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
The Increasingly Depressing Financial Crisis Thread
Options
Comments
-
I agree Ireland is under-taxed in some ways, but raising taxes alone isn't enough. The state's income is around 30bn and it's spending 50bn, it's not like we have a little 5-10% deficit.
Also if you tax the minimum wage earners you'll leave a lot of them in a position whereby they'd definitely be better off on the dole, and if you cut the dole then you'll have everyone bitching. Both need to be cut realistically, but that might cover a billion or two of the 15-20bn we're down.
Look at the furore about the suggestion of a property tax ffs.
Note, I did say I support some cuts. For example, I have no problem with administrative civil servants having a cut in wages but I think frontline PU workers like teachers, nurses, doctors etc. deserve to be protected.
Eitherway, the only way we can get out of this recession is growth and creating jobs and because this government has so little interest in that we're screwed.0 -
-
-
Note, I did say I support some cuts. For example, I have no problem with administrative civil servants having a cut in wages but I think frontline PU workers like teachers, nurses, doctors etc. deserve to be protected.
I absolutely hate this argument. Whether there are too many working in administration is a diffferent issue but the person who handles your social welfare claim is just as important to the functioning of the state as any other public sector worker. You've said you'd change the tax system to cut the deficit. Do you realise how much work that actually takes?The government has done nothing for job creation. Making cut after cut does not create jobs.
It does lead to lower taxes though which does. Irish governments tried the high tax high spend model in previous decades and it was an utter failure.0 -
bythewoods wrote: »Where do you propose we locate these "super ITs"? I think one of the best things about having smaller ITs scattered around the country is that it gives more people the chance to get a 3rd level education. Not everyone can afford to/ want to move away from home, and not everyone is close to Cork/ Limerick/ Galway/ Dublin.
Also, what constitutes a "useless" degree?
Its also really, really expensive to have 14 3rd level institutes, and to have them in places like Tralee or Sligo or Letterkenny. Sure its nice to have colleges everywhere so people don't have to move, but its a luxury we can't afford (don't bring up the banks, its paid for, its gone now, it was stupid). We have 3 in Dublin alone. I suggest one in Dublin, one in the midlands, one in the south and one in the west. I also know thats 4.
Useless degrees? Running a whole course for 15 people 'Ancient and medieval history and culture'. Sure its interesting, fine, I'd say it costs a lot to run and I can't imagine there are too many jobs in it. Irish Folklore is another one.
Wealthy countries can afford these things. I'm happier to sacrifice Irish Folklore and courses like it if it means people doing real degrees that will get you a job like French, Business, Law or Medicine won't have to pay crippling fees I can't afford.0 -
Advertisement
-
sock puppet wrote: »
It does lead to lower taxes though which does. Irish governments tried the high tax high spend model in previous decades and it was an utter failure.
Where is the evidence that lower income taxes create jobs?0 -
Where is the evidence that lower income taxes create jobs?
Why are you restricting it to income tax? If the government doesn't make these cuts taxes will have to increase in all areas. Our top rate is now close to 50% with the income levies. There isn't that much room for an increase.0 -
Where is the evidence that lower income taxes create jobs?
One of the problems with high income tax that it fuels the brain drain. Those on high incomes in the highest tax bands may emigrate if the tax increases aren't to their liking. Seeing as these people largely bear the burden of tax, we'd be fooked.
Taxes are not to act as a disincentive to investment or savings. Say, for example, we increase the corporation tax. Companies aren't going to be as attracted to Ireland ===> don't come here ===> job creation opportunities lost. Plus we'd lose the potential revenue that the tax on their profits (which is 12.5% AFAIK) would generate.
A balance has to be struck. We're essentially walking a tightrope here and some drastic measures could (and probably would) just dig us into a deeper hole.0 -
Ok, so you want USI to crash and burn. That's all well and good, but not going because of that is like shooting yourself in the foot because you dont like your shoes.I've heard USI mentioned an awful lot in college lately, and the tshirts that the SU are selling for the protest (They act as a ticket for the buses to the protest too) have USI's logo on them, etcetc.
USI organised the march, and tbh they're the only ones so far i've seen do anything. You can hate them all you want, but ffs, look past that and see the benefits of it. Go because you care about your education, not because you're a USI fanboi.
This is the most ridiculous statement ever. As it is there's already overcrowding in a lot of universities. And most if not all courses fill their yearly intake.. so you're just talking about getting rid of 10 ITs worth of education. That's probably 1/3 of the student population out of education. The universities can't take any extra, and "SUPER ITs"? That's just more universities.crayolastereo wrote: »Personally I think massive cuts could and should be made, because there is a lot of waste going on at 3rd level. As opposed to having several small ITs all over the country we should have 2 or 3 super ITs. 14 is too many.
As for the main universities, I think they could do with phasing out a lot of their quite frankly useless degrees.
Also, what are you suggesting they do with all the facilities already in place for the IT's? There's millions spent on developing the area and you want to just...ignore it? demolish it? And how long exactly do you think it would take, to build 4 fully functioning super IT's, and the cost involved? It'd cost about 5 times more than running all 14.
A lot of them offer the same type of courses because it's supply and demand. As above, where exactly do you expect them to put all the excess students? Quite a lot of uni/it campus' don't have much room left for expansion, and certainly not near enough to cope with so many new students :PHis 4 "super" ITs idea is pretty extreme but it's a fair point. Do we really need both a Sligo and a GMIT? Is there really a need Tralee IT given that Limerick IT, Cork IT, UL and UCC are also relatively nearby? I'm not just bashing rural ones either, the amount of third level institutions in Dublin is excessive too: 3 universities (plus DIT arguably) and IADT, NCAD, BlanchIT, ITT etc. Why not amalgamate some of these ITs? A lot of them offer the same type of courses as each other anyway.
Well, there's not a whole lot you can do without 3rd level education tbh, not just in Ireland but anywhere else in the world. Quite a lot of people have a pHD now and having one doesn't set you apart from the pack any more. If anything a higher level of education may need to be introduced...We need to get out of this idea that every career path and everyone requires a third level education. If everyone was doing engineering and science degrees (or PLCs leading to these) then that's great and multinationals would be jizzing FDI into the country but a lot of the courses these ITs run are just replacing what would've been on-the-job training for entry level employees years ago. What companies used to pay for is now being paid for by the state and it's a total waste. Graduates are getting the same jobs as school leavers would've 20 years ago only now it's after having lost a few years and a few grand.
And as regards graduates getting the same jobs as school leavers were x years ago, that's what happens. Look back even further. People who left school at 13 used to get good jobs, etc etc until you reach the point where going to school was a luxury and you didn't need to go to get most jobs. The fact is we're at a point now where 3rd level is required for most jobs, and the reasoning behind it is that people going into those jobs need to have a basic education/understanding going into the job. You can't learn a microbiology degree on-site at a pharmaceutical company. The jobs people are going into have become more and more advanced and not catering for this by supplying education is stupid.sock puppet wrote: »There is nowhere else to cut. The only other area aside from what you mentioned is welfare. Don't be fooled either by unions. Whatever your views on the bank bailout it isn't the only thing dragging us down.
Dole can definitely take a good large cut. At the moment, it's costing roughly 3bn a year. (I worked it out, all the info from live register is online). They already get rent allowance, so its not like they're paying massive amounts for rent. If I can live on €50-100 a week in college, then surely other people can too.0 -
Where is the evidence that lower income taxes create jobs?
It's pretty much accepted everywhere, because it makes it cheaper for companies to pay the same effective wage, which keeps costs to the company low. A 10% lower income tax fall would allow companies to hire ~10% more employees with no increase in costs.
Direct taxation stifles economic growth, it's one of the main points of taxation, but it was done during the boom and ensuing bubble.0 -
Advertisement
-
challengemaster wrote: »Ok, so you want USI to crash and burn. That's all well and good, but not going because of that is like shooting yourself in the foot because you dont like your shoes.
USI organised the march, and tbh they're the only ones so far i've seen do anything. You can hate them all you want, but ffs, look past that and see the benefits of it. Go because you care about your education, not because you're a USI fanboi.
The reason the colleges didn't organise it themselves is because USI was organising it.... That doesn't justify USI's existence though...... I see no need for a union that costs so fúcking much to be a member of.
I'm not going to the march because I have classes, march or no march, my only concern at the moment is getting into next year, not worrying about paying for it, I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.0 -
challengemaster wrote: »Well, there's not a whole lot you can do without 3rd level education tbh, not just in Ireland but anywhere else in the world. Quite a lot of people have a pHD now and having one doesn't set you apart from the pack any more. If anything a higher level of education may need to be introduced...
You do realise that that's a side-effect of the problem (as some of us see it) of giving everyone a degree rather than a reason to give everyone a degree? It's like a country just printing more money, it becomes useless, but in this case it's the ordinary and honours degree becoming useless, and even Masters and higher are getting common as you said.0 -
challengemaster wrote: »If I can live on €50-100 a week in college, then surely other people can too.
If everyone can live on 50-100 euro a week, what's the issue in cutting grants?
That argument makes little sense, especially in this context.0 -
challengemaster wrote: »A lot of them offer the same type of courses because it's supply and demand. As above, where exactly do you expect them to put all the excess students? Quite a lot of uni/it campus' don't have much room left for expansion, and certainly not near enough to cope with so many new students :P
And as regards graduates getting the same jobs as school leavers were x years ago, that's what happens. Look back even further. People who left school at 13 used to get good jobs, etc etc until you reach the point where going to school was a luxury and you didn't need to go to get most jobs. The fact is we're at a point now where 3rd level is required for most jobs, and the reasoning behind it is that people going into those jobs need to have a basic education/understanding going into the job. You can't learn a microbiology degree on-site at a pharmaceutical company. The jobs people are going into have become more and more advanced and not catering for this by supplying education is stupid.
I agree with most of your post but I'd quibble with these.
The comparison with people who'd leave school at 13 in the 50s and got manual jobs to people who'd go to work in the private sector and get trained as accountants as recently as the early 90s isn't fair. A lot of private sector companies used to take on school leavers and train them to do technical enough jobs. An entry level job in accounting, HR etc wouldn't have required a BComm 15 years ago and it's not as if the job responsibilities have changed all that much since then. There are way too many business courses in the country imo and I'm a Commerce student! These courses are now prerequisites for entry-level positions because so many people got into third-level from the mid-nineties on and companies now expect them because if they can get third-level graduates for their entry level positions and not have to spend money training them, why not?
I've dealt with the demand justifying the existance of the ITs point before. The fact is that if fees weren't free demand for a lot of these courses would plummet, even if there was an excellently structured student loan system in place. Demand for the courses is artificially high because third-level tuition is free. That was fine when times were good but it's just not affordable any more.
I agree that it's not feasible to demolish all the existing ITs and construct "super" ITs but that's what I think should've been done in the first place. Now that they're built and running it wouldn't make sense to demolish them.0 -
You do realise that that's a side-effect of the problem (as some of us see it) of giving everyone a degree rather than a reason to give everyone a degree? It's like a country just printing more money, it becomes useless, but in this case it's the ordinary and honours degree becoming useless, and even Masters and higher are getting common as you said.
It attracts companies requiring skilled employees from overseas though, so we're attracting better jobs.
Last time I checked Intel was the largest single employer in the country, and a huge percentage of those jobs require a degree in Engineering to even be considered (with a significant portion of the remainder requiring degrees in other areas).
Admittedly the low corporate tax rate had a lot to do with it too, but one doesn't decide to invest over $5 billion (about €3.5billion) in a country unless they're sure they can get skilled workers.0 -
It attracts companies requiring skilled employees from overseas though, so we're attracting better jobs.
Last time I checked Intel was the largest single employer in the country, and a huge percentage of those jobs require a degree in Engineering to even be considered (with a significant portion of the remainder requiring degrees in other areas).
Admittedly the low corporate tax rate had a lot to do with it too, but one doesn't decide to invest over $5 billion (about €3.5billion) in a country unless they're sure they can get skilled workers.
That's a fair point but the vast majority of students (myself included) aren't doing degrees in engineering and biomedicine. Multinationals aren't going to be salivating at tens of thousands of graduates with degrees in business and media.0 -
It attracts companies requiring skilled employees from overseas though, so we're attracting better jobs.
Last time I checked Intel was the largest single employer in the country, and a huge percentage of those jobs require a degree in Engineering to even be considered (with a significant portion of the remainder requiring degrees in other areas).
Admittedly the low corporate tax rate had a lot to do with it too, but one doesn't decide to invest over $5 billion (about €3.5billion) in a country unless they're sure they can get skilled workers.
Yup, and there are electronic engineering courses around the country not even being filled up, while the state keeps paying for many degrees with questionable benefits. But even with them not filling the courses there doesn't seem to to me to be a shortage of workers available.
I'm talking more about semi-skilled office work and the like, where having a degree in anything gets you higher pay for some reason.0 -
It attracts companies requiring skilled employees from overseas though, so we're attracting better jobs.
Last time I checked Intel was the largest single employer in the country, and a huge percentage of those jobs require a degree in Engineering to even be considered (with a significant portion of the remainder requiring degrees in other areas).
Admittedly the low corporate tax rate had a lot to do with it too, but one doesn't decide to invest over $5 billion (about €3.5billion) in a country unless they're sure they can get skilled workers.
I think he was referring to jobs where our parents generation would have recieved on the job training such as estate agency, accountancy, hotel managment etc. These all have specific degrees now. The cost of training workers appears to have been shifted from private companies onto the state.0 -
It attracts companies requiring skilled employees from overseas though, so we're attracting better jobs.
Last time I checked Intel was the largest single employer in the country, and a huge percentage of those jobs require a degree in Engineering to even be considered (with a significant portion of the remainder requiring degrees in other areas).
Admittedly the low corporate tax rate had a lot to do with it too, but one doesn't decide to invest over $5 billion (about €3.5billion) in a country unless they're sure they can get skilled workers.
I'm fairly sure (but could be wrong) that there's a surplus of engineering degrees too though, as well as basically ever other degree there is. Look at Law for example, the market is absolutely saturated. We're always being told we'll probably NEED a Masters even if we go down the professional route, to fall back on if that doesn't work out because competition is so fierce. The value of a degree is plummeting continuously. It's now the culture to go to college, whether or not you really want to; the question in sixth year is no longer "are you going to college next year?" it's "what are you doing in college next year?"0 -
.almostnever wrote: »One of the problems with high income tax that it fuels the brain drain. Those on high incomes in the highest tax bands may emigrate if the tax increases aren't to their liking. Seeing as these people largely bear the burden of tax, we'd be fooked.
Taxes are not to act as a disincentive to investment or savings. Say, for example, we increase the corporation tax. Companies aren't going to be as attracted to Ireland ===> don't come here ===> job creation opportunities lost. Plus we'd lose the potential revenue that the tax on their profits (which is 12.5% AFAIK) would generate.
I'm not talking about raising taxes for the average person. I'm talking about people who make huge amounts of money and who can afford to pay more. To be frank, I see nothing wrong with those who have the most paying a lot more than those who have the least.
As for the corp. tax, I think thats 15% and I never said I would change that.0 -
Advertisement
-
.
I'm not talking about raising taxes for the average person. I'm talking about people who make huge amounts of money and who can afford to pay more. To be frank, I see nothing wrong with those who have the most paying a lot more than those who have the least.
As for the corp. tax, I think thats 15% and I never said I would change that.
But that's what I was saying, if the taxes for those people (ETA: "those people" being the ones who make huge amounts of money, in case I'm still not being clear enough) increased much they'd leave and pay them at a lower rate elsewhere. I know if I was earning 200 grand a year and the higher rate was 55% or something, I'd go somewhere cheaper.
And I know you didn't, I was merely illustrating my extended point.0 -
sock puppet wrote: »I think he was referring to jobs where our parents generation would have recieved on the job training such as estate agency, accountancy, hotel managment etc. These all have specific degrees now. The cost of training workers appears to have been shifted from private companies onto the state.
Exactly. Some of the ITs are running building surveying courses and in DkIT the points for it actually went up this year, it's ridiculous. Then there's FAS, anyone who has had any dealings with them will tell you the wastage that goes on, 3rd year apprentices when they do their academic phase for 10-12 weeks get paid about 600 quid a week. A mate's brother just finished school and is doing a bricklaying course. Don't get me wrong, fair play to him for doing something, but why the hell is the state paying for it when it'll take about a 30% population increase before there's any need for newly-trained people in this area?0 -
.
I'm not talking about raising taxes for the average person. I'm talking about people who make huge amounts of money and who can afford to pay more. To be frank, I see nothing wrong with those who have the most paying a lot more than those who have the least.
As for the corp. tax, I think thats 15% and I never said I would change that.
But that would make such a small dent in the deficit as to be almost useless. ALL government spending has to be reined in massively. Don't get me (and I'm sure almostnever will agree with this) wrong, we're all going to have to take a fall in our living standards because up til now everything was paid for by a bubble, the country is living massively beyond its means in almost every way.0 -
.
I'm not talking about raising taxes for the average person. I'm talking about people who make huge amounts of money and who can afford to pay more. To be frank, I see nothing wrong with those who have the most paying a lot more than those who have the least.
As for the corp. tax, I think thats 15% and I never said I would change that.
I hate this "people who can afford to pay it" lark. There isn't a legion of tax dodging millionaires out there who can pay a bit more tax and everything will be ok.
The middle classes are going to have to bear the burden, like it or not. This means that the frontline workers whose wages you're so reluctant to cut are going to have to bite the bullet and take a paycut. Give me a good reason why civil service wages shouldn't be benchmarked against private sector wages now that practically everyone in the private sector has taken a paycut? After all they were so eager to bring in benchmarking when times were good.0 -
almostnever wrote: »But that's what I was saying, if the taxes for those people (ETA: "those people" being the ones who make huge amounts of money, in case I'm still not being clear enough) increased much they'd leave and pay them at a lower rate elsewhere. I know if I was earning 200 grand a year and the higher rate was 55% or something, I'd go somewhere cheaper.
Well maybe you would, but the UK has a 50% rate and I don't think they have experienced any problems with it.0 -
-
Well maybe you would, but the UK has a 50% rate and I don't think they have experienced any problems with it.
Well I said I'd leave if it was 55% or above. I'm not saying we shouldn't increase it, we should. A bit. I'm just suggesting people realise that we shouldn't make it ridiculously high and drive the highest earners away because that would be moronic.0 -
What's the Irish rate once PRSI and the income levy etc. have been applied?Well maybe you would, but the UK has a 50% rate and I don't think they have experienced any problems with it.I hate this "people who can afford to pay it" lark. There isn't a legion of tax dodging millionaires out there who can pay a bit more tax and everything will be ok.
The middle classes are going to have to bear the burden, like it or not. This means that the frontline workers whose wages you're so reluctant to cut are going to have to bite the bullet and take a paycut. Give me a good reason why civil service wages shouldn't be benchmarked against private sector wages now that practically everyone in the private sector has taken a paycut? After all they were so eager to bring in benchmarking when times were good.
The "wealth tax" is my favorite suggestion. :pac:
I heard on the radio recently that some group was saying that the unemployed would be hardest hits by the recession and just though "Eh, I'd ****ing hope so" :pac: The whole country has to take cuts and the unemployed can only take so much so they can still survive, while the middle class can take slightly bigger cuts. Also the fact that we have a pretty big middle class means that most of the money has to come from there.0 -
almostnever wrote: »Well I said I'd leave if it was 55% or above. I'm not saying we shouldn't increase it, we should. A bit. I'm just suggesting people realise that we shouldn't make it ridiculously high and drive the highest earners away because that would be moronic.
Then there's how to define what a high wage earner is, I find it's generally someone who earns 10% more than than the person being asked. :pac:0 -
Advertisement
-
I hate this "people who can afford to pay it" lark. There isn't a legion tax dodging millionaires out there who can pay a bit more tax and everything will be hit.
The middle classes are going to have to bear the burden, like it or not. This means that the frontline workers whose wages you're so reluctant to cut are going to have to bite the bullet and take a paycut. Give me a good reason why civil service wages shouldn't be benchmarked against private sector wages now that practically everyone in the private sector has taken a paycut? After all they were so eager to bring in benchmarking when times were good.
What is so wrong with that idea? The greedy caused this mess and they should bloody pay for it.
As for your second point. PU sector workers have already seen huge cuts and will probably see more too.0
Advertisement