Austerity isn't really working is it?

KyussBishop

Phoebas wrote: »

You're at risk of going down a rabbit hole with this argument. Kyuss imagines a better world were Germany does agree with Eurobonds (or where German agreement isn't necessary).
It not a world that exists right now or is likely to exist in the near future.

I actually agree that Germany is not likely to agree to it; it doesn't change the fact that it is an alternative to austerity, with only a political impediment, when people pretend it's some incontrovertible law of economics.

Anynama141

KyussBishop wrote: »

I actually agree that Germany is not likely to agree to it; it doesn't change the fact that it is an alternative to austerity, with only a political impediment, when people pretend it's some incontrovertible law of economics.

So all you need to do is postulate a Europe with no Germany (and its allies) or a completely different Germany (and its allies) at it's, like, TOTALLY possible.

But still out of reach of OUR government.

Bullseye1

Anynama141 wrote: »

So it's up to the government to somehow create 200,000 jobs? You know that the government doesn't actually create any jobs, don't you? Unless you want them all hired by the civil service or the county councils to do busy work, and guess what happens when 200,000 new salaries are added to the budget?

Where have I said that? Your view of vision is very blinkered.

1. Do something about upward only rents.
2. Instruct local authorities to reduce commercial rates (now that property tax is introduced).
3. Allow commercial vehicles use the same diesel that Agriculture uses. This would lower transportation cost.
4. Get rid of motor tax and put 5-10 cents onto the price of a litre of fuel for general road users. This will reduce administration costs involved with motor costs and remove the necessity for Garada to police.

Some very quick suggestions that would help the domestic economy and might encourage small SMEs to take on one or two more employees now that their rents and rates have been reduced.

KyussBishop

Anynama141 wrote: »

So two points come out of this:

1. You have already acknowledged that Austerity is not something that is in the control of the Irish government - we agree on that.

2. Why do you think Eurobonds are a good solution? Is it fair that German, Finnish, Dutch etc. taxpayers should have to subsidise poor government in the Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Greece etc.? Do you think that giving more cheap credit to these countries will encourage them to reform their reckless behaviour?

Eurobonds benefit all EU countries, including Germany, as they get to use it to develop infrastructure projects themselves, and they benefit from the general return to economic recovery in the EU.

They are a basic, necessary part of providing economic stability to the Euro regardless of what political views you have of it, and were in planning from the begging of the inception of the Euro, but never implemented.

Again you're arguing in bad faith, presenting the straw-man, assuming eurobonds must be used irresponsibly.

KyussBishop

Anynama141 wrote: »

...and how do you close the output gap?

Oh wait, you are going to start talking about printing loads of money, and promising that it won't cause inflation, aren't you?

I believe that's the socialist position on this, IIRC.

By employing people, how else? You apparently have no idea what socialism is, because by your standard, the ECB and thus the EU is already a socialist institution for already having printed €1 trillion for dealing with this crisis.

I also don't think money creation is a required method of dealing with the crisis, hence my discussion of Eurobonds.

Bullseye1

In many ways the austerity and higher bonds other countries are paying is suiting Germany as they have access to very cheap money indeed and their exports are benefiting greatly by a weakened Euro.

Anynama141

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Where have I said that? Your view of vision is very blinkered.

1. Do something about upward only rents.
2. Instruct local authorities to reduce commercial rates (now that property tax is introduced).
3. Allow commercial vehicles use the same diesel that Agriculture uses. This would lower transportation cost.
4. Get rid of motor tax and put 5-10 cents onto the price of a litre of fuel for general road users. This will reduce administration costs involved with motor costs and remove the necessity for Garada to police.

Some very quick suggestions that would help the domestic economy and might encourage small SMEs to take on one or two more employees now that their rents and rates have been reduced.

Every improvement in the business environment would help, Bullseye, I don't dispute that. Your ideas above have some merit, but you are a long way from creating 200k jobs just by trimming a few cents from business costs.

Regarding point 1 - I think the government are afraid to scrap UORR because it will wipe billions off the notional value of NAMA assets - billions which the taxpayer will then have to make up in increased taxes. Whether that is a good enough justification, I don't know.

I totally agree re. road tax - I don't know what the arguments against are, although I imagine people along the boarder would be getting their roads for free.

Wibbs

Anynama141 wrote: »

The property tax merely separates out one of those elements and gives it a new name, and you are charged based on how expensive your house is. No new tax is being raised.

Eh wut? Of course a new tax is being raised and it's one that is quite different to most other taxes. EG income tax, you can only be charged income tax if you have an actual income. If you lose your job they don't ask you to continue to pay the same income tax. A property tax doesn't work like that. It assumes upfront the ability to pay regardless of circumstance. Income tax is based on a liquid asset, whereas a property tax for many many people out there is based on an an asset that is losing/has lost value, never mind all of those people who paid out many thousands in stamp duty and other taxes buying a house.

Now the deferral notion usually follows on the heels of this, but that keeps on building in the background and could hit many thousands(plus interest) pretty quickly, so let's imagine your circumstances change, you have this built up expense requiring a lump sum payoff and you're still getting hit yearly. If that's not an increased tax burden I dunno what is TBH.

The only way you will pay more tax is if you have a very low income and a very expensive house. In which case, I wish I had a big house like you. :pac:

Again many people are living in "expensive" houses. Not today's ticket price as such, but in how much it cost them to buy in an expensive market(when they were encouraged to do so by the banks and government) and continues to cost them on a monthly basis in mortgage repayments, never mind the upkeep on a property.

Anynama141

KyussBishop wrote: »

Eurobonds benefit all EU countries, including Germany, as they get to use it to develop infrastructure projects themselves, and they benefit from the general return to economic recovery in the EU.

Why would Germany rely on Eurobonds when they can borrow for less themselves?

So how does it benefit them?

Anynama141

KyussBishop wrote: »

By employing people, how else? You apparently have no idea what socialism is, because by your standard, the ECB and thus the EU is already a socialist institution for already having printed €1 trillion for dealing with this crisis.

I also don't think money creation is a required method of dealing with the crisis, hence my discussion of Eurobonds.

So your solution is for the government to hire 200,000 people to do made-up jobs that create little or no value, and to borrow the money to pay them?

Oh. My. God.

Phoebas

KyussBishop wrote: »

I actually agree that Germany is not likely to agree to it; it doesn't change the fact that it is an alternative to austerity, with only a political impediment, when people pretend it's some incontrovertible law of economics.

That political impediment is quite important 'though, but you seem to think that European leaders could get together around a table and simply change policy, even if they wanted to (and remain in power to see the new policy through).

The argument for a large scale European stimulus plan is going to be a slow burner in reality, and isn't realistic in the short term (for largely political reasons).

KyussBishop

Anynama141 wrote: »

So you are seriously talking about adding 200,000 state employees to do made-up jobs that add no value, and taxing the nads off the rest of us to pay them?

Holy jumping Christ.

Again, more straw-men, where you pretty deliberately jump to false conclusions, for the sake of rhetoric, when I have already made clear the funding would come through Eurobonds or the ECB, which is centralized EU debt.

The entire point is that the whole EU gets a big stimulus, and the whole EU pays it back over time, with very low interest Eurobonds, which are inherently more sustainable than our current funding.

I get a feeling though, you are going to continue deliberately missing the point, and making up more false conclusions, to knock-down as straw men; you don't even bother to make the most minimal efforts to hide it.

Gambas

Bullseye1 wrote: »

In many ways the austerity and higher bonds other countries are paying is suiting Germany as they have access to very cheap money indeed and their exports are benefiting greatly by a weakened Euro.

The euro is weakened relative to what?

And how does having your main export partners in economic turmoil suit your exporters?

You're peddling myths that don't stand up to scrutiny.

Anynama141

Wibbs wrote: »

Eh wut? Of course a new tax is being raised and it's one that is quite different to most other taxes. EG income tax, you can only be charged income tax if you have an actual income. If you lose your job they don't ask you to continue to pay the same income tax. A property tax doesn't work like that. It assumes upfront the ability to pay regardless of circumstance. Income tax is based on a liquid asset, whereas a property tax for many many people out there is based on an an asset that is losing/has lost value, never mind all of those people who paid out many thousands in stamp duty and other taxes buying a house.

Wibbs, the government needs 'X' to run the country, including the local authorities. The local authorities need 'A'.

We will be taxed X one way or another, agreed?

With the introduction of property tax, the country still gathers X in tax, but it's divided up: X-A comes from all other sources, and A comes from the property tax. Total = X.

So, on aggregate, we still pay the same amount of tax. The only difference is that people living in cheap houses will pay a bit less of A, and people living in expensive houses will pay a bit more of A.

Are you with me?

Anynama141

KyussBishop wrote: »

Again, more straw-men, where you pretty deliberately jump to false conclusions, for the sake of rhetoric, when I have already made clear the funding would come through Eurobonds or the ECB, which is centralized EU debt.

This gets better and better.

So you are talking about THE GERMANS hiring 200,000 people in Ireland to push paper around desks and build roads to nowhere.

I can see that totally working.

Seriously, can't you see even as you write that this is total fantasy land stuff??

aidan24326

[

Anynama141 wrote: »

Regarding point 1 - I think the government are afraid to scrap UORR because it will wipe billions off the notional value of NAMA assets - billions which the taxpayer will then have to make up in increased taxes. Whether that is a good enough justification, I don't know.

That's a good point and I think the government are probably in a no-win situation on this one. Why the previous crowd introduced UORR is another matter. Bertie might want to log on and explain that one to us. I've no doubt he has a concise explanation which he would articulate with the clarity and class we have come to expect.

bgrizzley

Anynama141 wrote: »

Let me put in a different way: why should we alone not have a property tax, when it's a fundamental plank of taxation policy in nearly every other civilised country?

why stop at tax policy? why not eugenics? why not attack another country for oil? why not arm the citizenry of ireland with semi automatic weapons?

lets go the whole hog and become a colony of some country that is obviously wiser than us in every way, seeing as how all those countries are recession proof due to their fine tax policies.

Your tax burden is made up of various things - TAX = (A and B and C and D etc.)

The property tax merely separates out one of those elements and gives it a new name, and you are charged based on how expensive your house is. No new tax is being raised. You are now being charged TAX = (B and C and D etc.) plus 'A', separately under a new name.

The only way you will pay more tax is if you have a very low income and a very expensive house. In which case, I wish I had a big house like you. :pac:

this is amazing, im off to pay right now, if only someone had explained earlier that property tax doesnt actually increase what i pay in taxes. thanks for that
seriously though, that is the biggest load of spin i have seen for a while, (when is a tax not a tax lol)

Bullseye1

Gambas wrote: »

The euro is weakened relative to what?

And how does having your main export partners in economic turmoil suit your exporters?

You're peddling myths that don't stand up to scrutiny.

The Dollar, Sterling and Chinese Yen.

There has been a boom in luxury goods to Asia. Germany has been exporting luxury cars and other high end products to the the Asian market. The same thing is happening with luxury watches and Swiss watch makers who are even producing Asian exclusive.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/feb/08/germany-trade-surplus-exports-imports

KyussBishop

Phoebas wrote: »

That political impediment is quite important 'though, but you seem to think that European leaders could get together around a table and simply change policy, even if they wanted to (and remain in power to see the new policy through).

The argument for a large scale European stimulus plan is going to be a slow burner in reality, and isn't realistic in the short term (for largely political reasons).

I agree, at this stage I think the single currency will end, instead of any recovery policies being implemented (and I think the latter is likely to lead to the former); it still means austerity is not the immutable law of economics that people are trying to make out (which is the argument they use to say it is 'working'), but only enforced due to political issues.

It also leads to the point, that the EU without recovery policies, seems to be leading to the rise of parties in other countries, that want to exit the single currency, if (or possibly when) that happens, it is likely to pull the rest of the EU out of the single currency as well.

This means that the damage caused from exiting the single currency (which will be incredible severe), might be inevitable; this is not certain, but if that is the case it leads to the question of, why are we delaying it? (what benefit do we gain by such a delay? we take the damage from austerity and the damage of an exit later, and recovery may take longer)

bgrizzley

Phoebas wrote: »

Jeez. One of the common complaints that you hear about the LPT is that it isn't linked to earnings. And now apparently it is

Anyhow, I know you've been around these arguments enough times to understand how different types of taxation impact on the labour market, so I won't rehash them again here. I'll just assume you're messing.

yeah i know those arguments and ive never once been shown proof that they are anything but theory. feel free though.

Anynama141

bgrizzley wrote: »

why stop at tax policy? why not eugenics?

What?

jank

KyussBishop wrote: »

That's a straw-man, where you assume any country can just use them to borrow at will; if you're going to jump to conclusions and assume ridiculous stuff like that, when that is not what was said, you're arguing in bad faith.

Em, isn't that happened. Poorer European counties got flooded by cheap credit backed more or less by the German economy. You started the talk about Eurobonds as one silver bullet with no consequence, so the straw man belongs to you.

KyussBishop

Anynama141 wrote: »

KyussBishop wrote:

Again, more straw-men, where you pretty deliberately jump to false conclusions, for the sake of rhetoric, when I have already made clear the funding would come through Eurobonds or the ECB, which is centralized EU debt.

The entire point is that the whole EU gets a big stimulus, and the whole EU pays it back over time, with very low interest Eurobonds, which are inherently more sustainable than our current funding.

This gets better and better.

So you are talking about THE GERMANS hiring 200,000 people in Ireland to push paper around desks and build roads to nowhere.

I can see that totally working.

Seriously, can't you see even as you write that this is total fantasy land stuff??

Again, you make it obvious you are being deliberately obtuse and arguing in bad faith, as nowhere did I say 'Germany' hires anyone in Ireland, and it requires quite deliberate misrepresentation to interpret it that way.

You make it really clear you have absolutely no interest in actual discussion, only in pushing your own views through trite rhetoric and dishonest argument, as you have done endlessly throughout the thread.

Phoebas

bgrizzley wrote: »

yeah i know those arguments and ive never once been shown proof that they are anything but theory. feel free though.

No thanks. If nobody up to now has been able to convince you of the different impacts on the labour market that different types of taxation have, then I fear that I'll fail too.

Anynama141

KyussBishop wrote: »

Again, you make it obvious you are being deliberately obtuse and arguing in bad faith, as nowhere did I say 'Germany' hires anyone in Ireland, and it requires quite deliberate misrepresentation to interpret it that way.

You make it really clear you have absolutely no interest in actual discussion, only in pushing your own views through trite rhetoric and dishonest argument, as you have done endlessly throughout the thread.

Eurobonds, backed essentially by the German and other financially prudent taxpayers, borrowed by the Irish government (and paid back with what?) and used to hire 200,000 people for made-up jobs?

You think that is a viable alternative? And I'm arguing in bad faith? Weird.

My name is URL

Irish economy starting to wilt again

TODAY’S PMI readings for Europe are showing the economic trainwreck on full display.

A PMI reading is a gauge of a country’s manufacturing sector. Anything below 50 is contraction.

For March, Ireland's PMI fell from 51.5 to 48.6, a sign of a severe quick downturn.

• New orders, output and employment all decline
• Fastest fall in new export business since August 2009
• Cost inflation slows

The weakness in new orders drove a disappointing outcome in the employment index. Manufacturers reported the sharpest fall in employment since October 2011, with March the second month since the start of the year to record a decline.

http://www.markiteconomics.com/MarkitFiles/Pages/ViewPressRelease.aspx?ID=10915

KyussBishop

jank wrote: »

Em, isn't that happened. Poorer European counties got flooded by cheap credit backed more or less by the German economy. You started the talk about Eurobonds as one silver bullet with no consequence, so the straw man belongs to you.

No, again, that's your (apparently deliberate) misrepresentation of my argument:
1: Eurobonds are bought by the private markets, who provide the funding, not 'Germany' (the entire EU pays them back, not 'Germany' either)

2: These bonds are not 'cheap credit', available for the private markets to tap as if from a bank, they go to specific infrastructure or other worthy projects, as decided by the European Investment Fund.

3: You don't know what a straw-man is; a straw man is putting forward a fake representation of someones argument, in order to rebut it, and pretend you are rebutting the original argument. Explaining a recovery policy for the EU is not, in any conceivable manner, a straw-man.

KyussBishop

Anynama141 wrote: »

Eurobonds, backed essentially by the German and other financially prudent taxpayers, borrowed by the Irish government (and paid back with what?) and used to hire 200,000 people for made-up jobs?

You think that is a viable alternative? And I'm arguing in bad faith? Weird.

Yea, you're arguing in bad faith, because you know that Eurobonds are centralized EU bonds paid back by the entire EU, with Germany not even being one quarter of the EU.

Such a ridiculously obvious misrepresentation, that it can only be deliberate.

Anynama141

KyussBishop wrote: »

No, again, that's your (apparently deliberate) misrepresentation of my argument:
1: Eurobonds are bought by the private markets, who provide the funding, not 'Germany' (the entire EU pays them back, not 'Germany' either)

So there is no consequence for Germany or other prudent nations if some country defaults on its Eurobonds?

KyussBishop wrote: »

2: These bonds are not 'cheap credit', available for the private markets to tap as if from a bank, they go to specific infrastructure or other worthy projects, as decided by the European Investment Fund.

Some sort of central planning system? Who decides what is worthy? What if all the 'worthy' projects are in Germany, or France?

KyussBishop wrote: »

3: You don't know what a straw-man is; a straw man is putting forward a fake representation of someones argument, in order to rebut it, and pretend you are rebutting the original argument. Explaining a recovery policy for the EU is not, in any conceivable manner, a straw-man.

You are putting forward a Europe that does not exist and claiming that solutions exist in that Europe. Other people are pointing out that the Europe you discuss does not exist, so your proposed solutions are not possible.

Anynama141

KyussBishop wrote: »

Yea, you're arguing in bad faith, because you know that Eurobonds are centralized EU bonds paid back by the entire EU, with Germany not even being one quarter of the EU.

Such a ridiculously obvious misrepresentation, that it can only be deliberate.

I'm not sure how simple we have to make this:

1. Do you know what a bond is, and why someone would want to buy one?

(by point 4 or 5, it will hopefully be clear to you why the bonds are basically underwritten by Germany, Finland etc.)

Edit: Wait a second - are you proposing that the EU as a whole borrows from the capital markets, and the EU as a whole pays back the borrowings??