This crisis is NOT the result of government overspending and austerity WONT solve it

Tipp Man

jasonc5432 wrote: »

The above is correct.

But Liam's principle still stands.

Circa 200 euro for every man woman and child to unsecured bondholders of bonds bought on secondary markets is ludicrous.

Not arguing that they should have been paid

But when somebody presents numbers and is out by a factor of 1,000 times then it really needs to be highlighted

There is enough hysteria around as it is

ed2hands

Dr Galen wrote: »

So can further proof be provided?

http://www.socialistparty.net/economy/823-the-truth-about-irelands-super-rich-

Hayte

PRAF wrote: »

There is absolutely no doubt that some drastic reduction in spending is required. The appalling thing though is that it is the middle class that will likely pay most here (increased taxes, reduced services etc.). If 'austerity' continues to focus on this sector, our growth prospects will be severly limited and we will have a zombie domestic economy on our hands.

Nope. You can keep on cutting until theres nothing left and what you will end up with is...nothing. What Ireland desperately needs is economic growth to outpace debt but thats wishful thinking. You don't get revenues up from VAT receipts and government stamp duty by making everyone poorer with pay cuts, worse levels of public service etc. What tends to happen is that people horde what little money they have for bare essentials, do without things they don't absolutely need, rent instead of buy and spend their meagre pittance at Thomann instead of X Music.

K-9

jasonc5432 wrote: »

The above is correct.

But Liam's principle still stands.

Circa 200 euro for every man woman and child to unsecured bondholders of bonds bought on secondary markets is ludicrous.

Yes he is correct, ideally it would be great to save that and keep free milk and subsidised kids meals, we could still keep those things things and cut some of the stupid things with PS pay and SW schemes as well, or maybe do both. This and/or thing doesn't really help.

Okay, that's €200 a person saved, where do we get the remaining €4,000 a person needed over the next few years?

http://www.swp.ie/features/tax-dodges-rich/1708

That's April 09, 30 months out of date, referring to developers and all, read this to get a more recent update:

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/high-earners-only-forced-to-pay-at-least-20pc-tax-on-income-2835589.html

They are 2009 figures, in 2010 incomes over 400k have to pay 30% tax and that's expected to be extended.

K-9

Hayte wrote: »

Nope. You can keep on cutting until theres nothing left and what you will end up with is...nothing. What Ireland desperately needs is economic growth to outpace debt but thats wishful thinking. You don't get revenues up from VAT receipts and government stamp duty by making everyone poorer with pay cuts, worse levels of public service etc. What tends to happen is that people horde what little money they have for bare essentials, do without things they don't absolutely need, rent instead of buy and spend their meagre pittance at Thomann instead of X Music.

We tried the approach of bumping up VAT and Stamp Duty receipts by giving income tax and PRSI reductions to people to spend, it kind of resulted in where we are!

Hayte

Yeah you are right. You just have more money to spend at Thomann. Still its half a strategy that could work if Irish retail was even remotely competitive, as opposed to a austerity which definitely doesn't work.

V_Moth

Vincent Browne outlines how the government can significantly reduce the current deficit with a few simple taxes.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2011/1123/1224307997208.html

[I am looking forward to all the rage from the Ayn Rand - fanboy brigade :cool:]

Liam Byrne

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

No, Liam, they wouldn't, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, once-off payments to bondholders can't be factored against a recurring state deficit. Secondly, the state wouldn't have "saved" anything by not repaying the said bondholders — it would just not be borrowing quite as much as it had anticipated.
[/QUOTE]

Absolute and utter rubbish.

In actual fact, the fact that we wouldn't have to borrow money means that we would SAVE even more, because we'd be paying less interest.

The fact that we have to borrow it to pay it to people whose investments went down is IRRELEVANT.

I don't know where you get your warped ideas and definitions from - and that's not a dig : it's a serious comment.

And your repeated use of the word "populist" to dismiss opposing views to yours is getting extremely irritating and patronising.

It doesn't achieve your effect of discrediting and, personally speaking, if it's meant to refer to tabloid articles and similar media headlines, you're way off the mark, because I don't read either.

You have your beliefs and views on what's important and acceptable in life, and you're entitled to those - but there's no need to be so patronising and condescending and dismissive.

The money is being wasted, with no obligation to do so. If you rang one of your beloved corporations re an out-of-guarantee appliance, I'd love to see what response you'd get.

We would SAVE money if we didn't have to borrow to pay back debts that we had no hand, act or part in.

It's gas, actually - you claim that you oppose the guarantee, and yet on the other hand that would be irrelevant if you support paying back people with no guarantee.

Makes a laugh of your oppositIon to the guarantee, to be honest - what exactly are you opposing again ?

Liam Byrne

Tipp Man wrote: »

jasonc5432 wrote: »

The above is correct.

But Liam's principle still stands.

Circa 200 euro for every man woman and child to unsecured bondholders of bonds bought on secondary markets is ludicrous.

Not arguing that they should have been paid

But when somebody presents numbers and is out by a factor of 1,000 times then it really needs to be highlighted

There is enough hysteria around as it is

My fault completely - had been reading a thread re 80 billion in total and got the numbers muddled.

And that is the point - that figure is "only" :rolleyes: 750 million wasted out of a larger total that will be wasted.

I'd say something if it was our own debt, which obviously needs to be paid and cuts made, but between Anglo and NAMA and Quinn & just about every other self-important gob****e who gambled FAR too big and lost, it's farcical!

Everyone who kept their heads and didn't fall for the crap is being punished.

Everyone who didn't pay or have dealings with Anglo or Quinn is now paying more - ironically to them and their "investors".

Everyone who didn't invest unwisely is being tapped to pay those who did.

Meanwhile the likes of Quinn & Fitzpatrick STILL have more cash & assets than the rest of us will ever see, with us paying for them, and us paying wages to failed developers who couldn't manage their own projects and outlay sensibly but are somehow good enough to work for NAMA having already been bailed out and now getting paid silly money - they should be made work for FREE in return for their bailout, but no - suggestions like that are only good enough for interns and plebs on the dole! :mad:

I don't know what to call it, but it isn't justice, it isn't ethical, and it's about time we called a halt.

Soldie

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Absolute and utter rubbish.

In actual fact, the fact that we wouldn't have to borrow money means that we would SAVE even more, because we'd be paying less interest.

The fact that we have to borrow it to pay it to people whose investments went down is IRRELEVANT.

[....]

And your repeated use of the word "populist" to dismiss opposing views to yours is getting extremely irritating and patronising.

[...]

In fairness, it is populist to propose simplistic and ill-thought-out solutions to complex problems. You've repeatedly pointed out that there was no obligation to pay Anglo-Irish bondholders €750m last month, and you're right, there wasn't any legal obligation. Further to that, though, is the fact that not paying those bondholders was absolutely not without negative consequences, and this is something you have failed to acknowledge. It's really not as simple as you're suggesting, I'm afraid.

Chucky the tree

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Well, logically speaking they'd be saved 5% of the cuts and/or taxes, and when you're on "lower income" every little helps....that 5% could easily be the cost of a healthy meal for the kids.

Add in all of the other unnecessary spending and waste and you'd make a big difference.

But then, any such logical argument is unlikely to register with anyone who can dismiss the complete waste of €800 billion as not being useful.

You do realise that that's €200,000 for everyone in the country, right ? Money that those bondholders lost through their own decisions and which had nothing whatsoever to do with the vast majority of people who are being forced to foot the bill ?

When did I say it wasn't useful? Fact is we've a €16bn deficit and Jason posted some ways to reduced but only provided figures for one of his proposals. It's clear he can't back up what he says and the fact he's simply now decicded to completely ignore questions posed to him confirms that.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Liam Byrne

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

There you go again - I have no idea what "Joe Higgins style" involves, so please refrain from associating me with ANYONE - tabloids, populism or anyone else that you choose to look down your nose at.

Yes, Lenihan screwed us by linking us to failed so-called businesses.

But the FACT is that paying the unsecured and unguaranteed is NOTHING to do with that, because they are UNGUARANTEED.

Those who invest for a living KNOW that they can win, win big, break even, lose, or lose big.

When we "invest" with the likes of Irish Life, they have no issues telling us that our money is gone.....why ? Because we're just average Joe Soaps with no clout ?

I have no issue with people who pay their bills; I have an issue with those who don't.

And I have a SERIOUS issue with the low-lifes who expect us to foot THEIR bills.

Ironically those are the ones who were the biggest gamblers and who - somehow - still have their Ferraris and mansions and whatever else.

Don't twist that as begrudgery, mind - if they paid off their debts - ALL OF THEM - and still had those, then fair enough.

But paying them 200,000 a year to "advise" the crowd who were supposed to go after them for the other half of their loans ?

This country is a farce at this stage.

It's one thing the rich having power - it's another thing entirely where they pick out pockets.

I'll say it again : "The value of your investment may go down as well as up"

Only, it seems, if you're not well-heeled and well-connected.

Sickening

Liam Byrne

K-9 wrote: »

jasonc5432 wrote: »

The above is correct.

But Liam's principle still stands.

Circa 200 euro for every man woman and child to unsecured bondholders of bonds bought on secondary markets is ludicrous.

Yes he is correct, ideally it would be great to save that and keep free milk and subsidised kids meals

What ? We're talking about taxing working people and VAT increases and the like; don't try to imply that it's only a social welfare issue.

Social welfare is too high and abused too much, but again that's about cutting spending properly and fairly, not screwing decent people who find themselves out of a job through no fault of their own.

K-9

Liam Byrne wrote: »

What ? We're talking about taxing working people and VAT increases and the like; don't try to imply that it's only a social welfare issue.

Social welfare is too high and abused too much, but again that's about cutting spending properly and fairly, not screwing decent people who find themselves out of a job through no fault of their own.

Jaysus Liam.

Quote the whole paragraph, read, analyse and then rant!

That posts has nothing to do with what I posted.

Liam Byrne

K-9 wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

What ? We're talking about taxing working people and VAT increases and the like; don't try to imply that it's only a social welfare issue.

Social welfare is too high and abused too much, but again that's about cutting spending properly and fairly, not screwing decent people who find themselves out of a job through no fault of their own.

Jaysus Liam.

Quote the whole paragraph, read, analyse and then rant!

That posts has nothing to do with what I posted.

I appreciate that you went on to say what should be cut, and I agree.

But the reference to social welfare stuff was the wrong opener, as social welfare is way too generous and not means-tested.

As someone who is paying for every failed banker, politician, developer on top of paying for people who CHOSE to have kids, while fighting to make ends meet for myself despite lots of prudent choices, it does get on my wick, so apologies if I was a little full-on.

It seems that everyone wants something out of my pay packet - some on €200K a year and claiming €100K isn't "enough" - and doesn't care whether I have enough myself.

K-9

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I appreciate that you went on to say what should be cut, and I agree.

But the reference to social welfare stuff was the wrong opener, as social welfare is way too generous and not means-tested.

As someone who is paying for every failed banker, politician, developer on top of paying for people who CHOSE to have kids, while fighting to make ends meet for myself despite lots of prudent choices, it does get on my wick, so apologies if I was a little full-on.

It seems that everyone wants something out of my pay packet - some on €200K a year and claiming €100K isn't "enough" - and doesn't care whether I have enough myself.

Well seeing as you mentioned free meals for kids and emotionalised the debate, I just pointed out we can actually keep those meals for kids and cut areas of SW and PS pay expenditure, even with paying bondholders, or not, as it makes no difference.

This and/or type debate doesn't help things. The Back to School Allowance for under 4's is being ended, that'll save a few Million that'll mean less cuts somewhere else, stuff like that.

Tbh I don't really see your point. What opener should I have used?

I agree with the points about cutting massive wages previously, it just still leaves a huge shortfall to bridge. People ranting or throwing strops doesn't do anybody any good.

Suppose we could cut everybody over 100k by half and increase taxes on over 100k by 10%. Thing is, we'd be down money!

Liam Byrne

K-9 wrote: »

Well seeing as you mentioned free meals for kids and emotionalised the debate, I just pointed we can actually keep those meals for kids and cut areas of SW and PS pay expenditure, even with paying bondholders.

Huh ? Where did I do that ?

K-9

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Huh ? Where did I do that ?

Sorry:

the cost will be a healthy meal for a kid

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Liam Byrne

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

.....which is why FG will not be getting a vote from me again. They obviously prefer to bite the hand of those they're supposed to represent instead.

So, yes, we don't actually have "economic sovereignty" in these matters anymore. Why? Because of the stupid decisions of the reckless government that the Irish electorate put in office for 14 consecutive years. But we can't do anything about that now.

At least we agree in something.

Of course. That's what makes it exciting.

In fact, the biggest winners in the recent Anglo bondholder payout were those who "gambled" by buying the bonds for as low as 52 cents on the euro in the secondary markets. That was still a risk. If Ireland had repaid those bonds at 25 cents on the euro, those buyers would have lost significantly. As it stands, they made windfall profits.

Oh my good Jesus - you really know how to put a guy in a good mood, don't you ?

So not only did we have to fork out for that cesspit and let the original speculators off the hook, but some more of them made a killing ?

Where's the nearest ethical country ?

Or better still, where's the nearest socialist one ?

Liam Byrne

K-9 wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Huh ? Where did I do that ?

Sorry:

the cost will be a healthy meal for a kid

BIG difference, and that's why I was surprised that you brought in the social welfare angle and "free meals for kids", because I hadn't mentioned them at all.

I was on about the difference between someone paying for meals for their kids - the fiver being the difference between something healthy and cheap junk food.

Dr Galen

Liam Byrne wrote: »

.....which is why FG will not be getting a vote from me again. They obviously prefer to bite the hand of those they're supposed to represent instead.



At least we agree in something.



Oh my good Jesus - you really know how to put a guy in a good mood, don't you ?

So not only did we have to fork out for that cesspit and let the original speculators off the hook, but some more of them made a killing ?

Where's the nearest ethical country ?

Or better still, where's the nearest socialist one ?

be careful what you wish for Liam. I seem to remember our old friend Bertie once claiming to be a socialist.....

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Liam Byrne

Dr Galen wrote: »

be careful what you wish for Liam. I seem to remember our old friend Bertie once claiming to be a socialist.....

When looking for the truth I invert or reverse Ahern's statements.