The twin problems of unemployment and the public deficit make it imperative to search for low-cost schemes that can help to stimulate employment creation. “Marginal employment subsidies” were much discussed in the international literature in the early 1980s and might have a role to play today.
A specific and fairly modest proposal to start with would be to abolish employers’ PRSI contributions for new jobs; i.e. for any increase in a firm’s employment over and above the level recorded at a specific date in the past, e.g. X/X/2010. (The importance of choosing a date in the past is that it would prevent firms gaming the policy by shedding jobs in advance of its introduction). This avoids the extensive deadweight losses associated with e.g. a cut in employers’ payroll costs. There would still be some deadweight loss in tax revenues resulting from jobs that would have been created anyway, but it seems unlikely that there is much new employment creation at present. The proposal would amount to a wage subsidy of over 10% for new jobs. (If it looked like it was starting to have an effect, it could be extended by taking into account some of the resultant savings in social welfare).
Care would need to be taken to prevent firms closing down and establishing under a new name to exploit the scheme, but I assume this could be surmounted.
Many of the existing schemes in place today (details here) might be thought similar to the present proposal. Most are targeted however at particular groups of disadvantaged workers, which make them less likely to succeed, and, as far as I recall, some displacement effects were found. The present proposal avoids these.
The proposed scheme might be gradually wound down as follows: the implicit subsidy to be reduced by Y% for each 50,000 jobs recorded in the economy over and above the level prevailing at X/X/2010.
If the economy were solely cost-constrained, the proposal would raise employment through both the output and substitution effects. The substitution effect will still apply if the economy is purely demand-constrained, and by getting people back to work will have beneficial demand effects.
Examples of the literature from the 1980s include:
Chiarella, C., and A. Steinherr (1982), “Marginal employment subsidies: an effective policy to generate employment”, Commission of the European Communities, Paris, Commission of the European Communities Economic Papers No. 9, November.
Layard, R., and S. Nickell (1980) “The case for subsidizing extra jobs”, Economic Journal, Vol. 90 pp.51-73.
Oswald, A. J. (1984) “Three Theorems on Inflation Taxes and Marginal Employment Subsidies”, Economic Journal, 94, 375.
Whitley, J. D. and R. A. Wilson (1983) “The Macroeconomic Merits of a Marginal Employment Subsidy”, Economic Journal, 93, 1983.
See also:
Snower, D. (1994), “Converting unemployment benefits into employment subsidies”, American Economic Review, Vol. 84 pp.65-70.
33 replies on “Tackling Unemployment”
Just be aware that an existing employer will be disadvantaged because his new competitor, or newly expanded competitor, will be able to compete on a unfair cost basis.
The new employer may also have taken out a lower priced rental of premises etc.
For the scheme to be effective, it would have to take unemployed people out of the social security net by more than is lost in employer PRSI. It would, therefore, have to be pegged at a level that excludes part-time work (I think) and probably have to have a salary floor, no?
“(The importance of choosing a date in the past is that it would prevent firms gaming the policy by shedding jobs in advance of its introduction). ”
/sarcasm on
Surely employers wouldn’t be so cynical as to pull a stroke like that? Surely just having the status of ’employer’ means they are fine, upstanding, honest as the day is long members of our community? A bit like TD’s.
/sarcasm off
Joseph – and yet people also are up in arms if economists assume firms aim to maximise profits!
“Just be aware that an existing employer will be disadvantaged because his new competitor, or newly expanded competitor, will be able to compete on a unfair cost basis.”
This is an important point. For domestically traded industries there is at least circumstantial evidence that creating jobs in one business has the effect of displacing jobs out of others, with the ratio possibly being as high as 1:1.
The proposal is more obviously a good idea for businesses whose competition is mostly based outside the jurisdicaton, as any unfairness will be someone else’s problem.
Why not go further Frank and get rid of employers’ PRSI completely? It’s a tax on jobs at time when the supply of employees exceeds vastly demand. I employ 30 permanent staff and every time we think of hiring someone (or paying existing staff more) I have to consider the total cost including employers’ PRSI and, frankly, there are occasions when hiring or paying more cost too much by the time I add on PRSI.
So get rid of it completely. That way you remove all distortions in terms of new entrants etc etc Or do it for 2-3 years, bringing it back (if necessary) as the unemployment falls to single digit figures and lower. Sure it will be a revenue loss for the government, but the taxes from the wages of newly hired workers (or corporation taxes if employers simply pocket the savings) will offset some of the loss.
The single biggest issue is not jobs it’s the lack of domestic consumption – surging export growth is simply not enough to move the economic needle at a rapid enough pace to solve the unemployment problem. It’s the domestic economy stupid.
In my view tackling a jobs crisis is completely dependant on stimulating the domestic side of the economy and allowing consumers to at least have some prospects of consuming without looking over their shoulder for fear of ongoing and painful austerity. Jobs follow the consumer – not the other way around as is suggested – schemes for schemes sake sound like a reversion to communism.
Tackling unemployment by whatever measure assumes (in the domestic economy at any rate) that there is an implicit assumption that the end consumer has the wherewithal to actually consume. Any assumptions are fraught with difficulty but particularly at this juncture and therefore without reviving the consumer the economy continues a slow grind lower.
The main consuming cohorts (25- 50 years old pop. ) are in the main up to their necks in mortgage debt and have ZERO prospect of returning to the consumption on mode until this issue is sorted. There are c50k households not servicing their mortgages at the moment there are in my opinion another 300k just under the default line and barely surviving. Further taxes and increased mortgage repayments will see this cohort exposed as swimming economically naked in time. We need a solution to the Mortgage issue ASAP – in my opinion that simply means writing off a significant chunks of this debt sooner rather than later and the country recovers very quickly as a result.
Fine Gael/ Regulator proposals on how to solve this debt crisis are simply laughable. Property prices are not coming bank and negative equity, crystalised or not, will hang over hundreds of thousands of families for at least 50 years. The Irish consumer and the country as a whole will not recover until a comprehensive solution to this issue is worked through. The prospect of struggling to pay for a house worth 10% to 20% of its original value or feeding your children will be a very real one for thousands in short time. What would you do? In time thousands will choose the latter. Write down mortgage debt and the economy recovers and employment grows. It’s that simple.
Having worked in industry for several years, I cannot remember any marginal employment incentive ever forming part of the decision to take on an additional person. I do not say this as a put down to schemes but that has been my experience.
I have seen good non-abusive use of the work experience program in the 1980’s.
There is however one very successful short-term employment scheme that employers are often persuaded to avail of. That is the student co-op programmes. The reasons are simple. It is cheap, does not involve long term commitment and the people usually making the decisions for employers are generally positive towards the scheme.
In relation to the comment
Both the CRO and ODCE are failing abysmally at present to prevent massive abuse of the limited liability structure. There is now no shame or no compunction amongst many directors of using and abusing the limited liability structure to their advantage regardless of the wider consequences.
It is now common practice to walk away from an indebted subsidiary company and transfer or run the business through a sister or parent company. Indeed there is no obligation in the statute books to force a director to liquidate an insolvent company.
Therefore the assumption that abuse could be surmounted is optimistic.
Dealing with unemployment:
Create a network of nationwide enterprise hubs based on the Business Employment Co-operative model which has proven successful in several countries. The idea of this scheme would be to provide an easy transition from inactivity to self employment.
A primary phase might be entrepreneurship educational schemes outside of the FAS framework, aimed at giving people real skills they can use to start their own businesses. This would include basic business accounting discipline.
They remain technically unemployed but develop their business idea under the wing of the BEC. Take experienced but unemployed businesspeople and give them equity in startups in exchange for their knowledge and contacts. At this stage the business plan has been dismantled and put back together again by people who have experience.
If it looks like being a success, they become a “salaried entrepreneur” with the security of a part-time employment contract. In addition, shares in the company can be sold to the public via an online credit card facility, up to say two fifths of the company; if even 1% of the population put €100 a month into those new companies, you’d have a budget of a million euros a week to invest. Open it up to foreign investment in Europe and the US and there is no limit to how high the numbers can run, as well as bringing in capital from other countries.
At a certain point the entrepreneur can take out a loan up to three times the amount of investment and money they put in themselves from the BEC hub credit union, although they remain personally responsible for the loan. Office space and advertising funding might also be supplied prior to this point.
Finally they become a self sufficient business, sharing in the ownership and management of the co-operative, or optionally going it alone.
Legislative and governmental groundwork:
– Create a specific entity beyond a limited company in Irish corporate law, the BEC.
– Change the rules for certain unemployment benefits to fit the BEC model.
– Reduce the complication involved in hiring new people as PAYE employees, which has benefits beyond this concept.
– Create a new classification of debt, enterprise debt, with much more lenient terms than the traditional Irish bankruptcy structure.
– Tax incentives for public investment in the BEC companies, say no taxes at all on profits made from shares in these companies for a period, and make them a tax deductible write off.
– Prior to the company becoming self sufficient, have a reduced tax rate for company income.
– An initial government advertising campaign and funding to provide an incentive for the BECs to be set up, with very limited ongoing involvement. This funding could be taken from the enterprise boards and other services which are no longer required, or whose usefulness is reduced.
It has been tried in France, with a much bigger percentage than 10%,without a discernible effect on employment statistics. It is extremely costly because the majority of the people hired that way would have been have been hired anyhow ,thus creating a windfall for the employers .
It is certainly useful to read the theoretical literature on the subject but I suggest you also study the “real-life” experiments that have been conducted all over Europe in the last 20 years, with very modest results ,except for the special cases where there is a misfit between the qualification of the workers and the jobs available, in which case it pays to re-train people.
Unemployment is such a drama that every government has to “do something” or look insensitive.
It is possible to help a category: the young ,the old, people who have been unemployed for a long time, etc. but it is always detrimental to the other categories of unemployed workers.
Unemployment is nearly entirely a function of the aggregate demand .If you can spend money on unemployment, increase the dole .It will be spent immediately with a big multiplier effect ,besides it will make the unemployed less unhappy.
Tackling unemployment in an SOE is like losing weight. There’s a well known solution, but its tough to commit to, and tougher to stick to. With losing weight, it’s: “Eat less and exercise more.” With unemployment in an SOE, it’s “Cost competitiveness, stupid.”
As long as we continue running around in circles looking for painless magical solutions, the outlook for our unemployed will continue to be poor.
A number of commentators have pointed out that the unemplyoment is a function of domestic demand in the economy. As gross domestic domestic demand is unlikey to increase in the next three years, the following question should be asked.
How can a government influence or cause a shift in the pattern of domestic demand so that it has a more positive effect on domestic employment?
It seems to me that tax policy and vat changes could influence change in this area that could be significantly employment enhancing.
During the 1980’s a lot of emphasis was placed on import substitution opportunities. There is still a lot of huge potential in this area.
My what a lot of wishful thinking there is. The domestic consumption economy? Import more BMWs? Increasing the dole? Surely you jest Monsieur…
Currently, employer’s PRSI pays for social insurance benefits that employees gain over the self-employed. Would removing it in its entirety mean that employees no longer were permitted jobseeker’s benefit? Or redundancy payments? Or illnes/disability/a number of other payments?
Given the archaic nature of government accounts, the PRSI (or USC as I suppose we should get used to calling it) parts don’t appear. Instead you have to go to the Department for Protection Against Social Stigma. About 9.5 bn a year of which 72.5% is employers PRSI (2009 figures http://www.welfare.ie/EN/Policy/ResearchSurveysAndStatistics/Documents/2009stats.pdf ).
So, who wants to cut another 6.5bn ish from the budget? What shall we do, sell our school children as carpet-makers? What’s that? The newly employed will pay it in income tax and employee PRSI? ORLY, I think not.
I realise not all of you are economists, neither am I. But do have an ounce of cop-on when you suggest raising payments or cutting taxes.
Be careful what you wish for. Be careful how you propose to fund it…
@Dominique Jean-Raymond
“Unemployment is nearly entirely a function of the aggregate demand .”
@BeeCeeTee
“With unemployment in an SOE, it’s “Cost competitiveness, stupid.””
I side with Dominique Jean-Raymond on the importance of aggregate demand for maintaining and expanding employment.
In a balance sheet recession, which we have here in Ireland and in much of the western world, trying to improve economic growth through suppy side efforts may actually be stupid and result in economic stagnation at best and could result in economic contraction.
The problem for Ireland at the moment is that the private sector (including the banks but excluding some multinationals) are in survival mode and are unlikely to either want to invest for growth or get the necessary funding even if they have good ideas . Normally the state could and should take up this slack and invest in the economy. However this option is seriously curtailed .
This is an opportunity for the European project to show maturity and solidarity and provide the investment necessary to work our way through the present banking crisis – not to punish the many for the sins of the few.
Richard Koo – A “Balance Sheet Recession”
@hoganmahew
“the PRSI (or USC as I suppose we should get used to calling it)”
How so?
Sorry if I have missed your point but PRSI goes to the Social Fund and the USC to the Exchequer (and contary to some strange notions on the net – both co-exist – one did not replace the other).
Frank, why bother? What you mean is “lower taxes on the rich, screw everyone else”. The various different methods you propose for doing this don’t really matter, it’s all from the same hymnsheet. This is just another way to take money from low-income people and those in the public sector, and hand it directly over to employers and business owners. Well done. Great.
@ ben
If you believe that most business owners are rich, then you are a fool.
About 92% of businesses are micro-firms.
@ All
Internships/placements are important to give young people an exposure to the workplace even though some firms would exploit it.
Promoting more holidays at home would be worthwhile as people would be ready to spend in the first place.
In the US, reseach shows that on average and for all but 7 years between 1977 and 2005, existing firms were net job destroyers, losing 1 million jobs net combined per year. By contrast, in their first year, new firms add an average of 3 million jobs.
So measures to promote non-tech startups (there is enough smart economy moola around already) would be useful.
“Unemployment is nearly entirely a function of the aggregate demand .”
“With unemployment in an SOE, it’s “Cost competitiveness, stupid.”
In an SOE, when you are well away from the full employment bound, changes in competitiveness are how you get serious shifts in aggregate demand. Measures to increase demand directly are fine when you can pay for them, and when the employment gap is small, but neither of those conditions hold right now.
I disagree that there is not much employment creation. There is not much net employment creation.
@Rob S
I understand that the plan is to roll PRSI into the USC heading as soon as they can figure out how to do the sums…
@ Michael Hennigan
Of course, most businesses are single operators or family firms. Many are only hanging in there, but others are in a position to ride out a recession nicely. The interests of employees and owners may coincide, but only to a limited degree.
Business gets a bad press sometimes, and deservedly so. Small business ignores the monopolist, anti-competitive practices which characterise much of big biz, except when it impacts directly on their livelihood. It seems to be accepted that the big boys are entitled to make their own rules. They are not so entitled.
We have multiple tax reliefs which are designed to protect owners of property and equity, among other things. Gouging goes on when services are supplied to the state, and the procurement processes for protected sectors certainly need transparency.
As for the abuse of limited liability, I doubt it will be a hot topic in the clubhouse. No offence to golfers, as its a great sport, but it’s time we stopped trying to run the country from the 19th hole.
As Joe Lee rightly says, the fundamental clash here is between the possessor principle and the performer principle.
Is there any one else who believes, as I do, that the ‘good olde days’ of annual, incremental economic expansion are almost over?
Any proposal to deal with falling employments, which has any modern (XX century) historical precedent, is simply running to stand still. A dreadful waste of resources we no longer have. The two essential ingredients for aggregate economic expansion are credit and energy. Both are not in good shape right now.
We could indeed create some additional employment (and of course there is the additional posssibility of replacing those who retire) – but these will all (or principally) be in low-paid (min wages territory), low skill stuff. Like shovel ready – literally. Ditto for all public service positions: All start at min wage or av Ind wage levels.
The reality (and it is a very unpleasant one) is, that most salaries and wages at upper levels will have to be reduced by approx 60%, tapering down to 0% at about the av Ind Wage level. Anything else is pure Hopium smoking.
These changes (which are unlikely) will result in severe writedowns of residential assets. That will be fun. Which will in turn require legislation for personal bankrupcy and mortgage resolution. That will be even more fun.
If anyone wishes to take issue with my prognosis, then you need to please explain how you intend to increase, on an annual incremental percentage basis, a level of economic expansion which is equal to, or greater than, the simultaneous expansion of credit (aka: debt) and price increases in food and energy. The System no longer can provide sufficient future yield to sustain the current debt load, never mind any additional debt that is being touted as being necessary to ‘encourage growth’ and ‘competitivness’. Thats like attempting to go forward and reverse simultaneously: Funny in a circus ring, but not when you are dealing with real people.
Scrap your models lads, its back to the design table!
BpW
The IMF has looked at all such supposedly job-creating schemes, and argues that they are ineffective and are therefore a real cost to the Exchequer.
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/cat/longres.cfm?sk=23671.0
Government investment is the most effective means to boost activity and create and jobs and of all other possible channels “….only targeted transfers [to the poor] come close”
What is employment?
Is it working for payment? Does the job have to be worthwhile? Does it have to be fulfilling? Does it have to be private sector?
Why not introduce a two tier dole? The lower rate is for people who don’t work. The higher rate is applied for by people who want to work?
People don’t seem to value a job unless they compete for it
Jobs are a result of productivity. The election campaigners keep talking about creating jobs, like they have some kind of job creating machine. Business creates jobs because they can be more productive and hence competitive against competing firms in other countries. When we have real competitive advantage and greater productivity potential than our rivals then businesses will be created and jobs will follow. You cannot create jobs then businesses. That is a recipe for wasted taxpayer money.
Reduce red-tape, reduce barriers to competition in market, reduce barriers to employment to make it worth while for SME’s to hire that one additional person.
But no all we get is more tax, to come up with stupid subsidising “job creation” programmes that are politically expedient but economical failures.
Brian
Couldn’t agree more. The old rules in some respects no longer apply. The mortgage debt mountain is the elephant in the room and is suffocating everything else. It needs to be sorted. I need no more convincing – get to the root cause of the Irish problem and its economic woes are well on their way to being healed. That root cause is overvalued property caused almost entirely by our beloved banks.
Am I alone in believing that the Regulators proposals in trying to deal with this issue are plain daft as it almost completely a strategy built on hope – which is always disastrous? Hope insofar as to believe house prices are likely to recover sometime soon. Read my lips house prices are not coming back – cut the chord.
There is no plan B in this regards as a result – mortgage debt needs to be written down using a long run average yield model which is 7% net yield for Irish residential properties going back since records were kept in 1976.
Write offs: Go back and recalculate what the banks should have lent against residential properties based on rents paid in the vicinity of the house at the time and using 7% yields recalculate the actual price of the house when it was purchased – not the fiction that was agreed at the time. On an individual mortgage basis one knows what LTV the banks used at the time of signing – use the same LTV metric against the correct house value to calculate the correct mortgage that should have been lent at the time. Taking into consideration the repayments made in the meantime the true value of the outstanding mortgage can be easily calculated. The difference between the actual value and the ‘corrected version’ will through up a write off amount. Agree this with the bank and move on. It isn’t pretty, it isn’t fair , it isn’t elegant or any of these things but it’s a fix grounded in basic common risk asset valuation methods.
It’s absolutely vital that people understand that in property markets banks price property. This basic issue is always overlooked because consumers believe by their actions in the property market they are in some way influencing pricing – they’re not, they’re not even close. Pricing leveraged property assets is always and has always been the job of our beloved banks. They forgot to use the yield based methods and have being relying on their ‘ability to repay’ loan methods in valuing property for the past 10 years or so and its shown to have been wrong. Very wrong. Why? Because ones ability to repay a loan tells one nothing about the underlying value of a property. Property values should only ever be priced off rental yields. The banks forgot this and yet somehow the consumer ends up paying for their error. I think not.
I have recommended before that one very easy way to bring sense to this nonsense is for consumers on mass to simply stop paying for overpriced housing and force the banks to rectify their pricing error. I’m beginning to believe it’s making more and more sense by the hour. Hedge funds promoting such schemes –surely not!
I’d suggest that anyone with any interest in sorting out the countries problem read Rossa White’s Davy note written in March 2006 on the madness in Dublin’s house prices and ask yourself a simple question. What in Gods name were the lending officers in the banks smoking to allow such a situation to develop where the equivalent p/e on house prices moved to close to 100 times? Explain to me exactly how 100% of this error can be landed at the foot of the consumer?
Can someone please speak to Matt Pat & Co. on Dame Street and ask them to wise up and get real. House prices are not recovering (perhaps over a multi generational time span) i.e. 50 to 75 years but those whose purchased in the past 10 years it will be cold comfort. The banks mispriced the assets and mis sold the mortgages and the consumer requires a reprieve – he/she are not 100% to blame.
Sort this out and employment recovers. We require nothing else. Costs? Who cares – the Germans need it done more than they can even imagine.
Temporary solutions risk becoming permanent.
Temporary changes in PRSI will at some point need to be reversed, when (if) that discussion arises the argument will be that jobs will be lost – and that argument will be true. There are few politicians anywhere in the world willing to do such a thing so any change will have to be considered to risk becoming permanent.
If the rules regarding the PRSI change are made to only apply to new jobs then there will be further problems. The rules will then become complicated, in other words red tape will be introduced. Big companies will have the resources and incentive to game the system, small companies won’t. For the above reasons I’d advise against making the changes.
An easier and in my opinion better thing to do would be to strengthen the ability of creditors to collect. This would allow profitable businesses to avoid the worst of the liquidity problem. At present a profitable business can go under due to lack of funds & that is something that should be avoided.
@ Yields or Bust: Thanks. You are NOT alone.
Its just that a few ‘crying-in-the-wilderness’ voices have difficulty being heard. Of course, its a different matter altogether for you to be heeded. That latter requires a massive Kuhnian paradigm shift of the Status Quo. And we know the probability of that!
Mind you, there is a slow-burning fuse which may detonate the taxpayer when these sheeple discover the truth as opposed to the spinola. Just watch the hysterics if the next raft of op polls show an increase for you-know-who, and losses for others! Seatbelts fastened folks!
BpW
@ Jesper: “An easier and in my opinion better thing to do would be to strengthen the ability of creditors to collect. This would allow profitable businesses to avoid the worst of the liquidity problem. At present a profitable business can go under due to lack of funds & that is something that should be avoided.”
How about you DO NOT give credit. Its cash on the barrel. Very simple: Works. It is tedious. But you avoid non-payments.
How about we introduce a silver coin/s for settling our debts. That might concentrate minds. Seriously!
BpW
Frank:
Many variants of the scheme you proposed have been tried in Ireland without much if any impact. Anthony Murphy and G Fagan published a paper in the Economic and Social Review in 1986 that evaluates one of these scheme. (This paper is not available on-line and I have not had the chance to go to library to check out its conclusions.)
In any event, a new scheme was launched in 2009:
“The Employment Subsidy Scheme (Temporary)
“It is an employment subsidy scheme for eligible enterprises employing 10 “or more full time staff that can identify a number of full time (working an “average of 35 hours or more per week) and part time (working an “average of between 21 or more, but less than 35 hours per week) jobs at “risk in their company, as a result of the current economic downturn. The “maximum full time subsidy is €9,100. The maximum part time subsidy is “70% of the full time subsidy, €6,370. The scheme runs for 52 weeks from “2nd November 2009 to 31st October 2010.
I have not seen any evaluation of this Scheme.
” Jobs ” are really a way of processing energy to enable a person to earn money in order to be able to purchase processed energy in the form of services and consumer goods.
Much better for the Gov. to just supply what people need—-saves a lot of energy expenditure and CO2 output.
Thanks to all (except perhaps Ben, who seems to misunderstand my motivation). I’m trying to brainstorm, and I think the flaws in the proposal have been exposed. Back to the drawing board!
We have a two tier economy Not exports and domestic but the Haves and have not’s.
Fact 60% of our housing has no mortgage the remaining 40 % has 140 billion euro lent against it.
The 60 % have still a vast amount of disposable income compared to the mortgage holders many of which are young families.
I purpose an agreement between the Banks ,Government and Residential mortgage holders that in return for over paying the mortgage by 100% the bank do not charge any interest and the Government allow a tax write off at the higher level. This would the lump sum of the mortgage and repayments much more affordable in the future. The average mortgage can be reduced by nearly a third over 3 years.
The majority of newly unemployed workers are from the construction industry .This group of previously self-employed builder have the highest rate of mortgage default. I suggest we target the 60 % of homes with no mortgage to stimulate this area. By allowing a tax write off at the higher rate for any work that directly increase the energy efficiency of the home. This would create employment reduce the need for fuel imports incentivise spending and allow these workers to stay in their own homes.
The Car scrap page scheme should be changed to the car export scheme. Any vehicle exported should be get a VRT refund based on their current value .This would increase the part exchange value of second hand cars. It would also help people to clear any outstanding car repayments.
The 60% percent of people with no mortgage and more disposable income are allowing prices in Ireland to be 30% higher than European average.
Mortgage Tax write off at higher level for 100% over payment matched by no interest charged on capital for the year by Banks
Car export scheme, VRT rebate at export value.
Tax write off at higher rate for Home energy upgrade.