Fiscal Council: Up to €6 billion of Corporation Tax may be temporary

Status
Not open for further replies.

Protocol

Frequent Poster
Messages
2,981
Indeed.

We have been using these very strong CT revenues to cover the continued annual massive cost over-runs in healthcare.

It is risky.

OK, there is now a rainy-day fund, I think, which is a help.

(EDIT - I see now that it has been established, but contributions to the fund have been postponed)

But our public finances are not as healthy as people think.

Any tax cuts (other than tax reforms, or growth-enhancing tax cuts) should be avoided.
 
Last edited:

Zebedee

Frequent Poster
Messages
98
There’s also the matter of national debt of €200bn (>100% of GNI and c €42k per person) to be paid off.

it’s worrying given Donohoe has lost control of expenditure (health service annual top up, NCH, Broadband etc. )
 

Brendan Burgess

Founder
Messages
38,710
Hi Zebedee

I will be talking about this at 5.20 on Matt Cooper. I will make that very point about the €200 bn of debt.

Brendan
 

NoRegretsCoyote

Frequent Poster
Messages
923
There’s also the matter of national debt of €200bn (>100% of GNI and c €42k per person) to be paid off.
National debt is never fully paid off. It's just rolled over.

It's okay to criticise Ireland's fiscal policy without thinking it's necessary or feasible to pay off all public debt.
 

WolfeTone

Registered User
Messages
289
There’s also the matter of national debt of €200bn (>100% of GNI and c €42k per person) to be paid off.
Except its not for per person today to actually pay it off. Its for existing persons, AND future generations - presently infinite - to pay it off.
Im not saying not to be concerned about public finances, but public policy and associated expenditure cannot be devised around such calculations.
It is also worth noting that paying off national debt in its entirety, while desirable on the one hand, can lead to negative more profound consequences.
It is all about management and timing, and to a not insignificant extent, good fortune.
 

Zebedee

Frequent Poster
Messages
98
I agree that there is no requirement to pay it off today or in one go. However, given its level, we should be making inroads. Fixing the roof while the sun is shining etc.
 

cremeegg

Frequent Poster
Messages
3,090
Except its not for per person today to actually pay it off. Its for existing persons, AND future generations - presently infinite - to pay it off.
Yes we get the healthcare today and our children can pay the bill.
 

cremeegg

Frequent Poster
Messages
3,090
All generations will need healthcare. What is the alternative? Stop providing healthcare?
Not at all. The alternative is to meet the costs of this generations healthcare from this generations income.

This was not so essential in the past due to widespread inflation, but now that inflation has receded the debts being piled up to fund this generations needs are not going to be inflated away.
 

WolfeTone

Registered User
Messages
289
The alternative is to meet the costs of this generations healthcare from this generations income.

This was not so essential in the past due to widespread inflation, but now that inflation has receded the debts being piled up to fund this generations needs are not going to be inflated away.
So increase taxes to pay for healthcare or cut spending, reducing services and increasing waiting lists?
 

Purple

Frequent Poster
Messages
9,194
We tax smokers in order to reduce smoking. We should do the same with fat people; tax fast food, tax sugar drinks, tax chocolate etc.
 

odyssey06

Frequent Poster
Messages
1,624
We tax smokers in order to reduce smoking. We should do the same with fat people; tax fast food, tax sugar drinks, tax chocolate etc.
Probably more smokers would actually be better for long term fiscal situation taking into account all the expenditure of the state in terms of pensions, medical cards etc. Grim, if your sole concern is the financial numbers, but there you have it.
 

Purple

Frequent Poster
Messages
9,194
Probably more smokers would actually be better for long term fiscal situation taking into account all the expenditure of the state in terms of pensions, medical cards etc. Grim, if your sole concern is the financial numbers, but there you have it.
I agree. Smokers die faster than fatties and they pay more tax. Fatties can live for decades, draining the health services like a a large tub of ice cream.
 

Purple

Frequent Poster
Messages
9,194
Any examples?
Payroll in the HSE (standardization of contracts and T's & C's).
Hospital discharge policies.
Duplication of process everywhere.
The fact that Jack and Jill can provide services at 1/3 of the cost per child as the HSE.
The list is endless.
 

NoRegretsCoyote

Frequent Poster
Messages
923
We tax smokers in order to reduce smoking. We should do the same with fat people; tax fast food, tax sugar drinks, tax chocolate etc.
The situtation is not analagous.

There is no safe level of tobacco consumption, and the risk increases in line with how much you smoke.

Most consumption of fatty foods is by non-obese people as part of a balanced diet which is not causing any increase in morbidity. Why should those people be taxed?
 

Purple

Frequent Poster
Messages
9,194
The situtation is not analagous.

There is no safe level of tobacco consumption, and the risk increases in line with how much you smoke.

Most consumption of fatty foods is by non-obese people as part of a balanced diet which is not causing any increase in morbidity. Why should those people be taxed?
To encourage them not to get fat. It's the same reason we tax alcohol.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top