireland's Tax Spending

  • 22-04-2010 10:43pm
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40


    2010budgetinfographic.jpg

    Oh if only our government spending were as transparent ...


Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭Sulmac


    From the Irish Times:

    the-big-picture.gif


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40 MysNthR0p3


    Sulmac wrote: »
    From the Irish Times:

    Not really all that informative though is it? What specific projects/departments get our money, and how much?

    For instance, how much tax money is paid to HSE administration as opposed to paying for medical personnel/equipment etc.?

    Where exactly does our foreign aid go? To which countries/organisations?

    Don't see see our military and gardaí spending there? Just 'Justice'.

    Who are the 'Other Government Departments' and what exactly are the spending our €6,974,000,000 on?

    The image I posted goes into incredible detail, listing the total spending for the House of Representatives and the Senate, categorised into 'Expenses', 'Salaries' and 'Compensations'. I want something similar for Dáil Éireann and the Seanad. I want specifics, not generalities.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    MysNthR0p3 wrote: »
    Not really all that informative though is it? What specific projects/departments get our money, and how much?

    For instance, how much tax money is paid to HSE administration as opposed to paying for medical personnel/equipment etc.?

    Where exactly does our foreign aid go? To which countries/organisations?

    Don't see see our military and gardaí spending there? Just 'Justice'.

    Who are the 'Other Government Departments' and what exactly are the spending our €6,974,000,000 on?

    there are more details here @ page7


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40 MysNthR0p3


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    there are more details here @ page7

    Okay, its late and I've probably misread this, but your document (i.e. the link you sent - thank you btw) estimates 2010 expenditure to be €57,895m (pg.5) yet the Irish Times diagram says €71,587m.

    Now I could have made a mistake, but they don't exactly match.

    Still am going to nit pick about this, not detailed enough either way. I think we deserve to know, from the government, exactly who and what gets our money and how much they get.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,236 ✭✭✭Dannyboy83


    Isn't €52.5 billion a tad optimistic for receipts?

    The receipts for 2009 were €33billion, down from an estimated €43 billion
    Sauce
    Total tax revenue for 2009 came to just over €33 billion. This is €10 billion less than was expected in the First 2009 Budget. The first Budget for 2009 had estimated that total tax revenue would come to €43 billion.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40 MysNthR0p3


    Dannyboy83 wrote: »
    Isn't €52.5 billion a tad optimistic for receipts?

    The receipts for 2009 were €33billion, down from an estimated €43 billion

    Well to be honest, I'm not really concerned about the amount of tax we pay them (i.e. receipts) as much as I am with what they do with it. I mean I'm sure there's a lot of stuff we would question paying tax money on if we knew about how it was being spent.

    For instance, how much money goes toward general staff salaries in the defence forces, how much toward maintaining equipment which should be otherwise obsolete?

    What about payments to cover failed projects (e.g. storage of e-voting stations)?

    I think its time we got some solid data regarding government efficiency and effectiveness, and expenditures are a good place to start.

    I want to see in-depth expense reports for senators and TDs to ascertain if we're as screwed as the Brits were. I'm not just interested in holiday junkets, I want every penny accounted for.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    MysNthR0p3 wrote: »
    Okay, its late and I've probably misread this, but your document (i.e. the link you sent - thank you btw) estimates 2010 expenditure to be €57,895m (pg.5) yet the Irish Times diagram says €71,587m.

    Now I could have made a mistake, but they don't exactly match.

    Still am going to nit pick about this, not detailed enough either way. I think we deserve to know, from the government, exactly who and what gets our money and how much they get.

    Thats a good point, also see this thread here

    short answer I dont know why IT figures are different

    some theories:
    * Debt repayments will be large this year
    * at time of budget they assumed they would not be putting any more money into banks (we here on boards were skeptical ;))
    * estimated is the keyword there, as per my linked thread, their actual expenditure has always been on the optimistic site even during the bubble

    i need to think some more about this, would be handy if IT actually posted more detail and references


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,697 ✭✭✭MaceFace


    MysNthR0p3 wrote: »
    Well to be honest, I'm not really concerned about the amount of tax we pay them (i.e. receipts) as much as I am with what they do with it. I mean I'm sure there's a lot of stuff we would question paying tax money on if we knew about how it was being spent.

    For instance, how much money goes toward general staff salaries in the defence forces, how much toward maintaining equipment which should be otherwise obsolete?

    What about payments to cover failed projects (e.g. storage of e-voting stations)?

    I think its time we got some solid data regarding government efficiency and effectiveness, and expenditures are a good place to start.

    I want to see in-depth expense reports for senators and TDs to ascertain if we're as screwed as the Brits were. I'm not just interested in holiday junkets, I want every penny accounted for.

    I do question if making all these numbers public makes sense.
    Would knowing €150k was spent on a Community Project in Ballymum change anything?
    Actually, it could do more harm than good. If you found out €5m was spent on developing a website for some department, you would have a load of people claiming it was a waste of money because they could do it for €25. Sometimes the public need to be kept in the dark to stop them jumping to the wrong conclusions.

    Another one - take Mary Harneys junket, sorry "business trip", to New Zeland. We know that cost €34k which most people think is an outrage, but unless we know the breakdown of the figure, what exactly the trip involved and what return if got for the country, we don't know if it was money well spent.

    I do agree we need more openness, but I also think the public need to understand that the jobs politicians do and the expenses involved can not really be compared to any other profession. There does come a time when the thought of a week trip to Germany is the last thing a person would want to do.

    County Councillors travel on the other hand - now they're junkets!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    translation:

    the 'proles' are to stupid to know whats good for them, so they better be kept in the dark about inner 'party' spending

    seriously now MaceFace, people have every-right to know where their money goes :(

    keeping things in dark for their "own good" is downright demeaning, and one of the reasons the government get away with murder, how can we hold them accountable if there are no good accounts

    hmm you should apply for a job in Anglo me thinks, they are good at fudging and hiding figures there

    whats that argument the authoritarian types like to use? oh yes "if you have nothing to hide, theres nothing to worry about"


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,191 ✭✭✭NewApproach


    MysNthR0p3 wrote: »
    Oh if only our government spending were as transparent ...[/LEFT]

    Lol they spend $664bn on Defense, and $0.372bn on the peace corps!


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,697 ✭✭✭MaceFace


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    translation:

    the 'proles' are to stupid to know whats good for them, so they better be kept in the dark about inner 'party' spending

    seriously now MaceFace, people have every-right to know where their money goes :(

    keeping things in dark for their "own good" is downright demeaning, and one of the reasons the government get away with murder, how can we hold them accountable if there are no good accounts

    hmm you should apply for a job in Anglo me thinks, they are good at fudging and hiding figures there

    whats that argument the authoritarian types like to use? oh yes "if you have nothing to hide, theres nothing to worry about"

    You obviously understand how to bold words, so why not look at my post again. I do question releasing all data because raw data can be skewed any way you want (as I said, the headline might read €5m for a website, and if you don't understand the entire system behind it, you are likely to call that a waste of money.

    Look at the post earlier in the thread:
    For instance, how much money goes toward general staff salaries in the defence forces, how much toward maintaining equipment which should be otherwise obsolete?

    What about payments to cover failed projects (e.g. storage of e-voting stations)?
    Let me backtrack a little to clarify. All data should be available and independently accountable, but having this in the public domain is not neccessarily the best thing.

    The problem now is that everyone is questioning how "our" money is spent. We might think the defence forces should be wound down because we don't see the value they give us, and my point is that people have to realise that even if you have these figures, your not going to know if it is money well spent.

    Of course all "high level" data should be made available and examined, but just like any private company, there is a limit to the information that should be available. If I spend €500 on a business lunch for 3 people, you might see that as an outrage and a waste of money, and if you asked me to justify it, the reasons would not suit you because you don't have all the details.

    You can use whatever phrases you want, but I do believe that the majority of the people in any country don't know and don't care about how a country actually functions. All they see is the headlines in the Red Tops which says things like "They deserve to be shot" (which may or may not be true but it doesn't help people understand why).

    Final point: None of the reasons of why Anglo was included in the guarantee were made public. If these reasons were made public, and if the reasons justified the decision, there is such a dislike of the government now, that the reasons would be dismissed. (this is only an example of the problem and not a reason why this information should be available).


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40 MysNthR0p3


    Irish Times - Anglo ruling could double deficit
    Ireland's exchequer deficit, already the biggest in the euro zone, could double next year following the European Commission ruling that money injected into Anglo Irish Bank is not an investment and must be treated as spending.

    This is why I want to know where our taxes are being spent. I mean on what planet is bailing out a defunct bank considered an 'investment'. We've already seen with NAMA that the govt's projected ROI on bank 'investments' were fantasy, what return did they expect here?

    If they are covering up that tax expenditure as 'investment' as opposed to spending, what other 'investments' are we not being told about and do not appear on financial checks and balances.

    They're pulling the same crap as Greece did, misrepresenting our true financial situation. They do it with the EU and more importantly they do it with the State. They honestly think, IMHO, that they don't have to answer to the people who vote them in.

    I want exact figures from departments, I want to know whose overspending and why (whether its a website or a toilet seat). It'll help lower our taxes or at least present their ineptitude in black and red.
    Please, I beg you, don't turn this into an Anglo thread, the above was just an example of how expenditure is ineptly treated/hidden by our govt.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40 MysNthR0p3


    MaceFace wrote: »
    the headline might read €5m for a website, and if you don't understand the entire system behind it, you are likely to call that a waste of money.

    Valid point, as non-technical people would view it as a complete waste. Yet the report could say '€5m for I.T. systems and maintenance'
    We might think the defence forces should be wound down because we don't see the value they give us, and my point is that people have to realise that even if you have these figures, your not going to know if it is money well spent.

    I'm talking about inefficient overspending. For instance, is every administrative department in the defence forces necessary, can some be amalgamated? Does a general staff ranked officer head up each department? Could a lower ranking officer head a department, saving money? Could that money be used toward purchasing more up-to-date equipment instead of bleeding money in maintaining weapon systems from the 1960s? Could the money be put into areas such as special forces (such as ARW or G2 intelligence)?
    Of course all "high level" data should be made available and examined, but just like any private company, there is a limit to the information that should be available. If I spend €500 on a business lunch for 3 people, you might see that as an outrage and a waste of money, and if you asked me to justify it, the reasons would not suit you because you don't have all the details.

    In a private company, if I invest, I do so by choice, and I expect that in the long run that €500 lunch will yield a return on my investment. With the government, we have no choice but to pay taxes or face criminal proceedings, and there is no expectation on ROI.

    Case in point, after a bad winter that devastated roads, councils were told to do more with less funding, infrastructure repair was to be given priority but no additional funding was to be provided. As a result, some roads are still cratered. Where's the ROI on our taxes there?

    If I have no choice paying taxes, then I want to know where every penny of my money goes and what ROI I can expect and/or demand.
    You can use whatever phrases you want, but I do believe that the majority of the people in any country don't know and don't care about how a country actually functions.

    Point taken, and the Greeks had a word for citizenry that took no interest in politics or were inept at it - you know what it is? If the shoe fits.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40 MysNthR0p3


    MaceFace wrote: »
    Final point: None of the reasons of why Anglo was included in the guarantee were made public. If these reasons were made public, and if the reasons justified the decision, there is such a dislike of the government now, that the reasons would be dismissed. (this is only an example of the problem and not a reason why this information should be available).

    So essentially your reasoning is, the government might cry if we like them less, so its not in their interests to tell us how the money is spent.

    If all they wanted were more friends, they shouldn't have gone into politics.

    They're not voted in because people think they're nice enough, they're voted in to do a job and to report to the people the results of their endeavours.

    Excuse my ignorance of our political system, but do we even have something remotely like the US "State of the Nation" address? Because if we don't we definitely need one.

    We need the government to report back to the people on how things are going, in their opinion, and what their plans are for the future of the country. Enough of this hiding behind the doors of Leinster House crap.

    I want numbers, I want to know about every penny, whether it makes BIFFO cry or not and I want to know that each TD and civil servant is effective and efficient at what they do or I'll vote someone in who is, and have them cut the fat from public service.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    translation:

    the 'proles' are to stupid to know whats good for them, so they better be kept in the dark about inner 'party' spending

    seriously now MaceFace, people have every-right to know where their money goes
    They do, but to be fair, MaceFace has a point. Consider, for example, if the government decides that the admin budget for the HSE is to be trimmed. The media picks up on the story and the public are faced with headlines of “GOVERNMENT SLASHES HEALTH SPENDING, GRANNIES CONDEMNED TO DEATH”. Nobody’s saying the general public are too stupid to understand how their taxes are spent. However, most people are generally not interested in reading detailed financial statements concerning the public accounts – they want the information conveyed to them in bite-size newspaper articles and TV reports, which often results in large quantities of misinformation being assimilated, because facts don't sell newspapers.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    MysNthR0p3 wrote: »
    I want exact figures from departments...
    Have you requested said figures from the relevant departments?
    MysNthR0p3 wrote: »
    With the government, we have no choice but to pay taxes...
    That’s not exactly true – you could choose to emigrate and pay taxes in another state, where you might feel you’re getting more value for money.
    MysNthR0p3 wrote: »
    Excuse my ignorance of our political system, but do we even have something remotely like the US "State of the Nation" address? Because if we don't we definitely need one.
    Why? What purpose would it serve?
    MysNthR0p3 wrote: »
    We need the government to report back to the people on how things are going, in their opinion, and what their plans are for the future of the country.
    What form would these ‘reports’ take?
    MysNthR0p3 wrote: »
    I want numbers, I want to know about every penny, whether it makes BIFFO cry or not and I want to know that each TD and civil servant is effective and efficient at what they do or I'll vote someone in who is, and have them cut the fat from public service.
    Has it occurred to you that perhaps you are being unreasonable? Do you really have the time to survey the entire public sector?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40 MysNthR0p3


    djpbarry wrote: »
    They do, but to be fair, MaceFace has a point. Consider, for example, if the government decides that the admin budget for the HSE is to be trimmed. The media picks up on the story and the public are faced with headlines of “GOVERNMENT SLASHES HEALTH SPENDING, GRANNIES CONDEMNED TO DEATH”. Nobody’s saying the general public are too stupid to understand how their taxes are spent. However, most people are generally not interested in reading detailed financial statements concerning the public accounts – they want the information conveyed to them in bite-size newspaper articles and TV reports, which often results in large quantities of misinformation being assimilated, because facts don't sell newspapers.

    You're assuming I want to hear the media's second hand input on this. I don't want interpretation of spending, I want the figures and then let me decide what questions I want asked on my behalf.

    If I want to find out why health spending is cut, then I go to my TD and its his/her job to present the reasons to me. If I then find it unfair I present that to him/her and they make note of it. If enough people complain about a similar thing they present this dissatisfaction to the government who then decides whether to act on it or not. I then vote them out or in based on my impression of their job performance regarding various issues which are personally important to me.

    I don't need the media to tell me how to think. But I do need accurate figures and information regarding government spending and policies and I expect that to be furnished by the government.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40 MysNthR0p3


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Have you requested said figures from the relevant departments?

    I like this question. No, I have not, but why do I have to. Government spending should be voluntarily made public and it should be easily accessible, meaning I shouldn't have to go around each department. Why not have it presented on a publicly accessible site? Excellent question though.
    That’s not exactly true – you could choose to emigrate and pay taxes in another state, where you might feel you’re getting more value for money.

    Really, that's your argument? "If you're not happy with the government's utilisation of your taxes, get out of the country". I'd rather just vote them out for being inept, that way I get to stay in my homeland and it actually (hopefully) will be a little more efficient.
    Why? What purpose would it serve?

    Its makes the government answerable to the people who vote them in. As it stands the populace has minimal input in Ireland's affairs, which would not be such a bad thing if there were people in authority who were effective. As there are not currently and may not be for the foreseeable future, those who are in need to keep the people apprised of what they're up to, so we can choose to elect them in or out based on their relevant capabilities or else seek another group to act for us in their place if no party can serve capably.
    What form would these ‘reports’ take?

    Media-based broadcast as they do in the US, by the incumbent Taoiseach. This would be coupled with a detailed financial and policy website (as above) that details expenditure and future national policies, strategically, but in plain English (agus as Gaeilge of course). Then a breakdown of how each department's spending and policies feed into the national government strategy. It would also report on progress of those policies.
    Has it occurred to you that perhaps you are being unreasonable? Do you really have the time to survey the entire public sector?

    You mean, am I being unreasonable in asking the government to justify their expenditures and policy decisions to the public? Are we not in a craphole right now because we let them ride roughshod over the country and no one demanded to know why they did (or did not) act in such manner? Am I unreasonable to demand effectiveness and efficiency from the people who want me to vote them in to guide the national interests of my home? Is that what you're asking me? To me, a question like that is what landed us in this mess.

    Maybe its time we started being unreasonable, and refuse to be reasoned with by successive governments who only have their own interests at heart and not those of the nation. Maybe then we won't be so sheepish about demanding excellence from those we entrust the reins of the nation to.

    I would think that a review of departmental and policy spending over the last decade would highlight where black holes exist and then those areas could be investigated first. As the website I mentioned above is updated, it would be clear to see where the money is being sunk into and then questions can be posed regarding effectiveness and efficiency. Over a decade or two the fat will be stripped. This is by no means a quick fix I propose. But it would work.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    MysNthR0p3 wrote: »
    You're assuming I want to hear the media's second hand input on this.
    I’m assuming nothing of the sort, because I was not referring to you specifically. I was referring to the general public.
    MysNthR0p3 wrote: »
    I like this question. No, I have not, but why do I have to. Government spending should be voluntarily made public and it should be easily accessible, meaning I shouldn't have to go around each department. Why not have it presented on a publicly accessible site?
    Like this one?
    MysNthR0p3 wrote: »
    Really, that's your argument? "If you're not happy with the government's utilisation of your taxes, get out of the country".
    No, that’s not what I said. You suggested that people have no choice but to pay taxes to the government. I was merely pointing out that the choice exists to pay taxes to a different government. I did not however say that was the only choice.
    MysNthR0p3 wrote: »
    Its makes the government answerable to the people who vote them in. As it stands the populace has minimal input in Ireland's affairs...
    Indeed, because the populace chooses to have a minimal input. They go to the ballot box at election time, tick a few boxes and that’s democracy done for another few years.
    MysNthR0p3 wrote: »
    Media-based broadcast as they do in the US, by the incumbent Taoiseach.
    Honestly, I really don’t see the point? Is the Taoiseach not on TV enough already?
    MysNthR0p3 wrote: »
    You mean, am I being unreasonable in asking the government to justify their expenditures and policy decisions to the public?
    No.
    MysNthR0p3 wrote: »
    Are we not in a craphole right now because we let them ride roughshod over the country and no one demanded to know why they did (or did not) act in such manner?
    Well, that precisely my point, isn’t it. Nobody gave a toss what the government were up to as long as they had their 3-bed semi, 2 cars and 4 holidays per year.
    MysNthR0p3 wrote: »
    Am I unreasonable to demand effectiveness and efficiency from the people who want me to vote them in to guide the national interests of my home?
    No.
    MysNthR0p3 wrote: »
    I would think that a review of departmental and policy spending over the last decade would highlight where black holes exist and then those areas could be investigated first.
    Like the McCarthy Report?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40 MysNthR0p3


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Like this one?
    If you can show me a strategic policy making and detailed departmental spending regarding said policies, policy progress reports and a regular address to the nation by the government on their future plans for the nation all of which is in plain English - then yes, exactly that site. Else, as I think you've already guessed my answer is - no.
    No, that’s not what I said. You suggested that people have no choice but to pay taxes to the government. I was merely pointing out that the choice exists to pay taxes to a different government. I did not however say that was the only choice.

    I can also commit suicide, hide in a remote location and hope no one finds me, work in a job where my wage is too low to be taxable, or engage in the national past time, don't work at all and claim off the taxpayer (I understand that jobs are short, I'm referring to those who are on the dole by choice and who possess an uncanny ability to manipulate the broken welfare system - something I would tackle if I had the figures)
    Indeed, because the populace chooses to have a minimal input. They go to the ballot box at election time, tick a few boxes and that’s democracy done for another few years.

    Let me refer you back to my comment about the (ancient) Greeks.
    Honestly, I really don’t see the point? Is the Taoiseach not on TV enough already?

    Well I admit, when its a toss up between Porky Pig and FG's answer to Roger Moore, its none too appealing. But they're primary reason for being on would be to demonstrate they had a little cop on with regarding to national affairs, and also to provide sound bites which they could then be hung by when they fail to deliver. And of course, to outline what was happening to those of us who take an interest in these sort of things.
    Well, that precisely my point, isn’t it. Nobody gave a toss what the government were up to as long as they had their 3-bed semi, 2 cars and 4 holidays per year.

    Then we're agreed upon that point (and a couple of others). I'll admit, its easy to criticise when we have the luxury of 20/20 hindsight. I cared as little about things as anyone else during the good times. But because I a was an idiot then, doesn't mean I can't learn from my mistakes now. Ergo, I feel we need this kind of accountability from our elected officials.
    Like the McCarthy Report?
    I want the figures to be made available to the public. It not only provides accountability, but it lessens the ability for the opposition to mislead regarding such policies. Remember the hype over Lisbon? That's what happens when a government feels it does not need to keep its people informed.

    It will also put the political parties money where their mouths are. If opposition promises a 20% increase in health expenditure, this site will show if they came through with their promise, regardless of their excuses. If they fail to produce the readies, then its readily viewable and its bye bye in the next election.

    If the figures are out there, then a McCarthy panel should not be as necessary, although if we could have an ongoing one without straining the taxpayer then I'd be all for it. But it would have to be an independent body and the panel would be rotated, with appointments being agreed by opposition as well as government (to lessen the chance of government lackeys).

    Essentially I want the government to be accountable on a level that makes them squirm. I want national politics to be such an uncomfortable experience, that only the idealists will step up. I definitely want to kill this whole getting elected solely because my late father/mother/uncle/aunt/brother/sister/turtle held the seat previously. It's political inbreeding.

    You might argue that idealism will lead us to ruination, but then again so has this supposed pragmatism. I want people who can lead because they want what's best. They don't have to be Trinity graduates or successful businessmen looking for a 'hobby'. I don't care if our Taoiseach comes from Ballymun, is Muslim, and has a Nigerian mother and Polish father and spent time on the dole. As long as he/she is an Irish national and wants to make Ireland better leaving office than it was when they found it, I'll vote them in. Then its up to them to do as they promise or I'll vote them out.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    MysNthR0p3 wrote: »
    Remember the hype over Lisbon? That's what happens when a government feels it does not need to keep its people informed.
    I’ll come back to the rest of your post when I have a little more time, but on this particular point, I could not disagree more. A wealth of information was available to people on the subject of The Lisbon Treaty, but the vast majority of people chose to wilfully ignore this information and vote based on a few sound bites. Had the entire text of the treaty been mailed to every home in the country (as Declan Ganley suggested), it would have amounted to the greatest waste of paper in the history of the state, as the vast majority of people would have ignored most of the content. Why? Lack of interest and (more importantly) a lack of time, I suspect. It is for similar reasons that I believe the website you are proposing would be a complete waste of taxpayers money, which is what you want to do away with, right?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40 MysNthR0p3


    djpbarry wrote: »
    I’ll come back to the rest of your post when I have a little more time, but on this particular point, I could not disagree more. A wealth of information was available to people on the subject of The Lisbon Treaty, but the vast majority of people chose to wilfully ignore this information and vote based on a few sound bites. Had the entire text of the treaty been mailed to every home in the country (as Declan Ganley suggested), it would have amounted to the greatest waste of paper in the history of the state, as the vast majority of people would have ignored most of the content. Why? Lack of interest and (more importantly) a lack of time, I suspect. It is for similar reasons that I believe the website you are proposing would be a complete waste of taxpayers money, which is what you want to do away with, right?

    By your very arguments then, the Irish government should remove all its sites that the majority of the population find uninteresting and save the taxpayer a huge bundle of cash.

    My argument is not about saving taxpayer money, its about government efficiency and accountability. The assumption I've made relating to tax expenditure and government efficiency is that were we to have a website, detailing policies and expenditures in detail, the taxpayer may end up saving taxes due to their efficient utilisation, as the government would be easily held accountable for mismanagement and overspending where and when it occurred.

    If it turned out, for the sake of argument, that government expenditure of taxes is 99.x% efficient, then that's great. But I seriously doubt it is, as the government has been too comfortable keeping all that information behind closed doors or presenting it in an arcane manner.

    Of course the site won't appeal to everyone. But the information would be there and readily accessible, not only to the public, but to media sources, who could then refer to it, which would direct more people to it. Also, such a site, written in plain English (and Irish) could be used by schools in educating future generations regarding politics and finance.

    So our generation might not find it useful, but it may be key to future elections in subsequent generations. My parents, like the majority (I'm assuming) of their generation don't know how to use computers, the web, and to a large extent mobile phones, and have no interest in them, its no reason to halt research and production of such.

    I think the major difference in our arguments is we both recognise the government is inefficient, but you're philosophy put the onus on the taxpayer/reporter/citizen to seek out the information that the government deigns to make available from the multiple dark recesses where that information resides. My philosophy is that the government should be compelled to make all policy and financial information available (and I will stipulate here, where national security is not contravened in doing so) and should do so in a centralised easily accessible, easily understandable manner.

    I honestly believe people would be more interested in politics if it were more open and transparent, instead of arcane. Politics after all, is one of the few jobs on the planet, accessible to anyone without the need for formal education in the subject, or indeed any subject. I think by keeping things mysterious and complex, it prevents potential and most likely far more capable competition to the inept idiots currently in the Oireachtas.

    As for Lisbon, I know I had the point in my head when I wrote it, but I cannot think of it exactly now, so I'll have to retract that.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40 MysNthR0p3


    Maire Geoghegan-Quinn's pension disgrace!

    For those who have not seen the above thread yet, this is an example of what I'm talking about.

    It details the revelation in the Irish Independent of TDs and MEPs refusals to hand back ministerial pensions.

    My argument as applied in my thread regarding this specific story is twofold:

    1. Why is it a revelation - this is the kind of information the government should be compelled to make known to the public, in my mind. Its an example of inept utilisation of public taxes. How much of our taxes simply goes to salaries, expenses, and compensations of politicians?
    2. Broadly speaking, not about the pensions specifically, in any other industry (with the exception of banking as we now know), bonuses, pay increases, etc. are based on competency and merit which is evaluated and authorised by management. Yet there is no external oversight regarding political salaries. Pay raises should be periodic, and subject to public ballot. It could easily be part of the electoral process, one more slip of paper to mark an X in at voting time. With the possibility of a 'pay freeze' if performance was mediocre, government would be more inclined to be informative and efficient.
    I know point 2 has been argued over and over, but an effective remuneration process has to be found which takes the power out of the Oireachtas with regards to compensation.




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    MysNthR0p3 wrote: »
    ...such a site, written in plain English (and Irish) could be used by schools in educating future generations regarding politics and finance.
    You’ve used the term ‘plain English’ a few times and now you’re using it conjunction with schools and education. So on the one hand you want an extensive account of public spending in Ireland with every penny accounted for, but you want it conveyed in ‘plain English’, for use in educating children? There seems to me to be a conflict there.
    MysNthR0p3 wrote: »
    I think the major difference in our arguments is we both recognise the government is inefficient, but you're philosophy put the onus on the taxpayer/reporter/citizen to seek out the information that the government deigns to make available from the multiple dark recesses where that information resides.
    No, that is not my ‘philosophy’. My point is that there is already a significant amount of information in the public domain with regard to government and politics in this country, but the vast majority of people choose to ignore it. The Lisbon Treaty referendum was an excellent illustration of this – a wealth of information was available, yet the vast majority of people still went to the polling booths completely uninformed. So, call me a cynic, but I don’t believe that presenting even more information to the public is going to transform politics in this country.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40 MysNthR0p3


    djpbarry wrote: »
    You’ve used the term ‘plain English’ a few times and now you’re using it conjunction with schools and education. So on the one hand you want an extensive account of public spending in Ireland with every penny accounted for, but you want it conveyed in ‘plain English’, for use in educating children? There seems to me to be a conflict there.

    You seem to be intimating that its impossible to present political policy making and expenditure in plain English, yet the graphic in my original post seem to do so (expenditure-wise) quite expertly.

    Also, I specifically was referring to secondary and tertiary level education, where the term 'children' seems somewhat inappropriate.

    So I don't know where you find this conflict.
    No, that is not my ‘philosophy’. My point is that there is already a significant amount of information in the public domain with regard to government and politics in this country, but the vast majority of people choose to ignore it. The Lisbon Treaty referendum was an excellent illustration of this – a wealth of information was available, yet the vast majority of people still went to the polling booths completely uninformed. So, call me a cynic, but I don’t believe that presenting even more information to the public is going to transform politics in this country.

    So centralise the information, and put it in plain English. The problem with Lisbon was the information, plentiful as it was, was entirely biased in regard of the agendas of each publisher. The only unbiased information was the text in the Treaty itself, which members of government admitted to not even reading themselves.

    Instead of herding the populace like sheep to vote the government's way, the information should have been unbiased and then government should have accepted the vote of the public.

    The reason we had to vote twice on the same issue was because initially there was zero information, the government couldn't accept the way the people voted and so, in a knee-jerk reaction, we were flooded with "Lisbon will herald a golden age for Ireland" and "Lisbon will bring about World War III and plagues and devastation" type literature. That's not information, that's propaganda.

    Information is unbiased - ergo the request for expenditure - numbers don't lie and they don't support an agenda. They're there to be interpreted as the observer chooses. And before you jump all over me, I mean numbers as in integers representing expenditure in currency, not statistics.

    You seem to believe, by your repeated points, that if there's a chance people will ignore information its best they never know about it.

    I wouldn't say you're a cynic, I'd say something far worse, your arguments are indicative of current mushroom farming politics. That's why, IMO, the current political system in this country in rotten to the core.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    MysNthR0p3 wrote: »
    You seem to be intimating that its impossible to present political policy making and expenditure in plain English, yet the graphic in my original post seem to do so (expenditure-wise) quite expertly.
    Have you actually examined that graphic? Because I’m not really seeing that much detail. For example, it states that the CIA’s budget was $5 billion, but it says nothing of how that money was spent. You’ll also notice at least two occurrences of the word ‘classified’.
    MysNthR0p3 wrote: »
    Also, I specifically was referring to secondary and tertiary level education, where the term 'children' seems somewhat inappropriate.
    Second-level students are not children?
    MysNthR0p3 wrote: »
    The problem with Lisbon was the information, plentiful as it was, was entirely biased in regard of the agendas of each publisher. The only unbiased information was the text in the Treaty itself, which members of government admitted to not even reading themselves.
    I don’t want to turn this into a discussion on the referendum, so I’m going to leave this one lie. Suffice to say that we obviously have a fundamental disagreement on how information should be conveyed.
    MysNthR0p3 wrote: »
    You seem to believe, by your repeated points, that if there's a chance people will ignore information its best they never know about it.
    Once again, no, that is not what I am saying. The information you are referring to is already available to the public in one form or another, but few have any interest in examining it. Spending time and money on ‘spoon-feeding’ this information to the electorate will not make one jot of difference – most people will still skim over graphics such as that above on their way to the TV guide and sports pages.


Advertisement