General Irish Government discussion thread [See Post 1805]

Good loser

Saw Brid Smith on the Tonight Show supporting the HSE strikers (egged on big time by the insufferable Cooper).

I have yet to see her NOT support a strike. Funny thing is she has different reasons each time.

Would be much simpler for her to state 'If it's a strike, I support it'

Wouldn't it be interesting if she ever got to be a Minister or even got to run a business!!!

christy c

PeadarCo wrote: »

Well it beats being Argentina after default in the early 00's, Greece over the last few years, Venezuela currently or potentially the UK after a no deal brexit.

The standard response to this from the most vocal is "what about the homeless" or similar, as they refuse to even acknowledge that things could and probably would be worse if some of the other parties did as they promised.

James Brown

christy c wrote: »

The standard response to this from the most vocal is "what about the homeless" or similar, as they refuse to even acknowledge that things could and probably would be worse if some of the other parties did as they promised.

The bigger number would be the taxpayer. I think FG/FF would be foolish to think it's all Christmas bonuses and forever homes while ignoring the tax paying workers issues, but that's their arrogance I'd expect and why they only get in when FF falter. Maybe we'll get another 'welfare fraud cheats us all' campaign to point the finger at a sub group, unlikely to reference Insurance fraud mind.

christy c

Matt Barrett wrote: »

The bigger number would be the taxpayer. I think FG/FF would be foolish to think it's all Christmas bonuses and forever homes while ignoring the tax paying workers issues, but that's their arrogance I'd expect and why they only get in when FF falter. Maybe we'll get another 'welfare fraud cheats us all' campaign to point the finger at a sub group, unlikely to reference Insurance fraud mind.

If I didn't know better I'd say you accidentally replied to the wrong post. My point is that some people refuse to accept that things could/would be worse under a different government.

This doesn't mean that I think everything is perfect, or that I think Leo is the best politician ever, etc.

James Brown

christy c wrote: »

If I didn't know better I'd say you accidentally replied to the wrong post. My point is that some people refuse to accept that things could/would be worse under a different government.

This doesn't mean that I think everything is perfect, or that I think Leo is the best politician ever, etc.

Your standard response quip ignores issues outside of homelessness, (which FG are already ignoring). The housing crisis effects many taxpayers. Insurance premiums and so on. Pointing out it's on FG if they ignore these issues.
As for the standard, could be worse, sure. Great election by line for Varadkar.

markodaly

Matt Barrett wrote: »

The bigger number would be the taxpayer. I think FG/FF would be foolish to think it's all Christmas bonuses and forever homes while ignoring the tax paying workers issues, but that's their arrogance I'd expect and why they only get in when FF falter. Maybe we'll get another 'welfare fraud cheats us all' campaign to point the finger at a sub group, unlikely to reference Insurance fraud mind.

This post literally makes no sense.

On one hand, you appear to standing up for the taxpayer and on the other make light of welfare fraud that costs the state hundreds of millions, which is paid for by... you guessed it the taxpayer.

This thread just appears to be a soapbox for people not happy with the government, which is fine but they cannot formulate any reasonable alternative other than high minded fantasies about how a country should be run.

christy c

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Your standard response quip ignores issues outside of homelessness, (which FG are already ignoring). The housing crisis effects many taxpayers. Insurance premiums and so on. Pointing out it's on FG if they ignore these issues.
As for the standard, could be worse, sure. Great election by line for Varadkar.

I said homelessness or similar, meaning people ignore the many good things in the country because we have problems.

I wasn't trying to come up with en election slogan, that's how I see it. Our other political parties would be worse based on the things they have promised to do IMO.

James Brown

markodaly wrote: »

This post literally makes no sense.

On one hand, you appear to standing up for the taxpayer and on the other make light of welfare fraud that costs the state hundreds of millions, which is paid for by... you guessed it the taxpayer.
...

Because the welfare fraud campaign was a PR trick. We won't see similar for insurance claim fraud I'd imagine.

christy c wrote: »

I said homelessness or similar, meaning people ignore the many good things in the country because we have problems.

I wasn't trying to come up with en election slogan, that's how I see it. Our other political parties would be worse based on the things they have promised to do IMO.

Of course it could be worse, we need to work at making things better.
What we have is the lights kept on. I don't see any vision or new ideas just more of the same tired boom and bust. I'd be just fine with another 20 years of FG if they did a better job.
For me they could be tackling the housing crisis, their policies make it worse. Also having record breaking numbers of children homeless will be this governments true legacy.
A working person should be able to pay their own way, how ever meager that lifestyle may be it should include affording rent.

markodaly

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Because the welfare fraud campaign was a PR trick. We won't see similar for insurance claim fraud I'd imagine.

.

I seem to remember ad campaigns regarding insurance fraud as well but I guess that goes against your soapbox.

James Brown

markodaly wrote: »

I seem to remember ad campaigns regarding insurance fraud as well but I guess that goes against your soapbox.

Responding to comments is hardly soapboxing MarkO.

Would we see them now do you think?

christy c

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Of course it could be worse, we need to work at making things better.
What we have is the lights kept on. I don't see any vision or new ideas just more of the same tired boom and bust. I'd be just fine with another 20 years of FG if they did a better job.
For me they could be tackling the housing crisis, their policies make it worse. Also having record breaking numbers of children homeless will be this governments true legacy.
A working person should be able to pay their own way, how ever meager that lifestyle may be it should include affording rent.

Agree with a lot of that but when it comes to voting I'd vote for the above over some of the nonsense proposed by our other opposition parties. Doesn't mean FG are absolved of anything, or that I'm happy about it, just being pragmatic.

That said, if a sensible party was to present itself, I'd happily vote for them. The whole anyone but FG argument does not stack up, because as we both agree, things can get worse.

Jupiter Mulligan

Good loser wrote: »

Saw Brid Smith on the Tonight Show supporting the HSE strikers (egged on big time by the insufferable Cooper).

I have yet to see her NOT support a strike. Funny thing is she has different reasons each time.

Would be much simpler for her to state 'If it's a strike, I support it'

Wouldn't it be interesting if she ever got to be a Minister or even got to run a business!!!

Les sans-culottes sont toujours raison.

Jupiter Mulligan

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Responding to comments is hardly soapboxing MarkO.

Would we see them now do you think?

Seeing as they were funded by the insurance industry, not the government, there is absolutely no reason why not.

And you'll never guess who gave out about the campaign! "Law Society's Ken Murphy: fraud ads hinder genuine insurance claims"

James Brown

Jupiter Mulligan wrote: »

Seeing as they were funded by the insurance industry, not the government, there is absolutely no reason why not.

And you'll never guess who gave out about the campaign! "Law Society's Ken Murphy: fraud ads hinder genuine insurance claims"

The private insurance industry were behind the government welfare fraud campaign?
I was saying the government are unlikely to get behind an insurance fraud campaign what with swing gate etc.

James Brown

Jupiter Mulligan wrote: »

Les sans-culottes sont toujours raison.

I would say it's only logical and sensible to have reasons for supporting a strike.

Jupiter Mulligan

Matt Barrett wrote: »

The private insurance industry were behind the government welfare fraud campaign?

I was saying the government are unlikely to get behind an insurance fraud campaign what with swing gate etc.

No Matt. That's what you were thinking.

But what you wrote was completely ambiguous!

Jupiter Mulligan

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I would say it's only logical and sensible to have reasons for supporting a strike.

I'm 100% certain that you would. Although where precisely that gets us is anyone's guess.

markodaly

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Responding to comments is hardly soapboxing MarkO.

Would we see them now do you think?

Responding to comments? No, we do not see much of that, as in you engage in any worthwhile debate.

Instead, the thread is littered with high minded utopianism, something better suited to a Trinity philiosphy module or a students union meeting. Running a country though, very different and much more difficult.

We have gone through many of the issues facing the country, from housing to health. It is not satisfactory to only say the government are doing a poor job, in fact I might agree with you if the scope of the debate ended there. However, we then have come up with practical real-world solutions to these problems, that have a chance of fixing said problems.

All I have read the past 10 pages is stuff about, how FF and FG are always in government and woe me/us for that fact...

Yeap, great thought-provoking stuff there.

In my mind, this thread is a repeat of what the opposition has been doing for the past few years, especially SF. Yet, the last local elections have come and gone and the public has kept the status quo with FF and FG there in bigger numbers and decided to replace the opposition.

It seems the public was more annoyed with the last opposition then they were with those natural governing parties.

James Brown

Jupiter Mulligan wrote: »

No Matt. That's what you were thinking.

But what you wrote was completely ambiguous!

How so:

Matt Barrett wrote: »

....Maybe we'll get another 'welfare fraud cheats us all' campaign to point the finger at a sub group, unlikely to reference Insurance fraud mind.

Did the government not run the welfare cheats campaign? If so it's quite clear.

Jupiter Mulligan wrote: »

I'm 100% certain that you would. Although where precisely that gets us is anyone's guess.

Last time I marched in protest was steps behind Michael D. Higgins on behalf of the rights of same sex couples. Turned out pretty well in the end.

Jupiter Mulligan

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Did the government not run the welfare cheats campaign? If so it's quite clear.

Read what you wrote and what you were replying to and you just might understand. Alternatively, ask an adult to explain what "ambiguous means"

Last time I marched in protest was steps behind Michael D. Higgins on behalf of the rights of same sex couples. Turned out pretty well in the end.

What a legend you must be in your own bathroom! Although what exactly that bit of juvenile bragging has to do with supporting a strike, only Uri Geller could explain.

.

James Brown

Jupiter Mulligan wrote: »

Read what you wrote and what you were replying to and you just might understand. Alternatively, ask an adult to explain what "ambiguous means"


What a legend you must be in your own bathroom! Although what exactly that bit of juvenile bragging has to do with supporting a strike, only Uri Geller could explain..

It's obvious you're getting a little emotional. I'll leave you there.

James Brown

Why are the Apple tax monies being held in an account that makes or loses rather than just kept somewhere, which was the impression I was given? Wouldn't the allocation of any profits be up for debate but loses on those minding the money, the Irish?

Ireland's Apple escrow account declined by €16m in 2018
https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2019/0704/1060064-apple-escrow-account/

lawred2

Why is Leo out promising tax reforms again when he didn't deliver on his last promise of the same thing?

Who is advising him?

Insulting at this stage.

blackwhite

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Why are the Apple tax monies being held in an account that makes or loses rather than just kept somewhere, which was the impression I was given? Wouldn't the allocation of any profits be up for debate but loses on those minding the money, the Irish?

It's down to the rules of the Escrow arrangement.

They agreed up front to put the money into a low-risk investments - and low-risk Euro-based investments at that.

If a bank wants to put money on deposit with the ECB, they will be charged interest instead of earning interest.

As of COB on 2nd July - 3 month EURIBOR was -0.35%; 1 year EURIBOR was -0.23%; and they've been negative since mid-2016


If Apple and NTMA want to make a positive return on the escrow fund, then they'll need to come to an agreement to invest in riskier assets - which means there's greater chances of both upside and downside.

The broader question I'd be asking is why the NTMA aren't more proactive in re-financing the national debt at the moment. There's negative yields out to 7 year maturities on Irish Govt bonds.
There should be scope to refinance some of our more expensive borrowings and replace them at lower rates.
Maybe they are doing it at some scale - but there's been very little coverage if they have

http://www.worldgovernmentbonds.com/country/ireland/

Mr O'Kelly explained: "The investment policy is to invest in conservative assets so that has been agreed by Apple and Ireland. Eighty percent of it will be in Government bonds. They will all be AA rated or higher. Twenty percent will be in high grade corporate credits or single A or higher.

"The maximum maturity that the portfolio can run is five years, the average maturity that the portfolio will own is three years. If you look out into even the Irish sovereign bond market today, out to five years it is negative yielding, negative interest rates. We are in a negative interest rate environment. The portfolio as it is constructed in theory would probably return -0.5% per annum in the way it is currently constructed."

James Brown

blackwhite wrote: »

It's down to the rules of the Escrow arrangement.

They agreed up front to put the money into a low-risk investments - and low-risk Euro-based investments at that.

If a bank wants to put money on deposit with the ECB, they will be charged interest instead of earning interest.

As of COB on 2nd July - 3 month EURIBOR was -0.35%; 1 year EURIBOR was -0.23%; and they've been negative since mid-2016


If Apple and NTMA want to make a positive return on the escrow fund, then they'll need to come to an agreement to invest in riskier assets - which means there's greater chances of both upside and downside.

The broader question I'd be asking is why the NTMA aren't more proactive in re-financing the national debt at the moment. There's negative yields out to 7 year maturities on Irish Govt bonds.
There should be scope to refinance some of our more expensive borrowings and replace them at lower rates.
Maybe they are doing it at some scale - but there's been very little coverage if they have

http://www.worldgovernmentbonds.com/country/ireland/

Wasn't the details of the escrow decided on by the EU/Apple/Ireland? Are we taking the loses alone? If Apple gets the money back, will we owe them for any loses, on that, do we get to keep any profits?

blackwhite

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Wasn't the details of the escrow decided on by the EU/Apple/Ireland? Are we taking the loses alone? If Apple gets the money back, will we owe them for any loses, on that, do we get to keep any profits?

From what I heard at the time - any gains/losses within the fund will revert to whomever is ultimately entitled to the overall funds. If Apple are entitled to the money back, they get whatever the balance is; if Ireland are entitled to the money, we get whatever the balance is.


The investment strategy was outlined by O'Kelly when he appeared in the PAC yesterday - 80% has to be AA rated or higher, with the remaining 20% at A or higher; maximum maturity of 5 years with average maturity of 3 years.

Very hard to find any A or AA rated bonds with better than -0.5% interest on short maturities at the minute.

Podge_irl

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Wasn't the details of the escrow decided on by the EU/Apple/Ireland? Are we taking the loses alone? If Apple gets the money back, will we owe them for any loses, on that, do we get to keep any profits?

No one is going to leave €14B just sitting there doing nothing.

Whatever the outcome of the judgement, the "winner" will get whatever is in the escrow account. It's made pretty clear in the article you posted.

He asks if Apple does get its money back, does it get what is left in the fund? Do the Irish Government and Apple share the risk?

Mr O'Kelly said "the pot is the pot". He said that you could get a return on the fund by taking significant risk but he warned that market risk can turn against you.

James Brown

Podge_irl wrote: »

No one is going to leave €14B just sitting there doing nothing.

Whatever the outcome of the judgement, the "winner" will get whatever is in the escrow account. It's made pretty clear in the article you posted.

B/W and I addressed it. Thanks for the input.

Geuze

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Why are the Apple tax monies being held in an account that makes or loses rather than just kept somewhere, which was the impression I was given? Wouldn't the allocation of any profits be up for debate but loses on those minding the money, the Irish?

Interest rates on large deposits are negative.

Geuze

blackwhite wrote: »

The broader question I'd be asking is why the NTMA aren't more proactive in re-financing the national debt at the moment. There's negative yields out to 7 year maturities on Irish Govt bonds.
There should be scope to refinance some of our more expensive borrowings and replace them at lower rates.
Maybe they are doing it at some scale - but there's been very little coverage if they have

http://www.worldgovernmentbonds.com/country/ireland/

Yes, the NTMA have been doing this.



Comment by the NTMA Chief Executive, Conor O’Kelly:

“As we look past Ireland’s unusually high refinancing requirements or “chimneys” out to 2020, we must remain conscious of the challenges ahead, including the risks arising from Ireland’s elevated debt levels.

Eliminating these “chimneys” - which at their peak were €60 billion over the period 2018 and 2020 - is an important step in further stabilising Ireland’s borrowing patterns and making our long-term maturity profile smoother. Taking a medium term view, once the last of the chimneys is eliminated in 2020 the annual redemption profile will be as smooth as any time in our history.

We will be in this position because Ireland has taken advantage of the low interest rate environment to issue long-term debt, locking in the benefits of this low-cost borrowing for years to come.

Since 2015, we’ve issued €67 billion of long-term debt with an average maturity of over 14 years. This means that over 50% of Ireland’s total outstanding marketable debt has been refinanced in the past four years.

This strategy is delivering substantial savings for the State and we estimate that our annual debt servicing cost will fall to €5 billion this year and is likely to fall to €4.5 billion in 2020, representing an annual saving of €3 billion on peak levels seen in 2014.