Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

United Ireland Poll - please vote

1146147149151152220

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 58 ✭✭Whatcar212


    Is there really a need for tax increases though?

    Most economists acknowledge MMT as the way forward for sovereign nations (Biden's administration is openly acknowledging this as the way America will operate going forward). If our politicians stop pushing the Austerity line and start working on a MMT basis then there is no need to raise taxes.

    (That's said I don't think any of our politicians will ever have the balls to make that move, as the public backlash due to the lack of understanding would be massive).



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,166 ✭✭✭jh79


    I've no idea if tax increases are specifically required. Even if not necessary for it to be income tax the equivalent would still need to be found elsewhere ie via cuts to services.



  • Registered Users Posts: 402 ✭✭drdidlittle


    One small problem with this.... The Euro.

    Or are you proposing we leave the Euro to 'finance' a UI?



  • Registered Users Posts: 66,283 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Yes, I really think they have no appetite or ability for a fight capable of destabilising a state.

    Yes there may be some anger and sporadic violence.

    As long as proper transitions are arranged I dont see a policing issue either.

    I see our most ardent here are already using the negative scary talk around this.

    The real world evidence does not support them though.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,336 ✭✭✭Fionn1952


    Financing the costs via national debt would also be an option. If one saw significant social and economic benefits, at a time with low interest rates it may even be a better option than austerity type cuts to services or increases to tax.

    I'm fully aware that the proverbial piper still needs paying, but if the economic gains were above the level of interest that was accumulating on the debt then this would lead to a gradual paying off of that debt without cuts to services or increases to taxes.

    Would the gains be significant enough to make that a viable option? Not a clue tbh.

    Are interest rates likely to jump to the point where they surpass economic growth? Not a clue tbh.

    I'm not suggesting it is the right option, I'll leave that to greater minds than mine to work out and propose in the lead up to a border poll, but increased tax or cuts to services aren't the only options. I'd imagine the reality will be a mix of all three.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 66,283 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Keep deluding yourself that the benefits talked about will only be confined to the bottom line. There are other huge benefits that will dominate the campaign, 'positive' benefits and the opposition allies of partitionists and unionists will have to tear them down with constant negativity.



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,166 ✭✭✭jh79


    To be fair Fionn, I've consistently said the cost is the same whether it involves income tax rises or cuts to services. It's a handy metric that everyone is familiar with.

    I'd imagine from an economist's perspective, income tax is easier to model on.



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,166 ✭✭✭jh79




  • Registered Users Posts: 3,336 ✭✭✭Fionn1952


    But not necessarily the same if financed via debt and (big if) the economic benefits outweigh the cost of financing that debt.

    Say hypothetically it costs €50 billion over 10 years to fix it after any outside assistance. That would lead to a 20% increase in our National Debt, which is certainly quite scary on the surface. The interest payable on that would be around €2bn, if the economic returns are noticeably greater than €2bn, then the investment pays for itself in the long term by paying off the interest and the remainder paying down the capital of the loan.

    Obviously a great simplification, and I don't know the numbers, but I'd expect any economist who was serious about coming to honest conclusions would at least consider partially incorporating that into some models to project the outcome, even if it is easier to model income tax increases. I wasn't aware that the best economic models were the easiest; maybe I should look at a change of career!



  • Registered Users Posts: 66,283 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    They are all out there jh79, if you cared to open your mind.

    Maybe email Leo Varadkar and ask him why he wants one and sees it happening in his lifetime



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,537 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Irish politics is based on consensus so I can't see any Irish party shooting themselves in the foot by sticking it on income tax. It's more likely that the 12.5% corporate tax will have to be increased to 15% because of external pressure.

    Sticking it on the national debt is the pain free way to do it. Because technically it's a medium term investment in infrastructure that will be paid back by increased economic activity. I'd expect a good few roads would be upgraded and that means jobs and local investment. Once you have good transport other investment follows. Stuff like bringing Donegal back into the hinterland of Derry would benefit areas outside the six counties too.



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,166 ✭✭✭jh79


    From a lay persons perspective Income Tax is easy to get your head around. Doesn't income tax guarantee there is money in the pot to pay for the extra services whereas with borrowing you then are hoping the return is enough to pay back both the interest and the principal and if it isn't you'll probably have to raise the repayment money thorough other means ie taxation.

    Isn't the elephant in the room the measly 35bn over 8 years benefit. That's not gonna service much of a debt.

    As an economists what is your professional opinion on the papers provided by Hubner, Doyle and Fitzgerald? Are they a good starting point to judge the costs and benefits of Unity?



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,166 ✭✭✭jh79


    You seem to struggle with them so maybe I should email Leo.



  • Registered Users Posts: 66,283 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    You do that...then review the threads on this subject for the benefits I see.

    Who knows maybe Leo can pull you onto the bandwagon he realised he needs to be on. It'll be nice and fresh on his mind!



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,166 ✭✭✭jh79


    You failed to articulate any, why would i go searching for them when someone as biased as you failed at it.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,336 ✭✭✭Fionn1952


    To be clear, I'm not an economist, JH. I have done my share of statistical modelling in my time, but never in the economics field. My quip was more aimed at the suggestion that we should model based on income tax because it is the easiest to understand; I was suggesting that perhaps the easiest isn't necessarily the best; if it was I might consider a career change into economics.

    From a lay person's perspective, income tax might be easier to get your head around but again, I'd rather have accurate than easy when it comes to something as significant as the economy. Perhaps that will mean the government at the time having some difficult conversations to explain that applying the logic of a person's individual finances to that of a country's economy doesn't work.

    €35bn over 8 years would be over €4bn a year; enough to cover the interest on over €100bn of debt. Given that the objective would be initial investment to bring NI up to par, one would imagine that after the 8 years of investment, the economy of NI would be sufficiently advanced to contribute enough to then start to pay down the capital investment it took to reach that point. Being frank, I would've expected longer than 8 years before it paid a dividend for the investment, so I wouldn't see a, 'measly' €35bn increase as problematic, but rather as green shoots of progress.



  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,537 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Isn't the elephant in the room the measly 35bn over 8 years benefit. That's not gonna service much of a debt.

    Meanwhile in the real world - The funds were raised at a yield of 0.585%, the National Treasury Management Agency (NTMA) said in a statement.

    Also worth noting how oversubscribed the offer was and how long the term was. No problem getting credit. And easy to payback at that rate.



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,166 ✭✭✭jh79


    The 8 years is contested as it assumes FDI will, overnight, increase to the Republics level. Fitzgerald says this is implausible due to the low levels of education in NI. He reckons 20 years as that is how long it took educational standards in the Republic to improve by a similar amount.

    If we look at debt instead of income tax am I correct in the following;

    Doyle says 5% covers the subvention. Fitzgerald say 8% and that represents a budget adjustment of 20/30bn. Does that mean we need to borrow 20/30 bn if not going down the income tax route and that over 8 years would need to borrow 160/240bn to cover the subvention?



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,336 ✭✭✭Fionn1952


    .....everything is contested JH, as you well know; the €35bn figure is as contested as the 5% or 8% figures to cover the subvention. Put ten economists in a room and we'll have thirty different projections. Getting a sufficient number of studies together and carrying out a meta analysis would probably be the best way to get to the point we can discuss actual reliable figures.

    If there was absolutely no increase in FDI or NI economic output during that 8 years, and the amount of funding required remained stagnant over that period and the figure of between 5 and 8% is accurate then yes, that would be the required amount. A lot of ifs there though.



  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,537 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    over 8 years would need to borrow 160/240bn to cover the subvention?

    You are going to have to explain those numbers.

    NI economy is £50 bn a year and £10bn of that is from the subvention, the public sector is 22% of the economy so another £10bn. That leaves £30Bn a year from the private sector.

    So how does NI need another £30B a year ??



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 8,166 ✭✭✭jh79


    Reckon it's too niche to have a enough research for a met-analysis. That's fair enough. Just trying to get a handle on the relationship between the different figures so I can judge the papers better. My stats is pretty basic, just shelf-life predictions and whether different batches are part of the same population to assess processes.



  • Registered Users Posts: 10,650 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    what tax increases? Considering you are ignoring that the country needs to discuss what a UI is, you seem to be hell bent in makey uppey talk. We need to discuss how a UI will change things before we can talk of how much anything will cost or how many (if any) job losses there will be. If - like blanch152 - you seem to think the process wont take a few decades then I think you need a reality check.

    I wouldnt be surprised if none of your complaints end up as issues - all I hear is whinging because you dont like the idea of a UI.



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,166 ✭✭✭jh79


    Funny how it wasn't makey uppey talk when your fellow party member Pearse Doherty said he could be certain we can afford a UI due to "peer reviewed research" before any plan on what unification might entail.

    If it's good enough for Pearse it's good enough for me.



  • Registered Users Posts: 27,019 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Most economists?

    How many Irish economists?



  • Registered Users Posts: 27,019 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    The only reason it would take a few decades is because it costs so much. That then begs the question that if it takes a few decades because it costs so much, is it money well spent, when we have the climate change challenge for one that makes nationalism irrelevant.



  • Registered Users Posts: 10,650 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    no - it would take decades as it is a major reconstruction of irish society. the question that is being begged is do you have the slightest notion of how mammoth a task as UI will be? I dont think you see the big picture at all.



  • Registered Users Posts: 10,650 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    funny? did you laugh?


    I dont really care how you misinterpret what other people say - the point is you are talking about taxes and generally going on like you actually have an idea of what needs to be done. none of us have a clue so Ive no idea how you think you know it all. It needs to be discussed first.


    Certainly neither yourself nor blanch152 seem to want to just openly admit you dont want a UI. Instead you both will come out with the most inaccurate rubbish to pretend you know what will happen



  • Posts: 6,192 ✭✭✭[Deleted User]



    Tbf liberialism is dead,this thing of austrity above everything else in a downturn,is even admitted by imf as been a failure and counter productive (no mind the fact its proposed idological of privatisation as efficent is just a farce here)



    Balance budgets in a boom,and spend like fcuk in a downturn,curtail spending as econmy recovers and let private sector take over,never again have min wage workers and those on social welfare carry the bulk of the burden for liberialism and the rich.



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,166 ✭✭✭jh79


    Did you read my question to Fionn? I wasn't sure on the figure myself but he thinks it's reasonable with the caveats he mentions.

    Doyle and Fitzgerald have the subvention equivalent to 5-8% in income tax increases and say that this is a budget adjustment of 20/30bn. So 8 years we borrow 160/240bn if not increasing taxes.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 8,166 ✭✭✭jh79




Advertisement