Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Have we given up?

13

Comments

  • #102
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #103
    Lenny Lovett
    Closed Accounts Posts: 920 ✭✭✭Lenny Lovett


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    You're essentially arguing that the level of social welfare we have right now is exactly right for our economic climate.

    Isn't that a little... convenient?
    No, I'm not arguing that actually. So you obviously believe taking that much cashflow out of the economy right now makes sense do you? How do you propose to replace it or do you just think that the businesses and employers affected should just be let crash and add all those employees to the Dole queue?
    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    Well we certainly shouldn't be borrowing it a 6% when we can get it at 3% from the ECB should we? So what do you suggest then? How do we make up that kind of cashflow and keep people off the Dole and keep the VAT and other taxes flowing? It isn't just minimum wage workers that would lose jobs as a result of these cuts it will reverberate throughout the workforce: Banks, Manufacturing, Telecoms/ISPs, and many companies won't need mid and top level Managers if they have no lower level people to manage will they? So considerably more income tax taken out of the pot. Again I contend that you guys are not in touch with reality. You should consider carefully, very carefully the result of these cuts. The cuts will result in the need for more Civil Servants to service the Unemployed and Courts (for business wind ups) which will increase the PS payroll and hence an increase in borrowing The cuts must be found elsewhere!


  • #104
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Ok, so we finally have some figures to work with...
    LostinKildare wrote: »
    Let’s take the example of a couple who years ago, in full employment, bought one of those typical houses, which they could easily afford. They were atypically responsible. They resisted urgings to buy a bigger house. They prudently put off having children until they were better situated, they accumulated absolutely NO debt other than their mortgage, and they saved money “to help themselves through a period of unemployment,” as you say. Would you accuse them of “very poor financial planning” and say they only have themselves to blame if they were to fall on hard times?
    Of course not – perhaps you should re-read what I posted:

    “If, having lost their job, a mortgage-holder (who qualifies for jobseekers benefit and interest supplement) suddenly finds that they are in serious financial difficulty, then they really only have themselves to blame for their very poor financial planning...”
    LostinKildare wrote: »
    Fast forward a few years and they are both unemployed (they must both be unemployed in order to qualify for mortgage supplement). They have exhausted JSB, or perhaps they weren’t entitled to it because they had been self-employed. They have had to burn through their savings before they could qualify for means-tested JSA and mortgage supplement. They get€1,620.40 per month (jobseekers allowance x 1 + qualified adult x 1 + €316 average mortgage supplement). Let's say they also get the fuel allowance, which is €20 pw per household (winter months only), so €1,700.40. After they pay their typical €1,200 mortgage, they have €500.40 per month (€62.50 pw per person) to feed themselves and pay all of their living expenses except housing.€62.50 per week, not €196 per week.
    I’m not entirely sure what your point is? Are you arguing that €1,700.40 per month in welfare for a couple without dependants is too little? Because I honestly cannot believe that someone could argue that. Perhaps the hypothetical couple in question should consider renting their property and moving elsewhere (for lower rent, hence increasing their disposable income)? Or perhaps they should consider selling the property? Here’s a question: how high does a couple’s mortgage have to be before it is deemed unreasonable for the state to cover it?
    LostinKildare wrote: »
    Unlike you when you were enjoying the unemployed high life, those people deduct transport costs, clothes, and other associated “working” costs (childcare costs, for some) from that €196 per week (or €62.50 per week if you’re that average unemployed mortgage holder above).
    So we should use 2,000 people in work placements as the benchmark for setting welfare payments?
    LostinKildare wrote: »
    No, food costs are not rapidly declining, they have been rising since last May.
    Prices have stabilised somewhat since last December and they have certainly not changed significantly since May. However, since May 2008, food prices have dropped by approximately 8.7%, the steepest decline being from Jan – Dec 2009.


  • #105
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Kaiser2000 wrote: »
    I genuinely don't get how half the posters here seem to think that being made redundant and on the dole is some "magical ticket to Easy Street".
    Who said it was easy? I may have saved some money while unemployed, but only after I scaled back my spending. Admittedly, that probably wasn’t as difficult as it might be for others, because I wasn’t earning all that much in my last job.
    Kaiser2000 wrote: »
    The ONLY conclusion I can make is that these are Celtic Tiger Cubbies who grew up sheltered by mammy and daddy's wealth and have never found themselves in genuine hardship.
    Oh, so it’s ok for you to make generalisations, but woe betide anyone who should cast aspersions on the unemployed:
    Kaiser2000 wrote: »
    I seemingly can't repeat this enough on this forum - not everyone on the dole is a lazy, sponging waster who has no interest in working!
    Who has suggested any such thing?


  • #106
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Lenny Lovett wrote: »
    No, it's just that they have no grip on reality. They quote streams of bullsh1t "facts" that are facts just because a Government organisation (The CSO or OSI... whatever) churns them out. It doesn't occour to these people that it's in the Government's interest for the OSI to manufacture this rubbish in the hope that us plebs will swallow it.
    You’re accusing the CSO of fabricating data? That’s a pretty serious charge you’re making there.
    Lenny Lovett wrote: »
    The real facts are that it is extremely difficult for some and impossible for many to manage on €196 per week let alone cutting it.
    You’re deliberately missing the thrust of the argument – EUR 196 per week is the bare minimum to which an unemployed person is entitled. That minimum, in my opinion, is too high and could easily be reduced by a few percent at least.


  • #107
    Lenny Lovett
    Closed Accounts Posts: 920 ✭✭✭Lenny Lovett


    djpbarry wrote: »
    You’re accusing the CSO of fabricating data? That’s a pretty serious charge you’re making there.
    I'm saying that statistics can be manipulated and interpreted to tell any story that anyone wants. You do know how they work don't you?
    djpbarry wrote: »
    You’re deliberately missing the thrust of the argument – EUR 196 per week is the bare minimum to which an unemployed person is entitled. That minimum, in my opinion, is too high and could easily be reduced by a few percent at least.
    And you obviously haven't read what I said. We cannot afford to have that €1.5billion of almost guaranteed immediate spending taken out of the economy. It will collapse the remainder of the system and make hundreds of thousands of more people unemployed and incur many other costs on the state. It is a simple concept. Do you really not understand it? For example:If a person on the Dole gets €196 per week and spends, say, 90% of it in the local community on food, clothes, rent and whatever else. That money in turn pays wages for people in all those businesses and in turn generates VAT and other taxes. If it is sucked out of the economy then those people also lose their jobs. The local council will lose also through inability to pay rates so services will suffer. It would be catastrophic. Can you really not get that?


  • #108
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,830 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Lenny Lovett wrote: »
    No, I'm not arguing that actually.
    It's the net effect of your argument. You're saying that we shouldn't raise social welfare rates, nor should we cut them. Therefore, you think they are exactly right.
    So you obviously believe taking that much cashflow out of the economy right now makes sense do you?
    I believe that when you can't afford to pay for something, then you can't afford to pay for it. It's utterly one-dimensional to say that the state has to keep pouring vast sums of money into the social welfare pit in order to save the economy. If the government runs out of money, there is no economy.
    How do you propose to replace it or do you just think that the businesses and employers affected should just be let crash and add all those employees to the Dole queue?
    There's no magic bullet (unlike what you appear to believe). The economy is severely, brutally damaged. The first thing we have to do is staunch the arterial bleeding that is our current deficit. We can't. Afford. To keep spending beyond our means as we are, whether at 3% or 7% interest.
    Well we certainly shouldn't be borrowing it a 6% when we can get it at 3% from the ECB should we?
    And you think the ECB will hand us limitless wads of cash at 3% with no strings? You don't think it would be conditional on, oh I dunno, slashing our budget deficit?

    Austerity is going to happen. It won't be fun for anyone, but there's no point pretending that we can afford to pay the social welfare rates (and public sector pay bill) we have been paying.


  • #109
    Lenny Lovett
    Closed Accounts Posts: 920 ✭✭✭Lenny Lovett


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Austerity is going to happen. It won't be fun for anyone, but there's no point pretending that we can afford to pay the social welfare rates (and public sector pay bill) we have been paying.
    Well I guarantee you that cutting Welfare payments will dramatically increase the Welfare spend and increase the Public Service spend to service the swathes of newly unemployed people caused by the rapid decrease of money in the economy which will, also severly cut income tax revenue and VAT and Excise Duty. It is unavoidable however if you believe that won't happen please explain it to me how exactly.
    And you think the ECB will hand us limitless wads of cash at 3% with no strings? You don't think it would be conditional on, oh I dunno, slashing our budget deficit?
    Yes because they will do whatever it takes to keep us afloat because to not do so would most certainly damage the Euro as a currency and the overall credibility of the EU. I'm not saying we do not need to slash the Budget deficit, quite the opposite actually. It's just that for once we need to consider the consequence of our actions to so do. Reckless cuts will make a bad situation so much worse. The place to start the cuts (and this is imperative) is to rapidly dismantle or at least severly rationalise the Quangos. They are a major source of waste.


  • #110
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Lenny Lovett wrote: »
    I'm saying that statistics can be manipulated and interpreted to tell any story that anyone wants.
    No, you directly accused the CSO of “manufacturing rubbish”. Until someone produces a better set of figures, produced in an objective manner, then I’m going to go with the CSO figures, thanks very much.
    Lenny Lovett wrote: »
    We cannot afford to have that €1.5billion of almost guaranteed immediate spending taken out of the economy.
    That makes zero sense. If that €1.5 billion was being provided to us interest-free, you might have a point. But it’s not.
    Lenny Lovett wrote: »
    It will collapse the remainder of the system and make hundreds of thousands of more people unemployed and incur many other costs on the state. It is a simple concept. Do you really not understand it?
    So the way out of this crisis is to flood the economy with as much borrowed cash as possible?
    Lenny Lovett wrote: »
    For example:If a person on the Dole gets €196 per week and spends, say, 90% of it in the local community on food, clothes, rent and whatever else. That money in turn pays wages for people in all those businesses and in turn generates VAT and other taxes.
    You forgot to mention profit. Suppose the person in question spends a hefty chunk of their €196 in Tesco, Lidl or Aldi – how much of it remains in the country?
    Lenny Lovett wrote: »
    If it is sucked out of the economy then those people also lose their jobs.
    That’s a hell of a leap you’re making there. The rate of jobseekers benefit was revised downwards not too long ago – how many people lost their job as a direct result?
    Lenny Lovett wrote: »
    Well I guarantee you that cutting Welfare payments will dramatically increase the Welfare spend and increase the Public Service spend to service the swathes of newly unemployed people caused by the rapid decrease of money in the economy which will, also severly cut income tax revenue and VAT and Excise Duty. It is unavoidable however if you believe that won't happen please explain it to me how exactly.
    How about you explain your scenario first. With figures please.


  • #111
    Lenny Lovett
    Closed Accounts Posts: 920 ✭✭✭Lenny Lovett


    djpbarry wrote: »
    No, you directly accused the CSO of “manufacturing rubbish”. Until someone produces a better set of figures, produced in an objective manner, then I’m going to go with the CSO figures, thanks very much.
    Thankfully it's still a free country so you can choose your source for information.
    djpbarry wrote: »
    That makes zero sense. If that €1.5 billion was being provided to us interest-free, you might have a point. But it’s not.
    So the way out of this crisis is to flood the economy with as much borrowed cash as possible?
    Zero sense eh? I never said anywhere that the economy should be flooded with borrowed cash. But if you feel I did then please quote where or else stop trying to divert the debate with contrived rubbish please. So what will the towns and cities throughout the country do on a week to week basis when that €1.5billion (at least) is taken out of circulation? Shut up shop. That's what. You sound like you have a better idea so let's hear it Sir.
    djpbarry wrote: »
    You forgot to mention profit. Suppose the person in question spends a hefty chunk of their €196 in Tesco, Lidl or Aldi – how much of it remains in the country?
    So you don't believe business are entitled to make profit now eh? You're quite the Economist!!! ;) I'd say quite a substantial amount remains here actually. Probably about 80% going on their sales margins and the fact that they source much of their produce in Ireland, the wages they pay to Irish workers, Utilities, Rates etc etc etc. Ask your trusted sources at the OSI. They can tell you precisely.
    djpbarry wrote: »
    That’s a hell of a leap you’re making there. The rate of jobseekers benefit was revised downwards not too long ago – how many people lost their job as a direct result?
    Well over 180,000 lost their jobs last year so go figure.
    djpbarry wrote: »
    How about you explain your scenario first. With figures please.
    What? You don't understand what I said in my last post? Really? How can I simplify sufficently it for you? I'll think about it and try and post a simpler version later tonight.

    By the way, I note your location is London W8. So you care so much about the welfare of the country that you relocated to London? What was all the "facts" you were quoting about managing fine on €196 here then? Guff was it??


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Lenny Lovett wrote: »
    Zero sense eh? I never said anywhere that the economy should be flooded with borrowed cash.
    No, but you’re not arguing for an increase while arguing against a decrease. To paraphrase oscarBravo, you’re essentially stating that the current level of welfare is just right.
    Lenny Lovett wrote: »
    So what will the towns and cities throughout the country do on a week to week basis when that €1.5billion (at least) is taken out of circulation? Shut up shop.
    How many towns and cities “shut up shop” as a result of the recent decrease in welfare rates?
    Lenny Lovett wrote: »
    So you don't believe business are entitled to make profit now eh?
    Eh, I said nothing of the sort.
    Lenny Lovett wrote: »
    I'd say quite a substantial amount remains here actually.
    Hmm... you’ve said quite a lot of things. The profits generated by Tesco, M&S, Lidl, Aldi, etc. remain in Ireland? I fail to see why.
    Lenny Lovett wrote: »
    Probably about 80% going on their sales margins and the fact that they source much of their produce in Ireland, the wages they pay to Irish workers, Utilities, Rates etc etc etc.
    Much of their produce is not sourced in Ireland. The point is that, if you give a sum of money to an individual based in an economy as small as Ireland’s, you really cannot predict how that money will be distributed. Given the small, open nature of our economy, I don’t think it’s at all unlikely that a reasonable chunk will leave the country. Take something simple like pay your energy bills – you’re paying for heat and electric that has been largely derived from imported fuels.
    Lenny Lovett wrote: »
    Well over 180,000 lost their jobs last year so go figure.
    How many of those jobs were directly attributable to the reduction in welfare rates?
    Lenny Lovett wrote: »
    By the way, I note your location is London W8. So you care so much about the welfare of the country that you relocated to London?
    Yeah, you’re right. I should have remained in Ireland and claimed welfare indefinitely.


  • #113
    DeVore
    Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 32,387 Mod ✭✭✭✭DeVore


    two things:

    1. attacking where someone lives is straight up Ad Hominem.

    2. If the government gives a person a sum of money, a portion of it will be spent, possibly all of it, and of that a chunk will go to the government in tax. if the government DOESNT give that person that sum, ALL of it goes to the government.

    So, your point that people will spend what they are given and that brings in more tax, is a false economy. Plus we would be paying interest on the money too.

    DeV.


  • #114
    Lenny Lovett
    Closed Accounts Posts: 920 ✭✭✭Lenny Lovett


    DeVore wrote: »
    two things:

    1. attacking where someone lives is straight up Ad Hominem.
    Maybe in your opinion but in this context I disagree. Someone sitting overseas being a keyboard warrior, knocking out missives as to how Ireland should be run and how the poor in our society should be treated is bull**** in my book. His opinion lacks credibility when he is not speaking from experience but from what he hears from others.
    DeVore wrote: »
    2. If the government gives a person a sum of money, a portion of it will be spent, possibly all of it, and of that a chunk will go to the government in tax. if the government DOESNT give that person that sum, ALL of it goes to the government.
    Yeah. And every one Euro that the Government puts into the economy generates jobs, multiple sales and more and more taxes. Taking it out generates nothing. At least if they put money in it will multiply. So, your solution is to keep cutting. So, when they've cut it right down to the bone and there's no money left and no businesses or jobs - just half a nation on the Dole and the other half servicing it in a Public Service that is collecting No Tax because there is no income and no trade...Oh and because there's no taxes to pay the Public Servants.... What then Professor?
    DeVore wrote: »
    So, your point that people will spend what they are given and that brings in more tax, is a false economy. Plus we would be paying interest on the money too.
    DeV.
    And your solution is?


  • #115
    Lenny Lovett
    Closed Accounts Posts: 920 ✭✭✭Lenny Lovett


    djpbarry wrote: »
    No, but you’re not arguing for an increase while arguing against a decrease. To paraphrase oscarBravo, you’re essentially stating that the current level of welfare is just right.
    How many towns and cities “shut up shop” as a result of the recent decrease in welfare rates?
    Sigh... No I am not! I am simply saying that while we cannot afford to increase it, it would be suicide to cut it further.
    djpbarry wrote: »
    Eh, I said nothing of the sort.
    Whatever:rolleyes:
    djpbarry wrote: »
    Hmm... you’ve said quite a lot of things. The profits generated by Tesco, M&S, Lidl, Aldi, etc. remain in Ireland? I fail to see why.
    Sorry, Is hould have said most of their income not profits. Still, I reckon well over half of their revenue remains in Ireland.
    djpbarry wrote: »
    Much of their produce is not sourced in Ireland.
    I never mentioned M & S did I? Because virtually all of their products are imported from your country. However Tesco, Aldi, Lidl, Dunnes, Super Valu and Superquinn as well as the smaller multiples are sourcing the vast majority of their products in Ireland. I know because our company supplies quite a bit to them and I know many many other Ireiah suppliers who do.
    djpbarry wrote: »
    The point is that, if you give a sum of money to an individual based in an economy as small as Ireland’s, you really cannot predict how that money will be distributed. Given the small, open nature of our economy, I don’t think it’s at all unlikely that a reasonable chunk will leave the country.
    Not for the everyday essentials that most of the Welfare recipients are purchasing.
    djpbarry wrote: »
    Take something simple like pay your energy bills – you’re paying for heat and electric that has been largely derived from imported fuels.
    How many of those jobs were directly attributable to the reduction in welfare rates?
    Sigh again!!! You choose the one expense that the Welfare Recipient cannot manage without. Your a genius alright aren't you!:rolleyes:
    djpbarry wrote: »
    Yeah, you’re right. I should have remained in Ireland and claimed welfare indefinitely.
    Or perhaps just not spout on about how people here can survive on x amount of money when you haven't a clue given that you're not here to know!!


  • #116
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Lenny Lovett wrote: »
    Sigh... No I am not! I am simply saying that while we cannot afford to increase it, it would be suicide to cut it further.
    So we cannot afford to increase welfare, we cannot afford to decrease it ... help me out here.
    Lenny Lovett wrote: »
    Sorry, Is hould have said most of their income not profits. Still, I reckon well over half of their revenue remains in Ireland.
    I’m guessing that’s another figure plucked from thin air?
    Lenny Lovett wrote: »
    djpbarry wrote: »
    Much of their produce is not sourced in Ireland.
    I never mentioned M & S did I?
    I wasn’t referring specifically to M&S, was I?
    Lenny Lovett wrote: »
    However Tesco, Aldi, Lidl, Dunnes, Super Valu and Superquinn as well as the smaller multiples are sourcing the vast majority of their products in Ireland.
    I doubt it – for example, in 2007, €4.2 billion worth of food was imported into Ireland.
    Lenny Lovett wrote: »
    Sigh again!!! You choose the one expense that the Welfare Recipient cannot manage without.
    Yes. Yes I did. That’s kind of the point.
    Lenny Lovett wrote: »
    Or perhaps just not spout on about how people here can survive on x amount of money when you haven't a clue given that you're not here to know!!
    First of all, I was in Ireland until a few weeks ago.

    Secondly, anyone can form an opinion on the financial well-being of the average unemployed person in Ireland by surveying the relevant figures.

    Thirdly, I doubt you have direct experience of all the issues you have posted about on this website, yet here you are espousing your opinions. Telling others to restrict their opinions to matters of which they have direct experience is somewhat hypocritical.


  • #117
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,830 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Lenny Lovett wrote: »
    Yeah. And every one Euro that the Government puts into the economy generates jobs, multiple sales and more and more taxes.
    Once again, that's a compelling argument for the government to put two euros into the economy instead of one. Hell, why not five?

    You've accepted that the government can't afford to spend two euros instead of one. What makes you so certain it can afford one?
    Taking it out generates nothing. At least if they put money in it will multiply.
    Will it multiply fast enough to pay the interest on the borrowings required to pay it out?

    You seem unable to grasp that we, as a nation, have an incredibly severe cashflow problem. We're not going to solve that problem by chucking money at social welfare recipients in the forlorn hope that enough of it will eventually recirculate back to the government in the form of taxation on increased economic activity.

    Again: austerity is going to hurt. It's going to hurt me, as a business owner, as my customers become less able to pay for what I'm selling (a phenomenon I've been becoming steadily more familiar with). But the economy is a bloody trainwreck, and I'm going to have to take the pain along with everybody else.


  • #118
    Lenny Lovett
    Closed Accounts Posts: 920 ✭✭✭Lenny Lovett


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Once again, that's a compelling argument for the government to put two euros into the economy instead of one. Hell, why not five?
    You can't see the wood for the trees can you?
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    You've accepted that the government can't afford to spend two euros instead of one. What makes you so certain it can afford one? Will it multiply fast enough to pay the interest on the borrowings required to pay it out?
    It's more a case of can they afford not to spend one not if they can. They have no choice but to find the money if they want to create growth. No choice!!
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    You seem unable to grasp that we, as a nation, have an incredibly severe cashflow problem. We're not going to solve that problem by chucking money at social welfare recipients in the forlorn hope that enough of it will eventually recirculate back to the government in the form of taxation on increased economic activity.
    Oh I grasp it very well. But I also grasp the reality!!! That is that cutting vast amounts of money from the economy will kill it off. Surprisingly I'm not the only one of that opinion.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Again: austerity is going to hurt. It's going to hurt me, as a business owner, as my customers become less able to pay for what I'm selling (a phenomenon I've been becoming steadily more familiar with). But the economy is a bloody trainwreck, and I'm going to have to take the pain along with everybody else.
    So you honestly believe your business will benefit in the long run by the Government taking this money out of the economy? You must have vast pots of cash in the bank to tide you over the next ten years for that is at least the leghth of time it will take to dig out of this if they kill off the economy. My business will survive because we export around half of our output and that is very stable and actually growing albeit minutely this year, however, we forecast that if the status quo changes here in Ireland we will lose substantial sales and that will result in redundancies. No question. It's about survival. And, I was at a meeting yesterday where at least forty other business people were giving similar predictions. So we may cut 5% or 10% in Welfare Payments but the overall spend will rocket in the next twelve months as a result. There is no other way it can go. It would make far more sense to apply income tax to low earners, cut universal benefits where they are deemed unneccessary, increase Corporation tax by 1 or 2% (that much wouldn't hurt Industry sufficiently to drive them out). Also we need to close down all the quangos. Many of w2hom are just grant givers propping up non productive and unneccessary rural projects. Take one case for example. Apparrantley, there are over twenty 'rural' broadband projects collecting nearly €300million in grant aid. Now why can't the rural dwellers use Broadband from, say, O2 or Vodafone? The Govt should also apply a levy to savings of, say, over 10,000. This would two things: 1. Either increase Tax revenue and 2. Increase money in the economy as people would be tempted to take money out of the banks and spend some thus injecting some life into the economy. You guys must realise that sucking the lifeblood (money) out of the economy is not going to help us at all. It's injecting money we need. You've heard of the saying
    "Money makes the world go around".

    Oh, yeah... by the way, they could also cut the 60, or so, "Tax Breaks" that would bring in almost €11billion immediately. Yes! €11Billion! So you see, cuts = Negative. Encouraging spend = Positive. As the Meercat says "Simples!"


  • #119
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Lenny Lovett wrote: »
    You can't see the wood for the trees can you?
    You can’t answer a simple question, can you?
    Lenny Lovett wrote: »
    It would make far more sense to apply income tax to low earners, cut universal benefits where they are deemed unneccessary, increase Corporation tax by 1 or 2% (that much wouldn't hurt Industry sufficiently to drive them out).
    Have you not been arguing that we cannot afford to take money out of the economy?
    Lenny Lovett wrote: »
    Now why can't the rural dwellers use Broadband from, say, O2 or Vodafone?
    Because it’s ****e?


  • #120
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,830 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Lenny Lovett wrote: »
    It's more a case of can they afford not to spend one not if they can. They have no choice but to find the money if they want to create growth. No choice!!
    Let me see if I can summarise your position so far. We can't afford to cut social welfare, as it would damage the economy. We can't afford to increase social welfare, because the money isn't there to do so. But you're not arguing that the current level of social welfare is the correct level.

    I'm confused.
    So you honestly believe your business will benefit in the long run by the Government taking this money out of the economy?
    No, I believe that my business will benefit from the government taking the measures necessary to ensure that we continue to have a functioning economy. I won't benefit directly from a cut in social welfare rates - as I've already said, it will probably cause me some short-term pain - but if the government continues to spend beyond its means at an unsustainable rate, there won't be an economy.
    You must have vast pots of cash in the bank to tide you over the next ten years for that is at least the leghth of time it will take to dig out of this if they kill off the economy.
    You see, this is where we differ. I believe that a government that spends twenty billion euros a year more than it takes in is on course to kill off the economy. I don't believe that a government that reduces social welfare spending from celtic tiger levels is on course to kill off the economy.

    Yes, a reduction in social welfare will contribute to slower growth in the short term. But a failure to reduce social welfare could well lead to the inability to borrow money next time we need it. So, what happens to the economy when the government quite simply doesn't have any money in its coffers to pay the social welfare?
    It would make far more sense to apply income tax to low earners...
    Won't that take money out of the economy? Haven't you been arguing that we can't afford to reduce the amount of money that people have available to spend? Are social welfare recipients bigger spenders than low earners?
    Apparrantley, there are over twenty 'rural' broadband projects collecting nearly €300million in grant aid.
    When was the last time a rural broadband project received a grant cheque from the government? Dates and amounts, please, otherwise I'll know for a fact that you're just making stuff up.
    Now why can't the rural dwellers use Broadband from, say, O2 or Vodafone?
    Because that's not broadband, and no other country in the developed world counts mobile dialup in its broadband statistics. Besides, the rural dwellers are not being subsidised, despite what you're claiming.


  • #122
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #123
    Lenny Lovett
    Closed Accounts Posts: 920 ✭✭✭Lenny Lovett


    djpbarry wrote: »
    You can’t answer a simple question, can you?
    Because it was not a serious question was it?
    djpbarry wrote: »
    Have you not been arguing that we cannot afford to take money out of the economy?
    It depends where you take the money from. If you take it from an area that will not immediately damage the existing situation it would not be as bad as removing the remaining cahsflow from many many small towns.
    djpbarry wrote: »
    Because it’s ****e?
    Really? I live in rural Wicklow/Wexford area and my O2 connection is pretty good.
    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    Fair enough. I guess it varies from area to area. Still I believe feeding and housing and healthcare for our people is a bit more important right now than broadband roll out.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Let me see if I can summarise your position so far. We can't afford to cut social welfare, as it would damage the economy. We can't afford to increase social welfare, because the money isn't there to do so. But you're not arguing that the current level of social welfare is the correct level.
    Again and again and again I make the point...:rolleyes: I'll try again. I believe that to cut the basic Welfare payment (€196) by 5% or 10% will have a very damaging effect on the economy as it will suck out in the region of €1.5+Billion from the everyday spend that is the lifeblood of many businesses. It will have the effect of causing many more company failures resulting in a huge upsurge in unemployment and result in an equal rise in Public Service costs to deal with said effects. Can I make it any simpler for you? I don't think so. You obviously believe this won't happen? Well explain how it will be avoided please. I did ask one of you to do this already but no reply. Surprise? Nah!
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I'm confused. No, I believe that my business will benefit from the government taking the measures necessary to ensure that we continue to have a functioning economy.
    Fair enough. As I stated you obviously have pots of cash to prop it up for the next ten years, assuming your business isn't a Quango too!? Unfortunately many other businesses don't. IS that really so hard for you to grasp?
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I won't benefit directly from a cut in social welfare rates - as I've already said, it will probably cause me some short-term pain - but if the government continues to spend beyond its means at an unsustainable rate, there won't be an economy.
    So. Why not cut out the blatant waste first namely quangos? Take one for example: Wexford Local Development Board - They have an office on lease and staffed in each main town in County Wexford (two in Wexford Town!). That's five offices when one would suffice. By the way, they're all leased from Private Landlords yet there's a huge ex Council Office lying idle. Go figure.... And that's just one example.

    And then why not cut all the tax breaks?

    Then why not impose the domestic water charges?

    Then why not impose a tax on Betting Shop Gambling Winnings?

    And then impose a tax/levy on savings above a certain threshold?
    And so on and so on.

    You see when anyone talks of saving money the first section of society they look at is the poor/Welfare recipients then they look at the sick and try to cut hospital spending. Why not start with the rich this time around and work down for once? Is that so wrong?
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    You see, this is where we differ. I believe that a government that spends twenty billion euros a year more than it takes in is on course to kill off the economy. I don't believe that a government that reduces social welfare spending from celtic tiger levels is on course to kill off the economy.
    Indeed we do differ there. You see you're talking about saving 20 billion but the majority, vast majority of that is Public Service wages. True or false? So where should the cuts start happening first????
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Yes, a reduction in social welfare will contribute to slower growth in the short term. But a failure to reduce social welfare could well lead to the inability to borrow money next time we need it. So, what happens to the economy when the government quite simply doesn't have any money in its coffers to pay the social welfare? Won't that take money out of the economy? Haven't you been arguing that we can't afford to reduce the amount of money that people have available to spend? Are social welfare recipients bigger spenders than low earners?
    At least low wage earners have more disposable income and it doesn't make sense that an earner does not pay some form of income tax how ever small it may be. Would a low earner on, say, €360 a week miss €5 as much as someone who is not earning and getting welfare of €196 a week?
    Anyway, most of those signing on paid into a PRSI/NI fund for years and that is supposed to cover Dole payments. It's unfair to penalise them due to the bad management of the fund by the Civil Service isn't it?
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    When was the last time a rural broadband project received a grant cheque from the government? Dates and amounts, please, otherwise I'll know for a fact that you're just making stuff up.
    North Wexford Local Broadband got a grant last year. I've made a call to find out how much and the person concerned said she'll try and get back to me tomorrow with the information.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Because that's not broadband, and no other country in the developed world counts mobile dialup in its broadband statistics. Besides, the rural dwellers are not being subsidised, despite what you're claiming.
    Fair enough. As I stated above I use O2 and in rural Wexs/Wicklow it's fine.
    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    In case you haven't noticed it's monsoon now. The rainy day has arrived and people need to start spending to, themselves, try and stimulate the economy. Either that or we need a savings levy/tax.
    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    Well for a start we should be taking the ECB's offer of borrowing at 3% and pay off the 6/7% borrowings now. There, that'd be a substantial spending cut wouldn't it?
    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    Yeah and the proposed cut to the Welfare budget would be a drop in the ocean to the money needed to rescue the economy but on the other hand would be devestating to the local economy of most Towns in Ireland and, indeed, large parts of the cities too.


  • #124
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #125
    Lenny Lovett
    Closed Accounts Posts: 920 ✭✭✭Lenny Lovett


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    Irony maybe. But I never advocated the SSIA so it's not ironic for me. You may note that I did suggest a levy on savings "above a certain level". I suppose the word "Deposits" might be a better word?
    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    You see, that, to me is all hearsay... Unless you could, kindly, quote whom from the EU/ECB and when they said the funding would ome with strings attached. Frans Fischler was talking at great lenght on Euronews on Saturday about this and he said that neither the ECB or the EU had the power to put in pre conditions on the aid to struggling economies.
    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    Of course there's a f**king problem! That's what I've been telling you guys since we started this whole debate! The light finally flickers on!:) Thank the lord for that!


  • #126
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,830 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Lenny Lovett wrote: »
    I believe that to cut the basic Welfare payment (€196) by 5% or 10% will have a very damaging effect on the economy as it will suck out in the region of €1.5+Billion from the everyday spend that is the lifeblood of many businesses. It will have the effect of causing many more company failures resulting in a huge upsurge in unemployment and result in an equal rise in Public Service costs to deal with said effects. Can I make it any simpler for you? I don't think so. You obviously believe this won't happen? Well explain how it will be avoided please. I did ask one of you to do this already but no reply. Surprise? Nah!
    You're asking the rest of us to prove how a 5% drop in social welfare rates won't cause the entire economy to implode? Meanwhile, you're asserting that the ECB will lend us untold billions at favourable interest rates in order not to have to cut our social welfare rates? Please.
    Fair enough. As I stated you obviously have pots of cash to prop it up for the next ten years...
    No, I just haven't built a business that is balanced on a knife-edge of dependency on current social welfare rates.
    So. Why not cut out the blatant waste first namely quangos? [...]

    And then why not cut all the tax breaks?

    Then why not impose the domestic water charges?

    Then why not impose a tax on Betting Shop Gambling Winnings?
    I don't know if you're aware of the magnitude of the problem we're facing, but we're pretty much going to have to do all those things - and cut social welfare and public sector pay.
    You see when anyone talks of saving money the first section of society they look at is the poor/Welfare recipients then they look at the sick and try to cut hospital spending. Why not start with the rich this time around and work down for once? Is that so wrong?
    The only problem with it is that it's not going to be anything like enough. How many rich people will we have to tax, and by how much, to cut our deficit by four billion euros next year? How much will a tax on deposits raise? How much will we save by closing down quangos?
    Indeed we do differ there. You see you're talking about saving 20 billion but the majority, vast majority of that is Public Service wages. True or false? So where should the cuts start happening first????
    Something like 40% of current expenditure is on social welfare. If you think we can blithely ignore that and try to fix the problem by tinkering with taxes on savings and closing quangos, you quite simply don't grasp the scale of the problem.
    At least low wage earners have more disposable income and it doesn't make sense that an earner does not pay some form of income tax how ever small it may be. Would a low earner on, say, €360 a week miss €5 as much as someone who is not earning and getting welfare of €196 a week?
    If either of them has their disposable income reduced by a fiver, that's a fiver that won't be spent - and that's precisely what you're trying to convince us will cause the economy to implode.
    North Wexford Local Broadband got a grant last year. I've made a call to find out how much and the person concerned said she'll try and get back to me tomorrow with the information.
    Did they get fifteen million euros? Because that's the average amount that you're claiming each of twenty companies received. I run a rural broadband company, and I haven't seen fifteen million - or the colour of it - in government money.

    There was a grant scheme back in 2005/6 to help with the rollout of rural broadband, but that was back when we had money to burn, the rural broadband situation was even more disastrous than it is now, and there sure as hell wasn't 300 million on offer. These days, instead of subsidising rural broadband companies, the government has decided to subsidise a mobile phone network and call it broadband.
    Well for a start we should be taking the ECB's offer of borrowing at 3% and pay off the 6/7% borrowings now. There, that'd be a substantial spending cut wouldn't it?
    That would be the money you're claiming is available with no strings attached, right?


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    Lenny Lovett
    Closed Accounts Posts: 920 ✭✭✭Lenny Lovett


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    You're asking the rest of us to prove how a 5% drop in social welfare rates won't cause the entire economy to implode? Meanwhile, you're asserting that the ECB will lend us untold billions at favourable interest rates in order not to have to cut our social welfare rates? Please.
    And again you twist my words. Fair enough. Have it your way. I'm losing the will to live trying to get through to yoiu guys. Maybe we're better reviewing the outcome of the cuts in six months and deciding who was correct.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    No, I just haven't built a business that is balanced on a knife-edge of dependency on current social welfare rates.
    No. Strangely enough, neither did any other businesses however, now that's the reality of where they are. You must be very lcuky in your area that the situation doesn't affect you. It certainly affects many businesses in theSouth East.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I don't know if you're aware of the magnitude of the problem we're facing, but we're pretty much going to have to do all those things - and cut social welfare and public sector pay. The only problem with it is that it's not going to be anything like enough.
    By just removing the tax breaks we would be adding almost €11Billion to tax revenue. So that's a huge step.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    How many rich people will we have to tax, and by how much, to cut our deficit by four billion euros next year? How much will a tax on deposits raise? How much will we save by closing down quangos? Something like 40% of current expenditure is on social welfare. If you think we can blithely ignore that and try to fix the problem by tinkering with taxes on savings and closing quangos, you quite simply don't grasp the scale of the problem.
    Believe me I am acutely aware of the scale of the problem. I merely want it tackled in the most effective and least hurtful way. You are aware, I take it, that there is a big issue of the top 400 earners in this country and their payment of low or no tax? Have a look at this: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0824/1224277445100.html
    As for quangos... well where do we begin? Fás were taking over a Billion a year and for what? I already quoted an example of one quango in Co. Wexford and I believe there are similar organisations in most counties. We could go on and on and on on this one. Let's face it. We just cannot afford these quangos and their associated costs and wastage.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    If either of them has their disposable income reduced by a fiver, that's a fiver that won't be spent - and that's precisely what you're trying to convince us will cause the economy to implode.
    No. There is a difference. You see, the welfare recipient is likely to spend all his welfare claim in the week he receives. Most likely in his home area on food and other essentials whereas a working person albeit on a low wage will also spend most locally but may also save some. Taking away €5 from them will be unlikely to lower their local spend as they will still, need the same local buys won't they?
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Did they get fifteen million euros? Because that's the average amount that you're claiming each of twenty companies received.
    I don't know. Did you read what I posted? I said that I hadn't the information yet and would post it tomorrow when I get it.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I run a rural broadband company, and I haven't seen fifteen million - or the colour of it - in government money.
    Ah, so you do run a Quango then. That explains your views then. I understand now why you want everyone else cut. You'll be ok 'cos the EU development funding will keep you afloat!;) (The old "I'm alright Jack" routine!!)
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    There was a grant scheme back in 2005/6 to help with the rollout of rural broadband, but that was back when we had money to burn, the rural broadband situation was even more disastrous than it is now, and there sure as hell wasn't 300 million on offer.
    So where did all the money go then? Why is it still so poor? Money wasted a la Fás style was it?
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    These days, instead of subsidising rural broadband companies, the government has decided to subsidise a mobile phone network and call it broadband. That would be the money you're claiming is available with no strings attached, right?
    Well, all these subsidys will have to be pulled now. Prevention of poverty is more importnat than these things for now.


  • #128
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,830 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Lenny Lovett wrote: »
    No. Strangely enough, neither did any other businesses however, now that's the reality of where they are. You must be very lcuky in your area that the situation doesn't affect you. It certainly affects many businesses in theSouth East.
    Now who's twisting words? I have clearly stated that it will affect me. I have said that I will feel the pain.

    Yes, businesses will go under. News flash: businesses have been going under at an alarming rate, because of a contracting economy and almost non-existent credit. It's ludicrous to claim that we need to keep social welfare rates at current rates to save businesses, when we just can't afford to keep paying them.
    By just removing the tax breaks we would be adding almost €11Billion to tax revenue. So that's a huge step.
    It's a huge leap of logic, more like.

    You're claiming that a reduction in social welfare rates will cause the economy to implode, but you can't see any negative consequences of eliminating every tax break overnight?
    Believe me I am acutely aware of the scale of the problem. I merely want it tackled in the most effective and least hurtful way. You are aware, I take it, that there is a big issue of the top 400 earners in this country and their payment of low or no tax? Have a look at this: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0824/1224277445100.html
    OK, let's assume that we can squeeze forty million out of that lot (optimistically). That's one percent of the required deficit reduction. Most effective?
    As for quangos... well where do we begin? Fás were taking over a Billion a year and for what? I already quoted an example of one quango in Co. Wexford and I believe there are similar organisations in most counties. We could go on and on and on on this one. Let's face it. We just cannot afford these quangos and their associated costs and wastage.
    Not to mention that pointless Garda Ombudsman Commission, or the utterly pointless Met Éireann.

    I agree that there's a hell of a lot of waste that can be cut out, but it's simplistic in the extreme to say "git rid of every quango".
    I don't know. Did you read what I posted? I said that I hadn't the information yet and would post it tomorrow when I get it.
    I bet you a hundred euros they didn't get fifteen million, or the colour of it. Are we on?
    Ah, so you do run a Quango then. That explains your views then. I understand now why you want everyone else cut. You'll be ok 'cos the EU development funding will keep you afloat!;) (The old "I'm alright Jack" routine!!)
    It's really awfully difficult to argue with someone who invents his own definitions of words. Go figure out what a quango actually is (hint: it's not a small, privately-owned company) and come back to me when you know what you're talking about.
    So where did all the money go then? Why is it still so poor? Money wasted a la Fás style was it?
    All what money? The fictitious money in the quantities you pulled out of the air earlier in the thread?

    Or the money that went to good use in 2005, but that the government decided to stop making available because "there was no demand for it" despite them refusing to accept applications for grant funding, and that they then decided to spend subsidising multinational corporations to build mobile phone networks?

    Again, come back to me when you have some facts.
    Well, all these subsidys will have to be pulled now. Prevention of poverty is more importnat than these things for now.
    There are no subsidies that I'm aware of. Mind you, if there's three hundred million available, I'll get fibre to damn near every home in Mayo with it and not waste it piddling around with mobile phones.


  • #129
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #130
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Lenny Lovett wrote: »
    You see, the welfare recipient is likely to spend all his welfare claim in the week he receives. Most likely in his home area on food and other essentials...
    The welfare recipients around the South-East must be quite a diligent bunch. They don’t drink, smoke, play the lotto, watch footie on Sky...


  • #131
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    ...when the above-mentioned 400 have all left the country.


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #133
    Lenny Lovett
    Closed Accounts Posts: 920 ✭✭✭Lenny Lovett


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Yes, businesses will go under. News flash: businesses have been going under at an alarming rate, because of a contracting economy and almost non-existent credit. It's ludicrous to claim that we need to keep social welfare rates at current rates to save businesses, when we just can't afford to keep paying them.
    OK. Like I said we'll review this great idea to cut benefits in six months. The results will show much sooner than that.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    You're claiming that a reduction in social welfare rates will cause the economy to implode, but you can't see any negative consequences of eliminating every tax break overnight?
    Eliminating many or even most of them wouldn't have the same effect and as rapidly as a cut in Welfare.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    OK, let's assume that we can squeeze forty million out of that lot (optimistically). That's one percent of the required deficit reduction. Most effective?
    Yeah. That's the problem. People thinking that a €40 million rise in tax income is nothing. Well if we added all the dodgy €40millions that are leaking out here and there we'd have quite a sum I'm sure. You obviously don't concur...
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Not to mention that pointless Garda Ombudsman Commission, or the utterly pointless Met Éireann.
    Whatever about the Garda Ombudsman - I'd question it's value, Yes - I'd be quicker to question if we really need 400 staff at the Met office. You believe we do?
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I agree that there's a hell of a lot of waste that can be cut out, but it's simplistic in the extreme to say "git rid of every quango".
    Yeah. Maybe a bit simplistic to get rid of them all. We could certainly afford to abolish most though I'd say and when we're flush again we can open them all back up!
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I bet you a hundred euros they didn't get fifteen million, or the colour of it. Are we on?
    Sigh. Where did I say they were getting €15million? Please quote.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    It's really awfully difficult to argue with someone who invents his own definitions of words. Go figure out what a quango actually is (hint: it's not a small, privately-owned company) and come back to me when you know what you're talking about.
    A Quango is a Quasi Autonomous N.G.O. is it not? Where di I say it was a small, privately owned company? Again, please quote.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Or the money that went to good use in 2005, but that the government decided to stop making available because "there was no demand for it" despite them refusing to accept applications for grant funding, and that they then decided to spend subsidising multinational corporations to build mobile phone networks?
    If it went to good use why is the Broadband set up such a shambles?
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Again, come back to me when you have some facts. There are no subsidies that I'm aware of. Mind you, if there's three hundred million available, I'll get fibre to damn near every home in Mayo with it and not waste it piddling around with mobile phones.
    Maybe not now, but you're saying that there were none in the past???
    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    No, tax them at 50%. Anyway, why do you all believe that all these leaks of tens and hundreds of millions should not be blocked? Do you not believe all these would add up substantially?
    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    As above:- if you add up all these so called "populist solutions" (very insulting btw) it will amount to a substantial saving. You can't deny that surely? Or do you think we should just look after Billions and ignore the tens and hundreds of millions???
    djpbarry wrote: »
    ...when the above-mentioned 400 have all left the country.
    So what is your solution? Leave them here and pay little or no tax? You believe that Authors should be able to sell millions of books and pay no income tax? That the likes of U2 shouldn't have to pay tax? That ex-Taoisigh should be allowed to publish their memoirs and not pay tax on the income while at the same time being paid pensions from the taxpayer? What makes all these people so special? You guys make me wonder how we got as far as we did as a nation with that sort of thinking.


  • #134
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #135
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Lenny Lovett wrote: »
    Eliminating many or even most of them wouldn't have the same effect and as rapidly as a cut in Welfare.
    So you’re saying that taking €1.5 billion out of the economy via welfare cuts would be disastrous, but cutting out over seven times that sum would be grand? I’m no economist, but there seems to be a pretty gaping hole in that logic.
    Lenny Lovett wrote: »
    Yeah. That's the problem. People thinking that a €40 million rise in tax income is nothing. Well if we added all the dodgy €40millions that are leaking out here and there we'd have quite a sum I'm sure. You obviously don't concur...
    I think oB was stating that we could (optimistically) get €40 million in total from the top earners. I doubt there are multiples of €40 million “leaking” out there just waiting to be hoovered up.
    Lenny Lovett wrote: »
    Whatever about the Garda Ombudsman - I'd question it's value, Yes - I'd be quicker to question if we really need 400 staff at the Met office. You believe we do?
    I have no idea what the internal workings of the Met office are (and I doubt you do either) so I’m not in a position to comment.
    Lenny Lovett wrote: »
    Where did I say they were getting €15million?
    You stated that “there are over twenty 'rural' broadband projects collecting nearly €300million in grant aid”. That works out at close to €15 million per project, depending of course on one’s definition of “over” and “nearly”.
    Lenny Lovett wrote: »
    No, tax them at 50%. Anyway, why do you all believe that all these leaks of tens and hundreds of millions should not be blocked? Do you not believe all these would add up substantially?
    Not really, no – I very much doubt that there are hundreds of millions of Euros out there just waiting to be collected. Your figures are pure conjecture.
    Lenny Lovett wrote: »
    So what is your solution? Leave them here and pay little or no tax? You believe that Authors should be able to sell millions of books and pay no income tax? That the likes of U2 shouldn't have to pay tax? That ex-Taoisigh should be allowed to publish their memoirs and not pay tax on the income while at the same time being paid pensions from the taxpayer?
    No, I don’t necessarily agree with tax exemptions for artists, but a simple tot-up with a calculator will show you that a slight reduction in welfare payments will do much more for our current financial woes than taxing the bejesus out of Bono.


  • #136
    Lenny Lovett
    Closed Accounts Posts: 920 ✭✭✭Lenny Lovett


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    So you think just because they're rich they shouldn't have to pay their taxes? So why just the top 400? Why not the top 800 or 8000? And you slag me off for my logic?
    djpbarry wrote: »
    So you’re saying that taking €1.5 billion out of the economy via welfare cuts would be disastrous, but cutting out over seven times that sum would be grand? I’m no economist, but there seems to be a pretty gaping hole in that logic.
    Sigh...
    djpbarry wrote: »
    I think oB was stating that we could (optimistically) get €40 million in total from the top earners. I doubt there are multiples of €40 million “leaking” out there just waiting to be hoovered up.
    So you're his spokesman now eh? ;) Well maybe you should read Senator Shane Ross's new book entitled "Wasters". It details all the various losses that could and should be sealed off. You should be able to get it over in London... Maybe in WH Smiths?
    djpbarry wrote: »
    I have no idea what the internal workings of the Met office are (and I doubt you do either) so I’m not in a position to comment.
    Well never mind, I'm sure all 400 are working very hard just like all the rest of the Civil Service...
    djpbarry wrote: »
    You stated that “there are over twenty 'rural' broadband projects collecting nearly €300million in grant aid”. That works out at close to €15 million per project, depending of course on one’s definition of “over” and “nearly”.
    Came from the NDP Report. Google it.
    djpbarry wrote: »
    Not really, no – I very much doubt that there are hundreds of millions of Euros out there just waiting to be collected. Your figures are pure conjecture.
    Again, read Senator Shane Ross's book. It's very up to date and I tend to believe him. He'd be wide open to litigation if it was untrue.
    djpbarry wrote: »
    No, I don’t necessarily agree with tax exemptions for artists, but a simple tot-up with a calculator will show you that a slight reduction in welfare payments will do much more for our current financial woes than taxing the bejesus out of Bono.
    Yeah... At what cost to the economy.


  • #137
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,830 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Lenny Lovett wrote: »
    Whatever about the Garda Ombudsman - I'd question it's value, Yes...
    Fair enough. Why are we wasting money on an independent watchdog for the police? I mean, it's not as if any police officers have ever done anything wrong.
    I'd be quicker to question if we really need 400 staff at the Met office. You believe we do?
    Hell, no. What do farmers, airplanes and ships need to know about the weather for? Can't they stick a finger in the air?
    A Quango is a Quasi Autonomous N.G.O. is it not? Where di I say it was a small, privately owned company? Again, please quote.
    I run a small, privately owned company. You said I run a quango. You explain it to me.
    If it went to good use why is the Broadband set up such a shambles?
    It's pretty good in the places where the government helped subsidise the rollout of broadband services. It would be better in more places if the government hadn't withdrawn that funding five years ago, claiming that there was no demand for something they were refusing to make available.


  • #138
    DeVore
    Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 32,387 Mod ✭✭✭✭DeVore


    Lenny stop answering questions with questions, you've made specific claims here, back them up as per our forum Rules or withdraw them. Google it isn't an answer.

    DeV.


  • #139
    jmayo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,189 ✭✭✭✭jmayo


    Lenny Lovett wrote: »
    Oh I grasp it very well. But I also grasp the reality!!! That is that cutting vast amounts of money from the economy will kill it off. Surprisingly I'm not the only one of that opinion.

    Yes cutting in the wrong places will kill growth.
    Cutting anywhere can have knock on affects, but not cutting and letting the situation carry on as is will result in one major cut when the ECB/IMF arrive and DEMAND cuts everywhere and anywhere.
    Lenny Lovett wrote: »
    So you honestly believe your business will benefit in the long run by the Government taking this money out of the economy? You must have vast pots of cash in the bank to tide you over the next ten years for that is at least the leghth of time it will take to dig out of this if they kill off the economy. My business will survive because we export around half of our output and that is very stable and actually growing albeit minutely this year, however, we forecast that if the status quo changes here in Ireland we will lose substantial sales and that will result in redundancies. No question. It's about survival. And, I was at a meeting yesterday where at least forty other business people were giving similar predictions. So we may cut 5% or 10% in Welfare Payments but the overall spend will rocket in the next twelve months as a result. There is no other way it can go. It would make far more sense to apply income tax to low earners, cut universal benefits where they are deemed unneccessary, increase Corporation tax by 1 or 2% (that much wouldn't hurt Industry sufficiently to drive them out).

    I don't know what businss you are in if you think that ramping up Corporation tax is a good idea at the moment.
    Last week a US multinational (Hollister) that has been based in Mayo for last almost 40 years announced expansion scheme and gave one of the reasons for this decision as been down to our low Corporation tax.
    At the moment we are hanging on to major multinationals because of this favourable tax rate.
    Ramp this up and we just ad one more reason for them to be off.
    Lenny Lovett wrote: »
    Also we need to close down all the quangos. Many of w2hom are just grant givers propping up non productive and unneccessary rural projects. Take one case for example. Apparrantley, there are over twenty 'rural' broadband projects collecting nearly €300million in grant aid. Now why can't the rural dwellers use Broadband from, say, O2 or Vodafone?

    Yes we do need to shut down quangoes, but where the hell are you getting this sh**e that useless Quangoes are just relating to rural projects ?

    Ah yes rural people are subsidised. :rolleyes:
    Ever care to think that rural dwellers susbisidise the lighting, the footpaths, the extra Gardaí, the new ring roads etc around urban areas ?
    You do know that 3G broadband is sh**e and only yourself and gobdaws like eamon "sanctimonious" ryan believe otherwise. :rolleyes:
    Obviously you have never had to use it or you would not be coming out with such sh**e.
    For some reason I get the feeling you know as much about economics as you do about our so called broadband infrastructure. :rolleyes:
    Lenny Lovett wrote: »
    The Govt should also apply a levy to savings of, say, over 10,000. This would two things: 1. Either increase Tax revenue and 2. Increase money in the economy as people would be tempted to take money out of the banks and spend some thus injecting some life into the economy. You guys must realise that sucking the lifeblood (money) out of the economy is not going to help us at all. It's injecting money we need. You've heard of the saying
    "Money makes the world go around".

    So penalise people for saving ?
    Dear God what are you drinking or sniffing ?
    Try cr** like that and watch money disappear from what is left of our banking infrastructure both Irish (largely state at this stage) owned and foreign owned banks based here.
    Lenny Lovett wrote: »
    Oh, yeah... by the way, they could also cut the 60, or so, "Tax Breaks" that would bring in almost €11billion immediately. Yes! €11Billion! So you see, cuts = Negative. Encouraging spend = Positive. As the Meercat says "Simples!"

    Ah the Meercat ads.
    Now I know where you are getting your ideas.
    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Motor racers like Jimmy Clark and Jackie Stewart moved to France/Switzerland due to this as they got tried of risking their lives to give so much of their earnings to the taxman.

    I am not allowed discuss …



  • #140
    Lenny Lovett
    Closed Accounts Posts: 920 ✭✭✭Lenny Lovett


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Fair enough. Why are we wasting money on an independent watchdog for the police? I mean, it's not as if any police officers have ever done anything wrong.
    Oh, so by that logic we need an Ombudsman for every friggin Public Service Department?
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Hell, no. What do farmers, airplanes and ships need to know about the weather for? Can't they stick a finger in the air?
    No. Again, like most people here, you're not thinking laterally. Met Organisations all over the world are rationalisisng because of the huge overlap in information available nowadays due to the technology available. If, for argument's sake, the Met Office was shut down by strike tomorrow would we and the Airports, farmers etc have no weather forecast? Of course not. They would just get it from any of the four weather organisations in the UK or the fifty or so in Europe. Or the hundreds of online weather forecast services. As an IT man I would have thought you'd realise that the rapid advance in technology is negating the need for much of these old fashioned outfits. Pfft!
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I run a small, privately owned company. You said I run a quango. You explain it to me.
    Ok. Sorry. I stand corrected. I obviously, mistakenly, assumed that your privately owned company may have one of these Broadband Companies that was funded by Government Grant aid. So you weren't... Right?
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    It's pretty good in the places where the government helped subsidise the rollout of broadband services. It would be better in more places if the government hadn't withdrawn that funding five years ago, claiming that there was no demand for something they were refusing to make available.
    So why don't private companies like you jump in and make a killing at it then? You don't get Government subsidies do you???


  • #141
    Lenny Lovett
    Closed Accounts Posts: 920 ✭✭✭Lenny Lovett


    DeVore wrote: »
    Lenny stop answering questions with questions, you've made specific claims here, back them up as per our forum Rules or withdraw them. Google it isn't an answer.

    DeV.
    I have backed up everything I said. The last time you accused me of not answering your question you were mistaken weren't you...
    Are you posting as a Mod for this forum?


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Lenny Lovett wrote: »
    I have backed up everything I said.
    I think you're confusing "everything" with "virtually nothing".


  • #143
    Lenny Lovett
    Closed Accounts Posts: 920 ✭✭✭Lenny Lovett


    jmayo wrote: »
    Yes cutting in the wrong places will kill growth.
    Cutting anywhere can have knock on affects, but not cutting and letting the situation carry on as is will result in one major cut when the ECB/IMF arrive and DEMAND cuts everywhere and anywhere.
    Again, as I earlier, Frans Fischler was saying on Euronews that THe ECB/IMF cannot make any demands or conditions of spending cuts with it's loans. It could if it was a grant or other form of aid. This is just spin whipped up to scare the sh1t out of everyone. Can you quote anywhere where anyone from the EU has actually said that ECB/IMF would make all these pre-conditions please?
    jmayo wrote: »
    I don't know what businss you are in if you think that ramping up Corporation tax is a good idea at the moment.
    Last week a US multinational (Hollister) that has been based in Mayo for last almost 40 years announced expansion scheme and gave one of the reasons for this decision as been down to our low Corporation tax.
    At the moment we are hanging on to major multinationals because of this favourable tax rate.
    Ramp this up and we just ad one more reason for them to be off.
    I wouldn't call a 1% or 2% rise "ramping up". It is a minor increase. And we would still be lower than most other places. Correct me if I am wrtong please.
    jmayo wrote: »
    Yes we do need to shut down quangoes, but where the hell are you getting this sh**e that useless Quangoes are just relating to rural projects?
    Sorry, where did I say that "useless Quangoes are just relating to rural projects?"? I think you're making that up Sir. I am quite aware that there are probably as many Quangoes in the cities. I merely quoted one example - Wexford - and one such Quango. Please don't misinterpret what I say.
    jmayo wrote: »
    Ever care to think that rural dwellers susbisidise the lighting, the footpaths, the extra Gardaí, the new ring roads etc around urban areas ?
    Sorry where did I say that rural dwellers are subsidised any more than Urban dwellers?: Come on quote me please or retract.
    jmayo wrote: »
    You do know that 3G broadband is sh**e and only yourself and gobdaws like eamon "sanctimonious" ryan believe otherwise. :rolleyes:
    Obviously you have never had to use it or you would not be coming out with such sh**e.
    For some reason I get the feeling you know as much about economics as you do about our so called broadband infrastructure. :rolleyes:
    Sorry, mine is actually ok. Oh, and please don't ever lump me in with Eamon Ryan or any other Greenie. BTW I am a rural dweller and the whole nub of my argument is that the welfare cuts will damage the rural economy so why are you saying I'm asserting anything else? Did you ead the previosu posts at all?
    jmayo wrote: »
    So penalise people for saving ?
    Dear God what are you drinking or sniffing ?
    Try cr** like that and watch money disappear from what is left of our banking infrastructure both Irish (largely state at this stage) owned and foreign owned banks based here.
    Again, you quite obviously didn't read what I posted did you? I said that they should do it for savings above a certain amount. ie not penalise the lower value savers just the wealthier. Is that such lunacy? Really? So you are another of these that believe that it's just the poor, sick and vulnerable in society that should suffer the brunt of the cuts???
    jmayo wrote: »
    Ah the Meercat ads.
    Now I know where you are getting your ideas.
    Yeah. That's a very useful contribution to the debate. Well done!
    jmayo wrote: »
    Motor racers like Jimmy Clark and Jackie Stewart moved to France/Switzerland due to this as they got tried of risking their lives to give so much of their earnings to the taxman.
    Oh. So you believe that we shouldn't make these millionaires pay any tax? Again the poor must pay but not the rich? Please be kind enough to ecplain your logic. And regarding the motor racing drivers: It's a sport that they choose to take part in to "risk their lives" and collect vast sums of money for. Are you really honestly expecting me to feel sorry for them? Are you a troll or what?


  • #144
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #145
    Lenny Lovett
    Closed Accounts Posts: 920 ✭✭✭Lenny Lovett


    djpbarry wrote: »
    I think you're confusing "everything" with "virtually nothing".
    And that is your considered contribution to the debate is it? Excellent. Well done. You should take a rest now...


  • #146
    Lenny Lovett
    Closed Accounts Posts: 920 ✭✭✭Lenny Lovett


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    Well, avoidance is the nicely dressed up legal term for evasion. Let's face it, and I am guilty of it too, avoiding paying tax is as bad as evasion it's just, for some reason, acceptable...
    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    I couldn't agree more. The tax system in the 70s and 80s used to work kind of like that although not quite so simple. But you're right IMO. And there many other tax collection methods that they could simplify and save tons of cash and resources on the way.


  • #147
    Valmont
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭Valmont


    Estonia currently uses a flat rate system.

    Another aspect to the tax debate is the entrenched vested interests a complex system produces. Tax attorneys, advisors, a massive revenue department, these occupations are necessitated by labrynthine tax codes so even if a flat tax makes sense on every level, there will be a lot of disgruntled people kicking up if the kafka-esque bureaucracy on which their livelihoods depend is threatened.


  • #148
    Lenny Lovett
    Closed Accounts Posts: 920 ✭✭✭Lenny Lovett


    Valmont wrote: »
    Estonia currently uses a flat rate system.

    Another aspect to the tax debate is the entrenched vested interests a complex system produces. Tax attorneys, advisors, a massive revenue department, these occupations are necessitated by labrynthine tax codes so even if a flat tax makes sense on every level, there will be a lot of disgruntled people kicking up if the kafka-esque bureaucracy on which their livelihoods depend is threatened.
    You're spot on there. Another area they could simplify is Road Tax. They use a system in South Africa whereby your road tax and insurance is amalgamated into the petrol price. This ensures that the user pays as they use. It also saves a fortune on Administration, Police time (checking for tax and insurance) and associated court cases, and ensures that every driver is insured.


  • #149
    Valmont
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭Valmont


    Lenny Lovett wrote: »
    It also saves a fortune on Administration
    If there is one thing Ireland loves, it is administration, and lots of it; look at the HSE. Knowing that hospital beds and other essential services are being cut in order to retain the administration ballast on their high wages really makes me angry. I'm also surprised that when I read criticism about the HSE cuts, the unions are spared the ire they greatly deserve. The mind boggles.


  • #150
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,830 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Lenny Lovett wrote: »
    Oh, so by that logic we need an Ombudsman for every friggin Public Service Department?
    Only if you feel that every public service department has as much scope to destroy people's lives as corrupt or otherwise malicious police officers.

    But hey: clearly you feel that the costs of ensuring that the police do their job honestly and effectively outweigh the benefits. We'll agree to differ.
    No. Again, like most people here, you're not thinking laterally. Met Organisations all over the world are rationalisisng because of the huge overlap in information available nowadays due to the technology available. If, for argument's sake, the Met Office was shut down by strike tomorrow would we and the Airports, farmers etc have no weather forecast? Of course not. They would just get it from any of the four weather organisations in the UK or the fifty or so in Europe. Or the hundreds of online weather forecast services. As an IT man I would have thought you'd realise that the rapid advance in technology is negating the need for much of these old fashioned outfits. Pfft!
    Maybe you should suggest to a commercial pilot that, next time he's putting together a flight plan, he look up weather.com instead of wasting taxpayer's money on a stupid outdated weather service. I'm sure the response would be entertaining.
    Ok. Sorry. I stand corrected. I obviously, mistakenly, assumed that your privately owned company may have one of these Broadband Companies that was funded by Government Grant aid. So you weren't... Right?
    OK, we're getting places. So now your definition of a quango is a privately owned company that has ever received a government grant.

    Sorry, but that still falls squarely into the realm of "making stuff up" in my book.
    So why don't private companies like you jump in and make a killing at it then? You don't get Government subsidies do you???
    We're working on it. It's pretty difficult though, what with limited access to credit, and the government subsidising competing technologies.

    Did you hear back from that company yet? Did they get fifteen million?


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    Lenny Lovett
    Closed Accounts Posts: 920 ✭✭✭Lenny Lovett


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Only if you feel that every public service department has as much scope to destroy people's lives as corrupt or otherwise malicious police officers.

    But hey: clearly you feel that the costs of ensuring that the police do their job honestly and effectively outweigh the benefits. We'll agree to differ.
    I've every faith in our Garda Siochana.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Maybe you should suggest to a commercial pilot that, next time he's putting together a flight plan, he look up weather.com instead of wasting taxpayer's money on a stupid outdated weather service. I'm sure the response would be entertaining.
    It's you who says they're stupid and outdated. I merely question whether in these days of technology and given that there is prefectly accurate weather forecasts coming from The UK and all over Europe, whether we really need over four hundred staff in Met Eireann. You seem to think we do so we'll have to agree to differ.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    OK, we're getting places. So now your definition of a quango is a privately owned company that has ever received a government grant.
    Did I say that? I can't seem to find where I did but you think you're right so I wouldn't dream of raining on your parade.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Sorry, but that still falls squarely into the realm of "making stuff up" in my book. We're working on it. It's pretty difficult though, what with limited access to credit, and the government subsidising competing technologies.
    But, to be fair, could the "competing technologies" companies not complain likewise that you guys are grant aided too? What gives you guys the right to all the contents of the trough and noone else?
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Did you hear back from that company yet? Did they get fifteen million?
    No reply yet. These feckin Quangos are soo feckin slow in responding...


Advertisement