Skip to content

Thursday, Sep 2nd 2010


Open Letter to Sarah Carey

Dear Sarah

I read with interest your recent Irish Times column - ‘Nemesis for decades of cosy consensus on tax‘. I was particularly struck by the following:

‘When asked who should pay tax so that there’s enough money to fund the most generous social welfare payments in the EU, we are back to - you’ve guessed it - the tax exiles.’

I’m assuming you mean that the Irish social welfare system makes the most generous payments in the EU.  What do you base this on?  What is your source for this statement?  I would clearly appreciate knowing because the data I have come across suggests, far from being the ‘most generous’, the Irish social welfare system is one of the more parsimonious.

The OECD produces an interesting cross-country comparison of wages, taxes and unemployment benefits.  The latest year it has data for is 2006.  This is the information it produces.

If you are an unemployed single person, you’re not doing well in Ireland.  We are the third least generous in the EU-15.  Our basic unemployment payment is 29 percent below the average of other EU-15 countries.  Even poorer countries such as Portugal and Spain make higher payments.  Now if we were Luxembourg, you’re argument about the ‘most generous‘ might hold water.

In addition, Irish welfare payments to the single unemployed makes up only 34 percent of net take-home pay, again the 3rd worst in the EU-15 tables.  The average in the other countries is 58 percent with, again, plucky Luxembourg paying out 85 percent of net take-home pay.

Just a couple of notes on this data:

First, these figures relate to a wage of approximately €29,960 - the average private sector pay in Ireland (you might be interested to know that we Irish are paid substantially less than our EU-counterparts; the average private sector pay in the other EU-15 countries is €33,798; we are paid over 11 percent below average.  If we compare ourselves to the average pay in the ten wealthiest EU countries, we fall over 23 percent below average).

Second, I have focused on the base unemployment payment, excluding housing benefit for all countries.  While we have rent and mortgage supplements, a large majority of the unemployed don’t receive these payments and of those that do, most do not draw down the maximum amount available.  This creates some problems in comparison since in some countries, housing costs are calculated in the basic unemployment benefit (e.g. France), but the explanatory tables to the OECD data don’t suggest this skewers the data by a significant amount.  We are still paid well below average.

When it comes to comparing payments for a married couple with two children (and here I use the Irish average industrial wage of €38,000) Ireland does better, thankfully.  Payments are somewhat above average - in the mid-table.  But, again, I would hardly describe this average performance as the ‘most generous‘ in Europe.  And still, we don’t manage to pay the average replacement rate as pertains in the other countries.  An Irish couple with two children will only receive 52 percent of their net take-home pay.  In other EU-15 countries the average is 59 percent.

However, none of the above takes into account living standards.  This is important to factor in because, as I’m sure you are aware Sarah, a Euro in France or Spain goes a lot further than a Euro in Ireland when it comes to buying goods and services.  To factor this in we have to apply Power Purchasing Parities (PPPs) which evens out living standards throughout all countries and makes comparisons more valid.  What happens when we do this?

Well, for the single person in Ireland, the unemployment payment they receive is worth even less in comparison with EU-15 countries.  In Ireland, the payment would be worth €7,245; in the other countries - €11,699.  That’s 38 percent below the average.

And when you apply PPPs to payments made to couples with two children, the Irish payment falls below the average in the other EU-15 countries.

Now, of course, you might have been referring to other aspects of our ‘most generous‘ social welfare system.  Maybe you had in mind old age pensions.  But the OECD’s database, Pensions at a Glance, shows that Irish replacement ratios (pension income as a percentage of pre-retirement earnings) is less than half the OECD average.  In Ireland, an average income earner can expect 38 percent of their pre-retirement income as a pension; the OECE average is 70 percent.

Maybe you had in mind lone parents - except that lone parents are more at risk of poverty here than almost anywhere else in the entire EU.

Maybe you had in mind disability and illness benefits, but I suspect we would see similar patterns since these benefit levels are pegged at our low unemployment payment levels.

The fact is, Sarah, that we do not have a ‘generous‘ welfare system, we have an anaemic one. But what would you expect?  We have a relatively low-waged structure.  Historically, we have a low level of public expenditure (though this is changing slightly with rising levels of unemployment driving the fiscal deficit).  Indeed, low-tax, low-spend countries - of which Ireland has been the global poster child - don’t have generous welfare systems, or generous public services, or top class  infrastructures.

I look forward to hearing how you substantiate your assertion that Ireland has the ‘most generous‘ welfare system in the EU.  Or, failing that, reading your correction in your next Irish Times opinion piece.

Yours sincerely

Michael Taft
www.notesonthefront.typepad.com

PS.  You also mentioned that ‘you have no idea what middle-income means’.  The following might give you some idea.  The latest EU Survey on Income and Living Conditions suggests that the ‘middle income’ household - with three people (one person working full-time, one working part-time or a dependent, and one child) - earned a little over €35,000 per year from work in 2007.  In addition, they received €12,000 in social transfers (pension, Child Benefit, etc.).  After tax-income for the entire household was €43,000 for three people to live on.  Okay, this is a statistical construct - but it captures the ‘middle-income’.  After mortgage/rent, utilities, VHI, childcare, transport to work, and, of course, purchasing the Irish Times, it ain’t much.  And this is before the recession kicks in!

Update: see also Sarah Carey’s Not Very Generous Response.

Photo of Mary Coghlan joining the dole queue at the Gardiner Street exchange is courtesy of the Sunday Tribune.

Discussion

We welcome and encourage lively discussion from the public about articles on Irish Left Review. You can leave a comment using the form at the bottom of the page. Please read through the existing comments before posting your own.

  1. Comment by: Renegade Eye

    Mar 24th 2009 at 04:03

    I hope she is reading this.

Leave a Comment

(required)

(required, will not be published)

Best of the Web

  • Newspaper Circulation Figures

    CIRCULATION FIGURES:
    Jan - June 2010

    Irish Independent 144896
    Irish Examiner 46687
    The Irish Times 105742
    Irish Daily Star 93729
    Irish Daily Mirror 60460
    The Irish Sun 86064
    Irish Daily Mail 51338
    Weekend Herald 40933

    No comments »
  • EAPN Ireland | Workfare Won’t Work for the Unemployed

    Excellent blog post from Aiden Lloyd, on EAPN’s On the Line blog. This pretty much nails the governments ‘thinking’ behind the workfare scheme. It wants to be seen to be doing something, while doing absolutely nothing. The economic structure of the country is based on attracting foreign capital, aka laundering profits, which only really benefits a small minority. Everything else is supposed to ‘trickle down’ from this. They’re not interested in restructuring the economy to boost indiginous growth.

    Minister O’Cuiv aims to use these schemes to provide unemployed people with short-term work activity, to up-skill them and ‘get them back into the mainstream workforce as speedily as possible’. He further contends that ‘maintaining people’s employability through regular work activity will be important for getting people back into the competitive economy’. This stance is revealing and is indicative of government thinking in terms of job creation for unemployed people. It would appear that the decision has already been made that any recovery will be dependent on a general improvement in the global economy and that the immediate priority is to manage matters until this recovery comes about.

    No comments »
  • Hugh Green | Anglo Grinder

    Hugh Green, on foot of the largest profit loss in Irish history - the 8.2 bn lost by Anglo Irish Bank in six months - has started to look at the figures and its eye watering.

    Grants to Enterprise was ticking over nicely all the way through the boom, making up 5-7% of capital expenditure. Then bam! 2009 we’re up to nearly 25% of capital expenditure. Only problem is that in 2009, it’s mostly down to Anglo Irish Bank.

    And

    But seeing as we’re heading into the propaganda season leading up to the budget, talking about the ‘savings’ that will have to be made, what with the ‘fiscal austerity’ being demanded by the ‘markets’, in the form of cuts to welfare, education and health, consider austerity in relation to spending on Anglo Irish Bank.

    See chart for details.

    No comments »
  • Slavefare: government proposal is a sham

    This comment from an anonymous punter on progressive economy sums up many of my thoughts on the matter
    "The thing that annoys me most about this is that it's not a real proposal. The Department can't provide any detailed proposals because there aren't any!

    The Minister appears to have thrown a (bad) idea out there to convey the impression that something's being done to tackle our unemployment problem when the reality couldn't be further from the truth.
    He's accused unemployed people of widespread fraud, without offering them any hope of getting a real job.

    We've seen the biggest recorded job losses in the history of the state, and Minister O'Cuiv thinks the numbers are high because people are refusing jobs, or working and claiming - what jobs does he think are out there? Employers are complaining because they're inundated with applications for any job advertised, not because no-one's applying!

    No comments »
  • Social Europe Needs a New Economic Model | John Palmer at Social Europe Journal

    There is however, a deep issue at stake if defence of decent European social standards is to be placed at the heart of policy making and not to become an increasingly powerless lobby at the margins of the debate. For that to happen the European Union must surely break with an almost exclusive emphasis on GDP as the be all and end all of economic policy objectives. The time has come to replace GDP with a far wider, more socially and environmentally responsible measure of economic progress.

    No comments »
  • Michael Burke’s common on Michael Taft’s post on progressive-economy@tasc re Service exports

    In the late boom year of 2005 the Gross Value Added (GVA) of the building and construction sector was €12.9bn and industry ex bulding was €33.6bn (2009 National incomes and Accounts, Table 4). By contrast the GVA of 'Other services', which includes financial services was €67.6bn.

    If we turn to the separate Input-Output tables, the 3 categories of financial services (finance, insurance and related) comprised €32bn.

    These are very large numbers and they are based on a fiction.

    The CSO link provided by Michael Taft shows Ireland has a trade deficit in services with the US of some €17.4bn, whereas services trade with the Europe and the rest of the world is in surplus.

    1 comment »
  • New Left Project | NLP Blog

    Good post on the BBC's official response to criticism of their Panorama documentary on the Gaza flotilla
    The BBC has, predictably, “dismiss[ed]” claims that a recent Panorama documentary on the Gaza flotilla was biased towards Israel. But its response itself illustrates the crux of the problem:

    “Israel has been accused of breaking international law by seizing a Turkish ship. Israel says they were terrorists. Turkey insists they were innocent victims.”

    That same opposition was proposed throughout the documentary on the flotilla: were the activists terrorists, or were they innocent peace activists?

    No comments »
  • Companies Dodge $60 Billion in Taxes Even Tea Party Condemns - BusinessWeek

    The Double Irish’

    On advice from Ernst & Young, Forest Laboratories Ireland reorganized that year, dropping the country from its name. The newly dubbed Forest Laboratories Holdings Ltd. established a registered office in Hamilton, Bermuda, declaring the island its tax residence. This unit took control of licensing the patents.

    A second subsidiary in Ireland inherited the old name. It handled the manufacturing, sublicensing the rights to the patents, according to a corporate disclosure and an internal Forest flow chart tracing the arrangement that was reviewed by Bloomberg.

    The change helped the Irish subsidiary cut its effective tax rate to 2.4 percent from 10.3 percent the year before the reorganization, according to its annual reports. It did so by deducting from its taxable income the fees that went to Bermuda, which has no corporate income tax. Charlie Perkins, a spokesman for Ernst & Young, one of the so-called Big Four, declined to comment on its work for Forest.

    No comments »
  • Ireland: A recession of the banks, by the banks, and for the banks | afoe | A Fistful of Euros | European Opinion

    And yet it’s not clear that the worst is over. The banks haven’t yet made a big move on distressed home mortgages and no one is clear what will happen when forebearance is no longer a viable strategy. Notwithstanding the government’s attempts to compare tax revenue to “profile” (i.e. a very recent projection), the fact is that tax revenue is stagnant at last year’s depression-like levels despite an apparent recovery in economic statistics. And while there are those desperate hotels, the tourists will still find fussy and expensive restaurants (plus VAT).

    Are there any tricks left in the bag? The government is looking at privatization, most likely as a way to realize a large amount of cash at fairly short notice — essentially a portfolio switch of state-owned companies for all the bank liabilities it has taken on. And there are some bizarre Thatcherite echoes in the possible appearance of a poll tax by the end of the year (dressed up as a “flat rate” water charge or property tax)

    No comments »
  • How Much Did Eurozone States Spend On Bailing Out Private Banks? | Irish Public Policy

    As a percentage of GDP the Euro-area average is 25.4%, the EU 27 is 31.2%. This is about 1,870 billion for the entire Eurozone. Nothing compared to what has been allocated to the Greek government. But, get this, Ireland spent a whopping 231.8% of its GDP, massively above any other country. Most of this is accounted for by the blanket guarantee of bank liabilities.

    No comments »

Link Archives »