• Home
  • NAMA property for sale
  • About
  • The Developers
  • The Tranches

NAMA Wine Lake

Click the green link above for latest news and over 2,600 related articles. NAMA – National Asset Management Agency – part of Ireland's response to its banking crisis and property bubble

Feeds:
Posts
Comments
« Flight of private sector deposits in Irish banks continues in June 2011 but household deposits increase
Wikileaks US Embassy in Ireland cables on NAMA finally published in full (or at least one cable is) »

Budget 2012

July 30, 2011 by namawinelake

This entry is probably as welcome as advertisements in August for Christmas 2011, but yesterday the Department of Finance published a document  (EDIT: a searchable, copyable version of the document has been made available by the politicalworld.org website here) which sets out in more specific terms what this Government intends doing in Budget 2012 which is now a mere four months away. The document published by the Department was a revised agreement with the EU and IMF, and makes forthcoming commitments more specific.

There is to be an “adjustment” in 2012 which will cut government spending and increase taxation. As we all know by now we have a large deficit to close, so that this country can stand on its own two feet without relying on lenders and the general commitment is to cut the deficit in the next four years. In addition to the closing the deficit and achieving a balanced budget, the Government has accepted responsibility for losses in part of our banking sector and has committed to repaying bondholders in certain banks. The 2012 adjustment is required for those two reasons – balancing the budget and dealing with our banks.

The total adjustment for 2012 is “at least €3.6bn”. On 6th July, Minister for Finance Michael Noonan indicated that an adjustment of €4bn might be needed. There has been some debate about whether some part of the €800-1,200m saving in bailout interest resulting from the July 21st EuroZone summit might be used to cushion the adjustment required, but the response from Minister Noonan has been in the negative and that an adjustment of “at least €3.6bn” is still required.

So what do we know today that we didn’t know last week? We know that the adjustment is to comprise €1.5bn of new tax and €2.1bn of reduced Government expenditure. For political fans this seems to represent a victory for FG (and indeed FF) policy over Labour’s – Labour wanted a greater amount of the adjustment to come from tax. The general economic argument is that when cutting a deficit, cuts are preferable to taxes.

So where is the Government going to get €1.5bn of new tax? We know from this week’s announcement on the so-called household charge that €160m is to be raised by levying €100 on each household in the land, with some limited concessions. And the rest will come from

(1) lowering personal income tax bands

(2) lowering credits

(3) a reduction in private pension tax reliefs (at present pension contributions in general reduce taxable income, meaning contributions can save upto 41% tax that would be otherwise payable)

(4) a reduction in general tax expenditures (or allowances). What could be up for grabs here? Perhaps extending or increasing VAT, increased excise duties on alcohol or cigarettes.

(5) a reform of capitals gains and acquisitions tax. We’re not generating much capital gains tax at present because there is reduced economic activity and many assets have lost, rather than gained, value.

(6) an increase in the carbon tax, so dearer petrol, diesel, heating oil and natural gas.

So the above relates to taxation (which includes levies, customs and excise duties, household charges). The larger part of the “adjustment” is to come from savings to the social welfare budget, the public sector and capital programmes. What benefits and payments will be targeted (see here for current rates of payment)? We don’t yet know but Minister for Social Protection, Joan Burton has signalled rent allowances and payments by the Government to utility companies would be examined. An Taoiseach, Enda Kenny said on the 100-day anniversary of the formation of the present Government that social welfare would not be cut – RTE reported “speaking later on RTÉ’s Six-One News, Mr Kenny said that the Government had decided to make a commitment not to increase tax or cut social welfare to allow people to plan their lives.” It is difficult to see from here how that commitment can be kept.

Then there is a commitment to cut public sector numbers and also to cut public sector pensions. This despite a commitment reported by the Irish Times “There are to be no further pay cuts for existing public servants and no further compulsory redundancies in any government department or agency” So voluntary redundancy and what seems to be a cut to the pension arrangements of new joiners. It is difficult to see how either will contribute significantly to the €2.1bn target.

And lastly there are to be cuts to capital expenditure. So roads, schools, hospitals and infrastructure generally.

We have had three austerity budgets so far, and there is a feeling that the “low-lying fruit” have been picked – apologies to anyone who feels that imposing a universal social charge and income levies, not to mention other cuts and charges, is “low-lying fruit”. The forthcoming adjustment will take place against a background of increasing interest rates and elevated unemployment -14.2% presently but expected to stabilise or fall slightly this year. The latest economic forecast from the Central Bank of Ireland, published yesterday, was for the economy to grow modestly this year by 0.8%, its forecast for 2011 of 2.1% is down from the Government’s own 2.5%.  So the forthcoming budget is expected to eat into living standards more so than previously and I think that is what is meant by no longer being able to pick “low lying fruit”. The Central Bank came out yesterday and called for an early indication from the Government as to where cuts and taxes will fall, so that people can have some degree of confidence in planning their economic lives. That seems like good advice because from this perspective, despite the information published yesterday, it is unclear as to how the Government is to achieve the mandated adjustment for 2012.

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Reddit

Like this:

Like Loading...

Related

Posted in Banks, IMF, Irish economy, Politics | 19 Comments

19 Responses

  1. on July 30, 2011 at 6:01 pm Niall

    @ NWL There was a series of Dáil questions put down in the names of Eric Byrne (Lab) & Pearse Doherty (Sinn Féin) to which written answers were provided on 19th July. The responses from the Minister for Finance provide more than enough sources of additional sources of tax by restricting tax expenditures.

    For example ending interest relief as a deduction against Sch D, Case V (rents) would yield in excess of €1,000M against individuals alone. Taking into account companies, the likely additional yield would be in the region of €1,500M.

    Ridding us of all the various capital allowance schemes, losses forward etc.in relation to property would comfortably yield in excess of €600M. Tightening up on Capital Acquisitions Tax could double the yield from that source providing another €250M.

    There is a clear choice between taxing income or capital. See for example questions 20794/11, 20795/11, 20797/11, 20799/11, 20800/11, 20801/11, 20814/11 20817/11 20819/11 20820/11 20821/11 20822/11


    • on July 30, 2011 at 6:05 pm namawinelake

      @Niall, that’s very helpful. The Dail session to which you refer can be found here (and on succeeding and preceding pages)

      http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/2011/07/19/00064.asp


  2. on July 30, 2011 at 7:40 pm Gavin

    It might be easier to use KildareStreet.com for Oireachtas linking :)


  3. on July 30, 2011 at 8:10 pm Niall

    Gavin

    I have extracted the questions using the Kildare Street web site, Pearse Doherty first followed by Eric Byrne

    http://www.kildarestreet.com/search/?s=pearse+doherty&phrase=&exclude=&from=19%2F07%2F2011&to=19%2F07%2F2011&section=wrans

    http://www.kildarestreet.com/search/?s=eric+byrne&phrase=&exclude=&from=19%2F07%2F2011&to=19%2F07%2F2011&section=wrans


  4. on July 30, 2011 at 8:32 pm Joseph Ryan

    @NWL

    “The general economic argument is that when cutting a deficit, cuts are preferable to taxes.”

    Yes, that is the argument made but does it make economic sense?
    If a person earns €300 per week, any USC or tax, or reduction will be taken directly out of his or her spending and therefore directly out of the economy.

    If a person earns €3000 per week, a reduction of 10% (€300 per week) is likely to have zero effect on the overall economy as this money was being saved. Further it was probably being saved in a German or French bank.

    The above orthodoxy needs to be challanged, but is unlikey to be.
    The timing of the EU/ECB/IMF -Troika statement said it all.

    1. Kenny says no tax increases.
    2. Gilmore says no social welfare reductions.
    3. The Troika immediately tells the department to put out a public statement.
    4. The Department of Finance updates its website with the following:
    There will be €1.5bn will be raised by way of increased taxation and €2.1bn from expenditure cuts.

    In other words, sit down, do what you are told, you no longer run the country, we do. And we will tell how much tax and how much expenditure reductions you will have in your budget.

    And make sure that the signed copy of your quarterly national letter of humiliation and emasculation is scanned and included in the document for all your citizens to read. It must be signed by Minister Noonan and Mr Honohan and be appropriately and politely addressed to:
    Madame Legarde

    Click to access EUimfJul2011.pdf


  5. on July 30, 2011 at 10:59 pm ObsessiveMathsFreak

    (3) a reduction in private pension tax reliefs (at present pension contributions in general reduce taxable income, meaning contributions can save upto 41% tax that would be otherwise payable)

    Will this affect existing pensions? That is, will the people in receipt of, or shortly to be in receipt of pensions be affected by these changes? In addition to the recent levy?

    Could the generation that wrecked the country be being made to pay for it? Hmmmmm?


  6. on July 31, 2011 at 5:28 am Jake Watts

    Could we please put things in perspective? Think about that the next time you fill up the old smart car.

    “The U.S. Defense Department has used 3.8 billion gallons (14.4 billion liters) of petroleum jet fuel annually over the past three years. At around $3.50 a gallon that comes to roughly 13 billion dollars a year.”

    4. The Department of Finance updates its website with the following:
    There will be €1.5bn will be raised by way of increased taxation and €2.1bn from expenditure cuts.


  7. on July 31, 2011 at 1:02 pm Sporthog

    Pensions of those retired public servants are linked to the current position of those currently employed.

    For example, a person who is retired as a sargent in An Garda Siochana has their pension linked to the salary of a current serving Garda sargent.

    By cutting the current salary of a existing public servant the pension salary of those retired will also be cut.

    One cut serves a double wammy!!!

    Not nice at all but such is the skullduggery which is afoot. On the other hand it worked in the opposite direction when salary increases were given under pay agreements etc. As the current position got a salary increase, the retired person (for that position) also had a proportionate pension rise.

    As for the carbon tax, Greece is currently paying around 1.70/ litre, in Ireland it is around 1.51, so plenty of scope for serious pain to be iinflicted here.


  8. on July 31, 2011 at 9:59 pm Bunbury

    @ Sporthog

    What planet are you living on? Pensions of retired public servants are based on pre-pension levy and pre-pay-cut pay levels and this is guaranteed to all public servants who notify their retirement up to November of this year (2011). So cuts to existing public service pay levels have no impact on retired public servants – except for those who retire after November 2011.


  9. on August 1, 2011 at 12:12 am Kirsten Delaney

    You report as does RTE that the recently revised mou “…makes forthcoming commitments more specific.”

    However all the budgetary items for 2012 including the tax rise of 1.5b and cuts of 2.1b were detailed in the mou last Dec 2010. I don’t understand why any of this can be news 7 months later.

    We knew Ireland would need to cut welfare and raise income taxes in 2012 and 2013 in order to meet the program conditionalities. Yet Kenny has promised no income tax rise and no welfare cuts and has not been challenge don this.

    Why is Kenny setting these expectations?


    • on August 1, 2011 at 11:12 am namawinelake

      @Kirsten, you are right. Both the split of the budget adjustment and the description of the items of additional tax or reduced expenditure are the same as those agreed in the original Memorandum of Understanding in December 2010. I suppose there are some new angles to this in light of political developments since December 2010

      (1) Labour had wanted a bigger contribution in the adjustment from taxation. The re-statement confirms that this battle is probably over and FG/FF’s position has prevailed
      (2) Enda Kenny and Eamon Gilmore gave a commitment on the 100-day anniversary in office that there would be no increase to income tax or cut to social welfare. Both income tax increases and social welfare cuts have stayed in the re-statement.

      In addition there have been economic developments which might have changed the plan one way or the other

      (1) The bank recapitalisation seems to be close to €18bn, rather than the €35bn earmarked
      (2) GDP growth in 2011 and 2012 is now generally expected to be below the plan (DoF plan was 1.75% growth in 2011, IMF/EC/DoF/Central Bank forecasts are now 0.5-0.8%)
      (3) Unemployment is higher than expected at 14.2% with a giant leap at the start of this year.
      (4) Savings to EFSF interest and maturity from the 21st July 2011 EU summit

      Against all of the above, the re-statement is identical to that last December 2010. I concede the wording used above isn’t the best but that is what is meant – despite all the changes and commitments made in the intervening months, the present commitment is exactly as stated last December 2010.


      • on August 1, 2011 at 12:08 pm Kirsten Delaney

        I felt the lead section of this RTE item indicated that the measures were new : http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0729/economy-business.html

        I guess it is significant that the troika have chosen to make us stick with the program even though our financial position wrt to recaps and interest payments has changed in our favour.


      • on August 1, 2011 at 1:48 pm Joseph Ryan

        @NWL

        The wording of the document headings has changed from Dec 2010.

        One of the main sections is now headed is now headed
        “Memorandum of Understanding on Specific Economic Conditionality”.

        You will not find such a heading in the original MOU or in the April 2011 update.


  10. on August 1, 2011 at 9:08 am Sporthog

    @ Bunbury,

    Did I hit a raw nerve there, did I? You are obviously not a retired public servant. Those pensions which are linked to existing positions will experience cuts as the present salary of the existing position is cut. Think about it, many PS postions retire on 1/2 salary to their present full time salary.

    A neighbour of mine who retired in 1997 has a index linked pension which increased during the good times, but now that levies and cuts are being placed on the existing positions the pensions of the retired are also exposed to the levies. His pension has been cut at least twice over the last 2 years.

    Another example a retired teacher of mine who is 4 years into retirement has also had their pension cut, again due to the levies placed on theiexisting postion


  11. on August 1, 2011 at 12:08 pm Bunbury

    @ Sporthog.

    Yes you hit a raw nerve. I believe existing retired public servants (certainly those on retirement incomes above €30k) should have their pensions cut in line with pay reductions and pension levies imposed on existing public servants. This is not happening. Read the article in this link and reconsider the information you have been hearing. http://www.independent.ie/national-news/howlin-warns-public-sector-of-pension-deadline-2836083.html

    Methinks your retired public servant friends are giving you the ‘beal bocht’ and you’ve swallowed it.


    • on August 1, 2011 at 3:04 pm Sporthog

      @ Bunbury,

      I am not anti PS, I do not begrudge those who have played by the rules and are now enjoying the fruits of retirement. What does annoy me in the PS is the waste and inefficiency. However that is the way large organisations both private and public evolve into. Its just a fact of life and part of human nature. Waste and inefficency is not unique to the PS.

      I think it is unfair and unjust to change the pension agreements when a person is actually retired. This is happening, and has been happening for about two years now. If you chose not to believe it, thats your decision. I would suggest you speak personally to a trustworthy retired PS who is either related to you or a good friend.
      As for the beal bocht comment, these people are too close to me to be wasting oxygen on that score.

      As for the new pension arrangements, they are coming out of financial necessity, it was inevitable that things were going to change in the current climate. The tax free lump sum, chop. The index link, chop. Pegging to 1/2 final salary of the present exisiting postion, chop.

      For new employees into the PS, fair enough, they get warned on day one of what the rules are. But to change the rules of the game after a person has given 30 years, is unfair.

      We are not just into the age of austerity, we are into the age of injustice.


  12. on August 1, 2011 at 4:54 pm yoganmahew

    Sporthog, do you think it is unfair and unjust that pensions automatically increase in line with the current salary for the highest held position of the retiree? What if the increases in the salary were themselves unjustified?


    • on August 1, 2011 at 5:38 pm Sporthog

      @ Yoganmahew,

      The point I am making is that a lot of people have entered into a agreement with the state. They have then delivered on their part of the bargain, 40 years in most (but not all) cases.

      Now after having given their side of the bargain, the state is altering the rules. That I feel is unfair. After all the retired person, or the person who has given 35 years and has 5 years to go cannot take back 20 years and commence work with another employer.

      Of course it could be well argued that these are extraordinary times (State is insolvent) and as such the means justify the end result. However it is clear that the states word is no longer their bond.

      (unless you are a senior bondholder of course!!)


  13. on August 3, 2011 at 3:56 pm Lambicman

    Sporthog said:

    “Pensions of those retired public servants are linked to the current position of those currently employed.

    For example, a person who is retired as a sargent in An Garda Siochana has their pension linked to the salary of a current serving Garda sargent.

    By cutting the current salary of a existing public servant the pension salary of those retired will also be cut.”

    This did NOT happen. Pensions did go up in line with pay increases, but when public service pay was cut, pensions were not cut.

    Public servants took a cut in gross pay and pay the PRD pension levy, so the workers took two pay cuts but the pensioners faced no cuts.

    Later, in Budget 2011, the Govt did introduce a smaller “Pension Related Deduction” to PS pensions (typically 4-5% of a typical PS pension).



Comments are closed.

  • Recent Posts

    • Test – 12 November 2018
    • Farewell from NWL
    • Happy 70th Birthday, Michael
    • Of the Week…
    • Noonan denies IBRC legal fees loan approval to Paddy McKillen was in breach of European Commission commitments
    • Gayle Killilea Dunne asks to be added as notice party in Sean Dunne’s bankruptcy
    • NAMA sues Maria Byrne and Graham Byrne in Dublin’s High Court
    • Johnny Ronan finally wins a court case
  • Recent Comments

    Wisemama on Eddie Hobbs’s US “partner” fir…
    Dorothy Jones on Of the Week…
    Sean Bean on Eddie Hobbs’s US “partner” fir…
    John Foody on Of the Week…
    Wisemama on Eddie Hobbs’s US “partner” fir…
    otto on Of the Week…
    Frank Street on Of the Week…
    Wisemama on Eddie Hobbs’s US “partner” fir…
    John Gallaher on Of the Week…
    John Gallaher on Of the Week…
    who_shot_the_tiger on Eddie Hobbs’s US “partner” fir…
    Sean Bean on Eddie Hobbs’s US “partner” fir…
    otto on Of the Week…
    Brian Flanagan on Of the Week…
    Robert Browne on Gayle Killilea Dunne asks to b…
  • Twitter Updates

    • Funniest case in Irish legal history? 1. ex-Cllr Fred Forsey convicted of RECEIVING a corrupt payment 2. developer… twitter.com/i/web/status/1… 4 years ago
    • Really looking forward to this at 9pm tonight, esp the first Garda on the scene. Well worth reading this background… twitter.com/i/web/status/1… 4 years ago
    • Tea time on the day the president of the ECB tells us we [in Ireland] are paying more interest on our loans than th… twitter.com/i/web/status/1… 4 years ago
    • “I am grateful for you to refer to Mr Sugarman...on the specific question of Unicredit, responsibility at ECB lies… twitter.com/i/web/status/1… 4 years ago
    • @JMcGuinnessTD now confronts ECB about "the honest whistleblower" @WhistleIRL and his disclosures of liquidity issu… twitter.com/i/web/status/1… 4 years ago
    • Details, including court documents of class action in New York against Ryanair and CEO Michael O'Leary.… twitter.com/i/web/status/1… 4 years ago
    • Draghi tells @paulmurphy_TD the ECB doesn't remove govts, the people do, that's democracy. Bet the people will be m… twitter.com/i/web/status/1… 4 years ago
    • Wow! Draghi says there is no net interest cost for the Anglo bonds whilst they're held by the Irish central bank. T… twitter.com/i/web/status/1… 4 years ago
    Follow @namawinelake
  • Click on date for that day’s posts

    July 2011
    M T W T F S S
     123
    45678910
    11121314151617
    18192021222324
    25262728293031
    « Jun   Aug »
  • Blog Stats

    • 5,116,658 hits

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

WPThemes.


Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Follow Following
    • NAMA Wine Lake
    • Join 1,326 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • NAMA Wine Lake
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Copy shortlink
    • Report this content
    • View post in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...
 

    %d bloggers like this: