Budget Surplus(s)

SC024

I know everyone loves giving out about past fianna fail decisions (myself included) but does anyone really believe that back in 2003,04,05,06,07 when there was money to burn that labour, fine gael or anyone else had they been in power at the time would have said in there budget at the time " Well Hold on a minute , We have a surplus of x.x billion euros here but we're not going to cut taxes or increse spending on health/Education or SW we want you to get more for the same amount of money. We're actually going to increase stamp duty & income tax to cool down an overheating economy"

How do the people on here think that would have went had they tried to do the correct & sensible thing? Would there have been protests? Would they have been re-elected?

Liam Byrne

SC024 wrote: »

I know everyone loves giving out about past fianna fail decisions (myself included) but does anyone really believe that back in 2003,04,05,06,07 when there was money to burn that labour, fine gael or anyone else had they been in power at the time would have said in there budget at the time " Well Hold on a minute , We have a surplus of x.x billion euros here but we're not going to cut taxes or increse spending on health/Education or SW we want you to get more for the same amount of money. We're actually going to increase stamp duty & income tax to cool down an overheating economy"

How do the people on here think that would have went had they tried to do the correct & sensible thing? Would there have been protests? Would they have been re-elected?

How about just SAVING the surplus for a rainy day (i.e. now) ?

And contrary to FF spin, I'd have voted for them if they'd done that.

SC024

Can you genuinly say you believe that Labour,Fine gael Sinn fein, Socialist anarchists party or whoever would have done that? Put up taxes to cool down the economy?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

amacachi

SC024 wrote: »

I know everyone loves giving out about past fianna fail decisions (myself included) but does anyone really believe that back in 2003,04,05,06,07 when there was money to burn that labour, fine gael or anyone else had they been in power at the time would have said in there budget at the time " Well Hold on a minute , We have a surplus of x.x billion euros here but we're not going to cut taxes or increse spending on health/Education or SW we want you to get more for the same amount of money. We're actually going to increase stamp duty & income tax to cool down an overheating economy"

How do the people on here think that would have went had they tried to do the correct & sensible thing? Would there have been protests? Would they have been re-elected?

The trouble with A Keynes-type economy is that it doesn't work in a democracy with idiotic voters. :pac:
The only thing I imagine the others may have done differently would be spreading the tax net differently and not relying on Stamp Duty and other unreliable taxes. Also they don't seem to have as many links to banks.

Liam Byrne

SC024 wrote: »

Can you genuinly say you believe that Labour,Fine gael Sinn fein, Socialist anarchists party or whoever would have done that? Put up taxes to cool down the economy?

You're confusing me.

You talked about what to do with a budget SURPLUS; now you're suggesting that they would have put up taxes, which is a separate topic.

I don't believe that Labour or FG would have acted 100% competently (I don't believe we have (m)any politicians in Ireland that manage that) but they certainly wouldn't have blown the economy do pieces by wasting it all.

FG or Labour might even have spent just as much money on worthwhile things that produced results, instead of Bertie Bowls, eVoting, quangos, contracts for party members & donors, etc.

Same amount spent; lots more gained in return instead of nepotism and stroke-pulling.

Liam Byrne

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

In that case - yet again, given previous generalisations and collective terms - I'm out of sync with "the nation".

I may as well leave now.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

amacachi

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Oh come on now, surely you're not suggesting that increasing the children's allowance right before an election, allowing "lone mothers" to have their partner co-habit while both received the equivalent of the dole along with free childcare and were both allowed to work fulltime on top of that was in some way just an attempt to gain extra votes? You cynic you.

mike65

The last McCreevy budget and the Cowen budgets were strongly critised as being pro and not counter cyclical at the time but of course those who said "hang on a minute" were told to hang themselves....

Dotsie~tmp

mike65 wrote: »

The last McCreevy budget and the Cowen budgets were strongly critised as being pro and not counter cyclical at the time but of course those who said "hang on a minute" were told to hang themselves....

I know who I'd like to hang

dubhthach

Of course you know one reason why we were running Surpluses was year after year the Govermenet underspent on Capital Expenditure. The entire Inter-urban motorway network which will be finished by end of this year was suppose to be finished by 2006!

I think they underspent around €250-500million a year from what had been budgeted. If they actually spent this they wouldn't have had such large surpluses to give as tax cuts. Basically they cooked the books so that they could coo every budget time "Oh we have a billion in surplus we are richest country in the world! here's a tax-cut incentive to keep you voting for us"

dan_d

I don't believe for one second that every other party wouldn't have done the exact same thing as FF did. I also don't believe that whoever is next in Government will make any reforms at all, except what's outlined in the Budget (because they'll have to)....not one thing....once they actually get in.Our voting system will remain, our health system will remain, our rubbish transport will just get worse and the way TD's and senior civil servants do business will remain, and money will keep pouring out all those leaky holes, while they frantically try and plug all the other holes.

They are all the same, every last one, and they only way that any one of them can change my mind is to stand up to unions and civil servants and show me the results of their changes.Show me a new voting system (or at least, an altered one). Show me that TD's now have to spend money before claiming it back with receipts, and even then, every penny has to be accounted for.Show me the Ivor Callellys thrown out of the Dail - for good.Show me a health service where consultants see only public patients, where there is a seriously trimmed down management system and where people are not waiting on trolleys, and wards are not being closed to save money. Show me the DART extended to Balbriggan/Drogheda, connected Luas lines, Metro North, and suburbs connected to each other by public transport.Show me that the unions no longer dictate economic policies. Then and only then will I have any faith in any politician.

This may all sound completely nuts to other people, but look at that list. I'm demanding no more than most other Europeans take for granted. We haven't even got the basics right.All it takes is one party with guts, with a backbone, with some interest in the country. And if they plan on raising taxes, then I'm sorry, I want to see return for my money. I want us to start getting the basics right, because if we can't then we haven't a hope in hell of getting the big stuff right.

Until I see those things start being realised, I'll remain firm in my belief that every politician out there is the exact same, no matter what the party. I haven't been proven wrong yet.

K-9

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Indeed. I remember the debates when McCreevey set up the pension fund, the SSIA's and when Cowen decided to pay down some more debt.

3 semi decent things FF did do and many members of the opposition derided them.

donaghs

SC024 wrote: »

I know everyone loves giving out about past fianna fail decisions (myself included) but does anyone really believe that back in 2003,04,05,06,07 when there was money to burn that labour, fine gael or anyone else had they been in power at the time would have said in there budget at the time " Well Hold on a minute , We have a surplus of x.x billion euros here but we're not going to cut taxes or increse spending on health/Education or SW we want you to get more for the same amount of money. We're actually going to increase stamp duty & income tax to cool down an overheating economy"

How do the people on here think that would have went had they tried to do the correct & sensible thing? Would there have been protests? Would they have been re-elected?

Whoever is in power, makes the decisions, or fails to make them. The bucks stops with them. In this case FF.

ISAW

Liam Byrne wrote: »

How about just SAVING the surplus for a rainy day (i.e. now) ?

so you think they should not have increased public spending?
so you think we should restore public sector pay to 2004 levels?

ISAW

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Ironically charlie Mc Creevy did just that! And as social Welfare Minister he CUT welfare. FF later reversed the cuts but the opposition attacked Mc Creevy and called the cuts the "dirty dozen". at the same time Mc creevy also introduced a 200 a week pension for all people over 70.

ISAW

dubhthach wrote: »

Of course you know one reason why we were running Surpluses was year after year the Govermenet underspent on Capital Expenditure. The entire Inter-urban motorway network which will be finished by end of this year was suppose to be finished by 2006!

[

Not true. LUAS was delivered ahead of time and on or under budget as was the M50 upgrade.

You can't have it both ways! You can't say FF ( and whoever else was in government with them) squandered money on construction and also say they under-spend on construction!

I think they underspent around €250-500million a year from what had been budgeted.

And your sources are?
And does this not mean that on 2006-10 at 500 million a year that 2 billion was saved on public spending?

I mean you can't have ti both ways! "Underspent" means "saved"!

If they actually spent this they wouldn't have had such large surpluses to give as tax cuts. Basically they cooked the books so that they could coo every budget time "Oh we have a billion in surplus we are richest country in the world! here's a tax-cut incentive to keep you voting for us"

So what you are saying is that FF cut spending and cut taxes as well!

You have lost me! What point are you making?
Isn't that exactly what a government should do?
Cut spending and cut taxes.
What spending or taxes do you think the next government will cut?

dubhthach

ISAW wrote: »

[

Not true. LUAS was delivered ahead of time and on or under budget as was the M50 upgrade.

You can't have it both ways! You can't say FF ( and whoever else was in government with them) squandered money on construction and also say they under-spend on construction!



And your sources are?
And does this not mean that on 2006-10 at 500 million a year that 2 billion was saved on public spending?

I mean you can't have ti both ways! "Underspent" means "saved"!



So what you are saying is that FF cut spending and cut taxes as well!

You have lost me! What point are you making?
Isn't that exactly what a government should do?
Cut spending and cut taxes.
What spending or taxes do you think the next government will cut?

TBH I don't know why you are talking about the LUAS and the M50 I didn't mention either. Nor did I say anything about them coming in over budget.My point is simple.
1. Government budgeted a certain capex in a year
2. Government then didn't spend that capex
3. Funds allocated to Capex get returned to Dept of Finance and become part of Surplus for that budget year.
4. Gov. announce we have a "Billion euro surplus" here's a tax cut/payrise/current spending increase etc.

Basically there was only a surplus because the government didn't spend the money it had said it would in the previous budget. As a result the Surpluses which were used for Tax cuts were illusonary. By lowering income taxes the government created a systematic builtin deficit in it's budget. This was of course covered by the huge increase in "sales tax" (VAT, Stamp duty etc.) which of course were the first ones to collapse when the bubble burst.

For example in 2005 the Capex budget was underspent by €2billion euro! This was the third year in a row that the Capex budget was underspent. If they actually had spent the money instead of misappropriating it for tax breaks/benchmarking/"unsustainable increases in social welfare" then we would have had considerably more infrastructure built and earlier.

Once the bubble did burst the capex spending actually went up. Thus all the motorway schemes starting in 2005-6. So when they had the money and could have spent it they didn't. But when government income collapse they couldn't trim back on Capex as the schemes were under construction (4-5 years behind schedule)

Underspend only means "saved" when you don't use it to put your financial income into an unsustainable position. If the money they hadn't spent had been used to reduce the National debt or was put into the Pension pot then it would have been saved. Using it to make the state more dependent on Stamp Duty/VAT returns to balance the books doesn't meet the criteria.

Liam Byrne

ISAW wrote: »

so you think they should not have increased public spending?
so you think we should restore public sector pay to 2004 levels?

Where did I say either of those ? I don't think I did.

Your assumptions are too simplistic by far, so I'm not going to type a long explanation - suffice to say that public spending could have been equal but on things that produced actual results, or less.

Likewise getting things in on budget would have meant there were no cuts on what was done - keeping the FF fanboys happy with a "yes, they'd have spent on the same things" - but there would have been no WASTE.