what are they going to do this with… Monopoly money? I thought the one advantage of national bankruptcy was that it ruled out this type of hair brained scheme.
Yup. And abolishing is silly. A reduction across the board would be much more effective, IMO.
The side effect of this is that you will have companies laying off people on statutary redundancy (at a cost to the state) and re-employing them with zero PRSI. Fucking madness.
Not when you look at it from a macro economic perspective. When you can’t devalue your currency the only way to restore competitiveness is through getting wage costs down. This is achieved through high unemployment. People lose their job and enter a job market where there is high competition for jobs and will thus take lower wages. Abolishing PRSI for new employees speeds up the process and should in theory reduce unemployment over time. Remember high unemployment is unavoidable at this stage. The policy is to speed up the cycle and get over peak unemployment quickly. Reduce costs at all costs.
Not very nice for the individual I know, but cold hard macro economic policy at work.
So they’re investing in the share capital of these companies to prevent job losses. This means that they are convinced that it’s lack of funds that will lead to the layoffs in these companies. Any chance it might be because they are simply not profitable anymore?
Yeah, this is what robd is alluding to. I am a bit conflicted - while I see the need to deflate, I would actually prefer a Japanese style deflation to, say, a Korean one. But it may be that companies are in so much trouble that they have no choice? The deflation is going to get a whole lot deflationier.
Do they not need to focus on the big picture (overall tax take) and not whether this fund has enough and other fund has a little spare, etc. It doesn’t matter what’s in each ‘fund’, just concentrate on the overall amount in the pot.
Really depends on the definition of “new” - is it additional i.e. if I employ 10 pax. and hire an 11th, the lower rate applies to the 11th. Or if I employ 10, sack the lot, and re-hire, say 8, is the rate the lower rate?
I cannot see it being the latter as it will encourage even profitable companies to layoff staff & rehire which is madness. If the former, a lower rate of PRSI for new hires will have minimal impact - given the good old law of supply & demand employers can get staff at lower cost of employment these days and companies that are struggling to maintain current employment levels ain’t going to be hiring.
Expect this not to be clarified and the usual confusion to apply.
Cowen’s consigliere who leaked this earth shattering news, must have come from the advertising industry. He clearly is unfamiliar with recent Irish business history.
We got a “smart economy” wish list before Christmas and now this breathtaking hyperbole:
New Deal and “Rooseveltian measures.”
So what was Foir Teoranta then?
Maybe Roosevelt’s Square Deal (i.e Teddy R.) or Harry Truman’s Fair Deal?
I know a couple of people who are closing their businesses, laying off everybody and setting-up a brand new company with a brand new trade (sufficiently adapted/amended, etc) to avail of the 0% tax for the next 3 years. No doubt they will hold off a little longer now that they’ll be able to employ staff at 0% Employers PRSI also.
Are we going to end up at a situation where the average industrial wage in the private sector is be €22,000 and the PS still at €48,000 along with al the benefits ?