Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Fine Gael government policies
-
23-06-2017 7:47pm#1Interested in tracking the policies and direction of our government, currently Fine Gael, and the relationship, if any to pre-election promises or partnership deals , (Indies/FF) floated.
Yesterday we had the issue of regulation and the construction sector and Fine Gael wanting it to remain self regulated, which I found odd considering our recent history. We could also save tax payer monies if we left the banks to it but we can't trust either to completely police themselves IMO.
Today;Varadkar defends use of AIB proceeds to pay down debt
Leo Varadkar made the comments in Brussels following criticism from the Opposition that it should be used for infrastructure and housing.
"As the money was borrowed, and as it came from the National Pension Reserve Fund, the money will of course be used to repay our debt which in turn reduces our debt service costs, which is important too," he said.
"In relation with what we do with the money, some people in the Opposition are conflating different issues.
"The money that was put into AIB in the first place was borrowed money ... so having borrowed the money we're going to use the money that we now receive from the sale to pay down our national debt and that's the appropriate thing to do. If you borrow money you can pay it back.
"Infrastructure is a different issue. We have spending ceilings. Those spending ceilings derive from the fiscal rules, derive from the Fiscal Treaty which we voted for in a referendum derived from our own domestic legislation."
Labour leader Brendan Howlin was among those who said the Government was following "the wrong strategy" by writing down debt rather than investing "in our schools and hospitals."
I can see Leo's point but it does feed into the narrative that the ongoing issues we face are not as important as the ones already tackled; helping banks and opening up credit. Also the AIB money isn't earmarked for anything.
We could put it into social housing or if needs be contractual obligation/pay offs to trim the fat in various areas deemed dysfunctional, health etc.
If we've issues needing money, are we basically saying they can wait? Are we in a race to appease the EU shylocks?5
Comments
-
Interested in tracking the policies and direction of our government, currently Fine Gael, and the relationship, if any to pre-election promises or partnership deals , (Indies/FF) floated.
Yesterday we had the issue of regulation and the construction sector and Fine Gael wanting it to remain self regulated, which I found odd considering our recent history. We could also save tax payer monies if we left the banks to it but we can't trust either to completely police themselves IMO.
Today;
I can see Leo's point but it does feed into the narrative that the ongoing issues we face are not as important as the ones already tackled; helping banks and opening up credit. Also the AIB money isn't earmarked for anything.
We could put it into social housing or if needs be contractual obligation/pay offs to trim the fat in various areas deemed dysfunctional, health etc.
If we've issues needing money, are we basically saying they can wait? Are we in a race to appease the EU shylocks?
This is the old argument again really.
Its fairly clear, to me anyway, that the govt's handling of the crisis from 2011 onwards was fairly prudent and was good for the country overall.
I stress govt, because like now, FG and Leo are in a coalition.
It would seem like the old bangers and whingers still want debt forgotten about, not the best policy IMO.
What has been working needs to be kept working, but the usual suspects,will decry best policies anyway.0 -
I would assume, hopefully, that the money saved on the debt payments will be pumped back into the economy to address some of the social issues that exist.
I can understand why people would like to see the money spent, but given the situation around brexit and other external economic factors would it not be prudent to reduce our national debt when we have the opportunity?0 -
Government finances do not work like household finances. An individual with private debt, should pay down their debts - governments however, traditionally are supposed to roll-over debt over time, and let it be eaten away through GDP increases and inflation.
Our government could be boosting GDP and easing the housing crisis (providing a further boost to GDP, as excessive rents turn into greater discretionary income, and thus consumer spending) - and this would reduce 'Public Debt vs GDP', through increasing economic-activity/GDP - effectively reducing our debt burden relative to GDP.
There is no way of reducing an individuals private debt burden, in the same way as the public debt burden can be reduced, as above - making them completely incomparable.
The entire narrative which pushes the idea that eliminating public debt is a good thing, is a simplistic moralistic argument, which depends upon tricking people into thinking that public debts should be treated like private debts (and in general, that public finances should be treated like private finances) - it's just a handy propaganda tool, for governments that wish to deliberately neglect and constrain public spending, for political (not financial...) reasons.0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,333 CMod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 16361
Which works as long as there is a steady inflation (there's not) and that you have low enough debt level to start with (Ireland at almost 80% is still quite high). If you have a 5% inflation it makes sense to let the debt be eaten up over time; however current eurozone debt remains well below 2% and we have an upcoming financial crash coming (between Brexit and the stockmarkets pumped up by ECB and the Fed with free money before even talking Trump economics and China's grey banks) which will take a big bite out of that GDP. Now instead is the time to prepare to get the financial space for when that downfall comes to counter it with suitable investment rather than simply pouring it away when things are going well in the economy like what happened right before the initial financial crisis hit Ireland.KyussBeeshop wrote: »Government finances do not work like household finances. An individual with private debt, should pay down their debts - governments however, traditionally are supposed to roll-over debt over time, and let it be eaten away through GDP increases and inflation.
Our government could be boosting GDP and easing the housing crisis (providing a further boost to GDP, as excessive rents turn into greater discretionary income, and thus consumer spending) - and this would reduce 'Public Debt vs GDP', through increasing economic-activity/GDP - effectively reducing our debt burden relative to GDP.
There is no way of reducing an individuals private debt burden, in the same way as the public debt burden can be reduced, as above - making them completely incomparable.
The entire narrative which pushes the idea that eliminating public debt is a good thing, is a simplistic moralistic argument, which depends upon tricking people into thinking that public debts should be treated like private debts (and in general, that public finances should be treated like private finances) - it's just a handy propaganda tool, for governments that wish to deliberately neglect and constrain public spending, for political (not financial...) reasons.0 -
It works as long as you are boosting GDP - you don't need steady inflation to do this. We aren't even remotely close to our full GDP potential - we should start by maxing that out.
Define what is a 'suitable investment' versus what you consider 'pouring it away'?0 -
Advertisement
-
Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,333 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 16361
Infrastructure such as fibre, road network (dual motorway for truck transport so not going into villages but intentionally outside etc.), high capacity power buried cables to provide redundancy, port capacity for container ships/Liquid Gas etc. to provide foundations for companies to set up everywhere in Ireland. This is the physical side of the things; other would be to streamline legal system etc. but that requires more moral courage rather than hard cash on hand.KyussBeeshop wrote: »Define what is a 'suitable investment'
First time buyer support, cutting tax bands, raising various grants for unemployment etc. We could go even further back to 2007 where all parties were competing on out promising each other but the point of it being mainly vote buying exercises rather than actions that have long term positive effect.versus what you consider 'pouring it away'?0 -
Okey - well ya I'd agree with those infrastructural investments - they would be suitable investments, likely to boost or bolster GDP - which are a better alternative to paying down national debt.0
-
KyussBeeshop wrote: »
Our government could be boosting GDP and easing the housing crisis (providing a further boost to GDP, as excessive rents turn into greater discretionary income, and thus consumer spending) - and this would reduce 'Public Debt vs GDP', through increasing economic-activity/GDP - effectively reducing our debt burden relative to GDP.
We have one of the fastest growing economies in Europe. There is no point making the an economic boom even bigger. In fact, many would argue the most prudent thing for the Government would be save now and spend in a few years when we are in a recession (it is inevitable) spend to prime pump the economy. Construction costs will be a lot cheaper then0 -
That's just speaking of an 'economic boom' as if it is an inherently bad thing - yet whether or not a boom is bad or not, depends upon what is being invested in (whether it is sustainable and productive or beneficial to society or not) - and the source of the money being invested (whether or not a private debt bubble is being generated).
The goals of public policy right now, should be to use public spending to ease the housing crisis, to invest in necessary infrastructure, and to bring the economy to full employment (by the economic definition, not layman definition), in a productive way, ASAP.
There is no better time to be spending on e.g. a blitz of social housing construction, than right now in the middle of a massive housing/rental crisis - when significant funds are starting to become available to our government.0 -
KyussBeeshop wrote: »
There is no better time to be spending on e.g. a blitz of social housing construction, than right now in the middle of a massive housing/rental crisis - when significant funds are starting to become available to our government.
No better time? Unemployment is 6% and we have one of the fastest growing economies in Europe by far. Yet you think the Government needs to prime pump the fastest growing economy in Europe? There is zero logic in it.
It is a horrific time to spend money. Construction costs are extremely high as the private sector is building so much. The Government is going make construction more expensive and constrain the private sector
The best time for the Government to build is when we are heading for a recession or in a recession. You don't throw money at an overheating economy and say its great.But "given the vigorous expansion, the Government should avoid more fiscal stimulus than currently planned" so as to avoid the risk of overheating the economy, it added.
https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2016/0601/792541-oecd-on-ireland/0 -
Advertisement
-
It's where you 'throw money' though. Using money to build social housing and throwing it at contractors by way of tax or subsidy gimmicks are two different things. We're content to feed private industry as par for the course but spending money on our selves gets the quare eye.
Fine Gael have been artificially bolstering/heating the housing market all along.0 -
You're speaking of the economy as if it's one homogeneous entity, as if it all overheats at once - except it's not, it's made up of many different sectors/industries, which interact with one another in complex ways - with overheating usually being based within a portion of these sectors/industries, not all of them at once.wordofwarning wrote: »No better time? Unemployment is 6% and we have one of the fastest growing economies in Europe by far. Yet you think the Government needs to prime pump the fastest growing economy in Europe? There is zero logic in it.
It is a horrific time to spend money. Construction costs are extremely high as the private sector is building so much. The Government is going make construction more expensive and constrain the private sector
The best time for the Government to build is when we are heading for a recession or in a recession. You don't throw money at an overheating economy and say its great.
https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2016/0601/792541-oecd-on-ireland/
You speak of the construction sector as if its capacity is fixed and will not expand as more demand is placed on it - except this is not how things work, spending/investment in the construction industry typically expands it over time, rather than 'crowding-out' others.
You don't wait until recessions before engaging in time-critical investments, such as a housing blitz for alleviating a severe shortage of housing/rentals - just because governments should spend/invest more when recessions hit, doesn't mean they should be putting off critical investments in the present in order to spend at this later date.
It's rather silly to expect governments to defer spending, to a time (recessions) when their finances are typically enormously challenged and when spending cuts are what are being pushed for the hardest - it's almost like the entire point of such a suggestion, is to just blanket-oppose government spending in general.0 -
KyussBeeshop wrote: »You speak of the construction sector as if its capacity is fixed and will not expand as more demand is placed on it - except this is not how things work, spending/investment in the construction industry typically expands it over time, rather than 'crowding-out' others.
The massive price inflation at the moment in construction indicates that its capacity is in fact somewhat fixed.On Wednesday, the Fiscal Advisory Council cautioned that a leap in construction to address “pent-up demand” in the housing market could overheat the economy, bidding up prices and wages, and undermining competitiveness in a throwback to the mid 2000s.
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/is-ireland-in-danger-of-creating-another-housing-bubble-1.3113704KyussBeeshop wrote: »You don't wait until recessions before engaging in time-critical investments, such as a housing blitz for alleviating a severe shortage of housing/rentals - just because governments should spend/invest more when recessions hit, doesn't mean they should be putting off critical investments in the present in order to spend at this later date.
The private sector is building huge amounts of housing. They would build more if the state made it more attractive to build ie loosening building regs, height restrictions etc. The private sector can supply more housing if facilitated by the state policies. We don't have to solve the housing shortage by throwing state money at itKyussBeeshop wrote: »It's rather silly to expect governments to defer spending, to a time (recessions) when their finances are typically enormously challenged and when spending cuts are what are being pushed for the hardest - it's almost like the entire point of such a suggestion, is to just blanket-oppose government spending in general.
It is not silly at all. It supported by most economists ie the use of economic stabilizers. Take money out of the economy, when it is booming and spending when it contradicting. It smoothes business cycles. Government borrow during recessions to fund this economic stimulus. So their finances being challenged is not relevant as long as they are credit worthy which is the case for most developed nations.
The entire point of the suggestion is spend when it is necessary. Does the economy need prime pumping? No. Does it need prime pumping in a recession? Yes. Can we prime pump in a recession, if we have not reduced our debt during economic growth? Eh? It is hard when you did not pay down debt as throwing money at a booming economy0 -
What is this 'massive' price inflation, and what rate is it averaged out over the last few years? Short-term price inflation from an industry that is ramping-up production, is to be expected - and is not an indication of fixed capacity, unless it persists over the long term without an expansion of production.wordofwarning wrote: »The massive price inflation at the moment in construction indicates that its capacity is in fact somewhat fixed.
The private sector has been and is currently failing by a huge margin, to provide anywhere near enough houses or rentals.wordofwarning wrote: »The private sector is building huge amounts of housing. They would build more if the state made it more attractive to build ie loosening building regs, height restrictions etc. The private sector can supply more housing if facilitated by the state policies. We don't have to solve the housing shortage by throwing state money at it
We don't have to solve the housing shortage with the failed policy of waiting for the private sector either - because we currently have a crapload of state money coming in that can be thrown at this problem, creating huge progress in fixing it in a relatively short period.
So, no - we should not wait for private markets to fix everything, that's already a massive failure, and many actors in the private markets would rather we stay in this current mess so they can milk it for all its worth.
We should use public funding in this instance, because there is a massive ongoing market failure.
You're not talking about economic stabilizers though - you're talking about choking public spending when we're not even at full economic capacity, i.e. prolonging the downturn of the current economic cycle - that's the opposite of what economic stabilizers are all about.wordofwarning wrote: »It is not silly at all. It supported by most economists ie the use of economic stabilizers. Take money out of the economy, when it is booming and spending when it contradicting. It smoothes business cycles. Government borrow during recessions to fund this economic stimulus. So their finances being challenged is not relevant as long as they are credit worthy which is the case for most developed nations.
The entire point of the suggestion is spend when it is necessary. Does the economy need prime pumping? No. Does it need prime pumping in a recession? Yes. Can we prime pump in a recession, if we have not reduced our debt during economic growth? Eh? It is hard when you did not pay down debt as throwing money at a booming economy
You deflate individual sectors of an economy that are booming, not deflate the entire economy by choking public spending.
If, by the next recession, you have a higher Debt vs GDP, because you failed to maximize GDP to it's full potential, before paying down your Debt - then yes, then you're likely to be in more trouble, come the next recession.
We won't be 'pump priming' the economy come the next recession anyway - because deficit-scaremongering political/ideological arguments will prevail again, over economic arguments - recessions nearly always mean massive cuts to government spending.0 -
On the massive price inflation I heard this morning on the radio that the Unite Union want a pay rise for crane drivers which will put them on €62 k per year, which is likely to drive other building site workers to look for pay rises. May not be massive inflation but apparently building costs are high already so this won't help.0
-
The House Construction Cost Index has barely changed in a decade:
0 -
wordofwarning wrote: »...We don't have to solve the housing shortage by throwing state money at it
Yet we do exacerbate the housing crisis and maintain the private housing market by throwing state money at it.On the massive price inflation I heard this morning on the radio that the Unite Union want a pay rise for crane drivers which will put them on €62 k per year, which is likely to drive other building site workers to look for pay rises. May not be massive inflation but apparently building costs are high already so this won't help.
That's the free market. People can charge what they like. Contractors/developers can charge as much as they can get away with and if the public can't meet it, the state throws tax payer money at them or their customers. I don't see why the onus of 'the greater good' should fall on private individuals.
On a judicial note. Leo seems to be making good moves as regards appointments. I've always felt the Judiciary were literally a law onto themselves. Transparency is always a good thing.0 -
The free market increases will push up the cost of providing social housing as these same contractors will be the ones building any social houses as the councils don't have a cohort of builders waiting around to get building..That's the free market. People can charge what they like. Contractors/developers can charge as much as they can get away with and if the public can't meet it, the state throws tax payer money at them or their customers. I don't see why the onus of 'the greater good' should fall on private individuals.0 -
The free market increases will push up the cost of providing social housing as these same contractors will be the ones building any social houses as the councils don't have a cohort of builders waiting around to get building..
Yes. And contractors/developers won't be doing us a solid by taking a cut in personal profit to save us money either. That's the way it is.A ban on fixed-price waste collection is being introduced by the Government to encourage recycling and reduce the amount of rubbish.
However, the Opposition has said there are fears it will mean higher bills for households.
Minister for the Environment Denis Naughten has announced the new scheme, to replace the controversial plan for a pay-by-weight system shelved by the Government last year.
Mr Naughten said he decided not to introduce a "compulsory one-size-fits-all per kilogramme charging system".
https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0627/886009-waste-charges/
Why does every environmental crusade end up making money for some concerns while hitting the tax payer?
Let's take it on face value, (will probably be ridiculed by even FG supporters for doing so at a later date) and buy this move is about lessening our dependence on landfills and helping the environment. Why does it always have to result in more cost?
Would a simpler cure not be to have recycling bins that must contain recyclable waste or they aren't collected, coupled with rubbish/general waste bins that aren't collected if seen to contain recyclable materials? Folks will soon get into the swing. And if paying by use/weight, it would be less as the weight would be spread out, saving the tax payer/customer and the environment? Or maybe that's not the goal of course...0 -
KyussBeeshop wrote: »What is this 'massive' price inflation, and what rate is it averaged out over the last few years? Short-term price inflation from an industry that is ramping-up production, is to be expected - and is not an indication of fixed capacity, unless it persists over the long term without an expansion of production.
The SCSI have stated tender price inflation for construction was 6.3% in 2016 alone. It was 5.5% in 2015 and 5% in 2014. Sharp price increases indicate seriously constrained production capacity. Not quite fixed, but extremely constrained. Demand is rising faster than supply
https://www.scsi.ie/documents/get_lob?id=1161&field=fileKyussBeeshop wrote: »because we currently have a crapload of state money coming in that can be thrown at this problem, creating huge progress in fixing it in a relatively short period.
Eh? You have just confirmed you have no idea what you are talking about. We are running a deficit. We don't have a 'crapload of money'. What is the figure on the crapload of money ?KyussBeeshop wrote: »You're not talking about economic stabilizers though - you're talking about choking public spending when we're not even at full economic capacity, i.e. prolonging the downturn of the current economic cycle - that's the opposite of what economic stabilizers are all about.
I am not saying cutting public spending. I am saying there is no need to add fuel to a fire that is burning strong.
Explain to me how loading on a ton of debt now making borrowing more expensive in a recession when we need to prime pump will not be concern?
What is full capacity of the economy BTW?0 -
Advertisement
-
Taoiseach Leo Varadkar has said he is determined that the Government will have enough money to cut income taxes in the October budget, even if that means raising other taxes.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/income-tax-cuts-may-be-funded-by-other-tax-hikes-says-varadkar-1.3136456
Can someone enlighten me as to what Varadkar means by:“I am determined that we find some space to increase the take home pay of two million people who work really hard in this country, who get up every day, go to work, pay the taxes that make everything else possible,” the Taoiseach said.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/income-tax-cuts-may-be-funded-by-other-tax-hikes-says-varadkar-1.3136456
It's great to try lower the tax burden on those feeling squeezed, but he's obviously got no plan on where he'll make up the difference. And regardless of how well spread out raises are, does he think the unemployed or off-shore tax residing king pins of industry are going to supply these monies? My taxes are down but food/rent are up?
Is it just more hyperbolic bluster? It seems to me he's trying damn hard to be devisive and create inward squabbles among the public.
His talk begs the question; Who are these people who don't get up in the morning and what's been done about it? He needs to check his vague Trump-esque bluster IMO.
And how does this populist move feed into the Fine Gael narrative of us not having the money to fix the ongoing worsening crises because Paddy won't pay enough tax?0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,680 CMod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 21559
I assume he means he's going to increase indirect taxation, VAT etc, which will hit people at the lower end more as seems to be his goal. Alternatively he may have no plan to make up the difference and this is just a way of forcing FF to pull the plug. Then in the election he can campaign on the basis of "vote FG for more money in your pocket".0 -
Can someone enlighten me as to what Varadkar means by:
It's great to try lower the tax burden on those feeling squeezed, but he's obviously got no plan on where he'll make up the difference. And regardless of how well spread out raises are, does he think the unemployed or off-shore tax residing king pins of industry are going to supply these monies? My taxes are down but food/rent are up?
Is it just more hyperbolic bluster? It seems to me he's trying damn hard to be devisive and create inward squabbles among the public.
His talk begs the question; Who are these people who don't get up in the morning and what's been done about it? He needs to check his vague Trump-esque bluster IMO.
And how does this populist move feed into the Fine Gael narrative of us not having the money to fix the ongoing worsening crises because Paddy won't pay enough tax?
Trump-esque? Is that the new word to disparage political ideals not liked?
It seems Mr Trump has achieved something after all.
I'd see it as an attempt to broaden the tax base once again. Its fair to try to make the tax take more inclusive really, I think if Leo is as good as his rhetoric perhaps there is a chance of a fairer distribution of our tax load. Time to reward work as well, I hope he keeps it going.0 -
Bishopsback wrote: »Trump-esque? Is that the new word to disparage political ideals not liked?
It seems Mr Trump has achieved something after all.
I'd see it as an attempt to broaden the tax base once again. Its fair to try to make the tax take more inclusive really, I think if Leo is as good as his rhetoric perhaps there is a chance of a fairer distribution of our tax load. Time to reward work as well, I hope he keeps it going.
By Trump-esque I mean in the manner of Trump. That being using ill thought out rhetoric. As I said, if he's on about people "who get up every day, go to work, pay the taxes" who else is there that he's referring to? What's the take from this? Is it the suggestion that the previous Fine Gael government pandered too much to non-taxpayers, people who like a lie in of a morning? It's devisive and I'd hope for a little more class, a move on from the 'toddle along', 'whingers' 'go do something' ignorance we've seen.
If, as has been suggested, some of the issues needing addressing relate to a lack of money and it's partly the fault of the public for having an unwillingness to pay the taxes required to foot the bill, his move is populism flying in the face of that suggestion. 'We can't tackle X because Paddy won't pay higher taxes, in the meantime we'll try lower taxes for them who pay taxes'. Blarney. As gets bandied about here often enough, 'Social housing lower tax? the money will have to come from somewhere'.
In short, he's going to try lower taxes for those who pay taxes by raising costs/prices elsewhere. Does he think taxpayers live in a bubble and their pockets won't be hit?
People want value for money. Not a government that seem to be content with the way things are and feel it's more important to be populist rather than do their job. Where's the 'do what needs doing, even if it's not popular' Fine Gael party of myth and legend? I suppose they got there's so it's time to play for popularity.0 -
By Trump-esque I mean in the manner of Trump. That being using ill thought out rhetoric. As I said, if he's on about people "who get up every day, go to work, pay the taxes" who else is there that he's referring to? What's the take from this? Is it the suggestion that the previous Fine Gael government pandered too much to non-taxpayers, people who like a lie in of a morning? It's devisive and I'd hope for a little more class, a move on from the 'toddle along', 'whingers' 'go do something' ignorance we've seen.
If, as has been suggested, some of the issues needing addressing relate to a lack of money and it's partly the fault of the public for having an unwillingness to pay the taxes required to foot the bill, his move is populism flying in the face of that suggestion. 'We can't tackle X because Paddy won't pay higher taxes, in the meantime we'll try lower taxes for them who pay taxes'. Blarney. As gets bandied about here often enough, 'Social housing lower tax? the money will have to come from somewhere'.
In short, he's going to try lower taxes for those who pay taxes by raising costs/prices elsewhere. Does he think taxpayers live in a bubble and their pockets won't be hit?
People want value for money. Not a government that seem to be content with the way things are and feel it's more important to be populist rather than do their job. Where's the 'do what needs doing, even if it's not popular' Fine Gael party of myth and legend? I suppose they got there's so it's time to play for popularity.
Well take the reverse of the argument, if all this social housing is to be built, health service fixed to a decent standard, etc etc. Where are the politicians that are shouting for a quick fix to all these issues going to get the money to implement all these policies.
Are we to see raised taxes on the employed people and those paying their already hard pressed mortgages, ever inflating health insurance costs, etc etc. Are we to become a benevolent to the point of slavery state?0 -
Bishopsback wrote: »Well take the reverse of the argument, if all this social housing is to be built, health service fixed to a decent standard, etc etc. Where are the politicians that are shouting for a quick fix to all these issues going to get the money to implement all these policies.
Are we to see raised taxes on the employed people and those paying their already hard pressed mortgages, ever inflating health insurance costs, etc etc. Are we to become a benevolent to the point of slavery state?
Name one human being calling for a quick fix? Action, yes.
The only moves relating to a quick fix I've seen are subsidies and tax relief for landlords given out, that only seem to make things worse. That's throwing tax payer money at a problem with little chance of even easing the problem.
Are you saying there's no money, so let's move along? We may as well organise tax cuts? The idea that the hard pressed tax payer needs a cut in tax take while the very things squeezing him/her are made and let get worse is plain silly.
Cutting personal take home tax won't lead to cheaper rent/food/other charges/taxes especially as they increase. Fianna Fail policy in the making.0 -
The thread is pointless unless we monitor all parties and see what percentage of their policies get implemented over the course of the Dail, after all that is what we elected them to do. We can then rank the parties in terms of successful implementation of their policies.
In an era of coalition governments, rather than single-party majority government, no political party will be able to implement 100% of their policies, in an era of new politics, even opposition parties should be able to persuade others of the merits of their policies and have some implemented. All parties should then end up with a score somewhere between 0 and 100%.0 -
The thread is pointless unless we monitor all parties and see what percentage of their policies get implemented over the course of the Dail, after all that is what we elected them to do. We can then rank the parties in terms of successful implementation of their policies.
In an era of coalition governments, rather than single-party majority government, no political party will be able to implement 100% of their policies, in an era of new politics, even opposition parties should be able to persuade others of the merits of their policies and have some implemented. All parties should then end up with a score somewhere between 0 and 100%.
This is a Fine Gael specific thread. It's in the name.
If/when they are no longer in government you'd have a point.
What 'era of new politics'? That notion was quashed by the early days of 2012.
Much of your post is covered over in the Leo/Manifesto thread. This one relates to Fine Gael policies, as they appear, as they change and will of course include input from coalition partners because it's been generally agreed FG manifesto's are meaningless.0 -
This is a Fine Gael specific thread. It's in the name.
If/when they are no longer in government you'd have a point.
What 'era of new politics'? That notion was quashed by the early days of 2012.
Much of your post is covered over in the Leo/Manifesto thread. This one relates to Fine Gael policies, as they appear, as they change and will of course include input from coalition partners because it's been generally agreed FG manifesto's are meaningless.
New politics is the politics since the last election when we have a minority government etc.
Comparison is a useful tool. If you want to measure how successful a party is by the percentage of manifesto implemented, you must compare it to how everyone else is doing. It is a bit silly criticising FG for implementing say only 15% of their manifesto (or whatever you want to pick) when other parties are on 0%.0 -
Advertisement
-
Politics is the art of the possible, that means compromise to achieve things. There is that famous quote from Bismark:If you like laws and sausages, you should never watch either one being made
Seems someone saw some being made and now complains that he cant enjoy his morning Fry anymore.
0 -
New politics is the politics since the last election when we have a minority government etc...
'New politics' was what Kenny's Fine Gael promised as a new way of doing business and so on. Much of which can be found in that manifesto and it's five point plan, regarding 'Elites' etc.. Frankly, much of it never happened and the cronyism was added to by Fine Gael.
You can refer 'new politics' to a chronological measure, but nobody outside of the Fine Gael spin room are seriously replacing one with the other.
There's another thread where it was discussed how we all agree minority government partners have a tough time enacting elements of their manifesto. How almost identical the FG and Lab manifestos were, yet we'd little follow through and how we shouldn't take manifestos seriously anyway, especially Fine Gael ones.
********
Sadly I fear the new form of bin charges will take up much of the media eye when the time comes. Meanwhile we've Murphy looking at the help to buy scheme like he just heard about it. What ever changes come in I'm sure they won't effect the profit of them selling, most likely we'll see another tax funded grant or other...lousy welfare/pensioners, am I right?0 -
Taoiseach Leo Varadkar has promised to raid the fund for spending on capital projects.
However Department officials said that while there are plans to inject €1 billion into the fund in 2019, 2020 and 2021, the current value of the fund is zero...
The Chief Economist at the Department of Finance, John McCarthy, said the statement would contain further detail about the future of the rainy day fund.
"The operation of the rainy day fund and the amounts that go into it is currently being reviewed, and in the summer economic statement which will be published next week there will be further detail" he added.
Earlier Mr McCarthy told the PAC that Government debt now stands at between €42,000 and €44,000 for every person in the State.
That is the second highest debt level in the world after Japan.
The committee was told that in hard cash terms, Ireland owed €201 billion in debt at the end of 2015.
Included in that is €17.5 billion used to bail out stricken banks.
https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0706/888205-debt-economy/
We essentially got a loan and picked up were we left off, failing to tackle the ever worsening societal crises as we, (the state) go on our merry way to another property crash.
Not to worry though...Varadkar says Govt committed to crackdown on welfare fraud
https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0706/888222-politics/
Phew. Thank goodness. Great to see action on Leo's choice of the most important issues.
But the 'economy', right?
***Additional***
As for helping folks who get out of bed or something...Cutting the marginal rate of tax below 50% - would be tax cut for top earners
The head of the Department of Finance Derek Moran was quizzed on the effect of reducing the marginal rate of tax. Who would it benefit? Sinn Féin’s David Cullinane pointed out that only 14.3% of earners pay more than 50% tax. He asked: "If we were to reduce the marginal rate of tax below 50%, what we're doing then is giving a tax cut to the top 14.3% of income earners - would that be correct? Mr Moran replied, "yes".
https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0706/888266-five-things/
Maybe it's helping those who don't have to get out of bed but do anyway or something?0 -
As for helping folks who get out of bed or something...
Maybe it's helping those who don't have to get out of bed but do anyway or something?
And yet when we talk about fairness and equality, it seems to only count for those on low incomes.
For whatever reason, we all want fairness and equality, but we kinda don't want to give it to high earners because well they earn enough.
That 14% ( and it's actually smaller) account for over 55% of our income tax. We have 38% of our workforce not contributing to income tax.
Would it maybe be fairer to have those 38% contribute something? And fairer that the guys and gals who have been keeping the income revenue stream alive through the recession, get a few quid back?
Nah, because equality and fairness can only be used when talking about lower income workers or the "squeezed middle".
You other posts mention about investing in infrastructure, schools and health etc. And that's all good, and we should. But we want everything, and we don't want to pay for it. We can't KEEP investing with borrowed money, whatever about the longterm view taken to a countries debt, I don't believe we are in an economic state where we are eroding away comfortably. At some point we need to put a massive dent in that bill.
Personally I think we should be widening the tax base in terms of catchment, which should bump coffers, and we can then look to be prudent on infrastructural investment.0 -
And yet when we talk about fairness and equality, it seems to only count for those on low incomes.
For whatever reason, we all want fairness and equality, but we kinda don't want to give it to high earners because well they earn enough.
That 14% ( and it's actually smaller) account for over 55% of our income tax. We have 38% of our workforce not contributing to income tax.
Would it maybe be fairer to have those 38% contribute something? And fairer that the guys and gals who have been keeping the income revenue stream alive through the recession, get a few quid back?
Nah, because equality and fairness can only be used when talking about lower income workers or the "squeezed middle".
You other posts mention about investing in infrastructure, schools and health etc. And that's all good, and we should. But we want everything, and we don't want to pay for it. We can't KEEP investing with borrowed money, whatever about the longterm view taken to a countries debt, I don't believe we are in an economic state where we are eroding away comfortably. At some point we need to put a massive dent in that bill.
Personally I think we should be widening the tax base in terms of catchment, which should bump coffers, and we can then look to be prudent on infrastructural investment.
Why is the go to alleviating the 14%? Should we, (the state) not be tackling such severe disparity in the numbers here? Isn't only 14% accounting for 55% of tax take the problem? Rather than increasing the burden on the working poor, should we not be looking at what causes such a divide? Rather than sticking it to Peter to spare Paul?But we want everything, and we don't want to pay for it.
That's not true. And more a case of we get nothing needed and pay for everything else.
They fine and/or imprison people who don't pay their taxes. Are we back to Fine Gael would love to do their job but the public won't fund it? What utter nonsense.
About allocation of the loan; we went about putting the people who hold the lion's share of the responsibility for the mess back in business as a matter of urgency, meanwhile all our societal problems worsened. There's your priorities. How this is on the tax payer not willing to pay their way is an ignorant insult to every hard working tax payer in the country, some who yes indeed need state aide to make it from one week to the next. That's what needs addressing not playing a populist balancing act with tax take or looking to welfare fraud as a distraction, which quite frankly is insulting IMO.
'Let's throw the top 11% of high income earners in the country a tax break and promise to crack down on welfare fraud', that's how much Leo and Fine Gael respect the people. Feeds the 'free house' 'dem that don't work' narrative of spin. Gutter politics.0 -
Why is the go to alleviating the 14%? Should we, (the state) not be tackling such severe disparity in the numbers here? Isn't only 14% accounting for 55% of tax take the problem? Rather than increasing the burden on the working poor, should we not be looking at what causes such a divide? Rather than sticking it to Peter to spare Paul?
That's not true. And more a case of we get nothing needed and pay for everything else.
They fine and/or imprison people who don't pay their taxes. Are we back to Fine Gael would love to do their job but the public won't fund it? What utter nonsense.
About allocation of the loan; we went about putting the people who hold the lion's share of the responsibility for the mess back in business as a matter of urgency, meanwhile all our societal problems worsened. There's your priorities. How this is on the tax payer not willing to pay their way is an ignorant insult to every hard working tax payer in the country, some who yes indeed need state aide to make it from one week to the next. That's what needs addressing not playing a populist balancing act with tax take or looking to welfare fraud as a distraction, which quite frankly is insulting IMO.
'Let's throw the top 11% of high income earners in the country a tax break and promise to crack down on welfare fraud', that's how much Leo and Fine Gael respect the people. Feeds the 'free house' 'dem that don't work' narrative of spin. Gutter politics.
What's wrong with cracking down on welfare fraud?0 -
Advertisement
-
I have to admit I was very surprised at this, I would have thought Leo would have given the party a bit of a boost.
I'm still convinced that he's the countries second in a row, accidental Taoiseach.
No sign of 'Leo Leap' as Fine Gael's public support nose dives weeks after AppointmentThere is no sign of a ‘Leo Leap’ as the latest opinion polls shows the appointment of Leo Varadkar as Fine Gael leader has resulted in Fine Gael’s public support nose diving.
Fine Gael surged in the polls during the leadership contest but has now dropped two points to 27pc since Mr Varadkar was appointed as Taoiseach.
Meanwhile, Fianna Fail, under Micheal Martin’s leadership, is up three points to 24pc.
Mr Varadkar’s first two weeks in office were mired in controversy over the appointment of Attorney General Marie Whelan to the Courts of Appeal. The media blitz of the State visit of Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau last week also seems to have done little for Fine Gael’s standing in the polls.
Elsewhere, Sinn Fein is up three points to 18pc, the Labour Party remain unchanged at 6pc and the Independent Alliance is up one to 4pc.0 -
I have to admit I was very surprised at this, I would have thought Leo would have given the party a bit of a boost.
I'm still convinced that he's the countries second in a row, accidental Taoiseach.
No sign of 'Leo Leap' as Fine Gael's public support nose dives weeks after Appointment
He well wore the bright up and comer thing long ago.0 -
I know the Taoiseach & fg leader Leo V deserves a bit of settling in time, but his start & that of his administration has been very poor really e.g
- The Ministry for Public Expenditure & Reform was abolished and combined with the ministry for finance, why!? This is really dumb, there is massive work to do here.
- Public sector pay deal done quietly while Fg leadership election was going on. This in a country where there is aleady a massive & unaffordable disparity between public and private sector pay & pensions, and where we struggle with our national competitiveness. Our health and other public services can simply never improve by the requisite degree while this disparity is allowed continue & fester , as it just defies economics and feasibility.
- the increase in super junior ministries to reward political ' loyalty ' to Leo, promoting callow cronyism and leaving the cabinet even more unworkable and unwieldiy
-The latest capitulation on the 'rainy day fund' planning, by effectively halving the prospective budget for same is the latest short term, unrealistic, political sell out.
So essentially since Leo became Taoiseach, Ireland has already set itself up for losing even more competitiveness, having poorer, less affordable public services, having an unwieldy, cronied cabinet and halving the contingency to keep the place going when the current cycle downturns which it will.
By any measure that's a pretty shoddy start, he needs to cop himself on pronto, or he'll be another short stretch FG leader, of which there have been many.0 -
-The latest capitulation on the 'rainy day fund' planning, by effectively halving the prospective budget for same is the latest short term, unrealistic, political sell out.
Having decent infrastructure will help us weather future rainy days more so than a few billion in the fund while also helping with the current housing crises0 -
LeinsterDub wrote: »Having decent infrastructure will help us weather future rainy days more so than a few billion in the fund while also helping with the current housing crises
You're about 1/3 right imho. Having properly structured public pay & pension deals will help us weather future rainy days better than anything the government has proposed to date.
And on infrastructure, yes it can be gdp/gnp enhancing but only if it is invested in the right infrastructure, to the right scale and at the right price. E.g. The National Children's hospital already falls down on 2 of those criteria whereas in stark contrast, the Wild Atlantic Way shoots the lights out on all 3 criteria, as a for instance.0 -
Advertisement
-
In infrastructure development we need more Wild Atlantic Way ' home runs ', and less cronied, compromised, catastrophies like the Children's Hospital appears to be turning out to be. Unfortunately this government, and more worryingly this leader appears more inclined to the latter. He and they need to improve.0
-
In infrastructure development we need more Wild Atlantic Way ' home runs ', and less cronied, compromised, catastrophies like the Children's Hospital appears to be turning out to be. Unfortunately this government, and more worryingly this leader appears more inclined to the latter. He and they need to improve.
This government is the first ever (?) government to ask the IMF to assess our infrastructure needs. So hopefully the removes the parish pump element0 -
Just to note:80 families entering homelessness a month on average in Dublin
On average, 80 families are entering homelessness per month in Dublin, according to the Director of the Dublin Regional Homeless Executive.
https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0713/889945-housing-ctte/Rugby is an emergency, homeless kids can wait
Government meets rugby event deadline but misses one on homeless children
On Friday, June 30th, official figures showed that a new record number of 2,777 children, in 1,312 families, were living in emergency accommodation across the State. Scandalous in itself, this news was even more appalling because the following day, July 1st, was the Government’s own deadline for moving all homeless families out of hotel accommodation, which is wildly inappropriate for children. In Dublin alone, there are still 650 families in hotels and B&Bs...
..The Dáil sat late on Wednesday night to push through emergency legislation related to Ireland’s bid to host the Rugby World Cup in 2023. In 3½ hours, and with no prior scrutiny, it agreed a Bill committing the State to putting up a tournament fee of €138 million to a company registered in the Isle of Man called World Cup Rugby Limited. The legislation also commits the State to guaranteeing a further sum – unknown at this stage but thought to be about €200 million – in indemnities against possible losses relating to the tournament...
..Values and priorities
The Irish bid to host the Rugby World Cup is a good thing and it is hard to see circumstances in which the €138 million fee would not be recouped or the €200 million would actually be drawn down. The interesting point, though, is the tale of two deadlines and what it says about the State’s values and priorities.
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fintan-o-toole-rugby-is-an-emergency-homeless-kids-can-wait-1.3149504
I know, I know these things take time, no magic money tree, Coveney is gone off to elsewhere, Leo is only in the door and Brexit etc.
Welfare fraud and Murphy losing the run of himself though.0 -
Very disingenuous article there . Amount of effort taken for the government to say yeah we got this covered , one piece of paper .
Solving homeless.... on going since the dawn of time/the state.0 -
LeinsterDub wrote: »Very disingenuous article there . Amount of effort taken for the government to say yeah we got this covered , one piece of paper .
Solving homeless.... on going since the dawn of time/the state.
Record breaking at the min. Sure no matter.
Nice to disregard problems because they existed at some level previously. We should be thankful the government give us the time of day to be fair.
Must be great to dodge accountability.0 -
Record breaking at the min. Sure no matter.
Nice to disregard problems because they existed at some level previously. We should be thankful the government give us the time of day to be fair.
Must be great to dodge accountability.
OK, so the government should have abandoned Ireland's bid for the Rugby World Cup (and nobody would have criticised them for that, no sirree bob) and passed legislation to fix homelessness instead.
What form would this "fixing homelessness" legislation have taken?0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »OK, so the government should have abandoned Ireland's bid for the Rugby World Cup (and nobody would have criticised them for that, no sirree bob) and passed legislation to fix homelessness instead.
What form would this "fixing homelessness" legislation have taken?
They shouldn't have even introduced legislation. Just accept a SF/Solidarity motion in the Dail saying something something something abolish homelessness and hey presto all our problems will be solved.0 -
Just an FYI on how appalling the situation is.oscarBravo wrote: »OK, so the government should have abandoned Ireland's bid for the Rugby World Cup (and nobody would have criticised them for that, no sirree bob) and passed legislation to fix homelessness instead.
What form would this "fixing homelessness" legislation have taken?
Not at all. Did you read the article at all?
I wouldn't know. Maybe if they put as much priority into it?They shouldn't have even introduced legislation. Just accept a SF/Solidarity motion in the Dail saying something something something abolish homelessness and hey presto all our problems will be solved.
The finest in whataboutery.0 -
-The latest capitulation on the 'rainy day fund' planning, by effectively halving the prospective budget for same is the latest short term, unrealistic, political sell out.
So essentially since Leo became Taoiseach, Ireland has already set itself up for losing even more competitiveness, having poorer, less affordable public services, having an unwieldy, cronied cabinet and halving the contingency to keep the place going when the current cycle downturns which it will.
These things are linked, we have basically stopped building infrastructure for the past decade as it was easier politically to ax spending on roads, houses, water then cut Public Sector pay and jobs.
To increase competitiveness we need to build things like the Metro North, Dublin Underground, M20 etc.
At least it seems he will spend it on one off projects that will help Ireland compete, rather then used to fund to give the public sector more money in their wages.0 -
LeinsterDub wrote: »Very disingenuous article there . Amount of effort taken for the government to say yeah we got this covered , one piece of paper .
Solving homeless.... on going since the dawn of time/the state.
Totally agree. A completely irrelevant connection by an angry, troskyite, scribe searching for relevance.
In actual fact, by encouraging initiatives like rugby world cups, tourism, invisible exports, jobs, innovation, etc, etc, etc That is one of the most proven, reliable ways of helping to increase social mobility, and reduce & maybe even eliminate homelessness.
But don't expect an angry little socialist scribe like O'toole to acknowledge this, as to do so would validate a truthful, genuine and economically viable argument, all 3 highly desirable characteristics, which upset his negative narrative, and oh so precious, but fatally failed, politics........0 -
Advertisement
Advertisement