The middle key on the very left of your keyboard. That's the Caps Lock key - it can do magic things. You've found the comma key, but don't use it nearly enough. To the right of the comma key is the full-stop key..again this does magic things.
Hi all ye fine minds
I suspect the tax system as its stands i do not want this to go off on a public service rant, allows whoever is in power to give in to all vested interests because when wages rise in one section of the ecomony the tax/prsi usc/employers prsi pension levy ,will cover the public services wage bill i suspect private sector employers/employees paying higher wages will follow if they can afford to once 300000 high rate tax payers follow all is sorted employers/employees on lower wages may not be able to follow without putting the lights out
If you take high earners already paying top rate taxes and they have already factored this into there fees /costs and you now give some of it back and they dont pass it on and you take it off some one on the dole if that person now needs there services and the charge the same you will now have to put there tax back to where it was they may put up there fees you then have to put the dole back up where it was and add the extra cost
Im not saying they should be off all summer. Im saying to get them to work an extra six weeks you will have to pay them. That costs money.
So you have heard of people complaining about prices.
Yes, so what? De-regulate the regulators?
Look, there are merits to de-regulation, privatisation etc. Generally, private companies are quicker and more flexible to adapt to change, demand etc.
Not sure what you are saying here. The ads are obviously effective, otherwise they wouldn't be used.There are also benefits in having fuffy adds and clever marketing strategies in that themselves create further employment, creating further markets etc. This is capitalism at its best and spreading effectively among the population.
Its what happens at the end of the process where small cliques of individuals in executive boards who control all the wealth generated by workers and decide, invariably, to disproportionately award themselves a larger slice of pie than they would otherwise get if their actual contribution to the company was measured efficiently. I have no issue with top guys getting just rewards, I do take issue with bare-faced disproportionate awards. This is trickle up economics.
Hi all ye fine minds
I suspect the tax system as its stands i do not want this to go off on a public service rant, allows whoever is in power to give in to all vested interests because when wages rise in one section of the ecomony the tax/prsi usc/employers prsi pension levy ,will cover the public services wage bill i suspect private sector employers/employees paying higher wages will follow if they can afford to once 300000 high rate tax payers follow all is sorted employers/employees on lower wages may not be able to follow without putting the lights out
If you take high earners already paying top rate taxes and they have already factored this into there fees /costs and you now give some of it back and they dont pass it on and you take it off some one on the dole if that person now needs there services and the charge the same you will now have to put there tax back to where it was they may put up there fees you then have to put the dole back up where it was and add the extra cost
high earners already paying top rate taxes and they have already factored this into there fees /costs and you now give some of it back and they dont pass it on and you take it off some one on the dole if that person now needs there services
Why should it be an "extra" 6 weeks? Why can't they work the same hours as every other civil servant? We constantly hear of under-resourcing across the public sector. Teachers are intelligent people, could they not help out when the schools are closed?
People complain when prices are raised more so than constantly complaining about the prices per se. And even if they did, competition would bring prices down
People have been calling for bankers and builders to be put in jail, what about the those meant to be regulating the industry?
And lower prices, and better choice. I was thinking about this last night in Tesco...can you imagine the choice and prices available to people if we only had one, state owned supermarket chain in the country!!
Not sure what you are saying here. The ads are obviously effective, otherwise they wouldn't be used.
Do you really think that these "small cliques of individuals in executive boards" only exist in the private sector? You seem to think that public sector = good and private sector = bad !
If they only worked 33 weeks a year then yes, they certainly should.We constantly hear about 'market value' and people negotiating their contracts. Teachers have obviously negotiated their contracts and you think they can be changed without cost?
A report yesterday identified the need for some 70,000+ construction workers over next five years. Why cant the current construction workers just work an extra day for free? It would bring down the cost of housing for first-time buyers!
As the state funds education for every child when parents choose to send their children to a private school they are not consuming a service which they have paid for through their taxes. Therefore private education subsidises the public system, not the other way around. If all the kids in private schools went to public schools the state would have to putThere is actually a private education school system (subsidised by the taxpayer). It hasnt really taken off in the general population however. Quite expensive for most people.
Ok, so there was no deregulation in the financial system. The State and it's structures just failed to do their job.You were making the point of the benefits of de-regulation. I merely pointed out that it is not as so clear cut as that. I pointed out how, despite the real and perceived benefits to the consumer, the negative aspects are the trickle up economics where small cohorts of people gorge on profits for their own benefit.
I used the banking sector as an example of where, despite regulations remaining in place, that sector went out of control in its lending practices, which was tantamount to having a de-regulated sector. Would you favour a de-regulated banking sector?
By all means throw the regulators, developers and bankers into jail for any criminal activity. But that wasnt my point or intent. Im trying to explain to you that whilst there are obvious benefits to de-regulation there are also drawbacks.
I agree that there are major issues with so called free markets when there are very few players and, in the care of the private healthcare industry, the main supplier of services is the state.The energy sector is an example of an industry of limited real benefits. Minimum and maximum prices are fixed by a regulator giving the impression that a free market economy is operating. It is in effect a sector with limited access to it. Ditto the private health insurance sector. Another sector that layers multiple 'plans' for consumers to choose from in the name of 'choice'. If it was a state body this would be called red-tape, too much bureaucracy, etc. In the private sector it is called 'choice'.
I agree again. In my view the State should regulate but not run. That applies to refuse, healthcare and many other sectors.Yes, it would be horrible, and nowhere will you find me supporting state ownership of a sector for the sake of it. Im merely pointing out that the privatisation of some sectors does not always deliver what it says on the tin.
Three is a row; I agree again. What really gets to me is when they send information about charities they support with my money.I got a nice colourful brochure from my health insurer this morning, reminding me what a great service they provide me (I havent had cause to use it yet, thankfully). After telling me how good they are, they gently reminded me of my renewal date approaching and that they will send me more information.
All nice and fine, except this stuff costs money and is reflected in the price I pay. This could all be done on-line and money saved. This is inefficiency, and like the motor tax office, all their business could be moved on-line, reducing prices.
The pay levels of the top people in public companies is an issue. Particularly in banking and finance where they are selling a reasonable homogeneous product and the institutions have been around for 100 years plus. It's different if a technology company is built on the creativity of the founder, then he or she is the one adding the value and so should be rewarded accordingly. I'm not sure how that can be changed though and the taxation system is certainly not the way to do it. It also involved a few small number of people so while it's irksome it is statistically inconsequential.No I dont think that at all, I think that there is more opportunity for private operators to exploit the wealth created by workers in the private sector than there is in the public sector.
The levels of pay at CEO level in the private sector in comparable size organizations (budgets, staffing) far outstrips the levels of pay in the public sector.
The flip side is that public sector employees lower down the food chain, can in some instances, enjoy better rewards than their private sector counterparts.
This could be resolved two ways, increase wages at the top in the public sector at the expense of lower grade workers, or cut wages at the top in the private sector for the benefit of lower grade workers.
I prefer the latter option, and in doing so, the issues of imbalances in the taxation system being cited here could be resolved.
You were making the point of the benefits of de-regulation. I merely pointed out that it is not as so clear cut as that. I pointed out how, despite the real and perceived benefits to the consumer, the negative aspects are the trickle up economics where small cohorts of people gorge on profits for their own benefit.
I used the banking sector as an example of where, despite regulations remaining in place, that sector went out of control in its lending practices, which was tantamount to having a de-regulated sector. Would you favour a de-regulated banking sector?
I am going to make this as clear as I can:
I think there should be regulation in the banking sector. Absolutely 100%.
Those who should have been regulating the banking sector didn't do their job properly. If they had done their job properly we wouldn't be in the mess we are in. It's like a water park, if you restrict younger children from going down a big slide and put a life guard at the entrance you'll be safe enough. If the life guard falls asleep under the sun, you are going to get younger children chancing their arm. An accident will happen and the slide will be closed for everyone. Shouldn't the life guard be held accountable along with the parents of the children?
The answer to regulators not enforcing existing regulation is not the imposition of more regulation. Rather it is to ensure the correct enforcement of that existing regulation. If that doesn't work then fine, change it.Yep, no problem with that. You have identified a sector that requires more, or better regulation, rather than less regulation. So de-regulation is not always a benefit, and that was my point.
It has......
If they only worked 33 weeks a year then yes, they certainly should.
As the state funds education for every child when parents choose to send their children to a private school they are not consuming a service which they have paid for through their taxes.
Ok, so there was no deregulation in the financial system. The State and it's structures just failed to do their job
in the care of the private healthcare industry, the main supplier of services is the state.
It also involved a few small number of people so while it's irksome it is statistically inconsequential.
The answer to regulators not enforcing existing regulation is not the imposition of more regulation. Rather it is to ensure the correct enforcement of that existing regulation.
They get paid for the summer months. Didn't you know that?Should what? If they work 33 weeks, presumably they negotiated that with their employer?
If you want people to work for free, simply offer them the option.
Nobody is saying otherwise. The point is that if the children went to public schools instead there would be an additional cost to the school; therefore fee paying schools are a subsidy on the state system, not the other way around.That is their choice. There is no requirement to send a child to a fee-paying school, there is however, a requirement to send them to school. I think society has figured this out to be a good thing. Certainly, whether a child is sent to a public or private funded school would indicate that the parents of those children think it is a good idea.
Perhaps, private schools should get a rebate from not utilizing the state system? But then again, private schools already receive subsidies. Not only that, the children participate in state funded, organised and administered examinations too.
They are not self imposed, they are imposed by the state.Yes, and industries own self-imposed, fee charging regulators, auditors and accountants et al.
The state buys a massive amount of healthcare from the private sector; GP's, hospitals etc. Every public hospital with private wards is the state providing an infrastructure from which the private healthcare sector buys services. Everyone who presents at an A&E and is duped into signing a form to be treated as a private patient is the same thing. The National Treatment Purchase Fund is the same thing.????
How many people are we talking about? Is it hundreds, thousands? I can't see it being a meaningful number in the context of the overall workforce.I would disagree. Just because the ineptitude of high paying executives has not been revealed in all cases doesn't mean that overpaid executives are not prevelant in society.
Again, nobody is saying otherwise. I just pointed out the lie perpetuated by the left that the problem was due to deregulation or light touch regulation. It wasn't, it was due to gross incompetence by auditors and highly paid officials and most particularly by the Financial regulator, the Central Bank and the Department of Finance. So far none of those people have been held to account. While there is a very slim chance that those in the private sector will be there is no chance that any state employee will ever have to answer for their (in)actions.That is why I said more or better regulation. What can deduce is that less or de-regulation in bank lending practices is not desirable.
There you go BS.I really thought you had been following this.
Rates are too high but so are the amounts at which the lower rate kicks in.
The lower rate should kick in at a much lower income level.
The higher rate should kick in at a higher level.
The PRSI ceiling should be reintroduced.
USC should be phased out as a priority.
Nobody should contribute less than 10% of their income in tax. Nobody should be paying the higher marginal rate until they earn 150% of the average industrial wage. Nobody should contribute more than 45% of their marginal income in tax.
Overall tax receipts should be reduced as we reduce costs in delivering services. We should strive to be average by international standards when it comes to value for money in the health service (let’s not set the bar too high). We should strive to have wage costs as a proportion of healthcare spending at OECD average levels.
Welfare rates for short term unemployed should be increased and those for long term unemployed should be decreased.
Public housing should be provided on 3 to 5 years lease agreements. There should be no expectation that the state will provide a house for anyone for their whole life.
We should, over a period of a decade or two, move towards self funded pensions for everyone in the private and public sector (new entrants only in both sectors) in order to address the single biggest financial issue facing this country.
The other main long term priority should be to address the structural, skills and funding issues in the education sector. A longer school year, better facilities for staff and students, better supports for students who need it, more school psychologists and guidance counsellors and higher teaching standards etc should all take priority over pay levels.
All of this would move us towards a fairer and more socially just society where those who work retain a reasonable proportion of their income and those who need a hand up get it but living off your neighbour is neither economically viable or socially acceptable.
I see there being a couple of key benefits to having cyclists pay an annual tax, those being: i) It's further revenue for the state and ii) it's installing a discipline on the cyclists to appreciate the services they get (and hopefully respecting the rules of the road better etc. as part of this).
Your reference to a cycle tax/licence being a disincentive in every jurisdiction in which it was introduced may be correct, but I put that down to people not wanting to pay tax. Sure, it's easy to say "oh, the cycle tax put me off cycling"because the cyclists have a vested interest in trying to avoid facing a tax, but thats not to say that licencing and taxing the cyclists is the wrong thing to do.
Your follow on comment about the cost to implement and administer is simply down to how it was managed etc. - outsource it to an existing organisation, rather than try to set up a new administration from scratch and you'll see costs managed better for example. Alternatively, think of something similar to the annual dog licence and how that works.
There's clearly some merrit in your point about emissions, but any credit to be given would have to be carefully thought out and not just given as a further "gift" alongside the tax break in the cycle to work scheme. If the people cycling were to show evidence that had got rid of their car / motorbike for example and were now regularly using their bikes then by all means thats a good thing and deserves recognition, but not for the fella who bought a €1k bike one Saturday to get half the cash back from the taxman and then let it sit in the garage for the next 12 months.
They get paid for the summer months. Didn't you know that?
Nobody is saying otherwise. The point is that if the children went to public schools instead there would be an additional cost to the school; therefore fee paying schools are a subsidy on the state system, not the other way around.
They are not self imposed, they are imposed by the state.
The state buys a massive amount of healthcare from the private sector; GP's, hospitals etc. Every public hospital with private wards is the state providing an infrastructure from which the private healthcare sector buys services. Everyone who presents at an A&E and is duped into signing a form to be treated as a private patient is the same thing. The National Treatment Purchase Fund is the same thing.
How many people are we talking about? Is it hundreds, thousands? I can't see it being a meaningful number in the context of the overall workforce.
Again, nobody is saying otherwise. I just pointed out the lie perpetuated by the left that the problem was due to deregulation or light touch regulation. It wasn't, it was due to gross incompetence by auditors and highly paid officials and most particularly by the Financial regulator, the Central Bank and the Department of Finance. So far none of those people have been held to account. While there is a very slim chance that those in the private sector will be there is no chance that any state employee will ever have to answer for their (in)actions.
Rates are too high but so are the amounts at which the lower rate kicks in.
The lower rate should kick in at a much lower income level.
The higher rate should kick in at a higher level.
The PRSI ceiling should be reintroduced.
USC should be phased out as a priority
Nobody should contribute less than 10% of their income in tax.
Nobody should be paying the higher marginal rate until they earn 150% of the average industrial wage.
Nobody should contribute more than 45% of their marginal income in tax.
Overall tax receipts should be reduced as we reduce costs in delivering services.
We should strive to be average by international standards when it comes to value for money in the health service (let’s not set the bar too high)
We should strive to have wage costs as a proportion of healthcare spending at OECD average levels.
Welfare rates for short term unemployed should be increased and those for long term unemployed should be decreased.
Public housing should be provided on 3 to 5 years lease agreements. There should be no expectation that the state will provide a house for anyone for their whole life.
We should, over a period of a decade or two, move towards self funded pensions for everyone in the private and public sector (new entrants only in both sectors) in order to address the single biggest financial issue facing this country.
The other main long term priority should be to address the structural, skills and funding issues in the education sector. A longer school year, better facilities for staff and students, better supports for students who need it, more school psychologists and guidance counsellors and higher teaching standards etc should all take priority over pay levels.
Yes, but I took it as implied in your comment about construction workers (that if they only worked 33 weeks) that they had also negotiated holiday pay conditions, like teachers.
Obviously now you didn't, so perhaps you could explain now why construction workers couldn't work extra days for free, rather than hire an additional 70,000+ over the next few years? Or even better, why dont you give up your holidays for free and work instead?
No, there would not be. You have already stated that they have paid for the state school service in their taxes. So the resources are there for them already, they choose not to use them (except for the subsidies they receive and participation in the state examinations).
What happens after 5yrs? Evictions?