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
5 main reasons for our improving economy none of which are Fine Gael or Labour
Options
Comments
-
I’d agree that the government is overegging the pudding (that the economic recovery is down to their actions) but you need to remember it’s election time.
This means the boys and girls in Fine Gael & Labour are back in “sales mode” – and whoever heard of a salesman / woman, talking down their product?
Their sales pitch is along the lines of “we got the economy back to growth from the brink of a Fianna Fail disaster”, “stick with us – we’re a safe pair of hands (unlike the alternatives)”, all backed up with election budget goodies in the form of an extra €1.5b in public spending.
In all fairness, they have stuck largely with the Troika plan to bring the fiscal budget deficit back into more manageable proportions, as agreed with our EU partners. But government spending is still more than income with the deficit being financed by borrowings (even if it is now a lot cheaper to borrow).
But “let the buyer beware”, when it comes to election time. We’ve all heard this kind of election sales talk before – and, unfortunately, we seem to fall for it every time. Before the crash, additional government spending was being financed by property taxes. This time it’s corporation taxes. As for the “safe pair of hands”, Bertie & co. were of the same mindset – arrogantly so, as we saw with hindsight.
Warning bells are being sounded by the Fiscal Council: http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/fiscal-council-criticises-extra-budget-spending-1.2444054.
Revenue is urging caution on tax forecasts: http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/revenue-urges-caution-on-tax-forecast-1.2443973.
There are warnings on depending on the tax bonus from multinationals’ exceptional profitability: http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/beware-of-depending-on-tax-bonus-from-multinationals-exceptional-profitability-1.2440944.
But whoever heard of election campaigns based on caution (like “let’s pay off more of our public debt with possible bubble profits/taxes”). No, give us the spending promises and hype, anyday.
Really .... we should all know better!0 -
macraignil wrote: »I think the last time the council where I live was building houses my grandmother and granda were able to get a home on a mortgage rather than renting. That was around the end of the 80's. As far as I know most building since then was private sector and the price spike at the time of the financial crisis clearly showed they were not meeting demand.
This looks like a promising way to remove social housing from dependence on the market: http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/homes-and-property/a-social-housing-solution-for-the-people-1.2443507
Time will tell!0 -
golfwallah wrote: »I’d agree that the government is overegging the pudding (that the economic recovery is down to their actions) but you need to remember it’s election time.
This means the boys and girls in Fine Gael & Labour are back in “sales mode” – nd whoever heard of a salesman / woman, talking down their product?
Their sales pitch is along the lines of “we got the economy back to growth from the brink of a Fianna Fail disaster”, “stick with us – we’re a safe pair of hands (unlike the alternatives)”, all backed up with election budget goodies in the form of an extra €1.5b in public spending.
In all fairness, they have stuck largely with the Troika plan to bring the fiscal budget deficit back into more manageable proportions, as agreed with our EU partners. But government spending is still more than income with the deficit being financed by borrowings (even if it is now a lot cheaper to borrow).
But “let the buyer beware”, when it comes to election time. We’ve all heard this kind of election sales talk before – and, unfortunately, we seem to fall for it every time. Before the crash, additional government spending was being financed by property taxes. This time it’s corporation taxes. As for the “safe pair of hands”, Bertie & co. were of the same mindset – arrogantly so, as we saw with hindsight.
Warning bells are being sounded by the Fiscal Council: http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/fiscal-council-criticises-extra-budget-spending-1.2444054.
Revenue is urging caution on tax forecasts: http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/revenue-urges-caution-on-tax-forecast-1.2443973.
There are warnings on depending on the tax bonus from multinationals’ exceptional profitability: http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/beware-of-depending-on-tax-bonus-from-multinationals-exceptional-profitability-1.2440944.
But whoever heard of election campaigns based on caution (like “let’s pay off more of our public debt with possible bubble profits/taxes”). No, give us the spending promises and hype, anyday.
Really .... we should all know better!
There all at it though whether its AAA free houses for everyone or Sinn Fein scrap property and water charges.
Truth is the Irish public love these promises.
So what party isn't gonna promise all these lovely things when trying to get elected?0 -
JustTheOne wrote: »Truth is the Irish public love these promises.
Yes, check out the 2002 election. Baldy Noonan called FF out for absolute economic insanity, and the electorate handed FG their worst beating ever, re-electing the FF-PD govt (first time a govt was re-elected since 1969), setting the scene for more insanity and the eventual crash.
Noonan lost the leadership of the party to Enda, and Quinn also lost the leadership of Labour that year.
You can be sure that Kenny learned that lesson.0 -
Well if you took the time to actually read up on it you'd know! These are local government staff they inherited and are now preparing to lay off as part of the consolidation, it is in fact one of the intended benefits as it will result in a lower wage bill going forward as was intended.
Oh Dear, very long on opinion and very short on facts.... enough said.
Thank you very much for reciting the official mantra for me Jim. However there is often considerable difference in what we are told and what actually happens.
There appears to be an agreement with the unions that no staff will laid off for a minimum of 12 years.
Irish Water was set up under a microscope due to public opposition and scarce resources, Imagine what was done during the creation of the HSE at a time of plentiful resouces.
2013
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/colm-mccarthy/reform-of-quangos-by-politicians-just-not-happening-29819337.html
But along comes the Water Services (No 2) Bill of 2013, introduced in the Oireachtas last week. It now transpires that a deal was done with the trade unions during the summer which will, for all practical purposes, see the reorganisation of the water industry deferred until the year 2025, believe it or not. The charges for water will come immediately..........
It would appear that, below the radar, our long-lost friends the Social Partners are back in business. The explanatory memorandum (but not the actual legislation) refers to an 'agreement', hitherto undisclosed, contained in an intriguing document dated June 27 last, from the Labour Relations Commission, a quango. Something called the Irish Water Forum, chaired by Kevin Foley and apparently including public officials and trade unions, had been meeting and its report included the following: ". . . work is progressing on the development of an overarching framework to reflect the proposed collaborative arrangement between Irish Water and local authorities. This framework will encompass a . . . period of 12 years, with a review after the first two years and again after the first seven years, neither of which would involve a break clause." The language ('overarching framework', 'collaborative arrangement') will thrill fans of the Department of the Taoiseach in its Bertie-era pomp............
November 2015
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/staff-working-for-irish-water-vote-to-strike-in-row-over-job-cuts-1.2438139Local authority workers providing services for Irish Water have voted for industrial action in a dispute over proposed staffing cuts.0 -
Advertisement
-
Zubeneschamali wrote: »Yes, check out the 2002 election. Baldy Noonan called FF out for absolute economic insanity, and the electorate handed FG their worst beating ever, re-electing the FF-PD govt (first time a govt was re-elected since 1969), setting the scene for more insanity and the eventual crash.
Was that the year FG promised to compensate people who lost money on their Eircom shares from taxpayers money. Sign of things that were to come, I suppose
FF FG same party, different shirts0 -
You were spouting absolute crap. If you have figures for this waste due to corruption and cronyism then put it out and we can debate it.
You left out incompetence
circa 9.2billion per yearThe first point to make is that, relative to total income in the country, Ireland’s government spends more than most others in the EU.....
In two relatively small areas of expenditure, Ireland’s government spends a multiple of the EU average: in housing and community amenities (principally housing developments) and in environment protection (principally management of waste and waste water). The figure for housing – 3% of national income – is actually over four times the typical country’s figure of 0.7%. Halving total expenditure in these areas would still leave Ireland spending more than most but would save about €2bn, assuming since 2008 about €500m has already been saved
Other expenditure areas that are predominantly capital projects also look unsustainable, particularly “Economic Affairs” which includes money spent on energy, transport and communication. Ireland’s 6.7% of national income spent in these areas is just over one quarter higher than our peers. Cutting spending in this area by one quarter would save in the region of €3bn
Irish public spending in health care. Ireland’s government spends 10% of national income on healthcare, more than a quarter above the typical EU-15 country. What makes this truly puzzling is that Ireland should be an outlier in the other direction: Ireland has a significantly younger population than its EU-15 peers.
http://www.ronanlyons.com/2010/11/02/where-should-ireland-cut-its-public-spending-thoughts-for-budget-2011-ii/0 -
The premise of this article is ridiculously innacurate....
partially because it is 4 years old... but mostly because it plays fast & lose with numbers to suit its conclusion.
the outset statement:Ireland’s government spends more than most others in the EU. Excluding defence, Ireland’s government spends 52.4% of national income
This assumes massive overspends, however it very obviously includes taking the bank bailout into account... something no one with a brain would assume is repeated year on year.
the current figure of government expenditure, on actually running the state is around 30% of GDP.... down just a tad from Lyon's unique stat from 4 years ago.
the HSE budget accounts for 7% of national income.
Social housing capital expenditure will be 0.3% of GDP.
And Lyonsy's suggestion that the Garda budget be halved is not really a runner.
The entire capital expenditure budget for 2016 is just 2% of national wealth.
looks like Ireland is saving a helluva lot compared to what Ronan said was the case... 4 years ago.0 -
BoJack Horseman wrote:This assumes massive overspends, however it very obviously includes taking the bank bailout into account... something no one with a brain would assume is repeated year on year.
Maybe you skipped over the portion of the article where bank bailout costs were excludedBoJack Horseman wrote:the HSE budget accounts for 7% of national income.
We are amongst the top 5 on health spend per head of population. We have the youngest population, yet the health service is not fit for purpose. This surely raises the question of where is the money being wasted.
Irish water and the hse and many other quangos which we have no transparency on have many questions to answer (nearly 1000 in total)0 -
Maybe you skipped over the portion of the article where bank bailout costs were excluded
Then the article was doubly false... looking at government expenditure in 2011, it was 35% of GDP or 43% of GNI.... your boy had to be including monies incorrectly to give a false impression.
No doubt the HSE & SIPTU are open to suggestions?This surely raises the question of where is the money being wasted.
Here's their latest financial report... it will help you suggest ways to trim the fat..... the unions say they are open to dialogue.0 -
Advertisement
-
BoJack Horseman wrote: »No doubt the HSE & SIPTU are open to suggestions?
Here's their latest financial report... it will help you suggest ways to trim the fat..... the unions say they are open to dialogue.
Thanks for the links, they are very hard to find
Given the outcome of the dialogue with unions on Irish Water, I'm not confident on cost savings being realised.
Can't find anything on the report regarding the spend on medicines and why we are paying up to 12 times more on perscription medicines than our nearest neighbours0 -
we are paying up to 12 times more on perscription medicines than our nearest neighbours
in 2014 the NHS expended 12.7% of its budget on medicines.
The HSE expend around 15% on ditto...
Slightly higher & I imagine there is an economy of scale aspect to it... and there is always room for improvement either way....0 -
BoJack Horseman wrote: »
The economy of scale aspect relates to the fact that drugs approved in the UK don't automatically get approval here. If we abolished the Irish Medicines Board and adopted UK approval as sufficient, we would save a fortune but any government that proposed this would be attacked as making us a colony again. The price we pay for our self-respect.0 -
golfwallah wrote: »This looks like a promising way to remove social housing from dependence on the market: http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/homes-and-property/a-social-housing-solution-for-the-people-1.2443507
Time will tell!
Thanks for the link.
The article seems to have a lot of detail on the career of the architect. The promise of five houses starting sometime in the spring with people on training schemes doing some of the work is a nice idea. The fact this is being described as first of a kind I find a bit troubling as I would have hoped this type of scheme would already be more popular.
I'm a bit confused by the statement that:
"The construction will involve forming a housing co-operative with a protective covenant preventing them being sold in two years’ time."
So does that mean the council who owns the one it buys at cost and the professional paying for one and the other three previously homeless residents are all required to stay living there?
Does this type of scheme really help affordability of housing for average waged workers unable to save a deposit for a mortgage because rents and costs of commuting have gone so high compared to wages available?0 -
macraignil wrote: »Thanks for the link.
The article seems to have a lot of detail on the career of the architect. The promise of five houses starting sometime in the spring with people on training schemes doing some of the work is a nice idea. The fact this is being described as first of a kind I find a bit troubling as I would have hoped this type of scheme would already be more popular.
I'm a bit confused by the statement that:
"The construction will involve forming a housing co-operative with a protective covenant preventing them being sold in two years’ time."
So does that mean the council who owns the one it buys at cost and the professional paying for one and the other three previously homeless residents are all required to stay living there?
Does this type of scheme really help affordability of housing for average waged workers unable to save a deposit for a mortgage because rents and costs of commuting have gone so high compared to wages available?
I think the statement means what it says – i.e. signing a covenant preventing resale within 2 years.
Let’s face it, a lot of what was public housing stock originally has been sold off by local authorities, is now part of the private market housing supply and is no longer “ring fenced” for those who can’t afford market prices.
This policy of offering public housing for sale to occupiers at subsidised prices was very popular with politicians and the electorate .... but there is a price for everything (even if it is being paid years later) and I guess we’re paying that now. But any politician standing against such give-away populism would not have been elected.
Democracy as Churchill put it is the worse system of government save for all the rest. There are a lot of downsides - it takes a long time to change things, the memory span of the electorate is short and you gotta bring the voters along with you. After all, the first task of all politicians is to get re-elected.
The problem is someone has to pay and a perfect system (if any such thing really existed) we do not have. The facts are that housing is far too expensive, voters don’t want to pay any more taxes and it’s very hard and takes lots of time to squeeze extra money out of management efficiencies. Just ask the unions who is going to pay with more productivity, or put more tax on unused building land, or make building regulations more affordable (e.g. permitting more high-rise, less stringent building rules, etc.)!
Something has to give, to make housing more affordable. The housing initiative reported in the Irish Times is a very small start and, if successful, might be just one of many initiatives that might help to show the way.
They say that politics is “the art of the possible” – got any ideas yourself on what might float politically?0 -
golfwallah wrote: »This policy of offering public housing for sale to occupiers at subsidised prices was very popular with politicians and the electorate .... but there is a price for everything (even if it is being paid years later) and I guess we’re paying that now. But any politician standing against such give-away populism would not have been elected.
It was a terrible policy to bring in.... but it was indeed popular.0 -
Indeed!
But there's no known cure for Buyers Remorse and we can't turn back the clock!0 -
golfwallah wrote: »I think the statement means what it says – i.e. signing a covenant preventing resale within 2 years.
Let’s face it, a lot of what was public housing stock originally has been sold off by local authorities, is now part of the private market housing supply and is no longer “ring fenced” for those who can’t afford market prices.
This policy of offering public housing for sale to occupiers at subsidised prices was very popular with politicians and the electorate .... but there is a price for everything (even if it is being paid years later) and I guess we’re paying that now. But any politician standing against such give-away populism would not have been elected.
Democracy as Churchill put it is the worse system of government save for all the rest. There are a lot of downsides - it takes a long time to change things, the memory span of the electorate is short and you gotta bring the voters along with you. After all, the first task of all politicians is to get re-elected.
The problem is someone has to pay and a perfect system (if any such thing really existed) we do not have. The facts are that housing is far too expensive, voters don’t want to pay any more taxes and it’s very hard and takes lots of time to squeeze extra money out of management efficiencies. Just ask the unions who is going to pay with more productivity, or put more tax on unused building land, or make building regulations more affordable (e.g. permitting more high-rise, less stringent building rules, etc.)!
Something has to give, to make housing more affordable. The housing initiative reported in the Irish Times is a very small start and, if successful, might be just one of many initiatives that might help to show the way.
They say that politics is “the art of the possible” – got any ideas yourself on what might float politically?
I think the supply of new homes needs to be improved faster. Development charges could be postponed until after sales of new homes. Finance should be made available specifically for development of good quality new homes. Maybe incentives could be offered to encourage the sale of land suitable for residential development. I'm not sure one measure would be enough or see what could float politically with the FF/FGs still dominating.0 -
macraignil wrote: »I think the supply of new homes needs to be improved faster. Development charges could be postponed until after sales of new homes. Finance should be made available specifically for development of good quality new homes. Maybe incentives could be offered to encourage the sale of land suitable for residential development. I'm not sure one measure would be enough or see what could float politically with the FF/FGs still dominating.
I’d say that we would all like to see the supply of new homes improved. The problem is who will pay to make this happen.
From my own observations and talking to a knowledgeable business insider, there is a small amount of development taking place in Dublin but low profit margins and new Central Bank regulations are a big check on any rapid increase in housing supply in the private market.
There is plenty of building land available – but the cost of servicing this land as regards water, sewage, etc. is unaffordable for local authorities right now. Private sector demand and supply are limited by affordability. Public sector demand is huge but councils haven’t the money to meet such needs. It also takes time to build new water / sewage infrastructure.
I’d agree that one measure would not be enough but the problem of financing costly house building and services infrastructure remains. Again, who will pay for it?
As for FF/FG “dominating” – have you considered that we live in a democracy where citizens have a free vote? Representation in parliament is a reflection of who get most of the votes and the majority of voters vote for candidates and parties they consider will represent their own best interests and those of their families. That’s democracy, pure and simple. People are fed up with high taxes, USC, etc. and they don’t want to see risky massive additional government spending based on bubble taxes, that could quickly disappear.
Sure we need more affordable housing. But we don’t live in a risk free world. Cheap oil prices and low interest rates won’t last forever. So, increasing housing supply has to be done in a way that taxpayers can afford and without risking another economic crash.0 -
Today's announcement is another piece of good news on the NAMA initiative to build 20,000 new homes.
Good to see a few initiatives on the horizon - especially big ones like this!
And as long as they aren't screwing us for more taxes or significantly increasing borrowing, it's fine by me!0 -
Advertisement
-
golfwallah wrote: »Today's announcement is another piece of good news on the NAMA initiative to build 20,000 new homes.
Good to see a few initiatives on the horizon - especially big ones like this!
And as long as they aren't screwing us for more taxes or significantly increasing borrowing, it's fine by me!
Just saw the RTE news article on the same story. It mentioned a target price of 310,000euro to buy units when they are built. That's a lot of mortgage repayment.
The suggestions I made do not involve the tax payer being screwed for more money.
To delay development charges until the sale of houses for a few years could lead to an increase in house completions that might otherwise not have been started so could have a net positive effect on council income.
I heard on the radio that there is EU finance available for projects like housing development so the Irish tax payer should not have to suffer for the builder to get a more competitive interest rate on the money to build new homes. Councils should also look into what EU structural funds might be available to provide services for the new homes even if just for the period before they are sold and they get the development charge money.
Incentives for selling land for homes within a reasonable distance of public transport like some sort of tax break for the seller for a limited amount of time could push through sales of development land that might not otherwise happen for decades. The accelerated provision of homes in good locations could also end up being a net positive for public finances.0 -
BoJack Horseman wrote: »The thing is, people need to recognise that the days of infinite housing developments & a small factory on every town are over.
Donegal is the oft used example of continued economic torpor but seems the most often in denial that its economic challenges are caused locally.... ie: urbanisation.
Urbanisation is the whole ball game.
Taking Donegal as an example, the biggest town, Letterkenny is the same size as Greystones.... the 2nd biggest town, Buncrana, at just 7,000 is genuinely as big as a Dublin housing estate.
No matter what a government can do... There is no inventive that will make a CEO look at Donegal's glorified villages and consider it viable for investment.
Donegal has one of the countrys highest populations, but they are scattered more than any other county.... its just not sustainable.
Donegal makes itself a tough case for investment.
The top 5 Settlements in Donegal account for 23% of its population.
A still rural, but more urbanised county like Wicklow, 50% of its population are in the top 5 settlements... much more sustainable.
Yes being cut off from its natural urban center in Derry certainly has been a big problem for Donegal.0 -
Yes being cut off from its natural urban center in Derry certainly has been a big problem for Donegal.
The wall across the border there is a challenge alright.
But sure, of the scattered masses of Donegal wish to cecede to join their "urban center", I doubt the rest of the country would weep.
And there is nothing stopping Donegal urbanising to become more attractive for investment.0 -
BoJack Horseman wrote: »The wall across the border there is a challenge alright.
But sure, of the scattered masses of Donegal wish to cecede to join their "urban center", I doubt the rest of the country would weep.
And there is nothing stopping Donegal urbanising to become more attractive for investment.
Derry is simply the obvious natural urban hub for the north west. Unfortunately with the border Derry is seperated from its natural hinterland as Donegal is sperated from its natural hub.
The heavily sarcastic tone of your reply is interesting.0 -
-
Derry is simply the obvious natural urban hub for the north west. Unfortunately with the border Derry is seperated from its natural hinterland as Donegal is sperated from its natural hub.
The heavily sarcastic tone of your reply is interesting.
Revolting would be more accurate.
It is revolting how people that support Donegal being cut of by a ridiculous border than sneer at the damage caused by this.0 -
Nichard Dixon wrote: »Revolting would be more accurate.
It is revolting how people that support Donegal being cut of by a ridiculous border than sneer at the damage caused by this.
It's an attempt at humour rather than face up to the abject failure of partition. People don't matter when the cover-up kicks in.0 -
BoJack Horseman wrote: »The wall across the border there is a challenge alright.
But sure, of the scattered masses of Donegal wish to cecede to join their "urban center", I doubt the rest of the country would weep.
And there is nothing stopping Donegal urbanising to become more attractive for investment.
"Blessed is the man, who having nothing to say, abstains from giving wordy evidence of the fact." George Eliot.0 -
BoJack Horseman wrote: »It should be!
I strongly encourage Donegal to seek to join Derry!
losing the county just means less subvention needed from the rest of us!
Ahhh OK. I see the I got mine who cares about anybody else less fortunate approach.0 -
Advertisement
-
macraignil wrote: »Just saw the RTE news article on the same story. It mentioned a target price of 310,000euro to buy units when they are built. That's a lot of mortgage repayment.
The suggestions I made do not involve the tax payer being screwed for more money.
To delay development charges until the sale of houses for a few years could lead to an increase in house completions that might otherwise not have been started so could have a net positive effect on council income.
I heard on the radio that there is EU finance available for projects like housing development so the Irish tax payer should not have to suffer for the builder to get a more competitive interest rate on the money to build new homes. Councils should also look into what EU structural funds might be available to provide services for the new homes even if just for the period before they are sold and they get the development charge money.
Incentives for selling land for homes within a reasonable distance of public transport like some sort of tax break for the seller for a limited amount of time could push through sales of development land that might not otherwise happen for decades. The accelerated provision of homes in good locations could also end up being a net positive for public finances.
The NAMA development is indeed targeted at the private housing market – they don’t do subsidised housing. It won’t solve the housing crisis but it will be a big help on the supply side.
Contrary to what you suggest, delaying payment of development charges is not without cost. You seem to be implying that sites can readied for development without a cost or cash flow implication. Given the most optimistic of assumptions, such an approach would result in more borrowing for either local authority or Irish Water, which their borrowing restraints (led by government to stay within EU borrowing limits) will not permit.
As for EU finance – again that doesn’t come without more government or private sector spending at home – the EU doesn’t just shovel it out to anyone who asks.
As for incentives to sell or tax penalties for holding onto development land – maybe something more could be done here (as happens in Spain, where re-zoned land is subject to much higher commercial local authority taxes, regardless of whether re-developed or not), but it would need broad support politically and would not fix the immediate infrastructure / services deficit, which requires both money and time to solve.
I think, the majority of people paying taxes would prefer to see initiatives that did not result in borrowing or additional taxes. In the short-term the “housing crisis” could be improved, for example, with more focussed action to reduce the number of social housing applicants actually turning down housing offers (click article) and/or slowing down the continuing sale of local authority housing (see attached). These are just examples, I’m sure there are more, if those in charge are willing to sit down, discuss and come up with solutions and the resolve to address the problem. In a real crisis, tough action is needed – but this appears to be unpalatable to politicians who want to appear to please everyone, coming up to an election.0
Advertisement