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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Government Spending [See post 106]

135

Comments

  • #102
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,323 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    That's Sesame Street stuff to be fair and poor justification.
    t'was no slogan English, but t'was a fine comment.

    What part of:



    ..did you feel the need to attack and why? Just curious.

    I am not attacking it.

    It is a meaningless statement.

    "What ever about costing" - what does this mean? Are you saying disregard costing, temporarily ignore costing, what exactly are you proposing? And if you do mean ignore costing for the sake of equality, doesn't that render the rest of the sentence meaningless, because what if an Irish person took up residence on Rockall, and demanded the same broadband, postal, gas and electricity supply that the rest of the country has on equality grounds, should he be entitled as well?

    "every person is supposed to be equal and that's as it should be." - Equal how? Equality of opportunity? Equality of outcome? Equality in terms of free from illegal discrimination? Equality as in a communist state? There are so many different forms of equality, not just the ones I list, that this phrase is similarly meaningless.

    "Of course we have to make allowances based on practicalities" - now I'm getting confused. Are we disregarding costing, or did you mean something else?

    "Some lad in the middle of nowhere who paid tax all his life deserves consideration" Consideration of what? It costs more to provide him with broadband so should he pay more taxes as a result? Should he have a greater subsidy because he has the health benefits of a rural life? Should be also get school transport subsidised, electricity supply subsidised, a petrol subsidy because it takes him longer to get to work? Where does it end? Should every urban dweller pay more to heavily subsidise a rural dweller? This is meaningless without explanation, context and elaboration.


  • #103
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,535 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    blanch152 wrote: »
    We can all spout a slogan of equality, but all have completely different versions of it.
    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    You citing some examples were it might not be practical is just looking to stir quite frankly. Do you never get tired?

    Mod note:

    Whatever the cost of rural broadband, one thing that is free and in unlimited supply is boards.ie moderator sanctions for posters who keep trying to needle each other and derail every thread.


  • #104
    reg114
    Registered Users Posts: 687 ✭✭✭reg114


    Scoundrel wrote: »
    This shouldn't be about a Rural vs urban thing rural people are just as entitled to broadband as urban people the issue here is the scandalous nature of the proposal 3 billion and we won't even own the infrastructure. This is a best gross incompetence from FG and at worst an act of ideological sabotage against the Irish taxpayer.

    Nope. The gov's refusal to take the massive climate change threat seriously is arguably a much bigger example of FG's total lack of moral competence, than any facile argument about failure to roll out broadband across the country.

    The initial poster referenced the failure to follow through on the planned metro south as a reason for their frustration with FG. Folks to build the metro in Dublin when predicted sea levels globally are set to rise 2 metres in the coming decades, would be lunacy. In fact any mention of building a metro at all is pure headline grabbing nonsense, look how long it took an irish government to build the luas and how much that cost. Dublin will never have a metro.


  • #105
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Scoundrel wrote: »
    This shouldn't be about a Rural vs urban thing rural people are just as entitled to broadband as urban people the issue here is the scandalous nature of the proposal 3 billion and we won't even own the infrastructure. This is a best gross incompetence from FG and at worst an act of ideological sabotage against the Irish taxpayer.

    IMO, giving Denis O'Brien's consortium the contract was more important than any other factors. I base this on the relationship Fine Gael have had with Mr. O'Brien in the past. Not knocking Mr. O'Brien, he's a business man and not given the remit to look after the Irish tax payer.


  • #106
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,535 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    Mod Note:

    Ok there have been a lot of threads opened recently that all cover the same ground. So they have been merged into three threads. The general is a catch all for Irish Government business, bar particular gripes about spending schemes etc.

    This present thread is for specific issues relating to government spending on particular schemes e.g. rural broadband, housing schemes, the dreaded water infrastructure etc:

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057983142

    The threads on the Dail voting scandal, politicians being in it for the money (or the interesting discussion on how the current system traps people in capitalist representative democracy) and electoral reform have also been merged into one mega thread on, basically, politican's behaviour as opposed to their policies:

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058025402

    So basically there are now three threads instead of 10 where you can complain criticise or lionise your government:
    1. A general thread for general gripes, policies and actions;
    2. A spending thread for wasted money, brilliant public works, or anything in between; or
    3. A thread about the politicians themselves, and the system that gets them into power.

    There will obviously be some overlap, but try to keep it on topic.

    The bielection (and indeed any other general election thread) will be separate, and any unusual or particular social policies (e.g. the hate crime thread) are also sufficiently discrete as to get their own threads (for the moment)

    Also, please try to keep things civil.


  • #107
    thomas 123
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,900 ✭✭✭thomas 123


    xl500 wrote: »
    Why do you have to pay to bring water and Electricty to your site but not broadband its crazy


    Doesn’t take much to install broadband on the household end, in fact nothing. Linking up water or electric is a little more complex.

    The infrastructure for broadband is also a lot easier to install/maintain than electric cables or water pipes.


  • #108
    McGiver
    Registered Users Posts: 4,450 ✭✭✭McGiver


    Dytalus wrote: »
    Denmark: 6,635 homeless per the most recent figures. 5.8 million population. 0.11% ratio.
    Austria: 14,603 homeless. 8.86 million population. 0.16% ratio.
    Norway: 3,909 homeless. 5.3 million population. 0.07% ratio.

    Ireland: 10,388 homeless. 4.9 million population. 0.21% ratio.

    Only Austria has more homeless total than us per the most recently available statistics, and it's still below us in terms of population ratio.

    Cheers for that. Knew it wouldn't be true. Any figure for Scotland?


  • #109
    stefanovich
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,490 ✭✭✭stefanovich


    McGiver wrote: »
    Cheers for that. Knew it wouldn't be true. Any figure for Scotland?

    Do they all define homeless the same way?


  • #110
    Dytalus
    Registered Users Posts: 459 ✭✭Dytalus


    McGiver wrote: »
    Cheers for that. Knew it wouldn't be true. Any figure for Scotland?

    It's not easy to find for Scotland - much easier to find an all-UK rate, but I think I managed to find some tables here.

    UK: 307,000 homeless. Population of 65.6 million. Ratio of 0.46%
    Scotland: 36,465 homeless. Population of 5.4 million. Ratio of 0.68%
    stefanovich wrote: »
    Do they all define homeless the same way?
    That is an excellent question. Did some digging and got the following (heavily summarised, but with links to information sources).
    • Ireland: Living rough, or staying somewhere temporarily because you have nowhere else to go. From the wording of the legislation, I don’t think this includes staying with parents (“who might reasonably be expected to live with you”) but would include staying with friends or more distant family members. scratch that, see below edit. Ireland does not count people sleeping on friends couches as homeless in official statistics.
    • UK: This is more complex, since it differs between Scotland and the rest of the UK (which may explain Scotland’s higher rate). Wiki has a good summary but to sum up the UK classes you as homeless if: you do not have a permanent home, you have a local connection, you have become so unintentionally (ie, not because of not paying rent – arguably this is not regularly intentional), and you have ‘priority need’. Scotland lacks the priority need requirement, so (for example) being over 21 doesn’t remove you from the statutory homeless list as it does in England, Wales, or NI. The UK also has a non-statutory classification, but it’s unclear whether these are included in official numbers. Scotland’s data, for example, includes those who made applications as homeless. Non-statutory homeless cannot make such applications, as I understand it, and so wouldn’t be included in the numbers.
    • Norway/Denmark: Sourced from here, Norway classifies a homeless person defined as a person who does not own or rent a home, and left with coincidental or temporary housing arrangements, who temporarily stay with close relatives, friends or acquaintances, or is under the care of the correctional services or an institution, due for release within two months and without a home. People without arranged accommodation for the next night also considered as homeless. Apparently, so does Denmark – so I’ve included them in this point.

    EDIT:
    Seems this point (the differing categorisations of homelessness) has been discussed at an EU level. Both Focus Ireland and the Journal have fact checked Ireland's homelessness rates with other EU member states.

    The ETHOS Light system is an attempt by Feantsa (the EU wide homeless NGO) to come up with a list of criteria to be used across all member states to compare homeless rates using a standardised system. It includes:
    • People living rough
    • People in emergency accommodation
    • People living in accommodation for the homeless
    • People living in institutions (and due to be released with no home to go to)
    • People living in non-conventional dwellings due to a lack of housing
    • Homeless people living temporarily in conventional housing with family and friends (due to a lack of housing)
    Ireland, apparently, only counts the first three. Denmark applies all six.


  • #111
    CrabRevolution
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,869 ✭✭✭CrabRevolution


    jm08 wrote: »
    Rural Ireland feeds you. Farms of necessity tend to be in remote spots. They need broadband so that they can keep on top of all the rules and regs of providing safe food. The reason why farmers don't contribute more tax is because their incomes are so low.

    Edit: Just so you know, Ireland South EU Parliament constituency (mainly Munster) has the 3rd highest GDP per person in Europe (after London and Luxembourg). Dublin (Leinster) is 5th.

    https://www.irishtimes.com/business/southern-part-of-ireland-third-richest-in-eu-but-west-lags-behind-1.3811364?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fbusiness%2Fsouthern-part-of-ireland-third-richest-in-eu-but-west-lags-behind-1.3811364

    The vast majority of people in one off houses in rural Ireland aren't farmers. They have nothing to do with food production but still cost a fortune to supply the broadband infrastructure to.


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    Scoundrel
    Registered Users Posts: 1,435 ✭✭✭Scoundrel


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    IMO, giving Denis O'Brien's consortium the contract was more important than any other factors. I base this on the relationship Fine Gael have had with Mr. O'Brien in the past. Not knocking Mr. O'Brien, he's a business man and not given the remit to look after the Irish tax payer.

    Oh for sure FG have been in Dinnys pocket for a very long time it's no coincidence that when FF were in power 1997-2011 you never heard of Denis O Brien and then once FG were back he was getting government contacts left right and centre.


  • #113
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Scoundrel wrote: »
    Oh for sure FG have been in Dinnys pocket for a very long time it's no coincidence that when FF were in power 1997-2011 you never heard of Denis O Brien and then once FG were back he was getting government contacts left right and centre.

    One would think after Lowry and the Noonan siteserv deal still under investigation he'd be maybe suspended from applying for state contracts pending the outcome, as it's obvious Fine Gael have zero issues? Be nice if someone was looking out or the tax payer to ensure we get the best deal.


  • #114
    McGiver
    Registered Users Posts: 4,450 ✭✭✭McGiver


    Dytalus wrote:
    Ireland, apparently, only counts the first three. Denmark applies all six.

    Excellent. That means that using the same methodology Ireland has several times more homeless people as a % of population than its peers comparable peers. As I originally posited would be the tight benchmark to use while assessing Ireland's issues.
    Do you agree?


  • #115
    Dytalus
    Registered Users Posts: 459 ✭✭Dytalus


    McGiver wrote: »
    Excellent. That means that using the same methodology Ireland has several times more homeless people as a % of population than its peers comparable peers. As I originally posited would be the tight benchmark to use while assessing Ireland's issues.
    Do you agree?

    Yes. We should be comparing ourselves to other, well-developed states within the EU (EEA, for Norway). And comparably, we don't do marvelously. That's not to say what they do to alleviate it would necessarily work for us, only that by whatever method used we should be getting that number down through both short-term fixes (to get people into homes, and almost invariably will be expensive) and long-term (to ensure this doesn't happen again).


  • #116
    McGiver
    Registered Users Posts: 4,450 ✭✭✭McGiver


    Dytalus wrote:
    Yes. We should be comparing ourselves to other, well-developed states within the EU (EEA, for Norway). And comparably, we don't do marvelously. That's not to say what they do to alleviate it would necessarily work for us, only that by whatever method used we should be getting that number down through both short-term fixes (to get people into homes, and almost invariably will be expensive) and long-term (to ensure this doesn't happen again).
    Yes but I see the following issues in RoI (with my experience from abroad, couple of countries, so can compare).

    1. Systemic mismanagement
    2. C&AG weakness
    3. Lack of public anti-corruption watchdog
    4. Systemic underfunding
    5. Low tax economy

    Basically, it's down to low tax - which means insufficient budget, combined with lack of transparency and chronic mismanagement which means people are unwilling to pay higher taxes because of fear of taxes collected would be wasted / mismanaged due to experience of poor "return on the investment" on taxes paid. It's hard to build a cohesive society with quality comprehensive public services in a low tax economy. However, I think that even with current amount of tax collected the "return on investment" could be much improved.


  • #117
    Geuze
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,740 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    I do not agree that we are a low-tax economy.

    Middle-tax, I would say.

    Many low earners, and middle-earners over 65, pay low amounts of income tax, yes.


  • #118
    Liberta Per Gli Ultra
    Registered Users Posts: 260 ✭✭Liberta Per Gli Ultra


    Geuze wrote: »
    I do not agree that we are a low-tax economy.

    Middle-tax, I would say.

    Many low earners, and middle-earners over 65, pay low amounts of income tax, yes.

    The bottom decile of households in Ireland pay 27.7% of their total gross income in direct and indirect taxation. They are the 2nd highest contributors of tax in percentage terms.

    You give an opinion of our economy in relation to tax but only mention one type of tax and two of the groups who pay it, superb.


  • #119
    Geuze
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,740 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    Yes, fair enough, our VAT rates are a touch higher than typical, and our excise duties are higher than the EU averages (mostly), so yes you may be right.

    https://www.nerinstitute.net/download/pdf/household_tax_contributions_neri_wp18.pdf


    Your 27.7% seems to indirect tax only.

    Note the massive difference between income and expenditure of the lowest decile............???


  • #120
    Liberta Per Gli Ultra
    Registered Users Posts: 260 ✭✭Liberta Per Gli Ultra


    Geuze wrote: »
    Yes, fair enough, our VAT rates are a touch higher than typical, and our excise duties are higher than the EU averages (mostly), so yes you may be right.

    https://www.nerinstitute.net/download/pdf/household_tax_contributions_neri_wp18.pdf


    Your 27.7% seems to indirect tax only.

    Note the massive difference between income and expenditure of the lowest decile............???

    The figure of 27.7% that I gave is taken from a different source and is backed up and explained by your source. It is almost totally made up of indirect tax (0.3% direct plus 27.4% indirect) which highlights the point I was making about including every type of tax in the conversation.

    As page 17 of your source shows, the poorest households in Ireland contribute the 2nd highest amount of tax as a percentage of gross income.


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    Liberta Per Gli Ultra
    Registered Users Posts: 260 ✭✭Liberta Per Gli Ultra


    On the subject of tax:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leprechaun_economics

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation_tax_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland


  • #122
    McGiver
    Registered Users Posts: 4,450 ✭✭✭McGiver


    Geuze wrote: »
    I do not agree that we are a low-tax economy.

    Middle-tax, I would say.

    Many low earners, and middle-earners over 65, pay low amounts of income tax, yes.

    Direct evidence confirm it is indeed a low tax economy. Now, we're talking about compounded income tax, social security payments and modelled VAT impact.
    Ireland has the lowest total tax burden in the EU. I ignore micro states and offshoring tax havens Cyprus and Malta. See attached.

    I have to repeat this again and again as Irish people seem to live in an illusion of being heavily taxed. There's no evidence for it. I would really like to see their shocked faces when confronted with tax reality in Germany, Italy or Finland for example.

    EDIT: Note the paper is using average gross salaries in all countries, because that's the only meaningful way of comparing total tax burden between EU countries. Data pulled from https://www.institutmolinari.org/IMG/pdf/tax-burden-eu-2018.pdf


  • #123
    Good loser
    Registered Users Posts: 3,212 ✭✭✭Good loser


    Geuze wrote: »
    Yes, fair enough, our VAT rates are a touch higher than typical, and our excise duties are higher than the EU averages (mostly), so yes you may be right.

    https://www.nerinstitute.net/download/pdf/household_tax_contributions_neri_wp18.pdf


    Your 27.7% seems to indirect tax only.

    Note the massive difference between income and expenditure of the lowest decile............???


    Would you agree that a lot of the lowest decile's indirect tax contribution is voluntary i.e. on drink and tobacco? That is if they pay the nominal duty on tobacco.


  • #124
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Good loser wrote: »
    Would you agree that a lot of the lowest decile's indirect tax contribution is voluntary i.e. on drink and tobacco? That is if they pay the nominal duty on tobacco.

    Likely food.


  • #125
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,551 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    Likely food.

    Go check the VAT element of a supermarket bill; particularly those that show what hits which rate

    There is no VAT on most food in Ireland.


  • #126
    Liberta Per Gli Ultra
    Registered Users Posts: 260 ✭✭Liberta Per Gli Ultra


    Good loser wrote: »
    Would you agree that a lot of the lowest decile's indirect tax contribution is voluntary i.e. on drink and tobacco? That is if they pay the nominal duty on tobacco.

    I'd like to think he/she is better than you at reading and interpreting statistics, if you even bothered, and therefore would not agree. Alcoholic drink and tobacco are not the only goods which have an excise levied on them.

    Table A3 on page 31 of that link has a breakdown of expenditure which shows the lowest decile spends a smaller percentage on drink and tobacco than the next two and less than 1% more than the middle deciles. That table also contains figures for transport (13%) and fuel & light (7%) which are relevant to the overall excise figure for that decile, which is less than 30% of total indirect tax contribution in the first place.

    So a bad day for those who like to paint a certain picture of poor people drinking cans and smoking all day.


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,323 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Liberta Per Gli Ultra wrote: »
    I'd like to think he/she is better than you at reading and interpreting statistics, if you even bothered, and therefore would not agree. Alcoholic drink and tobacco are not the only goods which have an excise levied on them.

    Table A3 on page 31 of that link has a breakdown of expenditure which shows the lowest decile spends a smaller percentage on drink and tobacco than the next two and less than 1% more than the middle deciles. That table also contains figures for transport (13%) and fuel & light (7%) which are relevant to the overall excise figure for that decile, which is less than 30% of total indirect tax contribution in the first place.

    So a bad day for those who like to paint a certain picture of poor people drinking cans and smoking all day.


    The lowest decile are an outlier.

    They consist of situations where families with young children have one of the parents working a small amount of part-time, of students working to support their studies etc.

    They are not really the poorest because they are mostly supplementing household income rather than being the main earner. You really need to look at the second lowest decile to see where the lowest main earners are. Not surprisingly, that's where the alcohol and cigs spend kicks in.


  • #128
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    If people with the least money spend a higher percentage on higher taxed items such as alcohol and tobacco, is it possible they spend no more or maybe even less than those on higher incomes? Even a reasonable or small amount can seem like a lot if you are on minimum wage.

    I'd wager, on a night out in Ballsbridge, you would spend more than most on minimum wage might spend in a fortnight buying cans from Lidl.

    It's a very Fine Gael angle to take I must say. How about improving their lot rather than casting aspersions on their lives?
    Fine Gael TD hits out at people 'stacking up their trolleys with drink'
    https://www.thejournal.ie/catherine-byrne-stacking-trolleys-drink-wine-beer-2196721-Jul2015/


  • #129
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,323 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    If people with the least money spend a higher percentage on higher taxed items such as alcohol and tobacco, is it possible they spend no more or maybe even less than those on higher incomes? Even a reasonable or small amount can seem like a lot if you are on minimum wage.

    I'd wager, on a night out in Ballsbridge, you would spend more than most on minimum wage might spend in a fortnight buying cans from Lidl.

    It's a very Fine Gael angle to take I must say. How about improving their lot rather than casting aspersions on their lives?

    That's an old link, hardly news.

    However, there is an interesting point around drink and cigarettes. Consumption among the poor is at record levels despite all the education taking place and despite the advertising bans and plain packaging. Clearly, minimum pricing and further excise duty are needed on alcohol.


  • #130
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,551 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Minimum pricing just moves consumption to cheaper brands large pack sizes, creating a false impression that it's done something but actually does nothing. Also any extra cash goes to the retailers

    It's a wheeze by the publicans to try get their off sales business back as the supermarkets are undercutting them - not a viable public health measure.

    It's also barely legal at an EU level. We tried it on cigarettes and were forced to remove it remember


  • #131
    McGiver
    Registered Users Posts: 4,450 ✭✭✭McGiver


    blanch152 wrote:
    However, there is an interesting point around drink and cigarettes. Consumption among the poor is at record levels despite all the education taking place and despite the advertising bans and plain packaging. Clearly, minimum pricing and further excise duty are needed on alcohol.
    Generally in favour of highly taxing and regulating drugs (any, including tobacco and alcohol) rather than banning. But the price needs be right, if its too low you encourage consumption, if it's too late high you'll create a black market/smug etc. The latter being the main reason why drugs are legalised but taxed and controlled - to the eliminate organised crime involvement due to black market...


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    Bishop of hope
    Registered Users Posts: 2,928 ✭✭✭Bishop of hope


    Higher taxes and such have just about closed up your rural pubs, along with the stringent drink driving laws.
    4 euro plus for a pint or a bottle of most beers, same for shorts then add a mixer.
    Dunnes and tesco for instance, there are others as well, most off licences and supermarkets, get a box of beer and a bottle of spirits for the price of one night out in the pub, you can drink every night at home for less than most nights out.
    I think this policy of high taxation has actually increased alcoholism by causing people to buy in bulk and having it at home, rather than going out for a couple of pints and a chat a couple of nights a week.


  • #133
    stefanovich
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,490 ✭✭✭stefanovich


    Bishop of hope wrote: »
    Higher taxes and such have just about closed up your rural pubs, along with the stringent drink driving laws.
    4 euro plus for a pint or a bottle of most beers, same for shorts then add a mixer.
    Dunnes and tesco for instance, there are others as well, most off licences and supermarkets, get a box of beer and a bottle of spirits for the price of one night out in the pub, you can drink every night at home for less than most nights out.
    I think this policy of high taxation has actually increased alcoholism by causing people to buy in bulk and having it at home, rather than going out for a couple of pints and a chat a couple of nights a week.

    Perhaps we don't need so many pubs.


  • #134
    Bishop of hope
    Registered Users Posts: 2,928 ✭✭✭Bishop of hope


    stefanovich wrote: »
    Perhaps we don't need so many pubs.

    Perhaps, but that wasn't my point really.


  • #135
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    blanch152 wrote: »
    That's an old link, hardly news.

    However, there is an interesting point around drink and cigarettes. Consumption among the poor is at record levels despite all the education taking place and despite the advertising bans and plain packaging. Clearly, minimum pricing and further excise duty are needed on alcohol.

    She's my local TD, it's the same government party, it supports my opinion and it's on topic.

    Will just open it up for criminality. It stands to reason that those on lower incomes spend a greater percentage of their wage on expensive items.


  • #136
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,323 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    She's my local TD, it's the same government party, it supports my opinion and it's on topic.

    Will just open it up for criminality. It stands to reason that those on lower incomes spend a greater percentage of their wage on expensive items.

    How does it stand to reason that those on lower incomes spend a greater percentage of their wages on expensive items? Doesn't make sense to me.

    Surely those on lower incomes spend a greater percentage of their wages on basic items as they don't have spare income for luxury items?

    Edit: If you are right, a higher percentage of lower income people would own Mercedes and Audi than higher income people.


  • #137
    McGiver
    Registered Users Posts: 4,450 ✭✭✭McGiver


    Bishop of hope wrote:
    Perhaps, but that wasn't my point really.

    And what was it?


  • #138
    Bishop of hope
    Registered Users Posts: 2,928 ✭✭✭Bishop of hope


    McGiver wrote: »
    And what was it?

    That higher taxes, increasing prices, doesent necessarily mean that you will stop people doing stuff, like drinking for instance.
    Governments love to kid people into thinking that revenue measures are for their own good, like increasing drink prices to stop them consuming too much, fecked up the pubs but made a boom for the off-licence and the corporate stores
    Like the fuel rise also if you want to include it from the last budget, for the climate, but not at all really, its for the revenue coffers. Just stealth taxes dressed up.


  • #139
    McGiver
    Registered Users Posts: 4,450 ✭✭✭McGiver


    Bishop of hope wrote: »
    That higher taxes, increasing prices, doesent necessarily mean that you will stop people doing stuff, like drinking for instance.
    Governments love to kid people into thinking that revenue measures are for their own good, like increasing drink prices to stop them consuming too much, fecked up the pubs but made a boom for the off-licence and the corporate stores
    Like the fuel rise also if you want to include it from the last budget, for the climate, but not at all really, its for the revenue coffers. Just stealth taxes dressed up.
    So you're another one who thinks overall taxation in RoI is high?

    Have you been to Germany, Austria, ...or elsewhere? I think you're head would explode if you did :) The fact is - taxes are much higher elsewhere.

    VAT is high in here, that's true, plus some weird duties, such as on tobacco or alcohol. Although I support high taxes on drugs, it's a right thing to do.

    Anyhow, the overall the VAT impact is low and doesn't offset the comparatively low income tax and low social contributions. If you take an average Joe with an average salary in RoI and their counterpart in say Germany, the overall taxation in RoI is much lower.

    But I'm not saying there are no weird, high taxes in RoI. For example capital gains tax is a joke - 40% is a daylight robbery and discourages investment. Rent Profit for individual landlords is another joke, again at 40% mostly, whilst corporate landlords pay little tax due to art of "tax optimisation" and loopholes.

    I agree that the carbon tax is just a convenient excuse to raise more tax, no doubt.


  • #140
    Bishop of hope
    Registered Users Posts: 2,928 ✭✭✭Bishop of hope


    I'm not against the taxes as such, except the way they are handled and the way some are unevenly dispensed.
    Fuel for instance has a far more devastating affect where people have no choice but to drive.
    Drink in a pub is taxed highly, but yet I can get drink in a store for less than quarter the price it is in my local because of the way it is taxed in the pub. 20 bottles of bud can be bought for €20 euro in tesco or dunnes for instance.
    If I drink a few shorts in my local a bottle of spirits would cost me over a hundred euro, but I can buy a bottle of spirits to have at home for 20euro.
    I have no problem with the tobacco tax, but yet if I want I can get cigs for less than half price easily. I don't smoke BTW.

    I drive a 1.5 diesel Nissan, tax is 270 pa, my neighbour drives a 1.6 vw diesel, tax is 200, another friend has a 1.9 diesel, 07, his tax is 690.


  • #141
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    blanch152 wrote: »
    How does it stand to reason that those on lower incomes spend a greater percentage of their wages on expensive items? Doesn't make sense to me.

    Surely those on lower incomes spend a greater percentage of their wages on basic items as they don't have spare income for luxury items?

    Edit: If you are right, a higher percentage of lower income people would own Mercedes and Audi than higher income people.

    You make 200 a week. You go out one night, spend 30/40 that's almost 25% of your income on booze. All I'm saying is if it's expensive it would take a higher percentage of their income, even if socialising moderately.
    If earning 1000 and going out for one night, maybe spending 200, a lower percentage of income spent. Socialising no more or less.
    Wasn't the inference that the poor love spending all their money on booze and fags? If poor you can spend a large percent of your income socialising moderately.

    Yes, Blanch they're all buying Mercs....


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    CrabRevolution
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,869 ✭✭✭CrabRevolution


    Bishop of hope wrote: »
    Higher taxes and such have just about closed up your rural pubs, along with the stringent drink driving laws.
    4 euro plus for a pint or a bottle of most beers, same for shorts then add a mixer.
    Dunnes and tesco for instance, there are others as well, most off licences and supermarkets, get a box of beer and a bottle of spirits for the price of one night out in the pub, you can drink every night at home for less than most nights out.
    I think this policy of high taxation has actually increased alcoholism by causing people to buy in bulk and having it at home, rather than going out for a couple of pints and a chat a couple of nights a week.

    The excise on beer hasn't changed since 2014 and even then it's not much higher than the level it's been at since 1993, barring a decrease during the recession to help pubs.

    Wine seems to have been hit a bit more.

    tHz94bX.png


  • #143
    Bishop of hope
    Registered Users Posts: 2,928 ✭✭✭Bishop of hope


    CrabRevolution wrote: »
    The excise on beer hasn't changed since 2014 and even then it's not much higher than the level it's been at since 1993, barring a decrease during the recession to help pubs.

    Wine seems to have been hit a bit more.

    tHz94bX.png

    It's still stifling pubs in rural and small town areas.

    https://www.thesun.ie/money/3142785/irelands-alcohol-excise-tax-figures/


  • #144
    McGiver
    Registered Users Posts: 4,450 ✭✭✭McGiver


    Bishop of hope wrote:
    It's still stifling pubs in rural and small town areas.
    What do you suggest?


  • #145
    McGiver
    Registered Users Posts: 4,450 ✭✭✭McGiver


    Bishop of hope wrote:
    I'm not against the taxes as such, except the way they are handled and the way some are unevenly dispensed. Fuel for instance has a far more devastating affect where people have no choice but to drive. Drink in a pub is taxed highly, but yet I can get drink in a store for less than quarter the price it is in my local because of the way it is taxed in the pub.20 bottles of bud can be bought for €20 euro in tesco or dunnes for instance. If I drink a few shorts in my local a bottle of spirits would cost me over a hundred euro, but I can buy a bottle of spirits to have at home for 20euro. I have no problem with the tobacco tax, but yet if I want I can get cigs for less than half price easily. I don't smoke BTW.
    Wouldn't that be because you need to pay staff, rent, energy, taxes etc?

    This is exactly the same in all countries. And even broadly with all services. I can buy q pizza for 2 quid in Lidl or go to pizzeria for 11 quid.

    I was in Denmark last year - you can get a bottle of local beer for 2 quid, if you go to a pub, we'll that's 8 quid.

    Do you want to subsidise pubs???


  • #146
    Bishop of hope
    Registered Users Posts: 2,928 ✭✭✭Bishop of hope


    McGiver wrote: »
    Wouldn't that be because you need to pay staff, rent, energy, taxes etc?

    This is exactly the same in all countries. And even broadly with all services. I can buy q pizza for 2 quid in Lidl or go to pizzeria for 11 quid.

    I was in Denmark last year - you can get a bottle of local beer for 2 quid, if you go to a pub, we'll that's 8 quid.

    Do you want to subsidise pubs???

    Perhaps some, depending on geographical location. Lots of other stuff is subsidised.
    They do provide a valuable service in remote areas and small villages.
    Rates and insurance is a huge issue as well. Maybe a bit of help with that.
    I can tell you that in the area around me a lot have shut up shop as it wasn't worth their while staying open. If it continues as is it will happen more and more.
    Family pubs are going to close because young family members couldn't afford to live off them.


  • #147
    McGiver
    Registered Users Posts: 4,450 ✭✭✭McGiver


    Bishop of hope wrote:
    Perhaps some, depending on geographical location. Lots of other stuff is subsidised. They do provide a valuable service in remote areas and small villages. Rates and insurance is a huge issue as well. Maybe a bit of help with that. I can tell you that in the area around me a lot have shut up shop as it wasn't worth their while staying open. If it continues as is it will happen more and more. Family pubs are going to close because young family members couldn't afford to live off them.
    What are the rates roughly?

    Is that for locally authority charging the business? What for?


  • #148
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,551 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    CrabRevolution wrote: »
    The excise on beer hasn't changed since 2014 and even then it's not much higher than the level it's been at since 1993, barring a decrease during the recession to help pubs.

    Wine seems to have been hit a bit more.

    Proportionally cider has been absolutely hammered

    There is a 50% reduction for up to medium sized domestic breweries also, of which there is at least one and usually many in every county.


  • #149
    Bishop of hope
    Registered Users Posts: 2,928 ✭✭✭Bishop of hope


    McGiver wrote: »
    What are the rates roughly?

    Is that for locally authority charging the business? What for?

    I don't know, just listening to a few local bar owners and their gripes, I'm not a publican or involved in the industry myself.
    I assume its the council that sets the rate OK.
    Taxes, rates and insurance seem to be the main problem.
    When I moved here a few years ago I had 2 pubs within a mile from me, now my nearest pub is 4 miles away.
    Both closed down because of charges, not because their trade was that bad.


  • #150
    beggars_bush
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,647 ✭✭✭beggars_bush


    There are too many pubs in Ireland per head of population.

    The licencing laws are still archaic imho. Pubs should be allowed open later and earlier if they want.

    If pubs don't offer something else apart from drink they are only going to go one way. Closure.


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    stefanovich
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,490 ✭✭✭stefanovich


    CrabRevolution wrote: »
    The excise on beer hasn't changed since 2014 and even then it's not much higher than the level it's been at since 1993, barring a decrease during the recession to help pubs.

    Wine seems to have been hit a bit more.

    tHz94bX.png

    Go to France for your wine.


Advertisement