Average Industrial Wage doesn't take Social Transfers into account and they are very high in Ireland so that's no use as a measure. Modified GNI is probably the best measure. The reality is that inflation is causing problems across the world.
To address your last point , yes I very much stand by what I said, the government is getting this windfall taxation because of the huge profits generated by a few big mutinationals but if that corporation tax take is to fall back it is also going to hit jobs and investment because then those companies will be retrenching even if they are still very profitable. Therefore I think he is wrong in his assumption that you can strip out a big chunk of corporation tax and that nothing else in the economy gets hit. Looking back at the corporation tax receipts history in Ireland they have never fallen except in 2009 , yet look what happened the irish economy it fell off a cliff. Therefore any fall back in corporation tax means the world is in a recession because these are global companies and Ireland is reaping the tax from these global profits.
So we just accept what these guys say as "gospel" because we are not esri economists , GNI* is a statistic conjured up here because the ESRI and CSO were embarrased about their statistics being labelled as "leprauchan economics" by their international peers. Nobody else uses this statistic so how is it relevant or useful for comparing incomes to other EU countries when its just an irish statistic.
Why would that be? The windfall corporation tax arise from multinational choosing Ireland as a tax base to locate profits actually generated by real economic activity elsewhere in the world. That tax is very mobile and as the OECD agreement takes effect they may (or may not) shift to other locations for tax purpose, while more of their profits will become taxable in the countries in which they were generated rather than in Ireland. The windfall element is not related to their economic activity in Ireland and in itself should have no impact on Irish jobs and investment.
No, that wouldn't be useful at all because, as I've previously pointed out, it doesn't take social transfers into account.
But those are his assumptions when you factor in our high savings rate then that would provide a cushion but that's just an assumption. He assumes if the corporation tax take would fall away well then people would just spend their savings to compensate. My point is that his assumption is wrong because in that scenario people would be even less likely to spend their savings. He didn't pose the question why are our savings rates so high and why would people suddenly start spending their savings if the economy went down that didn't happen during the financial crisis, people horded their money then, they didn't go out and buy the houses at 50% discount in 2011.
Maybe if I could get a sponsorship deal with Renault aswell
He's now writing opinion pieces for Irish Times and is a comment-tator in the Mejie generally.
Malta having recently been attached via the Kerch bridge.
m.independent.ie
It's the same for other countries but they have decided not to go with ridiculously high wind energy rates. We have made it too attractive for wind energy companies to profiteer but have loaded all the costs of the associated infrastructure onto the consumer via standing charges and high unit rates. Much more of the costs need to be borne by the wind energy companies themselves, they are the ones that are reaping the windfall energy prices without bearing any of the realistic costs associated with the grid and producing electricity when no wind is blowing. Eamon Ryan ruled out windfall taxes on energy companies because they would hit the wind energy providers the most .
Exorbitant cost of over-the-counter drugs is a good example. Gov. could very easily fix this but instead keeps caving in to vested interests linked to cartel-like structures. Same for energy, insurance, GP costs, interest rates, etc. etc. Deep ideological hostility to any kind of consumer protection.