McGreedy's Budget 2004

Villain

Well Charlie has been dishing out the Budget this evening latest news can be got here http://www.rte.ie/news/2003/1203/budget.html

Petrol and diesel are going up 5 cent a litre:mad:

Fags are going up 25 cent per 20, not near enough.

Social welfare and the children allowance is going up slightly.

Theres a slight rise in the tax credits.


It will be interesting to see it in its entireity

mike65

Fair to say it was the Budget That Never Happened.

The only big point was something that could have been announced anytime - namely de-centralisation of several
gov departments.

Mike.

vinnyfitz

Here

In fairness to them they published all the details promptly in (by civil servant standards) very clear formats.

The full list of who is being decentralised to where, for example, is set out at the bottom of this page

Cork

It is a good think that budgets have lessened in importance. Governments should plan strategically and not from year to year. Messing around with tax rates for short term political gain is bad planning.

Pushing decentralisation outside Dublin is great for many towns.

But as a news prospective the budget really was not very newsworthy.

Sand

Messing around with tax rates for short term political gain is bad planning.

I think this is the first time in a long time that McCreevy hasnt been messing about with the tax rates? Not that Im complaining, in that he was usually lowering them but all the same....:)

Victor

Originally posted by vinnyfitz
In fairness to them they published all the details promptly in (by civil servant standards) very clear formats.

This is usual - they make it available to the public at the end of the speech, although I understand a bunch of locked up (so they can't leak anything) journalists get to see it at the start of the speech.

Originally posted by Cork
It is a good think that budgets have lessened in importance. Governments should plan strategically and not from year to year.

Indeed, Quinn did this witht eh dreation of (a) three year plans (b) a contingency fund (for things like Foot & Mouth - you know something is going to go wrong every year).

Originally posted by Cork
Pushing decentralisation outside Dublin is great for many towns.

It is, but I question the moving of certain specialist units (e.g. railway inspectors) with only 10 staff. While it will create business for stationery producers, I'm not sure if things like that actually help. I do agree with moving groups of several hundred clerical and administrative staff as these can generally work in any department and get relocated to somewhere they want to go as opposed to somewhere they are forced to go. I think it's silly to put Garda HQ in Thurles when it would have been better to put it with the Garda College in nearby Templemore. Conversely, Defense has been put in Newbridge / the Curragh and will reduce travel / communication difficulties within the department.

I note quite a bit is going to Donegal - while I understand it is a jobs backspot, it doesn't make communication any easier.

Odd that nothing is going to Dundalk, it being a designated growth centre.

I wonder what the relationship between minister and decentralisation is - Parlon is certainly getting his OPW office moved to his home constituency.

bonkey

Originally posted by Victor
I think it's silly to put Garda HQ in Thurles when it would have been better to put it with the Garda College in nearby Templemore. Conversely, Defense has been put in Newbridge / the Curragh and will reduce travel / communication difficulties within the department.

Perhaps the Garda HQ was felt to be better served by being near but seperate? Just a guess....I can see advantages of not being too close.

Somewhat relevantly, I remember my dad saying for years (as an ESB bod) that he always felt many functions from Head Office would be far better served being outside Dublin.

I agree about the minimal-sized offices (like railway inspectors), but again it would depend on where they were moved to. I'm not necessarily commenting about this case, but there can be good reasons.

jc

gurramok

I'm not necessarily commenting about this case, but there can be good reasons.

10,000 less cars streaming into dublin every day, believe me a vast majority of these civil servants drive rather than use public transport. Its a good thing then

Wonder why the horse race industry (bloodstock) got away with it again with hardly paying any taxes, guess its that Kildare McGreedy thing again

Cork

Originally posted by gurramok


Wonder why the horse race industry (bloodstock) got away with it again with hardly paying any taxes, guess its that Kildare McGreedy thing again

I would have taxed them together with our artiests and our film industry.

I think capital allowances on car parks etc should also have bit the dust.

sceptre

Dept of Finance has finally discovered pdf as a format so at least that's something (probably like a few others I whinged during the year)

Sparks

Originally posted by irish1
Social welfare and the children allowance is going up slightly.
]

It isn't actually - as that interview with two single mothers in cork on RTE1 pointed out, they're going from getting 370 a week to 383 - a difference of 3.5%, which is effectively the inflation rate, isn't it?

Villain

Originally posted by Sparks
It isn't actually - as that interview with two single mothers in cork on RTE1 pointed out, they're going from getting 370 a week to 383 - a difference of 3.5%, which is effectively the inflation rate, isn't it?

well its still going up might only be in line with inflation but it is rising

SCULLY

Originally posted by gurramok
10,000 less cars streaming into dublin every day, believe me a vast majority of these civil servants drive rather than use public transport.

Interesting...can you post a link to back this up please

Victor

Originally posted by SCULLY
Interesting...can you post a link to back this up please

He is overstating it, but quite a few of the cars in the city are civil servants who have free parking (take a look outside Pearse Street Garda Station) as opposed to in the private sector where parking is allocated on merit and rank.

SCULLY

Originally posted by Victor
He is overstating it, but quite a few of the cars in the city are civil servants who have free parking (take a look outside Pearse Street Garda Station) as opposed to in the private sector where parking is allocated on merit and rank.

In fairness, just because the cops abandon their cars in Pearse Street, this doesn't backup up the original statement about the majority of the 10000 cars are civil servants who drive rather than use public transport. Regardless about who is being decentralised, I think these cops will still park there.

gazzer

dont think there will be 10,000 less cars on the streets when the departments move.. i work in a government department and dont have a car, neither do a lot of my workmates. even if you do have a car you are only allowed three months of parking a year. the rest of the time you have to pay or use public transport.

gurramok

I might have overstated it, but it certainly is in the thousands.

Just have a peek at the various govt buildings within the city centre.
Watch the amount of cars that are parked in their employee only car parks, underground and overground.

The tax offices, various departments, council offices\depots, even the universities\colleges.
My former college (Kevin St) is a place where vast majority of staff drive to work than use any other means.
There are alot of car parks provided by the govt which should be restricted to the hard pressed cases. ie..the employees who have no alternative

Anyway benchmarking\pay rises would compensate those that would have to move outside the capital.

Borzoi

It took me a while to realise why decentralisation is in the budget, afterall it's not a financial matter is it? Not really untill you look at the extra revenue it brings in in the form of stamp duty on property.

Assumptions, that 10,000 civil servants move from Dublin, 80% of whom own their house of average value €275K. Then the same number buy similarly valued pproperty down the country.

So from stamp duty paid by other buying the ex-civil servant houses

8000 x €275K x 5% = €110,000,000

The civil servants buying houses will pay a similar amount. So total for the government coffers is twice this:

€220,000,000

It's a simplistic example I know, and it leaves out new houses, VAT etc, but hey, it's a chunk of dough AND he gets to look like the good guy:D

Victor

Originally posted by Borzoi
€220,000,000

I think you are grossly oversating that figure - I imagine a lot of the civil servants that opt for decentralisation will be those that have no fixed reason to stay in Dublin and don't own property. And in any case they will have a bigger home with a €200,000 property in Ballinasloe than a €300,000 property in Dublin. Win, win.

Sparks

Originally posted by Cork
I would have taxed them together with our artiests and our film industry.

And promptly been ousted from the party for taking away a tax break from Bertie's sprog...

Victor

Originally posted by Sparks
And promptly been ousted from the party for taking away a tax break from Bertie's sprog...

Sprogs, one the writer, the other the film maker.

SCULLY

Originally posted by gurramok

Anyway benchmarking\pay rises would compensate those that would have to move outside the capital.

Bearing in mind that benchmarking is an existing agreement and has nothing to do with decentralization, explain please, how exactly it can now be used as a compensation to those who have to move outside the capital.

Originally posted by Victor

I think you are grossly oversating that figure - I imagine a lot of the civil servants that opt for decentralisation will be those that have no fixed reason to stay in Dublin and don't own property. And in any case they will have a bigger home with a €200,000 property in Ballinasloe than a €300,000 property in Dublin. Win, win.

I take your point, and agree that for a lot of people decentralization will be extreemly benefitial (especially for those who originally had to move to Dublin for employment reasons as opposed to choice). However, as the workforce has increased in Dublin over the last 10 years or so, demand for houses in Wicklow, Meath,Kildare etc has increased and has sent the house prices up. If there was a mass movement of workforce to areas in or around Ballinasloe, your €200,000 house would quickly shoot up in price. The only people who are in a win win situtuation in this case are the government.

Victor

Originally posted by SCULLY
Bearing in mind that benchmarking is an existing agreement and has nothing to do with decentralization

Not quite benchmarking payemnts are dependant on cooperation.

gurramok

Bearing in mind that benchmarking is an existing agreement and has nothing to do with decentralization, explain please, how exactly it can now be used as a compensation to those who have to move outside the capital

One word - money.
While i disagree with benchmarking as it costs the taxpayer way too much, the extra that civil servants are due would help them in relocation expenses.

Though i suspect they would be entitled to relocation expenses anyway.

If they cooperate voluntarily, they would be in for a handsome windfall with house prices alot cheaper in the likes of Cavan than in Dublin (assume they own property in dublin already).

ishmael whale

Looking through the detailed list I notice that Enterprise Ireland is earmarked for Shannon. I associate Shannon with the stunting of the country's aviation sector for parochial benefit. I have a problem with the same mindset infecting other sectors. For all the talk of Dublin-centric policies, efforts and resources have been allocated to attempting to coax industries off the East coast, most recently with the jobs in Paypal nearly being lost for the country by trying to wrestle them West. The reason Dublin continues to develop and other areas don't is not because of policies favouring the capital. The situation is quite the reverse - Dublin grows despite considerable efforts to divert jobs elsewhere.

On Friday the papers covered how cancer services here are backward because we attempt to provide them through our local jack-of-all-trades hospitals, which do not have enough of a throughput to enable staff to acquire or maintain expertise. Centralisation is required simply to enable a professional service to be available. This kind of substantive problem with regionalisation is rarely given the attention it deserves.

Decentralisation lowers our standard of living in so many real ways, reduces our life expectancy, our standard of education and quality of life. I have never seen a pro-decentralisation/regionalisation campaign dealing with issues like this honestly. For example, on health care they mostly side-step by talking about journey times. The point is not about how long it takes to get to a hospital or health centre. Its about the effectiveness of the service that can be provided when you get there. Getting people quickly to a mediocre service that may well need to transfer them elsewhere is pointless.

The inevitable conclusion is that we need to centralise, not decentralise.

bonkey

Originally posted by ishmael whale
Decentralisation lowers our standard of living in so many real ways, reduces our life expectancy, our standard of education and quality of life.

Other than your thinly-veiled implication that "down the country" is just plain inferior to "the big smoke", have you anything to back this up with?

Having attended schools in my day in : Dublin, Cork, Kerry, and Ennis, I would consider (from my experience) that the quality of school I encountered was inversely proportional to the town size.

I would also question the points on life expetancy (I always believed cities had lower LE than towns or the countryside), and the one on quality of life.

So seriously.....I'd be really interested in seeing where you get this from...or are you just offering a city-dweller's opinion on how superior your life is over the rest of the country's?

jc

Villain

Originally posted by ishmael whale

Decentralisation lowers our standard of living in so many real ways, reduces our life expectancy, our standard of education and quality of life.

Please back this ill informed statement up with some facts.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

SCULLY

Originally posted by Victor
Not quite benchmarking payemnts are dependant on cooperation.

Benchmark payments which have been agreed upon are dependant mainly on increased productivity and working practices. Decentralization is not, nor ever has been , asscoiated with benchmarking.

Originally posted by gurramok
Though i suspect they would be entitled to relocation expenses anyway.

You suspect wrong - If you bothered to look into it properly, you would learn that there are no relocation expenses paid.

ishmael whale

Fair enough, some examples of why decentralisation is bad in principle for the general welfare of the nation:

An Post buggered with the cost of a branch network they don't need,

Scattered small schools than we can't physically maintain

Low pupil teacher ratios in those small schools is paid for by ridiculously high ratios in urban schools

As mentioned above, tatty health services provided by hospitals that are jack-of-all-trades and master of none – and do not have the throughput that would allow staff to gain and keep expertise.

Constraints like these will now be built into the civil service. Also deployment of staff will no longer depend on where they are needed. Factors like 'that means thirty jobs gone in Kilrush' will come into play. So it will cost more to provide the same services.

I take it I don't need to justify in detail that it costs more to operate from a large number of small locations rather than a small number of large concentrations. If anyone is alleging this is not the case can I suggest they also propose an amendment to the law of gravity.

After decentralisation I think we can expect the most bizarre and least co-ordinated civil service in history. Remember, this is not about moving power to local communities. That would be fine, so long as responsibility for raising revenue went with it. What this is about is scattering centralised services all over the place. At the end of the process decisionmaking will be more distant from the people effected.

I see incurring a cost for no benefit as simply crazy. But the real cost will be the creation of an (even more) unwieldy beast of a civil service. That’s what will undermine our future.

To counter this we are offered the fig leaf that ICTs make distance unimportant. In other words, you don’t need to copulate in person you can just toss yourself in front of a video.

Now, any chance of some concrete examples of how decentralisation raises general welfare (as distinct from giving a temporary boost to some locality that’s dying anyway).

bonkey

Originally posted by ishmael whale
Fair enough, some examples of why decentralisation is bad in principle for the general welfare of the nation:

I see nothing in your response about shorter life expetancy, and precious little about any of the other points you raise initially....but how and ever......

Scattered small schools than we can't physically maintain

Low pupil teacher ratios in those small schools is paid for by ridiculously high ratios in urban schools

And your better solution would be to tell some kids....what??? That they have to travel 50+ miles to a school and back and its their own fault for living somewhere remote????

Whats next? Turn the entire countryside into a barren wasteland and the major cities into arcologies, so that we have the best positioning of people and services?

Regardless, decentralisation does not suggest moving facilities to the countryside...it suggests moving to towns other than Dublin. Unless you're suggesting that we have entire towns which should have their schools shut down, then this is irrelevant to your argument.

Not only that, but adding more people to these towns from Dublin would decrease the pupil-teacher ratio in Dublin (ie fewer pupils per teacher) and increase it in these towns, which would have exactly the effect that you are saying is needed, so it is hard to understand what your argument is. Indeed, the more people you encourage to move out of Dublin, the more the situation moves away from what you are complaining about. Moving them into Dublin doesn't solve anything.

I take it I don't need to justify in detail that it costs more to operate from a large number of small locations rather than a small number of large concentrations. If anyone is alleging this is not the case can I suggest they also propose an amendment to the law of gravity.

And I would point out that people are talking about moving individual departments en masse to a new location, thus not splitting them at all, which makes that entire point irrelevant.

Two deparements in two buildings (one each) in Dublin costs more than two departments in two buildings in two seperate towns (one dept. per building per town). Dublin is - quite simply - the most expensive location in Ireland.

I see incurring a cost for no benefit as simply crazy. But the real cost will be the creation of an (even more) unwieldy beast of a civil service. That’s what will undermine our future.

Rubbish. Several civil service departments were highly successfully decentralised previously (e.g. there are some in Ennis if you go search). Not only that, but you have failed to show that there is a cost. You have alleged that there would be, but the situations you describe are not the reality which we face and you are misinterpreting much of what woul dhappen (as I've already pointed out in at least one case - schools - above).

Now, any chance of some concrete examples of how decentralisation raises general welfare (as distinct from giving a temporary boost to some locality that’s dying anyway).

1) Dublin is the most expensive location in the country to base any organisation. Therefore, from a cost perspective, and organisation which does not have a pressing need to be in Dublin should not be there.

2) Dublin is massively overstressed in all senses with population at the moment...moving some of it out relieves the pressure (if only slightly).

3) It brings much-needed revenue to other parts of the country - which is part of the government's job. You allege its temporary, but I fail to see how putting 20 or 30 (or more) jobs into a local that were not there previously is temporary. The only way its temporary is if you remove the jobs again.....

Tnere is a temporary boost in terms of startup-expenditure, but there is also a long-term boost in terms of employment, consequent increased expenditure in the area, etc. etc. etc.

4) It adds additional incentive to improve facilities in non-Dublin locations, which adds additional possibilities in the future that new businesses etc. will have alternate choices for location other than "where in Dublin do we go".

5) As already pointed out, some of the departments being moved have no justification being in Dublin at the moment and are being moved because it is clearly more efficient to have them elsewhere.

jc

ishmael whale

To make it clearer, shorter life expectancy is a consequence of poor health services, poorer standard of living because our cost base is higher than it has to be – we get less than we otherwise could – poor education directly related to the schools issues, poorer quality of life the final result of that.

I feel you don’t understand the point regarding pupil teacher ratios. The number of teachers granted to a school depends on its enrolment, but naturally there are economies of scale here – if you have a school at all it needs at least one teacher. This means that urban schools, in practice, have higher pupil teacher ratios. There is nothing controversial about this, it is well established fact.

Jobs are being moved to towns, but people will move to surrounding areas. Again, there is nothing controversial in what I am saying. So we move population to the rural areas, keep open the smaller schools that are sapping our resources, and the problem continues. The situation benefits no-one. Urban children have to suffer from large classes, rural children from poor physical conditions and lack of specialist support services.

You are simply wrong to say that departments are being moved en masse to a new location. Staff of about fifteen Departments are being split into 53 locations. This is on top of the decentralisation that has already occurred.

High property prices in Dublin reflect the fact that it is a more efficient location to do business. Put it another way, shops don’t pay enormous rents to locate on Grafton Street for the hell of it. It makes sense. Plus, if the Government sells its Dublin assets to built in regional locations it will have swapped a valuable liquid asset for a cheap illiquid asset. State money is not monopoly money. We should expect it to be spent prudently.

Several civil service departments were decentralised previously, but success is a contestable concept. Clearly those locations have higher communications costs, and staff redeployment is less flexible. Travel costs are higher. Its one thing to say an office can function at a particular location. Its quite another to say that it is efficient or effective.

As to your alleged benefits:
1) As I have already said, Dublin office space is higher priced, but better value

2) Dublin’s infrastructure deficit has been neglected in favour of the regions. This short sighted policy is only now being addressed. Dublin is a small city, it can be made to function efficiently. It is a tribute to its natural advantages that, in the face of neglect, it has performed so strongly.

3) The reason the boost is temporary is because the structure of the regional economy is changing. Moving a few civil service jobs in does nothing to address the fundamental reason why, for example, Kilrush is just not an attractive location to do business. Also, I think you are confusing generating economic growth with increasing the cost base. They can look similar at a distance because everyone looks so terribly busy.

4) This is simply increasing the cost base again.

5) I’m not aware of any justification being made for this decentralisation package, and certainly no-one has made a case on efficiency grounds.