Ireland Officially In Recession.

Cousin of mine working in a solicitors office was telling me the other night lot of offices, hers included, are reducing their working week to 3 days.

Times are tough alright.
 
Sheikh said:
This time next year we'll be on the way back.
Click to expand...

If I keep saying this I'll be right eventually. It's the Eamon Dunphy prediction method.

Not liking the pictures of Fitzpatricks family that are appearing in some papers.
 
Last edited:
Despite the shock, disappointment and denial from those managing affairs here, it would appear the international market had already adjusted for this in their figures. The biggie really will be the first quarter of 2011 when the effects of the next budget kick in. If we haven't piggy-backed on World growth at that stage and are still stagnant or depressed then we won't need to worry about who we vote for in the next general election. Someone called Svenson or Krantz will be the next real Taoiseach.
 
Thing is, there's nowhere to go where there are any jobs worth taking, or safe enough to chance. Forget the Middle East unless you're teaching English as a foreign language, forget South Africa unless you don't mind being carjacked and quite casually having your throat cut for fun, forget the rest of Europe because they're all grubbing around blaming the Roma for their woes, and that leaves places like the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, who want special skills under the age of 45, plus a token of your viability - like $100,000 before they look you over.
 
It is more the implementation of this tax Barry. Relying on Middle income Ireland to bail out a goverments failings.

More than half of it will be based in Dublin alone and it's also suggested that it will only effect owner tenants. Is there any rationale for Landlords to be exempt for this?
 
Ireland is one of the few people who do not pay a property tax - I would feel bad about those who paid huge stamp duty recently.
 
Property tax is completely inequitable.

Tax people on the money they earn - good
Tax people on the same money a second time based on what they spend it on - dodgy but can make sense
Tax people a 3rd time on the same money depending on what they possess - Rubbish
 
Last edited:
Why is it inequitable?

Taxing people on what they earn - disincentive to work - bad for economy
Taxing people on what they spend - disincentive to spend - nearly as bad for economy
Taxing people on what they own - sounds a lot better to me

If done correctly, I don't see the problem.
 
Playing Devils Advocate, why do you think someone should be taxed for owning a home, when they are already paying large interest rates to the bailed out banks?
 
There are a multitude of reasons why a person can have a valuable house and a modest income.

Two neighbours doing the same job for the same salary get a £50K bonus. One spends the 50k on a horse\car\sweeties\hookers the other spends on home improvements. The one who improves his home pays more tax.

From an economic viewpoint it makes sense for the reasons you state but there is no possible arguement to claim it is fair. I'm sure there will be bits and pieces tagged on to rule out undue hardship on the most extreme cases (income limits/recent stamp duty payments - maybe something related to mortgages) but it will always be intrinsically unfair.

Why should a person who lives in a magnificent house that he pays rent for be any less exempt from tax than a person who lives in an equivelent house that is effectively owned by the bank, only they call the rent a mortgage.
 
Surely Bar, if you want incentives for people to work and spend, then cut benefits and tax the lower paid harder (encouraging work and self-improvement respectively). Make the poor pay. They are the ones foolish enough not to become bankers.
 
Granger:

Because the government needs the money from somewhere, and this is one of the ways of getting it that (theoretically) will have least adverse economic impact.

Melendez; there is no reason why thee renter should be less exempt. As in any market, the long-term end game will be that the charged is passed on to the end-user (in this instance the renter).

I fail to see any rationale for calling it unfair other than you saying it is "intrinsically unfair".

Taxing resources (such as land and water) rather than income or transactions has two benefits in standard economic theory.
1. It discourages wasting those resources (exhibit A : we built a load of houses we don't need and exhibit B we use approximately 40% more water than we would if water charges were introduced {using countries with similar climates as an estimate})
2. It does not reduce economic productivity by imposing a "deadweight loss" on the economy.
 
granger said:
Playing Devils Advocate, why do you think someone should be taxed for owning a home, when they are already paying large interest rates to the bailed out banks?
Click to expand...

The banks arguement is irrelevent - on the very same basis we should not be cutting anything then.
 
Betsmate:
I agree.

Back a while ago there was a competition to come up with an idea to boost the Irish economy. Most of the ideas revolved around "green" initiatives and cutting social welfare payments or public sector pay.

The funniest one was by somebody who suggested that all unemployed people be paid the same in welfare, but that they cycle 2 hours a day, with their exercise bike hooked up to the national grid.

Produces energy cleanly. Gets them off the couch and less fat. Gives some meaning to their day.
 
Back
Top