Opinion The Government has Just €800m to Play With

Discussion in 'Budget 2019' started by Sophrosyne, 11 Sep 2018.

  1. Sophrosyne

    Sophrosyne Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    945
    Subtracting committed expenditure, the Government has just €800m.

    How should this be used in Budget 2019?

    Any thoughts?
     
  2. RETIRED2017

    RETIRED2017 Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    526
    Should any of it be used I say this as someone who is retired and getting the contributory pension,
    T suspect the above is before any new taxes or increasing old taxes ,
    What about having a look at the committed expenditure and redirecting some surely this is the first thing you need to look at when drawing up a Budget,
     
    cremeegg likes this.
  3. Sophrosyne

    Sophrosyne Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    945
    Could you elucidate?
     
  4. RETIRED2017

    RETIRED2017 Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    526
    Last edited: 11 Sep 2018
    Just to take an example If I was self employed and pay 4% PRSI it only covers 23% of what is paid back out in contributory pensions claas S
    TO cover some of this the have now extended PRSI to all earned income without any cap
    A good example would be landlords now shoulder this PRSI for the last number of years without any cap ,
    If we were to give all/some of this back to landlords there would not be 800 million to spend,
    I know I will get the blood up on some people but this is not what i set out to do the above may be a bad example but at least it will start the ball rolling ,

    I will be away for the next week and askaboutmoney or tax will be far from my mind,
     
    Last edited: 11 Sep 2018
  5. Sophrosyne

    Sophrosyne Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    945
    You need to make a better effort to express what you mean.
     
    Zenith63 likes this.
  6. 24601

    24601 Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    84
    It shouldn't be spent. It's an absolute scandal that we're still running budget deficits. We've learned very little it seems and here was me thinking that FG were the party of "fiscal rectitude". When it comes to voting in Ireland we have to chose between 3 or 4 flavours of centre-left, or the absolute loopers on the far-left.
     
    Firefly, T McGibney and Purple like this.
  7. Sophrosyne

    Sophrosyne Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    945
    Could you expand on this?
     
  8. RETIRED2017

    RETIRED2017 Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    526
    To be fair FG are making some effort and allowing people have there say before the Budget for a change,
    I think after the next election what will be left of FF will merge with FG and we will get a proper left right choice leaving the loopers out of it,
     
  9. TheBigShort

    TheBigShort Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    2,869
    Doesn't the OP suggest we have a budget surplus?
     
  10. Sophrosyne

    Sophrosyne Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    945
    ???
     
  11. RETIRED2017

    RETIRED2017 Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    526
    Last edited: 12 Sep 2018
    When you frame a budget and you are in a position to run a surplus or deficits and you decide to go and spend 800 million in new spending and take it for granted there are no savings to be had or look to see are you charging enough in the existing budget for the services you are providing,

    In other words you want to take in one euro and spend two ,

    or you under charge some high income earners,and transfer the cost to other high income earners because they do not have a strong lobby group,
     
    Last edited: 12 Sep 2018
  12. Sophrosyne

    Sophrosyne Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    945
    The Government has €800m to spend. That's it. Deal with that.
     
  13. TheBigShort

    TheBigShort Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    2,869
    You said, subtracting committed expenditure the Government has €800m to play with. Im reading that as after everything that has been spent on what has already been promised that there is still €800m in the till.
    Meaning revenues are €800m over what has been committed in expenditures?
     
  14. Sophrosyne

    Sophrosyne Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    945
    Why ask me. Check for yourself.
     
  15. RETIRED2017

    RETIRED2017 Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    526
    Last edited: 12 Sep 2018
    Would it be more in our line to start Playing around with the committed expenditatures? to see what we are paying for that is not needed any more or could be tweeked better useing technology/ to target better use of the money we are already spending as an example should we still be paying out widows and widowers pensions to everyone who are working I see there was a Court case in the North where a couple who were living together and one of the partners died won there case I would agree with the decision the question is should we still be paying it out to everyone just because there married partner died,
    so you don't bother your head seeing if you should be charging more for the expenditure committed as in example The IFA lobby groupwere looking for a special deal for farmers on nursing home fees


    since the last Budget the government has gone along with it Then the Attorneys general advice was that they could not do it because it would be unconstitutionl to do so,

    later on in the year the government got around it by including Business along with farmers you could call this expenditure committed but they should have looked at seeing could they recover some of the cost from the groups who benefited from it ,

    You now have a situation where a paye person in a nursing home finishes up paying more for there care than they farmer/business person beside them since the last Budget,even though it was not included in the last budget,

    I think you will find the nursing break given to this group will be paid from the incomes of high earners ,
    Should we look at increasing Inheritance and acquisition tax to fund this giveaway to lobby group on nursing Homes not loading it up in most cases on high income groups,
    The nursing home is an example of where we give to lobby groups between Budgets and is regarded as committed expenditures having being added by Stealth during the year and gets silently added to the burden of high income payers,

    Should we list out all of the Stealth of committed expenditure which were not announce in the last Budget and silently add later on,

    If these lobby groups had to share the burden among them self they may not think it was a good Idea

    :) Remember There was away more than 800 million to play with since the last Budget but lobby groups have already moved and taken most of it silently and by stealth before the next Budget,:) leaving the crumbs to be fought over ,
     
    Last edited: 12 Sep 2018
  16. RETIRED2017

    RETIRED2017 Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    526
    Last edited: 12 Sep 2018
    Or 800 million to waste and play games with voters,

    How about also having a look at they amount of money already committed since the last Budget and the amount of tax Required to service it in this Budget ,

    It is the money committed between Budgets which is driving up income tax for the most part on high earners which seldom can be taken back so is ongoing for ever and a day,
     
    Last edited: 12 Sep 2018
  17. Tebbit

    Tebbit Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    95
    I don't think any income increases should be given either through taxation or social welfare. I think a bulk of it should build social housing estates . But a management company of some sort should be set up to run them. So that rent is collected and they are run properly. Any tenant with bad behavior out! This would be a one off expenditure and so I think most people would be in favour of it. Other than that better carers services for old people. Would be a good place tobspend money. Old people deserve to be treated well
     
  18. Gordon Gekko

    Gordon Gekko Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    3,185
    The wealthiest coterie in the country are the OAPs. Their average wealth is something like 50 times that of someone in their 20s and 30s. It’s time to focus on younger families through childcare and housing. The idea of further €5 or €10 increases for pensioners is laughable; cynical politics at its best purely because they vote.
     
  19. RETIRED2017

    RETIRED2017 Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    526
    Is it also cynical to be looking at trying to hold onto the 40% tax break on pensions contributions should we also be getting rid of the tax free lump at retirement seeing the soon to become pensioners are so well off
    I think I know the cynical reply already

    BY the way on my first reply to this post i posted we should not be spending any of the 800 million meaning no 5 euro increase,
     
  20. Gordon Gekko

    Gordon Gekko Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    3,185
    It’s ridiculous to talk about the “40% tax break” or “the tax-free lump sum” in isolation. Take someone with decent income; he/she doesn’t get relief from USC or PRSI on the way in. Circa €360,000 of tax relief might be given on the way to building the maximum pension pot of €2m. What happens then? €60,000 of tax on the lump sum. Penalty tax at 40% on anything over €2m. Circa €30,000 of income tax and levies a year, probably for circa 30 years, so another €900,000. And then €450,000 of tax when the ARF is inherited.

    The State “invests” €360,000 and, without having to take on any risk or any stress, should be expect to earn circa €1.5m or more thereafter. The State should be wrapping these people in cotton wool and sending them Christmas cards.
     
    Firefly and Purple like this.