€4 billion in cuts -- too little, too late!

K-9

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That's a little unfair and one sided though. Its far too high a percentage agreed, but they did target special need children. Great strides where made in that area in the last 5/6 years.

Still, 77% is crazy.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ardmacha

Surely we invest in education so that we can have better educated students, not wealthier teachers?

Students are educated to current standards justifying their educators being paid current salaries. The notion that there is going to be a large increase in educational standards over time is nonsensical, students haven't grown more intelligent therefore you get pretty much the same results.

As for the numbers doing maths, I greatly regret the small numbers doing maths. But it is not the case that students wish to do maths and that the teachers are stopping them. Quite the reverse, teachers are encouraging students to do maths and the student is rejecting their advice because of the devaluation of the value of maths by the media.

K-9

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That's because construction and business were the sexy areas! I'd be surprised if uptake in the sciences doesn't massively increase now and the next couple of years. The free market applies to educational choices too!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

London Irish

alejandro1977 wrote: »

From today's Financial Times editorial:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c8dc757c-e5c0-11de-b5d7-00144feab49a.html

This sums up a lot of what many private sector people think of the argument put forward by Begg et al regarding a supposed deflationary spiral.

I might add that I've always been a saver and now even more so as it's clear that my income will be slashed not from pay cuts but from tax rises. You cannot ignore the current and future changes in spending patterns as a result of anticipated changes in take home pay while at the same time bleating about pay cuts taking money out of the economy. Moreover, as the cost of Gov borrowing increases the higher our Debt to GDP ratio is - this is an additional Gov expense without any benefit to the Irish Economy.

Interesting article from Niall Ferguson on the ever increasing US debt, here: http://www.newsweek.com/id/224694/page/1

.,.Already, the federal government's interest payments are forecast by the CBO to rise from 8 percent of revenues in 2009 to 17 percent by 2019, even if rates stay low and growth resumes. If rates rise even slightly and the economy flatlines, we'll get to 20 percent much sooner. And history suggests that once you are spending as much as a fifth of your revenues on debt service, you have a problem. It's all too easy to find yourself in a vicious circle of diminishing credibility. The investors don't believe you can afford your debts, so they charge higher interest, which makes your position even worse.

This matters more for a superpower than for a small Atlantic island for one very simple reason. As interest payments eat into the budget, something has to give...

Something indeed has got to give.

There has been a massive amount of hot air, and some genuine anger, about the fairness of these cuts over the last few days. At one level I absolutely agree that the cuts seem unfair - that bankers and developers caused this etc etc, and now the bill is being picked up by the ordinary people....

But the fact is, the country is completely ****ed on the present course. The cuts doesn't go far enough. Another poster said it well, we are running to stand still...

The fact is, all the anger, hurt and debate that is now happening in the public domain about the property bubble, cuts and our economic future should have been actually happening 5, 6, 7 years ago. And now it is just far too ****ing late. I have ****ing despaired over the years at peoples obsession about property over anything else. Property prices can only be a function of what we actually produce - there was plenty of warnings about what was going to happen when the property boom got disjointed from the actual economy, if people had actually wanted to listen. Of course, and I speak from personal experience, such sentiments were met with "You've missed the boat!" and "You still rent, right?" instead of facts and numbers to counter all the warnings from the IMF, Economist, etc.

Does the budget hurt? Are you frightened and angry? Well, IF we manage to get past this crisis without some kind of foreign intervention (and this crisis has somes years to run yet), I hope it makes you remember, in years to come, to THINK HARD about the consequences of the decisions this country takes in future.

ei.sdraob

thanks for link
Nial Ferguson's articles and his past books/documentaries on history and economics are very very interesting and information

@P. Breathnach and others who advocate to keep borrowing for longer or some on this forum want to print money altogether, this "Keynesian" approach was taken in Japan and they are still in a hole after decade and a half

i strongly believe that once most of the fat is out of the system that growth will resume, yes it will hurt, but id rather get it over and done with than be paying for it decades down the road or worse my next of kin will have to pay for our mistakes

hinault

ei.sdraob wrote: »

thanks for link
Nial Ferguson's articles and his past books/documentaries on history and economics are very very interesting and information

@P. Breathnach and others who advocate to keep borrowing for longer or some on this forum want to print money altogether, this "Keynesian" approach was taken in Japan and they are still in a hole after decade and a half

Japs made the mistake of trying to prop up banks which were insolvent.

The FF/Green are doing the same : it's called NAMA.

The banks that were in trouble, like Anglo and Natiowide, should have been allowed to die.

The entire Irish banking system is insolvent - and you can do one of two things :
1.let the banks that are dead, die.
2.try propping up the banks with large transfers of State (taxpayers) money and enter the zombie bank phase that affilicts Japan.
(incidentally Japanese banks were the fuel for the asset bubble that led to the crash in the Japanese economy too).

ei.sdraob

hinault wrote: »

Japs made the mistake of trying to prop up banks which were insolvent.

The FF/Green are doing the same : it's called NAMA.

The banks that were in trouble, like Anglo and Natiowide, should have been allowed to die.

no arguments there i dont like this whole NAMA/Anglo business at all at all

propping up the banks is yet another crazy Keynesian idea it seems

actually thats what made Great Depression so bad, the year they stopped pouring money into banking black holes recovery came

Diarmuid

P. Breathnach wrote: »

We have an artificial competitive market.

Want to clarify that phrase? Should competitive be in quotes to indicate a so-called "competitive" market?

Eliot Rosewater

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Do indeed take note of what was said.

I did. In fairness when you say things like "let's not allow DF's Greek gifts delude us into dismantling the state" and "I saw your post as a Trojan horse for libertarianism," its clear that you primarily opposed to the view in the original post on the basis of the OP's political disposition. Whilst ordinarily this would be acceptable, the opening post isn't anywhere near libertarianism. Its just very moderate liberalism, or "economic common sense" to steal Sands phrase.

I accept your statement that cuts in services would have deflationary effects. However that is not the reason you, or anyone else, are proposing preserving the current rates. Your position is based on where your employed, or how far Left you lie. The deflation argument is just an excuse to support your position. And if I was against the cuts the last thing I would do would be to make an economic argument, as those for public sector cuts will always beat you in an economic discussion.

As the OP has said in another thread, cost of living has reduced by at least 5%, so a 5% cut minimum should be expected. Its not good enough to demand salary raises when COL goes up, and to demand your salary stays constant when COL goes down.

shockframe

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

this whole everything is cheaper in the uk is a bit misleading.things may be cheaper than here but you have to factor in the minimum wage of both countries.ireland is 8.65 whilst its 5.25 in the uk.

A relative of mine was in england last week buying a new adidas jersey costing £39.99 and its €60 in ireland.by the minimum wage structure it adds up to something like 0.17 of the minumum wage.

we are too expensive to attract people into ireland.we need to get the minimum wage reduced next year to bring in tourists and get people buying in ireland.

P. Breathnach

alejandro1977 wrote: »

From today's Financial Times editorial:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c8dc757c-e5c0-11de-b5d7-00144feab49a.html


This sums up a lot of what many private sector people think of the argument put forward by Begg et al regarding a supposed deflationary spiral.

I do indeed recognise that our prospects for recovery are strongly linked to our relationship with the external world, and how competitive we are. I even add a point to the case: that our recovery will be partly derived from the recovery in our target markets. I intended some gentle irony when I wrote

Where are all those posters who argued that you cannot tax your way out of a recession?

but the irony seems to have been missed.

On the other hand, the claim in the FT that "domestic demand is unimportant" is exaggerated. Our economy has many elements, and much of our activity is dependent on our buying goods and services from one another. This is particularly relevant to our smaller businesses. [By chance, the composition of this post was interrupted by my dealing with a guy who is selling stuff to me; I am part of his livelihood and, in turn, his supplier in Mullingar will benefit from my purchase decision.] So I hold that domestic demand is important, but I do not wish to exaggerate its importance.

Those who dislike the idea of increased taxes tend to rely heavily on the domestic demand argument.

P. Breathnach

ei.sdraob wrote: »

... @P. Breathnach and others who advocate to keep borrowing for longer or some on this forum want to print money altogether, this "Keynesian" approach was taken in Japan and they are still in a hole after decade and a half

i strongly believe that once most of the fat is out of the system that growth will resume, yes it will hurt, but id rather get it over and done with than be paying for it decades down the road or worse my next of kin will have to pay for our mistakes

Let's focus on what we agree: that the exchequer deficit is undesirable. This is not a discussion about whether we should, as a matter of policy, indulge in deficit spending. It is a discussion about how quickly we should reduce deficits. It's a social and political problem as well as an economic one. I could be persuaded that we could try to reduce it a little bit faster; I don't think we could reduce it a lot faster.

I also read a signal that the greater part of next year's strategy will involve tax increases, especially the introduction of a property tax. That's fine by me.

ei.sdraob

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Let's focus on what we agree: that the exchequer deficit is undesirable. This is not a discussion about whether we should, as a matter of policy, indulge in deficit spending. It is a discussion about how quickly we should reduce deficits. It's a social and political problem as well as an economic one. I could be persuaded that we could try to reduce it a little bit faster; I don't think we could reduce it a lot faster.

I also read a signal that the greater part of next year's strategy will involve tax increases, especially the introduction of a property tax. That's fine by me.

no arguments there, i tried to argue a case for property tax before but was shouted down in this forum

P. Breathnach

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I did. In fairness when you say things like "let's not allow DF's Greek gifts delude us into dismantling the state" and "I saw your post as a Trojan horse for libertarianism," its clear that you primarily opposed to the view in the original post on the basis of the OP's political disposition. Whilst ordinarily this would be acceptable, the opening post isn't anywhere near libertarianism. Its just very moderate liberalism, or "economic common sense" to steal Sands phrase.

Bollocks. Your attack was unwarranted. I don't see that DF has been upset by anything I said: we simply disagree on friendly terms.

I accept your statement that cuts in services would have deflationary effects. However that is not the reason you, or anyone else, are proposing preserving the current rates. Your position is based on where your employed, or how far Left you lie.

Given that my income comes from the public purse, that I have indicated general approval of the cuts, and that I have said that it is wrong that my own public service pension has not been affected, I suggest that your ad hominem argument is inappropriate.

Yes, of course my position is linked to my political and economic beliefs. It's a bit silly to suggest that this should be used against me. I am here to discuss such matters, and a discussion devoid of a point of view is a bit trite.

The deflation argument is just an excuse to support your position. And if I was against the cuts the last thing I would do would be to make an economic argument, as those for public sector cuts will always beat you in an economic discussion.

As the OP has said in another thread, cost of living has reduced by at least 5%, so a 5% cut minimum should be expected. Its not good enough to demand salary raises when COL goes up, and to demand your salary stays constant when COL goes down.

Why should I waste my time in discussion with somebody whose objective seems to be to attack me rather than my arguments, and whose attacks are not based on truth?

I suggest that you deal with the issues, and not set out on personal attacks.

Eliot Rosewater

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Bollocks. Your attack was unwarranted.

In your opinion. You replied to what was essentially a moderately liberal opening post commenting how DF has extreme Libertarian views, and that we shouldn't be brought in by them. Those comments were irrelevant to the discussion at hand because he wasn't promoting any libertarian views.

Unless, of course, you can show me a) where in the OP DF did promote hard Right libertarianism or b) how the comment "let's not allow DF's Greek gifts delude us into dismantling the state" was relevant in the context of this thread. Given that I didnt see either, I was forced to presume that your disagreement was based on the idealogical stance of the OP rather than anything he said.

SkepticOne

Deleted User wrote: »

Well actually:
Expansionary Fiscal Contraction

You can, and we did it before

I don't think it is going to happen in Ireland's case unfortunately. We are cutting spending simply because to not do so would make the crisis worse. It is not like Britain in the early 80's where cuts enabled tax reductions.

I'm not arguing that the cuts don't need to be made, but rather that the immediate effect will be to deepen the recession which will necessitate deeper cuts and so on. We have to ride this thing down.

London Irish

Even though I moved to the UK, many years ago, to escape the coming bust, it looks l'm now equally screwed here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQx4cAUWE18&feature=player_embedded

Time to move on again, methinks...

seclachi

London Irish wrote: »

Even though I moved to the UK, many years ago, to escape the coming bust, it looks l'm now equally screwed here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQx4cAUWE18&feature=player_embedded

Time to move on again, methinks...

Why ? Because some sensationalist reporter says so ? Despite the fact all these gob****es say were in the worst depression since the great depression, there's no comparison, people arent starving in the street like they were back then.

London Irish

seclachi wrote: »

Why ? Because some sensationalist reporter says so ? Despite the fact all these gob****es say were in the worst depression since the great depression, there's no comparison, people arent starving in the street like they were back then.

Because we're moving into the second part of your classic W-shaped recession. I live here and I know what's going on. And I have a family and I need to think ahead.

People didn't start staving at the start of the last depression either, did they? And perhaps people won't starve in this one. So what? People didn't starve in 80s Ireland. But it was pretty ****e for people living through those times.

No, I'm not basing all this on just this particular news report, before someone makes such a ridiculous assertion.

P. Breathnach

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

In your opinion. You replied to what was essentially a moderately liberal opening post commenting how DF has extreme Libertarian views, and that we shouldn't be brought in by them. Those comments were irrelevant to the discussion at hand because he wasn't promoting any libertarian views.

Unless, of course, you can show me a) where in the OP DF did promote hard Right libertarianism or b) how the comment "let's not allow DF's Greek gifts delude us into dismantling the state" was relevant in the context of this thread. Given that I didnt see either, I was forced to presume that your disagreement was based on the idealogical stance of the OP rather than anything he said.

So far, all your contributions to this discussion have been to attack me. I suggest that you find something more constructive to do.

Sandvich

Young people are "horrified" to have their dole cut to €100 or €150 a week, when the comparable rate in the UK is £47.95 (€52.75) per week for anyone aged between 16 and 24.

But the UK has **** welfare. Why do people keep using that as an example? Japan and Spain have NO Welfare. That doesn't make it a good idea, and their cultures are a lot different to ours to allow for it. Sweden has even MORE Welfare than we do, and you don't get as many people complaining, because the social attitude there more widely regards people like you as more than a little thoughtless.

What good do you think is going to happen when young people have most of their money going away? They'll end up having to skip the country to find jobs since there are none here - how is that good for the economy in the long run? They either want to crush young people's spirits by forcing them to live at home(further away from prospective jobs and anything productive), or get rid of them by shoving them out of the country.

There is no possible way in which this is a good idea.

RealityCheck

Sandvich wrote: »

But the UK has **** welfare. Why do people keep using that as an example? Japan and Spain have NO Welfare. That doesn't make it a good idea, and their cultures are a lot different to ours to allow for it. Sweden has even MORE Welfare than we do, and you don't get as many people complaining, because the social attitude there more widely regards people like you as more than a little thoughtless.

The problem with all that is we dont have the tax system to spend on a welfare state. We are a low tax economy and hence we should have been run as so. Depending on the building of 80000 houses a year to support high welfare was dangerous in the extreme.

We have two choices. We either raise taxes to support the spending or we cut spending to sustain the low tax levels. Simple really.

P. Breathnach

RealityCheck wrote: »

... We have two choices. We either raise taxes to support the spending or we cut spending to sustain the low tax levels. Simple really.

In the medium term, we don't have those choices. We need to raise taxes and cut spending to deal with the deficit.

In the longer term, we need to decide on general taxation levels and our social spending priorities. It's a debate that we have not conducted at all seriously.

paraletic

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Good start.

We cannot afford Public service/HSE/Social welfare bill.

Thems the facts.... hard facts.

No use keening and moaning,had to be done.

Most of the people affected wouldn't stoop down to pick a 50c piece off the floor.


Let's get on with it, and stop pandering to the people who think that it's the State's job to look after them while they make little of no effort.

Dead right, lets get on with it,

but next time the public sector is targeted, i hope they REFORM it,
ie how many town/urban/borough/city and county councils does it take to run a country of our size.
there is way more than 4billion wasted in this nonsense alone,

and next time don't just target the ordinary soc welfare people, target the social welfare people who were on the dole throughout the boom,
ie those who think the rest of us should pay for them because they are entitled to it. (i'v no problem with people on welfare, just those never WANTED to work).
-maybe give newly unemployed more and cut it back a bit each year-

just brain-storming, so don't get too mad if you disagree

The government, don't have the balls to reform the country,

Rev. BlueJeans

I'd rather see Garlic in the chair than Cowen.

There's no opposition, plain and simple, Bruton (who I have some respect for-stuttered through a post budget speech the other day, whereas Burton was just laughably bad).

It might seem counter intuitive, but if Linehan makes the unpopular decisions now (many of which have been related here on this forum), he may well do more good for the double effers, and the country, and sooner than he might imagine.

Sandvich

RealityCheck wrote: »

The problem with all that is we dont have the tax system to spend on a welfare state. We are a low tax economy and hence we should have been run as so. Depending on the building of 80000 houses a year to support high welfare was dangerous in the extreme.

We have two choices. We either raise taxes to support the spending or we cut spending to sustain the low tax levels. Simple really.

Our personal debt is still far higher than our national debt. And I disagree we are a low tax economy. While we certainly aren't extremely highly taxed, our tax rates are not hugely lower than most of western europe.

RealityCheck

Sandvich wrote: »

Our personal debt is still far higher than our national debt. And I disagree we are a low tax economy. While we certainly aren't extremely highly taxed, our tax rates are not hugely lower than most of western europe.

We have exceptionally low corporation and capital gains tax to encourage economic activity mainly aimed at FDI investment. Our income taxes are more moderate while our stealth taxes are high.

Anyway I was'nt talking about debt. I was just talking about day to day spending at government level. If we could afford our welfare system we would'nt have a spiralling national debt. Wont be long until it overtakes private debt levels.