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
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

Exchequer projections on target for 2010

«134

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,364 ✭✭✭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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,364 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    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 :D lets open up the champagne bottles and drink to recovereh!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    Yes that knife going into my chest is going in at a slower rate, great news :D lets open up the champagne bottles

    Your analogy is misguided, but it is understandable.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,364 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    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


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    ei.sdraob 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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,364 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    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" :D


    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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,361 ✭✭✭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

    :confused:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,476 ✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,364 ✭✭✭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?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,903 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,364 ✭✭✭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


    21m7rxc.png
    source

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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 802 ✭✭✭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

    :confused:

    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

    :confused:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,903 ✭✭✭✭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)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 802 ✭✭✭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


    21m7rxc.png
    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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,903 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,364 ✭✭✭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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,025 ✭✭✭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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,903 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,476 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,364 ✭✭✭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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,476 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,903 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭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" :D


    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?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭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

    :confused:

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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 24,612 ✭✭✭✭Sleepy


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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    FigE2.gif

    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)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,361 ✭✭✭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

    :confused:

    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,361 ✭✭✭Boskowski


    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?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭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?


Advertisement