Leo Varadkar post Taoiseach

charlie14

road_high wrote: »

There’s a lot of deluded middle class mini Greta Thingys out there more than willing to vote for that ****e. The Irish Greens are a particular set of fanatics- zero realistic policies or action bar tax things into oblivion- if that’s what voters want it’s hard to save them from such stupidity

Middle class Greta`s and Garrett`s may not be that keen when they read a costed general election manifesto and see how much it will hit their wallets.

_Kaiser_

road_high wrote: »

There’s a lot of deluded middle class mini Greta Thingys out there more than willing to vote for that ****e. The Irish Greens are a particular set of fanatics- zero realistic policies or action bar tax things into oblivion- if that’s what voters want it’s hard to save them from such stupidity

It's a valid point. You even only have to look on this site to see it. Tree-hugging climate alarmism is all the rage with the younger voters and the well-heeled.

It's always the same when the economy is going well. Some people adopt this guilt-complex for fashionable causes and want to be seen to care.... Of course if the economy takes a dive, so too does their new-found social conscience.

If Brexit turns out to be a mess for Ireland, or the external economy ends up negatively effected by it or something else, Greta and all the "end of the world" phrophesising will suddenly go very quiet.

Loafing Oaf

tayto lover wrote: »

He rubbed salt into the wounds of “the man who gets up early to go to work” and that will be in the working man’s mind when the election comes about.
The grey vote is very important for them too and he gave them nothing in the last budget, they won’t forget. Voters know that he will lick up to the Greens too When the obvious happens and he is short of numbers. They know that will cost them with the Greens madcap policies.
It will be interesting to see what happens.

But again we return to the question of where these 'early risers' are going to get a better deal. Micheal Martin was ruling out the abolition of USC anytime soon the other day; do these guys believe FF are going to reduce the tax burden? And are FF any less likely to be licking up to the Greens and other soft left parties when trying to put together a government?

road_high

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

But again we return to the question of where these 'early risers' are going to get a better deal. Micheal Martin was ruling out the abolition of USC anytime soon the other day; do these guys believe FF are going to reduce the tax burden? And are FF any less likely to be licking up to the Greens and other soft left parties when trying to put together a government?

Yes I think we are damned whichever way we turn- no D party has any genuine interest in taxpayers or workers- the so called homeless/welfare brigade have taken over the asylum and D reann is packed to the gills with idiots pandering to this classes every whim and demand. It’s a sad state of affairs and we are in very serious trouble should the economy hit a hard downturn again as we have a huge debt saddled with huge welfare and public spending neither of which are affordable

Idbatterim

road_high wrote: »

Yes I think we are damned whichever way we turn- no D party has any genuine interest in taxpayers or workers- the so called homeless/welfare brigade have taken over the asylum and D reann is packed to the gills with idiots pandering to this classes every whim and demand. It’s a sad state of affairs and we are in very serious trouble should the economy hit a hard downturn again as we have a huge debt saddled with huge welfare and public spending neither of which are affordable

as ridiculous as the PS pay and pensions are, at least those people work! They want to link the OAP to inflation, its not a bad idea, inflation will likely be less than the fiver they throw at them every budget. It makes it look like they care about them, and they really do, but its not a bad way to try win the vote, but for minimal cost.

One new taxpayer first party, a competent one with a good leader, could take ten to fifteen percent of the vote IMO. My party would be for USC abolition (you have to be somewhat populist) and for cheaper housing for the working masses, there are multiple ways of achieving this. With apartments, just ditch the dual aspect requirement, which adds a lot to the cost. The HSE and all of the other circuses, nothing will every change there, unless a new party came to power with a majority, never going to happen!

also endlessly cutting the pittance of prescription charges they pay is another farce! If they are going to give them a fiver, no need to cut the other stuff that they are getting massively subsidised too!

Loafing Oaf

Idbatterim wrote: »

One new taxpayer first party, a competent one with a good leader, could take ten to fifteen percent of the vote IMO.

What is this based on? I see little evidence that Irish voters are looking for anything more 'fiscally conservative' than FF/FG...

seamus

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

What is this based on? I see little evidence that Irish voters are looking for anything more 'fiscally conservative' than FF/FG...

It's based on the echo chambers people are inhabiting where everyone apparently wants to kick out all the refugees, get rid of social welfare, increase taxes on low earners and reduce taxes on high earners (read: "the middle class").

These people don't turn up and cast votes though.

It's based on a very skewed understanding of just where money is going in Ireland. The "middle class" pay relatively little tax as it is, but it's a song as old as time in Ireland that we want everything from our tax-funded services, but we want to pay less tax.

The fact that we get poor services is seen as "wasting taxpayer money", when the reality is that taxpayer's contributions and their expectations are massively out of kilter.

Eric Cartman

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

What is this based on? I see little evidence that Irish voters are looking for anything more 'fiscally conservative' than FF/FG...

We havent been offered it without a big side serving of religion or anything else mad. There was appetite for the PD’s at the time when tax was a lot lower, now its over breaking point tyeres more appeal than ever

drunkmonkey

If you want service in this country you need to pay for it privately. So less taxes on those people who can afford to pay for it as there not getting fair value for their contributions.
I genuinely feel sorry for people at the mercy of state services as there either non existent, completely incompetent or wholly understaffed. Privatise nearly everything and put the money back in people's pockets so they can afford to pay for a service when they need it. If that means the dole is €400 a week then so be it, but this idea that we keep paying for dangerously crap service can't continue.

tayto lover

drunkmonkey wrote: »

If you want service in this country you need to pay for it privately. So less taxes on those people who can afford to pay for it as there not getting fair value for their contributions.
I genuinely feel sorry for people at the mercy of state services as there either non existent, completely incompetent or wholly understaffed. Privatise nearly everything and put the money back in people's pockets so they can afford to pay for a service when they need it. If that means the dole is €400 a week then so be it, but this idea that we keep paying for dangerously crap service can't continue.

Wouldn’t work.
The non workers and addicts would only use the extra money feeding their habits and they use more services than working people. The workers would also be paying them the extra money in taxes. Just take a visit to doctors surgeries and see who makes up the attendance.

Loafing Oaf

Eric Cartman wrote: »

We havent been offered it without a big side serving of religion or anything else mad. There was appetite for the PD’s at the time when tax was a lot lower, now its over breaking point tyeres more appeal than ever

So when is it going to happen? Who is going to do it? It's too late now for the upcoming election...

Eric Cartman

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

So when is it going to happen? Who is going to do it? It's too late now for the upcoming election...

Everyone really interested is too busy working, huge apetite among the self employed but no time and it would be a paycut ha

James Brown

road_high wrote: »

Yes I think we are damned whichever way we turn- no D party has any genuine interest in taxpayers or workers- the so called homeless/welfare brigade have taken over the asylum and D reann is packed to the gills with idiots pandering to this classes every whim and demand. It’s a sad state of affairs and we are in very serious trouble should the economy hit a hard downturn again as we have a huge debt saddled with huge welfare and public spending neither of which are affordable

In what reality? You do know who's in government right?
The homeless/welfare brigade are doing a terrible job if they are in control.
Homeless/housing crises and not to mention 2019 was the worst year so far, (always 2020) for hospital overcrowding.

As for 'people who like to get up early', that's likely Leo's recycled battle cry come election time.
What this means is, if you are finding things tough, it's your own fault. If you are doing well, that's because you get up early and Leo looked after you. It's ignorant IMO.

ChikiChiki

seamus wrote: »

It's based on the echo chambers people are inhabiting where everyone apparently wants to kick out all the refugees, get rid of social welfare, increase taxes on low earners and reduce taxes on high earners (read: "the middle class").

These people don't turn up and cast votes though.

It's based on a very skewed understanding of just where money is going in Ireland. The "middle class" pay relatively little tax as it is, but it's a song as old as time in Ireland that we want everything from our tax-funded services, but we want to pay less tax.

The fact that we get poor services is seen as "wasting taxpayer money", when the reality is that taxpayer's contributions and their expectations are massively out of kilter.

What is the point in paying more tax when the damn money is wasted. We do not get value out of what we currently pay.

The answer to poor services is not throwing more money at it. Why the hell would we throw good money after bad?? I am actually astounded at how many Government TDs and supporters cannot seem to grasp this. Their inexperience working in the private sector within a well functioning and lean organisation really shows up here.

Saying anything else is just pure spin.

Eric Cartman

ChikiChiki wrote: »

What is the point in paying more tax when the damn money is wasted. We do not get value out of what we currently pay.

The answer to poor services is not throwing more money at it. Why the hell would we throw good money after bad?? I am actually astounded at how many Government TDs and supporters cannot seem to grasp this. Their inexperience working in the private sector within a well functioning and lean organisation really shows up here.

Saying anything else is just pure spin.

+1 , our service delivery is also far too focussed on making unemployed people comfortable than putting them back to work which needs to change.

Loafing Oaf

ChikiChiki wrote: »

The answer to poor services is not throwing more money at it. Why the hell would we throw good money after bad?? I am actually astounded at how many Government TDs and supporters cannot seem to grasp this.

Because the government's focus is always on the next election. And as soon as they started talking about greater 'efficiency' in public services, the opposition parties would be slamming them as heartless, neoliberal, Thatcherite and soft-left floating voters would be abandoning them. So the path of least resistance is always to funnel more money into public spending....

James Brown

Eric Cartman wrote: »

+1 , our service delivery is also far too focussed on making unemployed people comfortable than putting them back to work which needs to change.

But unemployment is at 4.8%, how is this such a big issue? What knock on effects is it having that this 4.8% is disrupting our possible shangri la?
Maybe look in other areas with as much vigor?

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Because the government's focus is always on the next election. And as soon as they started talking about greater 'efficiency' in public services, the opposition parties would be slamming them as heartless, neoliberal, Thatcherite and soft-left floating voters would be abandoning them. So the path of least resistance is always to funnel more money into public spending....

Handy to be Varadkar, anything FG do wrong is because of dem others, that are worse. I don't recall PBP/SF/Lab/Greens crying out for more funding for the NCH over run, lower taxes for vulture funds, Siterv deal at a loss to the tax payer still under investigation, Reilly's clinics, Broadband preferred bidder and on and on. All money saving
People forget Kenny's FG got in on a promise to 'end the scandal of hospital trolleys', (2019 worse year so far), No more quangos, 'change the way we do business' etc. The people voted for change and didn't get it, so that's on FG not the electorate IMO.

seamus

ChikiChiki wrote: »

The answer to poor services is not throwing more money at it.

Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. Procedural change and efficiency improvements often require a glut of upfront spending.

The fantasy is that some Michael O'Leary type will go in like a tyrant and transform the public service into a clean-running, cost-effective utopia overnight. But that's a fantasy.

In some cases efficiency requires shedding staff. That's redundancy costs.

In others it requires widespread procedural change and training. That's more cost developing the processes and renegotiating staff roles and contracts.

In others it requires entire facilities to be decommissioned and others to be built from new, plus the cost of redistributing/shedding the displaced staff.

And so on.

These are not unique costs. They occur in the private sector too whenever an organisation makes big efficiency changes. Private organisations just don't tend to get themselves too deeply into the quagmire. If they do they go belly up. The public sector though can just keep propping inefficiences up with public money until you're left in a sh1t state.

Nevertheless, that doesn't change the fact that driving deep change and organisational efficiency requires significant spending.

Think about it logically even using one example; "We want to make our rail system provide more value for money, so we're going to stop giving them money and make them figure out how to make it run better".

Or

"We're going to invest €30bn over ten years on specific projects which we know will improve services, improve efficiency and reduce waste".

Which do you think will result in value for money after a decade?

This is what is not understood. One on hand you have people who think that the public sector will get better if we stop spending money. On the other you have people who think it will get better if we just throw money at it undirected.

They're all wrong. But that doesn't matter. Because the changes required will span across multiple governments and people don't want to hear that. So they make it go away by throwing money at it and claiming that they got organisational improvements cheaper than a long term investment.

James Brown

seamus wrote: »

...Because the changes required will span across multiple governments and people don't want to hear that. So they make it go away by throwing money at it and claiming that they got organisational improvements cheaper than a long term investment.

I think a big issue is who makes off the contracts. Let's be honest all parties would have their preferred bidders. Unfortunately even if a government did right by the tax payer on a big project if the other team came in they'd want to amend it to suit their backers. I don't mean this as a dig, it's a sad fact of Irish politics.

snotboogie

I'm struggling to see where all of the extra tax money is going? In 2011 we collected 3.5 billion in Corporation Tax, in 2018 we collected 10 billion in Corporation tax. The overall tax take went from 25 billion a year to 45 billion a year over the same period. It's not just in comparison with the recession either, the tax take in 2018 was 10 billion higher than in 2016. Where is all the extra money going? The Children's Hospital is a drop in the ocean, it would be more than covered by the increase in Corporation Tax alone, in just one year between 2017 and 2018 : https://www.revenue.ie/en/corporate/documents/statistics/receipts/net-receipts-by-county.pdf

I mean when the figures for 2019 come out I expect we will have actually doubled our tax take in the 9 years between 2011 and 2019, yet we are still struggling to balance our budget and this is with no real investment in infrastructure and none coming down the line.

seamus

^^
TBH, it's all quite well detailed out in the budget statements. I agree that it seems like we're bringing in loads of extra tax and not doing anything with it.

But if you consider that in 2011 we budgeted to spend €59bn and collect just €37bn. That 22bn has to be paid off somewhere (as does the 18bn the year before and the 18bn the year after). Actual spending has increased 10% since 2011, but we have this massive backlog of debt to keep up with too. And not "bailing out the banks" debt, actual debt that we incurred from our day-to-day spending.

An alternative way to look at is that that when Fianna Fail last had the reigns, our government was spending 90% of what it spends today, but collecting 50% of what we're collecting today. That will explain why progress appears to have been so stunted.

is_that_so

snotboogie wrote: »

I'm struggling to see where all of the extra tax money is going? In 2011 we collected 3.5 billion in Corporation Tax, in 2018 we collected 10 billion in Corporation tax. The overall tax take went from 25 billion a year to 45 billion a year over the same period. It's not just in comparison with the recession either, the tax take in 2018 was 10 billion higher than in 2016. Where is all the extra money going? The Children's Hospital is a drop in the ocean, it would be more than covered by the increase in Corporation Tax alone, in just one year between 2017 and 2018 : https://www.revenue.ie/en/corporate/documents/statistics/receipts/net-receipts-by-county.pdf

I mean when the figures for 2019 come out I expect we will have actually doubled our tax take in the 9 years between 2011 and 2019, yet we are still struggling to balance our budget and this is with no real investment in infrastructure and none coming down the line.

Health and Welfare are the biggest spenders, then education. Between them they are close to 60% of the annual spend. Here's something to ease your bewilderment.

https://whereyourmoneygoes.gov.ie/en/

James Brown

Varadkar's legacy for me will be one of placing blame elsewhere. He was the best minister for every department but his own and lost when put in charge. The need for welfare is the fault of those who receive welfare and the homeless crisis is worse elsewhere. If anyone has it tough he'll regale you with tales about dole spongers and how you should get up earlier.

snotboogie

is_that_so wrote: »

Health and Welfare are the biggest spenders, then education. Between them they are close to 60% of the annual spend. Here's something to ease your bewilderment.

https://whereyourmoneygoes.gov.ie/en/

There is no noticeable increase that jumps out. It just seems that our income has closed the gap on our spending

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I think a big issue is who makes off the contracts. Let's be honest all parties would have their preferred bidders. Unfortunately even if a government did right by the tax payer on a big project if the other team came in they'd want to amend it to suit their backers. I don't mean this as a dig, it's a sad fact of Irish politics.

Can you let us know the percentage of government expenditure spent on such contracts, the percentage of such contracts that go to "preferred bidders"?

I think that the type of things you are talking about are pretty minor in the context of overall government expenditure and that the type of misbehaviour you post about is at best overstated and at worst verging into conspiracy theory territory. Now, if I am wrong, you will be able to produce hard facts to disprove my thinking.

At the very least, it's a pretty lazy and self-defeating analysis devoid of factual evidence to suggest that governments amend big projects to suit their backers. However, I have to hand it to you, it is one of the more original reasons to keep Fine Gael in government. After all, if a different government will amend big projects to suit their backers, wouldn't be better keeping the current lot in so at least the current big projects get finished without being changed again?

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Can you let us know the percentage of government expenditure spent on such contracts, the percentage of such contracts that go to "preferred bidders"?

I think that the type of things you are talking about are pretty minor in the context of overall government expenditure and that the type of misbehaviour you post about is at best overstated and at worst verging into conspiracy theory territory. Now, if I am wrong, you will be able to produce hard facts to disprove my thinking.

At the very least, it's a pretty lazy and self-defeating analysis devoid of factual evidence to suggest that governments amend big projects to suit their backers. However, I have to hand it to you, it is one of the more original reasons to keep Fine Gael in government. After all, if a different government will amend big projects to suit their backers, wouldn't be better keeping the current lot in so at least the current big projects get finished without being changed again?

How would you like it? How many contracts for clearing a blocked toilet is preferred bidder broadband status worth 1:1, 10:1?
Is there an electricians contract for checking the wiring in a social housing property still under investigation?
In any case I'm not sure what the percentage of contracts has to do with my point that one government will likely undo any good works by the previous.
You seem to be arguing a point I never made, again.
Yes, if the government weren't inept, sure but how many more NCH overruns is enough?

hatrickpatrick

charlie14 wrote: »

I can see where you are going with your point, and it would be the ideal, but unfortunately I am not sure just how much interest independents have in the national good.
More than likely we would end up with tax money being poured into individual fiefdoms for the purpose of re-election.
We have a history of this already from independent TD`s selling their support for minority governments

I 100% understand this fear (I'm lucky in that my own local independent TD, Richard Boyd Barrett, has been majorly involved in national as well as local politics since long before he was elected to Dáil Eireann, and as such have no fears about him in particular in this regard) but I still say it would be the lesser of two evils compared with the establishment we have currently which is completely f*cking everything up for an entire generation of young people. If one considers the definition of madness being repeating the same actions and expecting different results, I just want to see FFG gone from having any combined majority in the Dáil and see if the country can move to a new paradigm without their failed 1990s neoliberalism blocking progress at every turn.

Again, I realise that current electoral arithmetic makes this more of a pipe dream than a possibility, but a few more elections down the road and I think we could all be very surprised at how much things might change. The housing issue is going to bubble over eventually and galvanise not just one but possibly two or even three generations of young Irish people who can't afford a place to live, unless a government willing to engage in a 1930s-style intervention emerges, and that simply won't happen while FFG maintain a stranglehold over legislative votes.

EDIT: Make no mistake about one thing - FF's 'support' for bills targeting high rents and a lack of social housing is purely tactical. They know that under the current ridiculously broad (and in my view unconstitutional) interpretation of Money Message requirements, they can safely vote in favour of opposition bills in the knowledge that FG can block them from ever making it out of Committee Stage. Were the parties to switch roles and FF to be leading the government, I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that they'd find some excuse to flip flop on everything they claim to have been supporting re housing during the current Dáil term - don't forget that it was FF who outsources the entire social housing model to the private sector in the first place, FG just went along with what had already been put in place and has rigidly refused to change it. It was FF's brainchild, something I'm sure they're hoping their voters don't remember. from the early 2000s.