Eddie Hobbs goes over the edge

invinciblePRSTV · 10-05-2011 01:10PM

paddy0090 wrote: »

Is this actually part of the austerity programme or is it the jobs budget? My understanding was the latter. In which case I think its BS

Does it really matter which one it is? It's part of the jobs initiative afair but seeing as during the bubble years the Government of the day went on an orgy of offering tax incentives to all sorts of people and groups. These things can't last forever.

Riskymove · 10-05-2011 01:14PM

paddy0090 wrote: »

Is this actually part of the austerity programme or is it the jobs budget? My understanding was the latter. In which case I think its BS

at present anything that involves new government spending requires either borrowing or a replacement fund from somewhere else

in order to invest funds or reduce costs in order to create jobs the Govt has to make up money elsewhere, hence the levy

paddy0090 · 10-05-2011 01:20PM

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

No doubt "the wasted billions each year on crap" are on things which don't materially effect you in anyway...

Does this somehow change the fact that it's pork we can't afford?

I think you're enjoying this too much to look at it objectively. Every penny they waste will have to come from somewhere else.

invinciblePRSTV · 10-05-2011 01:26PM

paddy0090 wrote: »

Does this somehow change the fact that it's pork we can't afford?

What's pork? are you referring to pork barrel spending? if so then the state has stopped pretty much all vanity projects since the crisis hit and what's left is spending on the essentials.

paddy0090 wrote: »

I think you're enjoying this too much to look at it objectively.

I'm enjoying the sheer hypocrisy and me feinism of FG supporters lamenting the introduction of this policy. They're quick to call for all sorts of draconian measures on other sectors of society, but when it comes to them shouldering their portion of the burden they cry foul.

paddy0090 wrote: »

Every penny they waste will have to come from somewhere else.

Same as it ever was.

paddy0090 · 10-05-2011 01:28PM

Riskymove wrote: »

at present anything that involves new government spending requires either borrowing or a replacement fund from somewhere else

in order to invest funds or reduce costs in order to create jobs the Govt has to make up money elsewhere, hence the levy

If you believe it will create jobs and it will be done fairly, then you may have a point. I don't. I think it's an expensive PR stunt that will be used by cabinet members to throw cash at constituents and supporters......same sh*t, different day.

ArtSmart · 10-05-2011 01:31PM

Tora Bora wrote: »

Let me get this straight.

Fingers Fingelton, can pay himself a zillion euro pension, run the company in to the ground, walk away and give the two fingers to the government and the tax payer.

Joe / Josephine Soap, saves away his / her few euros over a long time in order to build up an asset for retirement, so he /she might not be a total burden on the taxpayer.

In this dark economic hour for the country, the government is forced to bring in tough new unpalatable revenue raising measures to try to fund some job cration measures.

They look in the direction of Fingers, (and all his ilk .... Sheedy, FitzPatrick, Drumm, Goggin, etc, etc,) and they say .......... ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh, cant to anything drastic with these guys.

Then they look at Joe and Josephine, and say to themselves, "right ... lets raid their piggy banks.

Isn't it reassuring to know, that we have replaced a bunch of dickheads in the Dail, with a bunch of clowns.

I voted for the clowns.

Think the dickheads less bad somehow.

em, I give a definition of theft and you er, give a preferred list of targets?

what, you think myself or any sane (non-related to Fingers) person would like to see Fingers head off into the sunset with suitcases full of dosh, like the bauld Drumm?

nope. I didnt say that. who is saying that? his mum, maybe.

of course, rather than take some dosh from joe and jo, the gov could always ask the Germans...:D

or better yet, we could do nuthin.

yeah. do nuthin. i like it. maybe things will, you know, just get better by themselves . and stuff.

ArtSmart · 10-05-2011 01:35PM

paddy0090 wrote: »

If you believe it will create jobs and it will be done fairly, then you may have a point. I don't. I think it's an expensive PR stunt that will be used by cabinet members to throw cash at constituents and supporters......same sh*t, different day.

well, I understand your cynicism with all the shenanigans over that last few years.

but, i'm gonna wait n see.

if the cats get fatter and no evidence of an input or return for society, they yep, i'll join you in condemnation

amen · 10-05-2011 01:43PM

well Public/Civil Servants also be paying this levy ?

Atilathehun · 10-05-2011 01:46PM

The money collected through this levy, will be largely wasted, as is all monies collected by government both central government and local authoroties.

The sickening part, is that this levy effects only the private sector if my understanding is correct.

It seems surreal, that a new tax on income can be introduced which only private sector will pay!!
I get a feeling that the honeymoon for Enda might end today.

paddy0090 · 10-05-2011 01:46PM

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

What's pork? are you referring to pork barrel spending? if so then the state has stopped pretty much all vanity projects since the crisis hit and what's left is spending on the essentials.

Thats a very narrow definition of pork. I'd include FAS and a lot of the quangos.

A jobs budget is only essential if it's the last political promise you haven't broken, in which case it isn't essential. Can you not see this coming back to bite you in the ass somewhere else?

steve9859 · 10-05-2011 01:46PM

amen wrote: »

well Public/Civil Servants also be paying this levy ?

No it's just private sector whose pensions aren't protected and are worth a fraction of what they were - and for many young people less than what has been paid in

Sand Wedge · 10-05-2011 01:51PM

amen wrote: »

well Public/Civil Servants also be paying this levy ?

No it is a tax on the pension fund of private pensions. So it will affect the annuities that private pension holders can buy when they retire.

The only way that public sector pensions can be influences is by either making them pay more towards there defined benefit pension or reduce the % of salary they get as a defined benefit.

invinciblePRSTV · 10-05-2011 01:57PM

paddy0090 wrote: »

Thats a very narrow definition of pork. I'd include FAS and a lot of the quangos.

I'm sure there is plenty of scope for reform of FAS and the "quangos", and this is something which appears to be a policy priority for the incumbent government. You appear to be presenting an argument that they should focus on this but leave the tax relief on pensions alone, the gravity of the situation indicates that doing both is the most logical option.

paddy0090 wrote: »

A jobs budget is only essential if it's the last political promise you haven't broken, in which case it isn't essential. Can you not see this coming back to bite you in the ass somewhere else?

i don't really know what you're on about here tbh. Are you saying there shouldn't be a jobs budget initiative?

Tora Bora · 10-05-2011 01:58PM

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRHppaqLenPAMejejMp3VAzwyYE0XcH7MbrY_NFU3fcXYsWMDyOaA

...................... a guy dressed like this will be rummaging through the savings of private sector workers, tonight.
Must crack open a beer, for the V Browne show tonight:cool:

Laminations · 10-05-2011 02:08PM

steve9859 wrote: »

No it's just private sector whose pensions aren't protected and are worth a fraction of what they were - and for many young people less than what has been paid in

Give it a break. It's nothing to do with public vs private 'sectors'. These are private pensions which public servants likely also hold, I know I do.

But then again I was also a FG supporter last election (and still am) though not a member and I'm in favour of this. That's directed at you invinciblePRSTV

we are not all me feiners

Riskymove · 10-05-2011 02:12PM

amen wrote: »

well Public/Civil Servants also be paying this levy ?

if they have a pension fund then they will

EDIT

it seems lots of people are just ignoring this point but it remains the fact

if you have a pension fund then you will pay the levy regardless of whether you are private or public sector

Riskymove · 10-05-2011 02:15PM

The money collected through this levy, will be largely wasted, as is all monies collected by government both central government and local authoroties.

well if thats your position then your just against any measure regardless

you might as well be for the abolotion of all tax

It seems surreal, that a new tax on income can be introduced which only private sector will pay!!

as oppossed to the public service levy?

paddy0090 · 10-05-2011 02:25PM

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

I'm sure there is plenty of scope for reform of FAS and the "quangos", and this is something which appears to be a policy priority for the incumbent government. You appear to be presenting an argument that they should focus on this but leave the tax relief on pensions alone, the gravity of the situation indicates that doing both is the most logical option.
i don't really know what you're on about here tbh. Are you saying there shouldn't be a jobs budget initiative?

Exactly! As I said elsewhere the jobs budget will be as effective as cool choices. It's an expensive PR stunt. Essential only to them because they've broken their two other big promises (bondholders/reduced interest rate).

But I'm sure there'll be

A PR contract
Some administrative quango/steering group/whatever for party honchos and a few capos from the unions
A pile of cash to put in places where they want it the most
Freework

I wouldn't have as much of a problem if it went to paying down the debt but that's mostly because I won't get hurt by it.

I'm sure reform is a priority for the government because the troika have said 'or else'. This is the one little tea party they're allowed to have.

_Kaiser_ · 10-05-2011 05:10PM

amen wrote: »

well Public/Civil Servants also be paying this levy ?

steve9859 wrote: »

No it's just private sector whose pensions aren't protected and are worth a fraction of what they were - and for many young people less than what has been paid in

Now (as a former Private, then Public and again Private sector worker) correct me if my memory is faulty here but I distinctly remember paying a "pension levy" in my former job while the Private sector workers were untouched?

Seems like it's only balancing things out to me.. not that I think EITHER side should be cut anymore than they already have, especially as it's only to cover the gambling losses of an elite few "untouchables" in this increasingly farcical excuse for a country!

Get over the Public vs Private argument lads.. can ye really not see that what our Governments actually DO manage to do well is "divide and conquer" so they can continue to benefit at everyone's expense!

You want to be angry at someone - start with those who are responsible for the mess, not those left behind to clean it up.

Blured · 10-05-2011 05:16PM

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Now (as a former Private, then Public and again Private sector worker) correct me if my memory is faulty here but I distinctly remember paying a "pension levy" in my former job while the Private sector workers were untouched?

Just on this - the Pension levy, while effectively a pay cut, was sold as the public sector having to contribute to their pension funds in some was as it is in the private sector.

_Kaiser_ · 10-05-2011 05:22PM

Blured wrote: »

Just on this - the Pension levy, while effectively a pay cut, was sold as the public section having to contribute to their pension funds in some was as it is in the private sector.

Yes but not everyone in the Public sector got/gets a "free" pension either - while the older staff my qualify, I had "Superannuation" deductions taken every month as well as a "Widows and orphans" contribution so if anything I was paying more.

Blured · 10-05-2011 05:22PM

Riskymove wrote: »

if they have a pension fund then they will

EDIT

it seems lots of people are just ignoring this point but it remains the fact

if you have a pension fund then you will pay the levy regardless of whether you are private or public sector

Doesnt look that way

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/new-jobs-strategy-targets-building-of-schools-homes-2641141.html

"The pension levy will not be applied to the pensions of either serving or retired public sector workers"

swordofislam · 10-05-2011 06:04PM

Blured wrote: »

Doesnt look that way

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/new-jobs-strategy-targets-building-of-schools-homes-2641141.html

"The pension levy will not be applied to the pensions of either serving or retired public sector workers"

Many public sector workers belong to the fat cat class that can sock money away in private pensions. These fat cats have ruined the country and whether it is the sleeveen scumbag supermarket owner or the county council manager with 7 months holiday a year none of these fat cats deserve a pension at all.

NIMAN · 10-05-2011 06:08PM

Getting back to Hobbs, never liked him.

He was advising people right up to the property crash to buy properties in Bulgaria, so I cannot understand how anyone puts any store in anything he has to say.

10-05-2011 07:02PM

Hanafin made pensions compulsory but delayed implementation of auto enrolment until 2014 the tramp
http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1019182.shtml

Retirement age to be raised eventually to 68; New mandatory “auto-enrolment” pension to be introduced in 2014

Now why dont the current shower consider burning bondholders then cut back on spending before sticking their hands in peoples pockets.

To those who fail to realise this kind of a move breaks new ground here and dangerously exposes bank deposits. It puts them in a new light - they are no longer off limits.... previously accepted boundaries no longer apply.

Whatever about your view on Hobbs try not to let it cloud your view of what is happening

Pete_Cavan · 10-05-2011 07:08PM

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

it's not that simple as it's the state forgoing current revenue to prevent higher future costs also.
All this stupid levy is going to achieve is very small short term gains in revenue set against massive increase in pension costs down the road as more and more people contribute less tot heir pensions, with declining tax relief and this pension tax too it makes less and less sense to invest in a private pension so people will end up relying on a public one.

So you will refuse to contribute to be private pension and force yourself to live on what is likely to be a very modest state pension when you retire in order to avoid paying a 0.6% levy to the government? Cutting your noise off to spite your face is never a good idea.

waster81 · 10-05-2011 07:12PM

The pension industry could easily cut their fees and there would be no impact at all

Ddad · 10-05-2011 07:16PM

Whether you like Mr Hobbs or not this levy is lunacy.

It is only levied on pension funds so for the majority of the country that doesn't have a fund for their pension they are unaffected. That goes for almost all of the public service and a huge chunk of the private sector.

Almost all public sector and state funded pensions are funded through the exchequers current budget.

However this isn't a public versus private argument. The true lunacy is that pension funds in companies are assets and the government is imposing a tax on assets. Not only that but the majority of funds in this country are underfunded; many to the point of insolvency. Roll in this babby and your looking at armageddon for some of theses funds. Remember Waterford crystal workers getting nothing: now multiply.

Not only that any of these funds are DC which means that final pesions for the people in the fund are based on final values on their share of the fund. Values already badly crroded by our toxic economy and now about to get hammered by a tax on assets. Not on comsumption, not income; assets. Assets that in many cases are acquired over decades. To give an example how would the "suck it up" among the contributors like it if the goverment decided to levy their homes by the same percentage per annum. What kind of cost would that place on the individual.

So what happens if your in a defined benefit scheme that is paid out from a fund. Well, your probably f&&cked too. If the fund isn't solvent you'll get next to nada once gain look at the late entrants to Waterford. Current pesions take priority.

People who put in place their pensions and scrimp to make AVC's so that they can live a life above penury when they retire are prudent. They are responsible. They are trying to ensure that they can take care of themselves in their old age. The fact that it was tax effeicient is neither here nor there; the point we're starting to look at retrospective taxation and this is the first port of call is the real point.

For a party that will defend the corporation tax to the last and then turn around and tax a companies assets beggars belief. They are signalling to the world that tehy will tax assets particularly those of well funded schemes of responsible companies.:mad::mad::mad::mad:

hmmm · 10-05-2011 07:20PM

You know how people say today "why didn't we stop the property bubble from forming in 2001, why were people and government so shortsighted"? We'll be saying the same thing in 20 years time when we have millions of people relying on the state for pensions and not enough workers to support them. We'll be saying "why oh why did the government in 2011 discourage people from saving for their pension? What kind of stupid move was that and how short sighted were they?"

Pete_Cavan · 10-05-2011 07:59PM

hmmm wrote: »

You know how people say today "why didn't we stop the property bubble from forming in 2001, why were people and government so shortsighted"? We'll be saying the same thing in 20 years time when we have millions of people relying on the state for pensions and not enough workers to support them. We'll be saying "why oh why did the government in 2011 discourage people from saving for their pension? What kind of stupid move was that and how short sighted were they?"

In 20 years time I will have a nice pension fund and will not have to worry about relying on the state for a pension. Others will be struggling on a mediocre state pension because they refused to pay into a pension fund to avoid a measly 0.6% levy and I will be saying "What kind of stupid move was that and how short sighted were they?"

Eddie Hobbs goes over the edge

Comments