Ireland is economically closer to Boston than Berlin
New research from the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council (IFAC) shows the public finances are benefitting from a young population and a strong economy.
IFAC said Ireland's relatively young population means the government spends less on pensions and healthcare than it otherwise would. However, as our population ages, spending in these areas is expected to rise. This demographic shift will gradually bring Ireland's public spending closer to levels seen in other European countries.
Ireland's strong economy also helps to explain why public spending is low relative to national income. After adjusting for these factors, Irish government spending is 3.3% of national income lower than other European countries.
Ireland collects a lower level of government revenue than most other high-income European countries. This is equivalent to 4.7% of national income, or €2,600 per person. When excess corporation tax is excluded, the gap widens to 8.6% of national income or €4,700 per person.
'Demographics can have a big impact on government spending and tax levels," the report's author Niall Conroy said. "Ireland's public finances are benefitting from its relatively young population. That means we are spending less on pensions and healthcare than would otherwise be the case. As a result, spending levels in Ireland are lower than in other European countries."
"Both an ageing population and climate change will mean higher levels of spending. The two savings funds the government has introduced will help address these costs. But they will not cover all of these costs. As a result, the government will need to raise additional revenue or reallocate existing spending. The more the government saves today, the easier it will be to navigate these challenges," Mr Conroy said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Post
20 minutes ago
- Business Post
Jack Chambers: Risk-averse civil service will not be protected
Business Post subscribers can read: • The government's new 'crisis mindset' to speed up infrastructure delivery • Why a €300m Amazon project collapse has become a warning shot for Ireland's competitiveness Jack Chambers has fired a warning shot at Irish civil servants, telling state agencies and departments they will not be 'defended or protected' if they ...
Irish Examiner
2 hours ago
- Irish Examiner
John O'Brien: EU capitulation to US in trade deal shows weakness of the bloc
The EU has agreed a trade deal with the US that forces us to trade on worse terms than before. Increased tariffs on exports will make European products less competitive in the US market with a corresponding drop in sales, profits and jobs. This is expected to reduce GDP by 0.5% over the medium term. Financial markets reacted by selling the euro, signalling not only that it is a bad for economic growth but worse than expected. The nature of the negotiation is as damaging as the result. The EU commission, and Ursula von der Leyen in particular, capitulated to US demands, making significant concessions getting nothing in return. The negotiations did not need to go this way. The EU, the world's third largest economy and the US's largest export market, had the ability to hurt the US. Member states had given the commission powerful negotiating team tools. They agreed a targeted package of counter-tariffs on €93 billion of US exports to the bloc. The Anti-Coercion Instrument provides a legal framework for massive and wide-ranging counter measures, in particular against services, where the US has a significant surplus with the EU. The optimal outcome to retaliation would be a US retreat, either immediately or after negative market reaction, the infamous TACO trade ("Trump always chickens out"). Small concessions could be sold as a major victory to the domestic audience. This approach comes with a big risk, if the US does not back down, with escalating tariffs leading a full-blown trade war. This would cause significant economic harm to both sides, sufficient for the EU to enter a recession. The end game in this scenario is a fairer deal, following significant pain on both sides. The commission has chosen the low risk accepting a bad deal in return for stability, in the context of annual growth expectations of between 1-1.5%, a loss of 0.5% will not cause a recession. However, it is difficult to see the long-term plan from the EU. The trade commissioner, Maros Šefčovič, suggested that is the start of a process leading to a broader, more equal agreement in future, possible after a change of administration. Future administrations will have little incentive to renegotiate a deal tilted so much in their favour once a treaty is signed. The commission may be playing for time, recognising that Europe is in a poor position to deal with economic recession while contributing to the defence of Ukraine. In this scenario, we can expect extended negotiations to delay signing a treaty and locking in the new tariffs. The key selling point is a stable business environment, but this may be more mirage than reality. Even describing the agreement as a trade deal is misleading. It is little more than a memorandum of understanding between politicians; the commission refers to it as a framework for negotiation. Outside the tariffs, many points remain vague, such as the aspiration to reduce non-tariff barriers. It will not become a trade deal until the treaty is signed, and much can go wrong between now and then. Any business planning on the basis of 15% and done could be getting a nasty surprise before the end of the year. A formal trade agreement needs to be ratified by member states in the EU and congress in the US. The French prime minister has strongly condemned the deal, while Germany has been lukewarm at best. Ratification remains likely but not certain. No congress, whatever its composition, is likely to reject a deal so favourable to the US. The US may increase demands having seen the EU weakness. The administration has made clear its desire to bring the pharmaceutical industry home and is currently reviewing its options. Any effort to strip the industry from the deal will likely result in counter measures. Trump has been vocal about getting access to international markets for American beef, demands for access will cross a European red line on food safety and could escalate quickly. EU weakness The worse effects will be long-term, not directly from the deal, but the manner of negotiation. The deference to the US and capitulation to its demands will cost the EU prestige and credibility in international relations. It has projected weakness in surrendering to economic threats and accepting a one-sided deal and this will be noted globally. It has shown unwillingness to accept short term pain for long-term benefit, China and Russia will be particularly interested in this. Special pleading on areas of national interest such as wine (France), cars (Germany) or IT Services (Ireland) has shown it is possible to follow a divide and conquer strategy in negotiations with the EU. Collective bargaining on trade is presented as one of the key benefits of the EU and the poor outcome has boosted Eurosceptic groups. Populist and far-right parties have been quick to criticise the commission. Victor Orban has focused on the commission's weakness while both National Rally (France) and AfD (Germany) have been vocal critics. The inability of the commission to match the UK's 10% tariff gives ammunition to these groups. The America First disengagement from global affairs has created a leadership vacuum, and an opportunity for the EU. It could have taken a leadership position with a principled rejection of the bullying US demands. Instead, it submitted, making it harder for smaller countries to negotiate fair trade. The impact on Ireland Ireland's economy will suffer along with Europe as exports become less competitive in the US. However, we have more reason than most to be thankful that the commission has chosen the safe route. The Irish economic model has created an economy dependent on foreign direct investment – primarily from the US and centred on pharmaceuticals and technology. These sectors are now as important to the economy as the construction industry at the peak of the property bubble. Ireland would see a significant recession in the event of a trade war. The economy will face a double hit as high US tariffs significantly reduce pharmaceutical and other exports, while European counter measures on US technology companies would hit employment in and corporate tax from the many companies headquartered in Ireland. It is no surprise the Taoiseach, Tánaiste and a collection of ministers have been lining up to support the agreement. This is not a new vulnerability and should not be dismissed as the consequence of a uniquely erratic US administration. John O'Brien: 'The commission may be playing for time, recognising that Europe is in a poor position to deal with economic recession while contributing to the defence of Ukraine.' Repatriation of Irish-based US companies' profits has been an issue for administrations on both sides of the political divide, since at least the presidency of Barack Obama. The biggest gain for Ireland is if the near miss, so far, on a damaging trade war jolts our politicians out of complacency and into action to rebalancing the economy. In the shorter term, the government and business must prepare for a break down in the agreement. The situation around pharmaceuticals is not stable, agriculture exports are vulnerable to fall-out from moves to open Europe to US agricultural products. Businesses operating across the island of Ireland will be disrupted by different tariff rates between north and south, with unpredictable results. Ireland, like most EU governments, seem happy to accept a one-sided deal that brings an appearance of stability and avoids a damaging trade war in the short-term. Unfortunately, this comes with a long-term cost of a loss of prestige and influence and a missed opportunity to take a greater role in global leadership. John O'Brien is lecturer in the department of accounting and finance, Cork University Business School
The Journal
3 hours ago
- The Journal
Ireland will push again for EU to suspend trade deal with Israel over international law breach
SIMON HARRIS PUSHED for a suspension of the EU trade deal with Israel until 'all violence' ends at an extraordinary meeting of EU Foreign Ministers. The meeting was held today to discuss the 'urgent matters' of the humanitarian crisis unfolding in Gaza, and the situation in Ukraine ahead of Friday's meeting between President Trump and President Putin in Alaska. The Tánaiste said Israel is in breach of Article 2 of the EU-Israel trade agreement (Association Agreement), which requires both parties to follow international human rights law and respect democratic principles. He urged the European Commission to come forward with 'concrete actions' that Europe can take to increase the pressure on Israel to change course. 'It is very clear that Israel is in breach of Article 2 of the Association Agreement and it is essential that, at our next Foreign Affairs meeting, concrete actions are taken and a menu of options is put on the table,' he said. 'I made it clear to my European counterparts today that this remains Ireland's position. We must take concrete actions, not just issue statements of condemnation.' Advertisement Harris said he expressed 'deep alarm' at the ongoing humanitarian catastrophe and the genocidal actions taking place in Gaza. He said Europe must adopt a 'clear and united' call for an immediate cessation of violence, a surge in humanitarian relief, and the release of all hostages. 'At a time when there should be urgent efforts to secure a ceasefire, increase humanitarian aid, and release hostages, the Netanyahu government is instead moving in the opposite direction,' he said. 'If Israel proceeds with its planned occupation on Gaza City, it will mean more bloodshed, more loss of life, more starvation, and an even greater distance from any hope of peace. The latest plan must not go ahead.' Harris also said the EU will continue intensive engagement with the US and remain united in offering 'unwavering support' for Ukraine. The Tánaiste urged his European counterparts to intensify engagement with the United States in advance of Friday's meeting. 'Nothing about Ukraine's future should be discussed without Ukraine present,' Harris said. 'It is important to remember that while this war is being fought on Ukrainian territory, it is also a war on the continent of Europe and against a country aspiring to join the European Union.' Readers like you are keeping these stories free for everyone... A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article. Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation. Learn More Support The Journal
