Ireland has the highest consumer prices in the EU

Average Industrial Wage doesn't take Social Transfers into account and they are very high in Ireland so that's no use as a measure. Modified GNI is probably the best measure. The reality is that inflation is causing problems across the world.
It turns out that 2 decades of money printing to avoid the consequences of a depression and a Pandemic does actually cause problems... who knew?
 
I see you are not attempting to stand by you earlier incorrect assertion regarding corporation tax! Instead you move the goalposts to GNI*.

joe sod said:
they can't use GDP because of the distorting effects of multinationals and they don't like using GNP probably because the figure is too low for them. Therefore the fact that he uses GNI* as measure already discredits the whole report
Click to expand...

GNI* is widely accepted by economists of all hues as preferable, if not ideal, and the rationale for GNI* is well laid out (eg, https://assets.gov.ie/4910/181218123252-71a2c297f26b419fa3696d7349e3e788.pdf, https://www.cso.ie/en/interactivezone/statisticsexplained/nationalaccountsexplained/modifiedgni/).

If you want to "discredit" the report you might begin by addressing the facts, figures and reasoning in it. Or indeed presenting a factual argument against GNI*. That would be more credible than populist rhetoric.
 
To address your last point , yes I very much stand by what I said, the government is getting this windfall taxation because of the huge profits generated by a few big mutinationals but if that corporation tax take is to fall back it is also going to hit jobs and investment because then those companies will be retrenching even if they are still very profitable. Therefore I think he is wrong in his assumption that you can strip out a big chunk of corporation tax and that nothing else in the economy gets hit. Looking back at the corporation tax receipts history in Ireland they have never fallen except in 2009 , yet look what happened the irish economy it fell off a cliff. Therefore any fall back in corporation tax means the world is in a recession because these are global companies and Ireland is reaping the tax from these global profits.
Therefore a theoretical stripping out of a chunk of corporation tax and saying it won't hit the economy is plain wrong. Corporation tax basically pays the welfare bill in this country if a chunk of that is stripped out well then the government are going to be coming after Mr Average worker for that lost taxation if he is still working that is, we know this from history
 
So we just accept what these guys say as "gospel" because we are not esri economists , GNI* is a statistic conjured up here because the ESRI and CSO were embarrased about their statistics being labelled as "leprauchan economics" by their international peers. Nobody else uses this statistic so how is it relevant or useful for comparing incomes to other EU countries when its just an irish statistic.
Surely it would be more useful and insightful to compare the average salary in Ireland with our EU compatriots to see how our standard of living compares, how much housing, how much goods and services, how much healthcare, how many meals out or concert tickets or airline tickets, that sort of thing.
 
Why would that be? The windfall corporation tax arise from multinational choosing Ireland as a tax base to locate profits actually generated by real economic activity elsewhere in the world. That tax is very mobile and as the OECD agreement takes effect they may (or may not) shift to other locations for tax purpose, while more of their profits will become taxable in the countries in which they were generated rather than in Ireland. The windfall element is not related to their economic activity in Ireland and in itself should have no impact on Irish jobs and investment.
Of course, some of them at some stage may decide to shift those jobs elsewhere for other reasons but that is unrelated to the point made in the ESRI article.
 
joe sod said:
John Fitzgerald (have they not got anyone else in the esri) basically saying that we have higher living standards than eu average even if you strip out corporation tax windfalls.
Click to expand...

No, he is not "basically saying" that at all.
He is saying that when we factor in our comparatively very high rate of savings then we have living standards above the EU average. He is saying that Irish consumption is lower than some comparators because people here are saving more than the average elsewhere - rather than because their real income is lower than those comparators.
And he is saying that even if the windfall corporation tax was to fall away in coming years then our high savings would provide a safety net to protect the economy.
 
No, that wouldn't be useful at all because, as I've previously pointed out, it doesn't take social transfers into account.
 
But those are his assumptions when you factor in our high savings rate then that would provide a cushion but that's just an assumption. He assumes if the corporation tax take would fall away well then people would just spend their savings to compensate. My point is that his assumption is wrong because in that scenario people would be even less likely to spend their savings. He didn't pose the question why are our savings rates so high and why would people suddenly start spending their savings if the economy went down that didn't happen during the financial crisis, people horded their money then, they didn't go out and buy the houses at 50% discount in 2011.
Also the government would have to get that lost taxation somewhere . His assumptions are all wrong and that's my point. You can come up with a report that says everything is good but it is based on assumptions that only get found out in reality. My point is that his report is just wrong because he is basing it on false assumptions. I don't care about his status in esri, I think he is basically retired now anyway better to get new people with fresh thinking in there now
 
Last edited:
fistophobia said:
If he is retired, why are we still hearing from him?
Click to expand...
He's now writing opinion pieces for Irish Times and is a comment-tator in the Mejie generally.

He worked in the Department of Finance for 12 years before moving the the ESRI and is well respected internationally. His father was Taoiseach and his grandfather was a government Minister and he's married to a former Labour Party minister so he's well positioned to comment.
 
In his report John Fitzgerald made a big point about the high savings rate in Ireland providing a cushion when corporation tax falls back. However that poses an interesting question, why are irish savings rates so high relative to our EU compatriots ?
Maybe it is because investments outside of property are probably much lower than our EU compatriots. My guess is that our savings rate are high precisely because we have relatively little money invested in the stock markets or funds outside of our pensions.
People in Ireland are discouraged from direct investments due to our inordinately high investment taxes
Maybe they need to add savings and investments and compare that to our EU compatriots as a proper measurement.
Maybe that would be an interesting study for the esri to carry out
 

Irish households paying almost €1,000 more for electricity than EU average

Households in this country are paying almost €1,000 more every year for their electricity than the European average.
m.independent.ie

Ireland has the highest electricity prices in EU almost 1000euros more per household than EU average. The CRU came out with a fairly lame excuse as to why that is the case that costs are higher here because we are an island nation. This is rubbish because it is only fairly recently that ireland hit the top of the electricity price league and our prices were very competitive a decade ago, we were still an island back then from what I recall. Also the high energy prices namely gas affect everyone equally and the gas piplelines don't know we are an island. So CRU don't insult our intelligence.
The reasons have to be about domestic energy policies. I suspect the wind operators are getting rewarded much more in Ireland than in Europe, I think the minimum feed in tariff set at 74euros a Mw/h is at the root of it because then the wind companies can dump energy onto the market at very low demand and still get paid the very high minimum price rather than the market price which would be nothing. They also reap the very high prices as a result of high oil and gas prices even though they don't have to buy it on the market like a conventional power station.
The solution is to only pay the wind companies a set price for electricity maybe the high minimum price all the time.
 
  • We have a very dispersed population so the management and maintenance of our electricity network is higher than the EU average. This also increases the losses we experience through the transmission network as a proportion of the power we generate.
  • We are at the end of a vast European gas pipeline and so we have incurred costs and tariffs before the gas gets here.
  • We are overly reliant on imported fossil fuels to generate out electricity and getting them here is expensive.
  • Delivering renewable power (wind and solar) requires a different sort of grid to the one we have now so much of that power is wasted, making it more expensive. The cost of making the grid fit for purpose is high and won't be done any time soon; politicians know that we won't pay for water so we won't pay for that.
  • We have high costs of labour and materials so doing stuff is expensive.
  • And last but not least, the ESB dominates the market and uses its position to stifle competition. That's probably the single biggest factor.
 
Last edited:
It's the same for other countries but they have decided not to go with ridiculously high wind energy rates. We have made it too attractive for wind energy companies to profiteer but have loaded all the costs of the associated infrastructure onto the consumer via standing charges and high unit rates. Much more of the costs need to be borne by the wind energy companies themselves, they are the ones that are reaping the windfall energy prices without bearing any of the realistic costs associated with the grid and producing electricity when no wind is blowing. Eamon Ryan ruled out windfall taxes on energy companies because they would hit the wind energy providers the most .
As for the scattered nature of our population those costs have already been borne as that infrastructure is long in place just like the gas piplelines. The scattered windfarms needing to be connected by high voltage lines to the grid is a separate issue and a separate cost and has nothing to do with where people live as they are separate lines. Because we have decided to go all in with wind rather than conventional power stations like nuclear means we have to install many more high voltage lines to connect all these windfarms and now solar to the grid. The consumer is paying for all this much more than on the continent
 
Protocol said:
Own-brand paracetamol is for sale at 29p in UK supermarkets, equivalent to about 35c
Click to expand...
Exorbitant cost of over-the-counter drugs is a good example. Gov. could very easily fix this but instead keeps caving in to vested interests linked to cartel-like structures. Same for energy, insurance, GP costs, interest rates, etc. etc. Deep ideological hostility to any kind of consumer protection.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register