# Do governments ever have enough?



## shnaek (5 Apr 2011)

We hear the arguments every day. More 'resources' (meaning money) for health, education, social welfare etc. Got me thinking - is there any limit to what governments, or other bodies, need in terms of resources(money)? 
I think that you could take every cent in the world and give it to government, or government bodies, or social welfare - and the complaints of lack of resources or unfairness would continue. They will never have enough money, and that is why there should be a limit (percentage, not absolute) to the amount of tax any person should pay purely because the apetite of government and the spending sections of society can never be met. 
A fundamental question everyone should ask is: Do I trust this government with my money?
If the answer is no, then we should refuse to give further resources until we can trust them with our money. Because the alternative is that they will spend and spend until none of us have anything left.


----------



## callybags (5 Apr 2011)

We voted them into power, so that is an indication of trust.

Witholding taxes will achieve nothing, and only make matters worse.


----------



## shnaek (5 Apr 2011)

callybags said:


> Witholding taxes will achieve nothing, and only make matters worse.


Witholding taxes will never happen as you'll never get a critical mass of people to do it. But we could constitutionally limit the deficits that our government runs, and constitutionally limit the amount of income tax we pay. Give people a referendum on it. Why not?


----------



## MrMan (5 Apr 2011)

I think how funding for each dept is otganised needs to be changed. We have a situation were budgets are being spent purely because if they are not then next years budget will be smaller. Funds should be available on priority and on a needs basis and wastage needs to be punished.


----------



## MrEBear (5 Apr 2011)

Just because we voted them in doesn't mean we trust them. It was kinda the best of a bad bunch. They first need to earn that trust and so far we haven't seen anything to warrant such trust (though I do believe we will)

Bear


----------



## Purple (5 Apr 2011)

MrEBear said:


> Just because we voted them in doesn't mean we trust them. It was kinda the best of a bad bunch. They first need to earn that trust and so far we haven't seen anything to warrant such trust (though I do believe we will)
> 
> Bear



   +1
Ask yourself this (another poster posed this question a few months back and it's a good one); which politician would you let run your business for you?

Governments waste money because it's not their money. They didn't earn it so they don't appreciate it or value it as they should. This is the case with right or left wing governments. It is the reason that for the sake of society as a whole and the freedom of the individual within that society it should be the objective of every citizen to limit the size of their government as much as possible.

In answer to the first post the answer is never, governments will never have enough of our money and will never seek to limit their control over our lives. They may not be overt in this and may not consciously want to so controlling but that’s what happens.


----------



## Firefly (5 Apr 2011)

Purple said:


> It is the reason that for the sake of society as a whole and the freedom of the individual within that society it should be the objective of every citizen to limit the size of their government as much as possible.



A lot easier said than done. Reagan had this philosophy but according to a recent BBC documentary the US government actually increased under his administration. Too many people benefit from a growing government....unions (union subs), middle managers (empire building - more people quicker promotion), politicians (pet projects/hospitals/motorways)...the list goes on. All the while money is being taken out of the productive sector.


----------



## Purple (5 Apr 2011)

Rightwing governments seek to control different things, different aspects of our lives but they are just as controlling as left-wing governments. The further they get away from the centre, to either the left or the right,  the more ideological they are and so the more they seek to impose their ideology on society and so the bigger their apparatus has to be.


----------



## ringledman (5 Apr 2011)

Never trust any government. Where there is no profit and loss mechanism and where governments can only go bust much later than businesses do, then big government is a recipe for disaster. 

Western governments need to be shrunk by about 70% to bring back prosperity. 

The USA rose to being the wealthiest nation in history on the back of a small state and private enterprise. They are now slowly falling from grace like the rest of us on the back of statist failure.


----------



## Purple (6 Apr 2011)

+1, Well said ringledman


----------



## Chris (6 Apr 2011)

shnaek said:


> Witholding taxes will never happen as you'll never get a critical mass of people to do it. But we could constitutionally limit the deficits that our government runs, and constitutionally limit the amount of income tax we pay. Give people a referendum on it. Why not?


I agree with this totally. What we need more than any illusory private sector regulations that could have saved us, is regulation of government through the ultimate controlling legislation, the constitution. I would advocate that government should be granted precisely a 0% deficit allowance, forcing politicians to pay for *everything* they want to do out of taxation. This would quickly change how easily the public's support is granted. Secondly I would like to see a law that prohibit's government from bailing out any industry or organisation that cannot stand on its own two feet.
And thirdly I would like to see a law that forces all existing and new laws to be applicable to all members of society in an equal way, thus stopping special privileges granted to the loudest or most influential groups of people. 



Firefly said:


> A lot easier said than done. Reagan had this philosophy but according to a recent BBC documentary the US government actually increased under his administration. Too many people benefit from a growing government....unions (union subs), middle managers (empire building - more people quicker promotion), politicians (pet projects/hospitals/motorways)...the list goes on. All the while money is being taken out of the productive sector.


Yes, Reagan is often highlighted as the deregulator and small government president. I think during his first campaign he said "We could say [Democrats] spend money like drunken sailors, but that would be unfair to drunken sailors. It would be unfair, because the sailors are spending their own money." Only to then go on and increase the federal budget over an 8 year period. At the same time Clinton is talked of as a president that not only balanced the budget but ran a surplus. But if you look at a federal debt chart you will see that the debt level never decreased during the Clinton administration, which it would have had to if there had been a surplus. Fancy off-balance sheet accounting was the solution there.



ringledman said:


> Never trust any government. Where there is no profit and loss mechanism and where governments can only go bust much later than businesses do, then big government is a recipe for disaster.
> 
> Western governments need to be shrunk by about 70% to bring back prosperity.
> 
> The USA rose to being the wealthiest nation in history on the back of a small state and private enterprise. They are now slowly falling from grace like the rest of us on the back of statist failure.


Agree 100%. Frederic Bastiat said it best: "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." (I highly recommend reading his works)
And precisely because of the forced actions of the majority vote, we need more restrictions on what government can do. Just to add another quote from Jefferson: "The government is best which governs least"


----------



## shnaek (6 Apr 2011)

Chris said:


> Agree 100%. Frederic Bastiat said it best: "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." (I highly recommend reading his works)



Just reading some of his work now. 

"Government is not slow to perceive the advantages it may derive from the part which is entrusted to it by the public. It is glad to be the judge and the master of the destinies of all; it will take much, for then a large share will remain for itself; it will multiply the number of its agents; it will enlarge the circle of its privileges; it will end by appropriating a ruinous proportion. "
Written 150years ago and very valid still.


----------



## Complainer (6 Apr 2011)

shnaek said:


> that is why there should be a limit (percentage, not absolute) to the amount of tax any person should pay purely because the apetite of government and the spending sections of society can never be met.



The appetite in question is not the Govt's appetite for spending, it is the public's appetite for public services.


----------



## Purple (6 Apr 2011)

Complainer said:


> The appetite in question is not the Govt's appetite for spending, it is the public's appetite for public services.



Spoken like a true socialist.

People, in general, would like to run their own lives. The more of their money the government takes the more the government runs their life.


----------



## Chris (7 Apr 2011)

Complainer said:


> The appetite in question is not the Govt's appetite for spending, it is the public's appetite for public services.



But people do not vote for public services they vote for a small amount of headline grabbing election promises, which are generally speaking rarely kept. Politicians are in the game of trying to convince people that they can get more out of government than they put in, i.e. the mythical free lunch. The problem is that unless someone has little or no non-state income, the majority of people to not get their money's worth out of government services.


----------



## ringledman (7 Apr 2011)

Chris said:


> Politicians are in the game of trying to convince people that they can get more out of government than they put in, i.e. the mythical free lunch.QUOTE]
> 
> This is the problem. Politicians will do anything to get elected, even at the expense of ruining your economy.
> 
> ...


----------



## Complainer (7 Apr 2011)

Chris said:


> Politicians are in the game of trying to convince people that they can get more out of government than they put in, i.e. the mythical free lunch. The problem is that unless someone has little or no non-state income, the majority of people to not get their money's worth out of government services.




I didn't hear any 'free lunch' promises in the recent election campaign. All parties were very clear about the very difficult situation we were in and the difficult times ahead. There is no basis in fact for your claim that people don't get their money's worth. What price do you put on a walk on Killiney beach? Or a hike through Tibradden and the Pine Forest. What price do you put on clean air, and clean water? What price do put you a largely civilised society? And that's before we even think about the obvious spend areas like health, education and public transport.


----------



## Firefly (7 Apr 2011)

Complainer said:


> I didn't hear any 'free lunch' promises in the recent election campaign. All parties were very clear about the very difficult situation we were in and the difficult times ahead. There is no basis in fact for your claim that people don't get their money's worth. What price do you put on a walk on Killiney beach? Or a hike through Tibradden and the Pine Forest. What price do you put on clean air, and clean water? What price do put you a largely civilised society? And that's before we even think about the obvious spend areas like health, education and public transport.



We are very lucky to have those benefits you mention and compared to a lot of places in the world we take them for granted. However, these were all available before the large increase in PS numbers and bench-marking.


----------



## Complainer (7 Apr 2011)

Firefly said:


> We are very lucky to have those benefits you mention and compared to a lot of places in the world we take them for granted. However, these were all available before the large increase in PS numbers and bench-marking.


That depends on how deeply you look. We had nothing near an adequete number of resource teachers and special needs assistants in our schools in the past, resulting in a generation of children (who only get one chance at their childhood) being left behind.


----------



## Chris (7 Apr 2011)

Complainer said:


> I didn't hear any 'free lunch' promises in the recent election campaign. All parties were very clear about the very difficult situation we were in and the difficult times ahead. There is no basis in fact for your claim that people don't get their money's worth. What price do you put on a walk on Killiney beach? Or a hike through Tibradden and the Pine Forest. What price do you put on clean air, and clean water? What price do put you a largely civilised society? And that's before we even think about the obvious spend areas like health, education and public transport.



What we heard is that services would not be affected, and those that could best afford to pay will pay. To a lot of people that is the free lunch promise.

The problem with putting a price on items that you list is that price paid is totally subjective. I have never walked on Killiney beach, and probably never will, so to me the price of a walk there is totally irrelevant. Yet I pay for people to walk there. Now I am not an anarchist and believe there is a limited role for government to serve certain needs of the public. But providing nice places to go for a walk is certainly not one of them.

The basis for my claim that people are not getting their money's worth lies in the fact that funding government services is not voluntary. If people were getting such great service and value for money, then why not make taxation voluntary. Surely if we are getting such good value for our money we would continue to pay for the service.

What we have these days is a situation where politicians believe that things cannot be left to individuals to decide and that money has to be taken from people so that they can enjoy certain things. But how do you explain that so many things now monopolised by government were enjoyed by everyone before the state took control?


----------



## Firefly (7 Apr 2011)

Complainer said:


> That depends on how deeply you look. We had nothing near an adequete number of resource teachers and special needs assistants in our schools in the past, resulting in a generation of children (who only get one chance at their childhood) being left behind.



I was referring to the items below

What price do you put on a walk on Killiney beach? Or a hike through  Tibradden and the Pine Forest. What price do you put on clean air, and  clean water? What price do put you a largely civilised society?

Granted resource teachers and special needs assistants have increased, but as Purple has highlighted numerous times, we have seen a reduction in same as well as increases in class sizes so that increases for teachers pay can be made.


----------



## Purple (7 Apr 2011)

Complainer said:


> That depends on how deeply you look. We had nothing near an adequete number of resource teachers and special needs assistants in our schools in the past, resulting in a generation of children (who only get one chance at their childhood) being left behind.



As someone who was in need of such resources as a child and didn't get them I have to agree with Complainer (I had/have what is now described as high functioning Asperger syndrome, back then it was called being stupid and made me fair game for physical and psychological bullying by teachers). My second son also suffers from this. He had a classroom assistant 'till the teachers took the funding that the state was providing and stuffed it into their own pockets instead. Luckily Mrs. Purple is a qualified primary school teacher (as well as being a doctor) so she has been able to fill in most of the gaps. I am painfully aware of how inefficient the state is as spending my money on my behalf. The teachers are just as useless as they were 30 years ago but now they smile a little more.

I have no problem paying taxes and no problem paying the amount of tax I pay but I fail to understand why the government spends so much on things that are none of their business and is so bad at providing the core services that should be within their remit.


----------



## Deiseblue (7 Apr 2011)

Firefly said:


> I was referring to the items below
> 
> What price do you put on a walk on Killiney beach? Or a hike through  Tibradden and the Pine Forest. What price do you put on clean air, and  clean water? What price do put you a largely civilised society?
> 
> Granted resource teachers and special needs assistants have increased, but as Purple has highlighted numerous times, we have seen a reduction in same as well as increases in class sizes so that increases for teachers pay can be made.



We have indeed seen a reduction in special needs teachers & an increase in class sizes but not to increase teacher's pay - over the same period teacher 's pay has decreased significantly.


----------



## Purple (7 Apr 2011)

Deiseblue said:


> We have indeed seen a reduction in special needs teachers & an increase in class sizes but not to increase teacher's pay - over the same period teacher 's pay has decreased significantly.



Teachers pay continued to increase right up to the IMF and EU took over. They were told that support services would have to be cut in order to pay their last round of increases and they took it anyway. They are paying more taxes now though and they have been hit with the pension levy but both happened after they took the money from the support srvices budget for themselves.


----------



## Deiseblue (7 Apr 2011)

Purple said:


> Teachers pay continued to increase right up to the IMF and EU took over. They were told that support services would have to be cut in order to pay their last round of increases and they took it anyway. They are paying more taxes now though and they have been hit with the pension levy but both happened after they took the money from the support srvices budget for themselves.


 
Could you possibly clarify as to when teachers received their last round of pay increases that so impacted on support services ?


----------



## Complainer (7 Apr 2011)

Chris said:


> What we heard is that services would not be affected



I didn't hear this from anybody this time round. If anything, there was a bit of a macho thing going on to see who could be the tough guy delivering the worst news. 



Chris said:


> there is a limited role for government to serve certain needs of the public. But providing nice places to go for a walk is certainly not one of them.


Perhaps you're having difficulty in seeing the full benefits of providing nice places to go for a walk. This encourages physical health and (very importantly in the current environment mental health. It provides an outlet for relaxation and entertainment for those who don't have spare cash. It keeps families together. It saves money down the line on health services. It is a lot more than just 'a nice place to go for a walk'. 



Chris said:


> The basis for my claim that people are not getting their money's worth lies in the fact that funding government services is not voluntary. If people were getting such great service and value for money, then why not make taxation voluntary. Surely if we are getting such good value for our money we would continue to pay for the service.


Let's stay in the real world.



Chris said:


> What we have these days is a situation where politicians believe that things cannot be left to individuals to decide and that money has to be taken from people so that they can enjoy certain things.


No - we have a situation now where people VOTE for those politicians that believe that a basic level of public services is essential for our country.


Chris said:


> But how do you explain that so many things now monopolised by government were enjoyed by everyone before the state took control?


Such as?



Firefly said:


> we have seen a reduction in same as well as increases in class sizes so that increases for teachers pay can be made.


This is just spinning. Why do you choose 'increases in teachers pay' as the one aspect of Govt spending that caused increases in class sizes? Why didn't you supports provided to businesses by Enterprise Ireland, or County Enterprise Boards, or tax reliefs given to property investors, or the cost of the Govt jet? It's just tabloid spinning, and I don't think many people fall for it.


----------



## Chris (8 Apr 2011)

Complainer said:


> I didn't hear this from anybody this time round. If anything, there was a bit of a macho thing going on to see who could be the tough guy delivering the worst news.


I did, both from local SF and Labour candidates that called to my door during the election.



Complainer said:


> Perhaps you're having difficulty in seeing the full benefits of providing nice places to go for a walk. This encourages physical health and (very importantly in the current environment mental health. It provides an outlet for relaxation and entertainment for those who don't have spare cash. It keeps families together. It saves money down the line on health services. It is a lot more than just 'a nice place to go for a walk'.


People do not need a state to take their taxes in order to have somewhere nice to go for a walk. 



Complainer said:


> Let's stay in the real world.


Could you explain how I am not in the real world with that statement? It is very very simple, if government services were that great, and so many people were happy with value for money then there would be no need for them to not be voluntary. 



Complainer said:


> No - we have a situation now where people VOTE for those politicians that believe that a basic level of public services is essential for our country.


Do you really think that people know what they are going to get when they vote? Politicians have been given the power to influence and command 1000s of aspects of people's lives. It is impossible to dissect what you are actually going to get. Saying that people are voting for services it just plain and simple nonsense.
Politicians' interpretation of basic levels of service change as much as they want them to change. And they are given full power to add to those services without asking the public for approval.



Complainer said:


> Such as?


Walks in the country side as you mention. People didn't suddenly start going for walks in nice places because the government spent money on them, did they? 
Increasingly large numbers of children went to school during the industrial revolution when there were no state run schools in western countries. Same for healthcare. Most state monopolies were only introduced in the late 19th century in most western societies. 

Governments never see an end to the powers they want to have, whether right or left or center. The problem is that in order to fund their policies they have to take money that is not their property from other people by threat of force. It is a blatant disrespect and disregard of private property rights at a massive scale; the very rights that propelled the western world from the dark ages into modern affluence. The more that governments increase their appropriations the worse the effect will be on the overall wealth of society.


----------



## Firefly (8 Apr 2011)

Complainer said:


> This is just spinning. *Why do you choose 'increases in teachers pay' as the one aspect of Govt spending that caused increases in class sizes?* Why didn't you supports provided to businesses by Enterprise Ireland, or County Enterprise Boards, or tax reliefs given to property investors, or the cost of the Govt jet? It's just tabloid spinning, and I don't think many people fall for it.



I was replying to your earlier post where you said "_That depends on how deeply you look. We had nothing near an adequete  number of resource teachers and special needs assistants in our schools  in the past, resulting in a generation of children (who only get one  chance at their childhood) being left behind._"

By the way, I agree with your latter point - I don't think the goverment should be interfering in the market at all. If corporate tax remains low and the government gets out of the way, we'll find out pretty quick whatever comparative advantage this country has to offer. (Which I believe is agriculture (at the higher end), Tourism and financial / IT services).


----------



## Purple (8 Apr 2011)

Deiseblue said:


> Could you possibly clarify as to when teachers received their last round of pay increases that so impacted on support services ?



November 2008.
For general information on just how good they have it see here.


----------



## daithi (8 Apr 2011)

*do govts ever have  enough??*

Cost of Benchmarking to State:  1-2 billion euro
 Cost of Banking Bailout to State 70 billion euro

enough said.

daithi


----------



## Firefly (8 Apr 2011)

daithi said:


> Cost of Benchmarking to State:  1-2 billion euro
> Cost of Banking Bailout to State 70 billion euro
> 
> enough said.
> ...



We're borrowing 20bn a year to meet the current deficit. That's 50bn since the banking crisis of Sept 2008....it will overtake it this time next year with no sign of slowing....


----------



## Shawady (8 Apr 2011)

..


----------



## Purple (8 Apr 2011)

daithi said:


> Cost of Benchmarking to State:  1-2 billion euro
> Cost of Banking Bailout to State 70 billion euro
> 
> enough said.
> ...



Cost of benchmarking €2 Billion + *per year*.
Cost of Bank Bail-out €70 Billion *once*.
Cost of exchequer over-spend €18 Billion *per year*.

Enough said.


----------



## Shawady (8 Apr 2011)

The budget deifict is down to the irresponsible spending and taxation policy of the previous government. The majority of people financially benefited from this so it is fair enough that we have to contribute to fixing it.

The bank bailout is down to the reckless behavior of a small number of bankers and the failure of the government to regulate them, but the taxpayers are being forced to contribute to this as well.


----------



## Purple (8 Apr 2011)

I’m inclined to agree with you on the banking issue.
The downside of not fixing the banks is that we will have to pay a much higher rate on borrowings (I don’t buy the argument that nobody would lend us money), there would be even less credit in the economy, savings may be wiped out, or at the very least people would have restricted access to their money and pensions would take a hit. The contagion from that would spread throughout the Eurozone and internationally and our exports would suffer. I’m still not convinced that the above scenario would be worse that what we have now. We would have at least a decade of extreme economic contraction and social hardship; people would die because of cuts in services, houses would be repossessed, children would not get support services, crime would increase, strikes, riots, etc  but it would be over and we would have a chance to grow at the other side of it. What we have now is the slow death of this country as we know it over decades.

What government would have the balls to tell us that the old and the vulnerable will suffer and the poor would be hungry for the first time in over 50 years and those left working will be even harder hit with eve more taxes? I ask because that’s probably the best solution to our current problems.


----------



## Deiseblue (8 Apr 2011)

Purple said:


> November 2008.
> For general information on just how good they have it see here.



The last pay increase Teachers received was 2.5% due on 1st September 2008 , I cannot find any evidence that leads me to conclude that they were requested to forego such increase to facilitate provision of support teachers etc.

I was more impressed by Ernie Balls rebuttal of Mr. Lyons treatise which seems to contain a degree of statistical manipulations - not the first time Mr. Lyons use of stats has been questioned - lies , damn lies & statistics perhaps ?


----------



## Purple (8 Apr 2011)

Deiseblue said:


> With all due respect , Teachers did not receive pay increases in Nov 2008 or subsequently



Ok, I was going by the ifo on the TUI website that said the pay rise due from September 2008 (under the "Towards 2016" carve-up) was being given in November 2008. Did this not happen?


----------



## Deiseblue (8 Apr 2011)

Purple said:


> Ok, I was going by the ifo on the TUI website that said the pay rise due from September 2008 (under the "Towards 2016" carve-up) was being given in November 2008. Did this not happen?



I actually edited my post.

The last increase teachers received was in September 2008 under the 2006/2008 agreement which ceased in Nov. 2008.

this agreement was replaced by the National Wage Agreement towards 2016( or carve up  - as you refer to it. )

No Public Sector employee received any pay increases under this agreement - the only beneficiaries were the many thousands of Private Sector workers whose companies paid the first tranche of 3.5% including the major Banks and of course some semi states such as the ESB also paid this first tranche.


----------



## Purple (8 Apr 2011)

Deiseblue said:


> I actually edited my post.
> 
> The last increase teachers received was in September 2008 under the 2006/2008 agreement which ceased in Nov. 2008.
> 
> ...



Yes, I accept that but the damage was done by that stage.
The pay increases that the banks gave were disgraceful, considering that they were just about to fall over the precipice at that stage. Equally the notion that “commercial” semi-states that were “profitable” should also have paid them is disgraceful considering that they are required to make a profit, i.e. the more wasteful they are the more they charge and so the more money they make.


----------



## RoyRover (8 Apr 2011)

Deiseblue said:


> ... beneficiaries were the many thousands of ... workers [in] some semi states such as the ESB also paid this first tranche.


 
All the more reason to privatise most, if not all, of our semi-states. With a bit of competition, and reduced political interference, these companies really can thrive. Just look at Aer Lingus


----------



## Deiseblue (8 Apr 2011)

Purple said:


> Teachers pay continued to increase right up to the IMF and EU took over. They were told that support services would have to be cut in order to pay their last round of increases and they took it anyway. They are paying more taxes now though and they have been hit with the pension levy but both happened after they took the money from the support srvices budget for themselves.



So we are agreed that Teacher's pay did not continue to increase right up to the relatively recent IMF/EU involvement ?

I have yet to see any evidence that support services would have to be cut to pay the 2.5% increase of September 2008 nor have I seen any evidence that teacher's were asked to forego that increase.


----------



## Purple (8 Apr 2011)

Deiseblue said:


> So we are agreed that Teacher's pay did not continue to increase right up to the relatively recent IMF/EU involvement ?
> 
> I have yet to see any evidence that support services would have to be cut to pay the 2.5% increase of September 2008 nor have I seen any evidence that teacher's were asked to forego that increase.



I remember the discussions on the radio at the time (in 2008). The link btween the two was raised a number of times. I can't quote chapter and verse but as he son was receiving support services it was something that I was very interested in.


----------



## Chris (11 Apr 2011)

Purple said:


> What government would have the balls to tell us that the old and the vulnerable will suffer and the poor would be hungry for the first time in over 50 years and those left working will be even harder hit with eve more taxes? I ask because that’s probably the best solution to our current problems.


I don't believe that you would have to increase taxation at all, but rather decrease it. All the necessary savings to balance the budget and even run a surplus would be possible by cutting expenditure.



Shawady said:


> The bank bailout is down to the reckless behavior of a small number of bankers and the failure of the government to regulate them, but the taxpayers are being forced to contribute to this as well.


No, the bank bailout is down to the totally brainless decision by government to first guarantee private debt, then nationalise private debt, and then dump billions of publicly guaranteed money into private organisation. 
And the reason for banks being in so much trouble is not some illusory regulation that was either scrapped or not introduced. Banks lend out money that they receive from others, that is the nature of their business. The more they receive, the more they lend. Now where did all that money come from? Ultimately the ECB which increased the base money supply by 210% between 1999 and 2008. And just to add some more fun to the party, government introduced policies that further fueled the real estate bubble.


----------



## Shawady (11 Apr 2011)

Chris, I'm no way defending the guarantee but the government may point out that if they had known the extent of the problem in the banks (particularly Anglo) they would not have included them. At the very least the banks were not honest with the government on the night of the guarantee.

My point remains though, that most people benefited from the reckless spending and taxation policies and have a responsibility to contribute to fixing the problem. However, the banking problem was not the fault of the taxpayers yet we have to bail them out.


----------



## Chris (12 Apr 2011)

Shawady said:


> Chris, I'm no way defending the guarantee but the government may point out that if they had known the extent of the problem in the banks (particularly Anglo) they would not have included them. At the very least the banks were not honest with the government on the night of the guarantee.


I absolutely agree that the banks were not honest, but I would expect no different. And while the government can "hide" behind the veil of ignorance, it does not excuse the utter stupidity of their policy. It was clear from the very start that the value at risk was huge. This should have prompted a decision to not take action until the level of risk was identified. Under no circumstances should such a decision have been made behind closed doors in essentially a matter of hours.



Shawady said:


> My point remains though, that most people benefited from the reckless spending and taxation policies and have a responsibility to contribute to fixing the problem. However, the banking problem was not the fault of the taxpayers yet we have to bail them out.


I would generally agree that everyone in some way benefited in the past 15 years, but that does not justify making private debt public. What the taxpayer is liable for is the debt due to the budget deficit, not the banks' debts.
And we do not have to bail out banks, the alternative and correct decision would have been to appoint liquidators to the banks that were not able to stand on their own two feet.


----------



## Complainer (13 Apr 2011)

Yorky said:


> No western government will ever have enough because the western way of life is intrinsically unsustainable. Universal health care, pensions and social welfare mean every western country with a low-tax fiscal policy is essentially bankrupt and always will be.


You should give Scandanavia a call and let them know. They've been surviviing quite well to date.


----------



## Purple (13 Apr 2011)

Complainer said:


> You should give Scandanavia a call and let them know. They've been surviviing quite well to date.



The Scandinavian countries what have massive natural resources are. I'm sure there's no link though.
Sweden, the country that has the iron ore, is in the middle of their very own property bubble. Other than that they are fine... I'm sure they will have a soft landing. They were smart enough to keep out of the Euro though.


----------



## shnaek (13 Apr 2011)

People also forget that Sweden had 60 years of eugenics under socialist government right up to the 70's.  They had a policy of getting rid of the weak, in the interests of a strong Swedish race.


----------



## Firefly (14 Apr 2011)

Yorky said:


> If you'd care to read my post you'd notice the term_ low tax_. Scandanavia's tax take is approximately double that of Ireland.



And that's what the lefties want...higher taxes to pay for more public services....which mightn't be so bad in some countries, but here the money would largely just go to increasing the salaries of those already employed by the state for the same or slightly more services.


----------



## Sunny (14 Apr 2011)

Even the Scandanavian Countries are gradually moving away from this model. Everything always looks so much rosier looking in from the outside. It's like when FG hold the Dutch system up as an example of how Universal Health Insurance is such a great idea. I know an awful lot of Dutch people who are amazed that we want to go down this road and using them as an example. A lot of them simply go to Belgium for healthcare.


----------

