Who speaks for the squeezed middle in the pre-budget submissions?

[TheBigShort]

But if everyone sits back and lets the poverty lobby call for even more expenditure when we already have €200 bn of national debt, they can't complain when we the Troika comes back in.

It's this type of language, or rather thinking, that exposes the ineptness and redundancy of any proposals that may emanate from this site.
The notion that the 'squeezed middle' are somehow a consequence of some organized conspiracy of the poor is both bizarre and sad.
I would ask the poster to identify the 'poverty lobby' and specifically show how they have managed to squeeze the wealth of middle. And before answering, I would at least hope the poster would consider who actually controls the wealth in our society, and how perhaps those in control of it squandered it.

 

[Early Riser]

The notion that the 'squeezed middle' are somehow a consequence of some organized conspiracy of the poor is both bizarre and sad

Perhaps, a definition of the "squeezed middle" would be helpful too. Are they different from Leo's "people who get up early". This is an extract from Purple's excellent Post 20:

The "Squeezed Middle" are net recipients when things like child benefit, the cost to the State of providing education to their children etc are taken into account.
The top 5% of earners pay half of all the income tax (and have about 30% of the income). They are paying for everything.

Just to add - if groups who advocate for a certain section of society are to be pejoratively labelled "the poverty lobby" perhaps it would be helpful to have a lexicon for the various other lobbyists eg, the vultures lobby, the fat cats lobby, the scavengers lobby,the cooking the books lobby, the "I deserve it whingers lobby, the "I don't care about anyone else" lobby. We are all fairly adept at lumping other viewpoints into a selfish lobby but don't find it so easy to recognise ourselves.

All lot of submissions will not be given a second glance because the proposals they contain are ill-defined, uncosted and insufficiently researched.

I suspect well argued and factually supported submissions would be considered if they showed that they recognised and took account of the complexities of social administration (as opposed to simply book balancing) and of social and political realities (as well as economic ones - that is economics in the narrowest old-fashioned sense). I suppose most are recognised for what they are - either "I want more" lists or "I want to pay less" lists, with selective "statistics" to add spurious support.

 

[Firefly]

I presume this comment is directed at the Fiscal Advisory Council , and not me?

Hey PMU,

Not directed at you at all!

Firefly.

 

[Purple]

Given that we are not going to change the social structures we have in this country, and broadly speaking I don't think we should, and that we have very low levels of income taxes on middle income earners, what else can we do to make people feel less stretched?

I come back again to my point that we are discussing the services we provide and how much they cost whereas we should start by looking at how well and how efficiently we deliver those services.
Once we know that we are as lean and efficient as we possibly can be (and that will result in far fewer people being employed by the State) we should then look at whether we can afford to continue to deliver those services, but efficiency comes before cuts to pay and cuts to services.
That leads to the next question; how do we improve efficiency and who and what are the blocks to that improvement?
The first issue there is the competence of the management which means their understanding of the processes which go into the running of their organisation (has every State body got a process interaction map/flow-chart and do all management understand every aspect of that map?) and how to improve it.
The second issue is does the management have the respect of the people they are meant to be leading (issues of the legitimacy of authority come in here)? If you are in charge then everything is your fault; if something goes wrong you have made the wrong decision, hired the wrong people, failed to train your people properly, incorrectly allocated resources or failed to anticipate a problem. Do the people in charge accept that position? If not they need to be replaced.
The third issue is the vested interests within the State sector. That means Unions, industry lobby groups, local lobby groups etc. They either have to engage positively and productively or be shut out of the process completely.
Other countries have done this, New Zealand being the best example as they are similar in size and culture to us. We can and should do it. We just have to start by making it the main topic of public discourse.

 

[Purple]

Just to add - if groups who advocate for a certain section of society are to be pejoratively labelled "the poverty lobby" perhaps it would be helpful to have a lexicon for the various other lobbyists eg, the vultures lobby, the fat cats lobby, the scavengers lobby,the cooking the books lobby, the "I deserve it whingers lobby, the "I don't care about anyone else" lobby. We are all fairly adept at lumping other viewpoints into a selfish lobby but don't find it so easy to recognise ourselves.

Well said; emotive language is used by all sides, "Vulture Funds" being the most emotive of all.

 

[Firefly]

Given that we are not going to change the social structures we have in this country, and broadly speaking I don't think we should, and that we have very low levels of income taxes on middle income earners, what else can we do to make people feel less stretched?

When tax rates and benefits (childrens allowance etc) are taken into account you're right, however for most people I would think it's the cost of living rather than the tax rates that are the issue. High rents / house purchases, obscene motor tax rates on cars > 2008, tv license, insurance, school books & "voluntary" contributions etc etc etc.

I come back again to my point that we are discussing the services we provide and how much they cost whereas we should start by looking at how well and how efficiently we deliver those services.
Once we know that we are as lean and efficient as we possibly can be (and that will result in far fewer people being employed by the State) we should then look at whether we can afford to continue to deliver those services, but efficiency comes before cuts to pay and cuts to services.
That leads to the next question; how do we improve efficiency and who and what are the blocks to that improvement?

Good points and I agree, but considering the country nearly went over a cliff and these reforms / cost savings were not achieved, I have ZERO hope they ever will. With our national debt and pension crisis looming and our ever pro-cyclical demands on government spending I can just see the country slowly grinding to a halt (or suddenly if/when the ECB turns off the tap and our bond rates are traded at realistic levels) and the usual people blaming the usual causes. We have the world's multinationals here and are the envy of most EU countries as a result. We don't have the expense of a real army. We've received billions of grants over the last few decades from the EU. It's depressing and sad.....we should be the richest country in Europe by a country mile.

 

[Brendan Burgess]

if groups who advocate for a certain section of society are to be pejoratively labelled "the poverty lobby"

Hi Early Riser

I had not realised that was pejorative. Thanks for pointing it out. I have edited my submission accordingly and it now reads "All the pre-Budget submissions you receive will be calling for increased expenditure."



This was the original context:

"But if everyone sits back and lets the poverty lobby call for even more expenditure when we already have €200 bn of national debt, they can't complain when we the Troika comes back in."

Maybe the language was careless, but the point is valid. There is a massive lobby calling for further expenditure. They are on all the TV and radio shows. There is no counter lobby calling for expenditure cuts.

Would the "higher expenditure lobby" be less pejorative?

Or just "all the groups calling for increased expenditure" ?

The original point is valid.

Brendan

 

[TheBigShort]

Hi Early Riser

I had not realised that was pejorative. Thanks for pointing it out. I have edited my submission accordingly and it now reads "All the pre-Budget submissions you receive will be calling for increased expenditure."



This was the original context:

"But if everyone sits back and lets the poverty lobby call for even more expenditure when we already have €200 bn of national debt, they can't complain when we the Troika comes back in."

Maybe the language was careless, but the point is valid. There is a massive lobby calling for further expenditure. They are on all the TV and radio shows. There is no counter lobby calling for expenditure cuts.

Would the "higher expenditure lobby" be less pejorative?

Or just "all the groups calling for increased expenditure" ?

The original point is valid.

Brendan

Perhaps I misconstrued your point. Rather than intending to target groups who advocate increased spending on the poor (St Vin de Paul, Simon Community, etc) your point was to suggest that any increased expenditure is unaffordable and as such is leading the country to dire times, inducing increased poverty - hence the term "the poverty lobby"?

 

[cremeegg]

I could shoot off a proposal myself but to be taken seriously, it would have to have credence; not just a
broad-spectrum personal stance.

Anything I say could be easily refuted by those who have information that I cannot access.

I really do not think that this describes how the country works or how change is achieved.

The most successful campaign on economic issues by far in recent years was the water charges campaign, it had no credence what so ever, yet it was hugely successful. Change is brought about by getting people emotionally involved, not by logical argument.

It's not fair. Any parent can tell you that this is the first and strongest argument any child makes. Its not fair that people who pay PRSI all their lives get the same pension as those who received social welfare all their lives.

 

[Brendan Burgess]

Change is brought about by getting people emotionally involved, not by logical argument.

Hi cremegg

I can't disagree with any of that, but we have to start somewhere.

I will start by making a pre-Budget submission.

I will also try to get media coverage.

I am more in the logical argument camp myself, but I would welcome you and anyone else to do the emotional stuff.

Brendan

 

[TheBigShort]

The second issue is does the management have the respect of the people they are meant to be leading (issues of the legitimacy of authority come in here)? If you are in charge then everything is your fault; if something goes wrong you have made the wrong decision, hired the wrong people, failed to train your people properly, incorrectly allocated resources or failed to anticipate a problem. Do the people in charge accept that position? If not they need to be replaced.

I understand the sentiment here but I do detect that the overall approach here is to transform public sector management to operate in similar vein, with similar targets and output measurements, as that which is applied in the private sector. Certainly there is a lot of commonality in the fundamental operations of any organisation, but there is very little similarity in measuring outputs.
For example, a private organisation can point to increased sales, revenues, market share etc. In the public sector, how do we define success? If the government was to increase the Garda numbers by 100% and crime was eliminated (including alleged criminality within the force), is that a price worth paying? Or having achieved a crimeless society, is that the time to start cutting expenditure on Garda number?
If there was zero crime, would we be wondering what we were paying all those Gardaí for? Or is it because we spend so much on Garda numbers and resources that crime was reduced to zero?

The third issue is the vested interests within the State sector. That means Unions, industry lobby groups, local lobby groups etc. They either have to engage positively and productively or be shut out of the process completely.

In what way do unions not engage positively and productively? They are simply representing the views of their members, how is that not a positive and productive thing?

Other countries have done this, New Zealand being the best example as they are similar in size and culture to us. We can and should do it. We just have to start by making it the main topic of public discourse.

New Zealand ranks somewhere around 30th richest country in the world compared to Ireland, consistently top 10. Inequality is on the rise, house prices are in a bubble, increasing numbers of the population are reliant on welfare, child poverty is increasing, suicide rates are increasing....It does of course have its good side, its Debt/GDP ratio is less than 40% - but we had something similar before it was decided to bailout out bankrupt banks.
Thatcherite politics of sacking the entire civil service has not produced any panacea to resolving public service inefficiencies.

 

[Brendan Burgess]

your point was to suggest that any increased expenditure is unaffordable and as such is leading the country to dire times, inducing increased poverty - hence the term "the poverty lobby"?

My point is much more nuanced. I will post a copy of my Pre Budget submission when it's ready. Probably Sunday.

1) There is too much spending on social welfare. This is bad for the recipients and bad for the taxpayer.
2) No one is prepared to argue this publicly. RTE and The Irish Times allocate all their space to the much nicer people who are calling for increased expenditure. Those of us who believe in the future of the country must start shouting stop now.

dire times, inducing increased poverty

Good point. I will amend my submission to point that out. The biggest losers from our unsustainable welfare system will be the recipients themselves when the money runs out.

 

[Sophrosyne]

I really do not think that this describes how the country works or how change is achieved.

The most successful campaign on economic issues by far in recent years was the water charges campaign, it had no credence what so ever, yet it was hugely successful. Change is brought about by getting people emotionally involved, not by logical argument.

Agreed, but my post was in the context of the effectiveness of pre-budget submissions.

 

[odyssey06]

Good point. I will amend my submission to point that out. The biggest losers from our unsustainable welfare system will be the recipients themselves when the money runs out.

The lifeboat has to be smaller that the ship she sails with... or when one sinks so will the other.

 

[Purple]

I understand the sentiment here but I do detect that the overall approach here is to transform public sector management to operate in similar vein, with similar targets and output measurements, as that which is applied in the private sector. Certainly there is a lot of commonality in the fundamental operations of any organisation, but there is very little similarity in measuring outputs.

No, the sentiment is about the peopel in charge actually being in charge, making decisions and taking responsibility.

In what way do unions not engage positively and productively? They are simply representing the views of their members, how is that not a positive and productive thing?

They represent the interests of their individuals at an individual level, i.e. within the existing structure. The problem is the existing structure. To improve the overall structure they need to take a big picture view and not concentrate on short term individual interests.

 

[Firefly]

New Zealand ranks somewhere around 30th richest country in the world compared to Ireland, consistently top 10. Inequality is on the rise, house prices are in a bubble, increasing numbers of the population are reliant on welfare, child poverty is increasing, suicide rates are increasing....It does of course have its good side, its Debt/GDP ratio is less than 40% - but we had something similar before it was decided to bailout out bankrupt banks.

Hold on there! The net amount used to bail out the banks is somewhere between 40 - 50bn. That's about 20-25% of our national debt. Easy on the revisionist stuff there fella.

 

[Firefly]

The biggest losers from our unsustainable welfare system will be the recipients themselves when the money runs out.

That's so true. People getting something for nothing have no incentive to skill up and be productive. When the money runs out and all the skilled people leave, they'll be sucking their thumbs..

 

[TheBigShort]

Hold on there! The net amount used to bail out the banks is somewhere between 40 - 50bn. That's about 20-25% of our national debt. Easy on the revisionist stuff there fella.

I don't get this point, sorry.

 

[Firefly]

I don't get this point, sorry.

You are saying that we had a national debt like that of NZ but choose to bail out the banks. We put 64bn into the banks of which about 20bn has been repaid. I think the net amount is somewhere around the 40-50bn mark. This represents about 20-25% of our national debt, which means about 75-80% of our national debt is our own doing. It's this amount that you should be comparing to the national debt of NZ rather than justifying the difference as down to what we used to bail out the banks..

 

[TheBigShort]

You are saying that we had a national debt like that of NZ but choose to bail out the banks. We put 64bn into the banks of which about 20bn has been repaid. I think the net amount is somewhere around the 40-50bn mark. This represents about 20-25% of our national debt, which means about 75-80% of our national debt is our own doing. It's this amount that you should be comparing to the national debt of NZ rather than justifying the difference as down to what we used to bail out the banks..

Yes, the property crash, the crash in public finances, unemployment rate shooting up etc...I wasn't intending on recycling the whole episode again. I merely referred to the bailouts as I consider them the most repugnant and wasteful of our spending. That's my opinion, I appreciate others have differing views, but I don't want to rehash that here.