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

Have we given up?

1235

Comments

  • #122
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #123
    Lenny Lovett
    Closed Accounts Posts: 920 ✭✭✭Lenny Lovett


    djpbarry wrote: »
    You can’t answer a simple question, can you?
    Because it was not a serious question was it?
    djpbarry wrote: »
    Have you not been arguing that we cannot afford to take money out of the economy?
    It depends where you take the money from. If you take it from an area that will not immediately damage the existing situation it would not be as bad as removing the remaining cahsflow from many many small towns.
    djpbarry wrote: »
    Because it’s ****e?
    Really? I live in rural Wicklow/Wexford area and my O2 connection is pretty good.
    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    Fair enough. I guess it varies from area to area. Still I believe feeding and housing and healthcare for our people is a bit more important right now than broadband roll out.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Let me see if I can summarise your position so far. We can't afford to cut social welfare, as it would damage the economy. We can't afford to increase social welfare, because the money isn't there to do so. But you're not arguing that the current level of social welfare is the correct level.
    Again and again and again I make the point...:rolleyes: I'll try again. I believe that to cut the basic Welfare payment (€196) by 5% or 10% will have a very damaging effect on the economy as it will suck out in the region of €1.5+Billion from the everyday spend that is the lifeblood of many businesses. It will have the effect of causing many more company failures resulting in a huge upsurge in unemployment and result in an equal rise in Public Service costs to deal with said effects. Can I make it any simpler for you? I don't think so. You obviously believe this won't happen? Well explain how it will be avoided please. I did ask one of you to do this already but no reply. Surprise? Nah!
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I'm confused. No, I believe that my business will benefit from the government taking the measures necessary to ensure that we continue to have a functioning economy.
    Fair enough. As I stated you obviously have pots of cash to prop it up for the next ten years, assuming your business isn't a Quango too!? Unfortunately many other businesses don't. IS that really so hard for you to grasp?
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I won't benefit directly from a cut in social welfare rates - as I've already said, it will probably cause me some short-term pain - but if the government continues to spend beyond its means at an unsustainable rate, there won't be an economy.
    So. Why not cut out the blatant waste first namely quangos? Take one for example: Wexford Local Development Board - They have an office on lease and staffed in each main town in County Wexford (two in Wexford Town!). That's five offices when one would suffice. By the way, they're all leased from Private Landlords yet there's a huge ex Council Office lying idle. Go figure.... And that's just one example.

    And then why not cut all the tax breaks?

    Then why not impose the domestic water charges?

    Then why not impose a tax on Betting Shop Gambling Winnings?

    And then impose a tax/levy on savings above a certain threshold?
    And so on and so on.

    You see when anyone talks of saving money the first section of society they look at is the poor/Welfare recipients then they look at the sick and try to cut hospital spending. Why not start with the rich this time around and work down for once? Is that so wrong?
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    You see, this is where we differ. I believe that a government that spends twenty billion euros a year more than it takes in is on course to kill off the economy. I don't believe that a government that reduces social welfare spending from celtic tiger levels is on course to kill off the economy.
    Indeed we do differ there. You see you're talking about saving 20 billion but the majority, vast majority of that is Public Service wages. True or false? So where should the cuts start happening first????
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Yes, a reduction in social welfare will contribute to slower growth in the short term. But a failure to reduce social welfare could well lead to the inability to borrow money next time we need it. So, what happens to the economy when the government quite simply doesn't have any money in its coffers to pay the social welfare? Won't that take money out of the economy? Haven't you been arguing that we can't afford to reduce the amount of money that people have available to spend? Are social welfare recipients bigger spenders than low earners?
    At least low wage earners have more disposable income and it doesn't make sense that an earner does not pay some form of income tax how ever small it may be. Would a low earner on, say, €360 a week miss €5 as much as someone who is not earning and getting welfare of €196 a week?
    Anyway, most of those signing on paid into a PRSI/NI fund for years and that is supposed to cover Dole payments. It's unfair to penalise them due to the bad management of the fund by the Civil Service isn't it?
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    When was the last time a rural broadband project received a grant cheque from the government? Dates and amounts, please, otherwise I'll know for a fact that you're just making stuff up.
    North Wexford Local Broadband got a grant last year. I've made a call to find out how much and the person concerned said she'll try and get back to me tomorrow with the information.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Because that's not broadband, and no other country in the developed world counts mobile dialup in its broadband statistics. Besides, the rural dwellers are not being subsidised, despite what you're claiming.
    Fair enough. As I stated above I use O2 and in rural Wexs/Wicklow it's fine.
    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    In case you haven't noticed it's monsoon now. The rainy day has arrived and people need to start spending to, themselves, try and stimulate the economy. Either that or we need a savings levy/tax.
    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    Well for a start we should be taking the ECB's offer of borrowing at 3% and pay off the 6/7% borrowings now. There, that'd be a substantial spending cut wouldn't it?
    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    Yeah and the proposed cut to the Welfare budget would be a drop in the ocean to the money needed to rescue the economy but on the other hand would be devestating to the local economy of most Towns in Ireland and, indeed, large parts of the cities too.


  • #124
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #125
    Lenny Lovett
    Closed Accounts Posts: 920 ✭✭✭Lenny Lovett


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    Irony maybe. But I never advocated the SSIA so it's not ironic for me. You may note that I did suggest a levy on savings "above a certain level". I suppose the word "Deposits" might be a better word?
    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    You see, that, to me is all hearsay... Unless you could, kindly, quote whom from the EU/ECB and when they said the funding would ome with strings attached. Frans Fischler was talking at great lenght on Euronews on Saturday about this and he said that neither the ECB or the EU had the power to put in pre conditions on the aid to struggling economies.
    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    Of course there's a f**king problem! That's what I've been telling you guys since we started this whole debate! The light finally flickers on!:) Thank the lord for that!


  • #126
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,851 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Lenny Lovett wrote: »
    I believe that to cut the basic Welfare payment (€196) by 5% or 10% will have a very damaging effect on the economy as it will suck out in the region of €1.5+Billion from the everyday spend that is the lifeblood of many businesses. It will have the effect of causing many more company failures resulting in a huge upsurge in unemployment and result in an equal rise in Public Service costs to deal with said effects. Can I make it any simpler for you? I don't think so. You obviously believe this won't happen? Well explain how it will be avoided please. I did ask one of you to do this already but no reply. Surprise? Nah!
    You're asking the rest of us to prove how a 5% drop in social welfare rates won't cause the entire economy to implode? Meanwhile, you're asserting that the ECB will lend us untold billions at favourable interest rates in order not to have to cut our social welfare rates? Please.
    Fair enough. As I stated you obviously have pots of cash to prop it up for the next ten years...
    No, I just haven't built a business that is balanced on a knife-edge of dependency on current social welfare rates.
    So. Why not cut out the blatant waste first namely quangos? [...]

    And then why not cut all the tax breaks?

    Then why not impose the domestic water charges?

    Then why not impose a tax on Betting Shop Gambling Winnings?
    I don't know if you're aware of the magnitude of the problem we're facing, but we're pretty much going to have to do all those things - and cut social welfare and public sector pay.
    You see when anyone talks of saving money the first section of society they look at is the poor/Welfare recipients then they look at the sick and try to cut hospital spending. Why not start with the rich this time around and work down for once? Is that so wrong?
    The only problem with it is that it's not going to be anything like enough. How many rich people will we have to tax, and by how much, to cut our deficit by four billion euros next year? How much will a tax on deposits raise? How much will we save by closing down quangos?
    Indeed we do differ there. You see you're talking about saving 20 billion but the majority, vast majority of that is Public Service wages. True or false? So where should the cuts start happening first????
    Something like 40% of current expenditure is on social welfare. If you think we can blithely ignore that and try to fix the problem by tinkering with taxes on savings and closing quangos, you quite simply don't grasp the scale of the problem.
    At least low wage earners have more disposable income and it doesn't make sense that an earner does not pay some form of income tax how ever small it may be. Would a low earner on, say, €360 a week miss €5 as much as someone who is not earning and getting welfare of €196 a week?
    If either of them has their disposable income reduced by a fiver, that's a fiver that won't be spent - and that's precisely what you're trying to convince us will cause the economy to implode.
    North Wexford Local Broadband got a grant last year. I've made a call to find out how much and the person concerned said she'll try and get back to me tomorrow with the information.
    Did they get fifteen million euros? Because that's the average amount that you're claiming each of twenty companies received. I run a rural broadband company, and I haven't seen fifteen million - or the colour of it - in government money.

    There was a grant scheme back in 2005/6 to help with the rollout of rural broadband, but that was back when we had money to burn, the rural broadband situation was even more disastrous than it is now, and there sure as hell wasn't 300 million on offer. These days, instead of subsidising rural broadband companies, the government has decided to subsidise a mobile phone network and call it broadband.
    Well for a start we should be taking the ECB's offer of borrowing at 3% and pay off the 6/7% borrowings now. There, that'd be a substantial spending cut wouldn't it?
    That would be the money you're claiming is available with no strings attached, right?


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    Lenny Lovett
    Closed Accounts Posts: 920 ✭✭✭Lenny Lovett


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    You're asking the rest of us to prove how a 5% drop in social welfare rates won't cause the entire economy to implode? Meanwhile, you're asserting that the ECB will lend us untold billions at favourable interest rates in order not to have to cut our social welfare rates? Please.
    And again you twist my words. Fair enough. Have it your way. I'm losing the will to live trying to get through to yoiu guys. Maybe we're better reviewing the outcome of the cuts in six months and deciding who was correct.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    No, I just haven't built a business that is balanced on a knife-edge of dependency on current social welfare rates.
    No. Strangely enough, neither did any other businesses however, now that's the reality of where they are. You must be very lcuky in your area that the situation doesn't affect you. It certainly affects many businesses in theSouth East.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I don't know if you're aware of the magnitude of the problem we're facing, but we're pretty much going to have to do all those things - and cut social welfare and public sector pay. The only problem with it is that it's not going to be anything like enough.
    By just removing the tax breaks we would be adding almost €11Billion to tax revenue. So that's a huge step.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    How many rich people will we have to tax, and by how much, to cut our deficit by four billion euros next year? How much will a tax on deposits raise? How much will we save by closing down quangos? Something like 40% of current expenditure is on social welfare. If you think we can blithely ignore that and try to fix the problem by tinkering with taxes on savings and closing quangos, you quite simply don't grasp the scale of the problem.
    Believe me I am acutely aware of the scale of the problem. I merely want it tackled in the most effective and least hurtful way. You are aware, I take it, that there is a big issue of the top 400 earners in this country and their payment of low or no tax? Have a look at this: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0824/1224277445100.html
    As for quangos... well where do we begin? Fás were taking over a Billion a year and for what? I already quoted an example of one quango in Co. Wexford and I believe there are similar organisations in most counties. We could go on and on and on on this one. Let's face it. We just cannot afford these quangos and their associated costs and wastage.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    If either of them has their disposable income reduced by a fiver, that's a fiver that won't be spent - and that's precisely what you're trying to convince us will cause the economy to implode.
    No. There is a difference. You see, the welfare recipient is likely to spend all his welfare claim in the week he receives. Most likely in his home area on food and other essentials whereas a working person albeit on a low wage will also spend most locally but may also save some. Taking away €5 from them will be unlikely to lower their local spend as they will still, need the same local buys won't they?
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Did they get fifteen million euros? Because that's the average amount that you're claiming each of twenty companies received.
    I don't know. Did you read what I posted? I said that I hadn't the information yet and would post it tomorrow when I get it.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I run a rural broadband company, and I haven't seen fifteen million - or the colour of it - in government money.
    Ah, so you do run a Quango then. That explains your views then. I understand now why you want everyone else cut. You'll be ok 'cos the EU development funding will keep you afloat!;) (The old "I'm alright Jack" routine!!)
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    There was a grant scheme back in 2005/6 to help with the rollout of rural broadband, but that was back when we had money to burn, the rural broadband situation was even more disastrous than it is now, and there sure as hell wasn't 300 million on offer.
    So where did all the money go then? Why is it still so poor? Money wasted a la Fás style was it?
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    These days, instead of subsidising rural broadband companies, the government has decided to subsidise a mobile phone network and call it broadband. That would be the money you're claiming is available with no strings attached, right?
    Well, all these subsidys will have to be pulled now. Prevention of poverty is more importnat than these things for now.


  • #128
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,851 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Lenny Lovett wrote: »
    No. Strangely enough, neither did any other businesses however, now that's the reality of where they are. You must be very lcuky in your area that the situation doesn't affect you. It certainly affects many businesses in theSouth East.
    Now who's twisting words? I have clearly stated that it will affect me. I have said that I will feel the pain.

    Yes, businesses will go under. News flash: businesses have been going under at an alarming rate, because of a contracting economy and almost non-existent credit. It's ludicrous to claim that we need to keep social welfare rates at current rates to save businesses, when we just can't afford to keep paying them.
    By just removing the tax breaks we would be adding almost €11Billion to tax revenue. So that's a huge step.
    It's a huge leap of logic, more like.

    You're claiming that a reduction in social welfare rates will cause the economy to implode, but you can't see any negative consequences of eliminating every tax break overnight?
    Believe me I am acutely aware of the scale of the problem. I merely want it tackled in the most effective and least hurtful way. You are aware, I take it, that there is a big issue of the top 400 earners in this country and their payment of low or no tax? Have a look at this: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0824/1224277445100.html
    OK, let's assume that we can squeeze forty million out of that lot (optimistically). That's one percent of the required deficit reduction. Most effective?
    As for quangos... well where do we begin? Fás were taking over a Billion a year and for what? I already quoted an example of one quango in Co. Wexford and I believe there are similar organisations in most counties. We could go on and on and on on this one. Let's face it. We just cannot afford these quangos and their associated costs and wastage.
    Not to mention that pointless Garda Ombudsman Commission, or the utterly pointless Met Éireann.

    I agree that there's a hell of a lot of waste that can be cut out, but it's simplistic in the extreme to say "git rid of every quango".
    I don't know. Did you read what I posted? I said that I hadn't the information yet and would post it tomorrow when I get it.
    I bet you a hundred euros they didn't get fifteen million, or the colour of it. Are we on?
    Ah, so you do run a Quango then. That explains your views then. I understand now why you want everyone else cut. You'll be ok 'cos the EU development funding will keep you afloat!;) (The old "I'm alright Jack" routine!!)
    It's really awfully difficult to argue with someone who invents his own definitions of words. Go figure out what a quango actually is (hint: it's not a small, privately-owned company) and come back to me when you know what you're talking about.
    So where did all the money go then? Why is it still so poor? Money wasted a la Fás style was it?
    All what money? The fictitious money in the quantities you pulled out of the air earlier in the thread?

    Or the money that went to good use in 2005, but that the government decided to stop making available because "there was no demand for it" despite them refusing to accept applications for grant funding, and that they then decided to spend subsidising multinational corporations to build mobile phone networks?

    Again, come back to me when you have some facts.
    Well, all these subsidys will have to be pulled now. Prevention of poverty is more importnat than these things for now.
    There are no subsidies that I'm aware of. Mind you, if there's three hundred million available, I'll get fibre to damn near every home in Mayo with it and not waste it piddling around with mobile phones.


  • #129
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #130
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Lenny Lovett wrote: »
    You see, the welfare recipient is likely to spend all his welfare claim in the week he receives. Most likely in his home area on food and other essentials...
    The welfare recipients around the South-East must be quite a diligent bunch. They don’t drink, smoke, play the lotto, watch footie on Sky...


  • #131
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    ...when the above-mentioned 400 have all left the country.


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #133
    Lenny Lovett
    Closed Accounts Posts: 920 ✭✭✭Lenny Lovett


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Yes, businesses will go under. News flash: businesses have been going under at an alarming rate, because of a contracting economy and almost non-existent credit. It's ludicrous to claim that we need to keep social welfare rates at current rates to save businesses, when we just can't afford to keep paying them.
    OK. Like I said we'll review this great idea to cut benefits in six months. The results will show much sooner than that.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    You're claiming that a reduction in social welfare rates will cause the economy to implode, but you can't see any negative consequences of eliminating every tax break overnight?
    Eliminating many or even most of them wouldn't have the same effect and as rapidly as a cut in Welfare.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    OK, let's assume that we can squeeze forty million out of that lot (optimistically). That's one percent of the required deficit reduction. Most effective?
    Yeah. That's the problem. People thinking that a €40 million rise in tax income is nothing. Well if we added all the dodgy €40millions that are leaking out here and there we'd have quite a sum I'm sure. You obviously don't concur...
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Not to mention that pointless Garda Ombudsman Commission, or the utterly pointless Met Éireann.
    Whatever about the Garda Ombudsman - I'd question it's value, Yes - I'd be quicker to question if we really need 400 staff at the Met office. You believe we do?
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I agree that there's a hell of a lot of waste that can be cut out, but it's simplistic in the extreme to say "git rid of every quango".
    Yeah. Maybe a bit simplistic to get rid of them all. We could certainly afford to abolish most though I'd say and when we're flush again we can open them all back up!
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I bet you a hundred euros they didn't get fifteen million, or the colour of it. Are we on?
    Sigh. Where did I say they were getting €15million? Please quote.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    It's really awfully difficult to argue with someone who invents his own definitions of words. Go figure out what a quango actually is (hint: it's not a small, privately-owned company) and come back to me when you know what you're talking about.
    A Quango is a Quasi Autonomous N.G.O. is it not? Where di I say it was a small, privately owned company? Again, please quote.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Or the money that went to good use in 2005, but that the government decided to stop making available because "there was no demand for it" despite them refusing to accept applications for grant funding, and that they then decided to spend subsidising multinational corporations to build mobile phone networks?
    If it went to good use why is the Broadband set up such a shambles?
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Again, come back to me when you have some facts. There are no subsidies that I'm aware of. Mind you, if there's three hundred million available, I'll get fibre to damn near every home in Mayo with it and not waste it piddling around with mobile phones.
    Maybe not now, but you're saying that there were none in the past???
    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    No, tax them at 50%. Anyway, why do you all believe that all these leaks of tens and hundreds of millions should not be blocked? Do you not believe all these would add up substantially?
    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    As above:- if you add up all these so called "populist solutions" (very insulting btw) it will amount to a substantial saving. You can't deny that surely? Or do you think we should just look after Billions and ignore the tens and hundreds of millions???
    djpbarry wrote: »
    ...when the above-mentioned 400 have all left the country.
    So what is your solution? Leave them here and pay little or no tax? You believe that Authors should be able to sell millions of books and pay no income tax? That the likes of U2 shouldn't have to pay tax? That ex-Taoisigh should be allowed to publish their memoirs and not pay tax on the income while at the same time being paid pensions from the taxpayer? What makes all these people so special? You guys make me wonder how we got as far as we did as a nation with that sort of thinking.


  • #134
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #135
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Lenny Lovett wrote: »
    Eliminating many or even most of them wouldn't have the same effect and as rapidly as a cut in Welfare.
    So you’re saying that taking €1.5 billion out of the economy via welfare cuts would be disastrous, but cutting out over seven times that sum would be grand? I’m no economist, but there seems to be a pretty gaping hole in that logic.
    Lenny Lovett wrote: »
    Yeah. That's the problem. People thinking that a €40 million rise in tax income is nothing. Well if we added all the dodgy €40millions that are leaking out here and there we'd have quite a sum I'm sure. You obviously don't concur...
    I think oB was stating that we could (optimistically) get €40 million in total from the top earners. I doubt there are multiples of €40 million “leaking” out there just waiting to be hoovered up.
    Lenny Lovett wrote: »
    Whatever about the Garda Ombudsman - I'd question it's value, Yes - I'd be quicker to question if we really need 400 staff at the Met office. You believe we do?
    I have no idea what the internal workings of the Met office are (and I doubt you do either) so I’m not in a position to comment.
    Lenny Lovett wrote: »
    Where did I say they were getting €15million?
    You stated that “there are over twenty 'rural' broadband projects collecting nearly €300million in grant aid”. That works out at close to €15 million per project, depending of course on one’s definition of “over” and “nearly”.
    Lenny Lovett wrote: »
    No, tax them at 50%. Anyway, why do you all believe that all these leaks of tens and hundreds of millions should not be blocked? Do you not believe all these would add up substantially?
    Not really, no – I very much doubt that there are hundreds of millions of Euros out there just waiting to be collected. Your figures are pure conjecture.
    Lenny Lovett wrote: »
    So what is your solution? Leave them here and pay little or no tax? You believe that Authors should be able to sell millions of books and pay no income tax? That the likes of U2 shouldn't have to pay tax? That ex-Taoisigh should be allowed to publish their memoirs and not pay tax on the income while at the same time being paid pensions from the taxpayer?
    No, I don’t necessarily agree with tax exemptions for artists, but a simple tot-up with a calculator will show you that a slight reduction in welfare payments will do much more for our current financial woes than taxing the bejesus out of Bono.


  • #136
    Lenny Lovett
    Closed Accounts Posts: 920 ✭✭✭Lenny Lovett


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    So you think just because they're rich they shouldn't have to pay their taxes? So why just the top 400? Why not the top 800 or 8000? And you slag me off for my logic?
    djpbarry wrote: »
    So you’re saying that taking €1.5 billion out of the economy via welfare cuts would be disastrous, but cutting out over seven times that sum would be grand? I’m no economist, but there seems to be a pretty gaping hole in that logic.
    Sigh...
    djpbarry wrote: »
    I think oB was stating that we could (optimistically) get €40 million in total from the top earners. I doubt there are multiples of €40 million “leaking” out there just waiting to be hoovered up.
    So you're his spokesman now eh? ;) Well maybe you should read Senator Shane Ross's new book entitled "Wasters". It details all the various losses that could and should be sealed off. You should be able to get it over in London... Maybe in WH Smiths?
    djpbarry wrote: »
    I have no idea what the internal workings of the Met office are (and I doubt you do either) so I’m not in a position to comment.
    Well never mind, I'm sure all 400 are working very hard just like all the rest of the Civil Service...
    djpbarry wrote: »
    You stated that “there are over twenty 'rural' broadband projects collecting nearly €300million in grant aid”. That works out at close to €15 million per project, depending of course on one’s definition of “over” and “nearly”.
    Came from the NDP Report. Google it.
    djpbarry wrote: »
    Not really, no – I very much doubt that there are hundreds of millions of Euros out there just waiting to be collected. Your figures are pure conjecture.
    Again, read Senator Shane Ross's book. It's very up to date and I tend to believe him. He'd be wide open to litigation if it was untrue.
    djpbarry wrote: »
    No, I don’t necessarily agree with tax exemptions for artists, but a simple tot-up with a calculator will show you that a slight reduction in welfare payments will do much more for our current financial woes than taxing the bejesus out of Bono.
    Yeah... At what cost to the economy.


  • #137
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,851 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Lenny Lovett wrote: »
    Whatever about the Garda Ombudsman - I'd question it's value, Yes...
    Fair enough. Why are we wasting money on an independent watchdog for the police? I mean, it's not as if any police officers have ever done anything wrong.
    I'd be quicker to question if we really need 400 staff at the Met office. You believe we do?
    Hell, no. What do farmers, airplanes and ships need to know about the weather for? Can't they stick a finger in the air?
    A Quango is a Quasi Autonomous N.G.O. is it not? Where di I say it was a small, privately owned company? Again, please quote.
    I run a small, privately owned company. You said I run a quango. You explain it to me.
    If it went to good use why is the Broadband set up such a shambles?
    It's pretty good in the places where the government helped subsidise the rollout of broadband services. It would be better in more places if the government hadn't withdrawn that funding five years ago, claiming that there was no demand for something they were refusing to make available.


  • #138
    DeVore
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,387 ✭✭✭✭DeVore


    Lenny stop answering questions with questions, you've made specific claims here, back them up as per our forum Rules or withdraw them. Google it isn't an answer.

    DeV.


  • #139
    jmayo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,224 ✭✭✭✭jmayo


    Lenny Lovett wrote: »
    Oh I grasp it very well. But I also grasp the reality!!! That is that cutting vast amounts of money from the economy will kill it off. Surprisingly I'm not the only one of that opinion.

    Yes cutting in the wrong places will kill growth.
    Cutting anywhere can have knock on affects, but not cutting and letting the situation carry on as is will result in one major cut when the ECB/IMF arrive and DEMAND cuts everywhere and anywhere.
    Lenny Lovett wrote: »
    So you honestly believe your business will benefit in the long run by the Government taking this money out of the economy? You must have vast pots of cash in the bank to tide you over the next ten years for that is at least the leghth of time it will take to dig out of this if they kill off the economy. My business will survive because we export around half of our output and that is very stable and actually growing albeit minutely this year, however, we forecast that if the status quo changes here in Ireland we will lose substantial sales and that will result in redundancies. No question. It's about survival. And, I was at a meeting yesterday where at least forty other business people were giving similar predictions. So we may cut 5% or 10% in Welfare Payments but the overall spend will rocket in the next twelve months as a result. There is no other way it can go. It would make far more sense to apply income tax to low earners, cut universal benefits where they are deemed unneccessary, increase Corporation tax by 1 or 2% (that much wouldn't hurt Industry sufficiently to drive them out).

    I don't know what businss you are in if you think that ramping up Corporation tax is a good idea at the moment.
    Last week a US multinational (Hollister) that has been based in Mayo for last almost 40 years announced expansion scheme and gave one of the reasons for this decision as been down to our low Corporation tax.
    At the moment we are hanging on to major multinationals because of this favourable tax rate.
    Ramp this up and we just ad one more reason for them to be off.
    Lenny Lovett wrote: »
    Also we need to close down all the quangos. Many of w2hom are just grant givers propping up non productive and unneccessary rural projects. Take one case for example. Apparrantley, there are over twenty 'rural' broadband projects collecting nearly €300million in grant aid. Now why can't the rural dwellers use Broadband from, say, O2 or Vodafone?

    Yes we do need to shut down quangoes, but where the hell are you getting this sh**e that useless Quangoes are just relating to rural projects ?

    Ah yes rural people are subsidised. :rolleyes:
    Ever care to think that rural dwellers susbisidise the lighting, the footpaths, the extra Gardaí, the new ring roads etc around urban areas ?
    You do know that 3G broadband is sh**e and only yourself and gobdaws like eamon "sanctimonious" ryan believe otherwise. :rolleyes:
    Obviously you have never had to use it or you would not be coming out with such sh**e.
    For some reason I get the feeling you know as much about economics as you do about our so called broadband infrastructure. :rolleyes:
    Lenny Lovett wrote: »
    The Govt should also apply a levy to savings of, say, over 10,000. This would two things: 1. Either increase Tax revenue and 2. Increase money in the economy as people would be tempted to take money out of the banks and spend some thus injecting some life into the economy. You guys must realise that sucking the lifeblood (money) out of the economy is not going to help us at all. It's injecting money we need. You've heard of the saying
    "Money makes the world go around".

    So penalise people for saving ?
    Dear God what are you drinking or sniffing ?
    Try cr** like that and watch money disappear from what is left of our banking infrastructure both Irish (largely state at this stage) owned and foreign owned banks based here.
    Lenny Lovett wrote: »
    Oh, yeah... by the way, they could also cut the 60, or so, "Tax Breaks" that would bring in almost €11billion immediately. Yes! €11Billion! So you see, cuts = Negative. Encouraging spend = Positive. As the Meercat says "Simples!"

    Ah the Meercat ads.
    Now I know where you are getting your ideas.
    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Motor racers like Jimmy Clark and Jackie Stewart moved to France/Switzerland due to this as they got tried of risking their lives to give so much of their earnings to the taxman.

    I am not allowed discuss …



  • #140
    Lenny Lovett
    Closed Accounts Posts: 920 ✭✭✭Lenny Lovett


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Fair enough. Why are we wasting money on an independent watchdog for the police? I mean, it's not as if any police officers have ever done anything wrong.
    Oh, so by that logic we need an Ombudsman for every friggin Public Service Department?
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Hell, no. What do farmers, airplanes and ships need to know about the weather for? Can't they stick a finger in the air?
    No. Again, like most people here, you're not thinking laterally. Met Organisations all over the world are rationalisisng because of the huge overlap in information available nowadays due to the technology available. If, for argument's sake, the Met Office was shut down by strike tomorrow would we and the Airports, farmers etc have no weather forecast? Of course not. They would just get it from any of the four weather organisations in the UK or the fifty or so in Europe. Or the hundreds of online weather forecast services. As an IT man I would have thought you'd realise that the rapid advance in technology is negating the need for much of these old fashioned outfits. Pfft!
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I run a small, privately owned company. You said I run a quango. You explain it to me.
    Ok. Sorry. I stand corrected. I obviously, mistakenly, assumed that your privately owned company may have one of these Broadband Companies that was funded by Government Grant aid. So you weren't... Right?
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    It's pretty good in the places where the government helped subsidise the rollout of broadband services. It would be better in more places if the government hadn't withdrawn that funding five years ago, claiming that there was no demand for something they were refusing to make available.
    So why don't private companies like you jump in and make a killing at it then? You don't get Government subsidies do you???


  • #141
    Lenny Lovett
    Closed Accounts Posts: 920 ✭✭✭Lenny Lovett


    DeVore wrote: »
    Lenny stop answering questions with questions, you've made specific claims here, back them up as per our forum Rules or withdraw them. Google it isn't an answer.

    DeV.
    I have backed up everything I said. The last time you accused me of not answering your question you were mistaken weren't you...
    Are you posting as a Mod for this forum?


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Lenny Lovett wrote: »
    I have backed up everything I said.
    I think you're confusing "everything" with "virtually nothing".


  • #143
    Lenny Lovett
    Closed Accounts Posts: 920 ✭✭✭Lenny Lovett


    jmayo wrote: »
    Yes cutting in the wrong places will kill growth.
    Cutting anywhere can have knock on affects, but not cutting and letting the situation carry on as is will result in one major cut when the ECB/IMF arrive and DEMAND cuts everywhere and anywhere.
    Again, as I earlier, Frans Fischler was saying on Euronews that THe ECB/IMF cannot make any demands or conditions of spending cuts with it's loans. It could if it was a grant or other form of aid. This is just spin whipped up to scare the sh1t out of everyone. Can you quote anywhere where anyone from the EU has actually said that ECB/IMF would make all these pre-conditions please?
    jmayo wrote: »
    I don't know what businss you are in if you think that ramping up Corporation tax is a good idea at the moment.
    Last week a US multinational (Hollister) that has been based in Mayo for last almost 40 years announced expansion scheme and gave one of the reasons for this decision as been down to our low Corporation tax.
    At the moment we are hanging on to major multinationals because of this favourable tax rate.
    Ramp this up and we just ad one more reason for them to be off.
    I wouldn't call a 1% or 2% rise "ramping up". It is a minor increase. And we would still be lower than most other places. Correct me if I am wrtong please.
    jmayo wrote: »
    Yes we do need to shut down quangoes, but where the hell are you getting this sh**e that useless Quangoes are just relating to rural projects?
    Sorry, where did I say that "useless Quangoes are just relating to rural projects?"? I think you're making that up Sir. I am quite aware that there are probably as many Quangoes in the cities. I merely quoted one example - Wexford - and one such Quango. Please don't misinterpret what I say.
    jmayo wrote: »
    Ever care to think that rural dwellers susbisidise the lighting, the footpaths, the extra Gardaí, the new ring roads etc around urban areas ?
    Sorry where did I say that rural dwellers are subsidised any more than Urban dwellers?: Come on quote me please or retract.
    jmayo wrote: »
    You do know that 3G broadband is sh**e and only yourself and gobdaws like eamon "sanctimonious" ryan believe otherwise. :rolleyes:
    Obviously you have never had to use it or you would not be coming out with such sh**e.
    For some reason I get the feeling you know as much about economics as you do about our so called broadband infrastructure. :rolleyes:
    Sorry, mine is actually ok. Oh, and please don't ever lump me in with Eamon Ryan or any other Greenie. BTW I am a rural dweller and the whole nub of my argument is that the welfare cuts will damage the rural economy so why are you saying I'm asserting anything else? Did you ead the previosu posts at all?
    jmayo wrote: »
    So penalise people for saving ?
    Dear God what are you drinking or sniffing ?
    Try cr** like that and watch money disappear from what is left of our banking infrastructure both Irish (largely state at this stage) owned and foreign owned banks based here.
    Again, you quite obviously didn't read what I posted did you? I said that they should do it for savings above a certain amount. ie not penalise the lower value savers just the wealthier. Is that such lunacy? Really? So you are another of these that believe that it's just the poor, sick and vulnerable in society that should suffer the brunt of the cuts???
    jmayo wrote: »
    Ah the Meercat ads.
    Now I know where you are getting your ideas.
    Yeah. That's a very useful contribution to the debate. Well done!
    jmayo wrote: »
    Motor racers like Jimmy Clark and Jackie Stewart moved to France/Switzerland due to this as they got tried of risking their lives to give so much of their earnings to the taxman.
    Oh. So you believe that we shouldn't make these millionaires pay any tax? Again the poor must pay but not the rich? Please be kind enough to ecplain your logic. And regarding the motor racing drivers: It's a sport that they choose to take part in to "risk their lives" and collect vast sums of money for. Are you really honestly expecting me to feel sorry for them? Are you a troll or what?


  • #144
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #145
    Lenny Lovett
    Closed Accounts Posts: 920 ✭✭✭Lenny Lovett


    djpbarry wrote: »
    I think you're confusing "everything" with "virtually nothing".
    And that is your considered contribution to the debate is it? Excellent. Well done. You should take a rest now...


  • #146
    Lenny Lovett
    Closed Accounts Posts: 920 ✭✭✭Lenny Lovett


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    Well, avoidance is the nicely dressed up legal term for evasion. Let's face it, and I am guilty of it too, avoiding paying tax is as bad as evasion it's just, for some reason, acceptable...
    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    I couldn't agree more. The tax system in the 70s and 80s used to work kind of like that although not quite so simple. But you're right IMO. And there many other tax collection methods that they could simplify and save tons of cash and resources on the way.


  • #147
    Valmont
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭Valmont


    Estonia currently uses a flat rate system.

    Another aspect to the tax debate is the entrenched vested interests a complex system produces. Tax attorneys, advisors, a massive revenue department, these occupations are necessitated by labrynthine tax codes so even if a flat tax makes sense on every level, there will be a lot of disgruntled people kicking up if the kafka-esque bureaucracy on which their livelihoods depend is threatened.


  • #148
    Lenny Lovett
    Closed Accounts Posts: 920 ✭✭✭Lenny Lovett


    Valmont wrote: »
    Estonia currently uses a flat rate system.

    Another aspect to the tax debate is the entrenched vested interests a complex system produces. Tax attorneys, advisors, a massive revenue department, these occupations are necessitated by labrynthine tax codes so even if a flat tax makes sense on every level, there will be a lot of disgruntled people kicking up if the kafka-esque bureaucracy on which their livelihoods depend is threatened.
    You're spot on there. Another area they could simplify is Road Tax. They use a system in South Africa whereby your road tax and insurance is amalgamated into the petrol price. This ensures that the user pays as they use. It also saves a fortune on Administration, Police time (checking for tax and insurance) and associated court cases, and ensures that every driver is insured.


  • #149
    Valmont
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭Valmont


    Lenny Lovett wrote: »
    It also saves a fortune on Administration
    If there is one thing Ireland loves, it is administration, and lots of it; look at the HSE. Knowing that hospital beds and other essential services are being cut in order to retain the administration ballast on their high wages really makes me angry. I'm also surprised that when I read criticism about the HSE cuts, the unions are spared the ire they greatly deserve. The mind boggles.


  • #150
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,851 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Lenny Lovett wrote: »
    Oh, so by that logic we need an Ombudsman for every friggin Public Service Department?
    Only if you feel that every public service department has as much scope to destroy people's lives as corrupt or otherwise malicious police officers.

    But hey: clearly you feel that the costs of ensuring that the police do their job honestly and effectively outweigh the benefits. We'll agree to differ.
    No. Again, like most people here, you're not thinking laterally. Met Organisations all over the world are rationalisisng because of the huge overlap in information available nowadays due to the technology available. If, for argument's sake, the Met Office was shut down by strike tomorrow would we and the Airports, farmers etc have no weather forecast? Of course not. They would just get it from any of the four weather organisations in the UK or the fifty or so in Europe. Or the hundreds of online weather forecast services. As an IT man I would have thought you'd realise that the rapid advance in technology is negating the need for much of these old fashioned outfits. Pfft!
    Maybe you should suggest to a commercial pilot that, next time he's putting together a flight plan, he look up weather.com instead of wasting taxpayer's money on a stupid outdated weather service. I'm sure the response would be entertaining.
    Ok. Sorry. I stand corrected. I obviously, mistakenly, assumed that your privately owned company may have one of these Broadband Companies that was funded by Government Grant aid. So you weren't... Right?
    OK, we're getting places. So now your definition of a quango is a privately owned company that has ever received a government grant.

    Sorry, but that still falls squarely into the realm of "making stuff up" in my book.
    So why don't private companies like you jump in and make a killing at it then? You don't get Government subsidies do you???
    We're working on it. It's pretty difficult though, what with limited access to credit, and the government subsidising competing technologies.

    Did you hear back from that company yet? Did they get fifteen million?


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    Lenny Lovett
    Closed Accounts Posts: 920 ✭✭✭Lenny Lovett


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Only if you feel that every public service department has as much scope to destroy people's lives as corrupt or otherwise malicious police officers.

    But hey: clearly you feel that the costs of ensuring that the police do their job honestly and effectively outweigh the benefits. We'll agree to differ.
    I've every faith in our Garda Siochana.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Maybe you should suggest to a commercial pilot that, next time he's putting together a flight plan, he look up weather.com instead of wasting taxpayer's money on a stupid outdated weather service. I'm sure the response would be entertaining.
    It's you who says they're stupid and outdated. I merely question whether in these days of technology and given that there is prefectly accurate weather forecasts coming from The UK and all over Europe, whether we really need over four hundred staff in Met Eireann. You seem to think we do so we'll have to agree to differ.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    OK, we're getting places. So now your definition of a quango is a privately owned company that has ever received a government grant.
    Did I say that? I can't seem to find where I did but you think you're right so I wouldn't dream of raining on your parade.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Sorry, but that still falls squarely into the realm of "making stuff up" in my book. We're working on it. It's pretty difficult though, what with limited access to credit, and the government subsidising competing technologies.
    But, to be fair, could the "competing technologies" companies not complain likewise that you guys are grant aided too? What gives you guys the right to all the contents of the trough and noone else?
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Did you hear back from that company yet? Did they get fifteen million?
    No reply yet. These feckin Quangos are soo feckin slow in responding...


Advertisement