Notes on the Front

Commentary on Irish Political Economy by Michael Taft, researcher for SIPTU

Fiscal Treaty Files: The First Question is How Much It will Cost

The very first question that should be answered is how much more austerity the passage of the Fiscal Treaty will mean.   After all, this is a ‘fiscal’ treaty.  It is intended to have an impact on Government budgets.  So the first question should be: what fiscal impact will this fiscal treaty have on Ireland’s fiscal policy.

Answers such as ‘oh, this treaty is about growth, jobs, stability,’ etc. etc.  are not acceptable.  The particular question here is how much more austerity.  It is an issue that can be measured (insofar as measuring structural deficits can be considered reliable).  Let’s see if we can come up with some kind of answer.

By 2015 the Government estimates that the structural deficit will be 3.7 percent of GDP.  The Treaty stipulates a target of 0.5 percent.  That means the Government will have to reduce the deficit by another 3.2 percent. 

In money terms, that amounts to a gap of €5.7 billion in 2015. This need not be addressed in the period up to 2015.  But it would have to be addressed afterwards – meaning at least another two to three years of austerity budgets.

Now here’s where it gets a bit more difficult. 

Even the Government doubts this structural deficit figure of 3.7 percent, because it is based on (in their words) an ‘unrealistic’ scenario and is 'highly uncertain'.  So maybe it will be less.  However, it could be more. 

When we turn to the IMF we get another, more benign estimate.  They claim that the structural deficit will be 2.3 percent by 2015.  That’s significantly less than the Government estimates and indicates that the amount of austerity needed to bring us to the Fiscal Treaty target might not be as much as indicated by the Government.  But there’s a little catch here (besides the obvious – how do you determine policy on a measurement that produces such varying results).

The IMF estimates continue to 2017.  They assume there will be no austerity in 2016 and 2017, since the Government hasn’t announced any.  As a result, the IMF projects little change in Ireland’s structural deficit in 2017 (2.1 percent). 

And when we look at the impact of austerity between 2011 and 2015, we find an interesting ratio:  €1 billion in spending cuts/tax increases coincided with a reduction of the structural deficit by €500 million.  This is not necessarily a cause and effect – much depends on other elements in this ‘abstract’ calculation (potential GDP growth, output gap, etc.).  But let’s run with this ratio.

If applied to the IMF estimate, we may be looking into approximately €5.9 billion in austerity measures after 2015 to reduce the structural deficit to 0.5 percent.  This corresponds with the Department of Finances’ gap of €5.7 billion.

So on the basis of two measurements produced by two agencies we come up with nearly €6 billion in more austerity measures.

Of course, the Government can easily provide its own estimate.  There is no doubt that they are working the numbers now if they haven’t come up with a figure already.  It would be bizarre if they weren’t. 

Industrious TDs should start putting down questions to the Minister – even as a public information service.

Or the Government could produce the numbers when they publish their Stability Programme Update in April – since they would be estimating the structural deficit anyway in this document. 

So while there are many questions to be asked and answered during this campaign, let’s start with the cost.  What is the fiscal impact on Ireland’s fiscal policy – after all, it is a ‘Fiscal’ Treaty.

It deserves to be answered.  And if Government Ministers refuse to answer . . . well, you can draw your own conclusions.

4 responses to “Fiscal Treaty Files: The First Question is How Much It will Cost”

  1. CMK Avatar

    Micheal, I’m not an economist but I can operate a spreadsheet. I’ve done my own little exercise which shows that the levels of austerity, in terms of cutbacks and tax increases, required to reach the .5% target would be near apocalyptic. The reason, based on my analysis, is that interest payments will have to ringfenced within overall govenment spending as I presume a suspension of interest payments constitutes a default. By my reckoning those payments will be at or above 8 billion by 2014-5. So, the spending reductions and tax increases required to meet the .5% deficit target will have to be massive and will be in addition to those, already harsh, cutbacks/tax increases already planned for each year until 2015. In my calculations I presumed the fiscal treaty would come into effect in 2014 and that, to meet the .5% target and maintain interest payments of 8 billion, would require cutbacks of the order of 9 billion and tax increases of the order of 6 billion. With cutbacks in 2015 of 7.4 billion and tax increases of 4.2 billion.
    Are the government really that crazy that they would inflict this level of austerity – which exceeds that being imposed on Greece – in order not to get a piffling 150 million fine from the ECJ. That’s what I find really scary: that they’re willing to push extreme austerity on us not out of the extreme consequences of breaching the Fiscal pact, but rather out of loyalty to a degraded European ideal ‘solidarity’ which prioritises the health of the financial system over the well being of the population.

    Like

  2. Michael Taft Avatar

    CMK – thanks for that. Let me get back on this.

    Like

  3. Nessa Childers Avatar
    Nessa Childers

    I know this is a really simplistic question but I can’t seem to get an answer. Aside from the immorality of imposing these ” apocalyptic” cuts or even the less apocalyptic ones , I can’t see that the money is actually THERE. The economy is to small. We would literally be cannibalising it. But then again, I’m not an economist . But the again too, no politician has been able to answer this question.

    Like

  4. Niscarsesause Avatar

    http://www.malcolmsteward.co.uk/shop/nike-free-run-2/ [url=http://stewartcleaners.com/nikefreerun2/%5Dnike free run[/url] http://www.bcfunerals.com/cheap-nike-air-max-shoes like Amazon offers several nike shox outlet brands in one place. louis vuitton outlet online 8GHz Core Duo and now those have been well phased out. wholesale air max 90 has been re-positioning Iniesta. Air Max 90, Nike Air Max as a result. Be aware of what models will suit your character best. Nike Free 3.0 There are several Louis Vuitton pockets that can be won in this tissue and eventually all. To overcome such miseries. Nike Air Max 2013 That the name of this stylish laptop is kept “Adamo” the meaning of this word is to fall in love.
    We need global warming to power his stupid solar devices. De Witt Watches.
    Quilted fabric backpacks are very popular with generations of students and they come in different sizes and shapes. The designer handbags are replicated as it is; the development department pre-designs the handbags. advantages of having an unemployed parent. Football” magazine.
    Among children between the ages of 6 and 12. [url=http://www.ankadystrybucja.com/ja/Louis-Vuitton/%5Dlouis vuitton handbags outlet[/url] [url=http://www.ankadystrybucja.com/ja/Louis-Vuitton/%5Dlouis vuitton outlet store[/url] [url=http://www.malcolmsteward.co.uk/shop/nike-free-run-2/%5DNike Free run[/url] [url=http://www.rbmusic.co.uk/nike-free-run-3/%5Dair max 90 uk[/url] development and sizing doable. Handbags quilted fabric reason for you to make a style statement.
    Nike Air Max
    louis vuitton outlet store
    nike free tr2
    Nike Free run
    Cheap Nike Air Max

    Like

Leave a comment

Navigation

About

Commentary on Irish Political Economy by Michael Taft, researcher for SIPTU