Up until the budget starts tomorrow at 3.45PM, give your predictions and/or stuff you would really be against/for.

At 3.45PM the thread can automatically move into commentary, analysis, screeching, lynchmobbing and coup d'etat.

For me :
NO : Any move to introduce state mortgages for new properties as a lifeline to Parlon's Pimps.
NO : Any move to reduce or means test child benefit. The 1K per annum thing I don't qualify for anyway so don't care.
NO : Income tax. I could live with +2% myself but in general (IMO) it would supress consumer activity even more and give a bad signal.
NO : Any increase in Corpo Tax.

YES : Something to start plugging the black hole of current spending that is the civil service.
YES : Big hike in fag prices. Win again in 20 years with reduced healthcare costs.
YES : More initiatives or plain old motivation to reduce energy consumption and increase materials reuse.
YES : Dump decentralisation, electronic voting and any other useless project that is costing a fortune.

Go Lenny Go !

Can't agree with a hike in the price of fags - some people are inveterate smokers and though on the dole end up paying a huge fraction of their social welfare on cigarettes. Everyone's natural reaction is "let them eat hake" - as an ex-smoker zakalwe you might know that it's not easy to give up and I consider the price over-inflated already in fact there is case against our Government going through the ECJ about our conduct with the price of fags. Plus it hasn't worked if it's meant to stop people smoking. A €5 hike would jettison a lot of people into sudden and deeper poverty - is that the kind of Fascistic society we want to live in?

It's an interesting problem and encapsulates a lot of the economic/social effects of policy making. I think it's a tax take scandal rather than an effort to address the problem of smoking in itself. This is an evil and cynical and dangerous line to take in a free society. Perhaps smokers should not be taxed but should have a health insurance policy if they want to buy fags? As an ex-smoker myself of ten years I really don't think the price hike is the way to go at all - it's just villification of a significant minority - an extremely dangerous dangerous line in a free society I tell you. Even the ban on smoking in pubs may have done damage to our communities where you now get fewer people going out and talking to each other and meeting together ... perhaps.

I think the most shocking thing about raising tax (and perversely in a recession too when economies theoretically need to be stimulated - except they were over-stimulated for the past ten years) is that it is not transparent what the tax is used for and a raised tax should be spent on the reason it was raised in the first place. Thus taxing fags will see no boost in health programmes, campaigns, research or anything into cigarette-smoking.

Taxing air-fares could be a massive mistake unless it was a temporary measure to get us out of our deficit. If a carbon tax is to be introduced then it needs to be on a broader basis across Europe and potentially the planet but here we are, hacking away in the rain at the edge of a continent - just muddling along.

zakalwe wrote:

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

Up until the budget starts tomorrow at 4.30PM, give your predictions and/or stuff you would really be against/for.

At 4.30PM the thread can automatically move into commentary, analysis, screeching, lynchmobbing and coup d'etat.

For me :
NO : Any move to introduce state mortgages for new properties as a lifeline to Parlon's Pimps. agree, the state are almost guaranteed to botch it up and we'll end up with subprime mrk2 10 years down the line.
NO : Any move to reduce or means test child benefit. The 1K per annum thing I don't qualify for anyway so don't care. agree. we should be encouraging ahem, the increased production of children in order to satisfy our economic needs in 2020 onwards!
NO : Income tax. I could live with +2% myself but in general (IMO) it would supress consumer activity even more and give a bad signal. classical economic theory is to decrease taxes in a recession to encourage and stimulate the economy into recovery.
NO : Any increase in Corpo Tax. this would predominately hit small indiginous businesses as the multinationals have lots of tax accountants and govt grants to reduce their "exposure" to corporation tax.

YES : Something to start plugging the black hole of current spending that is the civil service. how about decimate them? take 1 in 10 say goodbye and thanks.
YES : Big hike in fag prices. Win again in 20 years with reduced healthcare costs. feck it, another E5 per packet should be introduced. as an ex smoker i think they should be banned altogether.
YES : More initiatives or plain old motivation to reduce energy consumption and increase materials reuse. think britian during the blitz, there are thousands of ways to save energy and reduce waste, i read in the trib that iarnrod eireann run hundreds of empty trains every year to transport drivers aroung the country from dublin
YES : Dump decentralisation, electronic voting and any other useless project that is costing a fortune. that should be a given. take an axe to the e-voting machines (or reprogram them and sell them to vegas) and be done with the continued costs. as for decrentralisation 6 years later and feck all done.

Go Lenny Go !

Interestingly you are both against anything that might cost you something and for everything that doesn’t, now if the minister can come up with some way of solving that problem we might well be on the way to recovery.

the common theme to evoting and my posts are:

-govt to stay out of further fueling property boom.

-govt to leave child benefit, corporation tax (we don;t agree on income tax).

-govt to cut public spending on civil service.

-govt to increase tax on cigs (which would increase health of public on top of increasing revenue short term).

-govt to try to reduce waste (see cie running empty trains dropping drivers around the country) and spending further money on failed policies.

no inconsistencies there tonys!

This is very difficult. It would have been easy to get it right 10 or even 5 years ago and avoided the situation we are in now. But here goes anyway.

Raise the higher rate of income tax substantially

Raise lower rate income tax (less)

Tax on gas extraction profits

Unleash the CAB or FAB (Financial Assets Bureau ) to claw back profits on negligent and reckless financial trading. A full Tax audit of anyone with turnover of more than 1 million p.a.

Raise tax on higher emissions cars

Raise tax on petrol, but with a cut off point kicking in at a set price level.

A tax on Jimmy Choos and designer handbags (luxury goods).

End all tax incentives on construction.

Make unused fallow land available as temporary veg. allotments

Cut 1% off Corporation tax (if we want to keep any of FDI)

Stop Metro North and all road schemes that are not contracted to.

Stop the tax incentives for duplication of hospital facilties

Reduce the numbers of TDs to one per county.



Spending:

Purchase suitably located empty houses and flats and house the people on the waiting lists

Intensive programme to raise literacy and numeracy (TGOC - a job for you)

Do whatever it takes to have the best high speed broadband in the world

Create an investment fund with tax incentives for research and development of renewable energy technologies

Plan to raise urban densities along bus routes and put thousands of electric buses on the roads

Fund a programme of staff consultation to provide a 3 month "bottom up" identification of waste and mismanagement in public services, after which radical change and cuts would be effected. Emergency "Slash and burn" cuts carried out by current management will throw the baby out and keep the bathwater.

zakalwe wrote:

the common theme to evoting and my posts are:

-govt to stay out of further fueling property boom.
That effect would depend entirely on the details of any plan they might propose.


-govt to leave child benefit, corporation tax (we don;t agree on income tax).
Child Benefit….why, there are many of us who at the very least could afford to pay tax on child benefit.
Corporate tax…. in my opinion there is some room for a small increase in this area without effecting our FDI position and by making any increase progressive small Irish companies can be protected.


-govt to cut public spending on civil service.
Value rather than spend is the issue here.


-govt to increase tax on cigs (which would increase health of public on top of increasing revenue short term).
Tax on Cigs…….. Why not on alcohol? You drink maybe?


-govt to try to reduce waste (see cie running empty trains dropping drivers around the country) and spending further money on failed policies.
Should always be a given.


no inconsistencies there tonys!

I still don’t see where you are willing to take your share of any hit.

Tonys, my OP says quite clearly I could live with 2% income tax increase. But I want it spent properly. It is not being spent properly now. And that annoys me immensely.

I also want to see and end to termist politics, budgeting for election victory. It's just a waste of time.

Very dark in Dublin - Did Lenihan announce that the sun would be switched off for two hours every day or something?

First page is very slow to load for me today.

On the budget proper, I have taken a substantial drop in income this year and I expect to be hit with higher PRSI and an income levy on what I have left. In the circumstances, I think the least the Govt could do is to match this with a freeze on pay for civil servants earning more than €60K per annum. This would go some way towards matching the de facto position in the private sector.

why hit the productive sector? cut the hell out of the unnecessary and superflous within the public sector. you reduce our deficit and save the income generating elements of our economy in one fell swoop.

i will in all likely take a 2% hit on income. i won't complain but will be mightly peeved when seeing that 2% going to fund some rediculous quango or to pay for a jaunt in mount juliet to discuss the recession.

Or how about 3 Million in bonuses for 200 top civil servants last year Zakalwe ?

Fancy forking out for that this year ?

Just a point of information.
The budget speech is due at 3.45pm not 4.30.

kn wrote:

Just a point of information.
The budget speech is due at 3.45pm not 4.30.

Thanks kn. I'll reset the recorder

BTW EVM, shall we put a link to the Oireachtas live stream on the Portal? The main Oireachtas link is on the left, under Resources.

Bonuses have gone all across the private sector.

Those who have earned them are foregoing them to support others keeping their jobs. Senior Civil servants should do the same.

I agree that the waste areas in the civil service should be targetted. Unfortunately, the civil service has proved itself incapable of such forensic surgery. The only effective method is across the board cuts with all the pain and loss of good people and productive units which that entails.

Zhou_Enlai wrote:

Bonuses have gone all across the private sector.

Those who have earned them are foregoing them to support others keeping their jobs. Senior Civil servants should do the same.

I agree that the waste areas in the civil service should be targetted. Unfortunately, the civil service has proved itself incapable of such forensic surgery. The only effective method is across the board cuts with all the pain and loss of good people and productive units which that entails.

ha, that'll be the day. public sector accountability and sacrifice in hard times? they don't know the meaning of those words!!! decimate them i say!!!

26 TDs would be a little restrictive, cactus. I would agree that we could function well with half the number of TDs and a severe cut in their allowances. I don't know of another job that pays you an equal amount in allowances as in salary.

Given the state of the Seanad, there is also a case to be made for unicameralism. The original purpose of the Seanad under the 1937 has long since been outlived. That said, a functioning upper house does still have a role to play - as can be seen with the Lords' scuppering of the Bill which included 42 days detention last night. Problem with our upper house is that it doesn't function - possibly never has, but at least it previously served somewhat of a function in terms of certain groups feeling enfranchised.

johnfás wrote:

26 TDs would be a little restrictive, cactus. I would agree that we could function well with half the number of TDs and a severe cut in their allowances. I don't know of another job that pays you an equal amount in allowances as in salary.

Given the state of the Seanad, there is also a case to be made for unicameralism. The original purpose of the Seanad under the 1937 has long since been outlived.

One TD per constituency would see the entire Dáil made up of FF except for a handful. You have to balance small party representation (more seats per constituency) with geographical representation (more constituencies). The 166 seats gives a good degree of both.

I disagree with you on the necissity of 166 seats EVM but as I have said, we could cope with 83. The Dáil is way over represented in comparison to states even of a comparitable size. We have 1 TD per 25,000 people. It is more like 1 per 40,000 in New Zealand and they also have unicameralism. When you compare to larger states, the UK for example, they have 1 MP for every 90,000 or so people. I would not however suggest that is appropriate in a state the size of Ireland. You need to seriously avoid oligarchy which can easily occur in a small state when you make the parliament too small, as you have alluded to.

It is not uncommon for states of a similar size to Ireland to have unicameralism. Whilst having roughly the same proportion of representatives to population as Ireland, Denmark like New Zealand has a unicameral parliament.

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

johnfás wrote:

26 TDs would be a little restrictive, cactus. I would agree that we could function well with half the number of TDs and a severe cut in their allowances. I don't know of another job that pays you an equal amount in allowances as in salary.

Given the state of the Seanad, there is also a case to be made for unicameralism. The original purpose of the Seanad under the 1937 has long since been outlived.

One TD per constituency would see the entire Dáil made up of FF except for a handful. You have to balance small party representation (more seats per constituency) with geographical representation (more constituencies). The 166 seats gives a good degree of both.

Not any more

If anybody is listening live to this, could they put the main points (in shorthand, as it were) somewhere on this thread? It would be much appreciated (by me predominantly, I guess) since I won't be able to hear it and would like to know how the cuts/increases/penalties will affect my mother.

Merci vielmals, as they say here.

No bother Slim, will stick up the pertinent bits as they happen.

http://live.heanet.ie/oireachtas/dail_broadband.asx

Shortcut to the Dail live video - Brian Cowen answering Leaders Questions.

Is it feasible to get this up onto the Portal ?

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

No bother Slim, will stick up the pertinent bits as they happen.

Thank you, EVM.

cactus flower wrote:

http://live.heanet.ie/oireachtas/dail_broadband.asx

Shortcut to the Dail live video - Brian Cowen answering Leaders Questions.

Is it feasible to get this up onto the Portal ?

Ehhhhhh... Pass.

Proposal for late sitting agreed in order of business.

FG and Lab have 45 minutes shareable, SF have 30 mins I think

No order of business tomorrow.