Budget 2009

Gandalf23

@ NYC353
In fairness though.
Politicians of whatever hue in whatever country are not magicians.

They couldn't possibly have expected the derivitive implosion credit crunch.

Gandalf23 wrote:

Not true ... you called them a "tiny tiny minority". For the ...

I called those with an URGENT need to move a tiny tiny minority.
But hey continue the theme of misrepresentation.

And you think only 1% of people fall into that category of having to worry about negative equity (the "tiny tiny minority")? And 99% of people buy their house to live in it for 45+ years and thus need never worry about negative equity?

Where did you get these statistics?

More misrepresentation.
The 1% figure was BOI's expected loan impairment,at worst they have said.
I don't know what percentage of current mortgage payers have loans over 45 years.I never said it was 99%.
Please give up on the mis representation.

I've simply been indicating the non necessity to worry about the value of your house in the short term if you continue to be able to pay the loan.
99% of BOI's customers appear to fall in their opinion into that category.

Good to see you finally coming around to my way of thinking!!! (At last!)

Have a look at two interesting discussions which support my assertion that crude oil prices and petrol pump prices are not that closely related here and here.

I keep providing references to support my claims ... do you have even one to support ANYTHING you are claiming????

It's cloudy outside.
Do you want a google reference or a picture?
Fact of the matter is, that the prices I saw last night in south Dublin were as much as 20c lower than they were in high summer in places.

Your links are to threads here declaring impatience at the drop in prices.Both don't provide evidence that they haven't come down.Just that they haven't come down enough in the opinion of the posters.

You deny you said this but in fairness this is exactly what you are saying (abet, in an indirect manner). And I'm not the only one accusing you of that in this thread ...


But it is good to see you rowing back significantly on some of the stuff you said earlier. God to see common sense prevailing ...

Hmmm if I had a Euro for every post you have made on this thread misrepresenting me followed by me showing you up on it [the above is another example] I'd be happy to correct you all night
I have not rowed back on anything I have said.I've just hauled up one or two people and especially you for putting words into my mouth that I have not said.

NYC353

Deleted User wrote: »

@ NYC353
In fairness though.
Politicians of whatever hue in whatever country are not magicians.

They couldn't possibly have expected the derivitive implosion credit crunch.

We are all the way back to the issue of how we got into this mess. You continue the theme that the credit crunch has caused it.

We were heading for a crash long before this credit crunch even appeared.

The credit crunch just brought it earlier

NYC353

NYC353 wrote: »

We are all the way back to the issue of how we got into this mess. You continue the theme that the credit crunch has caused it.

We were heading for a crash long before this credit crunch even appeared.

The credit crunch just brought it earlier

A crash or a tip.
I suggest a tip.I've given my reasons why I suggested this.

jmayo

NYC353 wrote: »

We are all the way back to the issue of how we got into this mess. You continue the theme that the credit crunch has caused it.

We were heading for a crash long before this credit crunch even appeared.

The credit crunch just brought it earlier

Nyc353 give up, it is futile

Gandalf23

Just to be clear, I wish to state I have quoted Black Briar directly below. Everything contained in "inverted commas" is a direct quote from him.

Deleted User wrote: »

I called those with an URGENT need to move a tiny tiny minority. The 1% figure was BOI's expected loan impairment,at worst they have said. I don't know what percentage of current mortgage payers have loans over 45 years.I never said it was 99%.

Not true.

What you actually said was ... (and this is a direct quote)

Deleted User wrote: »

… negative equity is nothing to worry about in 99% of cases. [The only people who need to worry are those who have an "urgent need" to move, and] they are a tiny tiny minority of home owners …

That is a direct quote from you. Are you now denying you said this?

You are saying that there is no need to worry about negative equity unless you are in the 1% of people who "urgently need" to move house. The other 99% (who do not need to "urgently need" to move house) should not worry about negative equity.

Its very clear.

That is exactly what you are saying.

Where are you getting the 99% and 1% figures?

Have you found any economist (or even any mad guy outside a pub or waiting at a bus stop even ... anything will do at this stage!!!!!) who supports your view that there is "no need to worry about negative equity"?

Deleted User wrote: »

I've simply been indicating the non necessity to worry about the value of your house in the short term if you continue to be able to pay the loan. 99% of BOI's customers appear to fall in their opinion into that category.

You deny you said exactly this, then you say exactly the same thing again!

Unbelievable!

I'll ask for the last time ... how do you know that 99% of BOI customers fall into this category?

Deleted User wrote: »

It's cloudy outside.
Do you want a google reference or a picture?

It would be the only reference you can provide to support what you are saying.

So yes. I'd like a picture to show me how cloudy it is outside please.

Deleted User wrote: »

Your links are to threads here declaring impatience at the drop in prices.Both don't provide evidence that they haven't come down.Just that they haven't come down enough in the opinion of the posters.Hmmm if I had a Euro for every post you have made on this thread misrepresenting me followed by me showing you up on it [the above is another example] I'd be happy to correct you all night
I have not rowed back on anything I have said.I've just hauled up one or two people and especially you for putting words into my mouth that I have not said.

All the many links I have provided (I think about 7 or 8 at this stage) point to no real correlation between crude oil price and petrol pump price. This was proven yesterday with the 8c increase in petrol prices while crude oil prices were dropping.

Crude oil price dropping while petrol price increasing = no correlation!!!!!

You have provided nothing except your own opinion which I am not willing to accept. Especially when there is a mountain of evidence from a variety of reliable sources and practical real life experience from the motors forum on boards. All of which I have given links to.

NYC353

Deleted User wrote: »

A crash or a tip.
I suggest a tip.I've given my reasons why I suggested this.

And having been directly affected by the slowdown in exports, the loss of jobs and the collapse of secondhand house prices from mid 2006 I have given my reasons why I would call it a crash.

In my opinion it is naive to think that a housing market valued at in excess of 500 times monthly rents wasn't going to come tumbling down. The global average is about 225.

It was convenient for Bertie's pro developer regime to continue fueling the bubble to win the 2007 election.

I agree with you that it wouldn't have been so bad if the credit crunch hadn't come but we'd still have seen that multiple come below 300 it just would have taken longer.

Gandalf23

Gandalf23 wrote: »

Just to be clear, I wish to state I have quoted Black Briar directly below. Everything contained in "inverted commas" is a direct quote from him.



Not true.

What you actually said was ... (and this is a direct quote)

Whats wrong with that?
I said it wasn't a problem in 99% of cases because BOI said 99% of loans weren't going to go south.
I also said it was nothing to worry about [several times] if you continue to be able to pay your loan

What is it you are trying to misrepresent me as saying?

That is a direct quote from you. Are you now denying you said this?

You are saying that there is no need to worry about negative equity unless you are in the 1% of people who "urgently need" to move house. The other 99% (who do not need to "urgently need" to move house) should not worry about negative equity.

Its very clear.

It's very clear that you are laughably quoting me and saying I'm saying stuff I'm not saying at all.I've not said 1% urgently need to move house.
I've said 1% appear according to BOI to be the number in trouble

Where are you getting the 99% and 1% figures?

BOI's recent statement on their loanbook.Less than a month ago.

Have you found any economist (or even any mad guy outside a pub or waiting at a bus stop even ... anything will do at this stage!!!!!) who supports your view that there is "no need to worry about negative equity"?

I'll start looking for one of those when you start showing me that a proportion of more than 1% of home owners here [heck lets settle for 2% at the outside to make you happy] are like to be foreclosed.

You deny you said exactly this, then you say exactly the same thing again!

Unbelievable!

I'll ask for the last time ... how do you know that 99% of BOI customers fall into this category?

I've told you that quite a few times in this thread.
Is it a link that you want?

It would be the only reference you can provide to support what you are saying.

So yes. I'd like a picture to show me how cloudy it is outside please.




All the many links I have provided (I think about 7 or 8 at this stage) point to no real correlation between crude oil price and petrol pump price. This was proven yesterday with the 8c increase in petrol prices while crude oil prices were dropping.

Incorrect as you have not once proved to me that petrol prices prior to the 8c tax rise today have not gone up at the time oil was going up and down at the time it was going down.

Crude oil price dropping while petrol price increasing = no correlation!!!!!

Taxes are irrelevant to the point I'm making.
If you had a point,then the price wouldn't rise anymore ever because hey even if oil goes up petrol prices bear no relation to it.
Lol,now thats whats been funny about what you are asserting right from the start.
Do you even accept that if the pre tax price of the petrol falls further that the price post tax will fall?
Because your lengthening string attached to this 8c tax hike being the holy grail of your no correlation theory suggest you don't.

You have provided nothing except your own opinion which I am not willing to accept. Especially when there is a mountain of evidence from a variety of reliable sources and practical real life experience from the motors forum on boards. All of which I have given links to.

Shur I know you are not willing to accept petrol prices have fallen since the summer.
I don't care if you don't.
It doesn't take away the fact that they have and the fact that oil prices were falling at the same time.
Something you deny..

NYC353

NYC353 wrote: »

And having been directly affected by the slowdown in exports, the loss of jobs and the collapse of secondhand house prices from mid 2006 I have given my reasons why I would call it a crash.

In my opinion it is naive to think that a housing market valued at in excess of 500 times monthly rents wasn't going to come tumbling down. The global average is about 225.

It was convenient for Bertie's pro developer regime to continue fueling the bubble to win the 2007 election.

I agree with you that it wouldn't have been so bad if the credit crunch hadn't come but we'd still have seen that multiple come below 300 it just would have taken longer.

I'm a fan myself of demand and supply.
There is an inherent value in a house and ,it has a ceiling relative to how the economy it's in is doing I think.
It's a disaster for everything though when the flow of funds is restricted.

Even with the current flop,construction jobs haven't halved yet which given the climate says something for the need for reasonable levels of development in this economy.

gurramok

Iago wrote: »

That's quite frankly rubbish. How can the poor be paying for the rich who don't get any of the benefits? How can the poor be paying for the rich when the rich are paying many multiples of the tax that the poor are charged?

If someone is a higher earner then they pay more income tax, this goes towards benefits that help out those less well off.

If someone is a higher earner they pay far more PRSI, this goes towards providing a health service for those that don't have private health cover.

If someone is a higher earner, the liklihood is that they are spending far more money on petrol, food, goods and services simply because they are in the position to do so. The duty received from these items allows more benefits to be paid to those in need.

Its not that quite simple.

If you tax the majority who earn under 36k(budget website says this is about 70%+ when you look at previous budget documents), you cannot expect that same portion to spend money on that restaurant meal or plasma tv due to them having less money in their pockets as a proportion of income and less quality of life as they are lower paid..

Consumer spending accounts for the majority of the economy. If volumes in the shops or meals eaten cannot shift due to the majority been unable to afford them, either the business will close or prices will reduce to accommodate them. A high earner can only purchase one restaurant meal or one plasma tv in one go hence less units sold.

What that means is less revenue for the govt hence the recession just got recessioner.

Gandalf23

Deleted User wrote: »

I said it wasn't a problem in 99% of cases because BOI said 99% of loans weren't going to go south. I also said it was nothing to worry about [several times] if you continue to be able to pay your loan.

I've not said 1% urgently need to move house. I've said 1% appear according to BOI to be the number in trouble

No. That is untrue.

What you actually said was " … negative equity is nothing to worry about in 99% of cases. [The only people who need to worry are those who have an "urgent need" to move, and] they are a tiny tiny minority of home owners … "

Thats a direct quote from you ... I'm very surprised you are trying to back out of it now.

I'm not really surprised tho, because it is a ridiculous thing to say. I'd be ashamed of saying something like that too, and I'd be trying to deny it and row back like you seem to be doing :D

Deleted User wrote: »

I'll start looking for one of those when you start showing me that a proportion of more than 1% of home owners here [heck lets settle for 2% at the outside to make you happy] are like to be foreclosed.

I've told you that quite a few times in this thread.
Is it a link that you want?

Yes ... I want a link.

You made the claim ... you support it.

You are now asking me to provide a reference for something you claim and refuse to provide a reference for!!!!

Funny!

Deleted User wrote: »

Incorrect as you have not once proved to me that petrol prices prior to the 8c tax rise today have not gone up at the time oil was going up and down at the time it was going down.

I have provided at least 8 links and linked to 2 ongoing discussions on boards which disprove your point. How much more evidence do you need?

Deleted User wrote: »

Taxes are irrelevant to the point I'm making.

Of course they are. Anything which disagrees with your point is "irrelevant" or a "misrepresentation" lol lol lol :D:D

Deleted User wrote: »

Shur I know you are not willing to accept petrol prices have fallen since the summer.

Show me where I said that "petrol prices have not fallen since the summer".

If you can that is :D:D

My claim is that there is no strong correlation between unrefined crude oil price per barrel and forecourt petrol prices. And you have yet to provide any evidence to prove me wrong.

You cant even keep a promise to prove its cloudy outside ffs :pac::pac::pac:

asdasd

To go back to some earlier points on whether the government could have saved money during the boom. Answer no - not in an environment where the whiny self-regarding middle-class left dominate the media.

What could they do?


They could not control the money supply ( so entering the euro was a mistake), nor control the borders ( so allowing eastern european immigration was a mistake).

but who supported open borders and the Euro? The chattering classes of Dublin 4.

What they should not have done is spend public money as fast as they did, but the "health is underfunded" chatterers would have protested.

Who thought that increasing spending on health by 300% was underfunding? And who used the ridiculous % of GDP argument - to prove their point - in a State with a much younger population than the rest of Europe, and with GDP largely housing dependent?

The chattering classes of Dublin 4. Did V. Browne ever suggest we curtail public spending? or that mass immigration of people building house for themselves was unsustainable? Right winger David McWilliams did.

There was no ideological way that the government could have saved money. They would have slaughtered by the left wing press - utterly dominant in Ireland and totally in control of RTE. The housing market would have collapsed anyway, the costs we are paying now are deferred taxation for the increases in public spending demanded by the same idiots who are always wrong, and never to blame.

Gandalf23

Gandalf23 wrote: »

No. That is untrue.

What you actually said was " … negative equity is nothing to worry about in 99% of cases. [The only people who need to worry are those who have an "urgent need" to move, and] they are a tiny tiny minority of home owners … "

You do realise that the 99% of cases I'm talking about there are the 99% of BOI customers for example that can continue to pay their loans..

Thats a direct quote from you ... I'm very surprised you are trying to back out of it now.

I'm not I'm 100% behind it..

I'm not really surprised tho, because it is a ridiculous thing to say. I'd be ashamed of saying something like that too, and I'd be trying to deny it and row back like you seem to be doing :D

Three smiles doesn't make what you're saying about my posts stand.
You misinterpreted them despite me repeating them several times.

Yes ... I want a link.

You made the claim ... you support it.

You are now asking me to provide a reference for something you claim and refuse to provide a reference for!!!!

I told you where I got the reference to the 99% of BOI loans being unimpaired.
I'd want to be an awfull fool if I didn't have it in front of me before I posted it.
sure............

http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:nVhS8cQmLaYJ:www.bankofireland.ie/includes/pdfs/preclose_2008.pdf+bank+of+ireland+loan+impairment+statement&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=ie&client=firefox-a


To make it easier for you I'm linking to the google html which should highlight the word impairment throughout [see how good I am to you here...]

Right throughout that you will see that they are talking about basis bpoints ie less than 1 %

100-1=99

I have provided at least 8 links and linked to 2 ongoing discussions on boards which disprove your point. How much more evidence do you need?

None of that disproved the fact that prices rose when oil rose and fell when oil fell.

Of course they are. Anything which disagrees with your point is "irrelevant" or a "misrepresentation" lol lol lol :D:D

Nice deflection not.
Devoid of substance.

Show me where I said that "petrol prices have not fallen since the summer".

If you can that is :D:D

You are going on as if they haven't when my pointing out to you that thye have is only because I'm saying they did because the raw material [crude] did.

My claim is that there is no strong correlation between unrefined crude oil price per barrel and forecourt petrol prices. And you have yet to provide any evidence to prove me wrong.

I see you've introduced a new word to the sentence,the word "strong".
Now who's backtracking?

You cant even keep a promise to prove its cloudy outside ffs :pac::pac::pac:

Yeah I can only assume by that reply and others at this stage that your contribution here isn't too serious.
Kiss and make up time now? Theres moonlight outside,we can do it there.
Trust me theres moonlight.
No tongues please.

beggars_bush

what they've done with the education cuts is a disgrace

imagine a teacher has to get a sick cert (€66) so that a sub can be employed to cover them for their absence. will hit a lot of small schools very hard

previously this was covered for two days. totally unreasonable

Gandalf23

Deleted User wrote: »

You do realise that the 99% of cases I'm talking about there are the 99% of BOI customers for example that can continue to pay their loans..

What you actually said was (this is a direct quote) " … negative equity is nothing to worry about in 99% of cases. [The only people who need to worry are those who have an "urgent need" to move, and] they are a tiny tiny minority of home owners … "

In my opinion its absolutely astonishing to believe that only a "tiny tiny minority" (in your own words about 1%) of people need to worry about negative equity!! And your stated reason for this is because that "tiny tiny" % are the ONLY ones who may need an "urgent move"? So you believe that 99% of people buy their houses with no intention of moving for 45+ years?

Interesting belief, but I dont think many people would agree with you there.

Deleted User wrote: »

Three smiles doesn't make what you're saying about my posts stand.

There were two smilies ...

Deleted User wrote: »

I'd want to be an awfull fool if I didn't have it in front of me before I posted it.
sure............

Indeed.

Deleted User wrote: »

http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:nVhS8cQmLaYJ:www.bankofireland.ie/includes/pdfs/preclose_2008.pdf+bank+of+ireland+loan+impairment+statement&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=ie&client=firefox-a

Interesting link!!!

Note the date ... 17th Sept 2008 ... before the midnight crisis visit to the 2 Brians ...

Not worth the paper its written on tbh.

Again, I wonder how many people would actually believe anything in that document. Good to know you still have faith tho, and haven't become all cynical like me!!!!

Deleted User wrote: »

None of that disproved the fact that prices rose when oil rose and fell when oil fell.

The price of crude oil fell today. The price of petrol at the pump rose. Therefore there it is not true for you to claim that falls in the price of crude oil mean falls at the pumps. They do not, as was shown today.

Not sure what you dont understand about that.

Deleted User wrote: »

You are going on as if they haven't when my pointing out to you that thye have is only because I'm saying they did because the raw material [crude] did.

I'm sorry, what?

dresden8

For Black Briar and any FF'ers that may be out there here's a link to budget data from before the credit crunch.

http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2008/05/03/story61863.asp

Economy was tanking then as housing tax receipts were down in 2007 and were continuing their downward trend. The housing market was stalled before the credit crunch. I'll say it again. Before the credit crunch.

The increase in the live register was well on its way before the credit crunch because of the stalled housing market.

Here's the live register report for May of this year

http://www.cso.ie/releasespublications/documents/labour_market/2008/lreg_may2008.pdf

Live Register was up by nearly 48,000 on the year, before Lehmann brother collapsed.

Here's the Quarter 1 QNHS showing the fall in the numbers employed in construction before the credit crunch.

http://www.cso.ie/releasespublications/documents/labour_market/2008/qnhs_q12008.pdf

How much double speak are we going to have to put up with. This could not have been foreseen, everything was great up until the summer of this year, it's international yadda yadda yadda.

Total and utter crap.

Fighting Irish

This budget just shows that you're probably better off being a scumbag drug dealer than trying to lead an honest hard working life

Gandalf23

Gandalf23 wrote: »

What you actually said was (this is a direct quote) " … negative equity is nothing to worry about in 99% of cases. [The only people who need to worry are those who have an "urgent need" to move, and] they are a tiny tiny minority of home owners … "

In my opinion its absolutely astonishing to believe that only a "tiny tiny minority" (in your own words about 1%) of people need to worry about negative equity!! And your stated reason for this is because that "tiny tiny" % are the ONLY ones who may need an "urgent move"? So you believe that 99% of people buy their houses with no intention of moving for 45+ years?

I've no view on how long people want to stay on in a house.
As for the bit in bold.
The full stop after cases is significant.At all times the 99% figure I used referred to the BOI numbers.

Interesting belief, but I dont think many people would agree with you there.




There were two smilies ...




Indeed.

yada yada yada.

Interesting link!!!

Note the date ... 17th Sept 2008 ... before the midnight crisis visit to the 2 Brians ...

So what?
That doesn't change the contents.
The visit prior to the government guarantee was in relation to the lack of international bank lending.

Not worth the paper its written on tbh.

Again, I wonder how many people would actually believe anything in that document. Good to know you still have faith tho, and haven't become all cynical like me!!!!

Are you saying BOI were lying to the stock exchange and the general public on september 17th 2008?
Thats a big accusation.

The price of crude oil fell today. The price of petrol at the pump rose. Therefore there it is not true for you to claim that falls in the price of crude oil mean falls at the pumps. They do not, as was shown today.

Lollers.
You keep going on with that.
You do know that the relationship isn't immediate and that the relationship continues regardless of taxes.
I guess you don't.

I'm sorry, what?

That about sums it up alright.

dresden8

dresden8 wrote: »

Economy was tanking then as housing tax receipts were down in 2007 and were continuing their downward trend. The housing market was stalled before the credit crunch. I'll say it again. Before the credit crunch.
The increase in the live register was well on its way before the credit crunch because of the stalled housing market.

Here's the live register report for May of this year

http://www.cso.ie/releasespublications/documents/labour_market/2008/lreg_may2008.pdf

Live Register was up by nearly 48,000 on the year, before Lehmann brother collapsed.

Actually the credit crunch started as far back as August 2007,so that link to figures above you gave encompasses it.
Lehman brothers is only significant as it was one of the triggers that practically totally closed down interbank lending altogether.

Here's the Quarter 1 QNHS showing the fall in the numbers employed in construction before the credit crunch.

http://www.cso.ie/releasespublications/documents/labour_market/2008/qnhs_q12008.pdf

How much double speak are we going to have to put up with. This could not have been foreseen, everything was great up until the summer of this year, it's international yadda yadda yadda.

Total and utter crap.

Again you are mistaken.
The credit crunch started in August 2007.
Lehman is only significant for the reason I stated.

dresden8

But mid 2007 was when Bertie and Cowan were telling us that everything was spiffingly marvellous, we should get into property and anybody who said otherwise should go off and kill themselves.

Were they lying to us and encouraging people to take out mortgages when they knew the world economy was going down? Forget about it being unforeseeable, they were coming out with this crap even after the start of the credit crunch?

They wouldn't have been aware of the crunch then obviously and neither were the opposition as all were offering spend a mania in their manifesto's.

Économiste Monétaire

dresden8 wrote: »

But mid 2007 was when Bertie and Cowan were telling us that everything was spiffingly marvellous, we should get into property and anybody who said otherwise should go off and kill themselves.

Were they lying to us and encouraging people to take out mortgages when they knew the world economy was going down? Forget about it being unforeseeable, they were coming out with this crap even after the start of the credit crunch?

No one saw what would come over the last 15-odd months, especially the seismic alteration in the financial sector over the last 3 months. It's an unpredictable event, it cannot be accurately factored into a model when forecasting. It's also impossible to quantify exactly how much of a recession is attributable to an asset bubble, and how much to the 'credit crisis'.

laurak265

workaccount wrote: »

8c is alot extra for fuel. Do you think this was justified?

Why not increase cigarettes to 2 euro like what was speculated?

I know we drivers cause problems but alot of benefits also. What benefits do fags have?

A lot of older people are smokers, always have been always will be and 2euro would cripple them. We might not like smoking but its there thing and there choice. Can always punish people who smoke or drink for extra taxes!!

dresden8

UCD_Econ wrote: »

It's also impossible to quantify exactly how much of a recession is attributable to an asset bubble, and how much to the 'credit crisis'.

Unless of course you're a FF'er in which case it's all the credit crisis.

As an aside:

http://www.cso.ie/releasespublications/documents/labour_market/2007/lreg_jul2007.pdf

Rise in unemployment rate goes back to January 2007.

dresden8

Unforseeable?

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/property-boom-to-last-another-year-before-soft-landing-129114.html

There is no certainty that the so-called 'soft landing' will then kick in, though most experts seem to think it will.

The Central Bank, however, is still warning borrowers and lenders that the spending spree cannot go on. Its doomsday predictions, repeated over several years now, look likely to be again ignored.

Taoiseach Bertie Ahern, however, said earlier that there "was no great problem" about the level of money being borrowed for property. "If you had taken the advice on the property market given a year ago, you would have lost a lost of money," Mr Ahern said after an Irish Management Institute conference.

Yesterday, economist, Jim Power of Friends First said Mr Ahern "would have been better off saying nothing".

He said: "Now it is clear that the Taoiseach is concerned that it will all be going wrong in 12 months time - right when they are in the middle of a general election campaign.

He added that Minister for Finance Brian Cowen ought to practise what he preaches. "He tells everyone to be prudent, yet he is pumping money into the economy at a faster rate than ever - and that is even before the SSIA money hits."

laurak265

turgon wrote: »

I hear they have reduced commercial property tax by a third, just shows where their hearts lie. And they have upped student reg. fees by 50%, which is even worse. Maybe if they had managed money well while they had it we wouldnt be stuck.

Dont be under any delusions boardsies: we are paying for Fianna Fail's incompetence with our wallets.

Guys the truth is that the building industry is gone so the paye from those imployees is gone! All the wages earned by the foreigners was sent back to their countries hence no longer in our economy! The ****ing mahon tribunal cost us billions just to find did bertie get 10k from someone!! Load of rubbish and fine gael wanted to know where bertie got 10k and in turn have cos us billions! Baristers laughing all the way to their off shore banks!! Fine Fail didn't cause all of this! We had a surplus budget last yr because they didn't expect the arse to fall out of the building this yr and hence didn't get the paye, stamp duty etc to fund the country! Thats what happened lads and tbh i was full sure this budget would be much worse!

I expected the early childcare supplement to be abolished but they just brought it back 6 months. Delighted i need it.

I expect the paye tax to go up to 21% or more and it didn't. The 1% will cost me 26 euro a month but i expected more.

I'm not happy with 50c on cigs but i expected spirit and beers to go up and they didn't so thats not bad.

I didnt expect SRCOP to increase but it did so that helps people out.

The over 70s who got huge redundancy payouts or retirement payouts and inheritance over the years should be assessed. I know someone who has is over 70, has a medical card and has over 200k in the bank!!!

I think child benefit should also be assessed. Millionaires get CB, Ministers wives...etc getting when it could be increased for those who really struggle.

In all it could have been alot worse for me and for many but it wasn't thank god and i think if the irish people just spend wisely it will be grand. Cut out the buying of huge tvs and 2 or 3 hols a year and throwing out good food and pure waste then i don't see why we can ride it out.

That my 2c.;)

Économiste Monétaire

dresden8 wrote:

Unforseeable?

You're confusing what I said. No one could foresee what has happened to money markets over the last 15 months. It was an inherent failure in MBS.

dresden8

UCD_Econ wrote: »

You're confusing what I said. No one could foresee what has happened to money markets over the last 15 months. It was an inherent failure in MBS.

Sorry UCD, that wasn't aimed at you. It's Briar's constant refrain that "nobody saw this coming", even though a lot of people plainly did, I was referring to.

dresden8

dresden8 wrote: »

Unless of course you're a FF'er in which case it's all the credit crisis.

As an aside:

http://www.cso.ie/releasespublications/documents/labour_market/2007/lreg_jul2007.pdf

Rise in unemployment rate goes back to January 2007.

The great bulk of the rise [circa 70k] was from sept 07 to Sept 08 so far.
All that encompassed the credit crunch period and of course the fall in construction jobs.

As for your links to the Central Banks comments.Their "doomsday" scenario wasn't one tenth of what actually has happened because well,as UCD Econ says,it's difficult to nigh on impossible to model the unknown.
I think a lot of politicians would gladly swap the central banks gloomy forecast from that link you posted for what we are actually having now.
It would be better than an international liquidity crisis and it's fall out.

dresden8

And credit crunch?

As of 13/2/08 the Irish Banker's federation was reporting a still growing mortgage market. Availability of money was not a problem.

http://www.ibf.ie/PressRelease.asp?press_id=132

Mr.Micro

Is it not incredible that the Government makes cuts to the medical card for over 70 s, puts a levy of 1-2% on all of us, increases the cost of living etc saves a couple of billon euro and makes a couple by the levies.


The other side of the coin is that the banks get, according to the latest figure a 500 billion euro guarantee, all for a measly premium of 500 million euro per year, small change between the banks, which will be fitted up as something else, so in effect may not even dent their gross profits. Now that is a hell of deal for the banks where they will have all their loans and deposits guaranteed. You could not make it up. The banks are probably kicking themselves for not thinking of it before. Meanwhile the aged, the sick, the poor will struggle with the extra cost in living while the banks are falling about laughing, the very ones who helped cause this whole mess. The irony.