Shane Ross: Reduce Corporation Tax to 9.9%

Scofflaw

CDfm wrote: »

The Euro is not the same as the ERM -the ERM had the discipline of market correction. This does not.You keep saying the Euro was workable and the problems had been worked out. Not so.

Er, no I don't - I think the euro was quite a flawed project in ways. I'm trying to understand your issues with it, but that I don't yet understand your issues with it (or if I disagree with them) doesn't mean I have some kind of unreserved admiration for it.

CDfm wrote: »

You also say "But removed the only effective penalty (not being able to qualify for euro entry) for not doing so?" . That is not the same as the discipline of market correction using the "imperfect pegs" of the ERM..

How is the discipline of market correction missing from the euro but not from the Punt? Our exchange rate was previously pegged to Sterling, so it rose or fell with Sterling - and market discipline appears to be something we have received full force in respect of our debt ratios via bond rates.

CDfm wrote: »

As a small open economy we need to be able to secure a comparative advantage where we can vis a vis Europe. Otherwise no industries will base here.

My feeling was always that it could not work in the same way harmonisation of corporation taxes is not to our benefit.

So if we operate as a low (relative)wage low CT economy we are diverging from the EU model not converging.

If we converged with Germany then we loose our competitiveness as an economy. We are a poor country in terms of investment capital and rely on foreign investment. It is this convergence and harmonisation that I have a problem with.

(Germany had its re-unification too - so its objectives are more complex. So Germany is a federation within a federation -and both an accession state and original EU member state.)

So the Germans are applying the principles of the Euro in the Macro at one level and at the micro in others.

Tight regulation of the Euro would probably have made it harder for the Germans to have gotten out of their recession and into a sustained surplus position. Thats my gut feel.

The convergence/harmonisation is not where we want to be.

Being pro-Euro in this context is like being a turkey voting for Xmas.It could never work for us.

Hold up a second - our period of 'convergence' for euro entry was also where we moved towards being a low tax economy. Clearly it can work for us.

You need to come up with an explanation here that doesn't ignore the structural failings and deliberate economic bloat of the Ahern years, because as far as I can see that is an entirely adequate explanation for the problems you appear to claim result from some built-in problems with the euro.

cordially,
Scofflaw

charlemont

Scofflaw wrote: »

Why does Europe have a responsibility for our plight? Because we're an EU country and we were stupid enough to let our banks build up debts that dwarfed our economy - and then stupid enough to guarantee those debts entirely off our own bat?

Why do people insist on putting the blame on those who are only lending us the money to cover the debts our government freely chose to take on?

Do people simply forget what happened in September 2008? How we outsmarted everybody else with a 'heroic' guarantee of all our banks' debts? No mention of the ECB or the EU then - except the question of whether when presented with our so-clever fait accompli they would have an objection that would prevent us doing it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Damn right, we brought this on ourselves for being so thick as to have a gullible fool as finance minister, I bet all the bankers were laughing at him behind his back. A simple and stupid man he indeed is..

CDfm

Scofflaw wrote: »

Er, no I don't - I think the euro was quite a flawed project in ways. I'm trying to understand your issues with it, but that I don't yet understand your issues with it (or if I disagree with them) doesn't mean I have some kind of unreserved admiration for it.

I think I have been fairly clear about it. I have never understood how the Euro is supposed to work and regulate itself. I just can't see it.

On top of the flaws it was open to manipulation which is what I think happened.

Thats my gut feel.

How is the discipline of market correction missing from the euro but not from the Punt? Our exchange rate was previously pegged to Sterling, so it rose or fell with Sterling - and market discipline appears to be something we have received full force in respect of our debt ratios via bond rates.

Oh yes we have.

The difference is that the for us the "market discipline" was delayed .

What was happening in the" real economy" was not reflected in the market or indeed the "bank/financial institutions bond market".

When we were in the sterling control area we followed rules of we would have been dumped. Arbitrary rules but they worked.

In Sweden, for instance, you do not have marketmakers for shares. So if you look at the share price in the papers you get the last historic traded price even if none have been bought or sold in months. In the UK with market makers you will have a bid & offer system showing what active investors are willing to buy and sell for.

So markets work in different ways.

Hold up a second - our period of 'convergence' for euro entry was also where we moved towards being a low tax economy. Clearly it can work for us.

We converged on low interest rates and exchange rate stability that did not reflect the state of our economy.

Clearly, we do not want low corporation tax and want to converge with EU CT levels.

You need to come up with an explanation here that doesn't ignore the structural failings and deliberate economic bloat of the Ahern years, because as far as I can see that is an entirely adequate explanation for the problems you appear to claim result from some built-in problems with the euro.

I do not have to come up with an explanation.

We gained entry into the euro when we reached what criteria and when we breached those criteria we got kicked out. Right.

I am not ignoring the failings of the Ahern years and understand the regulatory failures.

On the bank bondholders , am I expected to believe that the senior bondholders did not read the Banks' reports and accounts then ?

And, the Germans - my feeling is they manipulated the situation.

Maybe, its a eurocon and we've been victims of a eurosting.

Scofflaw

CDfM wrote:

Maybe, its a eurocon and we've been victims of a eurosting.

Anything's possible, but you're not really putting forward any case for it. I can't really see any relevance in what you've said so far at all!

I think you're saying that foreign exchange movements, by providing instant market feedback, provide instant penalties for bad monetary/fiscal policy? But you're ignoring the fact that we had a currency peg to sterling which we only abandoned in order to enter the euro. You're dismissing the fact that bond prices also punish bad policy by saying that different markets operate in different ways (so?) and also because the bond markets didn't punish Ireland - which ignores the question of whether the forex markets wouldn't have given Ireland exactly the same pass, because they'd have had exactly the same information!

And yes, you do have to come up with an explanation that takes into account the Ahern years. You can't simply ignore the fact that the economy was grossly mismanaged after euro entry when seeking to claim that the euro was bad for the economy!

I will say that I'm guessing at quite a lot of what you're saying, because it's really not very clear. What is clear is that you always thought the euro was a bad thing, and you think the euro is a bad thing now - but you need to build a far clearer case for that than you've done so far, because otherwise it looks like you're just cherry-picking bits you feel vaguely agree with you, and vaguely dismissing other bits with very little justification.

I'm sorry - that probably sounds very rude - what I mean is that I'm genuinely having a lot of difficulty seeing what your argument is supposed to be in the first place.

no offence intended,
Scofflaw

CDfm

No offence taken Scofflaw.

The sterling peg makes sense to me because I am a fan of transactional analysis and Britain is historically our main trading partner. So it seems real to me.


The euro and the way it was run may have acted as a stimulus.The intention for instance may have been to stimulate the German, especially the East German economy. An unintended consequence may have been to stimulate our economy.


To me the euro does not reflect the real economy here and changes in interest rates to stop


You are assuming that politicians make rational decisions based on economic theory and they do not. So to explain the Ahern years you are assuming rational economic decisions which were not there.

As regards your assumption that the Ahern administration knew the future is a bit far fetched .

Of course,ECB's Trichet quoted in the IT says

Mr Trichet was speaking at an event in Frankfurt where Eurogroup chairman Jean-Claude Juncker said that the debt problems in some euro zone member states have not created a destabilising crisis for the single currency.

Yeah, right. Senior bank debt as part of sovereign debt :rolleyes:

An interest rate is on the table to lower inflation caused by wage increases. Irelands wages are decreasing and of course such a move will affect the retail sector here.

Now - I just do not get the advantages of the euro to us.

The Euro did not provide "hard" regulation at the time to our CB. I do not know why the taxpayer bears the brunt of the bailout.

Irelands debt problems were destabiing the Euro and we were told this. Was this untrue.

Jesus Wept

Pity the government doesn't give us more referendums on national issues, it's ridiculous.
Shure we can't let the people decide things.

CDfm

The-Rigger wrote: »

Pity the government doesn't give us more referendums on national issues, it's ridiculous.
Shure we can't let the people decide things.

The Euro was/is a huge issue.

When the euro was adopted I no longer worked in investments and had switched careers and moved back to Ireland.

When I worked in financial services, I had just loved currencies and how people could make money from exchange rate differences and fixed interest securities and FRANS with collars and Bulldogs and all that stuff.

For me, I didn't have an ideological stance on it. I think people who have not been close to these things do not understand that something like "uncertainty" can be a real market force and affect market sentiment.

(In fact, Kenny's media blitz in the US on the low corporation tax issue is to counter uncertainty and market sentiment and investor confidence and these concepts are abstract. They are real but you cannot model them -in the same way you cant model prudence).

You can give the electorate a choice but if the choice given is long term low interest rates and economic growth versus ah well the anti-euro's are just old fashioned and the euro is good. Are you sophisticated or old-fashioned. Thats a great choice isn't it.

I had even forgotten about Maastricht.

Sometimes people forget that the majority decision is not always the correct one.

Scofflaw

CDfm wrote: »

No offence taken Scofflaw.

The sterling peg makes sense to me because I am a fan of transactional analysis and Britain is historically our main trading partner. So it seems real to me.

A dollar peg or a euro peg would now make equal sense, based on current trade volumes rather than history.

CDfm wrote: »

The euro and the way it was run may have acted as a stimulus.The intention for instance may have been to stimulate the German, especially the East German economy. An unintended consequence may have been to stimulate our economy.


To me the euro does not reflect the real economy here and changes in interest rates to stop

Neither does or did a pegged currency.

CDfm wrote: »

You are assuming that politicians make rational decisions based on economic theory and they do not. So to explain the Ahern years you are assuming rational economic decisions which were not there.

Er, no, I'm not.

CDfm wrote: »

As regards your assumption that the Ahern administration knew the future is a bit far fetched .

And again not.

CDfm wrote: »

Of course,ECB's Trichet quoted in the IT says

Yeah, right. Senior bank debt as part of sovereign debt :rolleyes:

Er.

CDfm wrote: »

An interest rate is on the table to lower inflation caused by wage increases. Irelands wages are decreasing and of course such a move will affect the retail sector here.

True. Not, admittedly, that we're talking about a large interest rate rise, and not that we haven't already had larger interest rate rises from the domestic banks without any ECB rise.

CDfm wrote: »

Now - I just do not get the advantages of the euro to us.

No, well, that's evident.

CDfm wrote: »

The Euro did not provide "hard" regulation at the time to our CB. I do not know why the taxpayer bears the brunt of the bailout.

The ECB (I presume?) has no such regulatory role, though. The taxpayer bears the brunt of the bailout (bank bailout?) because that's the way our government arranged things.

CDfm wrote: »

Irelands debt problems were destabiing the Euro and we were told this. Was this untrue.

Seems to have been the case - what's the relevance?

cordially,
Scofflaw

CDfm

Now Scofflaw you are just being silly.

Euro populism -while none of this would have happened with our own currency as the conditions and checks and balances would have worked as unsophisticated as they were and dating back to the Cumann na Gaeghael governments of the 1920's.

How can you be for convergence and want a lower corporation tax rate to the rest of europe. You cant be both.

We are peripheral to europe geograhically and in lots of ways our demographics and capital base etc is considerably different.

It is those differences that give us competitivemess and we want to keep and others want to wipe out.

The Euro is a populist concept and ya the electorate may well have been duped. I actually think Enda Kenny and Fine Gael have realised that.

Whats wrong with saying -yup the French and Germans manipulated us and cynically used the Euro to economically rape us and got us to foot the bill.

Come on Scofflaw. There is a part of you that says that happened.

Let it out man.

Don't bottle it up -its unhealthy.

I feeel your pain

Scofflaw

CDfm wrote: »

Now Scofflaw you are just being silly.

Euro populism -while none of this would have happened with our own currency as the conditions and checks and balances would have worked as unsophisticated as they were and dating back to the Cumann na Gaeghael governments of the 1920's.

How can you be for convergence and want a lower corporation tax rate to the rest of europe. You cant be both.

We are peripheral to europe geograhically and in lots of ways our demographics and capital base etc is considerably different.

It is those differences that give us competitivemess and we want to keep and others want to wipe out.

The Euro is a populist concept and ya the electorate may well have been duped. I actually think Enda Kenny and Fine Gael have realised that.

Whats wrong with saying -yup the French and Germans manipulated us and cynically used the Euro to economically rape us and got us to foot the bill.

What's wrong with saying that? Lack of a coherent case.

CDfm wrote: »

Come on Scofflaw. There is a part of you that says that happened.

Let it out man.

Er, no, really, there isn't a part of me that says "that" happened. I don't see any contradiction between our tax policy and "convergence", unless someone foolishly uses "convergence" to mean everything being the same. That's no more required than it's required for all US States to have the same corporation tax rate or tax rates in general.

All that was required for us to have a good experience of the euro so far was fiscal discipline - keeping budgets in check and ensuring that we introduced no structural weaknesses to our tax base.

This is why I keep pointing out that you're simply ignoring the stupid things the Ahern governments did. They exacerbated the bubble by pro-cyclic policies, particularly pro-property-development and house ownership tax breaks, they moved the tax burden off income tax and onto consumption taxes, thus introducing a huge structural weakness in our tax base that meant it would collapse the moment things turned sour, while failing to regulate the banks in any useful sense and bloating the public sector payroll through upwards-only 'benchmarking' exercises.

All of that adds up to the disaster we now face. All the euro did - at worst - was make it easier for Ahern et al to do all that without immediate penalty, because the cushion behind the Irish economy was so much larger than it ever was before. Had monetary as well as fiscal policy tools been in the hands of the Ahern governments, all the evidence is that they would have been used in the same pro-cyclic way - in that sense, it's a blessing they weren't, because it's quite possible that if they had been, we would have a third dimension to this mess on top of the banking and deficit dimensions. In other words, the euro gave us a lot of extra room to manoeuvre, and the Ahern governments used that extra room to manoeuvre us into a disaster - but that was not the only possible use of the extra room. When you're given a lot of rope, you don't have to use it to hang yourself - and if you do, blaming the rope is just silly.

You've suggested that the euro lacks market discipline, but been unable to show that bond markets are a necessarily worse provider of feedback than exchange rates, particularly given Ireland's historical currency pegs. You've suggested that the euro is some kind of conspiracy by France and Germany to allow them to "economically rape us", for which you haven't put any evidence forward at all - what does the concept even mean? You think it was a populist concept - which flies in the face of the fact that it took a lot of persuasion before it was publicly acceptable, which is the opposite of populism. You don't think we voted on it, which we did, at Maastricht. And you don't seem to understand the role of macro-economics at all - as financial traders often don't.

So, no, I really don't see that you've put forward any meaningful evidence or case for the euro being part of our problems. You might dismiss that as prejudice on my part, but what I'm saying to you is not that there isn't such a case, but that you certainly haven't presented any such case.

cordially,
Scofflaw

CDfm

I am not ignoring the Ahern Administration.

I have a different spin on it as I believe the Corporate State exercises a considerable lot of power in Ireland and we need to get a grip on how we are governed. And I do not have party political affiliations to protect.

Remember the Social Partnership.

In 2007 we had all political parties singing the same political hymns.

Populist is good then and old fashioned back to basics economics was bad.

When people get over it was all Aherns fault then we may get somewhere. He was not the only muppet by a long shot.

bleg

I said this months ago. Shane Ross is just copying my ideas.

Scofflaw

CDfm wrote: »

I am not ignoring the Ahern Administration.

I have a different spin on it as I believe the Corporate State exercises a considerable lot of power in Ireland and we need to get a grip on how we are governed. And I do not have party political affiliations to protect.

Remember the Social Partnership.

In 2007 we had all political parties singing the same political hymns.

Populist is good then and old fashioned back to basics economics was bad.

When people get over it was all Aherns fault then we may get somewhere. He was not the only muppet by a long shot.

Again, I haven't said that Ahern was to blame - the phrase "the Ahern governments" is just a convenient shorthand for "the policies followed by the Irish governments from 1997-2007 and largely copied as manifesto items by the opposition parties".

And while I agree that the corporate state exercises a lot of power in Ireland, and that we need to get a grip on how we're governed, that seems completely irrelevant to the question of either the euro or CT.

cordially,
Scofflaw

CDfm

Just in case people do not know what is meant by the Corporate State I did some threads on it

Here

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=70585242

and

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=70585242


What it means is that there are political & ecomomic elites that exercise de facto power and make decisions other than who is elected to government.

John Bruton (ex Taoiseach brother of Richard) believes the country is ruled by Civil Servants and they use the dail & seanad to legitimize their rule and rubberstamp their decisions.

CDfm

Scofflaw wrote: »

Again, I haven't said that Ahern was to blame - the phrase "the Ahern governments" is just a convenient shorthand for "the policies followed by the Irish governments from 1997-2007 and largely copied as manifesto items by the opposition parties".

And while I agree that the corporate state exercises a lot of power in Ireland, and that we need to get a grip on how we're governed, that seems completely irrelevant to the question of either the euro or CT.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Ah but it is - as it is fairly central to how the money was spent.

The Euro is money.

If you are to say the Ahern Administration and the theory is that public sector workers made the decisions and were in touch with other public servants in other countries then you are in a different ballgame. The term implies that Ahern was in control when he was not.

So who made the decisions and how and why is fairly fundamental don't you think.

If you had a Civil Service looking for pay rises as a vested interest and cutting corners in controls or by-passing controls you want to know about it.

If the Euro has been run that laxely and by whom you want to know that too.

If the Euro was manipulated by Germany for its political & economic objectives and it used its financial institutions to do that you want to know that too.

Hell, I do.

All people are telling me is that the Euro works well in theory -well so did Challenger

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4JOjcDFtBE

hmmm

CDfm wrote: »

If the Euro was manipulated by Germany for its political & economic objectives and it used its financial institutions to do that you want to know that too.

Remind me again what exactly it is you think Germany did?

CDfm

I didn't think you were interested in how the Euro operated other than it is all Bertie Ahern's fault.

So back to the topic -is Germany's call that we revise our CT rate upwards causing instability to the Irish Economy.Does this make potential investors in Ireland nervous and potentially make them revisit plans to locate their businesses in Ireland - does it affect investor sentiment.

IMHO, yes.

Enough about what I think.

What do you think ?

What economic effect is the call having ?

What is their motive in doing so ?

If we were forced to make the change what effect would it have ?

K-9

CDfm wrote: »

Just in case people do not know what is meant by the Corporate State I did some threads on it

Here

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=70585242

and

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=70585242


What it means is that there are political & ecomomic elites that exercise de facto power and make decisions other than who is elected to government.

John Bruton (ex Taoiseach brother of Richard) believes the country is ruled by Civil Servants and they use the dail & seanad to legitimize their rule and rubberstamp their decisions.

Funnily enough they were against the massive guarantee, the thing that probably brought us over the edge, but I suppose that will be dismissed too.

CDfm

K-9 wrote: »

Funnily enough they were against the massive guarantee, the thing that probably brought us over the edge, but I suppose that will be dismissed too.

Who know's there certainly was a cumulative/compounding effect of many situations.

No one thing.

Croke Park was a desperate attempt to unwind excess and work practices.

If that was so difficult scale it up a bit with the same personel largely involved. Think, the clerical abuse compensation scheme at 1.3 billion. Same personel. Neary at the Central Bank wouldnt go.

Add up the chaos in the government & civil servants when faced with this..

That is one side.

K-9

CDfm wrote: »

Who know's there certainly was a cumulative/compounding effect of many situations.

No one thing.

Croke Park was a desperate attempt to unwind excess and work practices.

If that was so difficult scale it up a bit with the same personel largely involved. Think, the clerical abuse compensation scheme at 1.3 billion. Same personel. Neary at the Central Bank wouldnt go.

Add up the chaos in the government & civil servants when faced with this..

That is one side.

Well there was a whole range of things, high and I'd say negligent spending, low taxes and a too small tax base, goes back to the Boston versus Berlin thing which I actually don't accept. We wanted Boston taxes but Berlin spending.

The Civil and Public Service have a lot of power but it didn't do them much good as regards the pension levy and pay cut. I think Croke Park will be revisited in the life time of this Government, through necessity, we just had an election and nobody was going to mention it, FG suffered enough for wanting 30,000 redundancies!

Personally I think social partnership and social consensus was far more dangerous as everybody just ended up accepting low taxes and high spending! It got too big for its boots and beyond what it always should have been, a wage agreement.

Anyway, getting back to your point, politicians will ignore civil service advice if they see it as politically disadvantageous and often if they want to make a name for themselves and be seen as bold and radical, hence Lenihan and the guarantee.

Scofflaw

CDfm wrote: »

Ah but it is - as it is fairly central to how the money was spent.

The Euro is money.

If you are to say the Ahern Administration and the theory is that public sector workers made the decisions and were in touch with other public servants in other countries then you are in a different ballgame. The term implies that Ahern was in control when he was not.

OK, now you've got hung up on a convenient term which I've already explained is just shorthand for a particular period of economic policy. Don't worry about Bertie, OK?

CDfm wrote: »

So who made the decisions and how and why is fairly fundamental don't you think.

If you had a Civil Service looking for pay rises as a vested interest and cutting corners in controls or by-passing controls you want to know about it.

If the Euro has been run that laxely and by whom you want to know that too.

If the Euro was manipulated by Germany for its political & economic objectives and it used its financial institutions to do that you want to know that too.

Hell, I do.

I'm sure I would want to know - I'm increasingly sure I'm not going to find out by reading your posts, though.

CDfm wrote: »

All people are telling me is that the Euro works well in theory -well so did Challenger

And you appear to be saying that it hasn't worked well in practice - but don't seem to be offering any clear reasons why that's so, and only the vaguest hints as to why you feel it may not have done.

still in the dark here,
Scofflaw

CDfm

K-9 wrote: »

Well there was a whole range of things, high and I'd say negligent spending, low taxes and a too small tax base, goes back to the Boston versus Berlin thing which I actually don't accept. We wanted Boston taxes but Berlin spending.

Our taxes are not all that low and we do have a lot of indirect taxation. Spending taxes.

Anyway, getting back to your point, politicians will ignore civil service advice if they see it as politically disadvantageous and often if they want to make a name for themselves and be seen as bold and radical, hence Lenihan and the guarantee.

Actually, civil servants deal with clients and their service delivery and service organisations and may well deliver the policy options to government following an agenda of their own construct.

That was the story circulated on the Civil Partnership & Cohabitation Act.

I am inclined to think that the working relationship with civil servants was poor and the politicians were not in control of the civil service.

K-9

CDfm wrote: »

Our taxes are not all that low and we do have a lot of indirect taxation. Spending taxes.

Exactly. Low direct taxes and high tax credits together with low PRSI to enhance disposable income so as to recoup from spending, indirect taxation and capital taxes. That's how the economy was structured.

CDfm wrote:

Actually, civil servants deal with clients and their service delivery and service organisations and may well deliver the policy options to government following an agenda of their own construct.

That was the story circulated on the Civil Partnership & Cohabitation Act.

I am inclined to think that the working relationship with civil servants was poor and the politicians were not in control of the civil service.

Oh, there is no doubt you are inclined to believe that. Can you tell us what the story was with the CP & Cohabitation Bill?

ardmacha

Personally I think social partnership and social consensus was far more dangerous as everybody just ended up accepting low taxes and high spending! It got too big for its boots and beyond what it always should have been, a wage agreement.

Social partnership would not have done a great deal of damage if the discussions had been presented with a proper macro economic analysis, rather than the rosy picture presented. The government could have said our income is x but 10% of that is just froth from the boom so we only have 0.9x to spend. Instead they said our income is x and it will be 1.1x next year.
Note that the ECB didn't come out with any compelling analysis in this period either.

CDfm

K-9 wrote: »

Oh, there is no doubt you are inclined to believe that. Can you tell us what the story was with the CP & Cohabitation Bill?

I honestly do not know but the cohabitation part of it was not debated and i have seen it posted that it was included as an amend by the government from legislation hanging around.

My opposition to it was that it was fairly one sided and I would have liked to see and still would like to see a comprehensive debate of all aspects of marriage, family and cohabitation issues without party whips and with revision of the constitution if nesscessary.

That whole body of laws and social policy is just surreal and does not reflect the reality of society or relationships or parenting.

I thought I was conservative but my views have more in common with lesbian same sex couples parenting than the catholic church.

I am a bit more radical than I thought.

K-9

CDfm wrote: »

I honestly do not know but the cohabitation part of it was not debated and i have seen it posted that it was included as an amend by the government from legislation hanging around.

My opposition to it was that it was fairly one sided and I would have liked to see and still would like to see a comprehensive debate of all aspects of marriage, family and cohabitation issues without party whips and with revision of the constitution if nesscessary.

That whole body of laws and social policy is just surreal and does not reflect the reality of society or relationships or parenting.

I thought I was conservative but my views have more in common with lesbian same sex couples parenting than the catholic church.

I am a bit more radical than I thought.

I see where you are going and personally I think it was a "trying to please everybody" bill. The bill was debated in both houses.

Still awaiting this story, I thought it was somehow related to the Civil Service?

Tbh and I mean this is not in a bad way, you seem to be just throwing out stuff on this thread and some of it will stick, as it seems just a general rant. That's fair enough, done that from time to time!

CDfm

K-9 wrote: »

Exactly. Low direct taxes and high tax credits together with low PRSI to enhance disposable income so as to recoup from spending, indirect taxation and capital taxes. That's how the economy was structured.

It seems that way.

Couple that with a very unenlightened benefit system and supports for the low waged and we do have a bigger social welfare bill than we should have.

We have not been radical enough in our social thinking and issues like subsidised childcare were left unaddressed.

ardmacha wrote: »

Social partnership would not have done a great deal of damage if the discussions had been presented with a proper macro economic analysis, rather than the rosy picture presented. The government could have said our income is x but 10% of that is just froth from the boom so we only have 0.9x to spend. Instead they said our income is x and it will be 1.1x next year.
Note that the ECB didn't come out with any compelling analysis in this period either.

Macroeconomics was a dirty word.

At a micro level we did not tackle anomalies with the treatment of the low waged or low means (like the housing needs of divorced fathers) to be a modern inclusive society.

Here is an interesting outline of the ECB from the Philidelphia Federal Reserve

http://www.philadelphiafed.org/research-and-data/publications/business-review/1999/november-december/brnd99jw.pdf

Two bits jump out at me and one is the organisation of the Central Banks and the other is the freedom and impartiality from political pressure.

If anything the ECB's attitude to Ireland's CB was well lax so the central banks are not controled within a structure (and maybe that trickled down thru banking regulation) and the bailout has been highly political.

The Euro aint the Eurodollar :pac:

The regulator culture

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/hurley-may-be-more-deserving-fall-guy-than-neary-2223331.html

Hurley may be more deserving fall guy than Neary



Thursday June 17 2010

SINCE announcing his retirement in January 2009 ex-Financial Regulator Patrick Neary has been identified as the chief architect of the financial crisis.
But has the blame been doled out in a rather unequal fashion? What of the other regulators? Most notably, how much culpability should attach to John Hurley, the former governor of the Central Bank?
Last week's monster report on the crisis by Patrick Honohan, Hurley's successor, contains a number of startling revelations, and chief among them is that if blame is to be shared between Hurley and Neary, the former head of the Central Bank should probably accept more of it.

The lack of knowledge by the regulator of the real bank assets

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0716/breaking2.html

irishtimes.com - Last Updated: Friday, July 16, 2010, 17:13Guarantee based on belief banks had €500bn assets



Documents published today reveal Former financial regulator Patrick Neary told the Government Anglo Irish Bank was in good health just days before the bank guarantee was announced in September 2008. Photo: Bryan O'Brien/The Irish Times

On the Euro - how the **** can you run a currency if you dont at least have a watching brief over your constituent member central banks. You can't.

Scofflaw

On the Euro - how the **** can you run a currency if you dont at least have a watching brief over your constituent member central banks. You can't.

Theoretically - on the basis that the people involved in running central banks are at least vaguely competent and trying. Practically, this is one of the major issues with the euro - that there was far too little downside planning.

That remains one of the major issues of the EU - it's so hard to get 27 countries to agree to collaborate on doing something positive that arrangements for the negative just don't happen until there's actually a crisis.

cordially,
Scofflaw

CDfm

K-9 wrote: »

Tbh and I mean this is not in a bad way, you seem to be just throwing out stuff on this thread and some of it will stick, as it seems just a general rant. That's fair enough, done that from time to time!

The point I was making was that parts of the actual bill are alleged to have originated with the Civil Service - whether it was social policy or an attempt to pass on maintenance costs to fathers is immaterial here.

I certainly remember reading it and it struck me as odd that policy originated with the CS rather than the Government or an amendment from the opposition or an oireachtas member.

The significance being their seemed to be no pretence about the amendments origan. It made me wonder as to the authority of the government and John Brutons Jan 6th speech - well sort of blew me away with the lack of authority governments have had for maybe 30 years.

K-9

CDfm wrote: »

The point I was making was that parts of the actual bill are alleged to have originated with the Civil Service - whether it was social policy or an attempt to pass on maintenance costs to fathers is immaterial here.

I certainly remember reading it and it struck me as odd that policy originated with the CS rather than the Government or an amendment from the opposition or an oireachtas member.

The significance being their seemed to be no pretence about the amendments origan. It made me wonder as to the authority of the government and John Brutons Jan 6th speech - well sort of blew me away with the lack of authority governments have had for maybe 30 years.

Again, I don't see any quotes etc. Ivan Yates eg. has often said on his show how politicians do usurp the CS. If they don't like something, the politician generally wins. Now it's only an ex Ministers words but about as much credence as your argument.

So anyway, trying to move on, you seem to be suggesting politicians should usurp the CS?

As for the Euro dollar, well that's the dilemana. Do we move back from the Euro or go with it?