Printable View
Have I backtracked? I think I've been saying the same thing since this thread started.
I am still a bit unsure as to which way to vote - if at all.
I know the difference between wealth tax and corporation tax.
Don't believe that nonsense about a flight of capital if we increase the corporation tax rate.
This beats watching rugby, anyway.
Well you keep just not mentioning things after I tell you how ridiculous they are.
There wouldn't be a flight of capital if we raised the CT rate - companies are entrenched here - but there would be a slow drip of companies leaving the state and taking well-paid jobs with them forever. There could be some argument for a modest increase in the tax rate but it may not be worth the uncertainty it would create.
For example?Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
Are you referring to the argument about how rational/irrational buying versus renting was?
Hindsight is a wonderful thing - but did you know anyone who thought the boom wasn't going to last forever?
Most people assumed that if they were working, they'd be working in the future. They committed to mortgages that were, assuming they could keep their jobs, payable.
What choices were there? Rent from a landlord? Put money in his pocket when I could be buying my own place for the same monthly outlay? If all of this seems utterly ridiculous then you're confusing common sense with hindsight. All of this seemed perfectly rational at the time - and if it didn't where was your voice of reason then?
Landlords are not a pleasant lot - renting is a scam - if you're referring to the rental/purchase choice when you say that I've dodged the issue, consider that point, too as a reason why it seemed so much more rational to buy.
People who bought homes in the boom did so in a property market that was inflated by government policies designed to trawl for stamp duty and underwritten by uber-Thatcherite greed - remember AIB's Polish, British and American investments? Quinn's astronomical Eastern European investments - these are some of the people responsible for the mess that we're in.
The bottom line is the bottom line, or, 'we are where we are' - take your pick while I reach for my rifle - 'we' have to balance the books: consequently 'we' have launched a war on the most vulnerable sectors of our society.
I object to that utterly - start at the top - increase the corporation tax rate, aggressive property and wealth taxes. Then talk to me about responsibility.
Look:even the president of the European parliament agrees with me: "He said Europe was unpopular because it was quick to make decisions about policies that impacted on ordinary people, but slow to make decisions which impact on big business and corporations".
As was pointed out to you, anyone who doesn't want to take on huge debt.Quote:
Originally Posted by born2bwild
Are you aware of the social implications of letting a bank go bust? People's savings wiped out overnight, accounts just closed, etc. Here's some anecdotal examples from the Great Depression in 1930s America, for example - one and two. (Note that Baring's Bank didn't collapse as such; it was bought over in a manner not dissimilar to what happened here). Can you imagine the uproar if people suddenly went down to Bank of Ireland to find out that their savings were gone? Can you imagine the further uproar among those who had their savings with one bank (now gone) and their mortgage with another (still being paid)? Is this a route you'd have liked to have gone down? Can you suggest an alternative path?Quote:
Originally Posted by born2bwild
No harm, but can you flesh out ideas like this? This is really just a sound-byte of sorts (which hints that you don't really understand the concept of elasticity). I'm explaining the results of other actions and offering alternative solutions, but the likes of this sentence in return don't really seem to mean anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by born2bwild
I genuinely amn't at all sure what you mean by this.Quote:
Originally Posted by born2bwild
Sentences like this really make it hard to take your arguments seriously. What are they going to do - knock on the doors and ask for a donation?Quote:
Originally Posted by born2bwild
I'd have no problem with a third tax rate - let's say, 60% on annual income above E200k. That's a rational suggestion which may or mayn't have much effect (how much tax would it really bring in? Would those people leave and claim residence in another country, causing us to lose all their tax?). Your suggestion above isn't rational at all.
I have no problem with rent supplement being cut, though you can't do it overnight (because some people couldn't cope with an extra, say, E300 p/m rent charge). You'd have to do it in stages so rents could reduce accordingly. But in the end of the day, that may well lead to more landlords going broke because they're relying on the rent supplement to bridge the gap between the current natural rent and the increased mortgage repayments (no trackers for investment properties) - which will mean others are going to have to pick up the tab at the end of the day anyway.
And I don't think your suggestions would cut the deficit by the required E1.5bn a month (before allowing for further shrinking of the economy - cutting the E1.5bn gap may well cause tax take to drop another E0.5bn, so we've to cut that as well.)
I think I've stated before in this thread that austerity seems to be the only show in town. I've stated that we're going to have to get used to being a poor country again; it's what we've been for most of our existence. The most important thing - which history tells us won't happen - is that we learn from our mistakes. The notion of continual growth is one which is only recent (post-war, I think), and we need to get rid of it. Things can't grow forever, including economies. We need to get rid of the notion that increasing house prices is a good thing (so nonsense like this, which classes property as "the worst performing" because it dropped most in value, should be banned). Selling state assets is a panic action and really shouldn't happen.
This is as much a cultural thing as a financial thing, I think. We need to pay our debts back and then make sure this problem doesn't arise again. I'm not hopeful.
"No harm, but can you flesh out ideas like this? This is really just a sound-byte of sorts (which hints that you don't really understand the concept of elasticity). I'm explaining the results of other actions and offering alternative solutions, but the likes of this sentence in return don't really seem to mean anything."
Jesus, this multi-quote thing is a pain -
Of course I understand elasticity. The relative elasticity of the cost of goods or services refers to the extent to which the cost of those goods and services can be changed before the market for those goods and services is driven up or down.
I actually don't know how it's relevant to your argument that we should accept the current situation and continue on with the war on the most vulnerable.
I'll apply it to mine, so: the cost of doing business for corporations in this country is quite elastic - the corporation tax could be hiked up easily and they'd still keep coming back for more. Where are they going to go?
Sound bites?
For example:
"Sentences like this really make it hard to take your arguments seriously. What are they going to do - knock on the doors and ask for a donation?"
No asking - taxation is everyone's responsibility - if you ask people to give they won't give. It might help you to take the suggestion seriously if you read this in Moore McDowell's accent and pretend he's on Morning Ireland: "We have a cadre of highly trained revenue gathering operatives already doing great work in the Department of Social Protection. Going forward, we should redeploy them to the task of means testing for the purposes of bedding in a sustainable tax base, beginning with taxes on the wealthiest people in the state"
You don't ask; you take.
This issue is far too important for soundbites like 'it's hard to take it seriously' - a generation of ordinary people is being bled dry and we need radical and more importantly, just, solutions.
Pineapple, you claim that you have considered voting for left wing parties in the past, yet your diagnosis of the economic mess reads like a government press release - ordinary people got us here and they should pay for it.
In the meantime, you erect this straw man of an argument that 'people should pay their debts' repeating this statement of the obvious to the point where you forget to notice that those most responsible have not paid their debts and those most capable of paying taxes to keep our republic on a sound economic base pay nothing like their fair share.
I've yet to hear a concrete suggestion from you as to how we're to get out of this. Reading your posts is like reading Voltaire - in the face of all the evidence to the contrary you seem to think we're living in the best of all possible worlds.
You still haven't said which way you're going to vote. I'd say your vote has a fairly elastic price tag.
Yes. It wasn't a secret. No boom lasts forever. If it lasted forever it'd just be called 'normal.'Quote:
Originally Posted by born2bwild
No they didn't. Any mortgage over about 4x salary is effectively unpayable. And these are boom-time salaries which, as we've discussed, weren't going to keep increasing forever.Quote:
Most people assumed that if they were working, they'd be working in the future. They committed to mortgages that were, assuming they could keep their jobs, payable.
Tens of thousands of people asked themselves exactly those questions and decided to rent. These weren't gifted soothsayers - they were ordinary people who decided that paying extra for rent was worth not getting saddled with an obviously unsustainable mortgage. Short-term pain for long-term gain. Normal people making responsible decisions.Quote:
What choices were there? Rent from a landlord? Put money in his pocket when I could be buying my own place for the same monthly outlay? If all of this seems utterly ridiculous then you're confusing common sense with hindsight. All of this seemed perfectly rational at the time - and if it didn't where was your voice of reason then?
Of course renting is a scam. MORTGAGE LENDING DURING THE BOOM WAS A BIGGER SCAM.Quote:
Landlords are not a pleasant lot - renting is a scam - if you're referring to the rental/purchase choice when you say that I've dodged the issue, consider that point, too as a reason why it seemed so much more rational to buy.
Do you know what Thatcherism was? She made swingeing cuts and taxed the masses to shrink the size of the government. FF encouraged an artificial housing boom to raise an ever-expanding tax take to fuel record government spending. I'm sure buzzwords like Thatcherism sound great but it's the complete opposite of what occurred here.Quote:
People who bought homes in the boom did so in a property market that was inflated by government policies designed to trawl for stamp duty and underwritten by uber-Thatcherite greed - remember AIB's Polish, British and American investments? Quinn's astronomical Eastern European investments - these are some of the people responsible for the mess that we're in.
You act like I'm some millionaire flossing with all my unsecured bank bonds.Quote:
The bottom line is the bottom line, or, 'we are where we are' - take your pick while I reach for my rifle - 'we' have to balance the books: consequently 'we' have launched a war on the most vulnerable sectors of our society.
I object to that utterly - start at the top - increase the corporation tax rate, aggressive property and wealth taxes. Then talk to me about responsibility.
So how are those rents/mortgages correlations now??? Always be aware of the small print, eh - investments can go down as well as up - oops! Fools and their money are easily departed.Quote:
Originally Posted by born2bwild
But agree that the corpo tax should be hiked, at least a few percent.
Could we have done what Iceland did and guarantee just the deposits? (isnt that what they did?)Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
When Lehmans went, it triggered economic meltdown. 2 weeks later, Ireland was threatened with no banks or ATM's functioning within 6 hours if the state guarantee wasn't given. Guaranteeing the deposits was fair enough, guaranteeing the debts is what we're paying for now. Debts we don't know the full extent of. That's what broke the nation.Quote:
Originally Posted by born2bwild
No banking system = no cash in ATM's. No cash in ATM'S = no wages paid. No wages paid = no work.
If you meet your payments on time and are not in debt, landlords are no more unpleasant than anyone else. You keep your home, they get their cash. Win-win situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by born2bwild
The boom was not going to last forever, no boom does. After every boom, there's always a bust, it's up to governments and responsible administrators to manage it, so it doesn't get too big or too bad. If Ireland was solvent, then the proposal in this referendum would be perfectly acceptable. But as Ireland is not only insolvent, but second in line to Greece in the EU, the proposal is impractical for Ireland. More austerity for much longer is what will happen in the event of the nation bullied into voting with the government once again.
Varadkar speaking again this weekend, on how we would be locked out of the EU bailout fund if we tell Brussels where to shove their agreement. It seems laughable to me that after so many years of telling us how bad bailout funds are, now they think it's a good thing we should have access to it anyway. I was under the impression that the whole point of all these cuts and taxes was, trying to get out of bailouts in the first place.
A few things...
The reason why renting wasn't, and isn't, more popular is because we have pretty limited tenancy rights compared to other countries. We are not going to get european style rent patterns until we have european style tenancy rights. Like so many things, it should've been brought in at the naughties to calm the market - it won't be brought in now as it'll negatively effect the market. Dead money and blame the brits are both too simplistic, imo.
Banks are more culpable as some would suggest here, due to the practices they did during the boom. Several banks attempted to push more on to us than we were looking for, quite forcibly, so it would've been easy to fall into that trap. We both have work credit unions, with deductions on our payslips - we were told this was a pity, as they could give us even more if they couldn't see them. Obviously that was on the back of crap regulation, which reflected the Government of the days light touch policy. Which is pretty thatcherite in my view. Add in several privatisations, deregulations, lack of labour inspectors it's easy to argue FF were pretty right wing. FF are a fook up of a party, obviously, so while they were significantly pro business they didn't necessarily follow through in other areas. Even the whole social partnership model was about weakening Trade Unions imo.
Access to the EU bailout fund is important, in that having that access to that money makes us more attractive to the markets. Access to the bailout means no default. It's not about actually accessing the bailout fund, it's about having the access. It's like having a guarantor.
http://www.gifmix.net/smiley.php?ima...-smilies/5.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
Ireland and Europe has spent the past 4 years trying to impress the markets, but the markets don't want to know. Germany struggled there and Ireland was awarded "junk status" not long ago. People are fed up with efforts to impress markets and would rather applications, initiatives, and stimulus measures now so they can get their house in order. Our government should not be advocating looking for bailouts, they don't come free of charge, and they should not be used to support the proposal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macy
We won't be going back to the markets until the interest rate comes down. That's out of Ireland's hands. If the rate is unsustainable at the end of next year, we'll be going back to the IMF, be it a yes or no result in the referendum. The government was told to hold a referendum "on balance", not because they were required to. So I think they could overrule the people and ratify it anyway, as the French did previously, in the event they don't get the result they want.
The bond yeilds, and cost of insuring, were going the right way until the referendum was announced.
Why are you bloody obsessed with Kenny's language around the AG's recommendation? We don't have access to the AG's advice to know what she said, and you can bet if they thought they could get it through without a referendum they would've (quite rightly imo). If it was in anyway coming down as being on the side of the referendum not being necessary, they would've legislated and waited for the President/ Council of State to refer it to the supreme court (which they inevitably would've).
Meh. Cultural hangover. I blame the English. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
Very old school of you, most people are blaming the Germans and the French now. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
We haven't been trying to impress the markets, we've been trying to impress Europe. The markets have been looking at us taking on zombie banks and bailing out unsecured bondholders and asking "are you mad?" If we've been trying to impress the markets we've been very badly advised.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
What's wrong with amn't? The rest of the world is out of step: he is and he isn't = I am and I amn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
Ich bin nicht or 我不 are the new amn't...
Correct. We don't know, and so therefore we can only go on what we were told.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macy
The wording is very important, and the wording we know was used and the way it was used, suggested that the AG thought a referendum should be held, rather than must be. There is an important difference.
In 1st year English we were asked to make up are own contractions. But I went to an all boys school so that would have been difficult...Quote:
Originally Posted by born2bwild
...
Anyway yeah, in first year my teacher asked us to give examples of contractions in English and being an antagonistic b4stard even at that age I said "amn't". She lost it. My work was done and that was a marker then for the next 3 years of the wench.