How is my life going to change now?

Voltex

Post bail out..can anyone paint a picture of how this is going to effect day to day living for the typical middle income earner in Ireland with 2 young kids?

Myself and my wife both earn reasonable incomes in stable jobs and we have 2 young kids?

ei.sdraob

(alot) more tax, (even) less public services

I think one of the last few primetime's tried to make a breakdown, of course it will affect different people differently since circumstances change

Danbo!

Apart from burdening the country with debt for years, even tho according to cowen it's a lower % than the 80s, this is good news for deposits, at least in the short term, yeah?

Nolanger

It will be bad for a few years until we default. Then it will get really bad.

zig

I think the worrying thing about this whole situation, and is probably the main reason people are still being quite apathetic about is the fact that this will be a slow process of deterioration for the country.

What it means for you, is that over a period of time you will a degredation in services, you will find yourself with less spare change, being sort of 'broke' will become the norm. Your kids will have far far less opportunities than you ever did. The economy will be constantly sluggish, no serious growth, no stream of good news over a few years regarding jobs, people will get used to it though thats the sad thing. Itll be like the 70s and 80s but the difference the money will be going to pay back German banks as opposed to Sovereign debt.

jimmyw

Compulsory euthanasia over a certain age. Save on the pension bill:(;).

Cowen said default is not on

Mister men

The last two years will seem like glory day's compared to what's coming.

Festus

If you're a politician, civil servant, bank director or director\ senior manager in state\semi state employment you'll do just fine. No one in these postitions with salaries over 100,000 are going to fell much pain unless they have one of those ridulous mortgages that were sold recently or they have overstretched their credit lines.
If you're earning more than 250,000\300,000 you have nothing to worry about really unless you are a politican in which case just claim the pension and leave the country because we won't be abe to afford to protect you.

If you earn less than 100,000 and work for a private company things will be very very different. As already said more taxes, direct, indirect and hidden.

Essentially it will be like Michael O'Leary is running the country - hidden charges and taxes everywhere for no consumer benefit and most of the profit will go to paying the politicians and civil cervantes. The rest will go to repay debts.

Mena

Voltex wrote: »

Post bail out..can anyone paint a picture of how this is going to effect day to day living for the typical middle income earner in Ireland with 2 young kids?

Myself and my wife both earn reasonable incomes in stable jobs and we have 2 young kids?

You'll be ok. Some adjustments will of course have to be made, but we adapt. When I sold my house in SA we were at c. 19% interest rate and 45% unemployment. We adapt and move on.

zig

Mena wrote: »

You'll be ok. Some adjustments will of course have to be made, but we adapt. When I sold my house in SA we were at c. 19% interest rate and 45% unemployment. We adapt and move on.

Why what did you do after you sold your house? What I mean is, did you emigrate?

Mena

I did, but it was promotion based, not linked to the the appalling economy there.

My point is, some people are going on like this is the apocalypse, and the four horsemen have come calling. It's not. It's not great either, but the end of the world is certainly not here.

BeeDI

You won't have much trouble keeping up with the Jones's, as they will be extinct.

ArtSmart

It all depends on the banks - if these are the final figures. and if they can get back on track. we wont know that until a year or two. so until then, not too much will change.

BeeDI

Chopra on TV now. He has joined FF. Speaks just like Lenney. He says we are "pluckey".:eek:

MrMatisse

Surely this will depress the economy further and drive mortgage default rates higher creating a vicious circle.

WIZE

will all the bank directors and managers get their bonuses from the bailout money?

swampgas

Ignore the hysterical doom sayers.

We had many years of growth and have gotten used to our standards of living only ever going up. As a result, we have forgotten what it's like to tighten our belts a bit or even a lot. It's been a rude shock for those of us that have lost our jobs and taken pay cuts.

However, we are still living in *relative* prosperity compared to many of the 6 billion people on the planet, a bit of perspective would be appropriate.

We'll get through this, and before long I suspect we will be having a good laugh - at our own expense - about our *spectacular* fall from grace.

kippy

Well,
First off all we'll have to tear up the roads and send them back to Germany. Those motorways were one German invention we were only renting remember, we wont be able to afford them now.
We'll have to ship about 1/3 of our lakes as well as the shannon to France where they are short of rivers and lakes.
There's a strong chance (depends on whether the interest rate is 5.7 or 6.7) we'll have close the beaches and come up with some way of moving them to luxemburg. I think we lost access to the beaches when we signed up to this deal.
We'll have to cut upto 1/3 off the tallest 3 mountains we have.


Seriously, no one can really give you a definitive answer outside of:
You'r net pay is going to be substantially lower.

ArtSmart

BeeDI wrote: »

Chopra on TV now. He has joined FF. Speaks just like Lenney. He says we are "pluckey".:eek:

he cant pronounce his ph's. so they come out as pl's.

also he has problem with tenses, often using the present simple instead of the past particle. (ie ey instead of ed)

dory

Can someone give me a quick synopsis on why some people are saying life will be worse after the default?

So, we took the loan and will have to 'tighten our belts'. Then if we can't service the loan we default. How does life get so terrible? Kicked out of the EU???

Scofflaw

dory wrote: »

Can someone give me a quick synopsis on why some people are saying life will be worse after the default?

So, we took the loan and will have to 'tighten our belts'. Then if we can't service the loan we default. How does life get so terrible? Kicked out of the EU???

More a case of kicked out of the bond markets, and nobody willing to loan to us until we pay off all the debts. In the interim, the state could only afford what it took in as tax take - minus the amount it was saving up to pay off the creditors. Loss of foreign investment, because it makes no sense to invest in a country that may not pay you back - which means the tax base will shrink sharply. Economy would probably shrink - sharply at first, then more slowly, for several years until emigration balances the books.

Our choices at this point appear to be debt refinancing, debt restructuring, and debt repudiation. The last option is what I think a lot of people are thinking of as a 'default' - actually saying that we won't pay the debts ever. In that case, we probably would wind up leaving the euro, we wouldn't be able to re-enter the bond markets for maybe a decade, we'd have a currency that other people could afford to use for toilet paper, and the economy would shrink back to a size commensurate with our economic competence - some agricultural exports and a bit of tourism, rosy cheeked maidens dancing at the crossroads at emigration parties.

We wouldn't avoid economic meltdown by defaulting - we'd cause it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

whysomoody

Festus wrote: »

Essentially it will be like Michael O'Leary is running the country - hidden charges and taxes everywhere for no consumer benefit and most of the profit will go to paying the politicians and snivil cervantes. The rest will go to repay debts.

Ryanair make a profit though, I'd be dleighted if O'Leary was minster for Finance.

dory

Scofflaw wrote: »

More a case of kicked out of the bond markets, and nobody willing to loan to us until we pay off all the debts. In the interim, the state could only afford what it took in as tax take - minus the amount it was saving up to pay off the creditors. Loss of foreign investment, because it makes no sense to invest in a country that may not pay you back - which means the tax base will shrink sharply. Economy would probably shrink - sharply at first, then more slowly, for several years until emigration balances the books.

Our choices at this point appear to be debt refinancing, debt restructuring, and debt repudiation. The last option is what I think a lot of people are thinking of as a 'default' - actually saying that we won't pay the debts ever. In that case, we probably would wind up leaving the euro, we wouldn't be able to re-enter the bond markets for maybe a decade, we'd have a currency that other people could afford to use for toilet paper, and the economy would shrink back to a size commensurate with our economic competence - some agricultural exports and a bit of tourism, rosy cheeked maidens dancing at the crossroads at emigration parties.

We wouldn't avoid economic meltdown by defaulting - we'd cause it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Wow, thanks for that. I'd like to point out though that I think my post came across wrong. I wasn't saying, 'Sure how bad could it be?'
I was genuinely asking, because I haven't a clue.

kippy

whysomoody wrote: »

Ryanair make a profit though, I'd be dleighted if O'Leary was minster for Finance.

Did you not read the bit about profit?

Festus

whysomoody wrote: »

Ryanair make a profit though, I'd be dleighted if O'Leary was minster for Finance.

Ah yes, but how? It would appear that much of what shows on paper as profit is EU subsidy. With McGravey on board expect more of that. Plus bailout after bailout after bailout - oh, I need a bailout to offset the tax, oh, I need a bailout to offset the Aer Lingus share loses, oh I need a bailout to fund a porno... calendar

from the horses mouth - this is how to run the country - we'll charge you for breathing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJCuYNvrE8g&feature=player_embedded

zig

dory wrote: »

Wow, thanks for that. I'd like to point out though that I think my post came across wrong. I wasn't saying, 'Sure how bad could it be?'
I was genuinely asking, because I haven't a clue.

Dory, Scofflaws opinion is one opinion, I recommend you try and read as much as possible about the pros and cons of a default, or perhaps a default on certain debts that the tax payer didnt incur. There is lots of information on different threads here.
We have a deficit to eliminate anyway, defaulting would be hugely painful short term but would take the proverbial weight off our shoulders in the long run, that is MY opinion from the reading I have done.

But I guess this isnt the thread for the default argument.

Scofflaw

zig wrote: »

Dory, Scofflaws opinion is one opinion, I recommend you try and read as much as possible about the pros and cons of a default, or perhaps a default on certain debts that the tax payer didnt incur. There is lots of information on different threads here.
We have a deficit to eliminate anyway, defaulting would be hugely painful short term but would take the proverbial weight off our shoulders in the long run, that is MY opinion from the reading I have done.

But I guess this isnt the thread for the default argument.

That's a fair point - it is only opinion (as any forecast is), but it's based on the experience of Argentina. Argentina didn't repudiate their debts - they restructured them. They suffered immediate foreign investment flight, and had to impose capital controls to stop domestic capital fleeing as well. Their unemployment rates jumped massively, their economy shrank sharply, and for a couple of years 57% of the population was below the poverty line. Ten years later, they're still paying off debt, and they still can't issue bonds denominated in anything but pesos, at a rate of about 9.8% - and they had a huge amount of natural resources to trade their way out of debt with, whereas we have FDI companies and a bit of agriculture. Comparisons with Russia are equally apples and wombats:

Default, however, as we may yet discover the hard way, is not a risk-free option. The clever economists, who were citing defaults in countries such as Russia that apparently went terribly well, were not, when it came to plucky little Ireland, comparing like with like.

Russia could default for the very simple reason that if the bond-holders kicked up, it could turn off the gas pipeline and leave Europe to freeze.

We, in contrast, import our energy and it's hard to do that without a currency or a banking system.

A bit of debt restructuring is undoubtedly worth doing, and probably will get done, as long as it's not anywhere close to being describable as a default.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ardmacha

four horsemen have come calling

The four horsemen of the Apocalypse may not yet have arrived, but the Poxmen of the Horslips are playing the O2 next Saturday.

bryaner

I'm surprised Cowen didn't use the famine as a comparison today like he did the 80s, look things are better than 1845 up and at it..:rolleyes:

zig

Scofflaw wrote: »

A bit of debt restructuring is undoubtedly worth doing, and probably will get done, as long as it's not anywhere close to being describable as a default.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Fair enough, but could you describe what you exactly mean by debt restructuring, does this still involve paying back everything we "owe"?

zig

Scofflaw wrote: »

but it's based on the experience of Argentina. Argentina didn't repudiate their debts - they restructured them. They suffered immediate foreign investment flight, and had to impose capital controls to stop domestic capital fleeing as well. Their unemployment rates jumped massively, their economy shrank sharply, and for a couple of years 57% of the population was below the poverty line. Ten years later, they're still paying off debt, and they still can't issue bonds denominated in anything but pesos, at a rate of about 9.8% - and they had a huge amount of natural resources to trade their way out of debt with, whereas we have FDI companies and a bit of agriculture.

Just thought Id comment on this,
Firstly 'a bit of agriculture' is a bit of an understatement imo, also arent we not one of Englands biggest trading partners?
Also I think you paint a much worse picture here of Argentina, I just did a bit reading on Argentina economy stats on wiki:
A few things to note , sorry for the messy font, just copied and pasted. Keep in mind Argentina would have been a considered a 2nd world country already...


Population
below poverty line 13.9% (2009)

Unemployment 8.3% (March 2010)


Revenues US$87.6 billion (2009)

Expenses US$89.5 billion (2009)


Argentina attracted $3.4 billion in foreign direct investment (FDI) in 2006;[34] as a percent of GDP, this FDI volume was below the Latin American average. Current Kirchner Administration policies and difficulty in enforcing contractual obligations had been blamed for this modest performance.[35] A considerable improvement was recorded in 2007, however, when foreign nationals invested US$6.3 billion, and in 2009, despite an adverse international climate, around US$5 billion.[9]

Scofflaw

zig wrote: »

Just thought Id comment on this,
Firstly 'a bit of agriculture' is a bit of an understatement imo, also arent we not one of Englands biggest trading partners?
Also I think you paint a much worse picture here of Argentina, I just did a bit reading on Argentina economy stats on wiki:
A few things to note , sorry for the messy font, just copied and pasted. Keep in mind Argentina would have been a considered a 2nd world country already...


Population
below poverty line 13.9% (2009)

Unemployment 8.3% (March 2010)


Revenues US$87.6 billion (2009)

Expenses US$89.5 billion (2009)


Argentina attracted $3.4 billion in foreign direct investment (FDI) in 2006;[34] as a percent of GDP, this FDI volume was below the Latin American average. Current Kirchner Administration policies and difficulty in enforcing contractual obligations had been blamed for this modest performance.[35] A considerable improvement was recorded in 2007, however, when foreign nationals invested US$6.3 billion, and in 2009, despite an adverse international climate, around US$5 billion.[9]

In comparison, Ireland attracts, most years, between $10 and $20bn in FDI. Our total FDI stock is somewhere around $175bn. As a result, we are heavily reliant on FDI to an extent Argentina wasn't. FDI for them is 1-2% of GDP, whereas in our case it's about 10%+.

And as to the effects on the economy of a default - here's Argentina:



Here's us:



Assuming we actually want to continue as a first world nation and a trading economy, we have the choice of suffering the burden of debt while slowly growing our economy to compensate, or doing exactly the same with an initial massive drop in GDP and being unable to access credit. The only sensible reason for defaulting is that you literally can't pay your creditors anyway - either out of income or through refinancing.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ArtSmart

Sommers made the point there on The week in politics (an old, but true adage) that once you have money it's easier to borrow some at a good rate.

which is of course is the point behind all of this.

but everything depends on whether we've hit the bottom of the bank barrel - and i'm just not sure - but if we have - then this is doable.

ArtSmart

ArtSmart wrote: »

he cant pronounce his ph's. so they come out as pl's.

also he has problem with tenses, often using the present simple instead of the past particle. (ie ey instead of ed)

i thought this was quite funny. no?
WHERE'S MY THUMBS UPS!!!!

zig

Scofflaw wrote: »

In comparison, Ireland attracts, most years, between $10 and $20bn in FDI. Our total FDI stock is somewhere around $175bn. As a result, we are heavily reliant on FDI to an extent Argentina wasn't. FDI for them is 1-2% of GDP, whereas in our case it's about 10%+



Assuming we actually want to continue as a first world nation and a trading economy, we have the choice of suffering the burden of debt while slowly growing our economy to compensate, or doing exactly the same with an initial massive drop in GDP and being unable to access credit. The only sensible reason for defaulting is that you literally can't pay your creditors anyway - either out of income or through refinancing.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Your using those graphs as a tool to show the result of Argentinas default, whereas I could argue that the default was a result of that graph. I could then go and show how much of a sharp increase there was AFTER default.

Ok I hate quoting from Wiki, but its the only source I believes its quite reliable these days as a source, heres something worth reading ,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentina

Inflation dropped and GDP grew by one third in four years;[80] but external economic shocks and failures of the system diluted benefits, causing the economy to crumble slowly from 1995 until the collapse in 2001. That year and the next, the economy suffered its sharpest decline since 1930; by 2002, Argentina had defaulted on its debt, its GDP had shrunk, unemployment reached 25% and the peso had depreciated 70% after being devalued and floated.[80] In April 2010, Argentina offered to repay a majority of its almost $100 billion in loans from 2001. The economic minister Amado Boudou said that with the offer, the Argentine government hoped "to end the shame of 2001 once and for all."[85] In 2003 expansionary policies and commodity exports triggered a rebound in GDP. This trend has been largely maintained, creating millions of jobs and encouraging internal consumption. The socio-economic situation has been steadily improving and the economy grew around 9% annually for five consecutive years between 2003 and 2007 and 7% in 2008. Inflation, however, though officially hovering around 9% since 2006, has been privately estimated at over 15%,[86] becoming a contentious issue again. The urban income poverty rate has dropped to 18% as of mid-2008, a third of the peak level observed in 2002, though still above the level prior to 1976.[87][88] Income distribution, having improved since 2002, is still considerably unequal.[89][90]

I wont deny the shrink in our economy, I wont deny the slash in dole, the slash in public service spending. But some of this could be compensated with bilateral loans and inflation.I still reckon that we would have a very speedy recovery with a debt we could easily begin to manage while enjoying the benefits of economic recovery as opposed to being burden with heavy heavy debt and interest on that debt for most of my lifetime.

Scofflaw

zig wrote: »

Your using those graphs as a tool to show the result of Argentinas default, whereas I could argue that the default was a result of that graph. I could then go and show how much of a sharp increase there was AFTER default.

You could, but you'd also need to show why, given we're in a completely different position, it would make sense to do what they did.

zig wrote: »

Ok I hate quoting from Wiki, but its the only source I believes its quite reliable these days as a source, heres something worth reading ,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentina



I wont deny the shrink in our economy, I wont deny the slash in dole, the slash in public service spending. But some of this could be compensated with bilateral loans and inflation.I still reckon that we would have a very speedy recovery with a debt we could easily begin to manage while enjoying the benefits of economic recovery as opposed to being burden with heavy heavy debt and interest on that debt for most of my lifetime.

Have you looked at our export reliance on the FDI sector?

Exports|2000|2007|2008
Indigenous Manufacturing|7,579,242|9,872,937|10,007,755|8.1%
Indigenous Services|1,547,956|3,070,346|3,418,764|2.75%
Foreign Manufacturing|47,977,611|66,433,594|68,011,392|55%
Foreign Services|24,561,217|39,479,174|41,859,620|34%

If FDI companies leave Ireland, we don't have much of an export economy. That's why we protect the CT rate so obsessively - a 10% fall in FDI exports is a 9% fall in Irish exports.

As they say, to every complex problem there is an answer that is simple, obvious, and wrong. Default seems to be exactly that sort of answer to our problems.

cordially,
Scofflaw

th3 s1aught3r

ArtSmart wrote: »

but everything depends on whether we've hit the bottom of the bank barrel - and i'm just not sure - but if we have - then this is doable.

Indeed. That is the question. How many times now have we been given the final figure on the banking bailout ?

As for saying how it will affect peoples lives. I can only see many years of high taxes for the people of this country. In return for this we will most likely get (even) poorer public services. So overall pretty bleak

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Scofflaw

Irish people have never shied away from hard work when they have something to work for; and right now, we're tired of working to give our money to the black holes of the banks, the welfare system, and the public sector wage bill.

Having spent the last decade having those latter things provided virtually for free courtesy of the first one. The banks lent to people, people spent it on property, the government taxed property transactions to provide high levels of social spending and well-paid public sector work for a good proportion of the population without bothering anybody unduly by taxing their work. The problem is, the government was taxing the debt we were accumulating rather than the work we were doing - now they have to tax our actual work to pay for what we were having "for free" by virtue of having our debt-dependent spending taxed instead of our work, and everybody's moaning. The black hole in the banks didn't get there by itself - it's there because we were prepared to pay half a million to own a shoebox, and borrow to do it, while the government is in the hole because it realised that by taxing that borrowing instead of what we were earning, it could pretend we were able to get Berlin's social spending out of Boston's taxes.

Changing economic model entirely is indeed something that would change the picture - and without the various social supports currently provided through the government, I think we certainly would be in a position where we would see "services such as education and health care being provided through the free market". I don't even imagine that if Ireland's economy collapsed, there wouldn't be such services - the question has always been just how many people could actually afford them.

cordially,
Scofflaw

DWCommuter

Mena wrote: »

I did, but it was promotion based, not linked to the the appalling economy there.

My point is, some people are going on like this is the apocalypse, and the four horsemen have come calling. It's not. It's not great either, but the end of the world is certainly not here.

Compared to South Africa.

femur61

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Now that we have borrowed from the EU/IMF/UK will they not dictate how to spend our loan. Will they not enforce the down grading of pay for the politicians and high paid PS protected by the CPA. I do have a real issue with the power the unions have in this country so aplogise if I have harpered on before about the CPA. I read yesterday in the SINDO that indirectly it protects the pensions and inflated wages of the vast number of TD's.

My husbands work has just finished so he is off to bring kids to school, may get used to it.

Scofflaw

femur61 wrote: »

Now that we have borrowed from the EU/IMF/UK will they not dictate how to spend our loan. Will they not enforce the down grading of pay for the politicians and high paid PS protected by the CPA. I do have a real issue with the power the unions have in this country so aplogise if I have harpered on before about the CPA. I read yesterday in the SINDO that indirectly it protects the pensions and inflated wages of the vast number of TD's.

My husbands work has just finished so he is off to bring kids to school, may get used to it.

At this stage IMF/EU/EFSF/UK/Sweden/Denmark...but, no, they don't dictate policy on any sort of day to day basis - one makes an agreement with them, and that's the framework one then operates under. Again, any commercial refinancing arrangement would be subject to similar conditions - the refinancer doesn't take day to day control.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ei.sdraob

Scofflaw wrote: »

we have the choice of suffering the burden of debt while slowly growing our economy to compensat

There will be no growth @Scofflaw at the levels being forecast

all of the government growth figures were wildly optimistic and remain so (dint get me started on ESRI who are in alternate universe altogether), the figures are literary pulled out of their arses

all of the growths forecasts i seen are wildly optimistic and dont actually tell us where the growth is expected from, nothing NADA, there will be growth because they say there will be, I dont see much a growth in a country with so much debt at every single level, personal/company/country


I dont understand why you constantly buy all the figures that these liars release?
you still waiting on that NAMA rise of 10% from NOV 2009 level :rolleyes: considering the prices went 15% in the other direction since... despite all their forecasts.


how in gods name will we grow at such high rates when 20% of "projected" income will be spent on servicing interest alone, our GNP is still falling and GDP measure is a farce since it incorrectly measures this economy.

spurious

Bigger classes in school for your kids, less/no special needs help, so those kids with special learning, physical or language needs will be put in with the others in the bigger classes. Less subject and level choice for older class groups.

Longer waits for hospital treatments and services.

Higher taxes, charges, levies, 'contributions'.

DiscoStu

the figure of 20% of tax expenditure going to service the debt is a cynical accounting trick. by counting the 12.5 or so billion a year draw down from the national liquidity portion of the bailout means that they could prop up income sheet. take that away and you are approaching 40% of income going toward servicing costs. the 15billion that is set to be cut over the 4 year plan will be peanuts compared to what will be needed in expenditure cuts to balance the books once that portion is fully drawn down. think 2/3 of all spending being cut overnight once the fund is dry to avoid a full scale national default.

The entire welfare state, health, education, cheese programs, everything will be virtually dismantled. the whole social structure of this country is going to radically change on par with what the imf do everywhere else.

Festus

There will be a general election and we have to push the question on to the politicians as to how their lives and the lives of the 6 figure salaried civil servants are going to change.

If the politicians are not going to lead from the front and take 50% salary cuts, give up the perks and expenses then we must bring the country to a standstill until they do.

Of course they may unveil this as part of the forthcoming budget but I'm not holding my breath.

bipedalhumanoid

Here's what will happen.

One section of society will play the victim and spend their time crying into their pints about loss of sovereignty.

Another will overreact and flee the country.

Another will get angry and have a big whinge about how unfair it all is. This group might promote civil unrest and a general strike. They will do nothing productive to fix the problem and will make things worse. This group propose no usable solution to the situation, they're just going to jump up and down and shout a lot.

But how quickly we recover will depend entirely on the final group. Those of us who accept what has happened, seek out opportunities and actually do something to improve things. There are all sorts of opportunities that open up in times of recession. Find them, create them, do something useful.

Scofflaw

ei.sdraob wrote: »

There will be no growth @Scofflaw at the levels being forecast

all of the government growth figures were wildly optimistic and remain so (dint get me started on ESRI who are in alternate universe altogether), the figures are literary pulled out of their arses

all of the growths forecasts i seen are wildly optimistic and dont actually tell us where the growth is expected from, nothing NADA, there will be growth because they say there will be, I dont see much a growth in a country with so much debt at every single level, personal/company/country


I dont understand why you constantly buy all the figures that these liars release?
you still waiting on that NAMA rise of 10% from NOV 2009 level :rolleyes: considering the prices went 15% in the other direction since... despite all their forecasts.


how in gods name will we grow at such high rates when 20% of "projected" income will be spent on servicing interest alone, our GNP is still falling and GDP measure is a farce since it incorrectly measures this economy.

I'm not "buying" anybody's figures. I've said that GDP is predicted to grow - and indeed it is so predicted, by various non-government sources. You're predicting GNP will fall, as are various other people. Both are predictions, both are possible in the short term, but in the long term, while GDP and GNP aren't synonymous, they're not unrelated, either.

I certainly don't see growth in the next couple of years as likely, but we are talking about the longer term, not just the next couple of years - and if one wants to make the case that Ireland will be a basket case for at least a decade, one needs to make that case, not just assume that it will be so because one can see a large debt figure.

So currently, my view is that we will most likely see a recovery beginning in 2011-2012, with a downside risk that we won't - that's the current balance of predictions.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tellox

Seriously, it's not going to be that bad. Everyone's talking like this is the end times.

Yes, you'll be taxed more, and you might get a wage cut - as corp tax has been untouched, this should hopefully see the price of living drop over time. Not within the space of a few weeks mind, it'll be a slow drop until people are comfortable spending their reduced earnings.

Dole is likely to receive a cut back of 20 or 30 euro a week - as someone currently out of work, I can say this is pretty fair. Dole is meant to be for "surviving on", not living on.

Crime will probably rise a bit further - but it's been on the rise for the past while, to be fair. This is probably the worst aspect of the country having less money.

Pubs will have to get a lot more competitive to survive. While potentially damaging to the proprietors, this will be a positive for the consumers.

I can see the minimum wage being lower again to around 6.80 or so, to entice foreign companies to come back to us. Again, with a lowered corp tax, this should hopefully reflect a decent price of living. Right now, inflation is through the roof.

Banks will more than likely prosper. While I'd prefer to see them burn and rot for their sins, it'd be an unfortunate case of cutting off your nose to spite your face. The country can't survive without them. Hopefully, they'll learn how to manage themselves a little better. But that's unlikely.

I doubt we'll default - the Euro zone wouldn't let us, since we'd send the currency down the ****ter while we do so. With this in mind however, we really should've went looking for a much lower interest rate. 4% would've been more than fair.

The next 12-24 months will probably be the toughest, while the market is mostly scoping out whether or not we'll survive. If we can prove some sort of economic growth - any at all - the markets will have more confidence in us, and proper growth will hopefully begin in around 3-4 years.

And in fairness, if you think things are bad here, try heading off to the poorer nations of the world and living a few days in their shoes. If you've got a roof over your head and access to boards.ie, I can assume you also have food in your fridge and a source of drinkable water. If not, I suggest you re-evaluate your priorities in life.

sollar

Festus wrote: »

If you earn less than 100,000 and work for a private company things will be very very different. As already said more taxes, direct, indirect and hidden.

Public servants will have to pay these taxes also