What planet are they on ?

Liam Byrne

Moore McDowell is meant to be an economist, right ?

One of these people who knows irrelevant things like facts and how economies work ?

Then how come he claimed on tonight's Frontline that VAT was largely related to "optional" spending ?

Are clothes optional now?
Electricity & Heating?
Petrol to get to work?
Insurance?

Does something happen to people earning silly money that makes them ignore the facts and spout rubbish, ignoring the facts of life that their skewed opinions force onto others?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

spagboll

you'll still buy those things you mentioned (they aren't optional like you pointed out)

it's the optional things that will suffer, pints, eating out etc

Liam Byrne

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

See the word "largely" in that sentence?[/Quote]

That was my phrasing - the only thing he ACTUALLY mentioned was food, rated at 0%, trying to imply that essentials didn't have VAT.

Everything else that I mentioned is just as essential, but he completely glossed over that fact.

Chucky the tree

Liam Byrne wrote: »

That was my phrasing - the only thing he ACTUALLY mentioned was food, rated at 0%, trying to imply that essentials didn't have VAT.

Everything else that I mentioned is just as essential, but he completely glossed over that fact.

There is second hand clothes and public transport if running a car is so expensive.

BluntGuy

Chucky the tree wrote: »

There is second hand clothes and public transport if running a car is so expensive.

Second hand clothes perhaps, but public transport is an absolute joke even in Dublin - a situation that's not going to see drastic improvement now that the capital budget has been utterly mauled to help maintain current spending. While there is no entitlement to a car, and I would much rather see people use more environmentally friendly modes of transport to get to work, the reality is due to a decade of bungling (and indeed bungling before that) public transport is not a viable option to many people, even when theoretically it could be and should be.

That said the Dublin Bike scheme funding has been kept in tact, and is due to be expanded so that might help out a bit.

LaFlammeRouge

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Then how come he claimed on tonight's Frontline that VAT was largely related to "optional" spending ?

Are clothes optional now?
Electricity & Heating?
Petrol to get to work?
Insurance?

1. Buy Online
2. VAT at reduced rate
3. Cycle/bus
4. No VAT on insurance

jimmycrackcorm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Are clothes optional now?
Electricity & Heating?
Petrol to get to work?
Insurance?

Does something happen to people earning silly money that makes them ignore the facts and spout rubbish, ignoring the facts of life that their skewed opinions force onto others?

You've mentioned 4 items but your local Tescos has thousands of product lines. Your optional Vat choice there is a a brand name vs the Tesco variant for example.

Desire2

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Moore McDowell is meant to be an economist, right ?

One of these people who knows irrelevant things like facts and how economies work

Problem is the so called experts have no more idea what to do than an amoeba like the rest of us.

i consider my dogs opinion to be as valid as anybody else's at this stage.
it is not the people who have all the words that have all or any of the answers at this stage.

we crave for certainty from people we used to trust,if they were to be honest they would admit they have no idea what is going to happen next either.

Manach

Books have no VAT (so far).

Desire2

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

You've mentioned 4 items but your local Tescos has thousands of product lines.

Did you not notice that Tesco's own brands went way out of sight when they closed their stores to compete with cross-border shopping a few years ago jimmy?

their cheaper products often took hiring a private detective to discover what shelf they were hidden stocked on.

Chucky the tree

BluntGuy wrote: »

Second hand clothes perhaps, but public transport is an absolute joke even in Dublin - a situation that's not going to see drastic improvement now that the capital budget has been utterly mauled to help maintain current spending. While there is no entitlement to a car, and I would much rather see people use more environmentally friendly modes of transport to get to work, the reality is due to a decade of bungling (and indeed bungling before that) public transport is not a viable option to many people, even when theoretically it could be and should be.

That said the Dublin Bike scheme funding has been kept in tact, and is due to be expanded so that might help out a bit.

Depends what part of Dublin, but for the most part it's not that bad. There are much cheaper ways to get around Dublin than using a car.

thebman

Chucky the tree wrote: »

There is second hand clothes and public transport if running a car is so expensive.

There is no public transport in most of the country...

Matt Holck

spagboll wrote: »

you'll still buy those things you mentioned (they aren't optional like you pointed out)

it's the optional things that will suffer, pints, eating out etc

that all can't happen locally ?

Liam Byrne

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Are clothes optional now?
Electricity & Heating?
Petrol to get to work?
Insurance?

Does something happen to people earning silly money that makes them ignore the facts and spout rubbish, ignoring the facts of life that their skewed opinions force onto others?

You've mentioned 4 items but your local Tescos has thousands of product lines. Your optional Vat choice there is a a brand name vs the Tesco variant for example.

What does that have to so with anything?

Tesco still charges VAT on the cheaper items, making his comments that VAT primarily applies to non-essential items still ridiculous.

Liam Byrne

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

That was my phrasing - the only thing he ACTUALLY mentioned was food, rated at 0%, trying to imply that essentials didn't have VAT.

Everything else that I mentioned is just as essential, but he completely glossed over that fact.

There is second hand clothes and public transport if running a car is so expensive.

Check out the Seventh Directive re VAT on second-hand goods.

There is no public transport in much of the state. There's none here anyway, and that's 3 miles from the city centre. A car is not optional if you want to hold down a job.

hallelujajordan

A bit of a 'whinge-for-the-sake-of-it' thread . . As Permabear points out in Post #2 McDowell said largely optional spending and for the most part he is correct . .

Overall, if VAT increases the majority of us can choose to reduce our spend. . and reduce our exposure to the impact of the increase. . We may still have to fuel our car to get to work but we may be able to put off that new pair of jeans for a while . .

Tin Foil Hat

hallelujajordan wrote: »

A bit of a 'whinge-for-the-sake-of-it' thread . . As Permabear points out in Post #2 McDowell said largely optional spending and for the most part he is correct . .

Overall, if VAT increases the majority of us can choose to reduce our spend. . and reduce our exposure to the impact of the increase. . We may still have to fuel our car to get to work but we may be able to put off that new pair of jeans for a while . .

...thereby leading to less retail spending - leading to more job losses - leading to less spending again - leading to a vastly reduced VAT take and a larger live register.
Increasing VAT to 23% is such a funamentally retarded idea that I usually pinch myself when I hear it mentioned to make sure I'm not dreaming.

hallelujajordan

Tin Foil Hat wrote: »

...thereby leading to less retail spending - leading to more job losses - leading to less spending again - leading to a vastly reduced VAT take and a larger live register.
Increasing VAT to 23% is such a funamentally retarded idea that I usually pinch myself when I hear it mentioned to make sure I'm not dreaming.

'Vastly' reduced VAT take as a result of this increase. . really ? ? Is there any evidence that the VAT increase in the UK in January had this effect ? Is there any evidence that VAT reductions brought in by the previous government had this effect. . ?

Some people may spend less, others will be less impacted and will continue to spend at normal levels and there will be a net benefit to the exchequer . . This increase will disproportionately impact those who can afford more optional expenditure which is a good thing. . .

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote: »

A bit of a 'whinge-for-the-sake-of-it' thread . . As Permabear points out in Post #2 McDowell said largely optional spending and for the most part he is correct . .

:rolleyes: McDowell didn't say "largely" - a fact of which - if you bothered reading the thread - you'd be aware. When it is up on the RTE player you'll be able to see it for yourself.......although given the way you dived in without reading the thread, I'd be unsure whether you'd bother - why the uninformed leap in?

As for cutting spending and putting off buying new jeans - what if you have already put off buying the jeans in order to buy overpriced electricity or heating oil?

My fact stands - McDowell hasn't a clue about real life; that said, he's not alone considering the sense of self-importance of some in this country who want to keep their money-for-nothing and wouldn't know a fair & moral decision if it came with a name-tag.

hallelujajordan

Liam Byrne wrote: »

:rolleyes: McDowell didn't say "largely" - a fact of which - if you bothered reading the thread - you'd be aware. When it is up on the RTE player you'll be able to see it for yourself.......although given the way you dived in without reading the thread, I'd be unsure whether you'd bother - why the uninformed leap in?

I didn't see the show but I did read the thread and I was quoting your OP. .

Liam Byrne wrote:

Then how come he claimed on tonight's Frontline that VAT was largely related to "optional" spending ?

I assumed you were quoting him accurately ? ?

Liam Byrne wrote:

As for cutting spending and putting off buying new jeans - what if you have already put off buying the jeans in order to buy overpriced electricity or heating oil?

Then you put off buying the jeans a little longer. . it's still optional !

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

seamus

Liam Byrne wrote: »

A car is not optional if you want to hold down a job.

That depends on the job. 3 miles from the city centre? You'd walk that in less than an hour, cycle it in 15 minutes. There you go, car optional.

This comes up time and again, but Irish people have this ingrained idea that not only is a car a complete necessity, but a decent car is a complete necessity to live. Fine, some people have chosen to live in out-of-the-way places where commuting by any other means is mostly unfeasible, but that's not the case for the majority.
I have only vague memories of this now, and the same argument comes up here every now and again, but the fact is that only a minority of people actually use a car in the course of their daily business, and the vast majority of people commute distances which could easily be covered using alternative means. At least half of the country do not need to drive to work. They choose to, because it's the most convenient. For now.

So most of the opposition to vehicle costs on the "I have to get to work" basis, is usually people who just don't want to look into the alternatives. And no, I'm not going to debate the what-if case of Jimmy Joe living 50 miles from the backarse of nowhere who's got five kids going to 3 different schools and and a paraplegic wife who needs hospital treatment twice a week.

Most people would completely slash their motoring costs down to comparatively little if they explored realistic options, regardless of how uncomfortable they appear:

1. Sell the 05 car, buy a 95 car, look at bangernomics
2. Move from a 1.8L engine to a 1L engine. Insurance, tax and fuel win.
3. Do you really need two cars, or could you manage with one?
4. If the distance is less than 5km, make a conscious effort to not use the car.

But most people won't do this. They still want to be able to upgrade their car every five years, have a large-engined monster that's the "main" car, as well as the 1.2L runaround that's "mammy's car", and drive absolutely everywhere, all the time.
I think the question posed by the OP needs to be asked of these people.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Dr Galen

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

We also wouldn't have to worry about all those pensions, as many people would have died from boredom before retirement age :pac:

Liam Byrne

seamus wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Assuming that I'm working in the city centre, and ignoring a possible 25 mile commute.

seamus wrote: »

1. Sell the 05 car, buy a 95 car, look at bangernomics

Don't have a 05 car, despite the attempts to make taking out a loan to upgrade more appealing.

seamus wrote: »

2. Move from a 1.8L engine to a 1L engine. Insurance, tax and fuel win.

Don't have a 1.8L engine

seamus wrote: »

3. Do you really need two cars, or could you manage with one?

Don't have 2 cars.

seamus wrote: »

4. If the distance is less than 5km, make a conscious effort to not use the car.

Distance isn't less than 5km.

So of your 4 points, despite your attempt to imply that you were looking for the norm and not the extreme exception, not ONE of your 4 points is relevant in my case. This is the dismissive attitude that I was referring to - normal people trying to have a life are being shafted in order to fund the unsustainable lifestyles of those at both extremes of the spectrum, and it's sickening.

seamus wrote: »

I think the question posed by the OP needs to be asked of these people.

I think the question needs to be asked of the likes of McDowell as to what they think a typical person is.....they certainly have no idea what life they're imposing on people.

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

All of which I know well.

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Where did I argue that ? The discussion on Prime Time was related to yet another tax increase, and McDowell was wrong. Those are the facts.

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Again, a completely false claim in order to discredit my point. I believe no such thing.

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I have no idea what that has to do with the topic, and we actually agree on the above sentence. Who do you think is expecting "income for free, benefits for free" and "whining" every time they are asked to contribute ?

Some people are, but it certainly isn't me. My main objection to taxes is the fact that they are being wasted on failed greedy gamblers and people who don't view €100,000 as more than enough.

And when it comes to "benefits" from the state, the ones that are on €100,000+ paid for out of our taxes are just as bad, unfortunately they are the ones who whinge most and say that they'll emigrate to fictional well-paid jobs elsewhere......despite their inability to do much for a more-than-reasonable rate.

Chucky the tree

Tin Foil Hat wrote: »

...thereby leading to less retail spending - leading to more job losses - leading to less spending again - leading to a vastly reduced VAT take and a larger live register.
Increasing VAT to 23% is such a funamentally retarded idea that I usually pinch myself when I hear it mentioned to make sure I'm not dreaming.

I can't see many people not being able to afford an €0.40 for jeans.

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote: »

I didn't see the show but I did read the thread and I was quoting your OP. .

I had already refuted that claim by the time you posted, so I can't see how you had "read the thread".

hallelujajordan wrote: »

I assumed you were quoting him accurately ? ?

If I had quoted him directly then it would have been obvious. My choice of phrasing was down to my being reasonable since in his he had given one example - food - and I didn't want to be unfair and extrapolate incorrectly that he had this view across the board, since even one exception would have disproven my point.

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Then you put off buying the jeans a little longer. . it's still optional !

:rolleyes: OK - sure I'll put them off until someone arrests me for walking around naked, then ? :rolleyes:

Anyway, that's irrelevant to the topic; the FACT - and the whole point of the thread - is that VAT is charged on them, contrary to McDowell's implying that it (largely or otherwise) doesn't apply to "essentials".

Last time I looked, clothes were essential.

RichardAnd

On the issue of optional spending. Buying a few drinks or eating out might be
"optional", but let's not forget that spending in such areas supports jobs and distributes wealth. This is why tax is a double edge sword and also why taxing one's way out of recession is not going to work.

Also, the "optional" spending is also something that makes our journey through this onerous hike called life bearable. Sure, we can cut back and survive but really, is there not more to life?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

hallelujajordan

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Don't have a 05 car, despite the attempts to make taking out a loan to upgrade more appealing.

Don't have a 1.8L engine

Don't have 2 cars.


Distance isn't less than 5km.

So of your 4 points, despite your attempt to imply that you were looking for the norm and not the extreme exception, not ONE of your 4 points is relevant in my case. This is the dismissive attitude that I was referring to - normal people trying to have a life are being shafted in order to fund the unsustainable lifestyles of those at both extremes of the spectrum, and it's sickening.

Your fundamental assumption is that either this budget is all about you or that you are a typical punter. . I don't believe either is true.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Last time I looked, clothes were essential.

Clothes are essential . . 'New clothes' are not essential . . I do not believe anyone in this country will have to walk around naked because a 3% increase in VAT means they cant afford a new pair of jeans . . do you ? ?

Liam Byrne

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Well they are certainly speculators, and they refuse to accept their losses, making them greedy. I know that's a little simplistic, but there's truth in it.

"The value of your investment may go down as well as up" is a common caveat for all investments.

As for €100,000 being "more than enough" for a state salary — if the state is going to run enterprises such as banks and energy companies (which I don't agree they should be doing, btw) then they can't realistically expect the CEO of AIB to work for the same salary as a school principal. Simply, no banking executive worth his salt is going to accept a job as head of a major bank for €100,000.

A "major bank" ??? In Ireland ? You're joking me, right ?

And what other bankrupt company can afford to pay anyone ANYTHING ?

The ONLY reason that the state has to run the banks at this stage is because those running them were incapable of doing so - DESPITE half-a-million and more salaries.

People need to strike a balance between money and society in general, and that INCLUDES the likes of McDowell, bankers, politicians, libertarians and social welfare recipients.

Either that, or stop expecting us to foot the bill.

At the moment, they all seem to want it both ways.

If somewhere I'm working doesn't have cash to pay me - I'm hit.

If a bank or a bondholder or a politician doesn't have cash to do whatever the f**k they like - I'm hit.

It's pathetic.

jasonc5432

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Well they are certainly speculators, and they refuse to accept their losses, making them greedy. I know that's a little simplistic, but there's truth in it.

"The value of your investment may go down as well as up" is a common caveat for all investments.



A "major bank" ??? In Ireland ? You're joking me, right ?

And what other bankrupt company can afford to pay anyone ANYTHING ?

The ONLY reason that the state has to run the banks at this stage is because those running them were incapable of doing so - DESPITE half-a-million and more salaries.

People need to strike a balance between money and society in general, and that INCLUDES the likes of McDowell, bankers, politicians, libertarians and social welfare recipients.

Either that, or stop expecting us to foot the bill.

At the moment, they all seem to want it both ways.

If somewhere I'm working doesn't have cash to pay me - I'm hit.

If a bank or a bondholder or a politician doesn't have cash to do whatever the f**k they like - I'm hit.

It's pathetic.

Great post Liam

Dannyboy83

seamus wrote: »

Most people would completely slash their motoring costs down to comparatively little if they explored realistic options, regardless of how uncomfortable they appear:

1. Sell the 05 car, buy a 95 car, look at bangernomics

I've saved a fortune this year (in the hundreds of euro so far) by changing from a 00 to a '11.

How does going the reverse save you money?
In my experience, it doesn't. It costs you.

My road tax is currently 1/6th of what it was (although it's due to increase by over 50% shortly).
I have 3 years warranty/free servicing.

Merely counting the money I saved on repairs and maintenance - the idea that changing to an older car will save you money doesn't compute.

It also looks very sloppy when you're ringing up your manager every other week, explaining you'll be late because your banger didn't start.

Add to this the fact that most people driving a car with larger engines probably bought them during the Celtic Pyramid, the depreciation alone will render the idea unworkable imo.

2. Move from a 1.8L engine to a 1L engine. Insurance, tax and fuel win.

Agree with this.

I changed from a 1.9L to a 1L this year. (I would have changed earlier but couldn't afford to)

28 year old male with full NCB etc.
Insurance dropped by €6 per month.
Old Rate: €700 Fully comp
Current Rate: €620 Fully comp

Not amazing, but every little helps!

Tax appeared to be a major win, but the government are now reneging on this. (but this is Ireland - is anyone really surprised?).

Also, the government increased the tax on private health insurance to 11% anyway, so the money saved on car insurance was offset by the mandatory increase in private health insurance.
Back to square one in terms of Tax really.

Fuel has been the major win - ( altho fuel costs have risen and will rise again substantially due to Vat increases and Fuel levies from December, so while I may not actually "save" money, I certainly won't be as screwed by the state as I otherwise would have been. )
But reduced fuel costs would certainly be the major reason I would encourage anyone to change.

Obviously downgrading engine size is going to have a dramatic impact.
Coming forward to a more modern car will also have a significant impact (not going for a '95 banger)

3. Do you really need two cars, or could you manage with one?

Do both people work?
As said - if you live outside Dublin, then public transport is not a viable option for most of the country.

My partner uses it regularly if the weather is bad - otherwise she'll walk - but it adds at least an extra 1 hour to her travelling time approx if uses public transport. (We live in Cork City Suburbs, so she must get a bus to the central bus station, then another to the other side of the city! LOL).
It's also quite pricey for the service offered.

There is no public transport to facilitate her on her return journey.
I am not prepared to take the risk of letting a woman walk home alone after dark in Cork City.
So, while I agree a family doesn't need two cars, a family does need one.

Having a car in almost every urban area in Ireland is a necessity, not to mind rural areas.
The government do not take this into account.

4. If the distance is less than 5km, make a conscious effort to not use the car.

This is one that I always struggle with the most.

Given the astronomical rates that Irish people pay for Road Tax/Insurance et al., Irish people should be trying to squeeze every last bit of value out of it.

You pay through the nose just to get on the road.

If you are then leaving the car at home in favour of walking/cycling everywhere - you're better off just selling it entirely and stop wasting so much money on a "service" you don't use.

It's like saying - you can reduce costs by only using your sky subscription at weekends - you'll save on electricity.
True - but that ignores the fact you're still paying for the subscription the other 5 days of the week, that's a huge loss of money. Instead of paying €1 per day for 7 days usage, you're now paying €4 per day for 2 days usage.

But most people won't do this. They still want to be able to upgrade their car every five years, have a large-engined monster that's the "main" car, as well as the 1.2L runaround that's "mammy's car", and drive absolutely everywhere, all the time.
I think the question posed by the OP needs to be asked of these people.

I've kissed the monster car goodbye. It's too expensive in a country like this where you are frequently punished for success.

People drive absolutely everywhere all the time in Ireland, because there is no alternative.
I was in Lithuania and in Spain this year.
I never needed use a car once.
I never wanted to use a car once - it was more convenient to use the public transport. And cheaper.

You cannot criticize people in this country for depending so heavily on cars when there is no alternative.

Comparing us to other countries in Europe is Apples & Oranges in my experience.

jasonc5432

I have to say though, I think the reason Irish banks are underperforming is because the bonuses arent big enough.

If we paid the bankers bigger bonuses they'd do much better.

And if we made their basic salary several million they'd do even better again.

For an excellent example look at a major Irish bank named Anglo Irish Bank.

Try Nationwide too.

Oh wait, theres a few others.

The point is, if we pay bankers more money the banks do better. It's that simple. Empirical evidence proves it.

And all the right wingers who keep screaming about this should be applauded for their defense of this pillar of the banking system -- pay the banker more, the bank does better

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Clothes are essential . . 'New clothes' are not essential . . I do not believe anyone in this country will have to walk around naked because a 3% increase in VAT means they cant afford a new pair of jeans . . do you ? ?

Let's stop muddying the waters and go back to the point of the thread.

VAT is charged on essentials, and essentials does not simply include basic foodstuffs.

Tin Foil Hat

Chucky the tree wrote: »

I can't see many people not being able to afford an €0.40 for jeans.

Some will, some won't. In this case most probably would. Your example would be a price increase from €24.20 to €24.60. Unusual looking price tags for jeans, you might say. You'd be right, and there's a good reason for that - psycological pricing. This is the reason you see so many prices like €9.99, €5.95 or €19.99, and you rarely see price like €20.25 or €7.09
A pair of jeans costing €19.99 at 21% VAT will rise to €20.32 at 23% VAT.
Even though that is only 33c extra, it crosses a psycological barrier at €20 and is exatly the type of transaction that will be affected by a VAT increase. Even if retailers absorb the increase then the will also reduce projected extra VAT raised from that transaction.

Most posple have a finite amount of disposible income. So even those who choose to pay the extra will have less money to spent in the next shop.
That's before we get into cross border shopping or the affect in increase in out already high prices wull have on tourism.

Lenny admitted that the 0.5% increase a few years ago was a massive mistake.
I'm going to call it right now. 12 months from now Noonan will be scratching his baldy head trying to figure out why the VAT take was less than he forecast.

howamidifferent

Tin Foil Hat wrote: »

I'm going to call it right now. 12 months from now Noonan will be scratching his baldy head trying to figure out why the VAT take was less than he forecast.

Too true!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

seamus

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

I've saved a fortune this year (in the hundreds of euro so far) by changing from a 00 to a '11.

How does going the reverse save you money?
In my experience, it doesn't. It costs you.

Fair dues to you. But from reading your post, it would appear that the bulk of your savings have come from a reduction in tax and fuel, not repairs and maintenance. After all, I wouldn't expect to have any repair costs in an '11 car.
You also can't ignore depreciation. Your car's value will have dropped 20% by the time it's a year old, and about 10% per year after that. That's still a cost, even if it's intangible.

The concept behind bangernomics is that you're buying a vehicle which is cheap to run, that includes maintenance. If you find next year that you need to replace the clutch in your 2011 car, it'll probably cost the guts of €700 if you want to keep your warranty. Whereas a non-dealer mechanic will do the same for a '95 fiesta for €250.
With additional care and attention, there's no reason why an older car can't keep running smoothly. If you're late for work because your car keeps breaking down, it's because you haven't been paying enough attention to it The aim is to save money, so a little more inconvenience is necessary.

I accept the gist of your post - for the individual it's about achieving maximum savings for minimum inconvenience. But you also have to consider that for most people, trading up isn't an option either. Few people buy cars with cash, let alone new cars with cash. If the difference between an old car and a new car is €13,000, but you need to borrow that €13k to make up the difference, interest and repayments on the new car will cost multiples of the maintenance cost on the older car.

To keep on the topic, as Liam prompts, the issue is about VAT on essentials. But VAT has always been payable on petrol, therefore it's either not an essential, or people accept that it's OK to be subject to VAT, therefore there's no reason why it needs to be exempt from VAT rises.

To put it in context, a 2% VAT increase on your €1.50/l of petrol is about 2.5c.

If a car gets 8.5l per 100km and the driver does 16,000km per year (the average), that's an additional €34 per year they'll have to pay in VAT on their fuel. This extra cost can be offset by driving just 6km less per week over the year. For most people that means probably walking once to get the sunday papers rather than driving down. Or getting the chinese delivered rather than picking it up. If €34/year is an issue for someone, I'm sure they'd be more than happy to make this minimal change.

I'm all for watching out for putting people on the breadline, but scales need to be considered. A 2% increase on VAT is not going to lose anyone their job because they can't afford to drive anymore.

Desire2

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

since so much highlighting is going on,yes there was a time :pac:

So now you are taking issue with my description of AIB as a "major bank." Let's see -- New York Times: "Last week, the Irish government effectively nationalized a fourth major bank, Allied Irish, as required under the terms of its 67.5-billion-euro, or $89.1 billion, international bailout." So, the NYT calls it a "major bank," and yet you quibble.

You believe what you read in the papers.:eek:

If you really want to see a banking disaster, I would suggest putting banks under the control of people making €100,000 a year or less.

i agree with you on this but why are some of the worst minds in the Country STILL running our banks?

I'm a libertarian, and I've been perfectly consistent in my position throughout all of this. I want the government out of the economy. I don't want the government fleecing the taxpayer to run electricity companies, hospitals, forestries, banks, schools, or bus lines. I want a completely free economy with all services except policing and justice provided privately. So you can't accuse me of "wanting it both ways."

i would never have guessed that you are a Libertarian Permabear! but as a matter of interest,why are you a Mod when by definition the word means as little interference by the powers that be in others lives?:pac::D

Liam Byrne

seamus wrote: »

To keep on the topic, as Liam prompts, the issue is about VAT on essentials. But VAT has always been payable on petrol, therefore it's either not an essential, or people accept that it's OK to be subject to VAT, therefore there's no reason why it needs to be exempt from VAT rises.

I never said it had to be exempt (although it should be a fixed amount instead of the percentage, since they are AUTOMATICALLY getting 50% extra now than when petrol was 95c a litre)

I am just pointing out that a so-called "expert" who defends €100,000 a year hasn't got a clue!

seamus wrote: »

If a car gets 8.5l per 100km and the driver does 16,000km per year (the average), that's an additional €34 per year they'll have to pay in VAT on their fuel. This extra cost can be offset by driving just 6km less per week over the year. For most people that means probably walking once to get the sunday papers rather than driving down. Or getting the chinese delivered rather than picking it up. If €34/year is an issue for someone, I'm sure they'd be more than happy to make this minimal change.

Hmmm.....haven't bought a Sunday paper in years (they're tripe) and you do know that - assuming you can afford a Chinese once the extra unfair taxes are imposed - takeaways charge for delivery ?

seamus wrote: »

I'm all for watching out for putting people on the breadline, but scales need to be considered. A 2% increase on VAT is not going to lose anyone their job because they can't afford to drive anymore.

A 2% increase in VAT hits poorer people MUCH, MUCH HARDER - they have no choice but to pay out their income (no margin for saving) and the percentage of their income that is taken from them is far greater than someone on silly money.

€16K per year means that your car tax is 2% of your TOTAL INCOME, your TV licence is 1% of your income, and your property tax and water charges will also make up another minimum 2%......that's a direct 5% of your income gone RIGHT THERE.

Someone who's on €160K, on the other hand, those amount to less than one percent of their income, even allowing for the 50% that's gone in tax and supposedly makes them unlikely to work for less than €500 a day.

Liam Byrne

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Ah yes - and look what happened when we stopped regulating.....private enterprise's greed took over and ran them into the ground.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

RELATIVELY speaking (i.e. within Ireland) yes.....in proper international terms, no (mind you, I wouldn't even call it a bank).

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Don't go there. Seriously. Idiots that lost a couple of hundred billion are going to ensure that you lose that argument.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

OK - so (aside from the bailout, which is a separate issue regarding the stupidity of well-paid greedy politicians) explain to me why the lack of regulation resulted in well-paid greedy idiots making a complete balls of everything ?

Permabear wrote: »

You're the one who keeps clamoring on about "society in general." But when the government claims that it needs to pay exorbitant social welfare rates or cave in to the Croke Park Agreement or keep the banks open at any cost because to do otherwise would be to the detriment of "society in general," you are impaled on the horns of your own illogical position — because politicians will always claim that their actions are in the public interest.

Politicians can claim what they like. I don't believe them. The fact that the rates and wages are exorbitant is indicative of pure greed, and I don't support that in any shape or form.

So my point is logical, it's the implementation of it by screwing ordinary people to the point where working (in Ireland) is almost no longer worth it to ensure that already-loaded people are protected from their crap decisions that I object to.

In fact, you're the one who supports the paying of silly money to the bankers.

Suryavarman

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Ah yes - and look what happened when we stopped regulating.....private enterprise's greed took over and ran them into the ground.

OK - so (aside from the bailout, which is a separate issue regarding the stupidity of well-paid greedy politicians) explain to me why the lack of regulation resulted in well-paid greedy idiots making a complete balls of everything ?

Would you like to give an example of a regulation that was repealed that could have stopped this mess?

Liam Byrne

Suryavarman wrote: »

Would you like to give an example of a regulation that was repealed that could have stopped this mess?

It wasn't repealed - it was just ignored by both companies (or more specifically, "certain" outfits like Quinn & Anglo), by an "appointed because he was my friend" so-called "regulator", and by politicians who wanted to buy the next election and believed their delusion.

Desire2

Suryavarman wrote: »

Would you like to give an example of a regulation that was repealed that could have stopped this mess?

Hi Suryarvaman,
Regulators were meant to regulate,they patently did not within the Banking sector.
They did not do their job,as a result we are almost on the Eve of destruction.
how can they,their political masters or anybody be cut any slack over this.
If i stole tin of beans tomorrow i would end up in Mountjoy.

The Bankers abused their power,the regulators were either not up to the job or were willing to turn the blind eye.

Incompetent or corrupt there is little in between for them to hide behind.

Suryavarman

Liam Byrne wrote: »

It wasn't repealed - it was just ignored by both companies (or more specifically, "certain" outfits like Quinn & Anglo), by an "appointed because he was my friend" so-called "regulator", and by politicians who wanted to buy the next election and believed their delusion.

Which regulation was ignored that would have prevented the crisis then?

R P McMurphy

Suryavarman wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

It wasn't repealed - it was just ignored by both companies (or more specifically, "certain" outfits like Quinn & Anglo), by an "appointed because he was my friend" so-called "regulator", and by politicians who wanted to buy the next election and believed their delusion.

Which regulation was ignored that would have prevented the crisis then?

The point is that the regulator should have kept a reign on the amount of capital Irish banks were borrowing on the international markets. Similar to how insurance companies function, the banks should have had a percentage assets to cover liabilities. Rolling over debt is fine in a period of sustained growth but the model was broken once reserves meant nothing. The regulator did little to nothing. If I remember correctly around 2004 the Swedish government argued we should be putting in place counter cyclical policies. Instead of this regulation was non existant.

hallelujajordan

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Let's stop muddying the waters and go back to the point of the thread.

VAT is charged on essentials, and essentials does not simply include basic foodstuffs.

I'm certainly not muddying the waters . . just responding to your ridiculous suggestion that someone may have to walk around naked because they cannot afford a new pair of jeans due to the proposed VAT increase :rolleyes:

Lets go back to "the point of the thread" .. you mentioned 4 different items that you believe are 'essentials' and where the VAT increase will have a damaging effect . .

- Clothes . . I think we have established that new clothes are optional. You could argue that childrens clothes are essential as they will grow out of their clothes but childrens clothes are VAT free
- Electicity and Heating . . are actually charged at the lower rate of VAT (13.5%) and unlikely to be impacted by any proposed increase
- Petrol to go to work . . I think others have dealt with this pretty comprehensively and demonstrated how this cost can be offset by using the car a little less often
- Insurance . . As mentioned earlier in the thread, insurance is VAT free.

Like I said in the beginning, a thread with no other purpose than to have a whinge.

Suryavarman

R P McMurphy wrote: »

The point is that the regulator should have kept a reign on the amount of capital Irish banks were borrowing on the international markets. Similar to how insurance companies function, the banks should have had a percentage assets to cover liabilities. Rolling over debt is fine in a period of sustained growth but the model was broken once reserves meant nothing. The regulator did little to nothing. If I remember correctly around 2004 the Swedish government argued we should be putting in place counter cyclical policies. Instead of this regulation was non existant.

If they kept a reign on what Irish banks were borrowing then where would all the money the ECB was printing have gone? Maybe the regulators wanted Irish banks to borrow all that money and may have even pressured the banks into borrowing that money.

Desire2

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Like I said in the beginning, a thread with no other purpose than to have a whinge.

Amazing then that so many people responded.

The reason there is no VAT on Childrens footware is that the late Jim Kemmy brought down Garret Fitzgeralds Govt when John Bruton tried to introduce it in a budget.
that was a previous recession,i thank some kind of a higher power that FG never received a majority or there would not be even a trace left of compassion in Irish Society.( mind you M Thatcher claimed "there is no such thing as society)

since when did objecting to what is going on in your Country become "Whinging"?