Follow @PoliticsIE
 
 
 
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 31

Thread: Disruptive Reforms - Section 4?

  1. #1
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Waterford
    Posts
    40,790
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)

    Default Disruptive Reforms - Section 4?

    Could any FGers explain the rationale, in simple terms, behind section 4 of the FG "Disruptive Reforms" plan in getting Irish SMEs trading online?

    http://static.rasset.ie/documents/news/2013apj.pdf
    Regards...jmcc

  2. #2
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Away
    Posts
    604
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    They can use the online trading voucher to offset the cost of the Coughlan IP tax.

  3. #3
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Waterford
    Posts
    40,790
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Outlander View Post
    They can use the online trading voucher to offset the cost of the Coughlan IP tax.
    If only TommyO'Brien was here to explain it all.
    Regards...jmcc

  4. #4
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,504
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Small business in ireland has failed to recognise the need to "come on line" This section 4 is the governments attempt to increase the numbers of domestic Irish businesses on line.

    If you look at the report you see that the vast majority of each section is being handled by one, two or three departments eg DJEI, IDA, etc. Unfortunately like a lot of things departments handle they attempt to "claim" to identify a problem and seek what they percieve as the quickest and most obvious solution to that problem - this generally involves giving away taxpayers money.

    It is pointless giving money to developing irish internet businesses unless it is uniquely irish only produce - other irish businesses have to compete with purchasing product, and having competing in a "global market"

    Much of the product that finds its way into our homes through the internet comes from the UK - in the UK many businesses own "the rights" to supply for both Ireland and the UK. For a long number of years some business people in ireland have been complaining that this brand ownership along with the vat grouping directive and incentatives that the State grants these out-side multi nationals have been destablizing core taxation here. Unfortunatelly our civil service is not for looking at this. as a consequence on branded product ireland is simply unable to compete. Much of this money goes out of the country.

    Well done the Revenue and its vat grouping directive on this appalling lost to the Irish exchequer.

  5. #5
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Waterford
    Posts
    40,790
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Old Woman View Post
    Small business in ireland has failed to recognise the need to "come on line" This section 4 is the governments attempt to increase the numbers of domestic Irish businesses on line.
    But it hasn't. The claim is based, from what I remember, on bad and untrustworthy data from CSO. From what I remember, it just asked some companies if they had a website.

    If you look at the report you see that the vast majority of each section is being handled by one, two or three departments eg DJEI, IDA, etc. Unfortunately like a lot of things departments handle they attempt to "claim" to identify a problem and seek what they percieve as the quickest and most obvious solution to that problem - this generally involves giving away taxpayers money.
    What is worrying is the complete lack of expertise in defining that problem, if any exists.

    It is pointless giving money to developing irish internet businesses unless it is uniquely irish only produce - other irish businesses have to compete with purchasing product, and having competing in a "global market"
    Again many businesses are not really suited to internet/web trading. That is often why they have no web presence.
    Regards...jmcc

  6. #6
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    12,331
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jmcc View Post
    But it hasn't. The claim is based, from what I remember, on bad and untrustworthy data from CSO. From what I remember, it just asked some companies if they had a website.

    What is worrying is the complete lack of expertise in defining that problem, if any exists.

    Again many businesses are not really suited to internet/web trading. That is often why they have no web presence.
    Hopefully, the process will actually involve someone who can make that judgement...
    Never let the best be the enemy of the good.

  7. #7
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Waterford
    Posts
    40,790
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ibis View Post
    Hopefully, the process will actually involve someone who can make that judgement...
    What are the chances of that? It may have some spoofers who think that they know what they are talking about but the history of these government backed ventures is not good. I don't see any recognisable expertise listed in that document other than the nebulous "stakeholders".
    Regards...jmcc

  8. #8
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    12,331
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jmcc View Post
    What are the chances of that? It may have some spoofers who think that they know what they are talking about but the history of these government backed ventures is not good. I don't see any recognisable expertise listed in that document other than the nebulous "stakeholders".
    Given the sums involved, I'd presume this is very similar to the existing grant to have a website (also up to €2.5k with matching funding from the company), in which case it will presumably be handled by the same people at the CoCo enterprise boards. The difference, to me, is that while it's worth almost any business' time to have a website (visibility is visibility), selling online is a whole different ball game. I wonder if they'll be given adequate legal and fraud advice...?
    Never let the best be the enemy of the good.

  9. #9
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Waterford
    Posts
    40,790
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ibis View Post
    Given the sums involved, I'd presume this is very similar to the existing grant to have a website (also up to €2.5k with matching funding from the company), in which case it will presumably be handled by the same people at the CoCo enterprise boards. The difference, to me, is that while it's worth almost any business' time to have a website (visibility is visibility), selling online is a whole different ball game. I wonder if they'll be given adequate legal and fraud advice...?
    I'm not sure. The problem is that it seems very much like a jobs for the cronies scheme. Most websites tend to be brochureware rather than e-commerce enabled and only a few webdevs seem to concentrate on the e-commerce/shopping cart side of things. And apparently some kind of "analysis" is involved with the 2K5 voucher.
    Regards...jmcc

  10. #10
    Politics.ie Member dizillusioned's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    The World
    Posts
    14,778
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)

    Default

    Excuse my ignorance... would someone please explain the term "Disruptive Reforms"?

    I am after all mentally very backward.

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •