Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
THE DEPARTMENT OF Finance has released its ‘White Paper’ ahead of the upcoming Budget, which confirms the Government will have a surplus of €25 billion for this year.
The ‘White Paper’ is published every year ahead of the budget and provides estimates of Ireland’s receipts and expenditure for the coming year.
The figures presented for 2024 are projections based on current information and are subject to revision when end-year figures become available.
The Department also notes that all figures are on a “technical pre-Budget basis and do not include any new policy measures to be announced as part of the 2025 Estimates and Budgetary processes”.
As well as a forecasted surplus of €25 billion for this current year, the Department is also forecasting a surplus of close to €12 billion for 2025.
However, this year’s figure includes all of the €14 billion windfall fund from Apple’s unpaid tax.
The European Court of Justice recently ruled that Apple must pay €13 billion to Ireland in unpaid taxes, something the Irish government had argued against.
While the 2024 figure includes all of the Apple tax for accounting purposes, only €8 billion of the Apple escrow fund will be injected into the exchequer this year, while the remaining €6 billion will be accrued next year.
And though the Apple tax makes up a great portion of the surplus, a record high of €30 billion in corporation taxes to be received by the State this year – €5.5 billion more than expected.
Yesterday, the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council warned that it “would be dangerous” to “pump” corporate tax receipts into the economy.
The Council is the State’s budgetary watchdog and was established to offer an “honest and independent view of how the Government manages its budget”.
It noted that a massive surplus was to be expected due to a spike in corporation tax due to the Apple tax ruling.
However, the Council cautioned that these “receipts would be once-off in nature” and that the surplus will be “significantly smaller in 2025”.
“A large deficit would be likely if not for these and other exceptional corporation tax receipts being collected from a handful of foreign multinationals,” said the Council.
“Pumping these receipts into a strong economy would be dangerous,” it added.
The Council also called for improved transparency in the White Paper itself.
“We’ve long argued that it should show gross rather than net spending,” said the Council, “which is hugely unhelpful.”
It said that these “general government figures would give a wider picture”.
Last week, Finance Minister Jack Chambers acknowledged that Ireland’s “fiscal position remains heavily exposed to volatile ‘windfall’ corporate tax revenues paid by just a small number of highly profitable firms”.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Should we ask Leo what his plans are?
@Fank Pulman: Leo is a man, he can not get pregnant. If he does adopt with his partner I’m sure they can afford to hire a good nanny. Hope this helps you, you seem confused!
@Jamie Jj Tobin: No, not confused at all. What if Leo wants to raise the children himself, like many of us?
@Fank Pulman: I think the issue is what will happen to a sitting leader that needs to go on maternity leave. This does not affect a man.
@Jamie Jj Tobin: Is Leo not entitled to paternity leave?
@Fank Pulman: an absentee leader, sure what could go wrong?
@Jamie Jj Tobin: My god, you are a bore..
@Fank Pulman: Yes he is entitled and he’s also entitled to leave the position of Taoiseach and become a full time daddy. Maybe we should ask leo
@Jamie Jj Tobin: Do they have deputy leaders over there? Someone who could do the leg work for ten or twelve weeks?
@p kilgannon: Ask – was the original question!
@Fank Pulman:
“No, not confused at all. What if Leo wants to raise the children himself, like many of us?”
You are very confused or just trying to troll a comment to get a reaction. If people want to raise their children themselves they are perfectly entitled to but you can’t expect to be a full time parent while also having a full time job. Parenting is a job in itself whether it is the mother or father or both or someone else which takes on the role
@Jamie Jj Tobin: The same applies with a woman. I’m sure she could hire a good nanny. Women in well paid jobs with positions of authority don’t generally take the full maternity leave available to them.
@Nick Allen: Many are excellent parents (some single) whilst working full time – or have you not noticed?
@Paul Foot: Yes Paul, it was. Well done. And I seconded it.
@Paul Foot:
I have noticed but you are getting confused again. Your question was ‘What if Leo wants to raise the children himself’. Just admit it, you are trolling to try and get a response on a sensitive and somewhat controversial issue.
@Nick Allen: Too much posting has dulled your brain, m8! Take a day off from all the trolls¡
@Fank Pulman:
Always the sign of a troll when they resort to that sort of comment. Its the get out of jail from answering the question.
@Nick Allen: WHAT question – you arch bore?
@Jamie Jj Tobin: that’s a non issue as leaders go on leave all the time that’s what deputies are for
@neilo:
Of course her partner is able to parent the child. I never said otherwise. But IF she elects to take maternity and IF she elects to parent the child then how can she do her other job
I don’t think this should be a sexism debate. It’s about whether the person is fit and available to carry out their job function and whether there is sufficient backup if the person was to take extended leave from their job. For example, if she says yes I want to have 3 kids in the next 4 years and I want to take 6 months maternity leave with each child then is she the right person to lead a political party if the election cycle is every for or 5 years?
@Nick Allen: well, is she¿
@Nick Allen: Agreed. Mature students in interviews for Uni courses are often asked if they have kids, and how do they propose to study and raise kids at the same time. They’re also asked how they propose to finance it. It’s a pertinent line of questioning imo. On some courses, like social work, being a mature student with kids is an advantage. I’m sure on other courses it would be considered a disadvantage.
@Fank Pulman:
If she wants 3 kids in 4 years and 6 months maternity leave for each then the answer is ‘No’. If you are offering someone a 4 year contract to complete a project would a person that wants to take 2 years off be the right person?
I am not trying to say companies should not employ women in case they get pregnant, that’s BS as the jobs are generally considered long term. Leading a political party is not a long term job and is a very different scenario.
@Niall Sullivan: it’s her business if she cites our sites not. don’t think the world would stop spinning on it’s axis if sometime to take leave. Appoint a replacement.
@Niall Sullivan: our lot take 4 months holidays / do constituency work, don’t bother showing up when in session. Probably a good thing, Coney would be in a worse state if they did.
@Andrew Dillon: *country
@Niall Sullivan: If mature students are asked that, it is completely illegal.
@Matt Connolly: Well, I was back 15 year ago, so maybe they’ve changed it now?
@Niall Sullivan: it is actually illegal for a college to ask those questions. It is none of anyone’s business. A woman will make her arrangements to make sure she can complete her course as will any new father.
These kind of comments go back to the dark ages.
@Nick Allen: Very political incorrect thing to say but it’s completely true. I once worked with a woman who was literally in the job 2 months and she announced she was going off on maternity leave. She obviously knew she was pregnant when she did the interview and took up the role but the rest of us ended up doing her work for the 6 months. When she came back she was looking to work part time. When she was more or less told no she left. The company was more or less back to square one with regards filling the role. If I was an employer I’d think twice about a woman in her late 20′s or early 30′s.
@mickmc:
Yes very politically incorrect but it is an issue which is over shadowed by the world going too politically correct. There is nothing wrong with a woman getting pregnant and I absolutely believe that employers should support women during this period and that women should not be discriminated against. However, there are some jobs and some companies which need the person available for a specific period of time. If the employee, be it a man or a woman is not available then they cannot do the job. This is basic logistics and not sexism.
@mickmc: Here’s another one for you. I once worked in a place where they took on a woman who announced four weeks after starting that she was pregnant. So, after about six months in the job, off she went off on leave. Three months later, the company announced a round of redundancies. Their legal advice was not to make this woman redundant, for fear she’d take a case alleging discrimination. So somebody else was shown the door instead. Was that fair to that other person? Then to cap it all, less than six months after she came back, and being regularly late into work during those six months, she handed in her notice to become a full time mum. Again – is that fair on the other person, who lost a job so that it could instead stay with somebody who ended up not even wanting it?
@Nick Allen: you know men can look after babies too…yes really! Many self employed women go back to work within weeks of having a baby and their partners take time off using parental leave to look after babies.
Women can’t win, Teresa may was vilified for not having children, this woman is having the same done if she has plans to have children
@Fank Pulman: I think he answered that question already and also revealed that the Dinosaurs are not extinct just hiding out in the comments section of the Journal
@Nick Allen: “jobs are long term” that’s purely your opinion only, I’ve never considered a job long term in my life, I come and go as I please and have never been our of work
@Nick Allen: yeah just make it a sexy debate
@Blah blah:
Where have I said otherwise? Of course men can look after children. That doesn’t change this issue.
@Boganity:
It’s not my opinion. It is the fact we that salaried jobs are permanent jobs. When you took one of your many jobs did you sign a permanent contract?
@Blah blah: Theresa May was not vilified for not having children. Andrea Leadsom was vilified for her comments about women who don’t have children.
(In the same conversation she cast aspersions on men who work with children as potential child molesters. This aroused no controversy)
@Nick Allen: even worse in Nz , election cycle every three years! She’d never be there
If she goes on maternity leave, that’s when her Deputy PM steps in. Simples. Plus the public has no absolute right to know about her family plans. Should have no bearing on whether or not this woman or any woman should get a job. If she’s good enough, giver her required leave if/when she needs it and get a suitable replacement.
@Thomas McGilly: Dead right.
@Thomas McGilly:
If she is good enough for the job she should get the job. But if she is not available to do the job that is a different situation altogether. For example, if the job is a 6 month contract to cover someone who is on maternity leave should a person who is not available be given the job? If a man has scheduled an operation for a week after the job commences to remove a disc from his back and has been told he needs to take 6 months off work, should he be given the job?
@Thomas McGilly: spot on that’s why deputies exist so leaders can take leave for whatever reason
Jaysus how old are we as a species wouldn’t you think by now we could accept that women get pregnant
@Daithí Uí Ciarmhaic: we do it’s just a certain diminishing cohort that don’t, unfortunately they are overrepresented in poisons of power, fortunately it won’t for be for much longer
@Boganity: *positions (although on reflection Poison is probably more apt)
“Father of 6 told reporters” hahaha suppose best off asking the expert i guess
Political correctness gone mad
@Paul Knowles: It’s not political correctness, there are several grounds under which a person cannot be discriminated against – Race, Religion, sexual orientation, disability, age, gender, family status (and member of the Traveller Community in Ireland).
By simply asking about future possibilities she is discriminated against on the grounds of gender and family status. There are reams of employment law cases to support this.
@Paul Knowles: it’s not political correctness it’s illegal not just in NZ but also in Ireland
@neilo: it’s just another HR issue either way right now. Any company that discriminates on something that’s illegal is not a company I would consider working for even if the discrimination didn’t effect me.
@neilo: I think the maximum paid parental leave anywhere in the world is 18 weeks, there are countries that have more than 18 weeks but they’re not at full pay so I don’t think male parental leave is likely to match women’s in the foreseeable future. The issue in my experience in down to the Dinosaurs at the helm off large corporates and Governments, those male boomers who grew up in a different world, when they’re gone, and their last cohort only has about 10 years max, the world will be a better place
@neilo: I guess not, shared leave is not something thats ever occurred to me. It sounds like a good idea, it’s an idea that can be sold as a compromise but can be increased incrementally once established. I like it as it’s one of those ideas that’s a lever to break inertia.
A woman’s reproductive plans should be her own business
@Brian O Reilly: Absolutely!
If such a question on ones parenting plans was posed at an interview all hell would happen. Why pose such a question anyway no matter what job you’re in.
: @Paul Coughlan: it did, that’s why we’re taking about It on the other side of the world.
Nobody says it publicity but it is always a factor at an interview and may or may not sway a decision
@Macc Dan: that’s why a women are forced to lie, because people your view exist
@Boganity: actually I don’t agree with it. It’s just a fact of life.
@Macc Dan: it’s not a fact my life. May I suggest it’s only a fact of yours because you don’t speak up when you can, or talk with your feet when you can’t.
have your say