Notes On The Front

Don't Mind the Rhetoric - Privatisation is Being Driven by Fine Gael, Not the Troika

Whatever about the case-by-case merits of the Government’s announcement today to sell-off state assets, we should be clear:  the EU-IMF Memorandum of Understanding does not require privatisation, in whole or in part.  In addition, the discussion of the sale of state assets in the Memorandum does not take place in the fiscal section but rather in the section regarding obstacles to competitiveness.  In other words, if there is to be a sale of state assets, the objective is not to write down debt but to improve competitiveness.  Indeed, it is hardly likely that the Troika would demand that state assets be sold in order to reduce the projected debt of 115 percent in 2015 down to 114 percent (which is what the Government’s announcement today would do). 

The quarterly reviews conducted by the Troika make it clear that the provision for selling state assets did not come from them – it came from the Government and its Programme for Government.  And it was Fine Gael that was the driver of the privatisation provision in the Programme – Labour campaigned against privatisation in the last general election.

What we have had is an elaborate choreography around the issue of privatisation, shifting blame and inventing targets which have had the effect of obfuscating the issue.  Nonetheless, this should not blind us to where the demand for privatisation is coming from.  Senator Shane Ross, writing about the meeting between the Troika and the Technical Group of TDs, reported this exchange on the subject:

‘The troika delegates insisted that they had not prescribed any privatisations. They wanted to see certain semi-states "restructured" and competition in the market. Contrary to media perceptions, they were not pressing the Government to raise any specific amount from the sale of State assets. The figures in the public arena of between €2bn and €6bn did not come from them.’

That this is confirmed by Sinn Fein, from their meeting with the Troika, only reinforces this point. 

The demand for privatisation – and the paying down of debt – does not come from the Troika.  It comes from our own Government.

Below I reproduce the post I wrote back in October - which shows how we ended up with privatisation despite the fact that it is not mandated by the EU-IMF Memorandum of Understanding.

________________

Privatisation is Being Driven by Fine Gael, Not the EU-IMF

The EU-IMF deal does not require the Government to privatise state assets. I’ll repeat that. The EU-IMF deal does not require the Government to privatise state assets. Those who claim otherwise have either not read the EU-IMF Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) and are just repeating what they heard from someone else. Or they are simply misleading people. It’s that simple.

Don’t believe me. Here is the MoU. Go to page 59 (paragraph 27). Here is what it says:

‘Building on the forthcoming report of the Review Group on State Assets & Liabilities the government will undertake an independent assessment of the electricity and gas sectors with a view to enhancing their efficiency. State authorities will consult with the Commission Services on the results of this assessment with a view to setting appropriate targets for the possible privatisation of state-owned assets.’

The MoU sets out a four-step process:

• First Step: Publish the report of the Review Group on State Assets & Liabilities. This has been done.
• Second Step: Undertake an Independent Assessment of the electricity and gas sectors (not done.
• Third Step: Consult with the EU Commission on the results of this assessment (not done.
• Fourth Step: Consider the possible privatisation of state-owned assets.

There are steps the Government must take before they even get to the stage of considering the ‘possible’ privatisation – steps they haven’t taken yet; namely, the independent assessment.

Now we can argue the toss all day but it is difficult to see how this section can be read as a ‘requirement to privatise’.

There’s another aspect to all this. What is the purpose of this process leading to the consideration of possible privatisation? To raise revenue to pay down debt? No. Absolutely not. The paragraph above appears under the heading ‘Raising the Growth Potential’. In this section,the MoU is concerned with

‘. . . removing structural impediments to competitiveness and employment creation.’

It is not about raising revenue. If it was, it would have been placed in the preceding section on ‘Safeguarding Public Finances.’

Indeed, if anything, the Government is not in compliance with the MoU – as they have not yet completed an independent assessment of the electricity and gas sectors, never mind published one.

So, if there is no requirement to privatise public enterprises, if consideration of ‘possible’ privatisation must be about ‘efficiency’ rather than revenue-raising, then how have we ended up with quarterly reviews that refer to privatisation? Ask Fine Gael – for it is they who are driving this agenda.

In the first quarterly review, the reference to the sale of state assets has changed from ‘possible privatisation’ to:

‘Programme for Government and the Review Group on State Assets and Liabilities: The Government is due to consider a potential programme of asset disposals based on the Programme for Government and the Review Group on State Assets and Liabilities. The Government will discuss its plans with the European Commission, the IMF and the ECB when it has finalised its response to the Review.’

In the second quarterly review, the references to the sale of state assets went further:

‘Government will consider options for an ambitious programme of asset disposals, based on the Programme for Government and the report of the Review Group on State Assets and Liabilities.'

In both these references the Government will consider the sale of state assets ‘based on the Programme for Government’. In the first quarterly review, it is a ‘potential’ programme; in the second, it is an 'ambitious’ programme. And who put these in? Michael Noonan and Patrick Honohan. It is part of the letter they wrote to the Troika. In the first quarterly review they state:

‘In the attached Memorandum of Economic and Financial Policies (MEFP), we set out our plans to further advance towards meeting the objectives laid out in our EU/IMF financial assistance programme.’

Not the EU-IMF plans – ‘our plans’, the Government's plans. That’s why the privatisation of state assets is based, not on EU-IMF requirements, but the Programme for Government. What does the Programme say?

‘We will target up to €2 billion in sales of non-strategic state assets drawing from the recommendations of the McCarthy Review Group on State Assets when available. Assets will only be sold when market conditions are right and when adequate regulatory structures have been established to protect consumer interests.’

It should be noted that there is no reference – either in the MoU or in the two subsequent reviews – to ‘non-strategic’ assets. The Government abandoned this concept that was in their own Programme.

Which party demanded that the ‘sales’ of non-strategic assets’ be inserted into the Programme for Government? Fine Gael. This is from their election manifesto:

‘We will sell non-strategic assets such as Bord Gais Energy, ESB Powergen, and ESB Customer Supply.’

Labour, on the other hand, was unequivocally opposed to privatisation:

'Labour is committed to concept of public enterprise, and is determined to ensure that semi-state companies play a full role in the recovery of the Irish economy. Labour is opposed to short-termist privatisation of key state assets, such as Coillte or the energy networks.'

No doubt, in the negotiations in the Programme for Government, Labour felt it had to give way on this issue. But make no mistake – it is a Fine Gael issue. So where does that leave us?

• First, privatisation of state assets is not required by the EU-IMF deal.
• Second, it was inserted in the quarterly reviews by the Government, namely the Minister for Finance.
• Third, this issue is being driven by Fine Gael, not the EU, or the IMF or the ECB – or even by Labour.

Labour backbenchers, in particular, should take note. They, along with the rest of us are being driven into a policy that is mandated by Fine Gael and no one else.

Poorer and More Unequal

At a meeting of Labour Party activists, Dr. Mary Murphy – a leading academic and activist – made the following statement:

‘We may be a poorer country, but that does not mean we must be a more unequal country.’

It is one of those statements that merit considerable attention and investigation.  I’d like to present some evidence that unfortunately shows that we are poorer and more unequal.

No one doubts we are poorer as a nation (though that doesn’t mean everyone is poorer).  In the period between 2007 and 2010, Ireland’s Gross National Income (which reflects our GNP) fell by a massive 21 percent.  So how much more unequal are we? 

The EU’s measure of income inequality is the quintile share ratio – the ratio of equivalised disposal income of the top 20 percent to that of the lowest 20 percent.  As seen, Ireland is in the top five, well above the average of the other EU-15 countries.

What is noteworthy is that in 2009, Ireland’s quintile ratio was 4.2.  The jump to 5.3 a year later represents the biggest single-year increase in inequality of any EU country since this measurement began in the late 1990s.

But inequality ratios only tell part of the story.  We have seen that nearly one-in-four of the population suffers two or more deprivation experiences.  But there are other measurements the EU uses as part of its Europe 2020 strategy for inclusive growth.  In particular, it measures the share of the population that is at-risk of poverty or social exclusion.   This is made up of those who have incomes below 60 percent of median income, suffer at least four out of nine deprivation experiences, or (for those aged below years) live in jobless households.

As seen, Irish rates were above the average of other EU-15 countries in 2007, but not by a significant amount.  However, while EU rates remained the same, Irish rates increased substantially – by 29 percent. 

Households with dependent children are at even more risk of poverty or social exclusion.

We see a similar pattern:  Irish poverty/social exclusion rates are above the average of other EU-15 countries prior to the recession but have increased substantially while the rates in other countries have remained stable.

However, it is single adult households that are really taking the brunt of the recession in Ireland.

Single parents throughout Europe are at high risk of poverty or social exclusion, but Irish rates were not only higher prior to the recession, they increased substantially up to 2010, while EU rates remained broadly the same.  There are nearly two-thirds of single parent households in Ireland at risk – a truly appalling figure.

What has been the current Government’s response to this escalating rise in poverty or social exclusion risk – in particular, for single parents?  They are making it even worse.  The new campaigning group SPARK (Single Parents Acting for the Rights of our Kids) has listed the impact of measures from the last budget on single parents.  Here is just a sample:

• Reduction in income disregard from €146.50 to €130 with plans to lower this to €60 by 2016.
• Abolition of the second child payment to lone parents on Community Employment schemes, amounting to €29.800 per child per week
• The Back to School Clothing and Footwear Allowance has been cut by €50 for primary schools and €55 for secondary school children. 
• The Fuel Allowance has been cut by 6 weeks pa, resulting in a €120 annual reduction (or an annualised €10 per month).
• Rent contributions from tenants under the Rent Supplement scheme has been increased by €6 per week or €312 a year.
• The temporary payment of half of the rate of One-Parent Family Payment where the recipient's earnings exceed €425 per week will be discontinued for new claimants from 5 January 2012.
• Currently people getting One-Parent Family Payment can get half-rate Jobseeker’s Benefit, Illness Benefit or Incapacity Supplement if they satisfy the qualifying conditions. These half-rate payments will cease for new applicants.
• New participants on Community Employment schemes will not be able to claim One-Parent Family Payment at the same time.
• For new and existing claimants, income from employment as a home help funded by the HSE will be assessed in means tests for the One Parent Family Payment, from 1 January 2012.

This constitutes a sustained and substantial attack on family households that suffer the most from poverty and social exclusion.  That this has been done under a Labour Minister is all the more depressing.

This is not only socially obscene, it is economically irrational.  Every Euro taken from low-income groups – in the case of lone parents, ultra-low income – is a Euro reduction in domestic demand.  This, in turn, puts more pressure on businesses, especially businesses in low-income areas.  This pressure can result in reduced payroll (which reduces tax revenue) and even job losses (which increases public expenditure).  At the end of the day, the Government may think it’s ‘saving’ money, but it only ends up robbing both Peter and Paul, leaving all of us the poorer with no appreciable increase in deficit reduction.

And don’t forget, the figures above only go up to 2010.  Budget 2011 contained social protection rate cuts along with cuts to child income support; while the last budget contained more social protection cuts along with regressive tax measures (VAT and Carbon tax rises as well as the flat-rate household charge) that will impact disproportionately on low-income groups.  We should expect these figures to get worse as new yearly data comes on stream.

This is a political outcome.  While recessions, of their very nature, bring job losses and working-income loss, countries can create social structures that ensure that people do not fall into poverty or social exclusion risk with either automatic stabilisers (social protection payments that create a floor against deprivation) or emergency measures that prevent a social slide.

While other EU countries have taken steps to prevent low-income groups from disproportionately suffering as a result of the recession, in Ireland we get poorer and more unequal.

We get both insult and injury. 

The Claim of €600 Million in Social Welfare Fraud is STILL a Fraudulent Claim

Last November I wrote about the fraudulent claim that there was €600 million fraud in the social welfare system.  Now, only a few months later that claim is being made again.  Its bad enough that the Department of Social Protection has not taken on board the criticism of the Comptroller and Auditor General.  What's worse is that a number of media outlets repeat the Department's claim uncritically.

Below I have reposted what I wrote back in November. 

This is getting tiresome.

‘Minister of State Fergus O'Dowd has said that the Government believes it can save €600m by tackling social welfare fraud.’

The claim that the level of social welfare fraud is €600 million is, itself, a fraudulent claim. The level of social welfare fraud is €26 million.  The level of fraud is not €600 million. 

It suits a certain agenda which wants to soften up public opinion for social welfare cuts to claim that hundreds of millions are being lost to frauds and cheats.  We have had television investigations, newspaper headlines, attention-seeking politicians all claiming massive fraud.  But out of a budget of nearly €20 billion, the Department of Social Protection has found only €25 million in fraudulent payments – or about 0.1 percent of the entire budget.  So where did this famous '€600 million’ in fraud come from?  And why is the real level of fraud so much lower?

Control Savings

First, the €600 million figure is not the actual amount of fraud in the social protection system. It is what is known as a ‘control saving’ according to the Deputy Secretary General and the Minister of the Department:

‘Control savings are not actual moneys recovered by the Department . . . ‘ (Deupty Secretary-General)

‘Control savings are not actual monies recovered by the Department . . ‘ (Minister)

What are control savings?

‘This figure is the value of the control activity in the Department and if this work did not take place there would, over time, be a similar increase in total social welfare expenditure.’

In other words, if there were no controls or inspections, there would be over time an estimated €600 million in over-payments.  This is like the Gardai estimating the number of murders that might take place over time if there were no police force.  Or the Revenue claiming the estimated level of tax fraud if there were no audits and checks.  To my knowledge (and I’m open to correction on this) the Social Protection Department is the only agency that uses this type of estimate publicly.

 However, even this estimate is highly constructed and potentially flawed:

‘Control savings are calculated by applying validated multipliers to the difference in the rate of payment before and after the control activity.  Multipliers used in assessing control savings estimate the total future savings to the Department of a revocation or reduction resulting from a control action. The multiplier used is based on the average amount of time the person who ceases to claim will remain off the books before returning. This time varies from scheme to scheme.’

The important point is that the ‘control saving’ is not an actual record of fraudulent payments.  It is based on assumptions and multipliers.  It is not based on one year – but can be spread out over two to three years.

And here, the Comptroller and Auditor General (C&AG) found a number of problems with the amounts claimed to have been ‘saved’ in the control savings.  For instance, an audit of Lone Parent cases found that nearly half of the cases claiming 'savings' were actually mistaken.  The C&AG also felt that over-payments estimates in pensions were themselves over-estimates.  The C&AG concluded:

‘ . . . the Department’s current practice of including all of these over-payments arising from control activity as (bankable) savings is questionable.’

All this suggests that the €600 million – even as a control saving – is not a reliable figure.

Second, the €600 million control saving does not refer specifically to fraud.  It refers to ‘over-payments’.  Over-payments occur when (a) there is a mistake by the applicant/recipient, (b) there is a mistake by the administration, or (c) if there is a fraud.  Fraud makes upon only a minority of over-payments (see below).

In conclusion, when you hear the figure of €600 million fraud being used by a commentator or politician, remember:  it does not refer to actual money the Department expects to find in any one year and only a minority of this highly constructed and, according to the C&AG, highly questionable figure has anything to do with fraud.  To talk of €600 million in fraud is highly fraudulent.

Actual Fraud Levels

So if the €600 million is not a reliable figure on fraud, what is?  The C&AG’s report provides the figures, which is used by the Oireachtas Library & Research Service.

The actual annual level of over-payments is far below the €600 million figure.  They rose from €50 million to €83 million between 2007 and 2010.  But this included all over-payments – including mistakes by recipients and administration.  The figures for fraud are substantially less:

• €21 million in 2007, rising to €26 million by 2010
• The percentage of overpayments due to fraud actually fell during this period – from 42 percent to 31 percent

What a contrast to the nonsense debate we have over the misunderstood, faulty and highly constructed figure of €600 million.  The actual level of fraud that has been identified and recovered is €26 million.

Surveys and Case Reviews

The Social Protection Department periodically conducts surveys of different social protection schemes to project the level of over-payments that might be in the system.  The Department has surveyed eight schemes since 2004.  The average level of over-payments in these surveys was 2.9 percent.  The C&AG calculated that in 2010, this ‘potential’ overpayment would be worth €383 million.  However, we should note two things which suggest this figure is on the high side:

First, the number of case reviews yielding savings has fallen over the last few years.  In 2008, the number of cases yielding savings was 19 percent.  This fell to 9 percent in 2010.   Therefore, surveys going back to 2004 should be treated cautiously. 

Second, the C&AG has identified with the process of case reviews:

‘However, in its present form, it is nonetheless a crude indicator, due to shortcomings in the savings calculation methodology and the fact that reviews of different type and intensity are aggregated.’

But it is important to remember that fraud makes up only 31 percent of actual over-payments.  So even if we accepted the €383 million as a ‘potential’ indicator, the fraud element of that potential is €119 million.  The schemes not represented in these surveys – notably widow’s pensions, jobseekers’ benefit for example – are not likely to yield as much over-payments as they are insurance schemes which don’t have the complexities as means-tested schemes that lead to high levels of mistakes and, so, overpayments.

Does the Government Actually Believe Its Own Claims?

There is a doubt as to whether the Government actually believes its own claims.  If I was Minister and believed there was serious dosh out there among the cheating community (more than the €26 million uncovered last year) I’d employ more inspectors.  More inspectors mean more inspections, more cases covered and exposed.  But there doesn’t appear to be much urgency on this matter.  According to the Deputy Secretary General of the Department:

‘There are over 400 social welfare inspectors, but not all of them are dedicated to fraud and control work. Since the level of unemployment increased, many of them have been involved in the processing of claims from new applicants . . . Over 200 staff are dedicated to carrying out control work. The special investigations unit operates at the high end has approximately 89 staff . . . We are not looking for additional inspectors as such . . .’

So 289 staff is involved.  If another 100 inspectors could help double the level of fraud, they wouldn’t be costing the state money – they would be making the state money.  So why aren’t the Department and the Government employing additional inspectors?  Could it be they suspect that the gains wouldn’t be as high as the headline figure of €600 million suggests? 

* * *

All this leads to a more mundane account of social protection fraud.  Figures produced under ‘control savings’ are constructed, spread out over years, and, according to the C&AG, ‘highly questionable’.  Departmental surveys show a reducing level of cases yielding savings which themselves are 'crude'.

But we do have a concrete number - the actual level of detected fraud.  And it is far, far lower than the numbers being thrown about in the public debate:  €26 million, or 0.1 percent of the entire Social Protection budget.

Unfortunately, this is not a ‘sexy’ figure.  It doesn’t make for screaming headlines and even louder commentators shouting for a crackdown on cheats and layabouts.  It doesn’t make for an anti-welfare agenda.

All it does is make for a more accurate debate.  That should be good enough.

The Finance Bill: To Those that Have . . .

The Finance Bill running to nearly 300 pages is out.  There’s the odd sliver of good news – the 5 percent levy on the sheltered income from legacy property tax relief for those earning over €100,000, for instance.  Otherwise, it’s a pretty grim affair, putting into effect a regressive budget. 

But there are little stories that inform the broad narrative set down by the Government.  Let’s run through four of them.

1.            Special Assignee Relief Programme (SARP):  this is the tax relief for foreign employees coming into Ireland.  This is being sold as an incentive to bring in power-executives with power-projects that can get people back to work; however, this will apply to any employee earning over €75,000.  Will this have any positive impact? 

SARP is an extension of a programme that already exists (a limited programme was established in 2008 and was extended in 2010).  Before launching this current relief, the Department of Finance could have evaluated the results of the programme to date.  Did it have any jobs effect that would not have happened if the programme didn’t exist?  How much did it cost?  What effect did it have on the labour market? 

But Governments don’t evaluate their programmes so we don’t know and we won’t know what the impact will be.  Sometimes these tax incentives are just given out to make it look like the Government is doing something about something.

Still, you might be interested to know that the State will not only be subsidising foreign employees’ salary (30% between €75,000 and €500,000), the state will also allow the employee to write off the fees of sending their children to private schools – up to €5,000.  So we subsidise private fee-paying schools and now we subsidise the actual fees.  Hmm.

2.            While the Bill closes some minor loopholes in the R&D regime, companies will be allowed to assign their 10 percent R&D tax credit to employees who can use it to reduce their PAYE tax liability.  How this incentivises job creation is beyond me.  But it sets up is a situation where key staff (executives, senior professionals, etc.) can now get a tax-subsidised bonus.  Hmm.

3.            Mortgage interest relief is being increased for people who bought a house for the first-time between 2004 and 2008.  This will be given to all households regardless of their income – people who are high earners get the relief despite the fact they have no problems paying their mortgage.  Meanwhile, those who are really struggling with their bills will not benefit at all if their income is below the tax threshold or are unemployed.  Hmm.

So we have three programmes that distribute money to those on high incomes without any assessment of their impact, positive or negative.  Just shovel out the dosh to those with dosh (and they call us progressives ‘spendthrifts’).

But take a look at this section in the Finance Bill that hasn’t got much attention.

4.            Taxing Illness Benefit and Occupational Injury Benefit:  currently, the first 36 days of illness and injury benefit you receive from the Department of Social Protection is exempt from taxation.  Now that exemption is being removed.  So when you get sick or injured on the job, suffering from a fall in income and increased costs arising from the illness or injury, you will now find the social welfare benefit you receive will be taxed.

Sometimes words just fail me.

Let Us Not Worry Our Little Heads

The Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation Richard Bruton is setting a target of 100,000 net new jobs by 2016 on the eve of the Government’s launch of the Action Plan on Jobs.  Does this mean that the Action Plan will create 100,000 net new jobs by 2016?  No.  Does this mean that without the Action Plan the target of 100,000 net new jobs will be undermined?  If we are to believe Department of Finance projections, no.   So what’s all this about the Action Plan and 100,000 net new jobs?  Good question.  Welcome to the smoke-and-mirrors world of job creation projections and targets.

In the last budget, the Government projected employment would grow by approximately 62,000 between 2011 AND 2015.  These numbers are well below the Government’s projections in the previous April, when 102,000 net new jobs were projected.

Minister Bruton’s new 100,000 projection takes us out to 2016.  The Department of Finance’s estimates only go up to 2015.  But let’s assume that employment growth goes to 2 percent in 2016 (it is currently estimated to be 1.6 percent in 2015, increasing by 0.4 percent in 2013 and 2014). This 2 percent was the projected rate for 2015 in last April’s projections.

So if we assume that employment will grow by 2 percent in 2016 what do we get?  An increase of 100,000 net new jobs.  Okay, you ask – what’s the problem?  The Minister claims 100,000 new jobs by 2016.  My own estimate is 100,000.  There is concord, you might say between the two estimates.

Except for this.  In the budget last year, the Government explained its employment projections:

‘It is to be stressed that these labour market forecasts take account only of policies which have already been announced; they should in no way be seen as Government targets. The Government will publish its first annual Action Plan for Jobs in the New Year which will contain a series of measures to be implemented during 2012 and will provide further support to the labour market.’

In other words, if there we no further job initiatives, employment would grow by 100,000.  So here’s the question.

If in the last budget the Government projected a employment to grow by 100,000 up to 2016 prior to the announcement of the Action Plan for Jobs, and the Minister is projecting that with the Action Plan for Jobs employment will grow by 100,000 – how many extra jobs will be created by the Action Plan for Jobs?

A logical deduction is 0.  No new jobs. 

Will this be the case?  I don’t think so.  I suspect the Action Plan for Jobs – if it comes with some resources and investment – will increase the job creation rate, if only marginally (not substantially because the Government hasn’t yet copped it that jobs will only grow when demand for jobs will grow – but their fiscal consolidation strategy is reducing demand in the economy). 

The point here is the way this Government, like the last Government, is manipulating job creation projections, assuming that people won’t read what they have published before and examine the numbers in some details.

No doubt, when the Action Plan for Jobs is launched there will be great fanfare and the 100,000 target will figure prominently.  This is the same fanfare that accompanied last year’s Jobs Initiative – except that only a few months later the Government revised downwards its own job creation targets.

However, on the Government’s own admission the number of jobs expected to be created by 2016 will be 100,000 without the Action Plan for Jobs.

You could say this is a venial sin, this massaging of numbers for PR impact.  But it’s of a piece and we were promised a different governance when Fine Gael and Labour took office.

For a more egregious sin, check out the Taoiseach’s statement that the Fiscal Treaty will not result in more austerity even though the most ardent proponents of the Treaty accept the downside of more deflationary adjustments. 

But, hey, these are all just numbers on a page. 

Let’s not be worrying our little heads over such minutiae. 

Working Our Way into the Poorhouse

As the Joint Labour Committees legislation wends its way through the Dail – a bill that will lead to less protection for workers in many low-paid sectors – it is timely to look at the growth in deprivation for an increasing number in the workforce; namely the low-paid.  The CSO defines deprivation by reference to eleven categories. 

Two pairs of strong shoes  ·  warm waterproof overcoat  · Buy new (not second-hand) clothes  · Eat a meal with meat, chicken, fish (or vegetarian equivalent) every second day  · Have a roast joint or its equivalent once a week  ·  Had to go without heating during the last year through lack of money  · Keep the home adequately warm  · Buy presents for family or friends at least once a year  · Replace any worn out furniture  · .Have family or friends for a drink or meal once a month  · .Have a morning, afternoon or evening out in the last fortnight for entertainment

If someone is unable to afford two or more the above, then they are classified in the deprivation rate.

So how what is the deprivation rate for those at work?  12.5 percent.  One-in-eight in employment suffered two or more deprivation experiences during 2010.  That is a significant number which has grown considerably since the crisis began.  In 2008 only 6.6 percent of those at work suffered deprivation, increasing to 7.9 percent in 2009.  So the jump to 12.5 percent is significant. 

We should expect another significant jump in 2011 given the fall in personal income, regressive tax increases in Budget 2011 and the rise in arrears.

But this doesn’t tell the full story.  For those households where there is only one person working, the deprivation rate is actually higher than the national average.  But the fact that even the deprivation rate touches 10 percent among two-income households should alert to this social crisis.

A number of factors have contributed to rising deprivation in working households:  falling wages, shorter working hours, increased taxation and charges, rising arrears.  These are factors that are likely to continue and, in some cases, accelerate over the years ahead.

This is the back drop of the Government’s legislation on Joint Labour Committees.  Though the Minister uses the word ‘reform’, the reality is that his proposals are intended to achieve a wage devaluation – a reduction in overall wage levels.  This will bring further downward pressure on the low-paid who are already facing rising deprivation levels.

Let’s bottom-line this:  if anyone thinks that driving more people into deprivation – whether in work or on social protection – will further economic recovery and fiscal stability, they should lie down in a dark window-less basement until that thought passes.  Rising deprivation puts strains on social services, in-work productivity, and the Exchequer (the Government loses revenue every time wages are cut).  Rising deprivation is a terrible burden for a society to carry – socially and economically.

Of course, alternatives are not allowed to be aired (or if they are, they are ridiculed):  increase wages, reverse tax increases on the low-paid, provide more in-work social protection supports, give workers more rights in the workplace (right to collective bargaining, strengthen and extend Joint Labour Committees), etc.   Such policy prescriptions are little short of heresy in the current debate. 

But until we understand that people’s living standards – in particular, the low-paid – are not the problem but an indispensable part of the solution, we will continue to see the deprivation graph rise. 

Last Night the Government Signed Up to €6 Billion More in Austerity Measures

The Government, in signing the Fiscal Treaty, has effectively committed itself to introducing up to €6 billion more in tax increases and spending cuts in the medium-term, over and above what it has already planned.  While the news in the short-term will, understandably, focus on whether a referendum will be necessary, once attention starts honing in on the details of the treaty, we will all come to understand why this agreement has come to be known as the ‘austerity treaty’.

The reason why we will have to endure another round of cuts can be found in the section of the text entitled ‘Fiscal Compact’ (this from a draft a few days old, at the time of this writing the final text has not been published; but there’s no indication this important section has been altered in substance):

The Contracting Parties shall apply the following rules, in addition and without prejudice to the obligations derived from European Union law:

The budgetary position of the general government shall be balanced or in surplus.

The rule shall be deemed to be respected if the annual structural balance of the general government is at its country-specific medium-term objective as defined in the revised Stability and Growth Pact with a lower limit of a structural deficit of 0.5 % of the gross domestic product at market prices.

This new ‘structural deficit’ target has received little attention so far – but it should, and hopefully it will.

We are all familiar with the Maastricht deficit of 3 percent of GDP.  This refers to the Government’s general deficit – the level of spending over revenue.  This is pretty straight-forward.

The structural deficit target in the Treaty is an additional target that must be met.  I will have more to say in future posts about this concept (much more – and it is just that, a concept).  Suffice it to say that it purports to tell us how much deficit will remain even when the economy is running at full potential.  However, it is an artificial measurement – inextricably intertwined with another artificial measurement: attempting to identify what exactly our GDP would be if it were running at full capacity.   It cannot be observed in real life, like the ordinary deficit.  There is no agreed methodology for measuring the structural deficit; it is subject to wide variations and to substantial retrospective revisions.

In short, if you ask 10 economists to come up with the structural deficit, you will get 20 different methodologies and 40 different results.  It is nothing short of inane to put such a woolly, amorphous and erratic measurement into law, never mind the constitution.

 But let’s put those considerations aside for another day.  Let’s take the Department of Finance’s estimate of the structural deficit up to 2015 and see how much more we would need to do to comply with this new fiscal treaty.

Even though by 2015, the Government estimates that the General Deficit will by -2.9 percent - thereby complying with the Maastricht guideline - this new structural deficit target in the Fiscal Treaty means that we are still deep in the woods.

What does this mean in budgetary terms?  It means that the government may have to undertake fiscal adjustments equivalent to 3.2 percent of GDP.  In 2015, this could mean an extra set of spending cuts and tax increases worth €5.7 billion on a simple static estimate.

Under current strategy, the Government will be introducing €8.6 billion in spending cuts and tax increases over the next three years.  Now they are making a commitment to take on board nearly €6 billion more fiscal adjustments to reach this new structural deficit target - a 66 percent increase in austerity measures.

We don’t know yet when this new target will have to be met.  This will be determined by the EU Commission on a country-by-country basis.  It may be 2015; in all likelihood it will be later.  But either way we are facing into more austerity – significantly more. 

The exact amount of additional fiscal adjustment is difficult to estimate in precise numbers.  That’s because the structural deficit will be determined by the EU Commission’s estimate of our potential GDP.  It could actually end up being more – if the fiscal adjustments permanently reduce GDP trend.  But so woolly, amorphous and erratic is this measurement, that were we to go back and ask our 10 economists for a number, you’d get 50 different answers, all replete with caveats, ifs, and buts.

But whatever numbers they did come up with, there is no question we are heading into substantially more austerity stretched out over a longer period – so much so that it might make Richard Tol’s prediction of a decade of austerity seem optimistic.

Boy, do we need a referendum.

Answering the Sceptics

On Saturday, the Irish Times devoted a full page to the question of whether austerity is working, on foot of the letter by 60 prominent public figures. International commentators such as Joseph Stiglitz and Nouriel Roubini and domestic commentators Terence McDonagh from UCG, Brid O’Brien from the Irish National Organisation of the Unemployed and businessperson Brian Donovan were all critical of austerity, calling for an alternative growth and fiscal stability strategy.

Let’s examine, however, the comments of those sceptical of alternative approaches.  If we are to build a political momentum for an expansionary policy, we need convincing responses to criticisms, both legitimate and ill-founded. 

In all this we need to remember, it’s not that austerity policies will fail.  If one believes that ‘in order to save the village, we must destroy the village’, then destroying the village works, regardless of the long-term economic and fiscal impact.  Nor can we automatically assume that expansionary policies will work.  The crisis in the Eurozone and the persistent determination to avoid the real problems (the financial sector, the flawed design of the Eurozone itself) could overwhelm economies regardless of the appropriateness of national policy.

All that needs to be done is to show that expansionist policies based on investment are more likely than austerity to work.

The Primacy of Export Growth

Sceptics refer to the need to expand our export sector.  I don’t know anyone who disagrees with this truism – though it is rightly acknowledged this will depend in large part on external demand.  But would an expansionary investment programme have more success in stimulating greater export growth?  Yes – in two ways.

First, the business sector, including multi-nationals, benefit from a stronger infrastructure.  How much easier would it be for the IDA to win foreign investment if we had a national next generation broadband network or a labour force with higher work and language skills?  Economies with strong infrastructures are likely to have a strong business base.  Therefore, an investment programme aimed at raising the productive capacity of the economy is likely to result in a stronger export platform.

Second, raising domestic demand will also contribute to a stronger export profile; namely, among indigenous companies.  Many indigenous companies start-up in the domestic market and then enter export markets once they built scale and expertise.  However, with domestic demand continuing to fall, indigenous companies won’t be concerned with expanding – they will be desperately trying to survive; and they will be forced to do so by down-sizing (cutting employment, training, R&D, marketing, etc.).  Downsizing firms do not expand.

Conclusion:  an investment-based expansionary programme is more likely to build a stronger export platform for both multi-nationals and domestic firms.

We Need to Reduce the Deficit

The sceptics claim we need to reduce the deficit.   Again, there is no dispute about this.  What is in dispute is whether austerity policies are the most effective means to that end (or, indeed, whether it makes the fiscal situation worse).  Merely stating that we need to reduce the deficit does not answer the question:  how do we reduce the deficit.

The problem for those arguing the austerity route is that after fiscal adjustments of over 15 percent of GDP, the deficit is projected to fall by approximately 3 percent of GDP in the years 2009-2012.  That is a lot of destroying for very little of saving.  Another problem is that debt is still rising even though austerity is being intensified.  In Fianna Fail’s last budget overall government debt was estimated to come in at 105 percent of GDP in 2014.  The Fine Gael/Labour government came in, increased austerity measures by 20 percent and extended the Maastricht target deadline.  But they had to accept that overall debt would now rise to 118 percent.  This should not be surprising – you don’t reduce your debt/GDP ratio by cutting the GDP denominator.

Even more problematic for the ‘cuts equal savings’ argument is that leading forecasters (NCB, Goodbody) are now projecting that current policy will fail to reduce the deficit to sustainable levels by 2015, with debt projected to be exceed 120 percent bringing us dangerously close to the default abyss. 

An expansionary programme starts from the premise that economic growth and deficit reduction are inextricably intertwined.  The letter refers to a two-fold strategy:  increase growth through investment while engaging in growth-friendly fiscal consolidation – namely, increasing taxes on higher income groups in the short-term.  In the first, the Department of Finance shows that every extra €2 of growth, the deficit is cut by €1.  That’s a pretty good return.  Regarding growth-friendly fiscal consolidation, the ESRI has shown twice that tax measures do less damage to the economy and are, therefore, more effective at reducing the deficit.  Targeting tax measures at high income groups is likely to be even less deflationary and more successful at reducing the deficit.

Conclusion:  investment-based expansion that increases growth, combined with tax-based fiscal consolidation, is more likely to result in fiscal stability than cutting investment and demand while pursuing ineffective spending cuts.

Where Will We Get the Money?

This would appear to be the most damning criticism of an alternative strategy.  Even if it were conceded that investment was desirable, the response is likely to be that ‘we’re broke’.  And the Troika is unlikely to provide us the resources.  QED, as they say.

This is not the case.  Ever since the crisis began, Ireland has had the resources to launch investment-based expansion.  Back in 2009, we had between €40 and €50 billion in cash and assets to draw upon.  In the Government’s wisdom a significant amount of this was blown on bank bail-outs, Anglo and the impact of austerity measures. 

We still have resources, though.  The Minister for Finance ha told the Dail there will be between €15 and €20 billion in cash and assets up to 2015.  This could be a start.

But we shouldn’t think that all public sector-led investment must be drawn from the Exchequer. The European Investment Bank, the European Investment Fund, ICTU’s proposal to incentivise private pension funds, public enterprise development potential, etc. are other sources which could contribute.  There is also scope, once we have returned to the market, to sell specific investment or enterprise bonds for commercial-return activities (and to use tax incentives for domestic investors).

Conclusion:  We have the resources for an investment programme.

* * *

More work needs to be done to nail down the superiority of investment-based expansion; namely, to model its effect on GDP and the deficit.  But advocates of expansion will have to address the institutional deficits that exist in the Government’s capital programme (its opaqueness, its hit-and-miss cost-benefit analyses, etc.).  Advocates will also have to construct an alternative programme for public sector reform; or rather, to launch proposals for reform (we don’t actually have a reform programme; we just have a policy of cutting public sector employment – the worst fiscal measure you can take in a recession).

 But in terms of export growth, fiscal consolidation, and resources, the arguments favour the authors of the Plan B letter.

That is a good start. 

26 into 1 Won't Go

This was originally written for Progressive-Economy.ie

Media outlets are reporting a new crackdown on the unemployed.  Apparently, the Department of Social Protection intends to introduce new regulations whereby ‘target-dates’ for exiting the Live Register will be set for different categories of unemployed.  If someone remains on the Live Register past that target-date, they may be subject to a new set of interviews and investigations which could lead to reductions or even ending their unemployment payment.  This, no doubt, reflects the Minister’s description of unemployment as a ‘life-style’ choice for a growing number of jobless, especially young jobless. 

This also reflects a new twist in victimising the unemployed for a crisis not of their making.

This is also reflects a policy mind-set that is detached from the reality of the labour market and even from the Government’s own employment projections. 

First, Eurostat produces a ‘job vacancy rate’ which measures the number of job vacancies in the EU economies.  Using this we can estimate how the number of job vacancies compares with the actual number of unemployed.  What is the ratio of unemployed per job vacancy in Ireland?  26:1. Let’s ‘reflect’ on that for a moment.

• There are 26 unemployed people for every 1 job vacancy.

How do we compare with other EU countries?  The first chart shows the figures for the 23 EU countries whose data are available at Eurostat. The numbers are calculated from the Eurostat data using conservative assumptions that if anything are likely to result in an underestimate of the figures shown.  Ireland is one of the worst performers in the EU.  It ranks 4^th last out of 23 countries reporting, with more than three times the EU-27 ratio of unemployed per vacancy.  The figures for some countries require some qualification, but are mostly accurate enough to provide a reasonable picture across Europe.

However, the crucial point is that one can interview, examine and investigate the unemployed for as long as whenever – if there are 26 people chasing 1 vacancy, then the dole queues will continue to stretch out on to the street.  To threaten reduction or suspension of unemployment payments in such conditions is little short of callous. 

But this is all convenient for the Government because it takes attention away from the driving force behind unemployment – the simple lack of jobs.  It also takes attention away to the Government’s self-admitted losing battle over job creation:

• In April of last year the Government projected that there would be over 100,000 new net jobs in the economy by 2015.
• In the last budget they reduced this job creation projection to 62,000.

This explains why they revised their unemployment projections in 2015 from 10 percent (in April 2011) to 11.6 percent in the last budget.

Indeed, the Government has admitted that there will be no short-term relief from unemployment.  In the Regulatory Impact Analysis in the appendix of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) (No.3) Bill, 2011, the Government openly admits: 

‘Ireland has experienced a very sharp increase in unemployment in recent years, with little prospect of improvement in the short term . . . ‘

So with employment projections shrinking, unemployment projections rising, and a public admission that the jobless situation will not improve in the short-term, the Government thinks it’s a good idea to start targeting the unemployed, rather than the policies that would get them back to work.

No matter what is done using supply-side policies –through training, up-skilling or negative incentives – you cannot squeeze 310,000 unemployed into the approximately 13,000 total jobs that are available (calculated from the most recent Eurostat data, 3rd quarter 2011). Even if all the vacancies are filled instantly, approximately 300,000 will remain unemployed. Essentially, what training does in terms of unemployment in this situation is to change the names of the lucky ones to get jobs.

It has been also argued that the problem is a mismatch between the unemployed and the jobs available. These figures give the lie to that as the central problem. It is true that there are skill mismatches, notably due to the downsizing of the swollen construction sector in the boom. However, the large majority of these workers could be employed in other sectors with a certain amount of re-training - but only if the jobs are there. And herein lies the rub. There are few jobs as the data above show. Punishing people will not solve the problem. Only the provision of jobs will.

Ireland has 59.3% of the unemployed out of work for at least a year, over 180,000 people, and this number has increased sharply, well above that of the EU countries as a whole, as the second chart shows. The reason the unemployed are out of work is due to the lack of jobs, and not a sudden bout of laziness in the population. In the 27 countries of the EU, Ireland has the third highest long-term unemployment share among total unemployment, after Slovakia and Bulgaria, both of which had particular historical problems including the de-industrialisation that followed the shift from Communism.

By delaying the solution to this problem, permanent damage is done to the prospects of many unemployed, as many studies show, referring to a lasting “scarring” effect. Youth unemployment is also particularly high in Ireland compared to other EU countries, coming 6^th last in the ranking with a 30% unemployment rate among youth.

While measures to support the long-term unemployed will certainly be welcomed, Breda O’Brien from the Irish National Organisation of the Unemployed is sceptical:

'Breda O’Brien said the new service would assess people but that the supports offered to those with a higher probability of re-entering employment would be minimal. “The Government has to seriously address this issue. It cannot be threatening people to have their social welfare cut if there is no job there.” '

Reducing or cutting off unemployment pay becomes a matter of punishing the unemployed, something that was supposed to have gone out with the Poor Law of centuries past. Why is policy regressing to this approach of Victorian times? And why are the unemployed being made scapegoats for failing employment policies?

Supply-side policies of any kind – the only ones that are being tried – simply cannot work in this context. Only demand-side policies that actually create the required number of jobs can have an effect on unemployment of any significance.

I am grateful to Ronan O’Brien for his contribution to the data and analysis.

Tin Whistles and Mπουζούκια

Ireland is not Greece:  we get a lot of that from Government ministers, Troika officials and commentators.  This truism, however, says less than it purports to.  Yes, Ireland is not Greece.  Ireland is not Belgium, Romania, Brunei, the Yukon Territory or Idaho, either.  Of course, the message is that Greece is a basket-case that no investor would want to go near for decades; whereas they are ready to queue up to lend to Ireland in bucket-loads.  Therefore, the more we can distinguish ourselves from Greece, the quicker we can get back to business as normal.

But there’s one interesting measurement that shows that Ireland is definitely not like Greece – it’s actually worse.

When one looks at overall Government debt, it seems that, while Ireland is in a bad state, Greece is far, far worse (all estimates are based on Irish Government and IMF projections). 

In 2015 Government Debt as a % of GDP

• Greece:  165 percent
• Ireland:  115 percent

Okay, we’re above the projected Eurozone average (88 percent) but, whew, at least we’re not like Greece. 

However, when we remove international flows (e.g. profit repatriation, etc.) and use GNP, or GNI which is almost the same thing, the comparison alters (Greek GNI is assumed to be the same proportion of the GDP in 2015 as in 2010). 

2015 Government Debt as a % of GNP

• Greece:  168 percent
• Ireland:  145 percent

We’re still not like Greece, but the debt gap is starting to narrow and the instrumental medleys are starting to play in the same key.

But let’s look at one more measurement, to get a sense of how much debt the residents of each country are carrying.

2015 Government Debt per Capita

• Ireland:  €45,004
• Greece:  €34,474

This is quite a turnaround.  Irish residents will be carrying a far heavier load than Greek residents.  We are advantaged that we have a younger population but can we make that advantage work or, as the Minister for Finance suggests, will we have to be content in investing in our children’s education to ensure they have job opportunities in other countries?  We have other strengths – a modern export base, regardless of how detached that may be from the domestic economy; a more efficient public sector, though this is quickly being downgraded with the continuing cuts; and the fact that our debt has not (yet) reached officially unsustainable levels, though that ‘official’ level is opaque and moveable.

All this might be thrown into doubt, though, with the constitutionally mandated austerity pact coming down at us from the Eurozone and the continuing slow bleed of demand in the economy.  It may still be the case that our debt will overwhelm us.

The point here is that mindlessly chanting ‘We are not Greece’ is not a substitute for analysing what exactly we are – a highly indebted country with projected debt levels that grow every time the Government revises its growth projections.  Last year, the Government made three revisions to its 2015 projections for debt to GNP ratio:

• April 2011:          140.2 percent
• November 2011:  143.3 percent
• December 2011:  145.2 percent

We should expect another revision upwards when the Government produces its update in April – with the IMF and independent forecasters projecting lower growth rates for next year.  Worryingly, Goodbody projects that debt as a percentage of GNP will be approximately 155 percent by 2015.  And, of course, none of this includes the extremely high levels of Irish personal debt.

The Greek government is in negotiations with private sector creditors to reduce its debt burden.  Ireland, with a higher debt per capita, is giving full commitments to pay the creditors – not just of state debt but bank debt as well; even banks that no longer exist.

Indeed, Ireland is not Greece.

A Good Start to the New Year

Ever since the crisis began, progressives have been on the back-foot, forced to react to the agenda driven by the orthodoxy.  However, 2012 has started on a more hopeful note.  There have been two initiatives that can provide the basis for a common-sense counter-agenda, not only capable of winning considerable support throughout society but – and this is always key – of winning. 

First, is the letter signed by 60 social activists, academics and artists in the Irish Times today.  They call on the Government to introduce an emergency budget to reverse current austerity policies and introduce measures to grow the economy through an investment programme that can create jobs while increasing taxation on high income groups and re-investing the revenue back into domestic demand. 

Not only is this call for an emergency budget grounded in the reality of the Irish economy (in 2012 we will still remain mired in recession with employment falling and debt rising), it is also lays out an achievable goal.  The emergency budget, similar to the Jobs Initiative last year, is something the Irish Government can do within the parameters of the EU-IMF bail-out deal, namely:

• Releasing money the Government already has (in cash and assets) for investment projects that can create jobs; this money doesn’t have to be borrowed or found out of new taxation or spending cut measures.

• Increasing taxation on high income groups (their income, capital and/or property) has a minimal impact on domestic demand but using the revenue to put back into public services and starting to reverse some of the social protection cuts – that, too, will increase employment and demand, and, so start to remove deflationary pressures in the economy.

Would this solve our economic problems?  No.  But it would start moving us in a different direction.  And if a little bit of investment and expansion starts helping, then a lot more would bring even greater benefit and start to fundamentally change the agenda.

The second initiative was launched on Wednesday – Anglo, Not Our Debt – by social organisations comprising trade union, community, faith-based, global justice, environmental and academic sectors.  They are calling on the Government to suspend payments of the Anglo-Irish/INBS promissory note and invite the ECB into negotiations with the intent of achieving a 100 percent write-down of the debt.

We all know that repayment of the Anglo debt will inflict a terrible burden on the economy and society for years to come.  It is estimated to cost over €80 billion over the next 20 years – paying off the debts of a dead bank.   

The call for suspension and renegotiation is forensic and well-targeted.  It is not about ‘burning the bondholders’ or repudiation or default, not that I have any problems in principle with any of these.  But what it does do is avoid the accusations that are constantly thrown back at those campaigning for debt justice.

• It doesn’t create a credit event, spreading contagion throughout the European financial system.  The promissory note payment is between public agencies.

• It does not collapse the merged Anglo/INBS bank; the promissory note is maintained on their asset sheets.

• It does not demand the Irish Government act in a unilateral manner – the act of suspension is an instrument to force a multi-lateral solution; one that is satisfactory to all parties.

It is a demand for something the Government can do, if it has the political will. It would strengthen their hand -if a party continues making a payment, what's the incenvtive for the other party to negotiate?  And if the Government did this they would have the support of everyone in the country. 

So here we have two achievable and realistic initiatives capable of winning widespread support, two initiatives that can actually be realised:

• An emergency budget to invest, create jobs and raise domestic demand

• Suspension of the Anglo-Irish promissory note in order to renegotiate this odious debt

Now let’s go out and make these a reality.

Does the EU-IMF Owe Ireland an Apology?

There’s nothing wrong with saying, hey I got it wrong.  We all get something wrong from time to time; never more so when the subject matter is economic and fiscal forecasting.  When people and institutions don’t admit they got it wrong, especially when they got it demonstrably wrong, when the policies they are advocating are not hitting their target - that’s when cynicism and resentment arises. 

So did the EU and the IMF get it wrong?  There’s little doubt.  The predictions and prognostications and statements of support are on the record – and they are way off target. 

The basis of the EU-IMF bail-out deal was the last Government’s National Recovery Plan (NRP), which was published only weeks before the bail-out deal was sealed.  According to the Minister for Finance at the time (December 2010):

‘The [bail-out] programme has adopted in its entirety the measures set out in the National Recovery Plan as a roadmap to return our economy to sustainable growth. The adjustment of €15 billion by 2014 has been accepted, as has the breakdown of €10 billion in spending reductions and €5 billion in revenue raising measures.’

When the bail-out deal was signed, the EU and the IMF couldn’t say enough good things about the National Recovery Plan.  They were positively ebullient and fully confident that this Plan would work.  It’s worth quoting in detail from the joint statement issued by EU Commissioner Ollie Rehn and IMF Managing Direct Dominique Strauss-Kahn:

"We strongly support the economic program announced today by Ireland . . .This program articulates a clear strategy for tackling today's problems and for harnessing the enormous growth potential of this open and dynamic economy. . . . It also offers a road map for sound public finances by setting strong, upfront actions in a multi-year framework . . . On the fiscal side, the program spells out both spending and revenue efforts over several years to repair the budget position . . . Carrying out this plan calls a sustained effort by the Government and the people of Ireland. But it also offers a sound basis for stable, job-creating growth.’

This is quite a statement of support and affirmation.  And it’s not like Ollie and Dominique were buying a pig-in-the-poke.  The National Recovery Plan came complete with projections up to 2014 – economic and fiscal – which no doubt the experts at the EU and the IMF had gone over, examining every cell in every Excel worksheet.  No doubt it passed their stress tests.  Hence, the effusiveness of the EU and IMF’s support.

So how is the Programme, based on the National Recovery Plan, faring?  Not well.  Let’s see how the projections are holding up, starting with the economic.

There’s going off-target and there’s going off-target.  And then there’s this.

• GDP growth projections in the years 2011-2015 have been cut by nearly a third – with independent forecasters suggesting that 2012 is going to be even worse than the latest Government projections.

• Consumer spending:  the EU-IMF-NRP estimated a modest increase but the latest projections are showing that it will be negative over the four years.  Ouch.

• Investment: From a 9 percent increase to a -4 percent increase – that’s really wide of the mark.

• Employment:  This is where it really goes off-target.  The EU-IMF-NRP projections show employment increasing by over 4 percent – or nearly 80,000 jobs by 2014.  The latest Government projections show employment actually falling, by nearly 2,000 jobs over the same period. 

Now let’s turn to the fiscal or budgetary projections.

• Annual Deficit:  the EU-IMF-NRP projections estimated the deficit to be -2.8 percent by 2014.  The latest Government projection puts the deficit at -5.0 percent.  This is partly explained by the extension of the target date for Maastricht compliance to 2015.  This extension was necessary because the current Government found a €4 billion hole in the budgetary projections produced for the EU-IMF bail-out deal only a few weeks after they came to office.  I wonder if they discussed that with the Troika officials.

• Debt:  the EU-IMF-NRP projections estimated the debt to be 100 percent of GDP by 2014.  The latest Government projections estimate it to be 115 percent – and that’s after the €3.6 billion mistake.

• Cumulative Deficit: Over the four years, the General Government Deficit was estimated to be, in total, €41 billion in the years 2011-2015 (this doesn’t include bank recapitalisations).  The latest Government projection is €50.2 billion. That’s over 20 percent off target only one year into the programme.

 No matter how you rationalise this, it doesn’t look good – for the EU, the IMF or the Department of Finance.  But as I said, everyone makes mistakes.  The point is we should own up to those mistakes. 

The officials from the EU and IMF are in town.  Now would be a good time to start an open and honest conversation about the Irish economy, rather than hiding behind meaningless rhetoric and pep talks.  It would be a great if an EU or IMF official walked up to the microphone and said:

‘Sorry, but we got it wrong.  We thought that the programme would work but it’s obviously not.  It’s not tackling today’s problems; it’s not bringing about job creating growth.  We need a new approach – a Plan B.  We need a different debate about growth and jobs and debt.  We need a new departure.  Anyone got some ideas?’

Now that kind of honesty and humility would go down a treat.  And if it takes a few months to work these new ideas into a coherent programme, that’s okay.  Because there’s one thing for sure – this economy is stuck in a rut.

It ain’t going anywhere.

Normal Business Resumed or the Great 'Have-Property-Prices-Hit-the-Floor' Game

There’s been a lot of discussion about whether 2012 will see property prices hit the ‘floor’.  The Government and NAMA are doing their bit to help to stimulate house purchases through budgetary measures and negative equity insurance schemes.  Unfortunately, there has been little debate about the optimal level of house property prices.  Few have been asking the question – would it be a good idea if property prices stopped falling this year.

A standard measurement of ‘house affordability’ is the ratio between median house prices and median household income.  The authoritative ‘Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey’ suggests that affordability lies in the 3:1 range – median house prices should be three times or less the median household income.  Anything above that threshold leads us into ‘unaffordability’ territory.   

One of the problems is that we don’t have official data for these median components.  So we have to patch this together.  Conor McCabe has looked at the relationship between average house prices and average industrial wages and found that while the ratio hovered around the 4:1 mark between the mid-1980s and mid-1990s (that is, average house prices was four times the average industrial wage), by 2006 this ratio exceeded 11:1.  Therefore, the ratio before speculative boom can be considered the long-term sustainable ratio between house prices and wages.

I have done my own calculation, using the Department of Environment data. 

There are some minor differences with Conor’s calculations.  This data is based on manufacturing wages – but what they both show is the scale of the speculative boom (the shaded area is my own estimate of wages, as the Department of Environment stops after 2007 because the CSO changed their wage calculation methodology).  They further show that pre-speculative prices fluctuated around 4.

Ronan Lyons also looked at this issue and found that average house prices were about 3.6 times the average household income during the 1980s.  Ronan suggests that this could be considered the equilibrium level.  Back in July of last year he suggested that, using this 3.6 ratio, house prices needed to fall by about 25 percent.

So where does that leave us?  In 2011, house prices fell by approximately 16 percent which suggests that the ratio has fallen to something like 5.5.  Ok, this is well below the speculative heights but still well above that ratio of approximately 4 that pertained in the decade preceding the speculative boom.  To get to that level, we need house prices to fall by another 25 and 30 percent.

Taking Ronan’s equilibrium of ratio of 3.6 we find that, using the EU Survey of Income and Living Conditions, house prices in 2009 were 4.3 times that of gross household income.  This suggests a further fall of 16 percent is necessary – but we have to remember that gross household incomes are falling along with prices; so the fall in house prices would need to be more.

Ok, we have now been numbed by all these prices and ratios.  What’s the bottom line?  It should make us very worried that the Government and public agencies are pursuing policies to put a floor on prices.  Housing costs – home-ownership and rents – should be driven down to a level of reasonable economic return; otherwise, they become a drain on the productive economy.  If people have to spend more on housing themselves, they have less to spend in other sectors of the economy.  This becomes a cost – and as we know from experience, a terrible cost; not only in diverting scarce resources from non-housing consumption but the danger of diverting investment away from productive activity.

What does it say about an economic policy that reviving a property market is considered desirable?  Do we really believe that building and selling houses to each other is a pathway to recovery? Have we learned nothing?  We are facing into a medium-term period of falling or stagnating real wages (wages after inflation) coupled with higher taxation that will reduce real disposable income.  And we’re talking about reviving, or interrupting the fall in, property prices – especially when they are still well above their equilibrium? 

Complex housing policies are reduced to one thing – property prices.  We have rental accommodation issues (price, quality, tenants’ rights in a fragmented mom-and-pop sector); land prices and the Kenny Report; planning mechanisms for future land use; a potential regressive property tax; arrears and negative equity; rising homelessness; billions of Euros available for individuals, companies and banks to cover their speculative losses in past years; degraded housing stock; local authority waiting lists; ghost estates; NAMA; a dysfunctional private housing sector and a quickly disappearing public housing sector, etc. etc.

But never mind all that.  It’s all so very complicated.  Let’s just talk about house prices.  Let’s talk about ‘reviving the property sector’.  Let’s continue to conflate the fortunes of the economy with the fortunes of the property market.  We only need to focus on one index – and when it starts rising again, we’ll all feel so good about ourselves. 

And normal business will have been restored.

 

2012 - The Year of Anglo

A lot of people are going to find it difficult in 2012, what with the economy returning to recession and all.  But for one group, it will be business as usual:  Anglo-Irish creditors.  And that business will mean that they will be repaid in full. 

Indeed, it’s already started.  On Tuesday, a payment of €2.1 million was made to unsecured bondholders.  Okay, its small beer compared to the billions Anglo is going to cost Irish people each year for the next two decades or so.  Still, nice money for those who gambled on a seedy little bank back in the roller-coaster days (the bond was issued in January 2007).

But that is only the beginning.  Here is the schedule of repayments for Anglo and Irish Nationwide creditors in 2012, courtesy of Nama Wine Lake.

In 2012, Anglo/Irish Nationwide will be paying back €6.3 billion to its creditors – of which €2.6 billion is unsecured.

And then there’s next instalment in the never-ending Promissory Note story:  €3.1 billion paid by the Government to Anglo to help them pay off their creditors.

Now, no one believes this is rational or equitable or justified.  Even Government Ministers don’t believe it is.  So what does it say for our politics that we are forced to continue a repayment regime for non-existent banks that could end up costing the state over €80 billion over the next 20 years even though no one on this island believes this is rational or equitable or justified?  Not a lot.

So what can we do?  Do something different, do a different politics, do what is rational and equitable and justified.  Build the biggest possible coalition – labour and business, right and left-wings, young and old, PAYE and self-employed, Liverpool and Man United supporters – around one simple demand:

STOP MAKING THE PAYMENTS

Stop paying the unsecured bondholders, stop paying the promissory note.  Stop this economic madness.

There’s not much time left.  The next big payment is due on January 25^th; a €1.25 billion payment to unsecured bondholders.  The next big drawdown on public finances will take place at the end of March; the €3.1 billion promissory note.  The very first step is to start telling people – through the social media, through the mainstream media, in the pubs and shops, getting on the rooftop and shouting it to our neighbours.  The next step is to tell people that it doesn’t have to be.

It’s either that or we accept that 2012 will be the Year of Anglo.

Personally, I don’t want to live in that year.

* * *

NOTE:  I refuse to refer to the Irish Banking Resolution Corporation – the amalgamation of Anglo-Irish and Irish Nationwide.  Even the title ‘Resolution’ is an insult to our intelligence.  I refuse to participate in this offensive make-over. 

2012 - Out with the Old, In with the Old

10 years of austerity?  What is the ex-ESRI researcher Richard Tol talking about?  Wasn’t austerity to only last until 2015?  Is this what we have to look forward to?  In a word, you bet.

Tol’s reference to a decade of austerity is well-founded.  While the debate is focused on what’s going to be in the next budget, or next month’s Exchequer Statement, there is little in the way of analysis over the medium-term.    The target date of 2015 for Maastricht compliance is taken as some kind of ‘get out of jail’ year.  But there’s every reason to believe we are serving the equivalent of a life-sentence.  There are two aspects to this.

First, as Tol points out – even after 2015 we will have an enormous level of debt which will need to be reduced.  Bringing the deficit to the Maastricht benchmark does not complete the task.  The Government estimates that the debt/GDP ratio will be 115 percent by 2015 – courtesy of bank bailouts and austerity policies.  Our debt levels will be the second highest in the Eurozone – behind poor Greece but ahead of other peripheral countries such as Italy, Spain and Portugal.  The average debt level for other Eurozone countries will be between 75 and 80 percent. 

There are few GDP/debt projections beyond 2015.  Such estimates are, in any event, subject to considerable unknowns – known or otherwise.  However, NCB takes a stab at it; their estimates stretch out to 2030.    They project the debt/GDP ratio to still remain high even by 2018 – at 113 percent.  After that, they set up a number of scenarios based on average long-term GDP growth and interest rates.  I’ll just take one combination – using the Government’s projected GDP growth in 2015 (4.5 percent) and historical interest rates prior to the recession (between 4.5 and 5 percent). 

In this scenario, in 2030 our debt/GDP ratio would be between 73 and 80 percent – well above the Maastricht general debt target of 60 percent.  To put this in perspective, our debt level in 2007 was less than 25 percent. Even if we reach our deficit targets by 2015 (something that is highly, highly unlikely under current policies) the new mantra will be ‘we have to continue cutting and taxing to bring down our debt levels’.

Second, there’s this little matter of the proposed Fiscal Pact agreed at the Eurozone meeting in December and which may or may not be the subject of a referendum here.  This pact requires that countries reduce their ‘structural’ deficits to -0.5 percent deficit. The structural deficit is a contrived measurement that estimates what the deficit would be if the economy was running at full capacity.  I will have more to say about this nonsensical and irrational proposal but let’s run with it here.

What is the Government’s estimate of the structural deficit in 2015?  -3.7 percent.  So to reach this new and improved fiscal target the Government will have to reduce the deficit by an additional 3.2 percent of GDP – over and above what they are currently estimating.  What will this mean in spending cuts and tax increases?

If the Government continues with its austerity mind-set, it will attempt to reach this target through €6 to €7 billion in even more spending cuts and tax increases.  Of course, many of us would argue that launching this type of ultra-austerity programme would collapse a number of economic sectors and drive us into near permanent deflation, high unemployment and high debt (but when has the Government listened to our side of the house?).   

So there you have it.  We have years and years of further austerity to look forward to.   

Have a good ‘new’ year.

Taking a Break

That time of year to take a break.  Season's best to all readers.  Will be back first thing in the New Year.

Shut Up, Sit Down and Act Like Fianna Fail

It didn’t take long.  Patrick Nulty, TD voted against the budget on Tuesday night.  Suddenly, on Thursday morning an op-ed appears in the Irish Times attacking the young TD.  And not just ‘attacking’ – it is one of the most vicious attacks on an individual TD you’ll read on an issue of policy.  After all, Nulty is not a Michael Lowry or an Ivor Callely.  He took a political position, regardless of whether one agrees with it or not.  It is incredible that the Irish Times would give space to such a rant.

And an ill-informed, confused rant at that.  Here I just want to examine the economic issues that the author raises.   

Billy Linehan claims that ‘ideology is for yesterday’.  Now when you hear something like that you should ready yourself for an ideological onslaught.  And Linehan doesn’t disappoint.  What does he demand?

‘Why isn’t he (Pat Nulty) addressing the salaries above EU norms paid to doctors, nurses and teachers? Or the bizarre issues of increments in the public service or the featherbedding of staff salaries in the ESB and other semi-States?’

Notice how Linehan doesn’t demand that Pat address unemployment (projected to rise next year by the ESRI).  Or the growing levels of deprivation as measured by the CSO (affecting nearly one-in-four).  Or that workers are, on average, are trying to get by on €693 a week.

No, Linehan fixates on public sector pay – which he claims is above EU norms.  Maybe he should read the OECD’s Government at a Glance which shows public sector pay in the largest categories to be below the EU norm.  Clerical workers would need a 10 percent increase just to reach the average pay advance economies– and that’s before the pay cut in Budget 2010.

Or from the same source – that nurses pay is average by ‘EU norms’; and that’s before both the pension levy and the Budget 2010 pay cut.

Or that utility labour costs are below the EU-15 average; as are education labour costs.

It is surprising that someone described as a ‘management consultant’ would not be familiar with basic facts that so many managers are acquainted with.  Ignoring such basic facts is so ‘yesterday’.

But Linehan goes on.  Instead of asking hard questions and assessing whether policies are working, individual representatives should start:

‘ . . . telling the unpalatable truth to constituents – that we spend more than we earn as a nation – with the result that service restrictions and cutbacks are inevitable.’

Where has our management consultant been for the last three years?  That’s exactly what Government backbenchers have been saying since the crisis has begun.  ‘Spend more than we earn’ . . . ‘cutbacks are inevitable’.  What Linehan actually wants is for individual representatives not to face up to the unpalatable truth – that austerity policies are not working.  He doesn’t want individual representatives to reflect on this.

See a pattern?  As growth projections fall, the level of debt rises (notably after the April projections, when the public finances should have benefitted from the reduction in EU-IMF borrowing costs).  Linehan doesn’t want individual representatives to reflect on the relationship between falling growth and rising debt, between austerity and depressed growth; between rising debt and austerity.  Linehan doesn’t want individual representatives to reflect on any of that.  He just wants them to sit down and shut up.

Linehan claims that:

‘Fianna Fáil set up a national economic model which has failed. It cannot pay for itself. Is this the economic standard that Nutty supports?’

This is rather amusing for Linehan demands that individual representatives say the same thing as Fianna Fail backbenchers were required to repeat, to follow the same policies as the Fianna Fail government put forward (cut spending on public services and social protection, increase tax on low income earners, deflate the economy). 

At the end of the day, Linehan wants Labour backbenchers to act like Fianna Fail backbenchers.  And woes betide if they don’t – they will be accused of opportunism and puppy-beating.

Of course, in the broader politics, this is not just an attack on Pat Nulty or, by implication, Tommy Broughan.  This is a warning to any Labour backbencher who is even thinking of stepping out of line.  If you do, you will be subjected to a virulent attack in the pages of the Irish Times and other fora.

Dissent will not be tolerated, there is no vacancy for independent thought, whippings will continue until loyalty is resumed.  I know this because I read it in the paper.

We Will Crush Your Dreams . . . and Here's €1.88 for Your Trouble

Act two of the budget:  increased taxation on capital and property amounts to a quarter of the cuts in social protection alone (never mind education and health).  The takes took €15 million off those holding on to legacy property tax reliefs (out of a total of €435 million they gain in relief).  Lone parents are going to be hit for €112 million.  The scales are not very balanced.

This is a budget that will destroy up to 20,000 jobs.  This is a budget that raises over €600 million in regressive VAT rise.  And €160 million in a flat-rate household charge.  And large families could lose up to €50 per month and more in real income supports.  Strange, hard world.

We are, if the ESRI and the EU Commission projections hold, heading back into a domestic recession with falling consumer spending, falling employment, rising unemployment and falling wages and incomes.  And this budget, on the Government’s own estimate, will cut nearly €2 billion out of growth.  Curious, curious.

But . . . but . . . the Government has given relief for low-income earners under the Universal Social Charge.  The exemption threshold, currently €4,000, has been raised to €10,000.  Let’s do some numbers.

This is the latest income distribution I could find.

This is an extrapolation to identify the earners in the €4,000 to €10,000 cohort – those part-timers who will benefit from raising the USC threshold income.  Previously, they were hit with a two percent charge.  Now they won’t.  What shouldn’t have been done last year with the introduction of the USC has been reversed.  This is good. 

On average what does it mean?  €1.88 per week.   Small – but for people taking home this amount, nothing to sniff at.  The maximum benefit – for those earning €10,000 – will be €3.84 per week.  The problem is that, for a significant number of people, the remainder of the budget takes this relief away and turns many part-timers into net losers.

A big culprit is the reduced social protection payment for part-time workers.    This was done by reducing payment entitlement on a five- day week rather than the current six-day week where a person is working for part of a week.  While there are a number of conditions, the basic premise is that if your working week is reduced to two days, you would get four days of Jobseekers’ Benefit (that is the 6-day rule).  This has been reduced to a five-day rule.  The difference in take-home income is not insignificant:

• Previous:  Working two days, receiving four day JS Benefit:  €125.33 weekly
• New:  Working two day, receive three days JS Benefit: €112.80 weekly

For part-timers, their benefit will be cut by €12.53 per week – swallowing up the average €1.88 gain. In a similar fashion, the reduction in the earnings disregard for Lone Parents will operate to claw-back the USC gain.

We must remember that not everyone earning below €10,000 receives part-time social protection payment; nor does everyone receiving such payment earn below €10,000.  So there is only a partial overlap.  But there are over 132,000 part-time and casual workers on the Live Register – a substantial number receiving the benefit of the USC cut will find it immediately taken away by the social protection cut.  One clue:  the USC cut will cost the Government €47 million, but they will claw back €27 million in reduced social protection payments to part-timers.

However, this isn’t the only ‘claw-back’ people will face:  there is the VAT rise, the Household Charge and, as we saw with Child Benefit, our old friend inflation. For many, the USC cut will melt away before it even hits their pocket - like a snowflake hitting warm tarmac.

This is not to dismiss the USC cut.  However, the entire thrust of the budget is to put a disproportionate amount of the burden of the fiscal adjustments on the shoulders of the low-paid, social protection recipients and part-timers.  Some will gain, some will gain but not by nearly as much as the headline rate suggests, some will lost out slightly, some will lose out significantly.

And in the context of a jobs-destroying budget with a domestic economy heading south and unemployment heading north (and guess who bears the brunt of this), the USC cut can become almost tokenistic.  If Government back-benchers expect the part-time masses to welcome the budget on the basis of this cut, they will be disappointed.

To give back €2 a week (much less after all these claw-backs) may have been considered ‘politically’ smart when it was on the drawing board.  But it only serves to sugar-coat a bitter agenda; and a very thin coat at that.

 

In the Real World All Child Benefit Payments will be Cut

When we move from the numbers in the budget papers out into the real world we find that Child Benefit and child income support has been cut again – not only for larger families but for all families.  The instrument for this cut is that most effective stealth tax of all:  inflation. If I have €100 and inflation goes up by 5 percent – in ‘real’ terms, that €100 is reduced by €5.  I can now buy only €95 worth of goods and services.  Inflation cuts income as surely as Government spending cuts and tax increases cut income. 

So let’s go into the real world and see what will happen in real terms (that is, after inflation).  We have two recent projections on inflation (using the EU’s Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices).  The Government projects that inflation will rise by 1.2 percent while the ESRI projects 1.9 percent.  The ESRI figure is higher because they have included the impact of the prospective VAT rise on prices. 

Let’s first turn to the impact on families on the standard Child Benefit rate (families with two children) and Child Dependency Allowances – payment made to households on social protection income. 

For all households with two children there will be cuts in real child income support.  For those in work with two children, the Child Benefit cuts will range from €3 to €5 per month.

For those on social protection income, the cut will be worse – as they rely on both Child Benefit and Child Dependency Allowances.  These cover over 260,000 families. These real cuts will range from €6 to €10 per month.

When we turn to larger families, however, the situation is worse as there have been cuts in the headline rate along with the cuts produced by inflation.  The supplement for the third and fourth child has been cut by €19 and €17 respectively. This will affect nearly 25 percent of all families in receipt of Child Benefit – or over 136,000 families and some 60,000 families on social protection income.

Families with three children are facing substantial monthly cuts.  For those with working income, the cuts could range between €25 and €27 per month. For those on social protection income the cuts will increase to between €29 and €35 per month.

Families with four children will, of course, be hit even harder.  For those on working income, the cuts will range between €43 and €48 per month while those on social protection income will hit be hit by a substantial €50 to €58 in cuts per month.

There are two sides to this desultory coin.  First, people will be able to purchase less with their child income support; this will reduce living standards at a time when real wages and incomes (taking into account our old friend, inflation) will continue falling next year.

There will also be an impact on domestic businesses.  These households, with falling real incomes and real cuts in child income support will reduce their spending.  This means less turnover in businesses throughout the country.  This will impact on employment in those firms – either in terms of reduced wages, reduced working hours or reduced jobs.

To conclude, we should treat claims that Child Benefit and child income support have been spared sceptically.  This may be true for numbers on the budget papers.  But once families take that income support into the real world they will find that the value will be cut – and in some cases, substantially.

No wonder a lot of people will find their living standards cut in 2012 – a long slow bleed.

The Jobs Destruction Budget (Part 1)

Despite the Taoiseach’s 17 references to jobs in his national address last night, the budget presented this afternoon will cut out between 15,000 and 20,000 jobs from the economy next year.  In other words, there would be between 15,000 and 20,000 more people at work next year were it not for the budgetary measures announced this afternoon.  This is, by any definition, a jobs destruction budget.   

Let’s go through the four main elements that will lead to this job destruction.

First, capital spending cuts will on average, according to the Department of Finance, cut 7,500 direct jobs from the economy next year.  These jobs are directly employed on construction, maintenance and repair work.  In addition, there are ‘downstream’ jobs created as a result of the activity created by capital spending (sourcing and transporting materials, demand created by the employment, etc.).  Conservatively, this would mean an extra 1,000 to 1,500 jobs.  In this area along, between 8,500 and 9,000 jobs lost.

Second, the Government announced it would reduce public sector employment by a massive 6,000.  Taking this amount of jobs out of an economy where unemployment is expected to rise is simply irrational.  It will do little to cut the deficit but it will drive unemployment one-for-one basis, while substantially reducing consumer demand – thus, hitting businesses and private sector employment dependent on that demand.

These measures alone will cut out 15,000 jobs out of the economy.  But there’s more.

Third, a large part of spending on public services goes on procurement from the private sector.  While there is no data in the recent Government’s 4-year plan, the April Stability Programme Update estimated that expenditure on contracts from the private sector would be reduced by approximately €500 to €600 million next year.

It is not possible to assess the employment impact of this cutback. But there is little doubt that companies providing goods and services to the Government will be hit by the loss or reduction of contracts.  This in turn will impact on wages and employment in these companies.

Fourth, the social protection budget will have to be examined in detail but the full-year impact is substantial – over €800 million.  Most of this will reduce payments to current social protection recipients and, as such, will hit demand.  We can assume that the full year impact will reduce consumer demand well over €600 million.  This will lead to further pressure on domestic businesses and employment.

All in all, this will lead to job losses of well over 15,000.  This, at a time when the ESRI has projected the domestic economy will return to recession next year, with rising unemployment, falling real wages (after inflation) and a continuing decline in consumer spending.

Don’t mind the rhetoric, watch the action.  Employment will fall and this budget will be a major contributor. 

Can’t wait for part two tomorrow.

Enda Could Steal a few Lines (and Policies)

The Taoiseach is to speak to the nation - apparently on Sunday when we will all be huddled around televisions, radios and computers.  In the spirit of being helpful, the Taoiseach - and his speech writers - could do worse than read President Franklin Roosevelt's fireside addresses to the American people.  I reproduce an abridged version of Roosevelt's second address to the nation - only a few weeks after he became President (the full text can be read here).

* * *

President Roosevelt: 

'Two months ago we were facing serious problems. The country was dying by inches. It was dying because trade and commerce had declined to dangerously low levels; prices for basic commodities were such as to destroy the value of the assets of national institutions such as banks, savings banks, insurance companies, and others. These institutions, because of their great needs, were foreclosing mortgages, calling loans, refusing credit. Thus there was actually in process of destruction the property of millions of people who had borrowed money on that property in terms of dollars which had had an entirely different value from the level of March, 1933. That situation in that crisis did not call for any complicated consideration of economic panaceas or fancy plans. We were faced by a condition and not a theory.

There were just two alternatives: The first was to allow the foreclosures to continue, credit to be withheld and money to go into hiding, and thus forcing liquidation and bankruptcy of banks, railroads and insurance companies and a recapitalizing of all business and all property on a lower level. This alternative meant a continuation of what is loosely called "deflation", the net result of which would have been extraordinary hardship on all persons working for wages through an increase in unemployment and a further reduction of the wage scale.

It is easy to see that the result of this course would have not only economic effects of a very serious nature but social results that might bring incalculable harm. Even before I was inaugurated I came to the conclusion that such a policy was too much to ask the American people to bear. It involved not only a further loss of homes, farms, savings and wages but also a loss of spiritual values -- the loss of that sense of security for the present and the future so necessary to the peace and contentment of the individual and of his family. When you destroy these things you will find it difficult to establish confidence of any sort in the future.

It was clear that mere appeals for confidence and the mere lending of more money to shaky institutions could not stop this downward course. A prompt program applied as quickly as possible seemed to me not only justified but imperative to our national security.

The legislation which has been passed or in the process of enactment can properly be considered as part of a well-grounded plan.

First, we are giving opportunity of employment to one-quarter of a million of the unemployed, especially the young men who have dependents, to go into the forestry and flood prevention work. In creating this civilian conservation corps we are killing two birds with one stone. We are clearly enhancing the value of our natural resources and second, we are relieving an appreciable amount of actual distress. This great group of men have entered upon their work on a purely voluntary basis, we are conserving not only our natural resources but our human resources.

Second, I have requested the Congress and have secured action upon a proposal to put the great properties owned by our Government to work after long years of wasteful inaction, and with this a broad plan for the improvement of a vast area in the Tennessee Valley. It will add to the comfort and happiness of hundreds of thousands of people and the incident benefits will reach the entire nation.

Next, the Congress is about to pass legislation that will greatly ease the mortgage distress among the farmers and the home owners of the nation, by providing for the easing of the burden of debt now bearing so heavily upon millions of our people.

Our next step in seeking immediate relief is a grant of half a billion dollars to help the states, counties and municipalities in their duty to care for those who need direct and Immediate relief.

We are planning to ask the Congress for legislation to enable the Government to undertake public works, thus stimulating directly and indirectly the employment of many others in well-considered projects.

Well-considered measures will likewise be proposed which will attempt to give to the industrial workers of the country a more fair wage return, prevent cut-throat competition and unduly long hours for labor.

Today we have reason to believe that things are a little better than they were two months ago. Industry has picked up, railroads are carrying more freight, farm prices are better, but I am not going to indulge in issuing proclamations of overenthusiastic assurance. We cannot bally-ho ourselves back to prosperity. I am going to be honest at all times with the people of the country.

I do not want the people of this country to take the foolish course of letting this improvement come back on another speculative wave. I do not want the people to believe that because of unjustified optimism we can resume the ruinous practice of increasing our crop output and our factory output in the hope that a kind providence will find buyers at high prices. Such a course may bring us immediate and false prosperity but it will be the kind of prosperity that will lead us into another tailspin. It is wholly wrong to call the measure that we have taken Government control of farming, control of industry, and control of transportation. It is rather a partnership between Government and farming and industry and transportation, - a partnership in planning and partnership to see that the plans are carried out.

We are working toward a definite goal, which is to prevent the return of conditions which came very close to destroying what we call modern civilization. The actual accomplishment of our purpose cannot be attained in a day.

I know that the people of this country will understand this and will also understand the spirit in which we are undertaking this policy. I do not deny that we may make mistakes of procedure as we carry out the policy. I have no expectation of making a hit every time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible batting average, not only for myself but for the team. Theodore Roosevelt once said to me: "If I can be right 75 per cent of the time I shall come up to the fullest measure of my hopes."

To you, the people of this country, all of us, the Members of the Congress and the members of this Administration owe a profound debt of gratitude. Throughout the depression you have been patient. You have granted us wide powers, you have encouraged us with a wide-spread approval of our purposes. Every ounce of strength and every resource at our command we have devoted to the end of justifying your confidence. We are encouraged to believe that a wise and sensible beginning has been made. In the present spirit of mutual confidence and mutual encouragement we go forward.'

Holidaying with Leo

According to the CSO, there is a growing number of people experiencing deprivation (read here and here for a full discussion of this on Progressive-Economy). In fact, nearly one-in-four of the population suffer two or more instances of deprivation. But that doesn’t stop our man, Minister Leo Varadkar, from assuring all those folk that, hey, the budget is going to be easy and everyone will have enough money for a holiday next year.  Indeed, Leo has come up with some holiday tips for the really hard-pressed.

For the 20 percent of the population that can’t afford to replace worn-out furniture.

Leo advises: ‘It’s hard to get a good deal in Ireland on furniture.  I recommend you go antiquing in Barcelona.  Passeig de Gracia in the Eixample area is a good spot to start.  You can find some great bargains – I picked up a sweet 19th century miniature mahogany fall front bureau there recently.  And at €800 it was a steal.’

For the 19 percent of the population that can’t afford a morning, afternoon or evening out in the last fortnight.

Leo advises: ‘I’m not surprised.  Even with all this deflation prices are still high (though my colleague Minister Bruton is trying to slash hospitality wages, so things could improve).  In the meantime, I can’t think of a better place to go for coffee than this little place in Montmarte next to the Sacré-Cœur Basilica I came across once in my bohemian days.  They have a wide range of coffee beans that they actually ground at your table!  My favourite is a rich dark Sumatra (but I like to pump the caffeine – ha, ha).  I won’t recommend any of the dinner places because . . . well . . you’re poor and  . . . well . . . you know.’

For the 15 percent of the population that can’t afford to have family or friends for a drink or meal once a month:

Leo advises:  ‘You know me, I’m a straight talking guy.  If you can’t afford to have family or friends over you probably live in a dive and your friends (my friends, anyway) wouldn’t want to come over.  But they’ll be beating down the door of your crib if you rent a lovely villa.  After a hard week at work I like to retire to the Borgo Sette Tigli near Montepulciano in Tuscany.  These villas have a swimming pool, tennis, satellite TV, a laundry and its even wheelchair accessible!  I have a permanent account there.  You rent that and your friends (and even mine) will be queuing up to come over for some mussels and authentic Gnocchi.’ 

For the 11 percent who can’t afford heating all year around.

Leo advises: ‘ For god’s sake, man – don’t sit around the gaff freezing your tushy off.  Head over to Lisbon.  You can crash in the Costa da Prata north of Lisbon.  Warm swimming and tasty barbequed sardines.  The great thing about this spot is that tourists haven’t copped on to the place – and there’s nothing worse than going to a place only to find it over-run with foreigners.  Just mention me to Guilherme over at the São Gabriel and he’ll russle you up a great seafood medley.  Whenever I drop in, Guilherme and I stay up all hours drinking new Alentejo wines and talking about the horses.  And warm?  Get outta here.’

Yes, our Leo has a holiday destination tailored just for your deprivation experience.  Unable to afford new clothes?  You’ll find some real bargains in the markets in Garmisch-Partenkirchen in the German Alps. Unable to afford a roast once a week?  Not to worry, you can order Jamón Iberico de Montanera over the counter in San Sebastian (that’s free-range, acorn-fed ham – no need to scrimp on holidays). Unable to afford two pairs of strong shoes?  Hand-crafted leather sandals are all the rage in Genoa. 

So don't be shy.  Leo is waiting for you to get in touch. Just contact him at Fine Gael’s branch office in Saint-Tropez between the hours of 10:30 and 12:30.  Otherwise, wander down to the pier where you’re sure to find him.

Into the Double Dip with a Cup of Earl Grey

The domestic economy is headed into a double-dip recession according to the ESRI.  And that’s just the beginning of the bad news.  Government ministers and certain commentators will put it down to the Eurozone crisis (‘we’re doing a good job, hitting our targets, it’s those darned Greeks, and Italians and Germans’) but the fact is we are lumbering under a sustained level of deflation induced by failed austerity policies.  And entering into a period of uncertainty the Government is determined to hammer the economy again.  That it doesn’t know the economic impact of its own policies just shows that the whole thing is approximating the Mad Hatter's tea party.

First, the bad news.  GDP is expected to rise by less than 1 percent next year with GNP falling by -0.3 percent.

Back in the summer, the ESRI was projecting GDP growth of over 2 percent.  Now they estimate the overall economy will grow by less than 1 percent, with the domestic economy falling back into recession.

Second, the curious news.  The ESRI is projecting GDP to grow this year by 2.2 percent.  This compares to the Government’s own projection of 1 percent.  Looking at this from the outside, this would seem a reasonably positive outcome.  Even the domestic economy is projected to grow by 1.2 percent.  However, this hides the fact that the economy is contracting in Euros and cents.

So we have economic growth and the value of our economy falls.

• GDP grows by 2.2 percent but falls by €700 million
• GNP grows by 1.2 percent but falls by €2,700 million

The reason for these contradictory results is that the economy is lumbering under an immense amount of deflation and falling prices (asset prices, goods and services prices).  This has been engineered by the past Government through its deflationary budgetary policies.  We have volume growth but in terms of money per capita, we’re all getting poorer.

Third, and now for the really grim news.   There will be fewer people at work in the economy next year than this year.  As a result, unemployment will rise - and if emigration is not maintained, it will rise even higher.

Back in the summer, the ESR estimated that employment would grow by 12,000.  The Government only a few weeks ago conceded that employment would fall marginally, by -3,600.  Now the ESRI is predicting that there will be 22,000 fewer people at work next year.

This will lead to higher unemployment.  The ESRI is actually projecting an increase in unemployment next year – to 14.5 percent, whereas the Government is estimating it will fall to 14 percent.

As you can imagine, this will have a number of implications for the economy:  lower growth, more downward pressure on wages, falling living standards; and for public finances, lower tax revenue and higher unemployment costs.

But wait for it – there will be spin.  The poor outcome for next year will be blamed on ‘others’.  Oh, if only those ‘others’ could get their act together, our economy would prosper, at least avoid all this downside.

Yes, the Irish economy will take a hit from the downward momentum in the Eurozone which both the EU Commission and the OECD claim is looking into a double-dip.  But this can only explain part of our souring fortunes.

In the summer, the ESRI was optimistically projecting GDP growth of 2.3 percent; now they’re pessimistically projecting 0.9 percent.  Is this because of falling exports, owing to the Eurozone crisis?  Only partially.  The main reason for the lower growth projections is falling consumer demand which makes up two-thirds of the difference between the optimistic and the pessimistic growth forecasts. 

Falling consumer demand is being driven by falling employment levels as we saw above.  It’s also being driven by the fall in total wages in the economy – a fall of €1.6 billion between the optimistic and pessimistic projections.

This raises the issue of what the Government is actually thinking?  If we are entering into a period of declining exports, the last thing we need is a set of budgetary policies that consciously depresses domestic activity – employment, demand, and investment.  But that’s exactly what the Government is planning.  It may have little control over external demand (the amount of demand for our goods and services in the international marketplace) but it does have more control over domestic demand.  And, yet, the Government is intent on driving that downwards.

What makes this all so much more bizarre is that the Government doesn’t even know the impact of its policies.  The Minister for Finance has already said he doesn’t know the economic impact of increasing VAT.  Does he know the impact of cutting public sector employment?  Social protection payments? Cuts in investment?  Public service cuts?  Probably not on the evidence available to us.

This is highly risky and highly reckless.  In fact, if you think about it long enough it’ll wreck your head.

So take a break from it for a while.  Get yourself a nice cup of Earl Grey.  The Mad Hatter’s tea party is in full swing.

Flying Blind in a Storm Without Radar or Fuel

The Minister for Finance has said there was a need to have ‘an informed debate’ on the issue of the proposed VAT rises, and ‘not simply resort to rhetoric’.  No one would disagree except that only a day later the Minister admitted, in response to a query by Fianna Fail’s Michael McGrath that the Government did not take into account the impact on consumer demand of a VAT rise.  This is an incredible statement.

Already, the Minister stated that ‘the poor’ wouldn’t be much affected by a VAT rise.   However, ESRI researchers found the complete opposite.  The lowest 10 percent income group pays out 16 percent of their disposable income on VAT payment; the highest 10 percent pays out 6 percent.  The increase in VAT will hit the lowest income group approximately 3 times harder than the highest income groups. There is nothing new in this – it is commonly accepted that consumption taxes hit lower-income harder because they consume a higher amount of their income.

Now the Minister concedes that his ‘informed debate’ is missing a crucial element – the estimated impact on consumer demand.  If demand falls, GDP falls, employment comes under pressure, the Live Register increases, etc. 

In effect, the Minister is admitting that his Department doesn’t have a model (or didn’t think it was worthwhile) to estimate the impact of raising VAT on the economy. 

The ESRI has measured the impact of three different tax rises on consumer demand:  income tax, property tax and carbon tax.  If the rises are intended to raise €1 billion, this is their projected impact.

All tax measures reduce consumer spending.  Introducing property tax has the most negative effect – though, overall, it is less deflationary when other factors are accounted for (employment, business output, etc.).  The point is, however, that such tax increases can be measured.

Unfortunately, the ESRI didn’t measure the impact of a VAT rise.  So let’s turn to the IMF compilation of estimates of the impact of various measures on the economy.  There are some problems here – the IMF only measures the impact in the form of a temporary cut in taxes, to assess their ability to stimulate the economy.  In other words, what is the short-term impact of cutting income tax or consumption tax for a year.

Nonetheless, if a tax cut impacts more beneficially on the economy, we can reasonably assume – even as a working hypothesis – that the tax rise will impact more negatively.  So how does an income tax cut compare with a cut in consumption taxes? 

As seen, cutting consumption taxes has a more beneficial impact on the economy – in the short-term anyway – than income tax.  Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the reverse is the case.

This should not be too surprising.  VAT is more regressive and reduces the spending power of those likely to spend all their income, whereas income tax reduces progressively the incomes at the higher end, where the impact on demand is more limited because they don’t spend all their income.

All this suggests that the impact on consumer demand from raising VAT will be more negative than what the ESRI estimated for income taxes.  In other words, raising VAT will be highly damaging to economic growth.  Now consider that many businesses will come under pressure, especially as the Government has already estimated that consumer spending will fall next year, flat-line in 2013 and not return to growth until 2014.  This is on top of substantial falls in consumer spending since 2008.

As I said, this is not wholly satisfactory but it is an attempt to inject some evidence into what the Minister has called for – an informed debate.

Of course, the Minister could correct this situation by simply requesting that the Department of Finance model the comparative impacts of tax rises.  Instead, when asked by a TD, the Minister for Finance has effectively replied:

‘I’m raising VAT but I have no idea what the impact will be on consumer demand or on the economy.’

We are flying blind in a storm without radar.  And the fuel gauge shows we are quickly running out of juice.

Our Own 1 Percent

The Dublin Council of Trades Unions’ March Against Austerity tomorrow (12 Noon from the Garden of Remembrance) is taking place against a rising European and global awareness of the power of the top 1 percent.  So what about our own home-grown 1 percent?  How much wealth do they own – wealth that translates into economic and political power?  The Credit Suisse’s Global Wealth Data Handbook 2011 (not yet available free on-line) can give us an insight – as they estimate the concentration of wealth holdings in the top percent deciles.

Irish concentration of wealth is one of the highest in the EU-15.  28 percent of all wealth – housing and financial wealth – is owned by the top 1 percent of adults.  That’s a lot wealth for a handful of people.

While Credit Suisse uses US $ in their tables, we can take their proportions to estimate how much this means in Euros and cents.  They estimate that financial wealth makes up 47 percent of all wealth.  Using CSO data, we therefore find the following:

• The Top 1 percent is made up of approximately 36,000 adults. 
• This group owns approximately €130.2 billion.

€130.2 billion.  Just take a moment to reflect on that.

[Pause for quiet reflection on the amount of wealth owned by 36,000 adults in Ireland]

On average, this means that every adult in the top 1 percent owns €3.8 million. 

[Another pause for quiet reflection on the amount owned by each of the wealthiest in Ireland].

My gut feeling is that the VAT increases, the cuts in social protection, the cuts in public hospital wards and classrooms, and the €100 Household Charge won’t do much to dent these people’s wealth holdings or income.

This just shows that for some – a very few – wealth is a life-style choice.

This is one of many reasons why you should come out tomorrow and join the march.

 After all, the 99 percent have rights too.

The €6 Billion Alternative

Government Ministers are floating all sorts of horror options (medical card fees, closing hospital  beds, cutting education grants and Child Benefit, etc. etc.) while at the same time insisting this is the only alternative to income tax increases. I’m not so sure.  So I thought it might be helpful to gather together the proposals put forward in four pre-budget submissions to see if there are other alternatives.  Does the Government have options to either savage spending cuts or income tax increases that would hit the living standards of low and average income earners?  Can the Government do something else besides degrade public services, hit social protection recipients and further depress consumer demand?  The answer is yes.

ICTU, TASC, Social Justice Ireland and Sinn Fein have put forward comprehensive, progressive and well-researched pre-budget submissions.  They all share the same principles:  end overall spending cuts, increase investment and tax high-income groups.  All four shows how this would work within the framework of the EU-IMF bail-out deal and how this would be superior in promoting growth.

Let’s focus on their taxation proposals, which are all backed up by data from the Department of Finance and Parliamentary Questions to the relevant Minister. 

Property and Capital Taxation

Wealth Tax:  both ICTU and Sinn Fein call for this tax.  Projected yield:  €500 - €800 million.

Property Tax:  TASC proposes a house property tax, with safeguards for low-income negative equity households.  ICTU also proposes a house property tax but it is far more modest with more reliefs for low-average income earners while SJI proposes a far site-value tax. Projected yield:  €800 million (from TASC).

Reform of CAT (inheritances, gifts):  three submissions propose various reforms to CAT – from reducing thresholds, increasing rates, limiting relief for business and agricultural disposals, etc.  Amounts to be raised also vary, though ICTU doesn’t put a final number on this.  Projected yield:  €165 - €194 million.

Capital Gains:  ICTU proposes raising the capital gains tax rate to 30 percent; Sinn Fein to 40 percent.   Projected yield:  €65 - €195 million.

Income Tax, PRSI and Universal Social Charge

Abolition of property tax reliefs:  three submissions support this common-sense proposal.  Projected yield:  €450 million.

Reduce interest relief for landlords:  again, another common sense proposal which three submissions mention.  There are differing variations of this reduction but they all would raise substantial amounts.  Projected yield: €350 - €400 million (though ICTU’s more dramatic proposed abolition could save up to €1 billion).

 Minimum Tax Rate:  ICTU proposes increasing the minimum tax rate for high incomes to 35 percent and reducing the threshold €100,000.  Projected yield:  €100 million.

Top Rate of Tax:  Sinn Fein proposes increasing the top rate of tax to 48 percent.  Projected yield:  €410 million.

Extend Universal Social Charge to Capital Income:  TASC proposes extending USC to capital income (capital gains and acquisitions).  Projected yield:  €200 million.

Adjust PRSI exemption for share options, shared based remuneration and capital gains. Proposed by Sinn Fein.  Projected yield:  €97 million.

Standardise discretionary tax reliefs, excluding donations to charity. Again, proposed by Sinn Fein, this would bring forward the long-term strategy of bringing all tax reliefs to the standard rate.  Projected yield:  €628 million.

Extend PRSI to capital income.  ICTU proposes that the PRSI 4 percent rate be extended to capital gains and acquisitions.  Projected yield:  €115 million.

Increase USC by 3 percentage points for incomes over €100,000.  Proposed by SJI, this would only affect PAYE taxpayers as the self-employed already pay 3 percent above the basic rate.  Projected Yield:  €50 million.

Pension Tax Reliefs

While TASC and Sinn Fein call for the standard-rating of pension contributions, ICTU opposes this but not in principle.  Instead, they call for such standard rating to be implemented only when an adequate universal state pension is introduced.  However, all four make proposals to limit pension tax relief.

Standard Rate Pension Contributions:  TASC, SJI and Sinn Fein call for this measure.  Projected yield:  €500 - €700 million.

Increase the rate of imputed withdrawal on Approved Retirement Funds:  both ICTU and TASC support this step.  Projected yield:  €25 million.

Reduce tax exemption for lump-sum pension payments to the level of the average industrial wage.  This proposal was put forward by TASC.  Projected yield:  €65 million.

Corporate / Business Reliefs

Corporate tax rate:  SJI and ICTU propose that a temporary 2.5 percent levy be put on corporate profits.  Projected yield:  €892 million.

Group Relief:  this is a relief available to holding companies that allow the losses of one company to be transferred to a profitable company, thus reducing their tax liability.  Sinn Fein claims this relief is abused and proposes its abolition.  Projected yield:  €450 million.

* * *

These are more tax reforms put forward by the four submissions:   tackle tax exiles by cutting the 183-day requirement should be cut to 90 days as in the UK (ICTU), tax on-line gambling (Sinn Fein),implement the  €200 car park tax originally introduced in Budget 2009 but never introduced (TASC), tax texting to bring in €40 million (SJI)

There are other measures which I could suggest:  subjecting the net capital gain from the sale of principal private residences to capital gains tax, with a small exemption threshold (Fine Gael suggested that a small rate on principle private residences would earn €250 million) and extending PRSI and USC to all gross capital income (which could raise over €500 million according to Department of Finance sources)

Leaving these aside, what is the total amount that could be raised through the measures outlined in the four submissions.

• Property and Capital:  €1.53 - €1.99 billion
• Income tax, PRSI and USC:  €2.4 - €2.45 billion
• Pension Relief:  €590 - €790 million
• Corporate Taxation:  €1.34 billion

• TOTAL:  €5.86 - €6.57 billion

So, approximately €6 billion and more could be raised in taxation measures that primarily impact on high income groups and the corporate sector.  And that doesn’t count all that could be raised. There may be some dispute about particular measures.  For instance, I would agree with ICTU’s comments on pension tax relief, though you could still go after reliefs for super pension-pots.  I’d be inclined to phase in TASC’s house property tax, tied to a tax on financial property, to limit the impact on demand in the short-term.  And I’m not quite sure about Sinn Fein’s proposal re: group relief, since in many cases this would merely bring forward tax revenue rather than permanently increase the tax take. 

But there are always differences over details. Further discussion could improve the proposals. And further investigation would no doubt reveal more tax measures to impact on high income groups. 

The main point here is that the authors of the four most comprehensive pre-budget submissions have uncovered a buffet of €6 billion and more in progressive tax measures.  Since these would be far less deflationary than the equivalent in spending cuts, it would reduce the deficit by a far greater amount – leaving more people at work and more money in the pockets of low and average income groups. 

€6 billion and more.

Now what was that about no alternative?

Chasing the Goose in a Dark Landscape

We’re into the great expectations-management game again.  It happens once a year, just prior to the budget.  ‘Proposals’ are leaked or rumoured.  The media – colluding in this annual exercise – chase around for stories.  TDs, commentators, and people potentially affected are lined up for comment.  No one is any wiser but it fills column inches and media minutes.  And then the budget happens and finally we know.   This ritual is getting tedious.

Take the rumoured Child Benefit cut.  No doubt, another cut would impact harshly on families.  No doubt, it will have little effect on the deficit (we’ve already cut over half-a-billion Euros from Child Benefit and supplements).  But given the Tanaiste's insistence during the election campaign that Child Benefit would not be touched, the issue has become politically sexy.  Will Labour renege?  Will they stand up to Fine Gael?  Will they protect universal payments?

The Child Benefit cuts leaks could be a matter of expectation management.  The rumour is put out with no intention of cutting them – and when they aren’t cut, Labour can say ‘we kept our election pledge’ and hope that people will applaud them.  Or they could be leaked to ensure that such a storm is created that the pro- cuts lobby in Government will have to back off.  Fine Gael could be leaking it to put pressure on the Social Protection Minister.  Or maybe it’s just a rumour with no foundation at all.  We won’t know.

Focusing on the detail makes for great copy.  It also diverts us from taking a broader, more fundamental perspective on what’s happening in the budget.  For instance, this headline should provoke more debate, more analysis, and more outrage since we know more about the budget measures that will impact on this:

‘Budget cuts designed to safeguard jobs: Kenny’

The story goes on:

‘Taoiseach Enda Kenny has insisted that any cuts in the looming Budget will be imposed to safeguard jobs . . . But he warned that difficult cuts will be imposed to avoid having to hike taxes and ensure the Government can fulfil its main objective of protecting jobs.’

This is an incredible statement.  All the more so since the Government has announced (not leaked, not rumoured) budget measures that will destroy jobs.  Let’s go through some of them.

• Capital Spending:  The Government has announced €750 million in capital spending cuts.  According to the Department of Finance, this will entail, on average, the direct loss of 7,500 jobs – with more jobs lost downstream (lost demand, lost procurement from other private sector companies, etc.). The Government has also announced a further €550 million capital spending cuts in 2013.  That’s another 5,500 jobs gone.  This will impact on the group that has suffered the most in this recession – construction and craft workers.  So much for ‘protecting jobs’.

• Cutting Public Sector Employment:  The Government has announced that it will cut employment in the public sector by 22,500 by 2015.  This will lead to a straight one-for-one rise in unemployment in the short-term and higher emigration in the medium-term.  The loss of demand from this reduced employment will impact on domestic businesses and their employees.  How cutting employment protects jobs is beyond me.

• Cutting Public Services:  While there are no firm numbers on this, the Government wants to cut €1.45 billion from current expenditure.  With €700 million being cut from Social Protection, the overwhelming remainder will come from public services.  Don’t forget:  nearly 1/3 of expenditure on public services goes on procurement contracts to the private sector.  If these contracts are cut, this will have a negative impact on those companies.  It is hard to see how private sector employment will not be hit.

• Cutting Social Protection:  Whatever the details – Child Benefit, rent/mortgage supplement, support grants such as Carers’ respite or the free schemes – cutting people’s income will result in a fall in demand which will impact negatively on domestic businesses.  With consumer spending and employment expected to fall next year, how much more will this depress economic activity and job numbers?

When you step back, you see that the Government is pursuing an agenda which will have a major depressing effect on employment – so much so that the Government recently projected that unemployment will still be close to 12 percent by 2015.  And what agenda is this?  It’s not an income tax-raising agenda.  Its’ a cuts agenda – one that is supposed to protect jobs.

The Taoiseach is talking demonstrable nonsense.  But you won’t get a debate about that.  We’ll chase around the details without ever looking at the larger landscape.

The dark, bleak, job-cutting landscape that the Government is busy painting. 

Bad Plan, False Arguments

This was originally written for Progressive-Economy

The Minister for Finance’s comments justifying VAT increases is deeply worrying for it evinces either considerable unfamiliarity with basic economic facts; or considerable indifference to such facts in pursuit of a particular agenda.  Here’s what he had to say on RTE (22 minutes in):

‘It (the VAT increase) will apply to everybody who purchases things but obviously rich people have a lot more disposable income than poor people and rich people will buy a lot more and will pay a lot more VAT.  There’s no VAT of any sort on food and poor people spend a very large proportion of their budget on food so it will not impact as much on the poor as on the well-off people.’

This is wrong.  Full stop.  It is well known that consumption taxes impact on lower income groups more as they consume most of their income.  Indeed, the Minister (or his advisors) would be well aware of a recent study published in the Economic and Social Review in the summer, ‘The Distributional Effects of Value Added Tax in Ireland’ by ESRI researchers Eimear Leahy, Sean Lyons and Richard Tol.  They studied the impact of VAT and VAT rises on income deciles – from the lowest 10 percent income to the top (this is a tabular estimate of Figure 10 in the report).

Unsurprisingly, the 21 percent VAT rate has a higher impact on the disposable income of the lowest income groups (16 percent), compared to the highest income groups (6.2 percent).  Again, unsurprisingly, average income groups also face a higher burden than high income groups. 

This is consistent with the findings from the study by the Combat Poverty Agency/ESRI, which showed that ten years ago total VAT and excise taxes made up more than 20 percent of the gross income of the lowest decile, compared to less than 10 percent of the highest income groups. 

So the 21 percent VAT rate hits the lowest income households by more than two-and-a-half times the highest income groups.  So much for the Minister’s claim.

But the ESRI researchers also measured the impact of increasing the VAT rate to 23 percent – as the Minister is proposing (again, a tabular estimate of Figure 10 in the report). 

Increasing VAT will impact harder on lower income groups – by 1 percent compared to less than 0.4 percent for higher income groups.  Again, so much for the Minister’s groundless claim that increasing VAT ‘will not impact as much on the poor as on the well-off people.’

Budget 2011 was bad enough.  The low-paid were disproportionately hit through the introduction of the Universal Charge and the reduction of personal tax credits (which amounted to a flat-rate increase in income tax).  

But the Minister’s planned VAT rate is even worse for it will not just hit people at work.  It will hit everyone, including those on social protection payments (pensioners, widows/ers, unemployed, lone parents, etc.).  And the lowest decile group is made up of people living in some of the worst forms of absolute deprivation.

All this has to be set in the wider context.  This year, social protection recipients of working age (that is, excluding pensioners) saw their real payments – after inflation – fall by -5.2 percent.  Whatever about the leaks regarding Budget 2012, we can reasonably assume that social protection payments will not increase.  With the Government’s projected inflation rate, real payments will fall by -1.2 percent.  That’s just a start.

Now add in the VAT increases and real incomes will fall further.  And that’ s before the myriad of cuts and freezes are applied to child payments, rent and mortgage supplements, etc.  It’s looking like another grim year for the poorest in society.

If I were Minister and wanted to protect the living standards of the highest income groups in the state, I would be doing exactly what Michael Noonan is doing – increasing VAT and introducing flat-rate taxes on households.  That’s the ticket. 

The question is – why would Labour Ministers let him do it?

They Cheer, Little Realising they are Cheering Their Own Failure

Why didn’t the Irish media report this comment by the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform?

‘Today I am announcing further reductions in Public Service numbers.  I expect this reduction to reduce consumer spending by over €1.2 billion, to cut employment by nearly 25,000, and to remove about €2.3 billion out of the domestic economy.  Through all this pain I am hoping to reduce the deficit by 0.3 percent of GDP.  As the Government needs to reduce the deficit by 7 percent, we are hoping that this will make a small contribution.’

Ok, the Minister didn’t say that directly (he did say the first line).  But if he had used the ESRI measurements, he could and should have laid out the terrible economic carnage the plans to cut public sector employment will inflict on us.  If we had vigilant economic journalists they could and should have been queried the Minister about this at the press conference.  What impact will these measures have?  How much does the Government expect to ‘save’ when lost revenue and higher unemployment costs are factored in?   

But he didn’t.  And we don’t have that kind of vigilant economic journalism.  So we have a Government patting itself on the back for cutting jobs out of the economy.  We have a set of proposals that will do considerable damage to the economy and have little benefit in terms of deficit reduction.  You don’t have to go through the tables in the ESRI paper to measure all this; it’s just common sense.

You have anywhere between 20,000 and 30,000 people entering the labour market every year from schools and universities.  Then you have all those people on the dole queues trying to get a job.  The economy has to generate a lot of jobs each year just to stand still.  It has to generate even more jobs to start making a dent in the unemployment figures.

In this mix we have private sector employers struggling to generate jobs.  So what does the Government do?  It goes to the largest employer in the state (itself) and cuts the number of jobs even further.

So, now you have more people chasing fewer jobs in the economy.

When you factor in the lower employment levels - as the largest employer in the state is shedding more jobs – you have lower growth.  And all that money the Government purports to save by reducing the public sector payroll is eaten up by lost tax revenue, higher unemployment costs and a lower consumer economy.  At the end of the day, the reduction in the deficit is minimal. 

It reminds me of the scene where Homer pursues another one of his get-rich-quick schemes by buying bacon rashers, frying them, feeding the rashers to the dog and then selling the left-over grease to grease recyclers.

Grease Purchaser:   Four pounds of grease... that comes to... sixty-three cents.
Homer Simpson:   Woo-hoo!
Bart Simpson:   Dad, all that bacon cost twenty-seven dollars.
Homer Simpson:   Yeah, but your mom paid for that!
Bart Simpson:   But doesn't she get her money from you?
Homer Simpson:   And I get my money from grease! What's the problem?

When the Government finishes carving up of the public sector and finds the deficit hasn’t really fallen much at all, we will know what has happened.

The Government just pulled off another Homer.

Is the Government Hiding More Austerity?

This was originally written for Progressive-Economy.ie

The Government may be hiding up to €800 in austerity measures in their recent Medium-Term Fiscal Statement (MTFS).  I use the term ‘may’ because documents prepared by the Department of Finance can sometimes be frustrating exercises in ambiguity.  However, on any logical reading of the document, it appears there is under-the-counter austerity which the Government is not admitting to. Indeed, there may be €800 million more spending cuts than is necessary to achieve the Government’s new €3.8 billion fiscal consolidation target. 

The potential sleight-of-hand occurs in the category described variously as ‘Carry Forward’ or ‘Carry Over’ or ‘Additional Impact’.  This refers to the amount of money – from a tax measure or a spending cut - that only comes on stream in the following year.  Two examples will help clarify this:

• Taxation: in Budget 2011, cutting personal tax credits was projected to raise €585 million.  However, it will only raise €435 million in 2011; the remainder - €150 million – will not be realised until next year.  This is because tax is collected in arrears.  There’s nothing under-hand about this, it is part of the budgetary process.

• Current Spending:  similar to tax, there are some spending measures where the full ‘savings’ is not realised until the following year.  For instance, in Budget 2011 the 4 percent cut in Student Support Scheme grant rates was projected to ‘save’ €51 million in a full year, but only €22 million in 2011; the remainder, €29 million, will be realised in 2012.  Again, there is nothing unusual in this.

Accounting for this is pretty straight-forward and is done every year in the Summary of Budget measures.  The Government simply states the amount of tax revenue or spending cut it will achieve in the year in question, and put the carry-forward amount into the following year.  That gives us the total amount of ‘consolidation’ that takes place in any particular year.

This is where the Government may be hiding up to €1 billion in austerity measures.  Let’s first look at current spending, stepping carefully through this statistical forest.  Fianna Fail’s National Recovery Plan gives a fairly transparent accounting of the consolidation they planned.

In 2012, Fianna Fail planned to cut €1.3 billion.  However, there is the ‘Additional Impact’, or carry forward from Budget 2011 amounting to €400 million.  This gives a total of €1.7 billion in current spending cuts.  This €400 million carry forward estimate is confirmed in Budget 2011, where the carry forward of all spending cut measures is more precisely projected at €457 million. But the point is that while the total current expenditure cuts come to €1.7 billion, only €1.3 billion is ‘new’ for 2012.

Now let’s turn to the current Government’s MTFS.  Here the issue is not so straight-forward. 

In the row entitled ‘Current’, the Government intends to cut €1.45 billion.  That also seems straight-forward enough.  However, there is no mention of a carry forward or ‘additional impact’ that was referred to in the National Recovery Plan and projected in Budget 2011.

 So is the €1.45 billion in current spending cuts inclusive of the €400 million carry-forward from Budget 2011?  If so, then the Government only intends to cut €1,045 million this year.  However, if it does not include the carry forward, then the Government’s total current spending consolidation is actually €1.85 billion.

I suspect it is the latter, for the Government has used the carry-forward category for Tax measures as the table indicates.  That it doesn’t use it for current spending suggests they will cut €1.45 this year and pocket the extra €400 million from last year, hoping that no one notices.

When we come to taxation, the sleight-of-hand becomes more obvious.  As seen in the table above, the Government intends to raise €1 billion in 2012.  There is a carry forward of €600 million from Budget 2011.  This comes to a total of €1.6 billion tax consolidation for 2011.  It seems straight-forward, right?  Well, no.  And the Government partially admits to the statistical trickery. 

Footnote 5 in the final row beside the carry-forward of ‘0.6’ in the 2012 column reads:

‘The Universal Social Charge is also expected to deliver an additional €0.4 billion in revenues in 2012. While this is not part of the €3.8 billion consolidation package, it is captured in the budgetary projections.’

This is an incredible statement.  Translated, it reads: ‘the €400 million carry forward in the Universal Social Charge has been included in the budget for 2012.  But we’re not going to include it in this table.’

Why not?  It is a carry-forward, the same as any other tax.  You can see that in the Summary of 2011 Budget Measures where it was projected to be €435 million (Page B.6). 

Even the EU Commission, in its 2^nd quarterly review of the bail-out deal (Table on page 11 of the text), listed the total tax carry forward from 2011 at €1.1 billion.  It saw fit to include the USC.  But not the Government.

The reason why they did not include the USC in their table– and this is my speculation – is that it would raise the amount of total taxation consolidation to €2 billion, rather than €1.6 billion.  And the optics of this would be bad. So to make the taxation measures look less than what they actually are, they just consigned part of the carry forward tax revenue to a footnote.

Here is my reconstruction of the Government’s consolidation package inclusive of all carry forwards.

The austerity package for 2012 appears to be €800 million more than what the Government is admitting to. If so, there are €800 million more cuts in current and capital spending than are actually needed, even to reach the Government’s new consolidation target of €3,800 million.  €800 million less cuts is something to consider – more hospital services, more education services, and more capital investment (which means more jobs today and down the line).  Is Labour aware that the Fine Gael Minister for Finance is trying to cut €800 million more than is necessary even by his own benchmark?

 However, the Government may dispute all this.  If so, then it should clarify the situation.  They only have to answer two questions:

• Do the current spending cuts for 2012 include the spending cuts carry forward of €400 million from Budget 2011?

• How much is the total tax carry forward (including the USC) from 2011?

Answering these questions would settle the matter raised here.  However, if they choose to obfuscate and ignore then it will be a sign that the Government is not committed to an open and transparent budgetary process.

And when people ask, why does it feel worse than what we were told, the answer will be simple:  because they weren’t told the whole truth of the matter.