United Ireland Poll - please vote

From a lay persons perspective Income Tax is easy to get your head around. Doesn't income tax guarantee there is money in the pot to pay for the extra services whereas with borrowing you then are hoping the return is enough to pay back both the interest and the principal and if it isn't you'll probably have to raise the repayment money thorough other means ie taxation.

Isn't the elephant in the room the measly 35bn over 8 years benefit. That's not gonna service much of a debt.

As an economists what is your professional opinion on the papers provided by Hubner, Doyle and Fitzgerald? Are they a good starting point to judge the costs and benefits of Unity?

You do that...then review the threads on this subject for the benefits I see.

Who knows maybe Leo can pull you onto the bandwagon he realised he needs to be on. It'll be nice and fresh on his mind!

To be clear, I'm not an economist, JH. I have done my share of statistical modelling in my time, but never in the economics field. My quip was more aimed at the suggestion that we should model based on income tax because it is the easiest to understand; I was suggesting that perhaps the easiest isn't necessarily the best; if it was I might consider a career change into economics.

From a lay person's perspective, income tax might be easier to get your head around but again, I'd rather have accurate than easy when it comes to something as significant as the economy. Perhaps that will mean the government at the time having some difficult conversations to explain that applying the logic of a person's individual finances to that of a country's economy doesn't work.

€35bn over 8 years would be over €4bn a year; enough to cover the interest on over €100bn of debt. Given that the objective would be initial investment to bring NI up to par, one would imagine that after the 8 years of investment, the economy of NI would be sufficiently advanced to contribute enough to then start to pay down the capital investment it took to reach that point. Being frank, I would've expected longer than 8 years before it paid a dividend for the investment, so I wouldn't see a, 'measly' €35bn increase as problematic, but rather as green shoots of progress.

The 8 years is contested as it assumes FDI will, overnight, increase to the Republics level. Fitzgerald says this is implausible due to the low levels of education in NI. He reckons 20 years as that is how long it took educational standards in the Republic to improve by a similar amount.

If we look at debt instead of income tax am I correct in the following;

Doyle says 5% covers the subvention. Fitzgerald say 8% and that represents a budget adjustment of 20/30bn. Does that mean we need to borrow 20/30 bn if not going down the income tax route and that over 8 years would need to borrow 160/240bn to cover the subvention?

what tax increases? Considering you are ignoring that the country needs to discuss what a UI is, you seem to be hell bent in makey uppey talk. We need to discuss how a UI will change things before we can talk of how much anything will cost or how many (if any) job losses there will be. If - like blanch152 - you seem to think the process wont take a few decades then I think you need a reality check.

I wouldnt be surprised if none of your complaints end up as issues - all I hear is whinging because you dont like the idea of a UI.

Most economists?

How many Irish economists?

no - it would take decades as it is a major reconstruction of irish society. the question that is being begged is do you have the slightest notion of how mammoth a task as UI will be? I dont think you see the big picture at all.

No idea if Fionn is right but no reason to doubt him at the moment.

That's a very dishonest approach, JH. Not very conducive to an open and constructive discussion if you're going to start into that.

I didn't make any claims on how much it would cost, you did. I said that IF (and highlighted that it was a big if) we take all your statements as correct and NI essentially continues on in a vacuum making no progress, that your numbers would make sense....but they're not my numbers and I'd prefer you didnt insinuate that I've said more than I have.

Sorry , i was trying to say you agreed with the logic of my figure rather than the figures themselves.

I did also say to the other poster that you had caveats with it too.

Apologies again, wasn't my intention. This is something I actually want to talk about and it's refreshing to have someone on the other side willing to.

Google them or search the threads, I've better things to be at.

I'm always happy to discuss it, though I'd question how much value I can provide; I'm not an economist so I'm not going to be carrying out any financial projections of my own, nor am I in government so I won't be in a position to influence what financial policies are followed should we proceed.

My position has always been an admittedly selfish one; the majority of my family live in NI and I feel they would be better off in a United Ireland both economically and socially. As a tax payer who already pays a substantially amount of tax for a huge number of things that don't impact me in the slightest, of course I'm less likely to be scared off by the big bad, 'more tax' question when it is something that will directly benefit my extended family. Can I quantify that specifically as a benefit to you? Probably no more than you could quantify the benefit to me of building a new road, youth centre or public park in your locale that I'll never use, though I wouldn't object to my taxes being used for any of those.

Even from the perspective of a person living in NI, unity doesn't guarentee improvement economically at a personal level.

If we mistakenly decide that just covering the subvention is enough then nobody in NI is any better off. They just get a euro conversion. Any money generated just goes back into the pot to hopefully bring tax back to the original level.

Actually improving the lives of those in NI is the expensive part eg 3bn a year just for social welfare.

Big risks too for the people in NI. Their economy being propped up by high PS employment and the subvention means it doesn't change much. In a New Ireland , poor planning and outside forces such as global recession and COVID type events and they could see conditions worsen.

Social side of things, I haven't thought too much about but my instinct is that benefits here would depend on how much of the bigotry is systemic. Unification isn't going to make Sammy Wilson any less of a bigot.

Social issues are linked to the economy too. If the subvention is only covered nothing changes in that regard either as levels of poverty remain the same.

I'll take my opinions on life living in NI from my lived experience and that of the god knows how many other people I know who have actually lived there (to be clear, many of whom don't support Unification). Of course Unification doesn't guarantee economic improvement on the personal level. Can you tell me a single government initiative that GUARANTEES economic improvement for every single individual there?! That's a ridiculously high bar to set and not one that anyone even slightly reasonable should take seriously.

If we decided that Unification was just a case of leaving everything the same and Dublin foots the bill instead of London, then yes....obviously no one is any better off. Can you point to anyone who is proposing this? The entire conversation we've been having is around investment in NI to bring it up to a higher standard.

I'd like to see how you reckon that as part of Ireland (and now subject to the protection offered by EU membership again) that a post Unification NI would be MORE subject to the impact of outside forces such as global recessions or pandemics than it is while tied to an increasingly isolationist UK, whos government have demonstrated time and time again that NI is only an afterthought?

Can an NI that represents about 30% of the population of a New Ireland have it's voice heard more readily there than as 3% of the population of a political system set up to practically eliminate minority parties having political voices with FPTP voting in the UK?

It is very apparent that you haven't thought much of the social side of things as it has been clear that your primary concern is purely economic (such is your right of course, your vote is worth just as much as mine). Unification won't make the likes of Sammy decide he isn't a bigot overnight, but the systemic changes can be responsible for making sure there are a damn sight fewer Sammy types for the next generation to deal with. In the same way that the GFA didn't magically get rid of distrust between communities overnight, nor will Unification eliminate all the ills of the world, once more you set the bar ridiculously high if that's what you expect.

As for your last statement, firstly to try and diminish the social issues experienced in NI as purely tied to economic factors is ridiculously naive, and ignores several generations of history that have led to those social issues.....but even then, as already said who is talking about a New Ireland that's just the same except we're footing the bill instead of London?

With regards who is suggesting that we only cover the subvention. I think it's fair enough to accuse SF of this. Pearse especially is focusing on it and using the lower predictions of it as a basis to say we can afford it.

Technically he's right with a 5% tax increase but let's hope economic partition is not what they really want or would settle for.

On me setting a high bar for unification the point i thought i made was that the metrics eg GDP are guaranteed to improve but these won't necessarily filter down to the individual.

On the social side, it's not my primary concern and I hope given my posts that isn't any sort of revelation but that doesn't mean I'll accept that a simple changing of flags will improve things.

I wasn't trying to diminish the social aspects at all by linking them to economics but a lot are. Prosperity for example has a well known link to health outcomes. If the economy and wealth disparity are not addressed then certain social issues will remain. Must look for research around racism and economic prosperity.

Not the first time a point of view or a statement was invented and then argued against. It is a habit of several posters here.

Where have I lied about what someone said or invented a point of view?

Link please or withdraw that.

That is NOT an invention of a point of view or a lie about what somebody said.

I have said, I have no interest in giving a partitionist mindset the fodder for a few more posts. The benefits of a UI are all out there on google...if you wish to diss them, knock yourself out...there is no onus on me to assist you.

Now, are you going to withdraw yet another lie about me?

Using your logic we cannot afford to run the country at the moment. And rarely have been able to 'afford' it.

If I can 'afford' the repayments on a top of the range car, I can have that car because I can 'afford it'.

You lie at the drop of a hat about what people have said, you have attributed stuff about me several times and now other posters are complaining about you doing it. Here is BACK UP for that. Something you are too cowardly to provide for your lies.

You said I DO THE SAME thing and you have been asked to back up where I lied or invented an opinion for a poster and argued against it.

Are you going to do that or not?

So you 'stand by your lies and misrepresenting' of others? Because before you start on another round of misrepresentation, that is what three posters now, have accused you off. Which has NOTHING to do with your posting on what you believe are massive costs.