I'll raise taxes if you vote No, Noonan warns

Sleepy wrote: »

Yes and no.

Ideologically, I'd be fiscally conservative. I'm not about to vote in a way that will lead to my taxes increasing dramatically however because I don't trust the government to balance the books correctly: i.e. I think they'll tax the average PAYE earner out of existence before they'll make the necessary cuts to welfare or public sector expenditure (i.e. break the CPA).

I think welfare has been cut to bits as it is. Public sector definitely needs to be tackled, as do the quangos

jar_of_coins wrote: »

I think welfare has been cut to bits as it is. Public sector definitely needs to be tackled, as do the quangos

+1. Do OAP's, People on illness benefit, JSB etc... honestly think that the social welfare can maintain the levels payed out on a weekly basis when we have 500,000 on the live register?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

This is the thing that's been cooking my noodle a bit on the treaty.

On one hand, I like the idea that future Irish governments will be locked into an EU agreement which sets out controls on government spending and budgetary discipline. It's what we need, because the Irish electorate has a stunningly short memory and I don't trust anyone not to make the same bloody mistakes again. I'm especially concerned that SF would get into power, and then more than ever we would need fiscal rules to stop them from making a complete hash of it.

But on the other hand like yourself I've been complaining that budgets since 2008 haven't been harsh enough, and there's a fair argument that the stability treaty would mean that we spend the next 10 years chipping away at our problems, rather than 2 or 3 years of exceptionally harsh budgets, slashing and burning and coming out leaner and stronger on exports in five years' time. The latter is a riskier strategy though.

A "no" on the treaty would likely give the government the power to turn to the public sector unions and say, "We just don't have it", and rip up the croke park agreement and push ahead with reforms of PS spending and social welfare without consulting with the unions.
That's probably pie-in-the-sky thinking though.

seamus wrote: »

This is the thing that's been cooking my noodle a bit on the treaty.

On one hand, I like the idea that future Irish governments will be locked into an EU agreement which sets out controls on government spending and budgetary discipline. It's what we need, because the Irish electorate has a stunningly short memory and I don't trust anyone not to make the same bloody mistakes again. I'm especially concerned that SF would get into power, and then more than ever we would need fiscal rules to stop them from making a complete hash of it.

But on the other hand like yourself I've been complaining that budgets since 2008 haven't been harsh enough, and there's a fair argument that the stability treaty would mean that we spend the next 10 years chipping away at our problems, rather than 2 or 3 years of exceptionally harsh budgets, slashing and burning and coming out leaner and stronger on exports in five years' time. The latter is a riskier strategy though.

A "no" on the treaty would likely give the government the power to turn to the public sector unions and say, "We just don't have it", and rip up the croke park agreement and push ahead with reforms of PS spending and social welfare without consulting with the unions.
That's probably pie-in-the-sky thinking though.

That is precisely my problem with voting Yes (and I would prefer us to be locked into a mechanism of budgetary discipline).. "Yes" means we keep borrowing further and fail to address the problems that need to be addressed.
"No" means we have to get our house in order.. However, my concern is again the government would avoid this path and just borrow at international loan shark levels..

Richard Boyd Barrett and the No Campaign are advising people to vote No to the Fiscal Treaty because a Yes vote “will copper fasten austerity, make even emergency public expenditure impossible, and worsen poverty”.

So far, 4 unions, The Civil Public and Services Union, Technical Engineering and Electrical Union (TEEU), UNITE and Mandate have come out against the fiscal treaty.

They have given a variety of reasons, such as “the treaty on fiscal stability did nothing for workers” and it “would weaken Europe and enshrine austerity”.

SIPTU will only support a Yes vote if there is an “off balance sheet stimulus plan to create tens of thousands of jobs”.

The above mentioned seem to believe that Voting No will stave off austerity. Talk about turkeys voting from Christmas!

Now Michael Noonan is promising a tougher budget and even more austerity, if the No vote prevails.

Seems like we’re damned if we do and damned if we don’t and the real choice is between taking the medicine in a long or short glass.:eek:

golfwallah wrote: »

..........
Seems like we’re damned if we do and damned if we don’t and the real choice is between taking the medicine in a long or short glass.:eek:

Seems like we're bullied yet again. First Phil Hogan with the HT, then Gilmore telling us we wouldn't be able to get loans if we voted 'no', John Bruton wading in with his comparisons to Credit Unions (who incidentially also refuse loans), and now Bully Noonan (Hep C case).

The difference these days, Ministers and former Ministers, is that people have the advantage of good education, and the ability to discuss issues in places like boards.ie. The 'Party Vote' is quickly being eliminated from society. No longer do people take everything that Ministers say as gospel.

Enough scare-mongering, and in particular lies. The results of the Household Charge registrations have confirmed that we were being fed lies all along, and once those results are independently viewed, I'm certain that the lies will turn out to be bigger

..........if we vote No, we cannot avail of the ESM. Probably a good thing that we couldn't 'avail', as we'd have to pay into the ESM approx €1.1bn right from the beginning. (Maybe we'd get a loan from the EU or IMF to do that :-0) It's probably the ESM treaty we should be looking at, as a reason to vote no or yes to this one.

blowtorch wrote: »

Enough scare-mongering, and in particular lies. The results of the Household Charge registrations have confirmed that we were being fed lies all along, and once those results are independently viewed, I'm certain that the lies will turn out to be bigger

How the fluppin hell do the lack of household charge registrations show us anything was a lie. Perhaps you should have a read of this...http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78435191&postcount=70

flutered wrote: »

the above is one of the reasons they like to hit education and jobs keep them poor and ingorant.

Judging by many of the No campaign arguments we really do have a problem with education in this country.

Tora Bora wrote: »

What Gilmore really means, is that if we vote NO, we will be no longer be able to avail of ESM, CPA:cool: Now thwt wouldn't be good for Labour, would it. :cool:

Well that's okay then, seeing as cutbacks will only effect people who work for the government. Oh wait...

Tora Bora wrote: »

Was going to vote yes, as it's "possibly", the lesser of the available evils.

After Noonan's "threat", I'm definitely voting NO!

So are you offended by the rampant lying/exaggerating that is going on from the No side or is this just Noonan you have a problem with?

I really despair when I read this stuff.

Funny how he mentions tax increases as he doesnt specify what taxes and thus isnt targettng any particular group. IF we didnt have access to the ESM we would enter major decision time, and surely I dont need to remind an expert like the MOF that raising taxes is far more damaging than cutting waste. He knows this though, I reckon they may well postpone voting on it, as the no camp seems to be gaining momentum. Also could you imagine to balance the books with only tax rises what would happen to the black economy, it would absolutely sky rocket, people would be back shopping over the border etc.

This is why voting No is starting to appeal to me more and more, as a middle class private sector worker we are constantly the ones getting screwed over relatively far more than any other group in Irish society (you can ad the newly unemployed also), despite the fact that we are the largest group. We have reached the point of diminishing returns on most taxes, whats he going to do raise the Vat again, raise PAYE etc and make even less worthwhile to work?

The way I see it is, if we cant even make the remotely difficult decisions now in our darkest hour, they will never be made. This could be a golden opportunity... after 4 years I have had enough of the debt by a million cuts, lets just tough it out in the short term and have some optimism for the future... Also as usual the politicians are making sure they feather their nest first and foremost, imagine for ine second, that we dont have access to ESM, drastic cuts and whatever tax increases, the first thing the government would be forced to cut is their own pay and pensions. They would have absolutely no moral authority otherwise, this would be a best case scenario for them!

liammur wrote: »

He should have learnt after hogan threatening people, that this isn't the way to conduct business.

He is not threatening though.

He's saying

NO = serious financial pain.

YES = less pain, keep going as we are with cuts.

ESM = A bank if we need it.

We are like a business, it would be great if we didn't need any loans and could look after our finances and always have cashflow to keep the business afloat.

What happens if we don't?

Imagine a business if they have no bank for credit when a disaster happens, like a fire that destroyed your warehouse, insurance won't cover it and you don't have the cash to pay for it to be fixed and the cash to pay your debtors.

You go bust.

We are not strong enough alone, that's why I would vote YES.

RoverZT wrote: »

Imagine a business if they have no bank for credit when a disaster happens, like a fire that destroyed your warehouse, insurance won't cover it and you don't have the cash to pay for it to be fixed and the cash to pay your debtors.

You go bust.

We are not strong enough alone, that's why I would vote YES.

We are bust already..

Yet, we continue to spend spend spend so that the same ministers can run a full term and get voted in again (must not alienate Social Welfare claimants, Public Sector, PAYE sector, OAP's etc.)..

Killing the easy credit line may force some serious decisions to be made in the long term interests of the country rather than the short term interests of the current government. Even Patrick Honahan has come out and said as much finally.

That is why I will likely vote No .. (which interestingly enough is contrary to most No voters reasons.. I want a proper Austerity now!).

RoverZT wrote: »

Nearly every country is bust.

We are not alone:D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_external_debt

True..

But the longer we take to correct our position, the more we continue to rack up in debt and interest that we ultimately will have to cut from services and add to taxes.. Nothing we are getting comes for free.. It has to be repaid with interest, so we will end up rationalising spend and increasing taxes anyway.. the sooner we do, the less we have to repay externally, and the more we can spend to keep essential services alive.

I would prefer for us to rationalise our position now and begin to deliver services and collect taxes within our means.