Lenihan: Budget cuts will impact on living standards

27-10-2010 09:34AM

senordingdong wrote: »

Lower VAT for one thing. The Brits did this on the run up to Christmas and it not only did them a world of good, it did shoppers from the Republic a world of good.
Lower income tax.
Lower the taxes things like alcohol and get people back out on Saturday nights.

Infact, lower taxes across the board, increased taxation is what is keeping people from spending.

I think comparatively speaking our taxes are already pretty low

dolphin city · 27-10-2010 09:36AM

gonedrinking wrote: »

I suppose the government could allow people access to a certain proportion of their pension, say 10% as a once off

what pension? some people can't afford pensions as they are.

dolphin city · 27-10-2010 09:37AM

deelite wrote: »

I heard David Williams on radio other morning and he suggested to freeze all mortgages for 2 years to encourage people to start spending, which I personally think is a great idea. He explained that for every one euro that you spend the government gets approximate 20 cent out of each euro.

and what happens after two years when all the mortgage payments have been spent on clothes, etc. Back to square one but probably worse off then ever. Thats prolonging the pain for a short term gain.

senordingdong · 27-10-2010 09:38AM

yoshytoshy wrote: »

It has nothing to do with negative equity ? pension commitments ? job security ? dare I say the word again "recession" ?

Even if a new TV that should be €500 ,suddenly cost €470 ,would anyone expect a stampede to get them ?

It had nothing to do with pension commitments and job security before the recession.

You make a good point with your tv analagy.
But if a workers wages have gone down, his income tax has gone up, and vat has gone up, you can damn welkk bet there won't be a stampede to get a new tv.

gonedrinking wrote:

But lowering taxes could well mean that the overall tax take is lower even taking into consideration the additional spending.

That's a possibility, but we already have fair grounds to expect that the govt. will fall short of its predictions again.
Atleast try something new.

Mr Freeze · 27-10-2010 09:41AM

dolphin city wrote: »

what pension? some people can't afford pensions as they are.

Exactly! I don't have one!

And my Dad who has been paying into a pension for decades now, are they going to give him 10% of nothing? Because thats what his pension is worth now.

gurramok · 27-10-2010 09:44AM

We have one of the highest private debt burdens in the EU, we also have half a million plus people looking for jobs (those on the dole and and those not entitled to any benefits). We have a population of 4.3m, you just cannot expect a receovery in spending when a huge portion of the population are suddenly broke.

Yes, jobs will solve alot of it but where will we find half a million jobs? Over to you Lenihan!

PeterIanStaker · 27-10-2010 09:44AM

Herb Powell wrote: »

what's this "we" bull****? TDs will be fine

Exactly. He should have said cuts will impact people who dont have three pensions and a few offshore accounts.:rolleyes:

pickarooney · 27-10-2010 09:45AM

I don't understand why they don't make completely outlandish projections of, say, a trillion euros. That way when the reality is slightly lower they can publicly pat themselves on the back and the idiots that vote for them will keep on voting for them. Instead, they make forecasts which everyone knows are hopelessly optimistic and end up looking even more incompetent than ever when the real figure is a large multiple of the predicted one.

gonedrinking · 27-10-2010 09:45AM

CKWPORT wrote: »

Exactly! I don't have one!

And my Dad who has been paying into a pension for decades now, are they going to give him 10% of nothing? Because thats what his pension is worth now.

how is that even possible, what sort of pension did he have? and by the way the majority of people in the country who work have a pension, thats a fact.

PeterIanStaker · 27-10-2010 09:46AM

gurramok wrote: »

Yes, jobs will solve alot of it but where will we find half a million jobs? Over to you Lenihan!

I guarantee you these gombeen traitors are delighted that thousands will emigrate.

pickarooney · 27-10-2010 09:46AM

deelite wrote: »

I heard David Williams on radio other morning and he suggested to freeze all mortgages for 2 years to encourage people to start spending, which I personally think is a great idea. He explained that for every one euro that you spend the government gets approximate 20 cent out of each euro.

Wow, he totally nailed that explanation of how VAT works.

newmug · 27-10-2010 09:47AM

senordingdong wrote: »

Yes, but based on the last budget, and previous predictions, this won't work.Spending seems like the only sensible way out of this.

What exactly do you expect people to spend? Do YOU have an extra 20grand to throw away on a new car or extension? Do you think guards and teachers, who are paid with borrowed money, should then go and spend that money willy nilly?

senordingdong wrote: »

Apparently you can. As so many in this country (govt. not withstanding) already proved.

And the governments ultimate plan through all of this, is to make the Irish economy look stable, so that they spend money they don't have by borrowing again.

Encouraging spending seems to be the sensible alternative beign thrown around here.

NO YOU CAN NOT! That is what got us into this mess in the first place! We're going back to a level of spending / standard of living we should have been at all along, only we're doing it all at once instead of over 20 years. The whole 90's and 2000's were a white elephant, everyone had the emperors new clothes syndrome:mad:

senordingdong wrote: »

Lower VAT for one thing. The Brits did this on the run up to Christmas and it not only did them a world of good, it did shoppers from the Republic a world of good.
Lower income tax.
Lower the taxes things like alcohol and get people back out on Saturday nights.

Infact, lower taxes across the board, increased taxation is what is keeping people from spending.

So, we owe 15bn. We are being forced to "repay" it through taxes and cuts. But you think that by LOWERING the repayments, that people will volunteer to make up the shortfall by buying even more crap than we did in the crazy tiger years? Did you finish school, serious question?

lucylu · 27-10-2010 09:51AM

Could we not mint a few bob in Sandyford on the QT?

gurramok · 27-10-2010 09:55AM

gonedrinking wrote: »

by the way the majority of people in the country who work have a pension, thats a fact.

About half the workers don't have a pension as they don't earn enough to afford one. Just like nearly half of all workers don't even pay income tax as they earn too little.

gonedrinking · 27-10-2010 09:57AM

balderdash

Minstrel27 · 27-10-2010 09:59AM

Herb Powell wrote: »

what's this "we" bull****? TDs will be fine

It's funny really. All of this will have absolutely no impact on his life.

gurramok · 27-10-2010 10:06AM

gonedrinking wrote: »

balderdash

Its quite a common fact!

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0622/pensions.html
"Currently almost half of Ireland's workforce has no supplementary pension provision over and above the minimum State pension."

sh1tstirrer · 27-10-2010 10:13AM

Minstrel27 wrote: »

It's sickening really. All of this will have absolutely no impact on his life.

fixed

Quandary · 27-10-2010 10:17AM

If nothing else, the last couple of years have made people very cautious when it comes to spending. Tax increases will just make people tighten their belts even more. If the govt reduce tax will it be reduced in a way that will encourage the public to spend more? - i cant see them making a return out of this really.

The govt really need to clean and weed their own house first though. Do the fcuking decent thing and set an example by slashing their own wages and at least eliminating double fcuking pensions. I know its only a drop in the ocean, but they need to get down to the level of the public when it comes to personally feeling the pain if they want to have any credibility. Unfortunately though as we all know, the political system in Ireland is a closed system where the elite will make sure no.1 is well and truly looked after first.

I used to think a government was a body which had the best interests of the majority at heart - :pac:

thebigbiffo · 27-10-2010 10:18AM

they've already set up NAMA to manage loans that cant be serviced by individual developers thereby freeing them up to go about their business (sort of...)

where's my NAMA so somebody can take my negative equity and bad loans and so i can get back to the business of being a citizen and spending my income in the economy.

to be fair: it's not that outlandish. i read yesterday there's a 'NAMA like scheme' in place for local authorities as well - example being they paid 5 mill for a site for social housing they can no longer afford, give it to scheme which manages said loan until it's viable to pay it back.

why not free me of my underperforming loans (ie. the mortgage as one example) until the debt can be paid back when the economy recovers. anyone give me a good explaination why there's no NAMA for joe soaps when we're (the taxpayer) effectively the ones who pay for for all these other schemes AND pay into the exchequer aswell?

senordingdong · 27-10-2010 10:22AM

newmug wrote: »

What exactly do you expect people to spend? Do YOU have an extra 20grand to throw away on a new car or extension? Do you think guards and teachers, who are paid with borrowed money, should then go and spend that money willy nilly?

NO YOU CAN NOT! That is what got us into this mess in the first place! We're going back to a level of spending / standard of living we should have been at all along, only we're doing it all at once instead of over 20 years. The whole 90's and 2000's were a white elephant, everyone had the emperors new clothes syndrome:mad:

So, we owe 15bn. We are being forced to "repay" it through taxes and cuts. But you think that by LOWERING the repayments, that people will volunteer to make up the shortfall by buying even more crap than we did in the crazy tiger years? Did you finish school, serious question?

Alright genius, you produce a better solution.

mickydoomsux · 27-10-2010 10:23AM

thebigbiffo wrote: »

they've already set up NAMA to manage loans that cant be serviced by individual developers thereby freeing them up to go about their business (sort of...)

where's my NAMA so somebody can take my negative equity and bad loans and so i can get back to the business of being a citizen and spending my income in the economy.

to be fair: it's not that outlandish. i read yesterday there's a 'NAMA like scheme' in place for local authorities as well - example being they paid 5 mill for a site for social housing they can no longer afford, give it to scheme which manages said loan until it's viable to pay it back.

why not free me of my underperforming loans (ie. the mortgage as one example) until the debt can be paid back when the economy recovers. anyone give me a good explaination why there's no NAMA for joe soaps when we're (the taxpayer) effectively the ones who pay for for all these other schemes AND pay into the exchequer aswell?

Because your inability to pay back your loans won't permanently cripple the economy.

Also, NAMA stands for National Assets Management Agency. What assets do you have? The mortgaged house that the bank basically owns until you make your last payment?

gurramok · 27-10-2010 10:27AM

thebigbiffo wrote: »

they've already set up NAMA to manage loans that cant be serviced by individual developers thereby freeing them up to go about their business (sort of...)

where's my NAMA so somebody can take my negative equity and bad loans and so i can get back to the business of being a citizen and spending my income in the economy.

to be fair: it's not that outlandish. i read yesterday there's a 'NAMA like scheme' in place for local authorities as well - example being they paid 5 mill for a site for social housing they can no longer afford, give it to scheme which manages said loan until it's viable to pay it back.

why not free me of my underperforming loans (ie. the mortgage as one example) until the debt can be paid back when the economy recovers. anyone give me a good explaination why there's no NAMA for joe soaps when we're (the taxpayer) effectively the ones who pay for for all these other schemes AND pay into the exchequer aswell?

Without stating my fierce objection to such a proposal on moral grounds..

-Everyone will be defaulting to jump on the bandwagon
-We'd have to capitalise the banks AGAIN as they will lose more money
-We'd lose international credibility, who da feck will loan to us when the debt won't be paid back!

gurramok · 27-10-2010 10:29AM

PeterIanStaker wrote: »

I guarantee you these gombeen traitors are delighted that thousands will emigrate.

Correct. Emigration helps lower unemployment figures and justifies 'the economy has turned the corner' jibes. We've got past form on that, the 80's.

Rabidlamb · 27-10-2010 10:30AM

It may seem a bit obvious to me but why isn't there a huge clamor to cut PS pay as part of these impending cuts.

Croke Park 'will be revisited, but public pay won't be cut'
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/budget/news/croke-park-will-be-revisited-but-public-pay-wont-be-cut-2395927.html

It was revealed last week that of the total Health Service budget 70% was soaked up in pay.
Why isn't someone stating the obvious here or are we not allowed talk about it ?.
Did I miss the memo ?.
Is it OK to mention the war ?.

Prices are not going to fall if 300,000 salaries remain untouched.
Whinge all you want about your pension levy, I've been paying 5% of my salary into a private pension for the past 10 years.
My salary has been cut 25% in the past 2 years, how much has yours.
Tesco, Dunnes etc. set their prices based on the buying power of their customers.
If a large portion of bread earners still have spending money then prices wont come down anytime soon.

iMax · 27-10-2010 10:35AM

What they should have done with the bank bailout/nama money was to knock a percentage off everyone's mortgage (a deferment).

So if you had (for example) a €1300 a month mortgage payment, this would have brought it down to €1040 a month. This could then have been raised back to the original level over say ten years with the intermediate shortfall tacked onto the end of the mortgage.

Immediately you've got €260 a month extra money in your pocket, so you might book a holiday, buy a new TV/car, eat out more often, spend a little extra in general.

The banks still would have got their money (and more over a longer term), there would be money going back into the economy (not everyone would, but the majority would spend more) & in general, it would have been a fairer deal all round.

Hyperbullet · 27-10-2010 10:36AM

newmug wrote: »

So, we owe 15bn. We are being forced to "repay" it through taxes and cuts. But you think that by LOWERING the repayments, that people will volunteer to make up the shortfall by buying even more crap than we did in the crazy tiger years? Did you finish school, serious question?

You made some valid points but in all fairness what was the point of that statement?

thebigbiffo · 27-10-2010 10:37AM

mickydoomsux wrote: »

Because your inability to pay back your loans won't permanently cripple the economy.

Also, NAMA stands for National Assets Management Agency. What assets do you have? The mortgaged house that the bank basically owns until you make your last payment?

its still an asset, it has value, but it's 'underperforming' (not increasing but decreasing in value) as is the case with 'real' NAMA loans. i'll also point out that the banks own all the loans that NAMA currently has.

i'm not going to argue my original point - one NAMA is seriously bad enough - but your argument is invalid!

Sea Sharp · 27-10-2010 10:38AM

If in 2014 they've made 20bn budget cuts and the number of people working in the Public Sector is the same then we will have been better off with the IMF.

There's billions to be made by sacking unnecessary and overpaid admin.

thebigbiffo · 27-10-2010 10:50AM

gurramok wrote: »

Without stating my fierce objection to such a proposal on moral grounds..

-Everyone will be defaulting to jump on the bandwagon
-We'd have to capitalise the banks AGAIN as they will lose more money
-We'd lose international credibility, who da feck will loan to us when the debt won't be paid back!

ahh sure i'll keep going

firstly, the moral grounds thing is as relevant to a 'NAMA for the people' as it is to the real NAMA...

second - i'm not talking about defaulters, i'm talking about a sweeping reduction in repayments for people in negative equity (and possibly for people not in negative equity but who have lost a large portion of their income)..

yes, it would involve some re-capitalisation. but we're already up to our tits in it so whats another few bill;)

you're running actually less of a risk that the debt wont be paid back as it gives individuals room to become more financially stable - everybody would be just as liable for the loans, not even over a longer period, it's just that their loans would be sat on not by the traditional banks but by a bad bank who'll operate in a different way.

i'm only fleshing this out!:D it's been called for by people who know more than me, but it just makes a little sense...even a little

?

Lenihan: Budget cuts will impact on living standards

Comments