Exchequer projections on target for 2010

Flamed Diving

http://www.finance.gov.ie/documents/exchequerstatements/2010/endapriltaxrev.pdf

From the Irisheconomy blog.

http://www.irisheconomy.ie/index.php/2010/05/05/exchequer-returns-for-april/

Thought you guys might like to know.


EDIT: An alternative breakdown here:

http://economic-incentives.blogspot.com/2010/05/tax-revenue-rises.html

ei.sdraob

Exchequer Returns for April show that the fall in tax revenue is continuing to ease....

lets strip away the fud and say the way it is:

revenue is falling but at a slower rate

Flamed Diving

ei.sdraob wrote: »

lets strip away the fud and say the way it is:

revenue is falling but at a slower rate

Yup. Positive news, then.

ei.sdraob

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Yup. Positive news, then.

Yes that's like saying that "a knife going into my chest is going in at a slower rate",

great news lets open up the champagne bottles and drink to recovereh!

Flamed Diving

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Yes that knife going into my chest is going in at a slower rate, great news lets open up the champagne bottles

Your analogy is misguided, but it is understandable.

ei.sdraob

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Your analogy is misguided, but it is understandable.

Well lets hope the markets fall for the spin and are less cynical than me, since we have to borrow some money on the 18th

Flamed Diving

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Well lets hope the markets fall for the spin and are less cynical than me, since we have to borrow some money on the 18th

Well I am not suggesting that this one piece of news will turn things around, to even think such a thing would be harebrained. But like I said, it is a positive piece, nonetheless, something that is so rare, round these parts.

ei.sdraob

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Well I am not suggesting that this one piece of news will turn things around, to even think such a thing would be harebrained. But like I said, it is a positive piece, nonetheless, something that is so rare, round these parts.

Hmm yes I understand where you coming from its a "slightly positive development"

Now let see if this "trend" keeps up and we start moving in a "positive" direction not "less negative"


so to summarize > we have a 10% negative "improvement" on last year and thats good because its "on target"
I see the dept were brushing up on their doublespeak :P

Boskowski

It's all about spin these days isn't it?

Revenue falling at a slower rate is positive news now.
And yet when my employer increases their profits at a slower rate than last year thats bad news and worth a couple of hundred redundancies.

****in economics

ardmacha

Tax revenue is almost inevitably down since last year if only because the government have cut wages and reduced expenditure, as almost everyone in here wanted them to do!

These exchequer figures show a stabilising of the situation. With definite signs of economic growth Ireland can get things in order if left to its own devices. However, if there is a general crisis in the Euro zone we could easily run into problems, a point made today in the Indo by Brendan Keenan.

ei.sdraob

@Flamed Diving

what do you make of the figures themselves

I find it worrying that income taxes are down (despite all the new increases)
VAT is the same and stamps have fallen thru the floor

While on the other hand Corpo tax is up (why? does this have anything to do with corpo taxes being paid twice yearly now or something like that?)


and more worrying bit > once off capital taxes are up

wasn't the last "bubble" based foolishly on once off taxes?

Riskymove

ei.sdraob wrote: »

I find it worrying that income taxes are down (despite all the new increases)
VAT is the same and stamps have fallen thru the floor

probably down to the PS paycuts mainly

ei.sdraob

Riskymove wrote: »

probably down to the PS paycuts mainly

what paycuts? most of these are made useless by increments

the total current spend is "planned" to be higher this year

the main cuts are in capital spending



source

don't be afraid to examine the document in detail for a detailed breakdown of why current expenditure is up (page 7)

Scarab80

Boskowski wrote: »

It's all about spin these days isn't it?

Revenue falling at a slower rate is positive news now.
And yet when my employer increases their profits at a slower rate than last year thats bad news and worth a couple of hundred redundancies.

****in economics

Ah yes those company profits have been steadily increasing the whole time. Corporation tax take for the past 4 years with 2010 estimate...

2006 6.683bn
2007 6.390bn
2008 5.065bn
2009 3.9bn
2010est 3.21bn

Reduction of 52%

****in facts

Riskymove

ei.sdraob wrote: »

what paycuts? most of these are made useless by increments

well the PS were earning a certain amount at 31/12/09 and subsequently had a paycut in jan 2010

therefore they are earning a lower amount and paying less income tax, levies and PRSI etc

therefore there will be a reduction in tax take at the moment (i.e. included in these figures)

while some PS will get increments this year it will be phased over the entire year and would also take at least 2-3 increments (and therefore 2-3 years) to be back at the levels they were (rough figures)

Scarab80

ei.sdraob wrote: »

what paycuts? most of these are made useless by increments

the total current spend is "planned" to be higher this year

the main cuts are in capital spending



source

don't be afraid to examine the document in detail for a detailed breakdown of why current expenditure is up (page 7)

That's the white paper from 2009, it doesn't include budget changes.

Adjustments are shown here

Riskymove

ei.sdraob wrote: »

don't be afraid to examine the document in detail for a detailed breakdown of why current expenditure is up (page 7)

we've had this discussion before, the figures are pre-budget decisions and do not include the paycut.

they are also gross figures which would not reflect the saving in expenditure this year due to the pension levy

ei.sdraob

Riskymove wrote: »

well the PS were earning a certain amount at 31/12/09 and subsequently had a paycut in jan 2010

therefore they are earning a lower amount and paying less income tax, levies and PRSI etc

therefore there will be a reduction in tax take at the moment (i.e. included in these figures)

while some PS will get increments this year it will be phased over the entire year and would also take at least 2-3 increments (and therefore 2-3 years) to be back at the levels they were (rough figures)

I love how all threads turn into a public / private war :pac:

I am not sure how you can claim that since there's no stats available yet, but the last one up to q3 2009 from CSO has shown no movement in public wages

Most likely its down to more unemployment (from the private sector), people completely loosing their jobs

Riskymove wrote: »

we've had this discussion before, the figures are pre-budget decisions and do not include the paycut.

they are also gross figures which would not reflect the saving in expenditure this year due to the pension levy

do you have any better figures?

never mind @scarab posted link earlier

Tipp Man

There comes a point when things simply cannot fall as fast as they were, tax revenue, employement rate etc i.e. if they continued at the rate they were going at pretty soon we'd all be unemployed and the tax take would be zero

The important (and still worrying) info is that they are still falling and it would be very foolish of people and the government not to continue to seriously cut spending.

Looking at the table above from eisaob its clear to see that current expenditure is the problem, somewhere between 5-10 bn more needs to be save here

Riskymove

ei.sdraob wrote: »

I love how all threads turn into a public / private war :pac:

what war?

You asked a question about the reduction in income tax...I put forward a suggestion to answer it....if thats what constitutes a 'war' these days???

obviously the reduction also involves a fall from private sector either through earbnings or job losses (or both)...but it is simply fact that there will be a reduced tax and prsi take form PS workers at present

I am not sure how you can claim that since there's no stats available yet, but the last one up to q3 2009 from CSO has shown no movement in public wages

the paycut occurred this year

ardmacha

I love how all threads turn into a public / private war

I am not sure how you can claim that since there's no stats available yet, but the last one up to q3 2009 from CSO has shown no movement in public wages

These threads would not all turn into a public / private war if people would refrain from making misleading posts about statistics. It has been pointed out many times that the CSO statistics do not include the pension levy, yet people deliberately keep quoting it without reference to this. Now whatever you think of the PS pension structure the pension levy is a reduction in the employee's income and a saving to government. Similarly quoting projected government expenditure before paycuts is a misuse of statistics, when Scarab80 posted the corrected data, ei.sdraob said ignore it and Tipp man proceeded to do so.

People can argue their case in this forum, but deliberate misuse of data, after its limitations have been pointed out, is trolling, pure and simple. Threads which proceed by ranting about something that isn't accurate is a total waste of time.

ei.sdraob

ardmacha wrote: »

These threads would not all turn into a public / private war if people would refrain from making misleading posts about statistics. It has been pointed out many times that the CSO statistics do not include the pension levy, yet people deliberately keep quoting it without reference to this. Now whatever you think of the PS pension structure the pension levy is a reduction in the employee's income and a saving to government. Similarly quoting projected government expenditure before paycuts is a misuse of statistics, when Scarab80 posted the corrected data, ei.sdraob said ignore it and Tipp man proceeded to do so.

People can argue their case in this forum, but deliberate misuse of data, after its limitations have been pointed out, is trolling, pure and simple. Threads which proceed by ranting about something that isn't accurate is a total waste of time.

We've been over it many times
paying towards pensions is not "income"
yet you persist calling it income


I asked a simple question:
why is income tax down? and once off taxes up?

it was the reliance on once of taxes that got us into such a mess, right?

if unemployment stayed steady then yes the fall could be explained by cuts in wages (public and private) but while the public sector are still going on about their 1billion cuts (and avoid discussing rises they get for no extra productivity) there are
people who are still loosing their jobs

ardmacha

We've been over it many times
paying towards pensions is not "income"
yet you persist calling it income

Where, exactly, do I (or anyone else for that matter) call pension payments income.

why is income tax down?

because incomes are down

and once off taxes up?

because people are buying more stuff, notably cars.

while the public sector are still going on about their 1billion cuts

perhaps they do this because many of the posters here largely deny that there have been any cuts, in the face of all of the evidence.

people who are still loosing their jobs

Sadly, people are still losing jobs, but unemployment has largely stabilised too.

Riskymove

ei.sdraob wrote: »

We've been over it many times
paying towards pensions is not "income"
yet you persist calling it income

we have been over it but people refuse to listen

the pension levy is not put into some fund towards pensions

it is simply taken from PS workers and returned to the exchequer (like a tax)

it is clearly a reduction in expenditure but is not shown in gross figures

Flamed Diving

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Hmm yes I understand where you coming from its a "slightly positive development"

Now let see if this "trend" keeps up and we start moving in a "positive" direction not "less negative"


so to summarize > we have a 10% negative "improvement" on last year and thats good because its "on target"
I see the dept were brushing up on their doublespeak :P

Out of interest, did you ever study calculus?

Flamed Diving

Boskowski wrote: »

It's all about spin these days isn't it?

Revenue falling at a slower rate is positive news now.
And yet when my employer increases their profits at a slower rate than last year thats bad news and worth a couple of hundred redundancies.

****in economics

I suppose my last question to es.storioioib can be directed to you also.

Sleepy

It would be interesting to see where the drops in income tax returns are coming from.

Flamed Diving

Just to help people out. Here are three functions.

Function A is an exponential function. This could be a representation of bacteria multiplying, continuously compounding interest, something like that.

Function B is a function that is increasing, at a decreasing rate. If you followed this function beyond our image here, it would turn into an upside-down U-shape.

Function C is a function that is decreasing, at a decreasing rate. If you follow this function, it will turn into a U-shape.



I will say nothing more. No inference. I will simply watch the carnage ensue.




(Function C isn't strictly as I describe, but is sufficiently close)

Boskowski

Scarab80 wrote: »

Ah yes those company profits have been steadily increasing the whole time. Corporation tax take for the past 4 years with 2010 estimate...

2006 6.683bn
2007 6.390bn
2008 5.065bn
2009 3.9bn
2010est 3.21bn

Reduction of 52%

****in facts

Relax. You got me wrong there. I wasn't claiming that companies are still raking it in. And it wasn't an ambush on the evil capital or anything either.

This was purely on perception, lingo and spin.
Just in case I didn't express myself properly I gonna spell it out this time.

Not so long ago companies justified layoffs with profit increases slowing down. As in they were still making profit. As in they were actually still increasing their profit. Just the rate of increase had slowed down somewhat. Meaning last year they increased their profit by 10% - this year they increased their profit only by 7%. That was bad news then and justified a few layoffs.

Now we have slowed down the decrease in revenue and its being 'sold' as something positive.

Thats all...not attacking anyone. Just remarking on perception, lingo and spin.

Boskowski

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I suppose my last question to es.storioioib can be directed to you also.

Well in school a long time and thats probably a 'No'. But in any case what's that got to do with what I wrote? I'm honestly not gettin' it.

I see how this is an indicator that we turned the corner. If you looked at it like a sinus curve you would argue we're getting closer to bottom-out, but that's not my point. Because who's to say it will behave like a sinus curve anyway?

Flamed Diving

Boskowski wrote: »

Now we have slowed down the decrease in revenue and its being 'sold' as something positive.

So in year 1, your company loses €120. In year 2, you lose €80. In year 3, you lose €20.

Nothing positive there? You don't see perhaps a profit in year 4? Or is it all the same?

How about:

So in year 1, your company loses €20. In year 2, you lose €80. In year 3, you lose €120.

All the same?

ClayDavis

Boskowski wrote: »

Not so long ago companies justified layoffs with profit increases slowing down. As in they were still making profit. As in they were actually still increasing their profit. Just the rate of increase had slowed down somewhat. Meaning last year they increased their profit by 10% - this year they increased their profit only by 7%. That was bad news then and justified a few layoffs.

Now we have slowed down the decrease in revenue and its being 'sold' as something positive.

I don't see your point, would you have a problem with a company hiring extra staff because they increase their profit from 7% to 10%? Because logically it's similar.

I really fail to see how anyone could consider the fact that the fall of revenue intake is beginning to bottom out as a negative thing. Is your cynicism overpowering your logic?

Flamed Diving

Boskowski wrote: »

Well in school a long time and thats probably a 'No'. But in any case what's that got to do with what I wrote? I'm honestly not gettin' it.

I see how this is an indicator that we turned the corner. If you looked at it like a sinus curve you would argue we're getting closer to bottom-out, but that's not my point. Because who's to say it will behave like a sinus curve anyway?

Of course it might not turn out that way, maybe in the next reporting period it the rate of change will dip down again. But it just looks to be that way, so far.

Either way, the government set their budgetary target, and are meeting it, so far. This looks like the first thing they have done right, in recent memory. Hopefully a sign of more to come. Hopefully.

I know many of you on here dislike FF (not saying you), and would rather see the country collapse and fall to ruin, rather than have them succeed in having any part in pulling us out of it, or just to spite them. However, I do not think that way. I am not that self-absorbed.

Schadenfreude, is a word that often comes to mind.

Boskowski

Seriously, I'm not like that.

I was only on about semantics and later then about how the perceived upwards trend is based on certain assumptions.

I do not like FF. How could you anyway? But at the same time I wouldn't like to see them making things worse out of Schadenfreude. Because I live here and pay taxes here so it's my place too you know.

Boskowski

ClayDavis wrote: »

I don't see your point, would you have a problem with a company hiring extra staff because they increase their profit from 7% to 10%? Because logically it's similar.

No it would be logically similar if they hired fewer people than last year.

ClayDavis wrote: »

Is your cynicism overpowering your logic?

I sometimes may be guilty of that. But not in this case I think.

Flamed Diving

ei.sdraob wrote: »

@Flamed Diving

what do you make of the figures themselves

I find it worrying that income taxes are down (despite all the new increases)
VAT is the same and stamps have fallen thru the floor

While on the other hand Corpo tax is up (why? does this have anything to do with corpo taxes being paid twice yearly now or something like that?)


and more worrying bit > once off capital taxes are up

wasn't the last "bubble" based foolishly on once off taxes?

Corpo tax isn't up, it's just up on their target, which doesn't mean much, really. The table you should be looking at in in the middle of the three.

snow ghost

There is a political element to this 'positive' announcement yesterday and yesterdays forecasts for Growth - the Greek crisis.

It was very conveniently timed to allay market fears following what is happening in Greece, call me cynical but I am not entirely convinced that this is 100% credible and not more of a pr spin for Ireland Inc.

ardmacha

It was very conveniently timed

The data was released on the same day as it is every other year.

oppenheimer1

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Hmm yes I understand where you coming from its a "slightly positive development"

Now let see if this "trend" keeps up and we start moving in a "positive" direction not "less negative"


so to summarize > we have a 10% negative "improvement" on last year and thats good because its "on target"
I see the dept were brushing up on their doublespeak :P

Its a positive piece of news, it that its in line with expectations. It would be far worse if the figures had been worse than expected. Its uncertainty what the markets hate, because they have to price the worst case scenario into their projections.

snow ghost

ardmacha wrote: »

The data was released on the same day as it is every other year.

Fair point.

That said I still believe there is a lot of political spin involved in the announcement, including the EU forecast for Ireland's economic recovery... they don't want another Greece in the Euro zone and politically it is in their interests to err on the positive to hopefully allay market fears.

ei.sdraob

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Out of interest, did you ever study calculus?

I did, i also know that extrapolating a shape of a curve from 2 data points is extremely dangerous...

you only have and provided 2 data-points (2009 and 2010)

now please explain how in gods name you extrapolated that the trend for Revenue is similar to B in this graph of yours, with only 2 points, and more importantly will continue on a certain slope of "recovereh" into the future



this example of yours below has 3 points btw

Flamed Diving wrote: »

So in year 1, your company loses €120. In year 2, you lose €80. In year 3, you lose €20.

Nothing positive there? You don't see perhaps a profit in year 4? Or is it all the same?

How about:

So in year 1, your company loses €20. In year 2, you lose €80. In year 3, you lose €120.

All the same?

Flamed Diving

ei.sdraob wrote: »

I did, i also know that extrapolating a shape of a curve from 2 data points is extremely dangerous...

you only have and provided 2 data-points (2009 and 2010)

now please explain how in gods name you extrapolated that the trend for Revenue is similar to B in this graph of yours, with only 2 points, and more importantly will continue on a certain slope of "recovereh" into the future



this example of yours below has 3 points btw

Stop making things up, I am already weary of your usual nonsense. I provided links in my OP, just read them and stop pestering me. Thanks.

ei.sdraob

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Stop making things up, I am already weary of your usual nonsense. I provided links in my OP, just read them and stop pestering me. Thanks.

fair enough so

i was looking at the finance.gov.ie document

ClayDavis

Boskowski wrote: »

No it would be logically similar if they hired fewer people than last year.

I see your point but if increasing profits to a certain level is what was forecast and predicted, can you see why it would be a failure to not meet these predictions? Obviously, how realistic the prediction was determines the degree of failure. Is it not possible that such a failure could justify getting rid of some staff?

A company's raison d'etre is to make profit for it's shareholders, not to provide as much employment as possible.

Apologies if I misunderstood your post, I'm very tired.

Flamed Diving

I know you guys hate positive news...

http://www.cso.ie/releasespublications/documents/labour_market/current/lreg.pdf
http://www.cso.ie/releasespublications/documents/services/current/rsi.pdf

hinault

ei.sdraob wrote: »

@Flamed Diving

what do you make of the figures themselves

I find it worrying that income taxes are down (despite all the new increases)
VAT is the same and stamps have fallen thru the floor

While on the other hand Corpo tax is up (why? does this have anything to do with corpo taxes being paid twice yearly now or something like that?)


and more worrying bit > once off capital taxes are up

wasn't the last "bubble" based foolishly on once off taxes?

I got killed on another forum for suggesting "talking down the economy" when I pointed out that income tax and VAT take is continuing to fall.

hinault

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I know you guys hate positive news...

http://www.cso.ie/releasespublications/documents/labour_market/current/lreg.pdf
http://www.cso.ie/releasespublications/documents/services/current/rsi.pdf

Indeed.

All's sweetness and light, eh?:rolleyes:

Flamed Diving

hinault wrote: »

All's sweetness and light, eh?

No, that isn't what I implied, at all. Amused.

Although the error of your response was as I predicted.

Thanks.

hinault

Flamed Diving wrote: »

No, that isn't what I implied, at all. Amused.

Although the error of your response was as I predicted.

Thanks.

Only a fool would believe the statements which put forward the position that the economy has stabilised.

The tax continues to fall.
The tax base is diminishing through unemployment/emigration.
The number of people actually working in the economy is contracting.

Flamed Diving

hinault wrote: »

Only a fool would believe the statements which put forward the position that the economy has stabilised.

What statements say that? Certainly not my posts. Again, amused.

ardmacha

The tax continues to fall.

Does it? Was tax in April less than in March and in February?

The tax base is diminishing through unemployment/emigration.

Unemployment is not increasing. If unemployed people leave then the tax base is not reduced much.

The number of people actually working in the economy is contracting.

Figures?