59 days of cash left

[Bogball XV]

I'd say the political class in Germany aren't too worried at the minute. They gambled on Ireland and lost yet we have refunded them and we will continue to refund them.

Sorry, but there is a difference between a gamble and a loan. If you gamble on a horse in a race, it is obvious that it might finish out of the money.
Whereas if you lend money to someone, you expect it back.
The fact that the borrower intends to use it to stick on a "sure thing" in the 3.30 at Navan is down to the borrower, not the lender.

The problem is the Irish Political class believe and act like the German, British, French etc political class are our betters and we owe them something.

Er, sorry to break this to you as well, but by the above principle you do/did owe "them" (Germany, France, Britain etc) something - the money you borrowed from them.
And if you feel aggrieved that "the Irish political class" led you into this mess, just ask yourself, who voted for those politicians, time and again in successive elections?
[Clue: It wasn't the Germans, Brits or French]

Therefore the choice is/was either repay the debts when called in, or default, then watch as the Bailiffs come in, before being denied any new credit for the next 25(?) years.

If the Germans decide to lend money to me to build myself a big house in Lucan then they are equally responsible but Lenihan has made sure they are not accountable.

Really? "Equally responsible"? Tell me this, Zap, was the big, bad German financier holding a gun to your head when you borrowed the money from him for the big house in Lucan?

As for Lenihan ensuring they are not accountable (i.e. get the money they are/were owed), is Lenihan himmself not accountable to anyone?

The Irish electorate, perhaps?

You've missed the point EG, the nation of Ireland only owes the bondholders in Irish banks money because the nation of Ireland foolishly guaranteed that they would pay these bondholders back that money, after they had already invested, which is the key point.
That guarantee is up on December 31, but we hear it is to be extended until June of next year, presumably at the behest of EU as it protects the interests of banks and funds throughout the EU.

If the nation of Ireland had not guaranteed these borrowings, then it would find it a little easier to access the capital markets.  As it has turned out, a decision Lenno made which was castigated throughout the EU at the time has turned out to be a blessing in disguise as they are in a position to make demands off us which must be accepted.  Bye Bye 12.5% CT rate, which might not be the disaster that everyone thinks in any case.

[Hound]

Bye Bye 12.5% CT rate, which might not be the disaster that everyone thinks in any case.

Really!

Google: 200 new jobs on top of 1500 existing (20/8/10)
http://www.idaireland.com/news-media/press-releases/google-creates-200-jobs/

ServiceSource 70 new skilled jobs bringing total to 380 (3/8/10)
http://www.idaireland.com/news-media/press-releases/servicesource-to-expand-e-1/

That's just 2 at random off the IDA website that I believe are directly attributable to the corporation tax regime, and there are loads more in the press release section ofthe website.

Any increase in our rate, even to 15%, would put a halt to a lot of potential new investment, as more rises would be anticipated.

[Lone Shark]

Bogball, I think you and I are actually close to agreement on this. I had no problem with the idea of the bank bondholders being told to feck off - but that was pre guarantee. The bank guarantee means that their debt is now our debt and while I consider that decision to be foolish, unethical and downright treasonous, it has been done. If we don't pay up, we have to balance the budget in 2011 - and that's just not realistic.

As regards the investing in renewables, that I agree with - but not for stimulus reasons, just because we need to find out what we can give to the world to pay our way, and that's the best option. That's not what Zap was talking about though - he was talking about keeping public service wages at their existing levels for stimulus reasons.

[Bogball XV]

Bye Bye 12.5% CT rate, which might not be the disaster that everyone thinks in any case.

Really!

Google: 200 new jobs on top of 1500 existing (20/8/10)
http://www.idaireland.com/news-media/press-releases/google-creates-200-jobs/

ServiceSource 70 new skilled jobs bringing total to 380 (3/8/10)
http://www.idaireland.com/news-media/press-releases/servicesource-to-expand-e-1/

That's just 2 at random off the IDA website that I believe are directly attributable to the corporation tax regime, and there are loads more in the press release section ofthe website.

Any increase in our rate, even to 15%, would put a halt to a lot of potential new investment, as more rises would be anticipated.

it's not going to be there for ever, not if we remain in the Euro anyway.  I don't deny that it's has done its share of work in creating jobs - but, how secure are those jobs?  I've been in a fair few multinationals, and whilst they're not my cup of tea (rigorous computer usage during work hours policies) I appreciate the good they do in not only bringing other EU states' tax revenues into the coffers of the Irish exchequer, but also in the jobs they create and the subsequent pay-off that has for the irish economy.  The thing is, when you're competing on a cost issue, it's always going to be transient.

[Zapatista]

As regards the investing in renewables, that I agree with - but not for stimulus reasons, just because we need to find out what we can give to the world to pay our way, and that's the best option. That's not what Zap was talking about though - he was talking about keeping public service wages at their existing levels for stimulus reasons.

I was including stimulus reasons. My original argument was with the idea that Public Sector workers should be judged as Public Sector workers with no consideration to the fact that they go home after work and become mother, fathers, husbands, wife's, members of their communities, GAA volunteers etc. as much as anyone else. All of which are core to our society and should be considered in the budget.

I also take issue with the claim that there has to be lifestyle changes. I work with a lot of Pubs, Restaurants and hotels and it's clear to them that lifestyle changes are taking place everyday.

[Evil Genius]

Sorry, but there is a difference between a gamble and a loan. If you gamble on a horse in a race, it is obvious that it might finish out of the money.
Whereas if you lend money to someone, you expect it back.
The fact that the borrower intends to use it to stick on a "sure thing" in the 3.30 at Navan is down to the borrower, not the lender.

We didn't borrow from illegal Loan sharks (not you Loneshark) we borrowed from investors. Ireland was invested in. - your investment can go up aswell as down

There is a basic difference between Equity (Investment) and Bonds (Loan). With the former you acquire a proprietary interest, which gives you a say over the application of the funds, which protects you, but also leaves you accountable if the enterprise invested in goes down.

Whereas, when you make a loan to someone, the borrower retains autonomy over how and what he spends it on.

Of course, any prudent lender will take steps to ensure his loan can/will be repaid. But in the end, if the borrower has lied about his assets etc, or declines to apply the loan sensibly (or even for the purpose originally stated), then responsibility for that must rest primarily with the borrower.

After all, the likes of Germany and France loaned money eg to Scandinavia, Canada and Australasia etc, and they didn't p i s s it up the nearest pub wall.

[Evil Genius]

I'd say the political class in Germany aren't too worried at the minute. They gambled on Ireland and lost yet we have refunded them and we will continue to refund them.

Sorry, but there is a difference between a gamble and a loan. If you gamble on a horse in a race, it is obvious that it might finish out of the money.
Whereas if you lend money to someone, you expect it back.
The fact that the borrower intends to use it to stick on a "sure thing" in the 3.30 at Navan is down to the borrower, not the lender.

The problem is the Irish Political class believe and act like the German, British, French etc political class are our betters and we owe them something.

Er, sorry to break this to you as well, but by the above principle you do/did owe "them" (Germany, France, Britain etc) something - the money you borrowed from them.
And if you feel aggrieved that "the Irish political class" led you into this mess, just ask yourself, who voted for those politicians, time and again in successive elections?
[Clue: It wasn't the Germans, Brits or French]

Therefore the choice is/was either repay the debts when called in, or default, then watch as the Bailiffs come in, before being denied any new credit for the next 25(?) years.

If the Germans decide to lend money to me to build myself a big house in Lucan then they are equally responsible but Lenihan has made sure they are not accountable.

Really? "Equally responsible"? Tell me this, Zap, was the big, bad German financier holding a gun to your head when you borrowed the money from him for the big house in Lucan?

As for Lenihan ensuring they are not accountable (i.e. get the money they are/were owed), is Lenihan himmself not accountable to anyone?

The Irish electorate, perhaps?

You've missed the point EG, the nation of Ireland only owes the bondholders in Irish banks money because the nation of Ireland foolishly guaranteed that they would pay these bondholders back that money, after they had already invested, which is the key point.
That guarantee is up on December 31, but we hear it is to be extended until June of next year, presumably at the behest of EU as it protects the interests of banks and funds throughout the EU.

If the nation of Ireland had not guaranteed these borrowings, then it would find it a little easier to access the capital markets.  As it has turned out, a decision Lenno made which was castigated throughout the EU at the time has turned out to be a blessing in disguise as they are in a position to make demands off us which must be accepted.  Bye Bye 12.5% CT rate, which might not be the disaster that everyone thinks in any case.

See Loan Shark's post #63, 1st para.

[Hound]

Bye Bye 12.5% CT rate, which might not be the disaster that everyone thinks in any case.

Really!

Google: 200 new jobs on top of 1500 existing (20/8/10)
http://www.idaireland.com/news-media/press-releases/google-creates-200-jobs/

ServiceSource 70 new skilled jobs bringing total to 380 (3/8/10)
http://www.idaireland.com/news-media/press-releases/servicesource-to-expand-e-1/

That's just 2 at random off the IDA website that I believe are directly attributable to the corporation tax regime, and there are loads more in the press release section ofthe website.

Any increase in our rate, even to 15%, would put a halt to a lot of potential new investment, as more rises would be anticipated.

it's not going to be there for ever, not if we remain in the Euro anyway.  I don't deny that it's has done its share of work in creating jobs - but, how secure are those jobs?  I've been in a fair few multinationals, and whilst they're not my cup of tea (rigorous computer usage during work hours policies) I appreciate the good they do in not only bringing other EU states' tax revenues into the coffers of the Irish exchequer, but also in the jobs they create and the subsequent pay-off that has for the irish economy.  The thing is, when you're competing on a cost issue, it's always going to be transient.

Well of course the MNCs can up and leave anytime they want (and the same goes for every other country they are in), which is why we must fight to keep them, and one of our best weapons is the 12.5% rate. And therefore it would be a bit of a disaster if it was increased.

[Zapatista]

Sorry, but there is a difference between a gamble and a loan. If you gamble on a horse in a race, it is obvious that it might finish out of the money.
Whereas if you lend money to someone, you expect it back.
The fact that the borrower intends to use it to stick on a "sure thing" in the 3.30 at Navan is down to the borrower, not the lender.

We didn't borrow from illegal Loan sharks (not you Loneshark) we borrowed from investors. Ireland was invested in. - your investment can go up aswell as down

There is a basic difference between Equity (Investment) and Bonds (Loan). With the former you acquire a proprietary interest, which gives you a say over the application of the funds, which protects you, but also leaves you accountable if the enterprise invested in goes down.

Whereas, when you make a loan to someone, the borrower retains autonomy over how and what he spends it on.

Of course, any prudent lender will take steps to ensure his loan can/will be repaid. But in the end, if the borrower has lied about his assets etc, or declines to apply the loan sensibly (or even for the purpose originally stated), then responsibility for that must rest primarily with the borrower.

After all, the likes of Germany and France loaned money eg to Scandinavia, Canada and Australasia etc, and they didn't p i s s it up the nearest pub wall.

Who were the lenders that didn't know the Irish were buying property? Are they from Mars?