Government Spending [See post 106]

Liberta Per Gli Ultra

The biggest corporate tax haven in the world might be getting blacklisted and properly sanctioned by the EU in the near future. I'll believe it when I see it. In the meantime, the next government should focus on collecting a bit more than 0.2% corporation tax from the multinationals that are supposed to be paying 12.5% and think about moving away from this bullsh1t tax haven model towards a real economy.

Republic set to be in firing line as EU to weigh tougher tax haven listing (Irish Times)

A group of European Union countries is calling for the bloc to cast a wider net when listing tax havens and to consider imposing stricter sanctions for countries facilitating tax avoidance, according to an EU document and an EU official. The move is likely to spark some fear in Government circles.

Good loser

Liberta Per Gli Ultra wrote: »

The biggest corporate tax haven in the world might be getting blacklisted and properly sanctioned by the EU in the near future. I'll believe it when I see it. In the meantime, the next government should focus on collecting a bit more than 0.2% corporation tax from the multinationals that are supposed to be paying 12.5% and think about moving away from this bullsh1t tax haven model towards a real economy.

Republic set to be in firing line as EU to weigh tougher tax haven listing (Irish Times)

Didn't the Corpn Tax take increase by €1 bn this year to around €11 bn.

That should be good enough for anyone!


The problem will be to prevent it falling rather than trying to increase it.


By now we must be the country with the highest in the world as a % of total tax revenue.

McGiver

Good loser wrote:

By now we must be the country with the highest in the world as a % of total tax revenue.

What? Are you serious?

Geuze

Good loser wrote: »

By now we must be the country with the highest in the world as a % of total tax revenue.

Yes, CT is high as a share of overall taxes.

Dytalus

Geuze wrote: »

Yes, CT is high as a share of overall taxes.

It is high, dangerously so, but it's far from the worst in the world. By OECD stats we're a fair bit a way down the list. Admittedly the OECD only has CT revenue from 2016, but back then we had ~11%. Now we have ~19%, which should bump us quite a bit up the list and into the top 20 assuming nobody else had their % jump as much as we did. But number 1 on that list has CT as ~40%. Number 2 through 6 have it above 25%.

This puts us considerably above other developed nations, but not all that close to the top comparatively.

A bigger problem is that so much of that Corporate Tax is concentrated on a very small number of companies, and within only a few sectors of the market (finance, tech). So all it takes is one of those market sectors to collapse, or one of those major companies to leave, and a huge chunk of our CT disappears. Just ten companies accounted for almost half of our entire CT take.

We're not the worst for it in the world, but we're still overly reliant on our CT to fund the Exchequer, and need to start spreading our tax base wider to prevent massive budget problems if the CT cash cow weakens.

James Brown

I see the state is to post €1.5bn budget surplus for 2019. In other news, we've no money for social housing builds.

is_that_so

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I see the state is to post €1.5bn budget surplus for 2019. In other news, we've no money for social housing builds.

The money is there, the people to build them are not!

Bishop of hope

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I see the state is to post €1.5bn budget surplus for 2019. In other news, we've no money for social housing builds.

In fairness, they don't have a surplus till they have it, let's see how they use it.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I see the state is to post €1.5bn budget surplus for 2019. In other news, we've no money for social housing builds.

Good loser wrote: »

Didn't the Corpn Tax take increase by €1 bn this year to around €11 bn.

That should be good enough for anyone!


The problem will be to prevent it falling rather than trying to increase it.


By now we must be the country with the highest in the world as a % of total tax revenue.

Good loser makes the most relevant point of all. The corporation tax take in Ireland is vulnerable to changes in international corporate activity and can vary from year to year. Entering into commitments to spend this money, no matter how good the proposal is, would be foolish at best, stupid and reckless at worst.

The approach being taken of running a budget surplus which ensures that the debt built up as a result of the decisions of the FF government is a good approach. We need to focus on efficiencies in the health service as it is clear that we fund the health service enough, but that it is rife with inefficient work practices.

James Brown

is_that_so wrote: »

The money is there, the people to build them are not!

Who's building the apartments we've a 25 year lease on?
Everything gets thrown at why we can't, shouldn't build our own. Nobody to build is the most farcical. Workers are here and can be brought here. They'll come if there's work.
On the surplus, it's getting bandied about like it's a financial positive, if it's not tangible maybe dont crow about it so much.

Bishop of hope

blanch152 wrote: »

Good loser makes the most relevant point of all. The corporation tax take in Ireland is vulnerable to changes in international corporate activity and can vary from year to year. Entering into commitments to spend this money, no matter how good the proposal is, would be foolish at best, stupid and reckless at worst.

The approach being taken of running a budget surplus which ensures that the debt built up as a result of the decisions of the FF government is a good approach. We need to focus on efficiencies in the health service as it is clear that we fund the health service enough, but that it is rife with inefficient work practices.

Health is a quagmire.
I read yesterday that 2019 was the worst year ever for over crowding and bed shortages and in the same day that minister Harris said he was very happy with his performance as health minister, go figure that one out?

is_that_so

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Who's building the apartments we've a 25 year lease on?
Everything gets thrown at why we can't, shouldn't build our own. Nobody to build is the most farcical. Workers are here and can be brought here. They'll come if there's work.
On the surplus, it's getting bandied about like it's a financial positive, if it's not tangible maybe dont crow about it so much.

Private housing , apartments aside, seems to have settled. Social was coming from an extremely low base and councils no longer have any ability to address that. It has also been clear for some time they have an inability to get others to do it as well. We will get there on social because it is so high profile but the timeframe is probably 2-5 years no matter who gets in.

James Brown

is_that_so wrote: »

Private housing , apartments aside, seems to have settled. Social was coming from an extremely low base and councils no longer have any ability to address that. It has also been clear for some time they have an inability to get others to do it as well. We will get there on social because it is so high profile but the timeframe is probably 2-5 years no matter who gets in.

Sorry, you said:

is_that_so wrote: »

The money is there, the people to build them are not!

Have we moved on? This claim gets raised every few months. The no money/nobody to build are interchangeable. I'd like to put one or both to bed.

In your comment, there has been a concerted move away from building social. We buy and lease to use as social. No money and nobody to build was never the key reasoning behind using vulture funds and other private entities.
And it will take years. Sorry but the we need alternatives now reasoning falls flat when it's all we do in any meaningful numbers over a period of several years or more.

is_that_so

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Sorry, you said:



Have we moved on? This claim gets raised every few months. The no money/nobody to build are interchangeable. I'd like to put one or both to bed.

In your comment, there has been a concerted move away from building social. We buy and lease to use as social. No money and nobody to build was never the key reasoning behind using vulture funds and other private entities.
And it will take years. Sorry but the we need alternatives now reasoning falls flat when it's all we do in any meaningful numbers over a period of several years or more.

The two are linked. If I have the money in the bank for an extension it doesn't happen anywhere until it's built. I'm not sure what posts you're reading to come up with the rest of this. I never mentioned "vulture funds" nor the whole HAP model nor some move away from social housing but at least we agree on the years. Social housing is being built. The predictions/plans are for larger numbers this year and next.

James Brown

is_that_so wrote: »

The two are linked. If I have the money in the bank for an extension it doesn't happen anywhere until it's built. I'm not sure what posts you're reading to come up with the rest of this. I never mentioned "vulture funds" nor the whole HAP model nor some move away from social housing but at least we agree on the years. Social housing is being built. The predictions/plans are for larger numbers this year and next.

Never said you did. That was my comment in my post. Not trying to trip or trap you.
Of course the two are linked. But we have the money and we have and can get more people to build. No money and nobody to build was never the key reasoning behind using vulture funds and other private entities. It could be used as an excuse in the early years of it, but not now.

Bishop of hope

Dunnes stores style health spending.
199 more beds by the end of the month, 50 extra today.
But Harris thinks the flu epidemic has peaked.
Worst ever day for bed queues today so it's getting worse everyday and he thinks it's peaked.
199 beds, lol, why not 200?

https://www.rte.ie/news/health/2020/0106/1104550-health/

PeadarCo

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Never said you did. That was my comment in my post. Not trying to trip or trap you.
Of course the two are linked. But we have the money and we have and can get more people to build. No money and nobody to build was never the key reasoning behind using vulture funds and other private entities. It could be used as an excuse in the early years of it, but not now.

It is an excuse. The biggest reason for the austerity measures at the beginning of the last decade was because spending was based on revenue derived from a property buddle. That meant when the bubble popped government income plummeted. Even without the banks austerity measures would have been required. Remember most of the money borrowed was not to bail out the banks but to pay for day to day expenditure.

Critics at the time commented that cutting spending during a recession is not a good idea. They had a point however if you want to spend/borrow money during a recession you need to have saved money/paid down debt during the good times. When it comes to the government and political parties in general they haven't learnt that lesson, the limited introduction of the property tax, water charges, reliance on corporation tax are all examples of the where the Dail as a whole has failed with parties favouring short term gains over the long term.

And when it comes to housing you need to thing long-term as it takes years for houses to be build even on a small scale. At a large scale you need the correct skill base, planning laws, finance etc. None of that happens overnight. Throwing money at things for the sake of it doesn't work. Look at the health service for a good example. So just because you have X billion it doesn't mean you should throw it at housing/health/the hot topic in the media. There has to be a plan. Throwing money at a problem for the sake of it without proper scrutiny is one way to encourage corruption.

James Brown

PeadarCo wrote: »

It is an excuse. The biggest reason for the austerity measures at the beginning of the last decade was because spending was based on revenue derived from a property buddle. That meant when the bubble popped government income plummeted. Even without the banks austerity measures would have been required. Remember most of the money borrowed was not to bail out the banks but to pay for day to day expenditure.

Critics at the time commented that cutting spending during a recession is not a good idea. They had a point however if you want to spend/borrow money during a recession you need to have saved money/paid down debt during the good times. When it comes to the government and political parties in general they haven't learnt that lesson, the limited introduction of the property tax, water charges, reliance on corporation tax are all examples of the where the Dail as a whole has failed with parties favouring short term gains over the long term.

Was this the period when we had money for Reilly to build clinics in places of his choosing and set up the Irish Water Quango populated with 'our own' and do a sweet metering deal at a loss to the tax payer, a deal still under investigation, just to name a few of the things?

PeadarCo wrote: »

And when it comes to housing you need to thing long-term as it takes years for houses to be build even on a small scale. At a large scale you need the correct skill base, planning laws, finance etc. None of that happens overnight. Throwing money at things for the sake of it doesn't work. Look at the health service for a good example. So just because you have X billion it doesn't mean you should throw it at housing/health/the hot topic in the media. There has to be a plan. Throwing money at a problem for the sake of it without proper scrutiny is one way to encourage corruption.

All true and not relevant so many years into the crises. As I said was a plausible excuse several years ago, not today.
This is one of Fine Gael's many attitude problems they either believe this or pretend they do. The crises we are all enduring in some form are merely media driven 'hot topics'. Ignorance at best.

Dytalus

PeadarCo wrote: »

And when it comes to housing you need to thing long-term as it takes years for houses to be build even on a small scale. At a large scale you need the correct skill base, planning laws, finance etc. None of that happens overnight. Throwing money at things for the sake of it doesn't work. Look at the health service for a good example. So just because you have X billion it doesn't mean you should throw it at housing/health/the hot topic in the media. There has to be a plan. Throwing money at a problem for the sake of it without proper scrutiny is one way to encourage corruption.

I agree with most of your post, but I take issue with this. The excuse of "it doesn't happen overnight" has been used by the Government since it came into power. They've failed to their yearly targets pretty much every year for five years.

I recognise the housing crisis cannot be mended overnight - but whatever the Government has been doing for the last 5+ years has not improved the situation. In 2016 we had a yearly requirement of 25,000. Less than 15,000 were built (possibly less than 5,000 depending on source). In 2018 we had a target of 25,000 and only 18,000 were built. Current estimates suggest we'll need 35,000 built a year for the next few years to make up the loss. In the time since the homeless crisis was first mentioned (as far back as 2013 by some sources I find) there's been more than enough time to set us on the right path. But we consistently fail to meet targets - targets which are already too low for what's needed - and the gap is growing.

The current strategy isn't working.

PeadarCo

Dytalus wrote: »

I agree with most of your post, but I take issue with this. The excuse of "it doesn't happen overnight" has been used by the Government since it came into power. They've failed to their yearly targets pretty much every year for five years.

I recognise the housing crisis cannot be mended overnight - but whatever the Government has been doing for the last 5+ years has not improved the situation. In 2016 we had a yearly requirement of 25,000. Less than 15,000 were built (possibly less than 5,000 depending on source). In 2018 we had a target of 25,000 and only 18,000 were built. Current estimates suggest we'll need 35,000 built a year for the next few years to make up the loss. In the time since the homeless crisis was first mentioned (as far back as 2013 by some sources I find) there's been more than enough time to set us on the right path. But we consistently fail to meet targets - targets which are already too low for what's needed - and the gap is growing.

The current strategy isn't working.

I agree the strategy isn't working but an Irish government not having a proper housing strategy or at least one that doesn't pander to local interests or Nimbys is nothing new.

Only recently have councils started to do something about one off houses which has caused massive issues from rural isolation, issues providing effiecent public services or public services at a high cost(ie broadband). You also have a failed spacial strategy that has left the country massively reliant on Dublin with no counter weight.

On a local level even in Dublin you have Nimbys opposing housing development with Pat Kenny being the most high profile example. In rural Ireland you have the Healy Raes on one hand giving out about services in small towns closing but on the other hand promising local to help with planning for one of houses which encourage car use and damages businesses and services in small town and villages.

In the mortgage market you have politicians giving out about high interest rates but also doing nothing about how long it takes to get defaulters out of houses which can take years even for those who make no effort to deal with the bank. This makes Irish mortgages relatively risky as its very hard for banks to get at the collateral themselves or through sales to Funds(vulture funds as the media calls them). This not only increases the interest rate for Irish mortgage holders but also increases the amount of reserves banks have to keep meaning less money to lend to wider economy. In addition to scaring off new entrants to the mortgage market.

The same goes for the Rental market certain politicians start demonising small landlords and then start complaining when they leave the rental market and are replaced by large property funds(in media speak cuckoo funds) who have the resources to deal with the getting rid of problem tenants.

And that's just a sample of the issues facing the supply of housing. And none of issues I've mentioned will be solved by spending more money. I think blaming the current government is a cop out as it let's opposition parties who should be holding the government to account off the hook.

James Brown

PeadarCo wrote: »

....
And that's just a sample of the issues facing the supply of housing. And none of issues I've mentioned will be solved by spending more money. I think blaming the current government is a cop out as it let's opposition parties who should be holding the government to account off the hook.

A lot of what you said is true, however, it's this government and it's predecessors tried and failed, yet ongoing policies making maters worse.
It's not simply more spending, it's spending in other areas.
Low tax rates for vulture funds, (cuckoo if you like) and the state/LA being their customer is exacerbating the problem not helping.
Your conclusion is it's the oppositions fault for not holding the government to account, but not the government(s) and it's policies? That's a cop out.