What planet are they on ?

A bit of a 'whinge-for-the-sake-of-it' thread . . As Permabear points out in Post #2 McDowell said largely optional spending and for the most part he is correct . .

Overall, if VAT increases the majority of us can choose to reduce our spend. . and reduce our exposure to the impact of the increase. . We may still have to fuel our car to get to work but we may be able to put off that new pair of jeans for a while . .

Tin Foil Hat wrote: »

...thereby leading to less retail spending - leading to more job losses - leading to less spending again - leading to a vastly reduced VAT take and a larger live register.
Increasing VAT to 23% is such a funamentally retarded idea that I usually pinch myself when I hear it mentioned to make sure I'm not dreaming.

'Vastly' reduced VAT take as a result of this increase. . really ? ? Is there any evidence that the VAT increase in the UK in January had this effect ? Is there any evidence that VAT reductions brought in by the previous government had this effect. . ?

Some people may spend less, others will be less impacted and will continue to spend at normal levels and there will be a net benefit to the exchequer . . This increase will disproportionately impact those who can afford more optional expenditure which is a good thing. . .

Liam Byrne wrote: »

:rolleyes: McDowell didn't say "largely" - a fact of which - if you bothered reading the thread - you'd be aware. When it is up on the RTE player you'll be able to see it for yourself.......although given the way you dived in without reading the thread, I'd be unsure whether you'd bother - why the uninformed leap in?

I didn't see the show but I did read the thread and I was quoting your OP. .

Liam Byrne wrote:

Then how come he claimed on tonight's Frontline that VAT was largely related to "optional" spending ?

I assumed you were quoting him accurately ? ?

Liam Byrne wrote:

As for cutting spending and putting off buying new jeans - what if you have already put off buying the jeans in order to buy overpriced electricity or heating oil?

Then you put off buying the jeans a little longer. . it's still optional !

Liam Byrne wrote: »

A car is not optional if you want to hold down a job.

That depends on the job. 3 miles from the city centre? You'd walk that in less than an hour, cycle it in 15 minutes. There you go, car optional.

This comes up time and again, but Irish people have this ingrained idea that not only is a car a complete necessity, but a decent car is a complete necessity to live. Fine, some people have chosen to live in out-of-the-way places where commuting by any other means is mostly unfeasible, but that's not the case for the majority.
I have only vague memories of this now, and the same argument comes up here every now and again, but the fact is that only a minority of people actually use a car in the course of their daily business, and the vast majority of people commute distances which could easily be covered using alternative means. At least half of the country do not need to drive to work. They choose to, because it's the most convenient. For now.

So most of the opposition to vehicle costs on the "I have to get to work" basis, is usually people who just don't want to look into the alternatives. And no, I'm not going to debate the what-if case of Jimmy Joe living 50 miles from the backarse of nowhere who's got five kids going to 3 different schools and and a paraplegic wife who needs hospital treatment twice a week.

Most people would completely slash their motoring costs down to comparatively little if they explored realistic options, regardless of how uncomfortable they appear:

1. Sell the 05 car, buy a 95 car, look at bangernomics
2. Move from a 1.8L engine to a 1L engine. Insurance, tax and fuel win.
3. Do you really need two cars, or could you manage with one?
4. If the distance is less than 5km, make a conscious effort to not use the car.

But most people won't do this. They still want to be able to upgrade their car every five years, have a large-engined monster that's the "main" car, as well as the 1.2L runaround that's "mammy's car", and drive absolutely everywhere, all the time.
I think the question posed by the OP needs to be asked of these people.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

We also wouldn't have to worry about all those pensions, as many people would have died from boredom before retirement age :pac:

On the issue of optional spending. Buying a few drinks or eating out might be
"optional", but let's not forget that spending in such areas supports jobs and distributes wealth. This is why tax is a double edge sword and also why taxing one's way out of recession is not going to work.

Also, the "optional" spending is also something that makes our journey through this onerous hike called life bearable. Sure, we can cut back and survive but really, is there not more to life?

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Don't have a 05 car, despite the attempts to make taking out a loan to upgrade more appealing.

Don't have a 1.8L engine

Don't have 2 cars.


Distance isn't less than 5km.

So of your 4 points, despite your attempt to imply that you were looking for the norm and not the extreme exception, not ONE of your 4 points is relevant in my case. This is the dismissive attitude that I was referring to - normal people trying to have a life are being shafted in order to fund the unsustainable lifestyles of those at both extremes of the spectrum, and it's sickening.

Your fundamental assumption is that either this budget is all about you or that you are a typical punter. . I don't believe either is true.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Last time I looked, clothes were essential.

Clothes are essential . . 'New clothes' are not essential . . I do not believe anyone in this country will have to walk around naked because a 3% increase in VAT means they cant afford a new pair of jeans . . do you ? ?