26 counties poll for local elections.

[Hound]

Debt increase is due to bank debts but almost as importantly the 5 years of deficits . If the budget is not balanced the deficit is funded by new debt.
McCreevy ramped up spending on Public sector salaries, pensions, social welfare basically everything. Cowen continued the party.
Charlie said "if I have money i'll spend it".
It was funded by the boom and when the boom collapsed so did revenue. Very hard to reduce the spending as it is so political.

Personally I'd disagree about McCreevy being the main cause of overspending. Not that I'd absolve him of blame. He was certainly in favour of low tax but he wasn't a spend merchant by nature. Of course he did acquiese when cabinent members, backbenchers and opposition were all screaming at him to spend spend spend. He did at least push through the pension reserve fund, which got little favour at the time from colleagues or opposition, but saved the pain at the end from being even worse. And he was shuffled out of Finance so Cowen could come in and really go to town on the spending to win another election.

[Hound]

One of the most deeply held truisms in Irish politics is that raising CT will scare away all the inward investment - especially among tech and pharma companies. Ok. I can see the logic to this position - but a debate with only one side is not a debate, it's a lecture. And with the utmost respect to Joe Higgins et al the opposing view was really only articulated by isolated, fringe figures.

As for the specific debate on CT itself, I'm always reminded of a conversation I had in 2010 with a friend of mine home from London. At the time he was a commodities trader with a large American bank in London and he earned more money than God. after a few pints I was banging on about the guarantee, the unfairness of it all etc before finishing up "Ah sure, what could we do? We guaranteed it, we had to pay it."

He starts to laugh then says to me "We had a default factored into our predictions - we thought at best we'd get 40 cents in the euro, and most of the other bondholders thought the same." So i said that's all well and good but you'd never lend to us again. He says "We would have stayed away for six months to a year and if it looked like it was turning around we would have steamed back in. We're all about making money, sometimes we get burned, but if an opportunity presents itself in the same country we wouldn't have a problem going back in"

Bear in mind this is at least a year before Michael Lewis' Vanity Fair piece.

If we were wrong about that (and despite the ECB pressure etc if we had realised the true position we could have gotten away with paying a lot less) we could be wrong about CT as well.

I don't see how those two issues compare at all.

The 12.5% rate is a brand for Ireland. Being able to say "its rigid, it won't change, the government parties and opposition parties have all stated its here for the long term" is a super marketing tool for Ireland. Even a 1% hike changes that, as its no longer a stable rate. The thinking would be a 1% hike this year means it could be another 1% next year and onwards and upwards.

Of course a rise wouldnt mean an immediate exodus from Ireland, it would just reduce the inflow of new companies. Every time a new US MNC sets up in Ireland, it comes after it has carefully weighed up other territories likes Netherlands, Switzerland, Luxembourg, UK, etc. 

[magpie seanie]

One of the most deeply held truisms in Irish politics is that raising CT will scare away all the inward investment - especially among tech and pharma companies. Ok. I can see the logic to this position - but a debate with only one side is not a debate, it's a lecture. And with the utmost respect to Joe Higgins et al the opposing view was really only articulated by isolated, fringe figures.

As for the specific debate on CT itself, I'm always reminded of a conversation I had in 2010 with a friend of mine home from London. At the time he was a commodities trader with a large American bank in London and he earned more money than God. after a few pints I was banging on about the guarantee, the unfairness of it all etc before finishing up "Ah sure, what could we do? We guaranteed it, we had to pay it."

He starts to laugh then says to me "We had a default factored into our predictions - we thought at best we'd get 40 cents in the euro, and most of the other bondholders thought the same." So i said that's all well and good but you'd never lend to us again. He says "We would have stayed away for six months to a year and if it looked like it was turning around we would have steamed back in. We're all about making money, sometimes we get burned, but if an opportunity presents itself in the same country we wouldn't have a problem going back in"

Bear in mind this is at least a year before Michael Lewis' Vanity Fair piece.

If we were wrong about that (and despite the ECB pressure etc if we had realised the true position we could have gotten away with paying a lot less) we could be wrong about CT as well.

I don't see how those two issues compare at all.

The 12.5% rate is a brand for Ireland. Being able to say "its rigid, it won't change, the government parties and opposition parties have all stated its here for the long term" is a super marketing tool for Ireland. Even a 1% hike changes that, as its no longer a stable rate. The thinking would be a 1% hike this year means it could be another 1% next year and onwards and upwards.

Of course a rise wouldnt mean an immediate exodus from Ireland, it would just reduce the inflow of new companies. Every time a new US MNC sets up in Ireland, it comes after it has carefully weighed up other territories likes Netherlands, Switzerland, Luxembourg, UK, etc.

I think most people are agreed that the 12.5% CT rate should be sacrosanct for companies creating large numbers of jobs through inward investment. It is our one trump card in attracting inward investment which in the absense of any alternative, has to be what our economy is built on. The low rate is compensated for by the monies ploughed in and jobs created.

I'd argue though that for other companies the rate is too low. They get the same tax break without providing the same benefit to the country. Not sure that's right when individuals pay 42% tax + 11% USC/PRSI at low enough levels of income. Looks unfair to be "targetting" this sector but if you look at it realistically they've benefitted way too much over the years from this tax break.

[magpie seanie]

On seafoid's points about the debt my feelings are this:

I believe FF/FG/Lab think we should pay back every cent and aren't bothered about pushing for a reduction or a deal of some kind. I have always held this belief and despite being told countless times "ah wait til such and such is out of the way and we'll get a deal."

I believe SF/PBP/SP etc do not think we should pay back the whole lot and I don't think we should either. I think SF are nothing if not pragmatic and believe they would push hard for a reduction in the debt or some kind of easing of it. I'd give them a bigger chance of reducing the debt than people who don't really want to reduce it.

[balladmaker]

Having a mandate to be in government is one thing, being in government is another, just ask Labour all about that.  I sense the reality is dawning on Sinn Fein, 'jeez, there's a very good chance we're going to be government makers in 2 year's time, if not before'  ... I've already heard comments from Gerry Adams, 'We need to prepare for being in government' ... and Mary Lou, 'We want to be in government but not at any cost'.

It's a dangerous position for Sinn Fein, when you look at how the minority party in coalition has been treated by the electorate in both Ireland and the UK.  What would /  could Sinn Fein do differently when in power to ensure the same doesn't happen to them?  Stick to their manifesto would be good for a start. 

Then again, 'if' things are improving in the south, and the next government can ride the crest of that wave of some sort of stability when compared to the last 8 years, then who knows.

[johnneycool]

One of the most deeply held truisms in Irish politics is that raising CT will scare away all the inward investment - especially among tech and pharma companies. Ok. I can see the logic to this position - but a debate with only one side is not a debate, it's a lecture. And with the utmost respect to Joe Higgins et al the opposing view was really only articulated by isolated, fringe figures.

As for the specific debate on CT itself, I'm always reminded of a conversation I had in 2010 with a friend of mine home from London. At the time he was a commodities trader with a large American bank in London and he earned more money than God. after a few pints I was banging on about the guarantee, the unfairness of it all etc before finishing up "Ah sure, what could we do? We guaranteed it, we had to pay it."

He starts to laugh then says to me "We had a default factored into our predictions - we thought at best we'd get 40 cents in the euro, and most of the other bondholders thought the same." So i said that's all well and good but you'd never lend to us again. He says "We would have stayed away for six months to a year and if it looked like it was turning around we would have steamed back in. We're all about making money, sometimes we get burned, but if an opportunity presents itself in the same country we wouldn't have a problem going back in"

Bear in mind this is at least a year before Michael Lewis' Vanity Fair piece.

If we were wrong about that (and despite the ECB pressure etc if we had realised the true position we could have gotten away with paying a lot less) we could be wrong about CT as well.

I don't see how those two issues compare at all.

The 12.5% rate is a brand for Ireland. Being able to say "its rigid, it won't change, the government parties and opposition parties have all stated its here for the long term" is a super marketing tool for Ireland. Even a 1% hike changes that, as its no longer a stable rate. The thinking would be a 1% hike this year means it could be another 1% next year and onwards and upwards.

Of course a rise wouldnt mean an immediate exodus from Ireland, it would just reduce the inflow of new companies. Every time a new US MNC sets up in Ireland, it comes after it has carefully weighed up other territories likes Netherlands, Switzerland, Luxembourg, UK, etc.

I think most people are agreed that the 12.5% CT rate should be sacrosanct for companies creating large numbers of jobs through inward investment. It is our one trump card in attracting inward investment which in the absense of any alternative, has to be what our economy is built on. The low rate is compensated for by the monies ploughed in and jobs created.

I'd argue though that for other companies the rate is too low. They get the same tax break without providing the same benefit to the country. Not sure that's right when individuals pay 42% tax + 11% USC/PRSI at low enough levels of income. Looks unfair to be "targetting" this sector but if you look at it realistically they've benefitted way too much over the years from this tax break.

You've a point as no doubt there are companies setting up their HQ in Ireland to avail of the Low CT, but don't employ that many people and its just a tax avoidance scheme.
I'd have varying CT levels for companies depending on their Income tax take, employee numbers or whatever.

Multi-nations are taking advantage of Irelands tax laws but not putting anything or very little back into the country.

[Walter Cronc]

Anywhere I can view a map/link of the Euro Election results??

[AZOffaly]

for Ireland, or for the whole of Europe?

Independent.ie, RTE.ie both have interactive maps of ROI.

[Hound]

I think most people are agreed that the 12.5% CT rate should be sacrosanct for companies creating large numbers of jobs through inward investment. It is our one trump card in attracting inward investment which in the absense of any alternative, has to be what our economy is built on. The low rate is compensated for by the monies ploughed in and jobs created.

I'd argue though that for other companies the rate is too low. They get the same tax break without providing the same benefit to the country. Not sure that's right when individuals pay 42% tax + 11% USC/PRSI at low enough levels of income. Looks unfair to be "targetting" this sector but if you look at it realistically they've benefitted way too much over the years from this tax break.

Agree with what you're saying but EU won't allow us to discriminate between different types of companies, so its a bit of "price you have to pay". We do have a 25% rate for passive (as opposed to trading) income. And as you say when money is paid out by a company as salary the high income tax rates kick in.

[Walter Cronc]

for Ireland, or for the whole of Europe?

Independent.ie, RTE.ie both have interactive maps of ROI.

For Ireland. I'll have a look. Cheers.

[macdanger2]

Having a mandate to be in government is one thing, being in government is another, just ask Labour all about that.  I sense the reality is dawning on Sinn Fein, 'jeez, there's a very good chance we're going to be government makers in 2 year's time, if not before'  ... I've already heard comments from Gerry Adams, 'We need to prepare for being in government' ... and Mary Lou, 'We want to be in government but not at any cost'.

It's a dangerous position for Sinn Fein, when you look at how the minority party in coalition has been treated by the electorate in both Ireland and the UK.  What would /  could Sinn Fein do differently when in power to ensure the same doesn't happen to them?  Stick to their manifesto would be good for a start. 

Then again, 'if' things are improving in the south, and the next government can ride the crest of that wave of some sort of stability when compared to the last 8 years, then who knows.

That'll be a big call for sinn fein after the next election. Assuming they have say 40-50 seats in the next election, the govt will likely need two of FF/FG/SF to be in government. If SF don't go into govt, they risk becoming a protest party who have no interest in actually running the country. And with the country likely to be in a relatively improved position, the govt would be reasonably popular you'd assume. On the other hand, if they go into govt as the junior partner, they risk being the new PDs/Greens/Labour

[Hound]

On seafoid's points about the debt my feelings are this:

I believe FF/FG/Lab think we should pay back every cent and aren't bothered about pushing for a reduction or a deal of some kind. I have always held this belief and despite being told countless times "ah wait til such and such is out of the way and we'll get a deal."

I believe SF/PBP/SP etc do not think we should pay back the whole lot and I don't think we should either. I think SF are nothing if not pragmatic and believe they would push hard for a reduction in the debt or some kind of easing of it. I'd give them a bigger chance of reducing the debt than people who don't really want to reduce it.

FG/Lab will get a deal prior to the next election. I'd be close to certain on that. They've got a pretty good bargaining chip now with "If you don't give us a deal, you'll have these shower to deal with instead"!

The question is will it be a decent deal where we get genuine debt write-off, or will it be a BS kick it down the road deal where we have to pay less for a few years but will still have to pay it all eventually.

[magpie seanie]

On seafoid's points about the debt my feelings are this:

I believe FF/FG/Lab think we should pay back every cent and aren't bothered about pushing for a reduction or a deal of some kind. I have always held this belief and despite being told countless times "ah wait til such and such is out of the way and we'll get a deal."

I believe SF/PBP/SP etc do not think we should pay back the whole lot and I don't think we should either. I think SF are nothing if not pragmatic and believe they would push hard for a reduction in the debt or some kind of easing of it. I'd give them a bigger chance of reducing the debt than people who don't really want to reduce it.

FG/Lab will get a deal prior to the next election. I'd be close to certain on that. They've got a pretty good bargaining chip now with "If you don't give us a deal, you'll have these shower to deal with instead"!

The question is will it be a decent deal where we get genuine debt write-off, or will it be a BS kick it down the road deal where we have to pay less for a few years but will still have to pay it all eventually.

Well you know what I think it will be. I don't think Kenny or Noonan have the conviction to go and fight for us as I think they believe we should be good little europeans and pay back the lot. Time will tell but I would have thought themsleves and FF had better bargaining positions in the past and blew them.

[Hound]

On seafoid's points about the debt my feelings are this:

I believe FF/FG/Lab think we should pay back every cent and aren't bothered about pushing for a reduction or a deal of some kind. I have always held this belief and despite being told countless times "ah wait til such and such is out of the way and we'll get a deal."

I believe SF/PBP/SP etc do not think we should pay back the whole lot and I don't think we should either. I think SF are nothing if not pragmatic and believe they would push hard for a reduction in the debt or some kind of easing of it. I'd give them a bigger chance of reducing the debt than people who don't really want to reduce it.

FG/Lab will get a deal prior to the next election. I'd be close to certain on that. They've got a pretty good bargaining chip now with "If you don't give us a deal, you'll have these shower to deal with instead"!

The question is will it be a decent deal where we get genuine debt write-off, or will it be a BS kick it down the road deal where we have to pay less for a few years but will still have to pay it all eventually.

Well you know what I think it will be. I don't think Kenny or Noonan have the conviction to go and fight for us as I think they believe we should be good little europeans and pay back the lot. Time will tell but I would have thought themsleves and FF had better bargaining positions in the past and blew them.

Personally I don't doubt their intentions, but agree they didnt appear to put up much of a fight to date. The cap-in-hand / "do us a favour" negotiating approach is a dead loss. As a nation I think we've probably been too eager to lay the blame at our own doorstep rather than blaming the European banks that facilitated it

[armaghniac]

It's a dangerous position for Sinn Fein, when you look at how the minority party in coalition has been treated by the electorate in both Ireland and the UK.  What would /  could Sinn Fein do differently when in power to ensure the same doesn't happen to them?  Stick to their manifesto would be good for a start. 

In a coalition, both parties cannot implement their full manifesto.
But the first step is not to put bollix in the manifesto that could never be implemented unless a pink elephant herd arrived.