Leo is the new king of Ireland.

blanch152

brabantje wrote: »

Just to come back on this point, yesterday on the Week in Politics, both the FF and FG Senators on the panel explicitly ruled out a coalition with SF.

Senator Neale Richmond of FG stated he would leave FG should they propose such a coalition, whilst Lorraine Clifford-Lee of FF stated that the majority of FF members would not accept a coalition with SF. So the question is - is this just posturing pre-election or do they actually mean it? Will the cold hard reality of the post election numbers cause a change to this stance from either FF or FG, or will they have to bite the bullet and coalesce?

Also, it puts to bed the lie that SF are excluding themselves from government when both of the other two main parties have explicitly and repeatedly stated they would exclude them.

The two aren't mutually exclusive positions.


Members from both FG and FF have said that they rule out coalition with SF. That has been the consistent view from Varadkar, Kenny and Martin over the last few years. However, I don't believe that it is enshrined in either case in party rules (someone may correct me on this). This means that it is open to change. There are some on the FF backbenches who are certainly open to a coalition with SF rather than FG, and Martin's position will be vulnerable if FF finish behind FG again after the next election. A regime change in FF therefore brings the real prospect of a shift in policy on coalition with SF if the numbers are there.

Sinn Fein have excluded themselves from government. Until the last Ard Fheis, they held a formal position that they would not go into government unless they were the largest party. That position appears to have been altered slightly at the last Ard Fheis.

In essence the statement that SF have excluded themselves from government is true. But so also is the statement that FF and FG haven't been willing to coalesce with SF.

Given the sight shift in SF policy on coalitions, what is likely to happen after the next election? I expect FG to be the biggest party, FF second and SF third. If, as I expect, that leads to regime change in FF, a coalition between FF and SF is a real possibility, if the numbers add up. Adding in a few independents or smaller parties should certainly see the numbers add up.

brabantje

oscarBravo wrote: »

The fact that FF and FG would exclude SF from government is orthogonal to the question of whether SF are excluding themselves from government.

Orthoganal in the sense of being statistically independent, or in the sense of being at right angles? The current stance of SF, AFAIK is that they will consider being a minority government party. FG are flying kites at the minute with regard to SF, but that kite seems to have been caught in the tree Charlie Brown style. FF have much more explicitly ruled them out.

FG-SF as the next government. You read it here first.

brabantje

blanch152 wrote: »

The two aren't mutually exclusive positions.


Members from both FG and FF have said that they rule out coalition with SF. That has been the consistent view from Varadkar, Kenny and Martin over the last few years. However, I don't believe that it is enshrined in either case in party rules (someone may correct me on this). This means that it is open to change. There are some on the FF backbenches who are certainly open to a coalition with SF rather than FG, and Martin's position will be vulnerable if FF finish behind FG again after the next election. A regime change in FF therefore brings the real prospect of a shift in policy on coalition with SF if the numbers are there.

Sinn Fein have excluded themselves from government. Until the last Ard Fheis, they held a formal position that they would not go into government unless they were the largest party. That position appears to have been altered slightly at the last Ard Fheis.

In essence the statement that SF have excluded themselves from government is true. But so also is the statement that FF and FG haven't been willing to coalesce with SF.

Given the sight shift in SF policy on coalitions, what is likely to happen after the next election? I expect FG to be the biggest party, FF second and SF third. If, as I expect, that leads to regime change in FF, a coalition between FF and SF is a real possibility, if the numbers add up. Adding in a few independents or smaller parties should certainly see the numbers add up.

I can't see FF-SF without regime change in FF. We've had leadership changes in both FG and SF that have moved "troubles-era" leaders on to the political stud farm. In that respect, I think that the people who count in both parties don't have much in the way of baggage to prevent such a deal.

FreudianSlippers

Idbatterim wrote: »

You’d wonder though. Is it an opportunity for them now to come in, but mean business on health and housing in particular.

There's the inherent problem for parties like SF, they're between a rock and a hard place on issues such as those.

They claim to know how to fix the problem... either :(a) they don't, or; (b) they do and know that the way to fix it will be contrary to their stated position(s).

It's also the reason FF/FG have become so similar - neither wants to actually make the difficult decisions, because although they may fix the problems they will alienate a significant number of voters.

blanch152

brabantje wrote: »

I can't see FF-SF without regime change in FF. We've had leadership changes in both FG and SF that have moved "troubles-era" leaders on to the political stud farm. In that respect, I think that the people who count in both parties don't have much in the way of baggage to prevent such a deal.

I would put it a different way.

Regime change in FF could facilitate coalition with SF.

Coalition with SF could cause regime change in FG as the party grassroots would reject it, it would certainly give Coveney an opportunity to strike.

FreudianSlippers

I'm amazed at the economic ignorance of so many people in this country that believe that FG, SF or any other party could have somehow insulated or isolated Ireland from the global economic crisis. It's entirely ironic that SF supporters are now suggesting that they can solve the "generational debt [created by FF]" when they're the ones who were screaming for Syriza politics and structural default.

FreudianSlippers

Matt Barrett wrote: »

What recovery? Are you speaking on a purely economic numbers basis? We got a loan and prop up the 'economy' with incentives and subsidies funded by the tax payer. I know the housing/homeless crises and emergency accommodation bill are bothersome, but you can't have a cross the board recovery while sections of society are in continuous levels of record breaking crisis. The economic figures look good but do not translate to a recovery.

I think this post shows a shocking lack of macroeconomic awareness in addition to a level of whataboutery that is frankly ridiculous.

FreudianSlippers

brabantje wrote: »

This is actually a very valid point. In other places that I've lived, I've paid a higher rate of tax, but the benefits are tangible - excellent infrastructure, good quality housing stock (largely rented long term), quality pubic transport etc. One could be forgiven for thinking that we aren't getting good bang for our tax buck.

Realistically, only Germany and Sweden have a higher effective income tax rates than Ireland... and it's not a significant amount higher - if we increased to that level, I don't believe the numbers support the conclusion that increase in tax would allow us to solve the problems we face at present.

brabantje

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Realistically, only Germany and Sweden have a higher effective income tax rates than Ireland... and it's not a significant amount higher - if we increased to that level, I don't believe the numbers support the conclusion that increase in tax would allow us to solve the problems we face at present.

As I alluded to earlier - I don't think the level of taxation is the issue - it's the way that money is spent that is the problem. The netherlands -where I lived - has a higher rate of tax than Ireland. And the dutch never shut up about it, but they get fantastic services in return. Here, it largely seems to disappear into a black hole of administration and bureaucracy.

brabantje

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I'm amazed at the economic ignorance of so many people in this country that believe that FG, SF or any other party could have somehow insulated or isolated Ireland from the global economic crisis. It's entirely ironic that SF supporters are now suggesting that they can solve the "generational debt [created by FF]" when they're the ones who were screaming for Syriza politics and structural default.

You don't happen to have a link to that claim? It's not one I've seen. (not that it isn't one they haven't made).

But "sure, isn't that what one tends to do...?" That is the basis for all electoral parties to get themselves into power - "these other losers have left the place in rag order and we - and only we, mind - are able to fix the mess FF/FG/Labour/SF* insert party here* have left behind".

FreudianSlippers

brabantje wrote: »

As I alluded to earlier - I don't think the level of taxation is the issue - it's the way that money is spent that is the problem. The netherlands -where I lived - has a higher rate of tax than Ireland. And the dutch never shut up about it, but they get fantastic services in return. Here, it largely seems to disappear into a black hole of administration and bureaucracy.

Ireland's effective tax rate is 52%, the exact same as the Netherlands. We also pay 2% more in VAT.

I agree that the problem is administration of the collected tax income, but the high rate of tax is also an issue.

FreudianSlippers

brabantje wrote: »

You don't happen to have a link to that claim? It's not one I've seen. (not that it isn't one they haven't made).

But "sure, isn't that what one tends to do...?" That is the basis for all electoral parties to get themselves into power - "these other losers have left the place in rag order and we - and only we, mind - are able to fix the mess FF/FG/Labour/SF* insert party here* have left behind".

See: this thread / this forum / the politics cafe / after hours / etc.

brabantje

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Ireland's effective tax rate is 52%, the exact same as the Netherlands. We also pay 2% more in VAT.

I agree that the problem is administration of the collected tax income, but the high rate of tax is also an issue.

However, taking public transport for example - in the Netherlands I could travel from Rotterdam to Maastricht for around €25 on an hourly basis by train. It costs in the region of €40 for Dublin Cork. So that's €15 back in my pocket through the use of taxes to provide subsidised transport.

That's one example. There are many others which demonstrate more efficient - and beneficial - use of tax money.

Idbatterim

brabantje wrote: »

As I alluded to earlier - I don't think the level of taxation is the issue - it's the way that money is spent that is the problem. The netherlands -where I lived - has a higher rate of tax than Ireland. And the dutch never shut up about it, but they get fantastic services in return. Here, it largely seems to disappear into a black hole of administration and bureaucracy.

No. It first and foremost gets blown on a staggering welfare spend ...

“We've gone from 'these things take time', to 'sure it's worse elsewhere' to 'what problem? Sure half it's made up'.
I would rather a government favouring the tax payer and value for money head and shoulders above Vulture funds, banks, corporations and the housing industry, (rental and sale) to the detriment of the tax payers pocket.
If as you say, and I agree, they are all capable of a few strokes, I'd rather err on the side of a party that might possibly side with the working tax payer. And that certainly is not Fine Gael.” This really hits the nail on the head. Having voted fg previously, if that liar Varadkar thinks putting a fiver a week in a tax cut will buy my vote. While the cost of rent or buying rockets, leaving non homeowners far worse off, he’s delusional. Fg now only represent homeowners, pensioners, the in sktught jack brigade. I see no point in voting for them in my or any of my friends situations any longer . They have now even backed down on the planned income tax cuts!

FreudianSlippers

brabantje wrote: »

However, taking public transport for example - in the Netherlands I could travel from Rotterdam to Maastricht for around €25 on an hourly basis by train. It costs in the region of €40 for Dublin Cork. So that's €15 back in my pocket through the use of taxes to provide subsidised transport.

That's one example. There are many others which demonstrate more efficient - and beneficial - use of tax money.

Irish Rail is heavily subsidised though.

Idbatterim

A few other things. Homelessness will never we eliminated, it’s not just a money issue. Also we don’t need to hike tax anywhere to pay for it although I’m not sure why it’s tax hikes that are always pointed out, expenditure could be cut too. They have billions available to burn this budget, probably their last. Money is not the issue ...

Chips Lovell

It's tremendously difficult to do a like-for-like comparison between tax burdens because of the amount of variables involved (and deciding what constitutes an average person).

The closest I've seen is something that the Institut Economique Molinari came out with that attempted to factor in income tax, employer and employee social security (PRSI in our case) and the impact of VAT. It ranked countries by "Tax Freedom Day" the concept of a date where you're notionally free of paying taxes and anything earned after that is your own. It's ranking had Ireland as the third lowest tax burden, behind Malta and Cyprus.

Even something like that is pretty inexact, since it doesn't take into account municipal taxes like property tax or water rates etc.

FreudianSlippers

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

It's tremendously difficult to do a like-for-like comparison between tax burdens because of the amount of variables involved (and deciding what constitutes an average person).

The closest I've seen is something that the Institut Economique Molinari came out with that attempted to factor in income tax, employer and employee social security (PRSI in our case) and the impact of VAT. It ranked countries by "Tax Freedom Day" the concept of a date where you're notionally free of paying taxes and anything earned after that is your own. It's ranking had Ireland as the third lowest tax burden, behind Malta and Cyprus.

Even something like that is pretty inexact, since it doesn't take into account municipal taxes like property tax or water rates etc.

There are a number of problems with that, but just to pick two:

1) I think you're looking at the cost to employer of net €1 to employee data;
2) "Real Gross Salary" is the cost to the employer and is conveniently set for Ireland at €38,593 - meaning only the lower band of tax applies to this calculation.

Chips Lovell

Average Gross Salary figures apparently came from the OECD’s "Taxing Wages" and Eurostat’s Annual Gross Earnings in Industry and Services and presumably the same applies to several other countries - those earning more may be paying tax at a higher rate

Again, as I said, even deciding what constitutes the average worker is tricky to do.

FreudianSlippers

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Average Gross Salary figures apparently came from the OECD’s "Taxing Wages" and Eurostat’s Annual Gross Earnings in Industry and Services and presumably the same applies to several other countries - those earning more may be paying tax at a higher rate

Again, as I said, even deciding what constitutes the average worker is tricky to do.

Right, which is exactly why this form of calculation is incorrect when viewed against the effective tax rate of 52% - when taking into account all taxpayers.

Chips Lovell

I think the point I was trying to make was that a.) the top tax rate is only one variable of many and doesn't tell the whole story and b.) there's a several other variables that nobody (that I'm aware of at least) take into account. Factor in property or municipal taxes and that table could change again.

brabantje

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Irish Rail is heavily subsidised though.

So why is this subsidy not passed onto the user? Where is the waste?

brabantje

Idbatterim wrote: »

A few other things. Homelessness will never we eliminated, it’s not just a money issue. Also we don’t need to hike tax anywhere to pay for it although I’m not sure why it’s tax hikes that are always pointed out, expenditure could be cut too. They have billions available to burn this budget, probably their last. Money is not the issue ...

Policy wise there's no central government scheme on social housing - it being largely left to the local authorities to manage. The removal of domestic rates in the late seventies has a lot to answer for - the local authorities no longer have the budgets, because of the removal of domestic rates plus the commercial rate has been pushed upward to try to bridge the gap. Throw into the mix things like upward only rent reviews and you can see how this leads to higher costs for everyone and no real solution to the problem.

IMO there's scope for a government agency to provide low cost/affordable housing and ease the pressure somewhat.

Bear in mind that social housing can also be an income stream for government - especially as the people living in social housing won't all be on the dole.

FreudianSlippers

brabantje wrote: »

So why is this subsidy not passed onto the user? Where is the waste?

Irish Rail received €133m subsidy from the taxpayer in 2016 - now granted in 2016 this included approx €40m for heavy maintenance expenditure which is capitalised as a fixed asset; from their annual report they account for just over €110m in PSO subsidy. Total revenue just shy of €468m.

Payroll and related costs of (all figures rounded to nearest €100k for ease) €241.5m; materials and servicing costs €200.9m leaving €25.4m profit before exceptional costs.

Exceptional costs and depreciation €27m, leaving a deficit before taxes of €2.8m.

So as you can see, the company is in the red even with subsidy meaning fares are where they need to be. I'd suggest that the major issue on their balance sheet is pay roll and related costs.

brabantje

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Irish Rail received €133m subsidy from the taxpayer in 2016 - now granted in 2016 this included approx €40m for heavy maintenance expenditure which is capitalised as a fixed asset; from their annual report they account for just over €110m in PSO subsidy. Total revenue just shy of €468m.

Payroll and related costs of (all figures rounded to nearest €100k for ease) €241.5m; materials and servicing costs €200.9m leaving €25.4m profit before exceptional costs.

Exceptional costs and depreciation €27m, leaving a deficit before taxes of €2.8m.

So as you can see, the company is in the red even with subsidy meaning fares are where they need to be. I'd suggest that the major issue on their balance sheet is pay roll and related costs.

Or could it be that there isn't really a choice of places to go on the train - for example if you need to go somewhere that isn't on a main line, then the train isn't really an option for you? And consequently passenger numbers aren't sufficient?

Idbatterim

I don’t believe there is any other country where the lower paid, pay in virtually nothing into the system in direct taxes. The lpt is nearly non existent. No water charges. The mid to high income earners here carry a far higher burden than our European neighbors ...

Idbatterim

I don’t think the situation of the councils not contracting out the building themselves, Can go on much longer ... despite every attempt being made by government, not to go down that route ... if ff or sf propose proper solutions to the crisis and many have been proposed in the media, that would be a nice vote winner ...

Wheeliebin30

brabantje wrote: »

This is actually a very valid point. In other places that I've lived, I've paid a higher rate of tax, but the benefits are tangible - excellent infrastructure, good quality housing stock (largely rented long term), quality pubic transport etc. One could be forgiven for thinking that we aren't getting good bang for our tax buck.

Which places are these?

brabantje

Idbatterim wrote: »

I don’t believe there is any other country where the lower paid, pay in virtually nothing into the system in direct taxes. The lpt is nearly non existent. No water charges. The mid to high income earners here carry a far higher burden than our European neighbors ...

And the very highly paid manage not to pay taxes at all largely, by taking their money out of the country. In the UK no tax is paid until £11,850 is earned - which would be a fair proportion of low earning or part time workers.

In France income tax is zero until €9,700, then 14% until €26k. So french lower paid workers are entering at a lower threshold, then paying a lower rate of tax.

FreudianSlippers

There seem to be a lot of social houses which are boarded up in the North inner city; surely there is a way to quickly bring these up to spec and assign people to them?