Government Spending [See post 106]

beggars_bush

It's laughable Varadkar coming out with a figure of 50 billion to retrofit all houses in Ireland and saying we cannot afford it

Considering there is 13 billion in unpaid taxes sitting in an account collecting interest

McGiver

beggars_bush wrote:

Considering there is 13 billion in unpaid taxes sitting in an account collecting interest

Oh yes.

Ireland is a corporatist, captured state, offshoring as well as sink tax haven. Don't confuse that with capitalist, which it isn't at all.

In capitalism, the market is free, the government doesn't interfere with it and only sets and enforces rules, it doesn't side with anyone.

In corporatism, the government is controlled by corporations, sets rules for them, sides with them and enforces rules only for certain people segments, typically the small business.

Compare tax situation and other regulations for your local cafe and Starbucks. The latter pay little to no tax, if there's some health/safety issue, the latter will be let to continue. Small business will be forced to close etc.

Geuze

McGiver wrote: »

What are the rates roughly?

Is that for locally authority charging the business? What for?

Commercial rates are one of the two local taxes in Ireland.

The tax base is set by the Valuation Office.

The tax rate is set by each LA.

It is a property tax, based on the rentable value of your property.

Geuze

CrabRevolution wrote: »

The excise on beer hasn't changed since 2014 and even then it's not much higher than the level it's been at since 1993, barring a decrease during the recession to help pubs.

The problem facing pubs is not excise rates.

With the same excise rates, supermarkets are able to sell 33cl bottles for 1.00, that pubs charge 4.00-5.00 for.

The brewers give much better deals to supermarkets.

Pubs pay more to wholesalers for 33cl bottles, than supermarkets sell them at retail.

Mind you, even if pubs could get them cheaper, I don't think they would pass on the saving.

One of the largest pub chains in Ireland gets bulk discounts on kegs, by buying in volume, and does not pass on the saving, and so earns 80% gross profit.

James Brown

Geuze wrote: »

The problem facing pubs is not excise rates.

With the same excise rates, supermarkets are able to sell 33cl bottles for 1.00, that pubs charge 4.00-5.00 for.

The brewers give much better deals to supermarkets.

Pubs pay more to wholesalers for 33cl bottles, than supermarkets sell them at retail.

Mind you, even if pubs could get them cheaper, I don't think they would pass on the saving.

One of the largest pub chains in Ireland gets bulk discounts on kegs, by buying in volume, and does not pass on the saving, and so earns 80% gross profit.

It's always the case that business will take as much as it can get. One of the many flaws in thinking giving subsidies to private concerns or making allowances will lower pricing for the public.

McGiver

Geuze wrote: »

Commercial rates are one of the two local taxes in Ireland.

The tax base is set by the Valuation Office.

The tax rate is set by each LA.

It is a property tax, based on the rentable value of your property.

What are the rates roughly? Compared to LPT of the same property.

Does it mean you pay this tax on top of your rent if you rent your premises as a business?

Idbatterim

Take a read if the below. Off the wall !!! Not a chance commercial rates or eadtoink toll should be raised. Eastkink toll should be abolished!!! These same idiots voted to reduce lpt recently. Tell them to start collecting the rent due from council properties. 30,000,000 odd due and they are getting the properties for sfa in the first place !
These bottomless pits run by inept morons , simply turn off the cash tap. End of ...

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/dail-printer-that-cost-808k-was-too-big-to-fit-inside-office-38720645.html

James Brown

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

I got 1000 mbit fibre to home in my rural boreen thanks to NBP without the government having to spend a cent, eir got panicked into connecting hundreds of thousands of households including mine. That's great value for taxpayers money imho.

A couple I know are only down in Meath and they've had spotty broadband/wi-fi for years. Hopefully they get some kind of knock on too.
I wonder how much the privatisation of our communications network 'saved' us, considering the proposed broadband spend?

McGiver

Matt Barrett wrote:

A couple I know are only down in Meath and they've had spotty broadband/wi-fi for years. Hopefully they get some kind of knock on too. I wonder how much the privatisation of our communications network 'saved' us, considering the proposed broadband spend?

Do you think broadband should be built by the government? I'm not sure....
It's not the case in anywhere in the EU AFAIK.

marvin80

Idbatterim wrote: »

Take a read if the below. Off the wall !!! Not a chance commercial rates or eadtoink toll should be raised. Eastkink toll should be abolished!!! These same idiots voted to reduce lpt recently. Tell them to start collecting the rent due from council properties. 30,000,000 odd due and they are getting the properties for sfa in the first place !
These bottomless pits run by inept morons , simply turn off the cash tap. End of ...

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/dail-printer-that-cost-808k-was-too-big-to-fit-inside-office-38720645.html

Absolutely outrageous stuff.

There must be many cases similar to this across government departments - not as big financial amounts but they all add up.

James Brown

McGiver wrote: »

Do you think broadband should be built by the government? I'm not sure....
It's not the case in anywhere in the EU AFAIK.

I do. A bit late now mind. It's very important. Even if they made wi-fi available in the local village.
We have been trying to sell ourselves as tech savvy. With solid broadband the rural areas could be opened up to business, working from home too.

Geuze

McGiver wrote: »

What are the rates roughly? Compared to LPT of the same property.

Does it mean you pay this tax on top of your rent if you rent your premises as a business?

Look up www.valoff.ie to get the NEV for each premises.

https://maps.valoff.ie/maps/VO.html



Each LA applies a different tax rate.

An example is 0.265 in DCC.


Example: Tesco Express on Dolphins Barn Street in D8, the NEV is 14,360 euro.

Then multiply by the 0.265 tax rate = 3,805 annual tax.

Geuze

McGiver wrote: »

Does it mean you pay this tax on top of your rent if you rent your premises as a business?

Yes.

I assumed this is well known, and we don't need to be discussing basic stuff like this?

Tenants pay the rates, not the owner of the building.

Local councils have several sources of income, the most significant is commercial rates. It is a local property tax, levied on all commercial buildings.

It used to be levied on all houses, until 1978.

blanch152

Geuze wrote: »

Yes.

I assumed this is well known, and we don't need to be discussing basic stuff like this?

Tenants pay the rates, not the owner of the building.

Local councils have several sources of income, the most significant is commercial rates. It is a local property tax, levied on all commercial buildings.

It used to be levied on all houses, until 1978.

The number one bad financial governmental decision since the foundation of the state was the bank guarantee by FF. The number two was the abolition of domestic rates by the same party in 1977.

Ironically, both of them had huge public and political support at the time.

purifol0

blanch152 wrote: »

..bank guarantee by FF...

..huge public and political support at the time.

Sorry did you just say the Bank Guarantee had huge public support???


https://youtu.be/Px43eINU2OM?t=385


Quick vid of Vincent Browne telling the IMF what the Irish People thought of that back in Jan 2012

James Brown

purifol0 wrote: »

Sorry did you just say the Bank Guarantee had huge public support???


https://youtu.be/Px43eINU2OM?t=385


Quick vid of Vincent Browne telling the IMF what the Irish People thought of that back in Jan 2012

Maybe within FG, but only after the 2011 election.

beggars_bush

McGiver wrote: »

Do you think broadband should be built by the government? I'm not sure....
It's not the case in anywhere in the EU AFAIK.

State should own the infrastructure and invest in it

Private companies should run the service

Except the geniuses in the Dail sold off eircom, network and all

BonnieSituation

beggars_bush wrote: »

State should own the infrastructure and invest in it

Private companies should run the service

Except the geniuses in the Dail FIANNA FÁIL sold off eircom, network and all

20 years on and still paying the price.

blanch152

purifol0 wrote: »

Sorry did you just say the Bank Guarantee had huge public support???


https://youtu.be/Px43eINU2OM?t=385


Quick vid of Vincent Browne telling the IMF what the Irish People thought of that back in Jan 2012

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Maybe within FG, but only after the 2011 election.

This is the ultimate in revisionist history. You don't seem to have a clue about the bank guarantee. One of you thinks it was 2012, the other seems to thing it was something that FG agreed after the 2011 election. Can people really have forgotten something so seminal?

https://www.thejournal.ie/bank-guarantee-oral-history-30-september-2008-1103254-Dec2014/

"David McWilliams: “I showed him (Lenihan) an article I had written earlier that evening for my regular column in the Sunday Business Post which outlined the bank guarantee plan….

“He was worried that the guarantee was too radical… I told him… [that] he simply had to guarantee everything for a limited period to make sure than illiquid dilemma didn’t lead to an insolvency catastrophe.”

See, it was David McWilliams idea in 2008, given to Brian Lenihan, who implemented it.

Fianna Fail backed it, Fine Gael backed it, the Greens backed it, Sinn Fein backed it, independents backed it. The only party who opposed it, was Labour. Sure, many people have tried to rewrite history, but ultimately, the bank guarantee was David McWilliams' idea, it was a decision taken by Fianna Fail, and despite their misgivings, all of the parties except Labour backed it in the Dail.

https://www.thejournal.ie/readme/night-of-the-bank-guarantee-4258897-Sep2018/

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

This is the ultimate in revisionist history. ...

There was not huge public support for the banking guarantee. What is incorrect or revisionist there?
Less of the false accusations please.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

There was not huge public support for the banking guarantee. What is incorrect or revisionist there?
Less of the false accusations please.

Fianna Fail received wide public acclaim and support for the bank guarantee, although it did not last long.

Are you still thinking that the bank guarantee only happened in 2011?

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Fianna Fail received wide public acclaim and support for the bank guarantee, although it did not last long.

Are you still thinking that the bank guarantee only happened in 2011?

Not that I recall. Can you show this? Are you talking about the bank and shareholder perspective? I remember the lies about the IMF not being at our door while they were in Dublin and FF blaming it all on Lehmans and the public for going mad or partying, (I forget which term was FF and which was FG).

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Not that I recall. Can you show this? Are you talking about the bank and shareholder perspective? I remember the lies about the IMF not being at our door while they were in Dublin and FF blaming it all on Lehmans and the public for going mad or partying, (I forget which term was FF and which was FG).

It was almost two years later before the IMF were invited in, well after the bank bailout.

So, take it from me, as someone who was there, and actually following it closely, the public were relieved and happy when they were told that Fianna Fail had saved the banks and that their money was safe. Of course, they didn't know it was just a three-card trick. If you read the links I provided, the only one that spotted it was Joan Burton's adviser, hence Labour's objection to the bank bailout.

At the time, people were told by Fianna Fail that we would have the cheapest bailout in the world, and that everybody's money was safe. Of course they were happy, especially when they saw what was happening with Lehmann etc. There was also general media support for the bailout.

The support only lasted a few weeks as the implications of the calamitous decision by FF became clear to all.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

It was almost two years later before the IMF were invited in, well after the bank bailout.

So, take it from me, as someone who was there, and actually following it closely, the public were relieved and happy when they were told that Fianna Fail had saved the banks and that their money was safe. Of course, they didn't know it was just a three-card trick. If you read the links I provided, the only one that spotted it was Joan Burton's adviser, hence Labour's objection to the bank bailout.

At the time, people were told by Fianna Fail that we would have the cheapest bailout in the world, and that everybody's money was safe. Of course they were happy, especially when they saw what was happening with Lehmann etc. There was also general media support for the bailout.

The support only lasted a few weeks as the implications of the calamitous decision by FF became clear to all.

I completely disagree. As someone who was also there and TBF the nation was following it, the general public consensus was not 'huge support' for the banking guarantee. It was seen as the ones who caused the problems getting a free pass at the tax payers expense while government(s) blamed external entities and the tax paying public. It was a most shameful time of deceit and 'taking one for the team', (money cartels) as Noonan later put it.

Agree or not, this view is hardly 'revisionist'.

beggars_bush

FF thought that they'd pulled a fast one on the the UK with the guarantee

Unfortunately the banks pulled a faster one on Zanu FF with the scale of their insolvency and bad debts.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I completely disagree. As someone who was also there and TBF the nation was following it, the general public consensus was not 'huge support' for the banking guarantee. It was seen as the ones who caused the problems getting a free pass at the tax payers expense while government(s) blamed external entities and the tax paying public. It was a most shameful time of deceit and 'taking one for the team', (money cartels) as Noonan later put it.

Agree or not, this view is hardly 'revisionist'.

Noonan had nothing to do with the bank bailout, however much you might wish he had. It doesn't make any sense to quote him on it.

The only political party to oppose the bailout was Labour.

The public sighed in relief that the banks had been saved, that savers weren't going to lose out as in Lehmanns, all for the cheapest bailout ever. The media bought it too with editorials praising the government etc.

beggars_bush wrote: »

FF thought that they'd pulled a fast one on the the UK with the guarantee

Unfortunately the banks pulled a faster one on Zanu FF with the scale of their insolvency and bad debts.

Sinn Fein backed it because of the perception of pulling a fast one on the UK. It took them a few weeks to figure it out.

There were civil servants in the Department of Finance who looked out the window at the bankers heading into the Shelbourne to drink champagne the night of the bailout, those bankers knowing that they had pulled a fast one. However, Lenihan (with the help of McWilliams advice) was not for turning.

BonnieSituation

blanch152 wrote: »

The number one bad financial governmental decision since the foundation of the state was the bank guarantee by FF. The number two was the abolition of domestic rates by the same party in 1977.

Ironically, both of them had huge public and political support at the time.

And the abolition of Car Tax in the same budget.

Absolutely minced the country!

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Noonan had nothing to do with the bank bailout, however much you might wish he had. It doesn't make any sense to quote him on it.

The only political party to oppose the bailout was Labour.

The public sighed in relief that the banks had been saved, that savers weren't going to lose out as in Lehmanns, all for the cheapest bailout ever. The media bought it too with editorials praising the government etc.



Sinn Fein backed it because of the perception of pulling a fast one on the UK. It took them a few weeks to figure it out.

There were civil servants in the Department of Finance who looked out the window at the bankers heading into the Shelbourne to drink champagne the night of the bailout, those bankers knowing that they had pulled a fast one. However, Lenihan (with the help of McWilliams advice) was not for turning.

I said 'later said'. Your ill judged pedantry makes for poor diversion.

What of the public view? The public view is the topic, the comment you called 'revisionist'.

Can you show any proof the public hugely supported the bank guarantee as is your claim and reason for calling any opposing view 'revisionist'?

beggars_bush

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I said 'later said'. Your ill judged pedantry makes for poor diversion.

What of the public view? The public view is the topic, the comment you called 'revisionist'.

Can you show any proof the public hugely supported the bank guarantee as is your claim and reason for calling any opposing view 'revisionist'?

I remember at the time most comment on it was positive
Mainly as people didn't understand what had just happened, and were more concerned about their savings etc in the banks

James Brown

beggars_bush wrote: »

I remember at the time most comment on it was positive
Mainly as people didn't understand what had just happened, and were more concerned about their savings etc in the banks

Personally I remember there was fear and it was seen as a necessary evil at best. It soon became clear it was essentially a free pass while the tax payer got austerity along with the blame.