Whingeing

Johnny Foreigner, is it too much to ask that you read both paragraphs?

For the complete picture.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0904/1224323575035.html

Good in parts, rather like the curate’s egg.

“She believes the Government will “avoid touching income tax at almost any cost”.

Why?

@Lucinda Creighton

Mad Ould Jozie down the road, a good friend of Blind Biddy,wants to know if you will come in and change her nappies now that her home help hours are to be cut or is she supposed to lie in her own sh1te from Tuesday to Friday and offer it all up to the glory of the sacred bondholders.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0904/breaking3.html

p.s. Blind Biddy is absolutely seethingly furious ….

@ All

This government’s “to do list”, provided by Ian Talbot of Chambers Ireland, if implemented, might obviate the need to raise income tax.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0904/1224323574395.html

It needs, of course, to be accompanied by measures in other – private – monopolistic sectors of the economy and coupled with other essential reforms as identified by the Troika (which, at least, have a chance of being implemented) as part of a national package deal.

On present evidence, the current government is incapable of organising and getting popular agreement for such a deal.

Johnny Foreigner: You seem to have missed this crucial bit:
“People should not be punished for their address”

Who said it was hard to make a man say the truth when his livelihood depends on saying the opposite. or something like that. No PR Guy I am not looking at you.

@Niall

Well done for what? The whole premise of the original post is false, Creighton did not complain about “higher taxes on people in expensive neighborhoods” as Kevin O’Rourke claimed. She complained about urban dwellers in general being punished by a value-based property tax. Someone living in a tiny two bed house in Crumlin will pay more in property tax than someone living in a 5-bed detached house in Cavan under these proposals – this is what she is complaining about. The original post misrepresents this.

Remind me again how many women post on this site?

@Garo

The address she is referring to is urban address vs rural address – she clearly refers to ‘urban-dwellers’ as a class of people who are being discriminated against by the proposal.

From the other IT article on the interview:

“She also said people living in Dublin and other cities should not be discriminated against and “punished for their address” when it came to paying the value-based property tax. Square footage should be taken into account, along with ability to pay.

In an interview with The Irish Times, Ms Creighton argued against a site valuation tax because “people living in houses where you literally cannot swing a cat in Dublin will be paying the bulk of property tax and I don’t think that’s fair”.”

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0904/1224323575035.html

I must say, I agree with JF in so far as she’s really referring to urban (expensive and inexpensive) vs rural, something I agree with, considering it is cheaper to provide services for people in cities why should the state incentivise them to live in the country?

Also she does mention PS increments, Im sure a fair few who voted for her has got them over the last few years. Shes also a Mayo woman, so arguing for high property taxes for the country isn’t 100% in her interest.

She’s only whinging about those whinging about what they’ve agreed. Which isn’t much to whing about.

She’s not my favourite politician but on this occasion I can’t find any fault with what she’s saying.

“On property tax, she said urban dwellers should not be “punished for their address”.

This is Standard Indo spin. The poor Blackrock craythurs, god love them. Any chance of a map of Ireland broken down by income levels ?

@ Grumpy

“I got the impression “Whingeing” was almost exclusively reserved to describe anyone attempting to point out the absurdity of the Croke Park Agreement. Certainly appears to be so on this blog anyway.”

Really? That wasn’t my impression. I thought the peasants on the blog were mostly anti CP.
Did you perhaps fall down the banister this morning?

John Foody: “She’s also a Mayo woman, so arguing for high property taxes for the country isn’t 100% in her interest.”

Maybe just 99%. She represents a Dublin constituency. The reference to “houses where you literally cannot swing a cat” is obviously a plea on behalf of who live in expensive places like her constituency. (Admittedly there are some relatively inexpensive areas in Dublin South-East, but there’s not much doubt that she draws most of her support from the affluent.)

Five years into the crisis and we still don’t seem to be discussing the basics of money creation/destruction in a system that’s clearly unfit for purpose. It will be even more unfit for purpose as we tend towards a balanced budget.

Thankfully there have been four articles recently published in the Financial Times, the Economist, the Guardian and the Independent discussing fundamental reform of the banking sector as a solution to the crisis. I’ll provide the links if anyone wants to read them.

Even more encouragingly, the IMF recently published ‘The Chicago Plan Revisited’ which describes a very thorough analysis of full reserve banking and ultimately concludes its a system that would work better than the current one on almost every front. The full text can be read at:

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2012/wp12202.pdf

It’s well worth a read.

First things first;

Lucinda is about four years and at least one billion too late on ‘musing’ about not paying increments. i.e salary increases to people in secure employment. But I’m sure it was best to get elected to a well paid job and well settled in before bringing that up.

Secondly:
You can punish people for their age, their poverty, their lack of employment, their poor education, but damned if you can punish them for their address.

Thirdly: Nobody said the health budget was not big enough. The fact is that far too much of it is going to upmarket postal districts.

Finally: Does the failure to tackle allowances, have anything to do with the elected representatives unwillingness to reduce their allowances; such as the travel allowance of €5,000 paid in one month to a FG TD, from Sligo / Leitrim. Enough mileage, according to the media, to drive to Katmandu and back.

How about a 33% across the board cut in all allowances (ALL) which currently run to €1.5billion, thereby saving €500 million in 2013.
Any takers in the governing parties!

@seafóid

“you’ll never hear any spin on those who are “punished for their age”

From the article:

“Ms Creighton said young people have borne the brunt of the financial crisis and the situation could not be allowed to continue. “From what I have seen, the people who have been most disproportionately hit are the youngest people right across the Civil Service,” she said.

“New entrants, whether it’s teachers or civil servants, the entry-level salaries and pay and conditions that they are entitled to are a far cry from what people 10 or 15 or 20 years more senior are entitled to.

“I think young people have taken that on the chin. It’s a very difficult time. People have said, ‘I’m lucky to have a job’.

“But young people have borne the brunt of this crisis to a huge extent and I don’t think that can continue. I think it’s important that everybody shares the burden.””

Irregular verbs: I express concern, you complain, he whinges.

Obviously Kevin O’Rourke is right about what’s going on here. It’s the usual ploy of delegitimizing an opponent’s agenda by protraying it as the the whining of a spoilt brat. Nothing new about that.

I can see why commenters might suggest that Kevin shouldn’t waste his beautiful mind on this shite, but I can’t for the life of me see why anyone can suppose that he owes Lucinda Creighton an apology for pointing out what she’s doing.

@John Foody

“I must say, I agree with JF in so far as she’s really referring to urban (expensive and inexpensive) vs rural, something I agree with, considering it is cheaper to provide services for people in cities why should the state incentivise them to live in the country?..”

Whilst this sounds about right on a per capita basis at an individual level the story can be very different. I live in a rural area, I’m a member of a local water scheme (sign up costs €4,950) and I’m metered, I have my own septic tank system – installed in accordance with EU criteria (installation costs and related €8,320) and it requires an electrical connection 24/7 *365, I had an ESB pole moved when I moved in (cost €4,390), I paid the local county council a fee on building my house (cost €3,650), I sweep the road in front of my house and cut the grass and weeds from the ditches close to my house so to avoid a potential accident (cost ??).

More costly to whom exactly in providing services ?

@JF

“Would you mind pointing us to the bit where she complains about “higher taxes on people in expensive neighbourhoods.”?”

It’s very simple. With a value-based property tax, people will pay more tax on a more valuable piece of land. Hence “punished for their address”. Hence, also, “higher taxes on people in expensive neighbourhoods”. With the corollary “lower taxes on people in less expensive neighbourhoods”.

Shouldn’t 10,000 square feet in Ballsbridge, attract a higher tax than 10,000 square feet in Crumlin? And 10,000 square feet in Crumlin be taxed more than 10,000 square feet ten miles outside Ballinasloe? You may not agree with that, but your argument with KO’R is a basic failure of reading comprehension on your part.

No, Johnny Foreigner, he didn’t misrepresent her at all. Read the links and the post.

This discussion on what a politicain siad or didn’t say is reminiscent of the US pres election campaign.

More exciting than dealing with the serious issues?

36 comments so far!

@Kevin Donoghue

Contrast these two statements.

LC “people living in Dublin and other cities should not be discriminated against”

becomes…

KOR “people complaining about higher taxes on people in expensive neighbourhoods”

Unless Kevin O’Rourke believes that everyone who lives in a city also lives in an ‘expensive neighborhood’ then he has misrepresented Lucinda Creighton and he should apologise for doing so.

@ Grumpy

I thought at first that banister must have been some form of investment slang. Maybe it could become one.

What happened to PH ?

Fearghal: “Shouldn’t 10,000 square feet in Ballsbridge, attract a higher tax than 10,000 square feet in Crumlin? And 10,000 square feet in Crumlin be taxed more than 10,000 square feet ten miles outside Ballinasloe?”

That’s the issue in a nutshell. Johnny Foreigner, your attempt to turn this into an urban-rural issue simply misses the point. I see no reason to suppose that Lucinda Creighton had that in mind. AFAIAC “Square footage and ability to pay should be taken into account” is a statement which applies within cities just as much as between city and country.

Anyway I doubt that you would be much happier with Kevin if he had written:

You might think that someone who represents an urban constituency complaining about value-based property taxes “punishing people for their address” could be fairly described as whingeing.

His main point would be unaffected.

@TM

The strange thing about an apology is that once you’ve done it once, you realise it wasn’t as bad you thought, and lots of people respect you for doing it. Unfortunately we live in an age where saying sorry has become synonymous in many people’s minds with ‘defeat’.

Whinging. Excuses. It’s all this country has done for 5 years.

We’ve whinged, whined, and kicked as the recession has taken away all of our toys one by one. And no wonder, as those who whinged loudest and kicked hardest had their sweeties given back by a coddling government.

Those of us who kept our mouths shut and tried to think of the country before ourselves ended up paying up, so that the brats in the ascendancy could continue to be spoiled in the manner to which they have become accustomed. Businesses go under and the disabled are left to die in their chairs so that bankers and secretaries can keep their bonuses and increments.

So whinge, whinge away sweet people of Ireland. The State is giving out prizes, fortunes untold, to the greatest whingers and kickers in the land. They who can screech most shrill, shall have their will—of the rest of us naturally.

@ All

This is a very lively thread because it is getting to the heart, indirectly, of a number of core issues which simply have to be addressed.

One of them is the issue of moral hazard – the buzz word of the moment – to which the writer to the Irish Times drew attention.

“It’s time for the Government to do what we elected them to do, but as their own salaries and pensions are linked to Civil Service pay I won’t hold my breath.”

The breaking of this link must be an absolute priority. As to how it arose (Chapter 7; page 57)!

http://www.finance.gov.ie/documents/pressreleases/2001/report38.pdf

P.S. The Chairman of the Labour Relations Commission should get out more and stick to his last.

@ JMK

You have hit the nail on the head with regard to the “hear no evil, see no evil speak no evil” attitude of the nomenklatura, of which academics are a significant part. But as you can see from its formal charter above, its ranks are serried (and banks now in state ownership seem to have clambered aboard). Unfortunately, the craft is holed below the waterline.

21st February 2011

Dear Mr Corcoran

I am very aware of the strength of feeling on the subject of commercial rents and Fine Gael has addressed this subject in our manifesto as part of a drive to cut business costs by strengthing competition in sheltered sectors.

Specifically, in our manifesto we have committed to pass legislation to give all tenants the right to have their commercial rents reviewed in 2011 irrespective of any upward-only or other review clause.
Please do not not hesitate to contact me if you have any queries in this regard.

Best wishes
Yours sincerely

Sean Barrett TD

Folks, Johnny Foreigner is trolling (and not amusingly) and since the editorial policy at The Irish Economy is very generous show a little restraint and ignore him.

On Kevin O’Rourke’s initial post Lucinda is just defending the interests of her wealthy constituents who did not get rich by paying taxes – it is a perfectly understandable position.

I do not think she is even being hypocritical – Lucinda Creighton has no principles to betray.

She is simply serving her class interests rather than any national ones, her set of voters being far more likely to have access to private health care and far less chance of having chronic poverty related illnesses.

@ Grumpy.

Thanks

@all at all at all

The chutzpah and special interests tags have been gathering dust for a long time. Presumably the “Banking crisis” category could be subsumed into “special interests”

As previously noted, he didn’t misrepresent her position on property taxes.

@Kevin Donoghue

Perhaps you are right, perhaps Kevin O’Rourke does consider urban dweller and ‘expensive neighborhood’ to be synonymous. The residents of Ballymun, Ballyfermot, Togher, Moyross et al may take some convincing.

To al those sneering at Kevin. Recall that he left this state some time ago. He has, I’m sure, several dozen
Things more pressing than Irish political economy.

“Square footage and ability to pay should be taken into account.”

Hard to see how this isn’t a reference to heavily mortgaged professionals with small-ish homes in the our more salubrious urban locations. Does anyone really think she’s referring to people living in poky houses on run down estates?

At the risk of intruding on a private argument, as someone who has been making the case for a land tax in the UK for years, I believe that a value-based property tax with frequent revaluation would be good for macroeconomic stability and development in Ireland, whether it is a case of raising extra revenue or not. A land tax should restrain another housing boom, and ensure that those who benefit from development (or lack of it) compensate those who do not. And to the extent that such a tax reduces the value of urban land, city dwellers will soon have less to whinge about.

@Paul Ferguson

You are correct the IMF paper is indeed a very thought provoking piece which deserves to be read and understood because it does represent a very real alternative to the current bank credit creation disaster that we are living through. From the conclusion:

“..This paper revisits the Chicago Plan, a proposal for fundamental monetary reform that was put forward by many leading U.S. economists at the height of the Great Depression. Fisher (1936), in his brilliant summary of the Chicago Plan, claimed that it had four major advantages, ranging from greater macroeconomic stability to much lower debt levels throughout the economy. In this paper we are able to rigorously evaluate his claims, by applying the recommendations of the Chicago Plan to a state-of-the-art monetary DSGE
model that contains a fully microfounded and carefully calibrated model of the current U.S. financial system. The critical feature of this model is that the economy’s money supply is created by banks, through debt, rather than being created debt-free by the government.

Our analytical and simulation results fully validate Fisher’s (1936) claims. The Chicago Plan could significantly reduce business cycle volatility caused by rapid changes in banks’ attitudes towards credit risk, it would eliminate bank runs, and it would lead to an instantaneous and large reduction in the levels of both government and private debt. It would accomplish the latter by making government-issued money, which represents equity in the commonwealth rather than debt, the central liquid asset of the economy, while banks concentrate on their strength, the extension of credit to investment projects that require monitoring and risk management expertise. “

Why is there no discussion of taxing property equity, rather than value or size?

If a property is mortgaged to the tune of 120% and most after tax income is spent servicing that mortgage, it is not comparable to an identical property with no mortgage.

Could it be that the ever dependable grey vote will again determine government preferences?

@Kevin Donoghue

Honestly, I think that if Kevin O’Rourke read the full text of both interviews, he would admit that he made a mistake.

Why does it matter? Why be so pedantic about the words used by LC? Because I think our own political discourse is going down the same ‘gotcha’ road as we see in the US election. People leap on buzz phrases like ‘address’ which are politically toxic when coming from someone perceived as ‘posh’ like LC. Exactly the same thing happened to Barack Obama with the whole ‘You didn’t build that’ nonsense.

@Kevin O’Donoghue

Shay, you’re wrong on this one. The thread is tagged Chutzpah so you can’t call the man a troll for giving us such an exemplary display of same.

If I have ever been wrong it is because I am an orphan, your honour.

@grumpy

I think there is an unfortunate tendency to brand anyone who persistently disagrees with a popular internet user as a “troll”.

You win on a technicality, I do not know whether Johnny Foreigner is chiefly a troll but I think that in this case it is reasonable to say that he is trolling.

@Shay Begorrah

If you are not too busy refereeing the internet maybe you could give us your views on the original post.

@ Seafóid: “What happened to PH ?”

He has been designated as a Non Person (in respect of this site). One cannot even use his full name or your comment will not up-load. Crass behaviour.

@ bazza: “equity”. Interesting idea. But it might prove a tad tricky for the mono-synaptic thinkers.

1. Restructure our ‘tax’ system. Its completely unfit for purpose.
2. Restructure Local Gov. Its shambolic.
3. Prohibit (by Constitution) a deficit budget for day-to-day spending.

@Brian Woods Snr

Why not completely devolve revenue raising powers and budget control to local authorities? Take Kerry County Council – why shouldn’t they have the power to collect (themselves) a property tax, rates or whatever they fancy? And then spend it however they fancy? They are, after all, a democratically elected body. It would make local elections meaningful and give a better alignment to the revenue-raising methods and the local needs. I choose Kerry CoCo because they are already very flush from the second homes tax – it was exactly what they needed.

If people in Donegal or Ballsbride don’t want a property tax then fine, vote for local representatives who have something else in mind.

Caveat – that something else cannot include money from central revenue – has to come from your own pockets I’m afraid.

@grumpy

There are, as a matter of fact, many people who have property that they own outright and who have managed to get into that position despite paying enormous amounts of tax over decades.

Absolutely. Owning a house outright does not speak to your character and people are understandably proud of having a concrete representation of their hard work and a place to keep their families comfortable and safe. Ireland’s history speaks of the need to avoid depending on the whims of a landlord – even if the law is now more favourable towards tenants.

Against that the intergenerational persistence of property ownership does lead to the emergence of a property owning and rentier class and this is most definitely not a good thing. The enactment of a property or wealth tax should help reduce this.

If JTO were here he might say that society in Tyrone has not broken down because people pay taxes on their houses and that it will not have any greater effect in counties to the south.

@Seafoid

What’s your point exactly?

Mine is that there is a presumption among some commentators, demonstrated in the post I was responding to, that if you see someone who is “rich” (= lives in an affluent location, or has net positive assets) that you can safely assume they are in that position only through tax evasion or tax avoidance, they have therefore ripped-off society, and the appropriate response to any question of whether a tax proposal is fair to them is to laugh.

That is both incorrect and unhelpful – not least to those attempting to agree on and implement said tax proposal.

On a related tax/charge issue, it’s interesting that a former minister in a toxic government is making a stand on principle in relation to a charge that would be peanuts compared with his public expenses. Taking shared responsibility for the economic crash is of course another story.

Eamon O’Cuiv, Fianna Fáil TD and former minister, has said he has not paid his septic tank charge, because the fee is an issue of equality i.e he chooses to live where there isn’t mains water supply but he doesn’t believe the tank should be his responsibility.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/ocuiv-refuses-to-pay-septic-tank-charge-565637.html

@ Grumpy

I struggled to see the relevance of how much tax people paid in the past to the property tax debate. Fingers probably paid lots of tax in the past. But you were referring to tax avoidance, I see now. Apologies.

Surely it can’t be that difficult to come up with a property tax that works – how come most other countries have one ?

The whole focus is on the payment of property tax.

It is about time the focus shifted to what services the Local Authority will be responsible for. Then we will be able to determine how much revenue must be raised.

I saw the day coming when we would become adherents of handsome Ronald’s political philosophy such as low tax is good but no tax is better. Laffer and Phillips as the neoliberal gospel. We the public are not a bunch witless and idle feckers we are capable of analysing cause and effect and acting for the greater good of Irish society. I have lived in low and no tax jurisdictions. Believe me there is a direct relationship between tax rates and quality of life.

You quote one FG TD, above, another FG TD is on the Vincent Browne show player in recent weeks suggesting a 3 year emergency temp. very high income special tax, that would end talk about pausing P.S. increments to 2016 and tipping special needs citizens out of the frying pan and into the fire

@ JF: Thanks for your comment. I have no problem with the collection – its the spending I have a beef with. Its not under democratic control. Councillors are not answerable to their electorate (except in some timid legal sense). Each counciller has to be made personally liable for any overrun on their budget. That will concentrate their decision making. Biannual elections. And you can only serve three consecutive terms and five at maximum.

OK: Scrap the idea of ‘county’ councils as we know them. They are archaic. With a population of 5 mill we only need ?? local authorities. Two? Three at a stretch. We have 33!!! Madness.

Householders need some public services so they must pay for these. No exceptions. Payments have to come from an actual income. If a householder is unable to pay then the council has a charge over any sale or transfer of the property. Folk will then be most attentive to what their local authority is spending their money on.

Household charges are not a tax. They are a payment made by the occupiers for some public service. We pay utility bills. We do not class them as a tax – yet!

Sean Barrett TD
Dail Eireann
Leinster House
Dublin 2

Dear Mr Barrett
Many thanks for your very welcome letter of 21st February 2011 and your solemn pledge to allow all commercial tenants a rent review in 2011. We had sent on Gerard Hogan’s SC opinion stating clearly this was legally ok and Colm McCarthy’s enonomic report stating this was in the best interest of the Irish economy.

Yours sincerely
John Corcoran

Does anyone on this thread work in the private sector? (Apart from Tull)

Simpleton,
For the record, I am in favour of a site value based resi property tax with no exemptions. I am also in favour of lower tax credits. On the other side we need a third off the pay bill and an end to universal payments.
That is a minority view round here for bleedin obvious reasons.
It will probably require the collapse of the Euro to create the necessary mo! Ant bets on when?

@ Tullmacdoo

Should Bertie be exempt because he is a pensioner?

Is Bertie Ahern representative of anyone but a tiny minority of pensioners? So.

@Tull

“The top rate tax payer is paying over the odds for lousy services delivered by overpaid staff.”

To a certain extent that is true. But you get health care for a lot less than you would in Switzerland.

And a Leinster rugby camp for the kids is a a lot cheaper than a football camp in the Alps. Quality is also better.

Ireland has a lot going for it if you wear the right sunglasses.

Seafoid,
DL HC I wish. Never has so
Much been paid to so few for so little.

Tull,
No idea whether Euro survives. But the only basis for survival will be same social welfare rates, same (state) retirement ages, same pensions, same teachers pay, same public sector everything in the euro area. Just as in the sterling and dollar areas. We are are two or three crises away from the plan for this being made explicit. The euro will lose one or two currencies along the way. But sensible people know that this is the only way the system hangs together. Whether it does or does not is a different question.

All the contributors seem to live in a different world from the rest of Irish society.

The posters around here generally fall into two camps

a) Public, and “semi”-state(newspaper, bank, etc) employees, either towing the Government or ECB line or else engaging in mild academic discourse on the alternatives. This groups salaries are largely dependant on the largesse of the banking ascendancy.

b) Headbangers. People with a lot of time for posting on the internet and little else. Most don’t live in the same “real world” as the majority of the population. To their credit, they are at least independent voices, if at times inchoate ones.

Mostly, Internet forums like this are a distraction, wasting energy that could be expended on more productive projects; e.g. a political movement, rallies and protests, setting up a newspaper, or heading a lynch mob.

@ All

I will break the first rule by adding this link.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/6b6c940e-f688-11e1-9fff-00144feabdc0.html#axzz25Zy8juhm

This internal German debate is of fundamental importance, IMHO, with regard to the future of the euro, which is not totally unrelated to this thread. Even at this early stage it reveals an important fact about the operation of the German economy viz that the mercantilist approach driving it is a function of the economy’s corporatist structure.

Wolfgang Munchau had an interesting comment earlier in the week.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/b3c7d492-f2a6-11e1-ac41-00144feabdc0.html#axzz25Zy8juhm

His fears are well founded. However, Barnier has already signalled a compromise i.e. his proposals will imply acceptance of the principle of global coverage but on the basis of a phased introduction.

@DOCM,

That Independent headline will have resonance with many people in that it reinforces the ‘loss of sovereignty’ meme with which we are all so familiar since the bailout. Not to mention the ‘green jersey’ meme which translates as ‘whatever you say, say nothing or you will sabotage the national interest’ with which we are equally familiar.

But the Independent story lacks substance – what are the resident IMF observers in the DOF and CB supposed to do with their time? Make paper-clip chains? Or observe what’s going on around them and make the odd enquiry about it?

As for the original IT interview with Ms. Creighton, her views on the property tax issue or on health cuts or on any other issues exclusive to her European Affairs brief are of no more import than those of any other junior minister, or backbencher, among the government parties. She is not a Cabinet Minister and will have no direct input into any final decision on policy and, likely, will only hear about it the same time everyone else does.

But as a party political mouthpiece – which is how I interpreted this article – she has a function to perform in cross-party communications; delivering a message to her colleagues in Labour that FG will stand up to them if they keep rocking the boat with foolish warnings about preparing for imminent elections and the like. Such interparty shenanigans distract from the real question: are the cuts as proposed by the HSE/Minister the only way in which the clawback in health over-spending can be achieved?

It takes a small group of disabled people who camped outside the Department to force that crucial question back to the centre of the public debate. That their protest has resulted in a ‘U-turn’ on the element of the cuts that direct affect them indicates that there are, indeed, alternatives to the current proposals as well as further undermining confidence in the way in which this government is going about its business generally.

@ Kevin Donoghue

Indeed , yes, such squabbles are very much part of how policy is formed but when that sort of shaping up takes place within the way the issue has already been framed by the government for public consumption – TINA – it tends to exclude the possibility of any other policy options being considered. It was the highly articulate people who camped outside the Department and bore witness to the actual implications of one of the proposed cuts on their lives who forced a Government U turn, not the inter party squabblers. Magically, the 10m euro required can now be found elsewhere – as if it couldn’t have been ‘found elsewhere’ to begin with!

@OMF

I have often considered calling my IT man to stick this blog behind the webfilter but occasionally there is a technical discussion which adds to my understanding.

@paulr

+1.

@ Yield of Bust,

Thanks Yield or Bust. The proposal does seem to be gathering some momentum at the minute.

@simpleton

Does anyone on this thread work in the private sector? (Apart from Tull)

This dog at a laptop has worked in the private sector exclusively for the last eighteen years including about six years self employed.

@OMF

Mostly, Internet forums like this are a distraction, wasting energy that could be expended on more productive projects; e.g. a political movement, rallies and protests, setting up a newspaper, or heading a lynch mob.

There are certainly more constructive things we could all be doing but perhaps not between waiting for tasks to complete at work?

I agree on the lynch mob though. It is a great shame that our government has always been more afraid of losing face in Europe rather than of their personal safety at home. It would have focussed their minds.

Anyone up for an open whinge thread about the ECB?

“European Central Bank President Mario Draghi’s bond-buying proposal involves unlimited purchases of government debt”

BUY EVERYTHING!!!

“that will be sterilized to assuage concerns about printing money, two central bank officials briefed on the plan said.”

YEAH, SURE.

“Under the blueprint, which may be called “Monetary Outright Transactions,” the ECB would refrain from setting a public cap on yields, according to the people, ”

SELL EVERYTHING!

“and a third official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. The plan will only focus on government bonds rather than a broader range of assets and will target short-dated maturities of up to about three years, two of the people said.”

KEEP SELLING!

“Draghi will stress conditionality of the program tomorrow, with the ECB likely to stop buying the bonds of any government that fails to meet the conditions it agrees to when it signs up for aid from Europe’s rescue fund — a precondition for ECB action — two of the people said.”

SELL!

“Another proposal is for the ECB to sell the bonds it has bought if a country doesn’t comply with the conditions, two of the officials said.”

WOT!…..SSSEEELLLLLL!

…or go to the pub 😉

http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2012/09/05/1147061/some-more-draghi-day-prep/

Lets try that again:

@grumpy

KEEP SELLING!

If I understand the proposal it is that the ECB will buy short term government bonds only as long as the recipient government commits itself to the economic policies that have not worked at all so far but which the ECB and Germany both deeply believe in.

So having beaten the European economy half to death the ECB (with German approval) might be agreeing to supply pain killers as long as the victim pleads guilty to assault.

Fantastic.

Blind Biddy and Mad Ould Jozie (freshly dolled up and lookin mighty) are in the pub – think I’ll join them.

test

Kerry were very poor this year. I blame Croke Park.

@ veronica

Thanks for the reply. I would not disagree. My point was, however, that an important outside body was reported as asking a very pertinent question; what is going on? Does anyone, including this inept government, know?

As to criticism of the CPA, I, for one, have never said that it is the only issue. But it must form part of the eventual “national package deal” solution. My own belief is that a majority will find a balanced outcome acceptable, even if it means pain for them individually. But the omens hitherto are not good.

Indeed. What is going on? Henri – the existential cat, viewed by over 4m on Youtube, probably knows more about it all than the good Lucinda or the rest of us:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q34z5dCmC4M

Well worth a look, believe me!

I am very angry about the way in which this has all been handled. It seems to me that what is happening is that categories of ’employee’ within the HSE are being identified who do not ‘belong’ within the scope of the CPA. These people are extremely badly paid – less than 10 euros per hour on average. They do not qualify for CS ‘mileage’ rates, or any at all in some areas. Cut them and the services they provide out of the system and there’s no impact on the terms of the CPA.

So, they can be ‘excluded’ without infringing the terms of the CPA. Brilliant! Draw a red line through it. The services which they provide, however, are essential to people like the disabled. Not just them. Home helps and ‘respite care’rs as well are affected.

It’s stroke of pen stuff. No thought goes into it; no strategic visions that people left without this minimal level of care must eventually end up in hospital or full time institutional care which will cost the state 1,000 euro a week de minimis.

Forgive me for getting a bit angry. Last week I was told that my dear godmother, who’s over 90 years of age and who helps her middle aged son and his wife in the care of a severely disabled son, had her family informed that the two weeks ‘respite’, whereby the young man gets a holiday away for two weeks out of 52 and his parent and grandmother get two weeks rest, is now cancelled forthwith. These people will cope, because they are proud and straight, and will continue to care for the young man they love, even if it kills them.

They will do so with dignity, without any public complaint. Their despair will be private. They’re the sort of people who are in your ‘majority’, so to speak, who will make room for that extra burden, that realistically, physically or mentally, they can’t cope with. But they’re the sort who’ve always doneit, down through the generations, and so can be relied upon to remain passive – even if it kills them.

Anger, as Colm McCarthy memorably put it, is not a policy. He’s wrong. Anger becomes a policy when the level of injustice becomes so grave that the consent of the majority to the system of government can no longer be reasonably sustained.

The government faces some real moral dilemmas in making almost impossible choices. It’s not that they’re inept, DOCM. It’s that they always take the line of least resistance from an electoral perspective. In short, it’s more cowardice than stupidity. Or else, it’s the perspective of Henri – the existential cat.

I like the tag to this item. BOH

Anger, as Colm McCarthy memorably put it, is not a policy. He’s wrong. Anger becomes a policy when the level of injustice becomes so grave that the consent of the majority to the system of government can no longer be reasonably sustained.

Not exactly. Anger becomes a policy when policy makers feel very real an immediate threats to their personal safety unless they take action. I firmly beleive that at this stage, a serious outrage would ultimately solve more problems than it caused.

Anyway, anger may not be regarded as a policy, but Hope certainly is. Our government runs daily on Hope, plans around Hope, appeals to Hope, and clings to Hope as dearly as a drowning man clings to driftwood. Unfortunately, Hope is but the first step on the road to Disappointment.

@ Veronica: “I am very angry about the way in which this has all been handled.”

Good. We need a great many more people who are angry. Not throw the crockery about anger, but the slow, grim, focused determination to reverse an injustice.

Anyone who suggests that anger is counterproductive is someone who has never reflected on one of the key survival attributes of humans. Basically they are embarrassed by a persons anger. They are incapable of understanding and responding (engaging with the problem) and seek to mask their incompetence and unwillingness by displacement activity. Strategically focused anger always works. Takes time and great skill.

Are there any REAL economists about this site? This is a serious question. We have a festering, intractable economic predicament. On several occassions I have alluded to the complete cluelessness being displayed by so-called economists in respect of their commentaries and proposals for dealing with this economic predicament.

Specifically: The economic paradigm of Permagrowth. Do folk really understand the long-run consequences of this paradigm. Apparently not. Its the only reasonable conclusion I can come to. Why? Perhaps its never mentioned in any undergradute or postgraduate economics course programme.

So now you know. Our economic advisors ARE clueless (about reality). So why bother attending to their catechisms? You would be wise not to. They are proposing hazardous social experiments on humans, which if performed on Henri would get them a jail sentence for neglect and cruelty. Be mad. real mad. There is nowt left.

@Veronia et al
Yes, a very impressive contribution. But let’s try and tell the whole truth and inject complete and uncomfortable honesty into this debate. The shameful retraction of respite care arises from lack of resources. That cash has to come from somewhere. Logically, it can come from resources elsewhere in the system or through higher taxes. If it is to come from elsewhere it has to be from reduced services elsewhere or lower wages.
Cuts in wages are ruled out by assumption- the CPA. So it’s reduced provision elsewhere or higher taxes. Now, I am prepared to do my bit. I pay 52% marginal taxes and, thanks to my comfortable, for now, salary, and the very high progressivity of the tax system, my Average rate of tax is also very high. But, cards on the table, I think I have done my bit. There is, logically, a point at which a taxpayer believes he/ she is making a fair and just contribution. I think this is it. I see my taxes going up next year, again, to maintain public sector pay at close to the highest levels in Europe. I do not think that is within an a€€es roar of being fair, just or even economically sensible. It just isn’t sustainable, whether or not it is fair.
So, who do you think should pay for that eminently justifiable respite care?

@yob
Just because something is complex or difficult doesn’t mean it is wrong. If our public sector cost structure is too high it is too high. I’m sure Karl W would not put this interpretation on his work but using your logic and his argument would seem to point to raising public sector wages as the solution.
Complexity does mean that public sector costs are but one of our problems. Debt relief is certainly another. Progress needs to involve tackling every problem. But complexity seems to have overwhelmed our dear leaders.

@ Simpleton

“So who do you think should pay for that eminently justifiable respite care?”

Your question is entirely reasonable, particularly in the context which you outline of already contributing your fair share of tax, and willing to do so, but with a gnawing resentment of those whom you perceive as overpaid already and and enjoying absolute protection of such incomes and privileges courtesy of the CPA.

Teh straightforward answer to your question is that society should pay for the respite care. First, because it is a matter of basic social justice. Second, because it is economic madness in the long term to demolish supports of this kind, whether respite care or home care for the elderly or teh availability of personal assistants for the disabled – their removal will inevitably result in greater social misery for those affected by such cuts, increased stress on their already precarious health (and the health of their immediate family carers) and inevitably, referral to hospitals or long term institutional care. Increased referrals and institutionalisation will cost many multiples of what has ostensibly been ‘saved’ by cuts to home care, personal assistance or respite care. You’ll be asked to pay for that too.

The government parties are so hell-bent on protecting their respective constituencies – for Labour their public service vote, hence making a talisman of the CPA and no cuts to social welfare rates allowable since that might leak votes to SF; for FG, preventing as much leakage as possible in the 100 seats between Dail and Seanad they acquired in GE 2011 resulting in the mantra of no increases in income tax – that all they can do is cherrypick amongst the options remaining open to them that will do the least damage to their electoral prospects. Which is a bit tough on the elderly, the disabled, families who can hardly put bread on the table but will be hit with a poorly thought out, ill-considered and likely badly designed ‘property tax’ on their after-tax income in due course anyway.

If as a country we want a social failure to match the scale of our economic failure, it seems to me we’re going the right way about it.

DOCM and I regularly spar on this site. But I think his remarks above get to the nub of the issue: “They [the government] need to have the political courage to table a comprehensive package which stops the descent to even further levels of inequality.”

We need a new politics.

And if you want a snapshot of the mentality of those whom we elect to govern us, this column in the Sunday Independent is worth a look.
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/john-drennan/john-drennan-politicians-to-row-back-on-seanad-abolition-3210244.html

@Veronica
Your anger is well put and totally justified. We have no right to describe ourselves as civilised if we do not care for the sick and the elderly. As Clinton put it so well last night, “make a choice: we are either in this together or you are on your own”.
But I am not just being asked to care for those who cannot help themselves.

And I am afraid your answer, “society”, doesn’t really answer the question. Yes, collectively, we have to care for those who cannot do so themselves. But where do we draw the line? And, right now in 2012, who, precisely, should pay for the future respite care of your sick relative?

@veronica

I can concur with virtually all of your comments however I still suggest that until the powers that be realise that trying to fix the public debt problems ahead of the private debt disaster won’t work on an economical, mathematical and quite obviously a social level. The private debt levels will eventually undermine and negate cuts and adjustments of all types.

The household debt straight jacket is the problem which if properly dealt with will allow many other doors which are today being shut, remain open. Why this can’t be grapsed is beyond me. There is a constant school of thought that believes writing down mortgage debt to a correct model house price is simply a sop to the middle classes without understanding that the overwhelming mortgage distress problems lie significantly further down the the social food chain.

@simpleton

Don’t get me wrong here I’m no advocate of the CPA I”m simply pointing out that the simplistic view that cutting salaries etc will deliver mass savngs is incorrect – the mass media analysis and discussion of this never takes into account the other side of the issue in terms of lost tax revenue and ongoing mortgage distress.

@all,

Having watched the Minister for Health, Dr. James Reilly’s interview on ‘Prime Time’ last night, it is now clear to me that I am in error and should hang my head in shame for having so woefully misinterpreted last week’s HSE announcements.

There are no cuts in respite, carer, personal assistant etc. services. There were never going to be. It was all a figment of our collective imagination at best, the creative enterprise of a hostile media, and a hotch-potch of political malcontents, at worst.

Those who identified 30m euro of cuts aimed at services directly affecting their lives were imagining it. People who received letters over the past while informing them that services they had relied on were no longer available to them imagined that too. The Taoiseach, Enda Kenny, who told the nation we should congratulate the Minister on his ‘courageous’ U-turn had been equally misled by the background ‘noise’, as Dr Reilly put it around the HSE announcement. Enda Kenny imagained a U’turn which never existed in the first place. There was no U-turn, because there was nothing to U-turn about. It never happened. We just all imagined it was happening.

This is great news! It means: We’re imagining the economic maliase in which we are mired for the past five years and for many more to come. The unemployed imagine that there are no jobs for them to go to; the youth that their talents may be wasted through lack of opportunity. The indebted should stop reading those fictitious bank statements that signfy their predicament. The elderly and disabled reliant on basic services to maintain dignity and independence in life should cease to worry. We’re all just imagining everything that has happened.

Henri, the existential cat, makes a lot more sense.

@Grumpy
“CPA beneficiaries have effectively become the new gentry”

Maybe the new farmers. But not the gentry.

Most of them are ordinary people who buy titles such as the RTE guide and the Indo as well as VIP magazine . There are a certain percentage in the quangos but the majority are teachers, gardai, civil servants etc.

@seafoid

You weren’t meant to take that “gentry” reference
literally. “the New Farmers” rings very true.