2011 Exchequer Returns are published

Godge

http://www.finance.gov.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=7114

The Department of Finance statement is above. Looking at the core deficit (excluding bank stuff), the deficit decreased by €2.75 billion.

Other major points include:

- Tax revenue rose for the first time in three years by 7.2%
- Expenditure fell again by 1.6%
- Tax revenue was lower than target by nearly €900m mostly due to the slowdown in the second year.

http://www.finance.gov.ie/

Other documents can be accessed from the main statement above.


From my own quick perusal of some of the detailed documents, one thing stood out for me. Almost all Government Departments saw a reduction in expenditure including Education despite the large increase in student numbers at all levels. Social Protection was one of the three Departments to see an increase (1%) which again is a good performance given the increased number of claimants. Taoiseachs Dept. saw an increase of 7% but this may be technical due to the allocation of some functions and staff from the Department of Foreign Affairs (somebody with insider knowledge or a reference may be able to confirm this but it is something I recall reading about earlier in the year)

But the one Department which didn't perform was Health. Expenditure increased by 11% in the Department of Health. Incredible. Two questions I have:

(1)What can we do with the Health Service?
(2)Is the Croke Park Agreement delivering some results everywhere except Health as it seems that outside of Health and Social Protection, expenditure was down quite significantly (except maybe Justice as well because expenditure was flat there)?

It would seem to me that expedniture priorities should be for reforms that deliver savings in the Health and Justice areas and further savings in the Social Protection Bill.

doc_17

5 austerity budgets in a row and we're still 24bil in the red?

Progress?:rolleyes:

BornToKill

doc_17 wrote: »

5 austerity budgets in a row and we're still 24bil in the red?

Progress?:rolleyes:

That's not €24bn in the red though. It's €24bn for last year alone.

Gumbo

doc_17 wrote: »

5 austerity budgets in a row and we're still 24bil in the red?

Progress?:rolleyes:

BornToKill wrote: »

That's not €24bn in the red though. It's €24bn for last year alone.

Doesnt help when it :

includes a €7.6bn bank recapitalisation bill.

woodoo

doc_17 wrote: »

5 austerity budgets in a row and we're still 24bil in the red?

Progress?:rolleyes:

David McWilliams has said time and time again that austerity doesn't work.

Head The Wall

kceire wrote: »

Doesnt help when it :

You left out a Billion (Nearly Kevin Cardiff Territory)

There was some €7.6 billion in once-off Exchequer payments related to July’s recapitalisation of the banking sector, €¼ billion in credit union funding but also €1 billion in receipts from the sale of part of the State’s shareholding in Bank of Ireland. Together, these give a “Net Bank/Credit Union Support Adjuster” of –€6.8 billion.

woodoo wrote: »

David McWilliams has said time and time again that austerity doesn't work.

What do you recommend so wise one, maybe you have some other solution to us being at 2003 tax take and 2008 spending levels.

BornToKill

Head The Wall wrote: »

You left out a Billion

Though you can add that back in again, and a good deal more besides, by factoring in the interest paid on the money borrowed to give to the banks, plus payments on the promissory notes and also the interest foregone and opportunity cost of handing over the National Pension Reserve Fund money.

BornToKill

woodoo wrote: »

David McWilliams has said time and time again that austerity doesn't work.

David McWilliams said a blanket bank guarantee was a good idea. He doesn't mention that so much nowadays.

Godge

doc_17 wrote: »

5 austerity budgets in a row and we're still 24bil in the red?

Progress?:rolleyes:

The austerity budgets are designed to address the structural budget deficit.

That figure is down from 18.019 bn to 15.282 bn.

The banking numbers are one-off and will not be repeated.

Will the people out there criticising the total budget deficit of €24 bn be singing Michael Noonan's praises if he gets it to €12 bn this year? I think not, as some people are nver happy, so let's be consistent. Exclude the bank figures and watch the structural deficit.

Bullseye1

This really has not been put across well by the government that there will be a significant drop this year. As you say some people just see that 24 billion and think will this ever end.

woodoo

Head The Wall wrote: »

What do you recommend so wise one, maybe you have some other solution to us being at 2003 tax take and 2008 spending levels.

We aren't at 2008 spending levels.

K-9

Bullseye1 wrote: »

This really has not been put across well by the government that there will be a significant drop this year. As you say some people just see that 24 billion and think will this ever end.

It would be unfair if they do get it to €12 Billion and they say they halved it. I'd say you might well be pointing out how incorrect that was.

I've my doubts about the target this year, accounting tricks played a part in the higher revenues last year, plus as the IMF/EU pointed out, there's no soft options left with expenditure, capital expenditure is cut to the bone.

Taxi Drivers

woodoo wrote: »

David McWilliams has said time and time again that austerity doesn't work.

Who said this?

"The only option is to guarantee 100 per cent of all depositors/creditors in the Irish banking system. This guarantee does not extend to shareholders who will have to live with the losses they have suffered. However, it applies to everyone else."

"The beauty of guaranteeing deposits is that you use no money - not a penny. Instead, the government is using its sovereign credit as the country with Europe’s lowest debt/GDP level to restore confidence in the system. The civil service view appears to be that such a guarantee would subject Ireland to the risk that people withdraw money, disbelieving the state."

''But this would not happen. Some €350 billion of the total €500 billion is held by Irish people, so we won’t move our cash. In addition, the €150 billion owned by foreigners would simply become like an Irish government paper."

Paarthurnax

doc_17 wrote: »

5 austerity budgets in a row and we're still 24bil in the red?

Progress?:rolleyes:

I was think along the same lines. How much debt will we be in after another 10 years of the same!

Dannyboy83

Paarthurnax wrote: »

I was think along the same lines. How much debt will we be in after another 10 years of the same!

Don't think we'd get that far, we'd bleed to death first.

http://www.financedublin.com/pdfs/GG_debt_NTMA_note_May_2011.pdf
1. Based on Department of Finance forecasts for the Exchequer
deficit as set out in the recently published Ireland - Stability Programme Update (SPU 2) and projected interest costs from the NTMA, General Government debt is forecast to reach €203bn by 2015

I see it as kind of mute tho; The Croke Park Agreement will be smashed either this year or next year, and social welfare reform will come with it.
That's the only way out.
That or bleed to death.

Head The Wall

woodoo wrote: »

We aren't at 2008 spending levels.

A slight correction so, not that it'll make much difference.

We are currently spending 45.7 billion in 2011 and in "2007" we spent 44.7 billion.

We are currently taking in 34 billion in 2011 and in 2003 we spent 33.1 billion.

The real problem though is that in 2003 we spent 28 billion to run the country and now its costing us 45.7 billion, thats around a 60% increase.

I'm still interested to hear your solution to solve the deficit

doc_17

Forget about the cost of running the country for a second( stupid I know ).

What was the cost of servicing the national debt in 2003 I wonder? Compare that to the 7 billion it will be next year and that's where our problems lie and is why the deficit is not coming down fast enough.

waster81

Head The Wall wrote: »

A slight correction so, not that it'll make much difference.

We are currently spending 45.7 billion in 2011 and in "2007" we spent 44.7 billion.

We are currently taking in 34 billion in 2011 and in 2003 we spent 33.1 billion.

The real problem though is that in 2003 we spent 28 billion to run the country and now its costing us 45.7 billion, thats around a 60% increase.

I'm still interested to hear your solution to solve the deficit

Hopefully the private sector wont #uck us over again and land us in the situation we are

Spending billions more on social welfare because of the banking and property sector

Spending billions more on health because people are getting older, more people not looking after their own health

Spending billions more on education because we are educating more people

Icepick

doc_17 wrote: »

Forget about the cost of running the country for a second( stupid I know ).

What was the cost of servicing the national debt in 2003 I wonder? Compare that to the 7 billion it will be next year and that's where our problems lie and is why the deficit is not coming down fast enough.

It was 2,7 billion in '03.

But social protection bill was 10.5 in '03 and it's 20.5 this year.

woodoo

Icepick wrote: »

It was 2,7 billion in '03.

But social protection bill was 10.5 in '03 and it's 20.5 this year.

10 billion increase in social welfare and a 4.3 billion increase in interest payments. Thats 14.3 billion. Without that we would be doing just fine.

But of course some people just love to blame the public sector.

Head The Wall

waster81 wrote: »

Hopefully the private sector wont #uck us over again and land us in the situation we are

Spending billions more on social welfare because of the banking and property sector

All overseen and sanctioned by politicians and Public sector workers and all their unions who were too busy with their noses in the trough.

waster81 wrote: »

Spending billions more on health because people are getting older, more people not looking after their own health

People are getting older, well I never :eek: There has been billions more spent on health and it's questionable as to what has been achieved/received for it.

woodoo wrote: »

10 billion increase in social welfare and a 4.3 billion increase in interest payments. Thats 14.3 billion. Without that we would be doing just fine.

But of course some people just love to blame the public sector.

Some morons seem to believe that the Public sector had nothing to do with the situation Ireland is in.

Godge

K-9 wrote: »

It would be unfair if they do get it to €12 Billion and they say they halved it. I'd say you might well be pointing out how incorrect that was.

I've my doubts about the target this year, accounting tricks played a part in the higher revenues last year, plus as the IMF/EU pointed out, there's no soft options left with expenditure, capital expenditure is cut to the bone.

I think you are wrong about the accounting tricks. In fact, if I recall from the documents, one of the explanations for the tax shortfall in 2011 was that corporation tax (about €261m?) paid in December was held over to be included in the 2012 accounts.

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/2011-tax-take-up-euro23bn-but-below-government-targets-2980005.html


Furthermore, there is the latest on the tax-avoiding pensioners who have been getting away for years without paying their tax.

http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/pensions/revenue-to-tax-pensioners-with-a-second-pension-2981768.html

115,000 pensioners with up to €8,000 extra tax? Assume the 115,000 is an exaggeration and the €8,000 is also over the top. 100,000 at €2,000 is an extra €200m that the government would not have budgeted for and that €200m will be incorporated into the revenues for future years. If the Revenue goes after the last five years, that would also help.

As both of these are post-budget events, that is €461m towards any hole in the budget. A significant amount.

Godge

woodoo wrote: »

10 billion increase in social welfare and a 4.3 billion increase in interest payments. Thats 14.3 billion. Without that we would be doing just fine.

But of course some people just love to blame the public sector.

We could all indulge in generalities and say it is all the fault of the public sector, it is all the fault of the private sector, it is all the fault of social welfare etc. etc.

It would be much better if people got off their high horses and delved a bit deeper into the figures. I pointed out in the OP that most Government Departments managed to cut expenditure in 2011, some of them like education while under huge pressure in respect of services. But sticking out like a sore thumb is the Department of Health which had an 11% increase. What is the reason for that? So not blaming all the public sector but asking a very reasonable question as to why the Health Service is so bad at generating savings.

K-9

Godge wrote: »

I think you are wrong about the accounting tricks. In fact, if I recall from the documents, one of the explanations for the tax shortfall in 2011 was that corporation tax (about €261m?) paid in December was held over to be included in the 2012 accounts.

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/2011-tax-take-up-euro23bn-but-below-government-targets-2980005.html

Well I assume that happens every year but anyway:

Economic Incentives: Tax returns flatter to deceive

A big reason Income tax is up is the abolition of the health levy which was treated as a Dept. of Health income stream, not a tax receipt. So a good part of the USC receipts would previously not have been included as tax revenue at all. I assume Dept. of Health revenue will see a big drop in income as a result, €2 Billion in 2010.

woodoo

Head The Wall wrote: »

Some morons seem to believe that the Public sector had nothing to do with the situation Ireland is in.

Ah i love the smell of bitterness in the morning.

Godge

K-9 wrote: »

Well I assume that happens every year but anyway:

Economic Incentives: Tax returns flatter to deceive

A big reason Income tax is up is the abolition of the health levy which was treated as a Dept. of Health income stream, not a tax receipt. So a good part of the USC receipts would previously not have been included as tax revenue at all. I assume Dept. of Health revenue will see a big drop in income as a result, €2 Billion in 2010.

If it happened every year it wouldn't get a special mention so I would assume it doesn't happen every year.

Doesn't matter whether Health levy is classed as tax income or Department of Health receipt, they are both on the income side of the balance sheet. total Government income remains the same.

K-9

Godge wrote: »

If it happened every year it wouldn't get a special mention so I would assume it doesn't happen every year.

Doesn't matter whether Health levy is classed as tax income or Department of Health receipt, they are both on the income side of the balance sheet. total Government income remains the same.

Not really. About €2 Billion of our Income Tax revenue was accounted for elsewhere in 2010. Comparing like for like which is very, very important, Tax Receipts aren't really €2.3 Billion higher from last year at all, they're about €.3 Billion, €.5/.6 Billion allowing for the Corporation tax discrepancy.

So not that great considering the introduction of the USC and the pension stamp duty. So tax revenues that ended up under target anyway now look far, far worse.

Put it this way, tax receipts are up €2.3 Billion but Dept. of Health income will be down about €2 Billion. For all the tax increases, very poor.

antoobrien

woodoo wrote: »

10 billion increase in social welfare and a 4.3 billion increase in interest payments. Thats 14.3 billion. Without that we would be doing just fine.

But of course some people just love to blame the public sector.

We haven't started paying interest on the banking loans yet.

I wonder where all the extra debt came from that we're paying the extra 4.3 billion in interest?

PS pay couldn't contribute that that surely could it?:rolleyes:

Head The Wall

woodoo wrote: »

Ah i love the smell of bitterness in the morning.

Sure why would I be bitter, I'm not contributing to your wages any more.

tails_naf

I think the CPA is definitely failing when it comes to the HSE.

Was in for a scan in hospital last week - arrived on time for my 2pm appointment. No one at the scan dept. reception - but plenty of people waiting (its a small department - 12 chairs max).

2:10pm rolls around and receptionist comes in - and takes the peoples names.
2:15pm a second receptionist comes is and sits beside her. Both are late, but even so, the one receptionist is done anyway!

To increase efficiency:
1) Stagger lunch breaks to keep the dept. running, esp when 2 people are available
2) Reduce to one receptionist.

I'm certain a 10% efficiency boost in the HSE is there for the taking. It saddens me that it seems to be going the opposite way!

Also, I was quite happy with the health service in 2003 @ 2003 spending levels - so what can't we go back to that? Where are the 60% increase in costs coming from exactly?

Icepick

Godge wrote: »

But sticking out like a sore thumb is the Department of Health which had an 11% increase.
What is the reason for that?

~1,700,000 medical cards

ardmacha

TThe issue with the Dept of Health is of course the change from the Health levy to the USC.

The bigger problem is that government accounts are arcane and difficult to parse. Much of the debate here is misinformed by the use of figures that are unclear and it isn't easy to cut through the mess, even for someone interested in doing so.