ULA Budget Document Available

[Jolly Red Giant]

Received an email last night with the ULA budget document and found it on the PBPA website this morning.

Given the discussion around this over the past couple of days I think the actual document warrants more detailed investigation. I will be adding my own thoughts when I have time later - in the meantime I would be interesting in what others think.

http://www.peoplebeforeprofit.ie/node/731

[C. Flower]

Thanks for posting it. I'll take a good look at it later.

[Jolly Red Giant]

Couple of quick comments relating to the document and the VB progamme during the week -

The proposals of the establishment parties (and SF for that matter), are short-term proposals based on the current plan to reduce the deficit this year by €3.8billion. The ULA proposals outline a five year plan of economic development. The ULA document clearly points out that it is outlining an alternatve route that goes outside the limitations of capitalism The ULA is calling for a change in direction...The ULA believes there can be no just or sustainable solution to the current crises by bowing to the dictatorship of finance and the markets. There is no solution,only worse crisis, on the basis of ‘satisfying the markets.’ We favour democratic public control of key economic resources as the only way to ensure that peoples needs are put before the profits for the few. There can be no reliance on private investors to create jobs. (page 1)

The ULA proposals use numbers based on reports from CSO, Revenue Commissioners, Credit Suisse and TASC. Both VB and Vadaker admitted on the programme that they hadn't actually read the full document (its four pages long) and consistantly misquoted the numbers from the document. Furthermore the fact that both VB, Varadker and the Indo journalist refused to accept the numbers and as a result then distorted them, is their problem - not a problem for Joe Higgins. For example Varadker completely misread the document about the effective tax rate for earners on a income over €100,000 - Varadker claimed 78% the actual figure from the document is 58%.

VB also attempted to claim that the ULA job creation proposals were similar to FG, stating that the ULA wanted to create 150,000 jobs over five years while FG's proposals were for 100,000 jobs. Two points on this one 1. FG's proposals are based on providing 'incentives' for the private sector and hope the private sector will create the jobs - but the private sector are on an investment strike and during period of economic crisis have never created jobs - and - 2. The ULA proposals involve creating 150,000 immediately over a three month period through public investment and providing the fund to ensure these jobs are maintained for at l]east five years.

Varadker claimed that the ULA would need to find €20billion to implement their proposals because the straight off the top because burning the bondholders would mean no money from the IMF/ECB (an over-estimate but we will use it) -

So where would the ULA get the money -
5% asset tax on the richest 5% of the population = €10billion (source Credit Suisse)
Doubling the effective tax rate on all income over €100K (a graduated rate based on income with an effective rate of 58%) = €5billion (source Revenue Commissioners)
Stopping payment to Anglo Bondholders (to start with) = €3.5billion
Stopping the payment of interest on IMF/ECB money to bail out the banks = €6.8billion (2012 estimate - source Dept of Finance)
Capping public sector pay at €100K = €264million (source Dept of Finance)
Total = €25.564billion

Where does the funding for a public investment programme come from - estimated cost €26billionover five years
NPRF = €5.3billion
Surplus from savings above = €5.56billion
Changes to pension funds tax breaks (€2.2billion over 5 years) = €11billion (minimum - the measure is designed to significant increase investment in the Irish economy by Irish pension funds, currently only 1% of the €70billion pension fund pot is invested in Ireland)
Savings from reduced expenditure from remedial public sector works (eg renovating the water mains network) = €2.5billion (minimum)
Total = €24.3billion

This does not include other measures like increases in CAT, CGT, Corporation Tax etc.

[C. Flower]

I've had a first scan through it, and will look again in more detail.

Before going in to detail though, I will throw in some questions.

The first is the most important I think.

To whom is this document directed ?

Do the writers of the document think that the Government will carry out this programme?

If it is directed more widely, to the ULA's potential support, then it worries me that there is virtually no political context provided.

The installment at EU behest of unelected governments in Greece and Italy (with fascists included in the Greek government) is glossed over as "change of governments."

There is no analysis of the economic crisis and its causes presented, and the repeated assertion that there is an "investment strike" is simply wrong, and a failure to understand the seriousness of the liquidity crisis that is threatening catastrophic global economic collapse.

Btw - has this document been discussed internally in the ULA, and has it in any way emerged from members' discussions ?

[Jolly Red Giant]

It is interesting that there has been so little interest in discussing this document given the stink there was about the VB show during the week

I will answer - but this is a personal opinion



To whom is this document directed ?
I suspect it is intended as a PR exercise more than anything else - an opportunity to get some media attention like the VB show in order to argue for the need for a socialist alternative.


Do the writers of the document think that the Government will carry out this programme?
Do You ? ;)


If it is directed more widely, to the ULA's potential support, then it worries me that there is virtually no political context provided.
The ULA gets criticised for not producing a budget document - now you criticise for it not having a political context - its a four page document, anything further would require significant discussion.


The installment at EU behest of unelected governments in Greece and Italy (with fascists included in the Greek government) is glossed over as "change of governments."
No argument there - and Joe Higgins made the same point on VB


There is no analysis of the economic crisis and its causes presented, and the repeated assertion that there is an "investment strike" is simply wrong, and a failure to understand the seriousness of the liquidity crisis that is threatening catastrophic global economic collapse.
See above - and there is an investment strike - it has nothing to do with liquidity - the rich are hoarding their wealth.


Btw - has this document been discussed internally in the ULA, and has it in any way emerged from members' discussions ?
I expressed my opinion on a number of issues to a number of people (one of the ULA workers, a member of the steering committee, a person from Clare Daly's office who I was informed was carrying out research for the document and to Joe Higgins) most of the points I made were not included.

I stated on here a couple of weeks ago that something was in the pipeline - again there was nothing stopping anyone from emailing ideas or suggestions to the steering committee or raising issues in their local branch.

Finally, it is part of a process - and only the first step - feel free to add your thoughts and send them to the steering committee. Hopefully the conference in January will allow for further expansion of this document and other policy areas.

[C. Flower]

It is interesting that there has been so little interest in discussing this document given the stink there was about the VB show during the week

I will answer - but this is a personal opinion


I suspect it is intended as a PR exercise more than anything else - an opportunity to get some media attention like the VB show in order to argue for the need for a socialist alternative.


Do You ? ;)


The ULA gets criticised for not producing a budget document - now you criticise for it not having a political context - its a four page document, anything further would require significant discussion.


No argument there - and Joe Higgins made the same point on VB

See above - and there is an investment strike - it has nothing to do with liquidity - the rich are hoarding their wealth.

I expressed my opinion on a number of issues to a number of people (one of the ULA workers, a member of the steering committee, a person from Clare Daly's office who I was informed was carrying out research for the document and to Joe Higgins) most of the points I made were not included.

I stated on here a couple of weeks ago that something was in the pipeline - again there was nothing stopping anyone from emailing ideas or suggestions to the steering committee or raising issues in their local branch.

Finally, it is part of a process - and only the first step - feel free to add your thoughts and send them to the steering committee. Hopefully the conference in January will allow for further expansion of this document and other policy areas.

Well, I didn't criticise the ULA for not having a budget document. I said that they needed to put forward a detailed transitional programme.

For the rich to be hoarding wealth is a disaster for them. They are doing it not because they are forgoing profitable investment opportunities. They are doing it because there is a greater probability of a loss than a profit.

Conference in January ?

[Apjp]

It is interesting that there has been so little interest in discussing this document given the stink there was about the VB show during the week

I will answer - but this is a personal opinion


I suspect it is intended as a PR exercise more than anything else - an opportunity to get some media attention like the VB show in order to argue for the need for a socialist alternative.


Do You ? ;)


The ULA gets criticised for not producing a budget document - now you criticise for it not having a political context - its a four page document, anything further would require significant discussion.


No argument there - and Joe Higgins made the same point on VB


See above - and there is an investment strike - it has nothing to do with liquidity - the rich are hoarding their wealth.


I expressed my opinion on a number of issues to a number of people (one of the ULA workers, a member of the steering committee, a person from Clare Daly's office who I was informed was carrying out research for the document and to Joe Higgins) most of the points I made were not included.

I stated on here a couple of weeks ago that something was in the pipeline - again there was nothing stopping anyone from emailing ideas or suggestions to the steering committee or raising issues in their local branch.

Finally, it is part of a process - and only the first step - feel free to add your thoughts and send them to the steering committee. Hopefully the conference in January will allow for further expansion of this document and other policy areas.

If I didn't know better I'd swear the ULA kept it as a 4 page document to avoid detailed discussion. Do you not think a bit more detail is what's needed? I'd be all for reading a production, industrialization, taxation and resource rationing plan that offered a detailed alternative. I fail to see why this shouldn't be on the table. Taxes alone, much as we all agree on the left that we need real taxes, aren't detailed enough.

[Jolly Red Giant]

If I didn't know better I'd swear the ULA kept it as a 4 page document to avoid detailed discussion. Do you not think a bit more detail is what's needed? I'd be all for reading a production, industrialization, taxation and resource rationing plan that offered a detailed alternative. I fail to see why this shouldn't be on the table. Taxes alone, much as we all agree on the left that we need real taxes, aren't detailed enough.
I have made this point before Apjp - it is not possible to outline a socialist economic document with the financial costings based on capitalism.

The one thing that is detailed in the document is the potential tax take from the richest 5%. But even these numbers are to a degree arbitrary as the wealth and income of the richest 5% can fluctuate.

If you believe the document is inaccurate or inefficient then state in detail your outline of what it should include.

[C. Flower]

I presume that under socialism there would not be a wealthy "1%" or "5%" to tax.

It might be relevant to mention that.

[C. Flower]

The Workers Party have also produced their budget submission.

http://issuu.com/wpi_meath/docs/wp_pre_budget_submission_2012

[Jolly Red Giant]

The Workers Party have also produced their budget submission.

http://issuu.com/wpi_meath/docs/wp_pre_budget_submission_2012

And a less radical document than SF at that. As for detail it doesn't even give a figure for the number of jobs it would create.

Both SF and the WP have adopted the establishment approach of operating within a short time frame and a budget figure of €3.6billion. In contrast the ULA document adopts a long-term approach dealing with the overall crisis.

[C. Flower]

The ULA estimates the net cost of such a programme as €26 billion over
five years. This takes into account savings from welfare payments, additional tax revenue, material and other costs and a multiplier effect from
additional economic activity.
This programme could be funded through a combination of taxation of the
wealthy and sources such as workers’ pensions funds. These funds have €
70 billion invested outside the state and pension contributors are currently receiving tax benefits greater than in any European country.
Where the fund is invested outside the state, we would reduce the tax benefits on annual contributions to zero. Pension funds trustees who insist
that they are obliged to invest where returns are highest can continue to
do so but without Irish taxpayer subsidy

How would the works proposed by the ULA produce revenue sufficient to pay out the workers' pensions ?

[Jolly Red Giant]

How would the works proposed by the ULA produce revenue sufficient to pay out the workers' pensions ?
Currently the government borrows huge sums on the financial markets - much of it from privately operated pension funds.

Currently only 1% of the private pension funds in the country are actually invested in the country. The ULA proposals would allow tax breaks on pension contributions when invested in Ireland (government borrowings at a fixed interest rate) but remove the tax breaks for funds invested outside the country. If necessary legislation could be introduced to oblige the funds to invest a fixed percentage in the irish economy.

Planned and targetted public investment would generate a return in three ways -
1. savings to the exchequer - e.g. reduced welfare costs - savings in the cost of producing drinking water etc.
2. dividends to the exchequer from publicly owned companies
3. increased economic activity leading to increased job creation and higher tax take.

[Apjp]

I have made this point before Apjp - it is not possible to outline a socialist economic document with the financial costings based on capitalism.

The one thing that is detailed in the document is the potential tax take from the richest 5%. But even these numbers are to a degree arbitrary as the wealth and income of the richest 5% can fluctuate.

If you believe the document is inaccurate or inefficient then state in detail your outline of what it should include.

I'll get back to this reply soon, but nobody wants you to do a socialist programme based on capitalism or imperialism lad. What people might expect is a certain timeline for a socialist programme of production and industrialization, with and outlined pre-discussed set of targets before that. Anyways I'll give you a more detailed reply in time. I hope you do likewise with your own thoughts on what such a revolutionary project/programme should contain. C Flower's point is right-when establishing socialism you dont tax imperialist 'wealth', you seize it for the masses.

[Jolly Red Giant]

I'll get back to this reply soon, but nobody wants you to do a socialist programme based on capitalism or imperialism lad. What people might expect is a certain timeline for a socialist programme of production and industrialization, with and outlined pre-discussed set of targets before that. Anyways I'll give you a more detailed reply in time. I hope you do likewise with your own thoughts on what such a revolutionary project/programme should contain. C Flower's point is right-when establishing socialism you dont tax imperialist 'wealth', you seize it for the masses.
It's called a transitional programme - you lot are swinging from reformism to ultra-leftism and back again like a pendulum.

[C. Flower]

It's called a transitional programme - you lot are swinging from reformism to ultra-leftism and back again like a pendulum.

A transitional programme can't be delivered in a capitalist economy.

[PaddyJoe]

I'd love to read that document and think that maybe we had some kind of left in Ireland that could put together a valid alternative to what FG/Labour is doing.
Four pages and two of them are devoted to criticism of FG and Labour.
The other two suggest a programe of public works and a tax on exiles.
Sorry to be blunt but it's pretty crap:(

[Jolly Red Giant]

A transitional programme can't be delivered in a capitalist economy.
It's not supposed to be - the purpose of a transitional programme is to raise the consciousness of the masses


I'd love to read that document and think that maybe we had some kind of left in Ireland that could put together a valid alternative to what FG/Labour is doing.
Four pages and two of them are devoted to criticism of FG and Labour.
The other two suggest a programe of public works and a tax on exiles.
Sorry to be blunt but it's pretty crap:(
I suggest that you read it again - and if you have other suggestions please outline them so we can debate them

[Kid Ryder]

It's not supposed to be - the purpose of a transitional programme is to raise the consciousness of the masses

So you're putting forward a set of proposals you don't actually believe in? And then you might wonder how people could possibly doubt the political honesty of the electoralist left. People can see through this BS a mile off, you know.

[Jolly Red Giant]

So you're putting forward a set of proposals you don't actually believe in? And then you might wonder how people could possibly doubt the political honesty of the electoralist left. People can see through this BS a mile off, you know.
Who said I didn't believe in them?

I want these proposals implemented - however, I understand that they can only be implemented as part of a democratic economic plan and that will require taking control of the major sectors of the economy from the wealthy elite.

[Apjp]

It's called a transitional programme - you lot are swinging from reformism to ultra-leftism and back again like a pendulum.

This is unbelievably petty. I tell you I will reply properly to you soon. all I get is criticism of self reflection at 19 years of age. The above quote actually describes SF and the ULA perfectly right now.

[People Korps]

Amazing fantasy thread
what about saying
1/Nationalise assets of individuals with with over 5 million euro of assets from that 5 million mark
2/ refuse to pay bond holders
3/ sequester all bank profits for 10 years
4/ legalise drugs and tax all profit over cost of sale and distribution at 100% with 50% going to health care specifically designed for drug related health issues
5/ increase corportae tax to 25%
6/ introduce rates on all property based on means and property value
7/ tax multiple home ownership

I could go on ......there are nice things that could be done to stimulate growth and job creation but these leftists towing the line are annoying....a big boot is needed

[People Korps]

Confiscate any asset from anyone who cannot explain its acquisition

[Kid Ryder]

Who said I didn't believe in them?

I want these proposals implemented - however, I understand that they can only be implemented as part of a democratic economic plan and that will require taking control of the major sectors of the economy from the wealthy elite.

Let's re-iterate what you said not so long ago, in response to this question:

A transitional programme can't be delivered in a capitalist economy.


It's not supposed to be - the purpose of a transitional programme is to raise the consciousness of the masses

So this programme is simultaneously a ploy and an earnest contribution to political debate? You lot in the ULA could teach the catholic church a thing or two about the concept of 'mental reservation'.

The fantasy you and your party are promoting that advancing a plan to save capitalism's ar$e from the fire it lit under itself is somehow a 'revolutionary' change makes for really bad politics, and is misleading working class people into believing that real change in society can be voted into being. Please stop it, or else stop pretending that the SP or the ULA have any real intentions of being a revolutionary force in this society, instead of this reformism that's being peddled in a time of crisis for the sake of more ar$es on Dáil benches.

[People Korps]

Revolution or bust the middle ground is petit-bourgeois nonesense , mind you with the likes of Richard Boyd Barrett you are dealing with the genuine article ie the bourgeois without the petite

[bormotello]

It's called a transitional programme - you lot are swinging from reformism to ultra-leftism and back again like a pendulum.
Do you mean by transitional that main purpose of your program is to destroy economy, force all creative people to emigrate, made from country septic tank and start socialist experiments?
Sounds like a plan

[bormotello]

So where would the ULA get the money -
5% asset tax on the richest 5% of the population = €10billion (source Credit Suisse)

Too late - most of wealth already transferred outside



Doubling the effective tax rate on all income over €100K (a graduated rate based on income with an effective rate of 58%) = €5billion (source Revenue Commissioners)

Do your maths again, but this time subtract 100K * Number of earners from total earning of rich

http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/2231/taxf.jpg
With 58% effective tax for somebody on 105K in private sector it will make more sense to emigrate.




Stopping payment to Anglo Bondholders (to start with) = €3.5billion

Why only Anglo?




Capping public sector pay at €100K = €264million (source Dept of Finance)

Form what year was this estimate? Most of those high earners already retired with golden plated pension





Changes to pension funds tax breaks (€2.2billion over 5 years) = €11billion
Do you mean pension must privilege only for aristocracy from public sector and semistates?

[C. Flower]

Originally Posted by C. Flower
A transitional programme can't be delivered in a capitalist economy.


It's not supposed to be - the purpose of a transitional programme is to raise the consciousness of the masses

Which aspects of it could not be delivered under capitalism ? It is not that different to anything proposed by TASC.

[bolshevik]

It's called a transitional programme - you lot are swinging from reformism to ultra-leftism and back again like a pendulum.

A "transitional programme" includes more than just radical reformist demands - at least in the sense that Trotsky fully developed the idea.

The TP is a political bridge that starts from where the class struggle is now and explicitly points towards the seizure of power and overthrow of the capitalist system.

For a critical assessment of the ULA budget proposal as a document that instead of pointing towards the seizure of power rather implies that radical reform is the answer, see revolutionaryprogramme.wordpress.com/2011/12/05/some-critical-points-on-the-ulas-2011-budget-submission/ (http://revolutionaryprogramme.wordpress.com/2011/12/05/some-critical-points-on-the-ulas-2011-budget-submission/)

[C. Flower]

Amazing fantasy thread
what about saying
1/Nationalise assets of individuals with with over 5 million euro of assets from that 5 million mark
2/ refuse to pay bond holders
3/ sequester all bank profits for 10 years
4/ legalise drugs and tax all profit over cost of sale and distribution at 100% with 50% going to health care specifically designed for drug related health issues
5/ increase corportae tax to 25%
6/ introduce rates on all property based on means and property value
7/ tax multiple home ownership

I could go on ......there are nice things that could be done to stimulate growth and job creation but these leftists towing the line are annoying....a big boot is needed

I would not agree with all of those items, but it's a damn site more specific than the ULA budget submission.

Coffee had a very good look at the ULA taxation proposal here -
http://economic-incentives.blogspot.com/2011/12/wealth-and-taxing-wealth-in-ireland.html

The ULA document is propogandist only and everyone looking at it knows it is not a serious proposal.

[bolshevik]

Coffee had a very good look at the ULA taxation proposal here -
http://economic-incentives.blogspot.com/2011/12/wealth-and-taxing-wealth-in-ireland.html

Very interesting article. From my point of view it reflects/highlights a few problems with the ULA budget submission.

One being the technical problem of applying a wealth tax when the bourgeoisie hide how much wealth they have, even from themselves/each other.

Another that it is trying to solve the economic crisis in Ireland within the context of Irish nationals only when the vast bulk of wealth in Ireland is appropriated by the multi-nationals who dominiate the economy.

This seems to pose a couple of options. Either you give up on a strategy of significant wealth distribution as it is effectively impossible within the framework of the current system in the context of the economic crisis or you realise that it is necessary to break with the capitalist framework and it is only through expropriation of all the capital in Ireland (i.e. a socialist revolution) that real wealth redistribution can occur. And the reality of the domination of the economy by non-Irish based capital means that such a socialist revolution would have to be closely integrated with revolutionary developments in Britain and Europe.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

[unspecific]

And the reality of the domination of the economy by non-Irish based capital means that such a socialist revolution would have to be closely integrated with revolutionary developments in Britain and Europe.

Absolutely. We need co-ordination(programatic and action-wise) with our sister parties across the UK and the EU.

[C. Flower]

Very interesting article. From my point of view it reflects/highlights a few problems with the ULA budget submission.

One being the technical problem of applying a wealth tax when the bourgeoisie hide how much wealth they have, even from themselves/each other.

Another that it is trying to solve the economic crisis in Ireland within the context of Irish nationals only when the vast bulk of wealth in Ireland is appropriated by the multi-nationals who dominiate the economy.

This seems to pose a couple of options. Either you give up on a strategy of significant wealth distribution as it is effectively impossible within the framework of the current system in the context of the economic crisis or you realise that it is necessary to break with the capitalist framework and it is only through expropriation of all the capital in Ireland (i.e. a socialist revolution) that real wealth redistribution can occur. And the reality of the domination of the economy by non-Irish based capital means that such a socialist revolution would have to be closely integrated with revolutionary developments in Britain and Europe.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

Namawinelake and Coffee have put it up to the ULA... The famous "Credit Suisse Report" is not about Ireland, but written by someone called Paddy Ireland.

http://namawinelake.wordpress.com/2012/01/08/credit-suisse-produces-analysis-on-ireland-the-country-based-on-report-by-ireland-paddy-author-which-has-nothing-to-do-with-the-country/

This whole emphasis on the 1%, or the taxable few, by the ULA, Occupy and eírígí puts a wrong overemphasis imo on redistribution as a solution for the problems of capitalism.

There's a certain propoganda value to it, but essentially, taxation alone can't solve the problems, and nationalisation within nation states, in a globalised economy, is not a panacea. A transfer of powers from the few to the many, and a fundamental change in the organisation of production, from profit, to need, is a more realistic solution.

[Baron von Biffo]

Namawinelake and Coffee have put it up to the ULA... The famous "Credit Suisse Report" is not about Ireland, but written by someone called Paddy Ireland.

http://namawinelake.wordpress.com/2012/01/08/credit-suisse-produces-analysis-on-ireland-the-country-based-on-report-by-ireland-paddy-author-which-has-nothing-to-do-with-the-country/

This whole emphasis on the 1%, or the taxable few, by the ULA, Occupy and eírígí puts a wrong overemphasis imo on redistribution as a solution for the problems of capitalism.

There's a certain propoganda value to it, but essentially, taxation alone can't solve the problems, and nationalisation within nation states, in a globalised economy, is not a panacea. A transfer of powers from the few to the many, and a fundamental change in the organisation of production, from profit, to need, is a more realistic solution.

Higgins and Boyd-Barrett were on This Week earlier. Their solution seems to be that Santy will come back with a sack of money if we tell the Troika to feck off.

Since his intervention in the Tullamore power lines dispute I've regarded Boyd-Barrett as a 40-watt but Higgins was just as bad today. Maybe he's exhausted from all the internal tensions that must go with being the only socialist on the planet who opposes property taxes.