Time to take financial dicisions off our government

fliball123

Can i ask the question is it time we put in a framework that must be adhered to by the sitting government. We should not be punished via taxation for silly decisions such as benchmarking or bailing out banks made by governments.

My idea would be to put a % into each area and the gov must not spend more or to say it simply do not do what we do with the HSE where money is pumped in and goes down a black hole where no one knows where it goes and no one is accountable.

If these structures were in place and part of our constitution the government could not make wacko decisions without breaking this and therefore they would have to be more creative and less punitive on the tax payer as a whole.

BoJack Horseman

fliball123 wrote: »

My idea would be to put a % into each area and the gov must not spend more

The problem obviously is lack of flexibility & not just wrt government departments but with the economy in general.

However, the idea is not without merit...

I wouldn't have a huge problem with targeted budgets (say % of GDP).
10% on S/W, 8% on health, 4% on Infrastructure, 1% on defence... and so on...

It comes to a point where the government will tax only the cumulative % from the economy at large.

But as I said, it doesn't happen anywhere and no government would ever bind their hands in that way.

fliball123

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

The problem obviously is lack of flexibility & not just wrt government departments but with the economy in general.

However, the idea is not without merit...

I wouldn't have a huge problem with targeted budgets (say % of GDP).
10% on S/W, 8% on health, 4% on Infrastructure, 1% on defence... and so on...

It comes to a point where the government will tax only the cumulative % from the economy at large.

But as I said, it doesn't happen anywhere and no government would ever bind their hands in that way.

This is exactly the way I would like it implemented. This has got to be put in place in order to stop loony decisions of the past coming back to bite future generations. It would put manners on them and force them to actively govern and make hard decisions and not just use the get out of jail card and ask the tax payer for more. This cannot be the remedy for every solution. also it solves the problem of when times are hard GDP goes down but the % stays still and the dept or area still gets that % even if it is a lower amount and vice versa if times are good all depts/area gets more money in

Wide party agreements on National Infrastructure projects would be more than welcome to be honest.

We are at a time when we might never be able to borrow as cheaply to fund infrastructure projects, with an infrastructure deficit that needs to be resolved, and probably 5/10 projects that should have broad support across all parties.

Get them to sign up to a Long Term Investment project, petition the EU for consideration of the additional debt as worthwhile Investment and get cracking on delivering projects outside of the normal 'glug glug' of election cycles and reduce the chance of political football getting in the way of necessary and worthwhile progress.

Dohnjoe

fliball123 wrote: »

Can i ask the question is it time we put in a framework that must be adhered to by the sitting government. We should not be punished via taxation for silly decisions such as benchmarking or bailing out banks made by governments.

I would trust experts in government long before blind or ignorant populism

The bank bailouts were made under difficult circumstances and were necessary for the functioning of the country

BalcombeSt4

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I would trust experts in government long before blind or ignorant populism

The bank bailouts were made under difficult circumstances and were necessary for the functioning of the country

Nonsense. People lived without banks for centuries and had a higher standard of living.

fliball123

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I would trust experts in government long before blind or ignorant populism

The bank bailouts were made under difficult circumstances and were necessary for the functioning of the country

They still made the decision to bail the banks out the most expensive way possible. They did not investigate the books, they could of floated the banks for a week and had someone go in with a fine tooth comb and see what was going on but the panicked and decided the tax payer would cover for the sham bankers. Remember we pay these people a lot of money to make these decisions but they are no more an expert when it comes to this kind of situation as I am or any other pleb on the street..Hense financial decisions that are coming down the line should be costed by experts in that particular field and find the best way to minimise the cost to the tax payer

Dohnjoe

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

Nonsense. People lived without banks for centuries and had a higher standard of living.

Modern finance aside, people in the 17th century and before didn't have a "higher standard of living" regardless

Dohnjoe

fliball123 wrote: »

They still made the decision to bail the banks out the most expensive way possible. They did not investigate the books, they could of floated the banks for a week and had someone go in with a fine tooth comb and see what was going on but the panicked and decided the tax payer would cover for the sham bankers. Remember we pay these people a lot of money to make these decisions but they are no more an expert when it comes to this kind of situation as I am or any other pleb on the street..Hense financial decisions that are coming down the line should be costed by experts in that particular field and find the best way to minimise the cost to the tax payer

The decision to bail out the banks was essential. The "why" doesn't need to be examined, only the "how" - and every government involved in decision making during the crisis can be criticized with hindsight

Arbitrary lines in the sand and caps would not have made any difference

Psychologically people only have a tendency to see what we lost, not what they potentially saved us from - hence the populist backlash

fliball123

Dohnjoe wrote: »

The decision to bail out the banks was essential. The "why" doesn't need to be examined, only the "how" - and every government involved in decision making during the crisis can be criticized with hindsight

Arbitrary lines in the sand and caps would not have made any difference

Psychologically people only have a tendency to see what we lost, not what they potentially saved us from - hence the populist backlash

Sorry the why is the crux of this as in why did Anglo need to be bailed out it was not a pillar bank or systemic to Ireland? They sat on their hands and got bullied by the bankers and all asunder on both sides of this walked off into the sunset with huge pensions and pay offs with the tax payer picking up the tab. So far one or two bankers have had a little community service. So I would agree with AIB and BOI should have been bailed out but they should of told Anglo to phuck right off and see the bears. One week of floating Anglo and sending in an accountant expert would of showed them for what they were a sham. Hense this thread do you really want self serving vested interest groups taking advantage again of the tax payer? I see the unions and public service starting to ramp up there bolloxolgy of pay rises even do we are still borrowing billions a year. You have the loony left looking for free gaffs for everyone. At what point does it become apparent that the tax payers are seen as nothing more than an a$$hole for all vested interest groups to phuck over. We need some experts from the different sectors to step in and say that this idea/action is going to cost x billion do you really want to go ahead with that.

K-9

Mod:

Can we cut out the language please and less ranty posts as well fliball

ressem

fliball123 wrote: »

Can i ask the question is it time we put in a framework that must be adhered to by the sitting government. We should not be punished via taxation for silly decisions such as benchmarking or bailing out banks made by governments.

My idea would be to put a % into each area and the gov must not spend more or to say it simply do not do what we do with the HSE where money is pumped in and goes down a black hole where no one knows where it goes and no one is accountable.

If these structures were in place and part of our constitution the government could not make wacko decisions without breaking this and therefore they would have to be more creative and less punitive on the tax payer as a whole.

The fiscal council kind of agrees with you in that 'soft budget constraints' are assumed to be breakable, e.g. by the HSE management.
http://www.fiscalcouncil.ie/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Health-Analytical-Note-FINAL2.pdf
There is meant to be a "Medium-Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF), any over-spending can be applied as a charge against future budget allocations."

And as of 2015 there is meant to be a cap on wages under each ministerial heading.
Some stone cold decisions that are made. (e.g "for each Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) the drug in question must cost no more than €45,000") unless a Joe Duffy appeal is made.

But...
After 2007, tax revenue dropped by 14 billion per year, and unemployment tripled. Now 7 billion is paid in interest.

Under this proposal, would the social welfare and pension department's budget have remained fixed? Do the percentages get fixed in the good times or bad?

We've seen that capital budgets get wiped out in the low times when they could have a cost:benefit that would achieve better results.

It seems a bit lazy to try to fix the country's problems with one blanket rule rather that do the hard work of demanding better standards from politicians (including opposition), their dreadful 'special advisor' political hacks, and senior and middle management.
And for the public to accept that sometimes we create stupid handcuffs for them to overcome. 40% of the population with medical cards?

Saipanne

An anti cyclical policy should be enforced. Politics is too pro cyclical.

K-9

Markets are too cyclical might be the bigger problem!

Hopefully the new budget oversight procedures will help.

Saipanne

K-9 wrote: »

Markets are too cyclical might be the bigger problem!

Hopefully the new budget oversight procedures will help.

The motion of the world market is outside of our control, but our budget is. Saving in the good times to spend in the bad is a sound strategy, but politics/voter mentality is all about pro cyclicality.

K-9

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/ireland-lacks-forward-planning-says-former-department-of-finance-chief-738084.html

The new National Maternity Hospital another example. There's just no "outside the box" thinking at all compared to Denmark in that particular example.