Printable View
Fair enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilMcD
I see the point of the argument that over taxing the wealth creators will end up hindering the economy. I think that in this case it would need to be a pretty big increase to make people "leave" the economy who have stayed up until now.
Totally agree that the time to tax was a few years ago and not now.
Yeah and I suppose in general the higher the earner the more senior in years and therefore the less (to use a little business-book jargon) footloose they are, their 'feet' 'tied' to the country. I suppose you could criticise mammoth taxes on high-earners from the point of view of a lack of attractiveness to high quality workers from abroad coming here. But perhaps, from a regulatory competition perspective, that is offset by high taxes in many jurisdictions at the moment.
I suppose the nub of Neil's point is that the innovators/entrepreneurs (those who really drive the economy rather than just facilitate development, say) - that those people should be pandered to with tax-breaks (perhaps more so than sportstars and artists?).
The coming weeks will be a defining period for the Green Party. They can either stand up, be counted and vote against the budget, and force an election, or they can sit there, do what they're told, and risk going the same way as the PDs just have. A lapdog party seen as part of the problem by a very hostile electorate, and judged by them accordingly.
It's a tough call for Gormley to make.
Not that different. If we hadn't continually dropped income tax rates to unsustainable levels we could've paid more, or kept it aside for the inevitable rainy day. It's down to mismanagement by the Government, rather than a lack of oil that's the issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
And even if you do take oil as being the difference. We do have significant resources, however the Government (including the current one with a Green Minister) continue to give them away for peanuts, with little financial upside and no guarantee of supply to us.
So to summerise, they've royally fooked it up either way in comparison to Norwa.
It's all about optics though. The rich has to be seen to be paying their fair share. Personally, it's more important that they close tax shelters and continually and extensively go after tax loopholes the rich use to avoid paying even at the current rates. For all the talk of x amount of people not paying tax, it includes a significant proportion of rich people avoiding their fair share as well as those on lower incomes.Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
They'll do nothing until June, when their ministerial pensions kick in. Never mind Planet Bertie, they're loving Planet Freeride.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
JA/JB for those over 20 has miraculously escaped the knife. Those under it will receive €100 per week.
Those on the minimum wage are hit.
Income levies to double.
Cigarettes up 25c.
FF reinforces it's reputation as the politcal wing of the VFI by leaving booze untouched.
Complete lack of consistency on fuel tax. One budget hits diesel, the next petrol etc.
Otherwise no surprises any precious little positives.
Bad bank is required, key issue is what assets go in it and what price Government pay for them.
Yeah the diesel tax increase was something that jumped out at me as strange. He says people will buy their petrol in the North if he increases the tax on it, why petrol and not diesel?.
The 4% income levy kicking in @75k is going to scalp a lot of people , chances are if you are got hit by this you will lose the childrens allowance as well.
Doesn't really affect me to tell the truth. Jobseekers benifit untouched for over 20's thats me. Booze and petrol left alone thats good. Tax relief still in place if you bought your house less than 7 years ago thats me.
No job
No kids
Dont smoke
Ill have to wait for the full details to come out but i think im pretty much in the same position i was this morning.
Probably in bed , waiting for dole day:pQuote:
Originally Posted by anto1208
Its shocking that they have taken away the bonus payment at Xmas for the long term unemployed . I for one remember that this payment was what made sure Santa brought what the child wanted.
It would be more in their interest if they investigated the "cheap flights social welfare migrants" that continue to rape the country.
On a wider vew there is nothing in this budget that will maintain jobs and create more.
Joan Burton sums it up:
Richard Bruton was also correct in saying this was a bookkeeping exercise with no real vision or focus on employment.Quote:
She said the First World War description of soldiers and generals as lions led by donkeys was the "perfect description for plight of Irish people today" .
On the other hand of course, First World War soldiers didn't vote the donkeys in. The problem with democracy is that you get the government you deserve, and clearly as a nation we've done some pretty unsavoury s**t to deserve these idiots.
Taking away the Christmas bonus is disappointing but it is bearable.Quote:
Originally Posted by First
Telling people that there will be no more increases in the coming years, regardless of the circumstances, is more significant
Agreed , its shockng how no matter what happens in this country it is the poorest that always end up worst off. The Celtic tiger bypassed them and now it is acknowledged that it is dead the poor are to bare to me what is more than their fair share.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
The halving of the Jobseekers allowance for the under 20's smacks of forced emmigration.
Because diesel in the UK is already about 12p / litre more expensive than petrol, in comparison to being 8 to 10 cent/litre cheaper than petrol here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Longfordian
Didnt they put 8c on petrol only in the last mini-budget?
Details now up
http://budget.gov.ie
http://finance.gov.ie
I would consider myself of left wing views but surely the poorest in sociey should be the worst off otherwise it would incentivise people to do feck all. By being poor you are by nature the worst off.Quote:
Originally Posted by First
The dole has not been touched despite the fact we are in deflation which is in fact an increase so that is fair.
He has adjusted the pension levy which seems to be fair also.
There is a lack of stimulus to create jobs in my view. The mistakes were largely made by Bertie Ahern, Charlie McCreevey and Mary Harney and Brian Cowen but only half of those are getting the blame now. The big mess ups were done over the last 10 years.
So with your thinking the poor should be forced downwards in society. I beleive that you reap what you sow in life but you would have to be extremely out of touch if you do not see how any reduction in the base payments to the unemployed or the minimum waged is only going to cause long term hurt to Ireland as a whole.
The reduction of the bonus payment is the reducing the ability of people to manage at what is universally seen as a time in the year that is hard at the best of times.
Poverty leads to crime , that is a fact. Blue collar crime. We all know where white collar crime leads
Asking the poor to pay for the incompantance of the established ,so called educated ,in the form of tax increases to attempt to balance the books while bailing out the property speculators and banks is grossly flawed.
What is going to protect the workers of this country , as our numbers dwindle each day.
There is nothing in this budget that will improve the views of the outside markets and invesrtors that Ireland , a country that has seen economic boom so badly miss managed , as a place for long term viability .
The creation of an asset management group to chase these "toxic debts" is to me as bad as the tribunals , putting money into something that will show no returns. Not only are they bailing these people out with their property speculating in this country but also for there dealings in eastern europe .Saying that this will free the banks to be able to lend again is just a mask. The actions needed now to keep the small to medium businesses going I fear will come too late and by this the suggestions of Employer PRSI reductions would help.
It is time for change in this country , we are too willing to lie down and take the crap that is thrown at us. We could start with getting out the government who for the last 15 years have grossly mis-managed the country while basing all its projections on a property boom while the infastructure remains 3rd world. Ask anyone in the freight / import / export industry .
We have to wake up to the fact that the country is not a viable place any more and we are just trying to stave off the enivitable moves that will come from Germany to bail us out and cost us our low corporate tax. This will lead to the mass evacuation of the US based companies from our shores.
Low interest rates and low inflation will only for a short time blanket the real fact that today a new generation of Irish people will at first hand lose their jobs , the way of life and for many the over valued homes to the banks who caused this problem. 100% motgages don't seem so good now.
That to me is a well articulated rant but its still a rant. I do not believe that you should push the poor down. In fact if you read my posts I do not believe in lots of the points I was making. I was basically saying its a view and its out there and its valid. What I do not think is valid is just giving out for the sake of giving out without any real plan to correct these things.
The job of any government is to make sure that there is enough enterprise in the economy so that people can create wealth for themselves and in turn for their workers but at the same time making sure that the bottom of society are looked after enough in order not to create public disorder. You also need systems in place that those at the bottom of the rung can also at least climb up one rung and in time maybe climb to the top of the ladder. Where people and countries differ is the emphasis on the former over the latter or vice versa.
Fair enough it is a bit of a rant but I beleive in my views and being able to articulate them is thanks to an education provided to me by parents who flirted with the poverty line for many , many years. The low waged and unemployed are things that are very close to my heart and it always angers me when the net effect of any budget is to hurt these people in our society.
You are correct that we need to provide these people , whose numbers are growing each day with the resources to be able to climb that ladder and achieve something or regain in life. This is proving harder and harder for some as the big boot of government steps on their head
Oddly enough the government have too much of a problem slapping 80% taxes on cigarettes, which hit he poorest hardest.Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
Once the poor man has paid his taxes on beer fags and petrol he is paying a higher rates of that tax than millionaires. Not to mention other non-in related taxes.
Of course the rich manage to avoid paying most of thier taxes through loopholes such as pension contributions etc....anyway
If the poor choose to drink or smoke or the rich for that matter whell then that is their choice. There is a big difference between taxes like Paye and the tax on Fags. The only reason I would not have put up the tax on fags more is because it may have resulted in a lost of money due to the black market fags.
How can the targeting of those under twenty be constitutional? If you're an adult, you're an adult, and entitled to equal treatment by the state. Maybe because they don't expect them to get as much airtime on Joe Duffy's show as the pensioners did over the medical card issue? I'm astounded that such blatant age discrimination is going almost unremarked.
Just playing devils advoicate here but is there not already pre cedent in this area in that over 65s get a pension from the state. Technicallyl this is age discrmination. I think most people are against disrimination if you ask the but actually it is a fundamental part of a modern society. I dont think there is not a society out there that does not believe or have polcies that involve discrimination usually its for the good of the people and society but not always.
You make a good point. I beleive it is seen as they have probably contributed the least to the economy in monetary terms .ie not long out of school and probably not third level inclined thus they have been the ones on the min wage and not contributing in tax payments. I also have a sneaking idea that the government sees these people as the potential next emigration candidates thus taking away the exspense of keeping them and eventually housing them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheridan
Maybe I am just being cynical
Tax relief on mortgages not applying to those who bought over 7 years while benefiting me is a little strange as I would have thought those who bought in recent years hit hardest by negative equity.
Haven't looked at details to know how affects me beyond the PAYE "levy".
From what I can see so far no imagination & innovation, just tax, tax & more tax. Also also no attempts to reduce government spending. I also don't think the money raised will be enough as economy will only get worse - I guess will have another budget around August this year.
If a poor person chooses to smoke tough luck. Any one who wants to quit can do it if they really want to. Smoking is a choice like drinking.
I also guess the government pay benchmarked to similar size countries will be a futile exercise. What are the odds they selectively choose high income Scandinavian countries to link their pay? What is it with this country that need to setup bodies to investigate everything? If Cowan wanted to reduce government pay why did he not just do it!
As predicted everyone wants taxes to rise but on themselves. :rolleyes:
It is a heavy regressive tax which hits the poorest hardest - furthermore they are taxing a highly addictive drug, they are little better than drug dealers.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilMcD
If the poorest people can be expected to shoulder such an excesive rate of tax, why not the rich?
It is also a tax which results in many childen growing up in poverty, so the rich can aoid paying their fair share of tax - that's immoral.
Yea, they will like their pay to most corrupt govenment they can find - maybe link it to MP's expense claims in the UK!Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
And I'm sure their opinion is that smokers are little better than weak-minded morons.Quote:
Originally Posted by tricky_colour
(I'm being facetious. As it happens a good number of pols are smokers, and I'm an ex-smoker that still has a puff every few months in the pub. I'm guessing you're not being facetious though, and I have to wonder at that. Smoking is tricky to give up, but it's not coke or heroin; people don't need to be put in clinics to get off them, they just get a bit fat and snappy. If someone is a smoker and they consider fags a tax, they can take a hint from tax avoiders and stop paying tax: Quit.)
adam
Its also better for the unemployment figures , if they can keep them in training , school, college etc. one point made, was that a guy of 19 who has never worker is entitled to the same amount as the guy who's worked 30 years and gets laid off.Quote:
Originally Posted by First
Quote:
Originally Posted by First
I think we all know people who are recieving social welfare who deserve it & others who don't. Middle income families were hit worst yesterday , those who have to pay for everything because their working. The only thing that has hit welfare payments is the christmas bonus. They still have medical cards, social housing etc. The whole social welfare system needs to be changed, to give more help to those that need it & less to those that are lazy or milking the system. What incentive is there for a guy straight out of school to take up a job , when he can get €200 for nothing
It was a poor budget for my household, with the prospect of child benefit and further tax increases next year, we're going to have to severely cut our cloth. It'll probably drive us into the black economy for our childcare, and we'll be doing more than just beer runs to the North.
They're basing the "bad bank" model on countries that nationalised the banks first. It's a total nonsense to leave them in private ownership whilst taking their bad loans. I have no faith that they'll pay the right price for the tax payer, when they've a direct vested interest in helping out the bankers who so conveniently couldn't provide information for the tribunals, and helping the developers that have funded FF for decades (both up front and back hand). It looks nothing more than (yet another) bail out of their backers.
btw, nicotine is more addictive than smack.
And weren't in the midst of a recession at the time...Quote:
Originally Posted by Macy
yeah def agree with thisQuote:
Originally Posted by Ringo
Man what a silly budget - sure they wont save any money out of all this
Raising taxes again and still the social welfare hasnt been even touched - sure thats a joke
Still all the quangos, still all the junior ministers, still Fas and its nice budget, still the spending on the army, etc etc
Do they not realise that this country is bankrupt:mad:
The banks are as good as nationalized Macy. Govt is on the hook for pretty much everything, political pressure is being applied on going easy on certain loans, they are being forced to increase their holdings of Govt sovereign debt. I'm not sure what nationalisation would add, unless you are talking about perpetual nationslisation?Quote:
Originally Posted by Macy
In the Swedish example, it's worth noting that the new banks were private and Securum (the biggest bad bank) made a profit for the Government. The key issue is the price the bad bank pays for the loans. If it's done fairly, the banks will be pretty much bankrupted and will require further Govt investment.
As for the wider budget, as expected, painful. What worries me is that I see no way out of this with FF at the helm. They are so reactive, short-termist and lacking any vision whatsoever.
If the global economy picks up we will invariably see another lost generation leave Ireland.
Im open to correction but i think they cut the 200 euro dole for under 20's to 100 euro unless you are trying to further yourself ie re training/ course's etc etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ringo
guess thats incentive.
...Well we had a boom -and you'd have been shouted down at the time by Charlie McCreevy, Michael O'Leary, the McDowell , Bruton and Ahern Brothers, Biffo, IBEC, ISME and a whole host of others -many of whom have been vaunted of late in the media for roles in an emergency government of National unity.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilMcD
"Don't you see Neil?", they'd have all said, "it's exactly because we're in a boom that we CAN'T raise tax ...to do so would be to pour sugar in the petrol tank of our roaring economy".
If I recall correctly -apparently it also wouldn't have sufficiently "rewarded" work, enterprise, entrepreneurialism and would have sent the "wrong signals" (like -we pay and charge commensurate tax here and expect you do so as well?) to the business community, wealth creators, tent attenders yadda-yadda-yadda...
For similar reasons we couldn't build the schools, hospitals and other trimmable fat the country can apparently cut back on as the construction workers weren't available or would've cost top dollar -as the government wasn't doing anything to deflate the construction bubble if it meant foregoing a penny of stamp duty.
Screwed either which way.
They would have been wrong Lionel. If we had a more sustainable tax system all along rather than rely on short term taxes or transient taxes like Stamp Duty our situation would not be as bad as it is. The good times may not have been as good for the developers and we all might have been a little worse off during the good times but not much, but we would as a country be in a lot better situation than we are now.
Nationalisation would give the State the upside as well. At the moment the Government seem more concerned with protecting investors rather than the tax payer - this has been the case since the stupid guarantee. I suspect you are right, it is inevitable that there'll be further state funds, so they may as well get it over and done with now.Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
I have zero faith that we'll get a fair price - there isn't the will from Government to pursue the banks or developers, and certainly the banks are all about protecting themselves and their investors. Which is why I think nationalisation is needed - take these people out of the picture sooner rather than later.Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
I know and I completely agree -but you'd have been accused of downright Bolshevism by the O'Learys, McCreevys et al for holding that opinion is all I'm saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilMcD
Sorry , that was the point i was making in reply to Sheridan saying it was wrong to cut the level for young people.Quote:
Originally Posted by anto1208
I just don't see an upside for the Govt to share in. The only thing they haven't done, which they should, is force regime change amongst senior management.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macy
Maybe upside is the wrong term, but they're taking the risk whilst still giving investors potential return, which imo is very wrong.