A Short Sharp Shock

Upstream

The government and the main opposition parties have all committed to reducing the national deficit to 3pc by 2014. The current approach seems to be to cut the bare minimum required to stay afloat every year.

This means four more years of painful budgets that will leave ordinary people less well off than before. (Four more years of The Frontline with Pat and his merry audience :eek: ) And each time knowing that there's worse to come next year.

Leo Varadkar proposes getting the worst out of the way in the next budget.

http://www.sbpost.ie/news/ireland/fine-gaels-varadkar-proposes-short-sharp-shock-for-budget-52186.html

‘‘A €5 billion or €6 billion adjustment would reduce the deficit to 8 per cent of GDP," Varadkar writes.

‘‘That would bring Ireland’s deficit below that of the United States, Britain, Greece and Spain and into the same league as Japan, Portugal and France. Our deficit wouldn’t even be far off the eurozone average of 6.5 per cent."

I agree with him here. Sometimes it's best to get the bad news over with quickly.

Acting quickly would also reduce the amount of debt accumulated over the next four years. And by being proactive it should also reduce the rate of interest we're charged on our debt, especially if our deficit is more in line with countries like France rather than Greece. It would show the markets that we're in control of our economy.

I believe if our democratically elected politicians can't deal with the problems and make the hard choices, they leave the way open for outsiders like the EU and the IMF to come in and make cuts where they see fit. A much worse outcome IMHO.

What does everyone else think?

ei.sdraob

We needed a short sharp shock 2 years ago, instead we wasted 2 years

spank_inferno

Its a case where they probably know whats the right thing to do, but its not politicaly expedient to do so.

However one can have little sympathy for the government when they tied their own hands with the calamitous "Croke Park deal".

This reduced their manouverability to make the right cuts.

In a nutshell, they were more interested in saving their skin than what was best for the state.

dan_d

I think we just need to do it.

There's nobody in political circles that has anything to lose at this point. FF are screwed. FG aren't much better. Labour won't get into Gov by themselves.The greens are a tiny percentage.

It has to be done, and to be honest, politically, now is probably the best time for any of them to do it.

Upstream

We needed a short sharp shock 2 years ago, instead we wasted 2 years

I agree, acting quickly and decisively is crucial in a crisis.
Far too much stalling and underestimating the shortfall while the problem got worse.

Looks like I've struck a chord here, all the replies so far seem to be in favour of swift action.
Should we be out on the streets protesting "MORE CUTS NOW!!" ?

Amhran Nua

Upstream wrote: »

Should we be out on the streets protesting "MORE CUTS NOW!!" ?

The arguments get started when you begin detailing exactly where the cuts should happen.

P. Breathnach

If the government made an adjustment on the scale spoken about, the screams of outrage would be deafening.

There seems to be some resignation to the idea of a €3m adjustment, perhaps a shade over -- but people seem to hope that the burden will fall on others rather than on themselves. That's not realistic: the burden will fall on all of us, albeit not evenly. And no matter how the budget is shaped, there will be objections (including objections from FG) and it will be difficult to get it through, both in the Dáil and with the public.

There is also the tricky matter of steering the economy towards recovery while trying to get the exchequer deficit under control. We already have people arguing with conviction that taking €3m out of the economy could be crippling.

When I heard Varadkar's idea, my first thought was that he wanted the present government to do the heavy lifting so that the next government, of which he has reasonable expectations of being a member, can have an easier political ride.

ei.sdraob

P. Breathnach wrote: »

If the government made an adjustment on the scale spoken about, the screams of outrage would be deafening.

There seems to be some resignation to the idea of a €3m adjustment, perhaps a shade over -- but people seem to hope that the burden will fall on others rather than on themselves. That's not realistic: the burden will fall on all of us, albeit not evenly. And no matter how the budget is shaped, there will be objections (including objections from FG) and it will be difficult to get it through, both in the Dáil and with the public.

There is also the tricky matter of steering the economy towards recovery while trying to get the exchequer deficit under control. We already have people arguing with conviction that taking €3m out of the economy could be crippling.

When I heard Varadkar's idea, my first thought was that he wanted the present government to do the heavy lifting so that the next government, of which he has reasonable expectations of being a member, can have an easier political ride.

You mean 3 billion not million?


Cutting earlier means less interest payments over time as less is needed to borrow.
Interest repayments alone will be is already a sizeable portion of expenditure running into billions.
Money spend on interest repayments is money that could have been used elsewhere, and as such is a waste.

Stabshauptmann

It wouldnt be a short shock though. Its not a case of if we cut 8bn this year, next year we can add the 8bn back on. We need to make lasting changes to our income expenditure going forward.

Its all well and fine for academics to say lets do it in one fell swoop; but as a PAYE worker I need the increases in taxes and withdrawal of services to happen in increments so I have time to adjust my lifestyle.

If you reduced my take home pay by 15% this year (my employer has already cut my pay) I would be out on the streets

Upstream

Amhran Nua wrote: »

The arguments get started when you begin detailing exactly where the cuts should happen.

True, it looks good on paper to say cut more.
I know it's going to hurt, but better to take the pain now.
So how much can the various options are open at the moment bring in?

Increased taxes for PAYE workers?
Scrapping tax breaks for the wealthy?
Water charges?
Reducing unemployment benefit?
Reducing pension
Taxing child benefit?
The old reliables, exise on alcahol and cigarettes?
Eliminating the €10 tax on air fares to increase tourism since our hotels are empty?
Cutting Quangos?
Public Sector efficiencies?
Implementing most of the rest of An Bord Snip Nua's recommendations?
Anything else I've forgotten?

Tipp Man

ei.sdraob wrote: »

We needed a short sharp shock 2 years ago, instead we wasted 2 years

Welcome back;)

P. Breathnach

ei.sdraob wrote: »

You mean 3 billion not million?

I can be slow to move with the times. There was a time in my life when £1 was enough for a good night out.

Cutting earlier means less interest payments over time as less is needed to borrow.
Interest repayments alone will be is already a sizeable portion of expenditure running into billions.
Money spend on interest repayments is money that could have been used elsewhere, and as such is a waste.

I don't claim to know the answer on this one. I lean somewhat towards the point of view that because ours is a small open economy, we are less dependent on domestic demand than many other economies. But I can see small businesses failing at the moment, and if domestic demand is further depressed, I can visualise more of them coming under pressure. But then I also wonder if most of the shakeout has already happened, and if the businesses that have survived the first great shock are generally strong enough to survive the aftershocks.

It really is a difficult one to call.

RichardAnd

If you have to make cuts, you should do them as quickly as possible. If I was spending more than I earned, I'd cut back immediately, not over 4 years whilst borrowing to fill the gaps. We generate 30 billion or so a year which should be enough to run a small country.

However, I do think the croke park deal should be torn up and PS wages brought down. But as I've said before, I honestly believed the CP deal to be a bit of filler and I don't see it lasting until 2014.

Upstream

P. Breathnach wrote: »

When I heard Varadkar's idea, my first thought was that he wanted the present government to do the heavy lifting so that the next government, of which he has reasonable expectations of being a member, can have an easier political ride.

Yes I think he would get an easier ride if the cuts were made now and he was elected to the next government.
But I don't think our finances are strong enoungh to allow the current government to take the easy option now.

But then I also wonder if most of the shakeout has already happened, and if the businesses that have survived the first great shock are generally strong enough to survive the aftershocks.
It really is a difficult one to call.

A very difficult one, I might be overly optimistic but I think if businesses have survived so far, most will continue if they know the worst is over.
As regards cuts damaging the recovery, I don't think there will be a recovery until enough people are able to say things like
"The worst cuts are over."
"I'm still standing and I have a job / I've found a new job."
"My business has survived so far"
"House prices have hit the bottom after dropping X% and it makes sense to buy now, rather than waiting another year"
"The cost of doing business is much more competitive now than it was in the boom times"
"The country has hit the bottom and is on the way up again."

ei.sdraob

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I can be slow to move with the times. There was a time in my life when £1 was enough for a good night out.



I don't claim to know the answer on this one. I lean somewhat towards the point of view that because ours is a small open economy, we are less dependent on domestic demand than many other economies. But I can see small businesses failing at the moment, and if domestic demand is further depressed, I can visualise more of them coming under pressure. But then I also wonder if most of the shakeout has already happened, and if the businesses that have survived the first great shock are generally strong enough to survive the aftershocks.

It really is a difficult one to call.

Well its a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't. The debt cant be escaped (unless we decide to default or inflate away our debt) but at least we could try not to take on more debt water on board.

Spreading the pain over the long term means more money wasted in interest payments over time (reducing choices going forward), so that leads me to think that short sharp pain is the best of the 2 unpalatable options.
Also it might bring a bit of certainty to people and businesses knowing there wont be a big dark cloud hanging about and years of ever increasing taxes and reduced services.

/

ei.sdraob

One just has to look at Iceland

they had a very quick and very sharp shock, but at least most of the things are behind them now

and as added bonus the government was replaced (imagine that!), people responsible are facing the law (imagine that too!), and a full investigation was taken quickly (we still dont know how bad the banks are).

Tipp Man

Clearly the faster this mess is sorted out the better so a shorter sharper shock is better

Really action should have been taken in the last 2 years, government expenditure needed to be cut by 20% in 08 and 09 and then we would have the end in sight. As it stands now we will have another 3-4 years of "bad" budgets hanging over us which is only spreading the lack of confidence out over a longer period of time than is needed.

Nevermind the huge borrowing implications of the longer time frame

rumour

Upstream wrote: »

True, it looks good on paper to say cut more.
I know it's going to hurt, but better to take the pain now.
So how much can the various options are open at the moment bring in?

Increased taxes for PAYE workers?
Scrapping tax breaks for the wealthy?
Water charges?
Reducing unemployment benefit?
Reducing pension
Taxing child benefit?
The old reliables, exise on alcahol and cigarettes?
Eliminating the €10 tax on air fares to increase tourism since our hotels are empty?
Cutting Quangos?
Public Sector efficiencies?
Implementing most of the rest of An Bord Snip Nua's recommendations?
Anything else I've forgotten?

:eek:Absolutely you've forgotten public sector salaries.

No other country owes as much as we do. We're broke so how about taking the lowest average EU public sector wage and multiplying it by the number of public sector employees in Ireland and presto the new salary budget. Distribution of the new budget can be the first target of efficiency in the public sector. I bet that won't take long to resolve.

ardmacha

No other country owes as much as we do.

By starting with a falsehood, you've pretty much undermined your argument.

lowest average EU public sector wage

Would you choose, Romania or Latvia, places whose GNP per capita is less than half that of Ireland and where these wages are lower than unemployment payments in Ireland.

dan_d

It has to be a combination of increased taxed, wage cuts across the public sector, and trying to get increased amounts of tax from the wealthier. There also has to be lesser cuts to social welfare, child benefits and benefits in general. And to an extent, a reduction in public spending on capital projects etc. Only to an extent - some things need to keep going ahead.

It HAS to be like this. We've no choice. And the sooner the better. At least if it was just done outright, we could pick ourselves up and figure out how to keep going, instead of stockpiling for a worse situation next year.And the year after.And the year after.

Given that I heard over the weekend that polls indicated that a large percentage of people would like either the EU or the IMF to come in and do it, but either way, people seem to prefer the idea of just getting the whole thing over with. It's better than constantly being told things are okay, followed by being told things are not okay we need to "take more pain" etc,etc. Anything is better than that.

Joey the lips

Can we edit the title to 2011 and delete my post.... Just to make searching simpler...

Thanks

Joey the lips

Upstream wrote: »

The government and the main opposition parties have all committed to reducing the national deficit to 3pc by 2014. The current approach seems to be to cut the bare minimum required to stay afloat every year.

This means four more years of painful budgets that will leave ordinary people less well off than before. (Four more years of The Frontline with Pat and his merry audience :eek: ) And each time knowing that there's worse to come next year.

Leo Varadkar proposes getting the worst out of the way in the next budget.

http://www.sbpost.ie/news/ireland/fine-gaels-varadkar-proposes-short-sharp-shock-for-budget-52186.html


I agree with him here. Sometimes it's best to get the bad news over with quickly.

Acting quickly would also reduce the amount of debt accumulated over the next four years. And by being proactive it should also reduce the rate of interest we're charged on our debt, especially if our deficit is more in line with countries like France rather than Greece. It would show the markets that we're in control of our economy.

I believe if our democratically elected politicians can't deal with the problems and make the hard choices, they leave the way open for outsiders like the EU and the IMF to come in and make cuts where they see fit. A much worse outcome IMHO.

What does everyone else think?

I am no fan of fianna fail and hate to show it but leo is simply stealing Ray McSharry's idea, This would be typical of Leo in my opinion. It is also why despite me not likeing enda i would rather him than leo.




Thursday October 07 2010

THEY don't call him 'Mac the Knife' for nothing. The man credited with restoring the public finances to health in the 1980s has no doubt that similar action is required now -- and then some.
As finance minister in Charlie Haughey's minority government, his actions helped coin a new economic nostrum -- expansionary fiscal correction -- where cutting the budget deficit appears, paradoxically, to encourage growth.
We could do with some of that now, although the existence of such a contradictory phenomenon is still a matter of debate among economists. Still, as MacSharry points out, in some ways things were even worse back then.
"Unemployment was 17pc, which is higher than it is now," he recalls. "The debt was 120pc of GDP, whereas it is about 98pc now, if you count the bank costs.
"Admittedly, the deficit is worse than the one I had to tackle, at 12pc of GDP, whereas mine was 8.6pc. The important thing, as far as I'm concerned, is that in a short period of time we were able to halve that debt burden to 62pc of GDP."
It went a lot lower after that, which was just as well, given our present predicament. Within four years of the start of the MacSharry surgery, the deficit was below what later became the eurozone's magic limit of 3pc of GDP.
The former minister is the first to admit that, in other ways, things are worse now than in 1987. He had significant EU transfers and a substantial fall in interest rates to help him turn things around.
"They do not apply now, so I am hoping and praying that world growth will turn out better than the current forecasts.
"I think the problems are more severe now. But I would be confident that we can overcome them and I would be positive about our prospects."
He and Haughey are also seen as the architects of the social partnership system. Despite -- or perhaps because of -- his support for partnership, MacSharry wants the Croke Park agreement revisited.
"The things which will have to be done for the foreseeable future cannot succeed without partnership involving all concerned, including the other political parties," he says.
"We did not have the full information we have now when Croke Park was signed. We need an agreement on a four-year budgetary profile and we cannot afford any delay. As the song says, delay is just another year older and deeper in debt."
It is time to draw the knife. First for the chop would be the dozens of government quangos; including, it seems, the biggest of them all, the HSE.
"I often wonder what government departments are doing at the moment. Look at the Department of Health, which seems to have no say in anything, while the HSE is spending €16bn a year.
"All these quangos should have their functions transferred back to the relevant departments. I believe that could be done quickly, despite what they say."
Jobs will have to go too. Despite taking on the work of the quangos, the public service will have to cut its numbers.
"There will have to be voluntary redundancies," MacSharry says.
"We are told it would cost too much, but they will have to find a way to pay for it.
"We must accept that we cannot afford the size of public service that we have now."
In real terms, MacSharry and Haughey would have earned half what Lenihan and Cowen are paid and the same is true for the senior civil servants who laboured with him during long nights, identifying savings. That, too, will have to be reversed.
"How can we justify paying our top people more than they do in the rest of Europe? I know there have been cuts already, but it will have to be accepted that more are needed."
That would include existing ministerial pensions, like MacSharry's own.
"I have no difficulty with that. Pensions cannot be immune if salaries are being cut, although I wouldn't touch the basic old age pension."
But not much else would escape his blade.
"There are only three big areas of spending -- health, education and social welfare -- and I believe there will have to be a 10pc cut in all these areas over the next two years.
"There will have to be serious implementation of the McCarthy report and, in present circumstances, McCarthy probably doesn't go far enough."
The budget gap is too big for everything to fall on the spending side. Taxes will have to rise, especially on higher earners, and there is a case for a property tax and water charges.
"I would support a higher top rate of tax, which would be more in line with other EU countries. We had water charges and property rates before and I'm sure their replacement will have to be considered -- indeed, it is being considered."
Isn't all this just a recipe for economic depression? MacSharry believes there is something in the expansionary fiscal correction idea and it can be made to work again.
"Why is consumer spending down? It's a lack of confidence. What you've got to do is tell people the truth and what you are going to do about it.
"I think the public is more ready for that than they were in 1987, when we had very big protest marches. People will be angry -- they are angry. They were led to believe that things were not as bad as they have turned out to be.
"Now that they know the truth, action can be taken. If you tell people what has to be done and what the objective is, they can work out that they will be 10pc worse off, or whatever it is, and they can adjust to that."
He reckons the markets will also respond favourably to a clear 'road map' and is therefore keen on the idea of a fairly detailed four-year budgetary plan. "It should be published, but with everyone involved," he says -- just days before Brian Cowen invited the opposition parties for discussions.
MacSharry benefited from the famous 'Tallaght Strategy' when Fine Gael leader Alan Dukes gave broad support to the fiscal correction.
But it was a minority government and Fine Gael had to weigh the pros and cons, for the country and themselves, of bringing down the Government in those circumstances.
MacSharry says: "The Tallaght Strategy was welcome because it gave us the opportunity to do what needed to be done. It is important now that all the political parties are realistic about the situation."
Just like 23 years ago, he fears that an election would create uncertainty about the fiscal situation, even though "everyone knows what needs to be done".
He hints at something even more radical than the Tallaght Strategy -- a 'Grand Coalition' of Fianna Fail and Fine Gael.
"About two-thirds of the electorate always vote for these two centrist parties. You then get coalitions towards the right, as with the PDs, or towards the left with Labour. But the bulk of the people favour the centre.
"The differences between Fianna Fail and Fine Gael were founded on the national question and, thank goodness, that is no longer the great issue. So there is no huge difference between them and some areas where they would support each other," he says.
While he believes the confidence generated by a coherent budgetary strategy will be the best stimulus for the economy, he thinks more can be done to encourage growth in the private sector.
In particular, he says, some way has to be found to ensure that credit is available for small and start-up companies. He fears that the new rules on bank capital from the Financial Regulator and the international authorities may be too severe.
"To restore growth, we have to have some flexibility on these capital ratios -- otherwise, there just won't be sufficient credit for good projects.
"Good start-up companies must have access to bank credit. They need that capital to get going and most will never be a burden to the banks."
There is also scope for growth and job creation from indigenous industries, such as agriculture and tourism. If costs are brought down, some of the many jobs which have been lost in manufacturing and services, like call centres, could be recovered, MacSharry believes.
"Companies like the ESB and other state organisations also have to play their part to play in bringing down the cost of doing business in Ireland."
The former agriculture commissioner still watches the implications of changes to the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Despite all the past failures, thousands of jobs in food processing and marketing could be created, he says.
"In my view, the indigenous sector has been neglected over the past decade."
He is also a former chairman of Ryanair and, not surprisingly, backs Michael O'Leary in his endless dispute with the aviation authorities.
"They should call in the chief executives of the airlines and say we will abolish airport charges if you can bring in an agreed numbers of passengers."
Irish Independent

[/COLOR][/COLOR]

rumour

ardmacha wrote: »

By starting with a falsehood, you've pretty much undermined your argument. .

I concede the statement isn't wholly accurate but if you are attempting a tactic to discredit what we all know to be true it is tiresome. There is owing money and there is going broke.Do you want to argue quantum and somehow make it relative?
Perhaps I should have siad no-one will give money to reckless Irish beggars to pay their bloated public service or feed their sense of entitlement. Tell me is that a falsehood?

ardmacha wrote: »

Would you choose, Romania or Latvia, places whose GNP per capita is less than half that of Ireland and where these wages are lower than unemployment payments in Ireland.

I was thinking lativa(40% reduction forced by IMF). But you have highlighted another problem that is increasingly obvious in the private sector. People, not all, but primarily Irish are better off on the dole, so they don't work, look at todays independent jobs are there!

There is a simple truth here

• money in = 31bn down 2bn from last year.
• money out =46bn down 1bn from last year

The thread is a short sharp shock. I propose the entire public sector live within their means next year. If 31bn comes in revenue that is what there is to spend. No more no less.

Then we can get busy paying back all the money we have borrowed in the last two years over a longer period of time. This is what we are being told by the commissioner and the trichet. It has to be credible. How will it be credible to the markets if we do not get our spending in line with what we earn.

ardmacha

I concede the statement isn't wholly accurate but if you are attempting a tactic to discredit what we all know to be true it is tiresome.

I don't wish to be tiresome, but Ireland's economic condition has had enough lazy analysis and this board has had enough rants with tenuous connection to the actual facts.

I was thinking lativa(40% reduction forced by IMF)

Latvian public sector wages have fallen and are lower than Ireland, but so are private sector wages in Latvia. It is quite proper that public and private sector wages are moving in step.

xavidub

Nothing like swingeing cuts to stimulate an economy :rolleyes:

A large proportion of the Public expenditure goes to private contractors. So they will be wiped out by cutting the expenditure to 31 billion. Many public services such as education will be demolished by this also so the full cost of training staff will be borne by the private sector. Not to mention infrastructure that won't be built. Any Public servant earning over about 40k next year will be paying around half their gross income in taxes and levies. So not only will this revenue be lost to the Govt but many of these PS workers will now be on the dole and those that aren't won't be spending much in their local shops. On top of which the million or so households that have a PS worker in them won't have a great deal of confidence in our economy.

Comparisons with Iceland are fatuous since they had the option of devaluing their currency, thereby making their exports cheaper and making imports dearer and making it dramatically cheaper to produce goods there. A course not available to us.

For every complex and difficult question there is a simple answer. And it's wrong.

ei.sdraob

xavidub wrote: »

Nothing like swingeing cuts to stimulate an economy :rolleyes:

Nothing like runaway debt and mounting debt repayments to strangle the economy :rolleyes:

Here is something for you to think about....

The Treaty of Versailles demanded that Germany pay €318bn in today's money. From a German population at the time of 58 million, this equates to €5,482 per person in today's money. If bank bailout costs are €50bn, then this will work out at €11,235 per head -- or more than twice the cost per head of the Treaty of Versailles to the average German.

xavidub

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Nothing like runaway debt and mounting debt repayments to strange the economy :rolleyes:

Here is something for you to think about....

We need a balance between paying down debt and maintaining economic activity.

As for the banks, our policy of bailing them out is wrong wrong wrong.

ei.sdraob

xavidub wrote: »

We need a balance between paying down debt and maintaining economic activity.
.

we do not have a choice, we are so deep in a debt hole, digging deeper for more shiny debt wont help

xavidub wrote: »

As for the banks, our policy of bailing them out is wrong wrong wrong.

tell me about it half of my posts must be about against these bloody banks and related shenanigans

P. Breathnach

ei.sdraob wrote: »

... tell me about it half of my posts must be about against these bloody banks and related shenanigans

I think I missed the other half.

Justin Collery

xavidub wrote: »

Any Public servant earning over about 40k next year will be paying around half their gross income in taxes and levies. So not only will this revenue be lost to the Govt

Hold on. If the money goes on taxes it is not lost to the government, it goes directly to them.

xavidub wrote: »

but many of these PS workers will now be on the dole

Doubt it.

xavidub wrote: »

and those that aren't won't be spending much in their local shops. On top of which the million or so households that have a PS worker in them won't have a great deal of confidence in our economy.

My favourite argument. Lets follow it to its logical conclusion. If we pay PS workers less they will have less confidence and will spend less in the local economy. That would be bad. We need to do something to improve the situation. We're in a hell of a bind, seeing as they are keeping us going lets double their wages, hell, why stop there? Lets triple them!

Rubbish. The average PS wage in Ireland, before taxes should be about 10% less than the EU average. We're a small open economy on the fringes of Europe, we need to be a bit more competitive. We need to work a little harder for a little less.

xavidub wrote: »

Comparisons with Iceland are fatuous since they had the option of devaluing their currency, thereby making their exports cheaper and making imports dearer and making it dramatically cheaper to produce goods there. A course not available to us.

Oh yes it is, and I have worse news, watch it happen. Its called an internal devaluation and we can do it over 1 year or 4 years. We all will have less purchasing power by the end of it, just as they have in Iceland. That will make imports relatively more expensive for us. Businesses do what they have to survive, or go bust. This means they paying less for everything, labour and government supplied services.

xavidub wrote: »

For every complex and difficult question there is a simple answer. And it's wrong.

Very difficult to get a person to understand something that is to their disadvantage. You percieve that a short sharp shock is to your disadvantage and refuse to believe it will work. It really is that simple I'm afraid. Spend less that you earn. Even for countries it is that simple. The quicker we do this the better we all will be, and I mean everybody, public, private, young and old.

Lets get on with it!

xavidub

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Nothing like runaway debt and mounting debt repayments to strangle the economy :rolleyes:

Here is something for you to think about....

We need a balance of both. And I don't agree with bailing out the banks at all.

andrew cross

ei.sdraob wrote: »

One just has to look at Iceland

they had a very quick and very sharp shock, but at least most of the things are behind them now

and as added bonus the government was replaced (imagine that!), people responsible are facing the law (imagine that too!), and a full investigation was taken quickly (we still dont know how bad the banks are).

our td pocket 2.3 millon expenses during their summer holidays, these blood suckersdo not know the meaning of sacrifice, they preach to us about economic pain but do they suffer???? like f*ck , they tell us about cutbacks, but they get their vouched and unvouched expenses , then we have lenihan and gormley wanting national goverment, its really good of you to tell us that now after your 12 weeks holidays youse ar a slimey bunch of money grabbing sh*ts :mad:

ei.sdraob

xavidub wrote: »

We need a balance of both. And I don't agree with bailing out the banks at all.

FYI 50 billion is how much we borrowed this year and last year to cover our deficit due to runaway welfare and public bills, banks are only one large problem in basket full of them

rumour

ardmacha wrote: »

It is quite proper that public and private sector wages are moving in step.

This is the core fundamental flaw in your analysis of how we rectify our problem. What is proper to one man may not be proper for another.

If for example I pay my taxes and have nothing left for a pension is it quite proper that you take my money to pay your pension?

Additionally what the state has the ability to raise set against what the economy is able to generate is linked, however I see no link between pay in the private sector to pay in the public sector in any pragmatic analysis.

Linking public sector pay to private sector pay is an incorrect means of establishing what we as a country can afford in my opinion. Government income is a direct function of private sector profitability (ability to make profit from trade with foreigners). What the individual in the private sector gets paid does not corellate with what the government can afford. Therefore what the public sector individual gets paid is not related either.

What the public sector employee earns is a societal question that can be answered after we establish what we can afford. To do so the other way around is flawed and becomes circular. I think that is all to evident now.

A basic rule....

money in = money out....

why not embrace the horror? it's coming at you with increased inevitability.

What the individual public sector employee gets paid largely i care not, they can divvy it up as they see fit.

However if they do not preform the task they are challenged with they need to be fired. Job security has been an experiment that has failed the state entirely.

Why do i include the last bit because it is via private sector tax that the government finances itself, I am a member of the private sector it is my money you are asking for. If you think it is your entitlement as is what happens when you provide job security, I suggest you will be re-educated in the coming months.

The alternative is of course to borrow provided someone will give it to you.

pavb2

Rates on houses (property tax taboo subject?) hasn't been mentioned.

I for one would take cuts in child benefit etc if I thought it would be for the greater good but the cynic/realist in me thinks why should I be prepared to suffer and do this to sustain/prop up wholly inefficient systems and organisations that are, have been and will continue to haemorrage money HSE,FAS,TD's,

feel free to add to list.