"72% agree that the Budget is at risk of repeating past mistakes"

Brendan Burgess

Brendan Burgess

Founder
Messages
54,762
This is a very interesting survey in the Sindo

www.independent.ie

Voters have noted the ‘wasteful’ Budget 2025 giveaways – but extra money in the pocket could still swing election

I’m writing this piece from the knife-edge US state of Pennsylvania, where only a very small percentage of voters are in any way persuadable when it comes to next month’s US presidential election.
www.independent.ie www.independent.ie


Around 1,400 respondents told us what they thought of the Budget in a single word. While some were positively predisposed towards it, far more were not.

Some of the most popular terms to describe it included “bribery”, “giveaway”, “wasteful” and “reckless”. Many referenced the past, with one respondent declaring it to be “Bertienomics”.

...
Another indication that the electorate were not at all convinced by the Budget measures was our finding that 72pc agreed with the watchdog Ifac’s pointed criticism, namely that the Government has put the country at risk of “repeating past mistakes”.

...

When asked if they were in favour of, or opposed to, the Government’s approach to spending, 50pc were against, with only 32pc supportive and 18pc unsure.
...

1728409419297.png
 
The problem is that while one might disapprove of the irresponsible budgeting, not one TD or Senator has called for more responsible budgeting so if you want to protest against the Budget, which party do you vote for? The others would be even more irresponsible.
 
The government parties are on or around 50% in a variety of recent polls, and they received a combined 49.6% of the FPV at the local elections. The other 50% are voting for parties that either demand more or the same spent in different ways.

On the one hand you could say that the fiscally prudent voter has nowhere to go. On the other hand, the parties perhaps have it sussed that what the Irish electorate say out loud and what they do in the privacy of the voting booth are quite different.
 
Its the double welfare and child benefit payments that the large majority see as reckless however very few see the tax cuts as reckless because the average wage worker is paying alot more tax now than they were during the celtic tiger years
 
Last edited:
When being blamed for the economic crash it was pointed out that those in the back seat , that is the opposition, were saying go faster , spend more , while our economy was heading for the edge of the cliff.
 
I suppose, in their favour, the cost of living payments aren’t recurring, which is smart, and we should remember that income tax is still higher than it was pre-crash. The government has run with this “€70,000 and over gets nothing extra” approach so where exactly is the recklessness?

The commentariat seem to want to whinge no matter what. What do they want? Tax increases? Not to allocate the €1.2bn from the AIB sale to housing?

Even the Children’s Hospital thing has been hijacked by naysayers. Yes, it’s overrun. My house overran. A lot of projects do. This country was prehistoric 50 years ago and was at the mercy of the IMF 12 years ago. Now we’re about to finish a state of the art children’s hospital to look after our nation’s kids for the next 100 years. It’s a great news story. So it went over! Nearly everything does!
 
Hi Gordon

When you strip out the windfalls, we have a Budget deficit of about €8 billion. That is reckless pro-cyclical economic management. We should not be reducing tax and increasing spending when the economy is at full employment. We should be doing the opposite so that when the next crash comes, we can increase spending to boost the economy.

Brendan
 
Dr Strangelove said:
Exactly the same in 2005-2007 which in hindsight was reckless public spending growth. Opposition wanted to spend even more!
Click to expand...
It's not exactly the same, but considerably worse.

During the last bubble, the tax burden on citizens was considerably lower, so prudent taxpayers could put surplus funds aside for the inevitable rainy day, and these funds kept a lot of them afloat when that rainy day arrived with a vengeance.

Today by contrast we have dual income families with finances ravaged by USC and inflationary stealth taxes, unable to afford basics like health insurance. These people will be facing huge difficulties whenever the next downturn hits.
 
T McGibney said:
the tax burden on citizens was considerably lower
Click to expand...
Was the share of tax on an average earner lower in 2007 than 2024?I’d have to work it out.

People tend to forget that USC was not much higher than the income and health levies which were abolished when USC was introduced in 2011.

I have kids now (I didn’t in 2007) but education and childcare is for sure a lower burden now due to the higher amount of supports (taxpayer-funded of course).
 
Dr Strangelove said:
Was the share of tax on an average earner lower in 2007 than 2024?I’d have to work it out.
Click to expand...
Considerably so, although the averages are skewed by the half of the adult population that pay little or nothing in income tax. Personal taxes were ratcheted upwards after 2008 and have never since been dramatically cut. Meanwhile we also have carbon tax, LPT and a raft of other stealth taxes.
 
Unfortunately the media seems determined to fuel a the idea of it being a reckless giveaway budget.

Sure the one off measures were probably a bit OTT but ultimately most beneficial to the most vulnerable…and are one-off

In terms of Tax it would be good to see an actual breakdown. SRCOP just about equalled wage inflation. Tax credit increase slightly above. USC cut a genuine benefit…but a lot of the bands were not indexed at all and PRSI went up.

So in terms of permanent taxation measures there was probably a small effective tax decrease on low wage earners. Pretty flat for middle income earners and an effective tax increase for very high earners. The €1.2bn ‘tax cut’ numbers are bogus, ignore inflation and is just used to fuel a false narrative
 
The fiscal guys ignore the reality of needing to win elections.

It’s also misguided to equate the ‘feet of clay’ property based boom of the ‘00s with the corporation tax being paid by the biggest and most successful companies in the world.

Our collective fates were tied to gombeen jackasses in the Galway tent back in 2006. Now our economy relies on companies like Microsoft. As in, Microsoft.

Only us perennially negative gombeen Irish begrudger could spin the corporation tax wonder-story crafted by the likes of TK Whitaker as a problem.

The corporation tax receipts are expected to INCREASE, not decrease.
 
Gordon Gekko said:
Our collective fates were tied to gombeen jackasses in the Galway tent back in 2006. Now our economy relies on companies like Microsoft. As in, Microsoft.
Click to expand...
Not Microsoft "et al" but them continuing to be domiciled in Ireland for tax purposes. That's the risk.
 
Purple said:
Not Microsoft "et al" but them continuing to be domiciled in Ireland for tax purposes. That's the risk.
Click to expand...
And the point that’s often missed is that, because of all the rules that were put in place to avoid ‘brass plating’, these companies have massive ‘substance’ and infrastructure in Ireland. It’s not just “oh well, we’re off”. There are thousands and thousands of Microsoft employees in Sandyford. The EMEA support functions are all here.

Also, the other factors that attract these companies remain valid. English speaking, EU membership, common law so you can easily draft and enforce a contract, educated workforce, stable politically, peaceful, etc.

Arguably, the risks are the same societal risks, mainly access to housing and power generation/infrastructure. Which is another reason we need to spend big on these.
 
Gordon Gekko said:
And the point that’s often missed is that, because of all the rules that were put in place to avoid ‘brass plating’, these companies have massive ‘substance’ and infrastructure in Ireland. It’s not just “oh well, we’re off”. There are thousands and thousands of Microsoft employees in Sandyford. The EMEA support functions are all here.

Also, the other factors that attract these companies remain valid. English speaking, EU membership, common law so you can easily draft and enforce a contract, educated workforce, stable politically, peaceful, etc.

Arguably, the risks are the same societal risks, mainly access to housing and power generation/infrastructure. Which is another reason we need to spend big on these.
Click to expand...
They can leave all that here but just move their headquarters to another country in which they also have significant infrastructure. The USA where they are really headquartered, for example.
 
The likes of the pharma companies (Pfizer, Lilly, MSD, etc.) and Intel have invested billions in physical factories in Ireland so are less likely to move. Transfers of pharma products between sites takes a bit of time due to regulatory approval.
 
Flybytheseat said:
The likes of the pharma companies (Pfizer, Lily, MSD, etc.) and Intel have invested billions in physical factories in Ireland so are less likely to move. Transfers of pharma products between sites takes a bit of time due to regulatory approval.
Click to expand...
They won't move their infrastructure. They can easily just move their headquarters for tax purposes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top