Any concrete costed measures for reducing €16 billon hole in the public finances?

relax carry on

Given that there appears to be a little bit of reluctance in paying a yearly property tax; do any of the arm chair economists on boards have any concrete costed measures for reducing €16 billon hole in the public finances? Try to keep away from frothing at the mouth comments about bankers, the IMF etc. Just curious as to what people would do for the economy if they were in govt. When replying could you indicate how much your measures would reduce the 16 billon by and if you think any of your proposals would encounter opposition.

mikemac1

Foreign aid

2011 636 million

Borrowing money to give it away in madness

In a few years we can start again but not now

Opposition? It's a whole industry, there are officers and administrators who earn their salaries from this money.
So I'm afraid they will have to lose their jobs or be deployed somewhere else.

howsyourtusk

Tax the rich.

AboutTwoFiddy

relax carry on wrote: »

Given that there appears to be a little bit of reluctance in paying a yearly property tax; do any of the arm chair economists on boards have any concrete costed measures for reducing €16 billon hole in the public finances? Try to keep away from frothing at the mouth comments about bankers, the IMF etc. Just curious as to what people would do for the economy if they were in govt. When replying could you indicate how much your measures would reduce the 16 billon by and if you think any of your proposals would encounter opposition.

Household Tax would only raise €160 million, not €16 billion.

msg11

No more of this allowances bollix. The TD's get paid well, so take it out of there own money. Cars, pens and rulers the lot if they need it that badly they can pay themselves.

Tipp Man

Public sector wages (inc pensions)

Cut 10% save 1.2 billion
Cut 20% save 2.4 billion

Social Welfare

Cut total bill by 10% save 1.9 billion
cut total bill by 20% save 3.8 billion

Spending on these 2 items is simply out of control and way above what we can afford

Aka Ishur

relax carry on wrote: »

Given that there appears to be a little bit of reluctance in paying a yearly property tax; do any of the arm chair economists on boards have any concrete costed measures for reducing €16 billon hole in the public finances? Try to keep away from frothing at the mouth comments about bankers, the IMF etc. Just curious as to what people would do for the economy if they were in govt. When replying could you indicate how much your measures would reduce the 16 billon by and if you think any of your proposals would encounter opposition.

Jaysus Enda could you not ask your 'special advisors' for ideas!

drunkmonkey

howsyourtusk wrote: »

Tax the rich.

Shoot the poor or sell them off to work for struggling farmers in Africa.

Wibbs

Reduce public service costs. Revisit the Croke park agreement, specifically in the higher and mid wage bands. Contrary to popular many many PS workers are at the lower pay grade so leave them be. Streamline/combine PS depts. This will require lay offs but that's the position we're in. Streamline councils, by reducing their number and the number of councilors. Massively reduce, even stop the overseas aid payments(at last count that would save over tree times what the household tax will bring in). Tighten up payments to "sick" banks. Major overhaul of the SW system. Look at simple things like urban, particularly suburban street lighting. Switch off every second or third streetlight. That'll ease the bills. Kill all vanity projects, except those that will provide provable returns(IE green energy projects that actually work). In the building of such projects make sure costings are real and if a company over runs such costings fine them for it. That's just off the top of my head.

talkinyite

Legalise drugs :pac:

donvito99

Fine everyone who doesn't pay the household tax, say, €1600? €16000? Take their house, flog it? Problem solved.

foxyboxer

Present a repayment plan to the Troika designed to reduce the interest repayments allowing a return to the Bond Markets.

Wait for a negative response.

Negotiate a Loan from China for €16bn at a reduced interest rate allowing a return to the markets.

Clear the 16bn debt with the Troika.

Learn a valuable lesson. Hopefully.

The finer points of the eurozone treaties probably already prevent this but with the fiscal treaty compact coming up we need any cards we can get.

mikemac1

Those Spaniards are stealing our fish :mad:

Send out the navy for some target practice



Oh and a tax on text messages, maybe one cent

lividduck

howsyourtusk wrote: »

Tax the rich.

Already done, check the figures they are freely available.

BackScrub

mikemac1 wrote: »

Those Spaniards are stealing our fish :mad:

Send out the navy for some target practice

I'm pretty sure the EU have regulations banning the shooting of fish. The cost of ammunition would probably add to the deficit too.

kippy

relax carry on wrote: »

Given that there appears to be a little bit of reluctance in paying a yearly property tax; do any of the arm chair economists on boards have any concrete costed measures for reducing €16 billon hole in the public finances? Try to keep away from frothing at the mouth comments about bankers, the IMF etc. Just curious as to what people would do for the economy if they were in govt. When replying could you indicate how much your measures would reduce the 16 billon by and if you think any of your proposals would encounter opposition.

I think you have a misguided opinion on why people are not paying the property tax at this point.
There are people with varying reasons.
For example there are those that are using this as a form of protest (as it is one of the very few taxations that one can NOT pay unlike income taxes, VAT etc etc).
These people realise a property tax is required to stabilise finances etc however aren't going to hand over 100 euro + whatever the charge will go to next year without getting some solid answers and action from the government.
Stuff around one law for us another for them, stuff about broken promises on local and national government reform, issues about paying anlos debts, issues over efficiencies in the public/civil service etc etc.

The people of this ilk will probably end up paying the charge but they want to at least have some form of protest over the mess we are in.

Doc Ruby

Start here:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77755824&postcount=50

Everyone involved in those shambolic performances should be escorted from the premises.

relax carry on

AboutTwoFiddy wrote: »

relax carry on wrote: »

Given that there appears to be a little bit of reluctance in paying a yearly property tax; do any of the arm chair economists on boards have any concrete costed measures for reducing €16 billon hole in the public finances? Try to keep away from frothing at the mouth comments about bankers, the IMF etc. Just curious as to what people would do for the economy if they were in govt. When replying could you indicate how much your measures would reduce the 16 billon by and if you think any of your proposals would encounter opposition.

Household Tax would only raise €160 million, not €16 billion.

This years registration of €100 Euro was estimated to bring in 160 million. Next year should be a different figure if an actual property tax is introduced not this years 100 euro registration charge. Also as its was only to be part of the solution where did you get the idea it was going to fix everything?

relax carry on

Wibbs wrote: »

Reduce public service costs. Revisit the Croke park agreement, specifically in the higher and mid wage bands. Contrary to popular many many PS workers are at the lower pay grade so leave them be. Streamline/combine PS depts. This will require lay offs but that's the position we're in. Streamline councils, by reducing their number and the number of councilors. Massively reduce, even stop the overseas aid payments(at last count that would save over tree times what the household tax will bring in). Tighten up payments to "sick" banks. Major overhaul of the SW system. Look at simple things like urban, particularly suburban street lighting. Switch off every second or third streetlight. That'll ease the bills. Kill all vanity projects, except those that will provide provable returns(IE green energy projects that actually work). In the building of such projects make sure costings are real and if a company over runs such costings fine them for it. That's just off the top of my head.

Thanks for that. Any idea how much that would close the 16 billon gap by? And do you think there would be much opposition?

davet82

we could sell County Kerry? i'm sure we'd get a billion for it at least...

relax carry on

Tipp Man wrote: »

Public sector wages (inc pensions)

Cut 10% save 1.2 billion
Cut 20% save 2.4 billion

Social Welfare

Cut total bill by 10% save 1.9 billion
cut total bill by 20% save 3.8 billion

Spending on these 2 items is simply out of control and way above what we can afford

With a plan like this you must also take into account that by taking those amounts out of the equation you must also reduce the tax intake meaning your savings would actually be a lot less in terms of reduced Income tax, USC etc.

lucylu

Rob Bonos Facebuke Shares??

minidazzler

msg11 wrote: »

No more of this allowances bollix. The TD's get paid well, so take it out of there own money. Cars, pens and rulers the lot if they need it that badly they can pay themselves.

I would say yes with the caveat they can claim tax credits on things which are used for work. Just like everyone else in the world.

prinz

relax carry on wrote: »

And do you think there would be much opposition?

If anyone is going to lose out in any way whatsoever, even if it's only the perception of losing out, there will be opposition.

mikemac1

Seize Rockall and claim the fishing rights and and oil rights there

The Brits are getting active lately and trying to claim it but it's ours
Dermot Ahern didn't care and did little

It's ours so take it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockall

Might not be worth anything now but might be one day

forfuxsake

relax carry on wrote: »

With a plan like this you must also take into account that by taking those amounts out of the equation you must also reduce the tax intake meaning your savings would actually be a lot less in terms of reduced Income tax, USC etc.

Not to mention the fact that social welfare and PS wages get spent in the economy so knock 20% of what is being spent in the economy and don't be too surprised if we see a relative economic downturn meaning more unemployment meaning further cuts meaning less money spent in the economy meaning further unemployment meaning more cuts meaning less money spent in the economy which will lead to further unemployment and more cuts.

for more info see Greece

relax carry on

kippy wrote: »

relax carry on wrote: »

Given that there appears to be a little bit of reluctance in paying a yearly property tax; do any of the arm chair economists on boards have any concrete costed measures for reducing €16 billon hole in the public finances? Try to keep away from frothing at the mouth comments about bankers, the IMF etc. Just curious as to what people would do for the economy if they were in govt. When replying could you indicate how much your measures would reduce the 16 billon by and if you think any of your proposals would encounter opposition.

I think you have a misguided opinion on why people are not paying the property tax at this point.
There are people with varying reasons.
For example there are those that are using this as a form of protest (as it is one of the very few taxations that one can NOT pay unlike income taxes, VAT etc etc).
These people realise a property tax is required to stabilise finances etc however aren't going to hand over 100 euro + whatever the charge will go to next year without getting some solid answers and action from the government.
Stuff around one law for us another for them, stuff about broken promises on local and national government reform, issues about paying anlos debts, issues over efficiencies in the public/civil service etc etc.

The people of this ilk will probably end up paying the charge but they want to at least have some form of protest over the mess we are in.

Cheers. Am aware there are a multitude of reasons for not paying the 100 fee. Am also aware that despite all the frothing at the mouth posters against proprty taxes in general, that there are a good portion of people who see the need for more taxes as well as spending cuts to close the 16 billon gap. Just wondering if the good people of boards have actually thought how they would close the gap and the problems associated with it.

Tipp Man

relax carry on wrote: »

With a plan like this you must also take into account that by taking those amounts out of the equation you must also reduce the tax intake meaning your savings would actually be a lot less in terms of reduced Income tax, USC etc.

Social welfare recipients contributing nothing to the income tax

Those are net of tax figures for the public sector

relax carry on

Tipp Man wrote: »

relax carry on wrote: »

With a plan like this you must also take into account that by taking those amounts out of the equation you must also reduce the tax intake meaning your savings would actually be a lot less in terms of reduced Income tax, USC etc.

Social welfare recipients contributing nothing to the income tax

Those are net of tax figures for the public sector

Some DSP benefits are taxable such as JSB or Illness benefit. Not to mention they contributory pension state pension. If a persons combined yearly income from all sources exceeds what their tax credits/reliefs can cover, then they pay tax. Also as already mentioned by another poster cutting the Public sector pay bill and social welfare bill impacts on the amount income these people can spend which affects the overall tax intake for the country.

kippy

relax carry on wrote: »

Cheers. Am aware there are a multitude of reasons for not paying the 100 fee. Am also aware that despite all the frothing at the mouth posters against proprty taxes in general, that there are a good portion of people who see the need for more taxes as well as spending cuts to close the 16 billon gap. Just wondering if the good people of boards have actually thought how they would close the gap and the problems associated with it.

I've countless posts on how to "bridge" the gap from 2008/2009/2010.
It's just a sad state of affairs that we are here 4 years later and its still not been bridged, despite some work towards it.
The property tax is a way of bridging it, however the idea that the property charge is for the use of local services is just nonsense.
One wonders why the owners of a property on a managed estate (any estate for that matter) are any more liable for paying towards the use of local services than any citizen.

Tipp Man

relax carry on wrote: »

Some DSP benefits are taxable such as JSB or Illness benefit. Not to mention they contributory pension state pension. If a persons combined yearly income from all sources exceeds what their tax credits/reliefs can cover, then they pay tax. Also as already mentioned by another poster cutting the Public sector pay bill and social welfare bill impacts on the amount income these people can spend which affects the overall tax intake for the country.

How many people on any social welfare are paying tax in this country?? An answer remarkably close to zero - or as near as that it will have no effect on the tax take

Where does the social welfare and public sector money come from? It comes from the tax pool of people who aren't government paid or supported. Public sector spending doesn't generate tax revenue - it merely redistributes it

a good bit more efficiency and streamlining in public sector stuff with associated redundancies

the true cost of public sector pensions according to this was 100 billion
http://pibasure.ie/news/225-true-cost-of-public-sector-pensions-bill-hits-100bn-irish-independent

cut off pension increases, and have the pension based on average salary rather than at retirement (this would kill off anyone getting a big increase in their last year of employment and then getting a pension based on that)

pension increases in a defined benefit pension really jack up the costs, so something as simple as that would really save lots, as would the final pensionable salary issue

kippy

bluewolf wrote: »

a good bit more efficiency and streamlining in public sector stuff with associated redundancies

the true cost of public sector pensions according to this was 100 billion
http://pibasure.ie/news/225-true-cost-of-public-sector-pensions-bill-hits-100bn-irish-independent

cut off pension increases, and have the pension based on average salary rather than at retirement (this would kill off anyone getting a big increase in their last year of employment and then getting a pension based on that)

pension increases in a defined benefit pension really jack up the costs, so something as simple as that would really save lots, as would the final pensionable salary issue

Those changes have been introduced for new entrants.
I dont think those changes if introduced for current workers would bridge the current gap but the would surely ensure costs are kept down in future.
There is defo more room for maneuvering around pensions in the public sector but not as much as some would have you believe.

It may have been introduced for new entrants, but there is still going to be a massive past service accrual which, including increases, will add up.
Even if it applies to new entrants, there is also still going to be escalation accruing on future service for current members.
I would be keen to get my own hands on their data, because I'd say a chunk of the pension cost could be killed off by the simple removal of escalation for everyone, and introducing salary averaging.

Here, 2 billion in 5 years:
http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1023262.shtml

It also agrees with me that:

In advance its HR Leadership Summit at the Convention Centre Dublin, IBEC today called for much more radical reform of public sector pensions than currently proposed by government. The group said it welcomed new plans to reduce the cost of pensions for new recruits, but said reform must also extend to the pension arrangements of existing public sector workers. Such reform could reduce the government's pensions liabilities by over €20bn.

LeinsterDub

Invest in IT. A small spend done properly could save the government a fourtune . A person dies? Death cert is completed online by a GP and automatically the revenue commissioners know they have a possible inheritance tax to calculate. Social welfare stop all payments to the person so we don't end up with phantom 120 years old collecting a pension etc

Tipp Man

kippy wrote: »

Those changes have been introduced for new entrants.

First off there is supposed to be a ban on new entrants

Secondly I know that some positions have had this ban lifted, with good cause, but how many people in the current 300 or 310 or 320k employees are actually new entrants??

Damn all is the answer

kippy

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Invest in IT. A small spend done properly could save the government a fourtune . A person dies? Dead cert is completed online by a GP and automatically the revenue commissioners know they a possible inherance tax to calculate. Social welfare stop all payments to the person so we don't end up with phantom 120 years old collecting a pension etc

Well, it's not just about investing in IT.
The state has invested heavily in many IT projects, some good, and some just a complete waste of money, ill advised, badly project managed and oftentimes contracted out without fully understanding the implications. Lots of public money has been "wasted" in the investment in IT. As such its about the integrated investment in IT and the collective purchasing/tendering power of the state as a whole. Massive inroads appear to have been made into this in the past number of years however more still needs to be done.
There's a lot of room for a shared services model in relation to backend support services for areas such as IT, HR, Payroll, Procurement, however as we have seen with the HSE and other projects none of this has really be realised.

Another area that kills performance in the public sector is increments and performance management. There is very little linakge between performance and pay, with the effect that those who do little get paid the same as those that do a lot, with the long term implication that those that do a lot lose interest. (among other issues)

Again, I've posted on this countless times, with some serious thought put into the posts and whatever will be said on this thread has been said countless times in the past.
I had also a lot of thoughts about governance streamlining, why so many politicians in this country, etc etc?

The fact of the mater is however, once the troika are happy with progress, progress will be slow.
I suppose we could have cut the deficit in the space of two or three years (which being honest was the way I would have preferred it), and this would have had serious implications. Instead it looks like it will take us anything up to 8-10 years (unless there is a massive bounce, which I think is what the government are hoping for). This long drawn out time frame is in it self leading to depressed confidence, people afraid to spend any money in case they'll need it for some other charge next year etc.

Anyway, good luck debating this one lads.

kippy

Tipp Man wrote: »

First off there is supposed to be a ban on new entrants

Secondly I know that some positions have had this ban lifted, with good cause, but how many people in the current 300 or 310 or 320k employees are actually new entrants??

Damn all is the answer

Indeed, there is. The point is, that this fundamental change to the pension arrangements of public servants will have long term benefits to the state. The 10% reduction in pay and the changed pension arrangements will make the cost of the state employing someone to be a lot lower than it is now.

The fact is, that any changes to existing serving staffs pensions won't have an effect on the deficit, until they retire. The only way you can effect the deficit now is to change the pension arrangements of current public sector pensioners.

When people hear about public sector pensions they automaticilly think of the "headline" figures, 300K lump sum and 50K a year type pensions, guys who never paid a penny towards them and get the COAP on top of that, when the truth is often very different.

What will happen for current public sector workers is the taxing of their lump sum pensions but that wont have a major effect on the current deficit.

kincsem

2,600 quangos. Reduce to 100.

Who takes up the slack? What slack?

relax carry on

kincsem wrote: »

2,600 quangos. Reduce to 100.

Who takes up the slack? What slack?

Have you actually thought about which ones to cut and which ones to keep? How much will it save and what do you do with the staff?

kippy

kippy wrote: »

Indeed, there is. The point is, that this fundamental change to the pension arrangements of public servants will have long term benefits to the state. The 10% reduction in pay and the changed pension arrangements will make the cost of the state employing someone to be a lot lower than it is now.

The fact is, that any changes to existing serving staffs pensions won't have an effect on the deficit, until they retire. The only way you can effect the deficit now is to change the pension arrangements of current public sector pensioners.

It'll have a massive effect whether now or on retirement. It will have a massive effect on the funding rate needed to be paid by the govt for funding the scheme overall.
I don't know their practice on funding it, but it would bring the rate down a good bit.

It appears they pay 2 billion a year into it
http://pibasure.ie/news/380-lenihan-to-keep-close-eye-on-pension-fund-returns-irish-independent

this is part of what could be reduced.

When people hear about public sector pensions they automaticilly think of the "headline" figures, 300K lump sum and 50K a year type pensions, guys who never paid a penny towards them and get the COAP on top of that, when the truth is often very different.

What I think of is the figures I see every day working in DB.

Tipp Man

kippy wrote: »

Indeed, there is. The point is, that this fundamental change to the pension arrangements of public servants will have long term benefits to the state. The 10% reduction in pay and the changed pension arrangements will make the cost of the state employing someone to be a lot lower than it is now.

The fact is, that any changes to existing serving staffs pensions won't have an effect on the deficit, until they retire. The only way you can effect the deficit now is to change the pension arrangements of current public sector pensioners.

When people hear about public sector pensions they automaticilly think of the "headline" figures, 300K lump sum and 50K a year type pensions, guys who never paid a penny towards them and get the COAP on top of that, when the truth is often very different.

What will happen for current public sector workers is the taxing of their lump sum pensions but that wont have a major effect on the current deficit.

Why are you only talking about pensions, especially future pensions?

I would like to see current salaries and current pensions cut

To cure the future pensions timebomb - get rid of the defined benifit penion - bring in a defined contribution

Edit - that means for current workers also

KeithAFC

1 child per family policy is something which should perhaps be looked at. I ain't sure if the economic climate now can support larger families.

A cut in social welfare also is another good point which I have seen mentioned. Less put into foreign aid. For example, Palestine and the €7.5 million provided to Palestine by Irish Aid in 2007. Look to lower that. That is a lot of money which could be used for the Irish people in the Irish Republic.

Tax the rich a bit more.

Tipp Man

relax carry on wrote: »

Have you actually thought about which ones to cut and which ones to keep? How much will it save and what do you do with the staff?

Firstly i think the number of quangoes is in the 800-900 range - but whose counting - the government certainly aren't

If you don't know what to do with the staff then get rid of them - very simple

Tipp Man

KeithAFC wrote: »

1 child per family policy is something which should perhaps be looked at. I ain't sure if the economic climate now can support larger families.

A cut in social welfare also is another good point which I have seen mentioned. Less put into foreign aid. For example, Palestine and the €7.5 million provided to Palestine by Irish Aid in 2007. Look to lower that. That is a lot of money which could be used for the Irish people in the Irish Republic.

Tax the rich a bit more.

this isn't China we don't need a 1 child policy - things aren't that bad yet

Tipp Man

bluewolf wrote: »

It'll have a massive effect whether now or on retirement. It will have a massive effect on the funding rate needed to be paid by the govt for funding the scheme overall.
I don't know their practice on funding it, but it would bring the rate down a good bit.

It appears they pay 2 billion a year into it
http://pibasure.ie/news/380-lenihan-to-keep-close-eye-on-pension-fund-returns-irish-independent

this is part of what could be reduced.


What I think of is the figures I see every day working in DB.

Aren't pensions paid from current expenditure so there is no "plan"

The pension reserve was supposed to be rainy day money to cover this timebomb which is going to hit us - but it was not directly linked to anybody's pension

harmoniums

This ones a bit controversial.

Ban cash, only allow paper transaction.
Enforce VAT collection

kippy

Tipp Man wrote: »

Why are you only talking about pensions, especially future pensions?

I would like to see current salaries and current pensions cut

To cure the future pensions timebomb - get rid of the defined benifit penion - bring in a defined contribution

Edit - that means for current workers also

And you would be happy to get rid of the defined benefit COAP as well?

kippy

bluewolf wrote: »

It'll have a massive effect whether now or on retirement. It will have a massive effect on the funding rate needed to be paid by the govt for funding the scheme overall.
I don't know their practice on funding it, but it would bring the rate down a good bit.

It appears they pay 2 billion a year into it
http://pibasure.ie/news/380-lenihan-to-keep-close-eye-on-pension-fund-returns-irish-independent

this is part of what could be reduced.


What I think of is the figures I see every day working in DB.

It's empty at the moment and I beleive thats the general pensions pot (including OAP pensions)
I was under the impression that up until the NTMA came into existence pensions were funded from income, with no plan in place.
I believe the NPRF was created to assist in funding pensions down the line alright.

Tipp Man

Tipp Man wrote: »

Aren't pensions paid from current expenditure so there is no "plan"

The pension reserve was supposed to be rainy day money to cover this timebomb which is going to hit us - but it was not directly linked to anybody's pension

I wasn't sure, which is why I found that link - there is a national pensions fund and they do pay into it. An actuarial study which I linked earlier showed the funding rate to be about 30%.

Most public servants only pay around 5pc of their salary to fund their pensions, but the State ends up paying an equivalent of an additional 30pc of their salaries to cover the generous pensions, the study finds.

I know there has been no practice of having actuarial valuations for the public pensions as there is for private DB schemes, but I have a hazy recollection they might be starting

in any case, there are regular payments as shown in the link
and even if in worst case, kippy's posts about it only affecting soon to retire pensioners were true, it's still a big overall saving that could be made

bamboozle

read a few weeks back the dept of finance staff spent 70k last year on ringing 11850 despite having access to google and telephone directories. so my suggestion would be to hand running of govt departments to the trioka cause if the idiots in charge allow avoidable expendature like that they cant be trusted.

get rid of the Irish Army - pointless
Abolish the seanad, reduce dail eireann by 30 seats.
Sell state jets
any former politicians in receipt of state pensions found to have been acting corruptly while in office to lose their pensions.
No state pensions to kick in until 65 years of age - applicable to all politicians, army & gardai.
Continue moratorium in civil & public service hiring except for doctors, nurses & teachers (once average class size reduces to 34 kids per class)
reduce social welfare payments by 10% across the board, by a further 20% for long term unemployed/dole scroungers and by a further 40% for anyone under age of 25.
Means test childrens allowance & reduce existing allowance by 25%.
immediately stop all payments/grants to RTE, CIE & Bus Eireann.
Reduce overseas aid by 75%.