# Commission on Welfare and Taxation



## Purple (12 Oct 2021)

The Commission on Welfare and Taxation was set up last year and is due to report to the Government by July next year.
It's tasked to;
_the Commission of Taxation and Welfare is being established to independently consider how best the taxation and welfare systems can support economic activity and promote increased employment and prosperity, while ensuring that there are sufficient resources available to meet the costs of public services and supports in the medium and longer term.
The Commission’s work will have regard to the principles of taxation and welfare policy outlined within the Programme for Government, including the Government’s commitment to a pro-enterprise policy framework and to providing a stable and sustainable regulatory and tax environment. It will also take account of relevant issues such as the impact of the COVID-19 Emergency, ageing demographics, digital disruption and automation and the long term strategic commitments of Government regarding health, housing, and climate._

It has 14 members.
8 are current or retired State Employees.
1 Trade Unionist
1 from the Homeless Industry
1 from IBEC

These people are establishment insiders. They will tweak what's there and look to pour more money into the leaky bucket. Most of them spent their careers advising the Government and State, what new insights will they have now? 


We know what they are going to propose. It'll be universal incomes, green taxes, more money for health and social inclusion. They won't recommend systemic  structural reform of the bodies that spend money on behalf of the people of Ireland. There'll be no hard criticism of anyone within the State Sector because they are the State sector. Even the person from the Homeless Industry is ultimately paid by the State.

Why do we bother with these echo chambers?


----------



## jim (12 Oct 2021)

Great points Purple. Surely a commission such as this shoukd have private sector specialists ie tax etc


----------



## Purple (12 Oct 2021)

jim said:


> Great points Purple. Surely a commission such as this shoukd have private sector specialists ie tax etc


They have 

Marie Bradley, Managing Director, Bradley Tax Consulting
Sandra Clarke, President of the Irish Tax Institute, Partner in BCC Accountants
I don't know those people but I presume they are experts in taxation. 
2 out of 14. 
What's frightening for me is that 10 of the 14 people there are either in a union or were in a union yet only a quarter of the workforce is in a Union and the vast majority of them are in the State sector. Again, this is insiders looking at the problem from the inside. This is State sector group-think.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (12 Oct 2021)

When were the appointments announced? 

I wrote to the two Ministers asking to be appointed. Not sure whether I got an acknowledgement or not.

Brendan


----------



## Brendan Burgess (12 Oct 2021)

Hi Purple 

Just looked at the list and it's not too bad.

Two tax consultants from the private sector 
The Director of IBEC 

I have been to a number of presentations by Dr Barra Roantree of the ESRI and he is excellent.  

But I agree that I don't expect any of them to challenge the fundamentals.

Brendan


----------



## Purple (12 Oct 2021)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Hi Purple
> 
> Just looked at the list and it's not too bad.
> 
> ...


They'll just suggest changes to how much water we collect and how much we then pour into each leaky bucket.


----------



## Purple (12 Oct 2021)

I'd love to see them do something to rebalance the wealth distribution in this country but I doubt it.


----------



## RetirementPlan (12 Oct 2021)

Purple said:


> They have
> 
> Marie Bradley, Managing Director, Bradley Tax Consulting
> Sandra Clarke, President of the Irish Tax Institute, Partner in BCC Accountants
> ...


Did I miss details of union membership on the Commission's web page?


----------



## Brendan Burgess (12 Oct 2021)

Mentioned in Budget speech just now

A particular regard such as age and demographics.

Climate change

Public consultation over the coming weeks


----------



## noproblem (12 Oct 2021)

Purple said:


> I'd love to see them do something to rebalance the wealth distribution in this country but I doubt it.


I believe that if everyone was given equal wealth tomorrow morning, by distributing the wealth of this country, it would be all spent/wasted by many, and still end up percentage wise in much the same ownership again.


----------



## Purple (12 Oct 2021)

RetirementPlan said:


> Did I miss details of union membership on the Commission's web page?


I don't know. It is highly likely that all the State employees were in a union. The union rep is probably in a union. The Academics are probably in a union.


----------



## Purple (12 Oct 2021)

noproblem said:


> I believe that if everyone was given equal wealth tomorrow morning, by distributing the wealth of this country, it would be all spent/wasted by many, and still end up percentage wise in much the same ownership again.


What makes you think that?
The main factor influencing wealth distribution in this country is when you bought your house and when you took out your pension.


----------



## noproblem (12 Oct 2021)

Purple said:


> What makes you think that?


People, and what they do,  what they expect or don't expect, and what others see as their rights/entitlements.


Purple said:


> The main factor influencing wealth distribution in this country is when you bought your house


But that's the problem starting off, it's not your house unless you own it. Until you do, it's not yours.


----------



## Purple (12 Oct 2021)

noproblem said:


> People, and what they do,  what they expect or don't expect, and what others see as their rights/entitlements.


That's a bit vague and certainly not my experience.


noproblem said:


> But that's the problem starting off, it's not your house unless you own it. Until you do, it's not yours.


You own the equity. That's net wealth and that's what counts.
At the moment the State is spending vast amounts of money renting the use value of inflates assets, causing further inflation of those assets. 
We pay for it by taking tax from people with good incomes who can't afford those assets themselves, thus reducing their chance of affording those assets in the future. 
In other words government policy is transferring wealth from those who generate wealth through labour to those who own or control capital, thus widening the wealth gap. Over the last 30-40 years there has been a global transfer of wealth from labour to capital. That suits me as I'm on the right side of the line but I don't think it's right and I certainly don't think it's economically or socially sustainable. 

A commission on taxation and welfare which ignores this issue is pointless. It's like the deck chair committee on the Titanic.


----------



## RetirementPlan (12 Oct 2021)

Purple said:


> I don't know. It is highly likely that all the State employees were in a union. The union rep is probably in a union. The Academics are probably in a union.


Right so, you've no idea which of the members of the Commission are or were in a union then. Those who you assume are/were in a union may not be. Those who you assume aren't/weren't in a union may well be. It's a bit of a red herring.


----------



## dereko1969 (12 Oct 2021)

@Purple are you not going a bit "Lord" Frost here and dismissing a report without it even being published? I would agree that the membership does seem more narrowly focussed if you look at people as merely representatives of a Union that they once or still are members of. I'm a member of a Union and I certainly don't have the same views as all other members of the Union, I contain multitudes, as I'm sure do many of the members of the Commission.


----------



## Purple (12 Oct 2021)

dereko1969 said:


> @Purple are you not going a bit "Lord" Frost here and dismissing a report without it even being published? I would agree that the membership does seem more narrowly focussed if you look at people as merely representatives of a Union that they once or still are members of. I'm a member of a Union and I certainly don't have the same views as all other members of the Union, I contain multitudes, as I'm sure do many of the members of the Commission.


I'm not questioning their integrity or their sense of public spirit. I'm suggesting that they are from the same Stable and so are very likely to view the problem from the same perspective.

For example the whole message from the State and from the government as we open up post-Covid is that we are all "returning to the office" and that's true for most Public Servants but as a country most of us don't work in offices. We work in shops and warehouses and factories and farms etc. We all see the world from our own perspective so if you want a broad range of views then you need a broad range of perspectives. 

If I'm wrong I'll be more than happy to say so.


----------



## Purple (12 Oct 2021)

RetirementPlan said:


> Right so, you've no idea which of the members of the Commission are or were in a union then. Those who you assume are/were in a union may not be. Those who you assume aren't/weren't in a union may well be. It's a bit of a red herring.


This is a thread on a discussion forum peculating on the outcome of a commission, not a courtroom. Don't be so precious about the opinion of strangers.


----------



## RetirementPlan (12 Oct 2021)

Purple said:


> Don't be so precious about the opinion of strangers.


Right back atcha.


----------



## Purple (12 Oct 2021)

RetirementPlan said:


> Right back atcha.


Touché


----------



## Sarenco (12 Oct 2021)

Purple said:


> the Commission of Taxation and Welfare is being established to independently consider how best the taxation and welfare systems can support economic activity and promote increased employment and prosperity, while ensuring that there are sufficient resources available to meet the costs of public services and supports in the medium and longer term.


I always thought that was why we elected politicians.

Why is this function being outsourced to an unelected quango?


----------



## RetirementPlan (12 Oct 2021)

Sarenco said:


> I always thought that was why we elected politicians.
> 
> Why is this function being outsourced to an unelected quango?


The Commission will advise Government. Government will make decisions.

It's not reasonable to expect elected politicians to do hugely detailed work on every possible issue.


----------



## Purple (13 Oct 2021)

RetirementPlan said:


> The Commission will advise Government. Government will make decisions.
> 
> It's not reasonable to expect elected politicians to do hugely detailed work on every possible issue.


I thought that's why we had senior civil servants in the Department of Finance but yes, outside advice is a good idea. My issue is that this isn't really outside advice; these guys are insiders.


----------



## Purple (13 Oct 2021)

Sarenco said:


> I always thought that was why we elected politicians.
> 
> Why is this function being outsourced to an unelected quango?


Constitutional Convention (a collection of the idle and old). The 'Social(ist) Partners' (look how well that worked out!). Governments are terrified of making decisions.


----------



## RetirementPlan (13 Oct 2021)

Purple said:


> Constitutional Convention (a collection of the idle and old). The 'Social(ist) Partners' (look how well that worked out!). Governments are terrified of making decisions.


Don't recall 'idle and old' being in the selection criteria for the Constitutional Convention or Citizens Assembly, the ones that moved us significantly down the road on Marriage Equality and Repeal. They both met at weekends iirc, and had a representative sample of age and other criteria. 

There is some truth in your point about Governments terrified of making decisions, but they're damned if they do and damned if they don't.


----------



## Purple (13 Oct 2021)

RetirementPlan said:


> Don't recall 'idle and old' being in the selection criteria for the Constitutional Convention or Citizens Assembly, the ones that moved us significantly down the road on Marriage Equality and Repeal. They both met at weekends iirc, and had a representative sample of age and other criteria.


I can't see too many working people with families being able to participate in the Citizens Assembly. In that sense it is a self selecting group from within the cohort originally identified by Red C.


----------



## RetirementPlan (13 Oct 2021)

Purple said:


> I can't see too many working people with families being able to participate in the Citizens Assembly. In that sense it is a self selecting group from within the cohort originally identified by Red C.


Lots of working people with families get involved in politics or activist groups or campaigns. I'd say many of them would be fascinated by the opportunity to take part in the Citizens Assembly and even influence the outcome. It is indeed self-selecting as is every single public consultation, including elections.


----------



## Purple (13 Oct 2021)

RetirementPlan said:


> Lots of working people with families get involved in politics or activist groups or campaigns. I'd say many of them would be fascinated by the opportunity to take part in the Citizens Assembly and even influence the outcome.


Yep, but many just wouldn't have the time. I'm a single parent so there's no chance someone like me could do it.


RetirementPlan said:


> It is indeed self-selecting as is every single public consultation, including elections.


Ah now voting is a bit less of a commitment, I'm sure you'd agree.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (14 Oct 2021)

Interesting post from Steven Barrett in the thread on the Pensions Commission Report





__





						Pensions Commission report published
					

https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/6cb6d-report-of-the-commission-on-pensions/?referrer=http://www.gov.ie/PensionsCommissionReport/  By a significant majority (10 out of 11 members *), the Commission recommends a gradual incremental increase in the State Pension age by three months each year...



					www.askaboutmoney.com
				






Steven Barrett said:


> For me, it lacks independence. In the first meeting, Humphrey's told them that decreasing the State pension wasn't an option. And we have since the pension go up by €5 in the Budget.



If you appoint a Commission, you really should give it free rein.

In the UK, the former Chief Scientific Officer found it necessary to set up "Independent Sage" .

Official Sage is the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies 





__





						What is Independent SAGE? | Independent SAGE
					






					www.independentsage.org
				




_What is Independent SAGE?
Independent SAGE is a group of scientists who are working together to provide independent scientific advice to the UK government and public on how to minimise deaths and support Britain’s recovery from the COVID-19 crisis_

Maybe that is what we need in Ireland?
An Independent Tax and Welfare Commission
An Independent Pensions Commission
An Independent Housing Commission

Not working in conflict with the official Commissions, but complementing them.


----------



## WolfeTone (15 Oct 2021)

Purple said:


> Why do we bother with these echo chambers?



It is pure window dressing. Same as the Fiscal Advisory Council, Low Wage Commission etc



Sarenco said:


> Why is this function being outsourced to an unelected quango?



The purpose is to provide plausible defence mechanism for politicians. In fairness, they get enough grief so these 'Commissions' are set up as distractions, albeit with well intentioned personnel on board most of the time. 

If Low Pay Commission says minimum wage should rise by €0.50c an hour then the dilemma for government is not whether minimum wage should rise by €0.50c an hour or not, but rather do they follow the advice of the Commission or not regardless of any amount of increase in minimum wage. 

The opposition, regardless of who they are, will argue one of two things. 

1) If the government implements the advice of the Low Pay Commission then the government should have, could have done more. 

Or

2) if the government ignores low pay commission then opposition will argue government has ignored advice of commission so why have them there in first place. 

* apologies, watching re-runs of Yes Minister, and this circus is all too familiar.


----------



## Steven Barrett (15 Oct 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> In fairness, they get enough grief so these 'Commissions' are set up as distractions, albeit with well intentioned personnel on board most of the time.


Working in the industry and as someone always looking for content for my blog (if there's any topics people want covered, let me know ), I have read a countless number of roadmaps and commission reports over the year. Yet the governments do nothing about them. The State pension is too big an issue to handle without making very unpopular decisions e.g. a 6% tax increase for business owners and a 4% tax increase for retirees. It is too easy to kick the can down the road, knowing that they will be out of power when it really does start to become an issue. I've no idea what stage the the auto enrollment pension is at and we are 3.5 years in on it being in the Pensions Roadmap. That is a massive undertaking to get that up and running and at very little return for those who will run it.

The problems aren't going away.


----------



## RetirementPlan (15 Oct 2021)

Purple said:


> Yep, but many just wouldn't have the time. I'm a single parent so there's no chance someone like me could do it.
> 
> Ah now voting is a bit less of a commitment, I'm sure you'd agree.


I'm wondering what they could practically do to enable wider participation - on-site childcare might be an option for those with younger kids. I'm not sure there is any real option to assist parents of teenagers, for example.





Brendan Burgess said:


> Interesting post from Steven Barrett in the thread on the Pensions Commission Report
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Is there any indication that the current Commissions AREN'T already independent? I'm not sure we need doubling up of Commissions. The whole purpose of the current Commissions is to get an independent view, away from politicians and civil servants.


----------



## RetirementPlan (15 Oct 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> It is pure window dressing. Same as the Fiscal Advisory Council, Low Wage Commission etc
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The Fiscal Advisory Council is a different kettle of fish all together. It has full-time, permanent staff (a bunch of economists) and isn't timebound like the Commission on Taxation and Work or Commission on Defence Forces. They have a decent record for standing up to and disagreeing with Government, and warning Government about certain actions.
At the end of the day, the Government make the final decision and that's the way things are.


----------



## Purple (15 Oct 2021)

RetirementPlan said:


> I'm wondering what they could practically do to enable wider participation - on-site childcare might be an option for those with younger kids. I'm not sure there is any real option to assist parents of teenagers, for example.


It's probably as good as it can be. My point is that it is relatively self selecting.


RetirementPlan said:


> Is there any indication that the current Commissions AREN'T already independent? I'm not sure we need doubling up of Commissions. The whole purpose of the current Commissions is to get an independent view, away from politicians and civil servants.


It's not that they aren't independent, it's that they are all from inside the current establishment. If you want fresh thinking you need fresh minds. I firmly believe that if the boards of the worlds large banks had more women on them (40-50% minimum) 15-20 years ago we wouldn't have had the global banking crisis. Group think is the enemy of innovation.


----------



## noproblem (15 Oct 2021)

The problem with setting up all those commissions and advisory panels, scientists, etc, is that the powers that be, ie, The Goverment, don't give them any power to implement their findings or anything else either. We then have the politics of it coming home to roost, in that the findings wouldn't be popular decisions if implemented. Why not give some power to all those bodies that are set up, and take the politics out of it.


----------



## Sarenco (15 Oct 2021)

noproblem said:


> Why not give some power to all those bodies that are set up, and take the politics out of it


Because we live in a democracy.

I don't want unelected, unaccountable quangos making such important policy decisions.


----------



## noproblem (15 Oct 2021)

Sarenco said:


> Because we live in a democracy.
> 
> I don't want unelected, unaccountable quangos making such important policy decisions.


Ha ha, who do you think makes a lot of the ones that are made?


----------



## Sarenco (15 Oct 2021)

noproblem said:


> Ha ha, who do you think makes a lot of the ones that are made?


The Oireachtas.

Why would you want to give an unelected quango the power to frame and implement taxation and welfare policy?


----------



## noproblem (15 Oct 2021)

Sarenco said:


> The Oireachtas.
> 
> Why would you want to give an unelected quango the power to frame and implement taxation and welfare policy?


I didn't say I wanted to, but the reality is, they're doing it every day. What do you think top civil servants do?


----------



## WolfeTone (15 Oct 2021)

noproblem said:


> I didn't say I wanted to, but the reality is, they're doing it every day.



Yes, but at the end of the day the politicians make the decision to implement or not and the politicians are accountable to the electorate.


----------



## WolfeTone (15 Oct 2021)

@RetirementPlan dont disagree with any of that but at the end of the day their remit is constrained to advising the government how to keep a balanced budget.
This is not actually a difficult thing to do. I could it for a fraction of the cost.

- don't spend money over and above what you can afford.

See. It's simple really and I don't need any staff or anything like that.

What the FAC do not have to contend with is the real social politics of the day - the mica redress, rental crisis in Dublin, students in Cork queing at food banks, sex abuse scandals in Donegal healthcare homes, etc, etc, etc
All of these matters, and much more, demand attention invariably leading to increases in funding.
If politicians don't deliver they face expulsion, and face letting the other crowd in.

The FAC doesn't face any of that. It just faces the dilemma of how to advise the government to run fiscally prudent budgets which I have already presented a fool-proof formula at zero cost to the taxpayer.


----------



## RetirementPlan (15 Oct 2021)

noproblem said:


> The problem with setting up all those commissions and advisory panels, scientists, etc, is that the powers that be, ie, The Goverment, don't give them any power to implement their findings or anything else either. We then have the politics of it coming home to roost, in that the findings wouldn't be popular decisions if implemented. Why not give some power to all those bodies that are set up, and take the politics out of it.


We give powers to statutory bodies through legislation. Every statutory body will have legislation setting out their functions and powers.. This is done very clearly, with little room for doubt. All the bodies like HSE, RSA, TUSLA, HSA and many more have specific powers to carry out their functions, independent of Government. Government gives the funding, the bodies carry out their functions within their statutory powers.

Giving statutory bodies powers to set Government policy would be another matter entirely.


----------



## RetirementPlan (15 Oct 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> @RetirementPlan dont disagree with any of that but at the end of the day their remit is constrained to advising the government how to keep a balanced budget.
> This is not actually a difficult thing to do. I could it for a fraction of the cost.
> 
> - don't spend money over and above what you can afford.
> ...


I'm no economist, but I'm fairly sure every economist recognised that funding governments is different to funding households or funding your corner shop. There are very good reasons for Governments to borrow, particularly when stimulus is needed to avoid diving into recession, and there are dangers in over-borrowing.  With all due respect to your simple solutions, I'll stick with the experts on this.


----------



## WolfeTone (15 Oct 2021)

@RetirementPlan of course, I'm being flippant.
 However the fundamental premise of being fiscally prudent is central to FAC. That may involve deficit spending at particular junctures as much as running surpluses.
The point being, I fail to see what the FAC offers that is not already known to simple street folk like me.
And I don't cost €1m plus a year.


----------



## RetirementPlan (15 Oct 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> @RetirementPlan of course, I'm being flippant.
> However the fundamental premise of being fiscally prudent is central to FAC. That may involve deficit spending at particular junctures as much as running surpluses.
> The point being, I fail to see what the FAC offers that is not already known to simple street folk like me.
> And I don't cost €1m plus a year.


If we had the FAC in 2006 and 2007, waving the same warning flags that people like David McWilliams, Richard Curran and Morgan Kelly were waving, do you think we might have sorted ourselves out sooner, before things went right down the toilet?

A warning from the FAC has a bit more weight than the off-the-cuff opinion of the man-on-the-street.








						Government avoiding ‘hard choices’ on budget - watchdog warns
					

Fiscal Advisory Council says Coalition’s revised spending plans may overheat economy




					www.irishtimes.com


----------



## WolfeTone (15 Oct 2021)

RetirementPlan said:


> If we had the FAC in 2006 and 2007, waving the same warning flags that people like David McWilliams, Richard Curran and Morgan Kelly were waving, do you think we might have sorted ourselves out sooner, before things went right down the toilet?



Impossible to say. 
I'd be fairly confident that flag wavers, the like of Mcwilliams and Kelly, would never get a gig on FAC anyway. But I could be wrong. 


It's not the point anyway. 
The point is demonstrated in the IT article you post. 
What is the FAC offering that isn't already known? 

- If you cut taxes and increase borrowing you risk overheating the economy and we are vulnerable to economic global shocks. 

See, more advice very much on par with the FAC and all for free. 

The FAC is a sideshow. At a cost of €1m it is handy gig for those involved. It serves a purpose for government to use when they choose to make the 'hard choices' otherwise it is just ignored. 

'Government avoiding "hard choices"' 
Perhaps. But that's because government has hard choices to make. 

The FAC does not.


----------



## Sarenco (15 Oct 2021)

noproblem said:


> I didn't say I wanted to


It certainly looked like you were advocating that this unelected quango should have the power to implement their recommendations -


noproblem said:


> The Goverment, don't give them any power to implement their findings or anything else either. We then have the politics of it coming home to roost, in that the findings wouldn't be popular decisions if implemented. *Why not give some power to all those bodies *that are set up, and take the politics out of it.


----------



## noproblem (15 Oct 2021)

Sarenco said:


> It certainly looked like you were advocating that this unelected quango should have the power to implement their recommendations -


If English is your first language it's fairly obvious I didn't.


----------



## Sarenco (16 Oct 2021)

So you don’t think it’s problematic that the commission doesn’t have the power to implement their recommendations, right?


noproblem said:


> The problem with setting up all those commissions and advisory panels, scientists, etc, is that the powers that be, ie, The Goverment, don't give them any power to implement their findings or anything else either. We then have the politics of it coming home to roost, in that the findings wouldn't be popular decisions if implemented. Why not give some power to all those bodies that are set up, and take the politics out of it.


----------



## Purple (16 Oct 2021)

RetirementPlan said:


> If we had the FAC in 2006 and 2007, waving the same warning flags that people like David McWilliams, Richard Curran and Morgan Kelly were waving, do you think we might have sorted ourselves out sooner, before things went right down the toilet?
> 
> A warning from the FAC has a bit more weight than the off-the-cuff opinion of the man-on-the-street.
> 
> ...


Richard Bruton made a speech in the Dail clearly outlining the faults in the pro cycling policies of the government. As far as I’m aware he was the only TD to do so. All the rest only said “More!”.


----------



## Purple (19 Oct 2021)

RetirementPlan said:


> I guess we can get back on track after your slightly confusing typo. I'd be more inclined to judge Bruton by what he achieved in Government rather than what he said in opposition.


FF and their partners were in office for most of the last 40 years. Populism pays. It also causes recessions. Now that FF have been burned by that they are seeking to behave in a relatively prudent manner. That's why the new FF, the Shinners, are doing so well. Those who espouse rational policies don't win elections. 


RetirementPlan said:


> But again, the existence of 'other voices' doesn't negate the need for the FAC. There are always other voices on everything, the economists who predicted ten of the last two recessions. There's no difficulty in finding people who were right in hindsight. That doesn't negate the need for expert, independent economic advice for Government on financial matters.


I've no problem with the FAC. I've a problem with the general inertia that grips the State Sector and the inability of those within it to effect positive change. By any reasonable metric our State Sector is too small but given the appalling track record of absorbing money without improving services I've no confidence that a larger State sector will improve things. Appointing insiders to advisory boards, to give the same advice they gave when they were part of the permanent government, will achieve nothing. They can't see the wood for the trees. There is no 'Other Voices' in the mix. They have that voice echoing in their head, like the anti-Obama, whispering "No we can't".


----------



## RetirementPlan (19 Oct 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Impossible to say.
> I'd be fairly confident that flag wavers, the like of Mcwilliams and Kelly, would never get a gig on FAC anyway. But I could be wrong.
> 
> 
> ...


Somebody like Seamus Coffey proved himself as not being afraid to speak out and contradict the Government view. It's all very well to say that 'these things are known' but there isn't any broad consensus from the experts, or among the commentariat, or among the community at large. You can see that the things you want Government to do 'are known', just as the things that other people who want Government to do the direct opposite to you 'are known'. That's why they put €1m into getting together full-time experts under a part-time board of experts to issue expert advice.



Purple said:


> FF and their partners were in office for most of the last 40 years. Populism pays. It also causes recessions. Now that FF have been burned by that they are seeking to behave in a relatively prudent manner. That's why the new FF, the Shinners, are doing so well. Those who espouse rational policies don't win elections.
> 
> I've no problem with the FAC. I've a problem with the general inertia that grips the State Sector and the inability of those within it to effect positive change. By any reasonable metric our State Sector is too small but given the appalling track record of absorbing money without improving services I've no confidence that a larger State sector will improve things. Appointing insiders to advisory boards, to give the same advice they gave when they were part of the permanent government, will achieve nothing. They can't see the wood for the trees. There is no 'Other Voices' in the mix. They have that voice echoing in their head, like the anti-Obama, whispering "No we can't".


There's some truth in the inertia thing, but one man's inertia is another man's broad consultation, consensus building, caution decision making when the stakes are very, very high. Our political system tends not to reward impetuous, dramatic changes of approach. Why would politicians go down this road, knowing well that they'll probably get kicked out next time round and things just get reversed back by populists (Irish Water).


----------



## WolfeTone (19 Oct 2021)

RetirementPlan said:


> That's why they put €1m into getting together full-time experts under a part-time board of experts to issue expert advice.






RetirementPlan said:


> there isn't any broad consensus from the experts,



That's the point.


----------



## Purple (20 Oct 2021)

RetirementPlan said:


> Our political system tends not to reward impetuous, dramatic changes of approach. Why would politicians go down this road, knowing well that they'll probably get kicked out next time round and things just get reversed back by populists (Irish Water).


That's the crux of it. The vested interests can just wait the government out so nothing really improves or the law of diminishing marginal returns is there in spades. Those vested interests allow the Government to bolt on new stuff but they don't allow them to reform and streamline the structures that are already there. Companies like GE can acquire large organisations and consolidate their management and reporting structures so it is possible. We've just failed utterly to do it here. Irish Water is a great example in so many ways. It was an excellent idea, as are water charges, but when they looked to streamline and consolidate the Unions simply said 'No'.  
The levels of over staffing due to duplication of process are staggering and Irish Water is tiny. The HSE still have much of the old Health Boards' structures in place and at a hospital level it's even more fractured. These things should have been sorted out decades ago. How many people have died, how many children with scoliosis have not been treated for year, because of the resources that have been wasted due to that structural inefficiency?   

So, when a group of people who have spent their careers overseeing that level of systemic waste and organisational incompetence are gathered together to offer advice on how to improve things, given their track record of abysmal failure, I have to question their ability to do what's  being asked of them.


----------



## Purple (20 Oct 2021)

RetirementPlan said:


> one man's inertia is another man's broad consultation, consensus building, caution decision making when the stakes are very, very high.


You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time._ (Abe Lincoln or John Lydgate, take your pick)._
When everyone in every silo gets a veto nothing changes.


----------



## Purple (20 Oct 2021)

RetirementPlan said:


> The Commission will advise Government. Government will make decisions.
> 
> It's not reasonable to expect elected politicians to do hugely detailed work on every possible issue.


Can we start a campaign to stop referring to 'The Government' as 'Government' and 'The Cabinet' as 'Cabinet'?
They won't advise 'Government' as that a concept. The with advise 'The Government' as that's a thing.
I'm sick of hearing talking heads on the radio and TV saying "That's a matter for Government". It may well be but unless they are having a conversation about general philosophy what they actually mean is "That's a matter for *the* Government".

_Edit: I know I have a totally irrational fixation on this issue/non-issue. _


----------



## WolfeTone (20 Oct 2021)

Purple said:


> Irish Water is a great example in so many ways. It was an excellent idea, as are water charges,



Irish Water is a good idea, domestic water charges are a terrible, terrible idea. There is absolutely no basis for it. Households use water on a need basis, waste, washing, cooking food, etc... the health benefits are enormous. There is little wasted in domestic households, in general water is put to good use.


----------



## Purple (20 Oct 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Irish Water is a good idea, domestic water charges are a terrible, terrible idea. There is absolutely no basis for it. Households use water on a need basis, waste, washing, cooking food, etc... the health benefits are enormous. There is little wasted in domestic households, in general water is put to good use.


Lets not go down that rabbit hole again!
I'm in favour of shifting taxation away from individual wealth creation and more onto wealth retention. I know your lot are against that sort of thing but I'm a bit of a socialist rather than a populist so...


----------



## WolfeTone (20 Oct 2021)

Purple said:


> Lets not go down that rabbit hole again!



Fair enough. 
I'm just relieved that I don't have to contend with the plethora of 'competitive' marketeering companies guised as service providers that would have emerged by now under the conditions of privatisating Irish Water. Offering '20% off for six months', '€200 cash-back' etc... all in the name providing an essential public resource.

I can think of their names already 'EirWater', 'Bord Uisce', 'SSE Uisce-icity' et al.

The water charges debacle was nothing more than a corporatised heist to syphon off a public resource cash cow for private profit.
If that's your idea of socialism, give me populism everytime.


----------



## Purple (21 Oct 2021)

You said;


WolfeTone said:


> Fair enough.


So why this complete nonsense?


WolfeTone said:


> I'm just relieved that I don't have to contend with the plethora of 'competitive' marketeering companies guised as service providers that would have emerged by now under the conditions of privatisating Irish Water. Offering '20% off for six months', '€200 cash-back' etc... all in the name providing an essential public resource.
> 
> I can think of their names already 'EirWater', 'Bord Uisce', 'SSE Uisce-icity' et al.
> 
> ...


Can we not go down that rabbit hole?


----------



## WolfeTone (21 Oct 2021)

@Purple I have no intention of going down the water charges rabbit-hole. We are clearly at opposite ends of opinion on this. 
I'm satisfied that there is next to nobody waking up this morning rueing the fact that they don't have to pay charges for a water supply already provided for through central funding. 
Maybe except your good self, but as they say... there is always one


----------



## Purple (21 Oct 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> @Purple I have no intention of going down the water charges rabbit-hole. We are clearly at opposite ends of opinion on this.
> I'm satisfied that there is next to nobody waking up this morning rueing the fact that they don't have to pay charges for a water supply already provided for through central funding.
> Maybe except your good self, but as they say... there is always one


To quote Ronald Reagan, "There you go again."
As long as you are content within your notions, that's the main thing.


----------

