Cut the dole to cut higher tax rates

[Purple]

From what I see most State Employees are on modest nuff wages.
If its the case that a small cohort of our State Employees are overpaid V other jurisdictions , then get that sorted now.

The opposite is the case; low and mid ranking public sector employees are overpaid by international standards whereas high ranking public sector employees are on par with their international counterparts.

 

[Firefly]

How do propose to resolve this? Reduce medical staff numbers or cut incomes? Or increase taxes on nurses etc?
Or increase staff numbers and provide better resources?

I'm saying it's not solvable by just throwing money at it - we tried this and it didn't work. We need to look at what is happening culturally.

Not sure about the buses these days but my experience is that the trains are pretty efficient these days. Certainly I think the NTA would back that up.

The trains are pretty efficient these days...even with less resources than 8 years ago. Sounds like increased competition due to better roads and buses has helped more than just paying people more.

Again, how would you propose to reduce class sizes? Build more schools, employ more teachers - wouldn't this require more taxes?

As per above...when the coffers were awash with money we still had the same class sizes. Throwing money at the problem hasn't worked.

Very efficient on-line service available.

Very efficient on-line service - I agree with you. I would move everything to the site and shut most of the offices, but of course that will never happen.

Ideally motor tax could be scrapped and a fuel charge applied?

I'm with you there and a further reason to shut down the motor tax offices. More money then for other services.

Are you saying public servants who retire early are involved in organised crime??

Of course I am not saying that! I'm saying that a lot of Gardai took early retirement thereby reducing the force in rural areas. I'm not blaming these gardai just pointing out the implications

How would you fix the infrastructure? I've an idea, say the government borrows from the ECB at 0% to invest in the infrastructure. The bulk of the money will go to workers who can fix the infrastructure. Unemployment will fall, income tax receipts will increase, as will VAT etc. This could, in some part, facilitate the re-structuring of the income tax system that is called for here, without unduly burdening low income earners or cutting welfare.
Just an idea.

We're still borrowing to consume. Wouldn't it be better to be at least washing our face before we borrow further.

 

[TheBigShort]

I'm saying it's not solvable by just throwing money at it - we tried this and it didn't work. We need to look at what is happening culturally.

Oh...its a cultural thing, I feel a new thread is needed here.

The trains are pretty efficient these days...even with less resources than 8 years ago. Sounds like increased competition due to better roads and buses has helped more than just paying people more.

Because of better roads, trains run better. Lets build more roads so, to improve the train services!

As per above...when the coffers were awash with money we still had the same class sizes. Throwing money at the problem hasn't worked.

Seriously, if there is a classroom with one teacher and say, 36 pupils, and you are in favour of reducing class sizes. What measure(s) could you take to take to reduce this class size down to say, 18 pupils?
Throwing money at it wont work, as you correctly pointed out. What other measure(s) come to mind?

Of course I am not saying that!

I was pulling your leg. Not your finest post to be fair.

 

[Purple]

Because of better roads, trains run better. Lets build more roads so, to improve the train services!

Now now, that's not what he said and you know it.

Seriously, if there is a classroom with one teacher and say, 36 pupils, and you are in favour of reducing class sizes. What measure(s) could you take to take to reduce this class size down to say, 18 pupils?
Throwing money at it wont work, as you correctly pointed out. What other measure(s) come to mind?

Reducing class sizes without changing teaching methods and measuring the correlation between those reductions and teaching outcomes is a waste of money. It is just a way of making teachers lives easier, not improving outcomes. The Unions would love it!
Maybe a better way would be to improve teacher training and quality first. It would certainly cost less. It strikes me that a the thing a highly motivated and dedicated teacher wants most is a staff room full of highly motivated and dedicated teachers, not 18 kids instead of 26.

 

[TheBigShort]

So you think someone earning €33,800 a year is a high earner?

No. I think applying a 40% income tax rate at that level is too high. In the UK it does not kick in until Stg£45,000.

 

[TheBigShort]

without changing teaching methods

Im sure there are alternative teaching methods but im not familiar with them. I think in Finland, which ranks high in student scores, homework was abolished for primary school kids. Not sure what savings would be made there however.

improve teacher training and quality first. It would certainly cost less.

Obviously, but that sounds like it would require additional investment. And if that requires additional borrowing, then I fear it wont get support on this thread.

It strikes me that a the thing a highly motivated and dedicated teacher wants most is a staff room full of highly motivated and dedicated teachers, not 18 kids instead of 26.

I can assure you, one of the things that will most de-motivate even the best of teachers is over-sized classrooms.
My own son was in a classroom of 36 last year, all sorts of issues raised about teacher performance. This year, same teacher, class reduced to 24, much better atmosphere, much better results.

 

[Firefly]

No. I think applying a 40% income tax rate at that level is too high. In the UK it does not kick in until Stg£45,000.

Now that we are comparing with what happens in the UK, should we compare our public sector wages too?

 

[Purple]

No. I think applying a 40% income tax rate at that level is too high. In the UK it does not kick in until Stg£45,000.

In the UK the personal allowance is £11,000, much lower than here. You start paying 12% National Insurance at £8060 per year. By
Earnings above £43,000 a year are only subject to National Insurance of 2% so the marginal tax rate doesn't go over 42% until you earn £150,000 a year and even then it's 47% (45% + 2%).

We pay 52% on income over €33,800.

In Ireland someone on €18,000 a year pays €00.00 in tax.
In the UK someone on €18,000 a year pays €2280.00 in tax.

 

[Firefly]

Oh...its a cultural thing, I feel a new thread is needed here.

Go for it and I will contribute

Because of better roads, trains run better. Lets build more roads so, to improve the train services!

Because of better roads, trains have faced increased competition, which has made them better.

Seriously, if there is a classroom with one teacher and say, 36 pupils, and you are in favour of reducing class sizes. What measure(s) could you take to take to reduce this class size down to say, 18 pupils?
Throwing money at it wont work, as you correctly pointed out. What other measure(s) come to mind?

We agree on one thing! I don't have measures to reduce class sizes do you? I am pointing out, as you have agreed, that simply throwing money at the issue won't increase the level of education our children are getting and class sizes will stay the same. So why bother?

I was pulling your leg. Not your finest post to be fair.

That's fine, but sometimes it's difficult to know when you are serious!

 

[ashambles]

Seriously, if there is a classroom with one teacher and say, 36 pupils, and you are in favour of reducing class sizes. What measure(s) could you take to take to reduce this class size down to say, 18 pupils?
Throwing money at it wont work, as you correctly pointed out. What other measure(s) come to mind?

We've been over all these arguments before, with class sizes it's simple and free to reduce class sizes.

We have a large number of secondary school teachers - typically higher than in comparison countries.

So why is our class size large?

The reason is that we've one of the shortest school years in the world. As with almost any type of work if you try to squeeze it in to a shorter time you need to hire extra workers.

The pupil teacher ratio is quite low - I think around 18-1 last time I saw a figure, however with a compressed school year and the resulting timetable issues you simply can't translate that into a similar class size.

So all we need to do to reduce our class sizes is copy another countries school year - again let's say Sweden (though I'm not familiar with it, it won't be as stupid as ours), reduce stress on students, allow teachers more time during school hours to do work such as correcting and preparation, more room to allocate valuable teachers time intelligently. No need to hire or fire anybody - zero cost to the taxpayer.

Will it ever happen? Of course not - much like switching to a Swedish income tax system the trade unions won't allow it.

 

[MrEarl]

.....

and you're suggesting a disincentive to cycle?

It's no more of a disincentive than motor tax is to discourage people from having cars, motorbikes etc. (i.e. almost zero disincentive !)

Lets not forget many cyclists also got a tax break through the bike to work scheme (which let me add was daft and did little other than to create massive inflation in the average cost of a bike, with the taxpayer footing the bill).

Half of the items you have listed are nothing to do with whether we tax cyclists or not and certainly not exclusively dependent on bicycles for resolution.

If they are using the roads, traffic lights, having special bicycle lanes made etc. then let them contribute towards the cost of providing and maintaing those services.

.....Also, most cyclists have cars and already pay motor tax.

So what, if you have a car and a motorbike then you've to pay for both as I understand it, if I've a car and a truck I've to pay for both, it's all the same principal. All we are talking about here is equal treatment, nothing more.

As a cycling commuter, I think I am getting an extraordinarily good deal from the state for use of roads etc - it costs me nothing.

So in principal, I am not opposed to contributing for that service. However, I cannot see how it would be cost effective to implement.....

Think in terms of dog licences, tv licences etc. Thats how I would see it being collected... with random checks etc. BTW, I appreciate your honesty about recognising that your using the infrastructure, so willing to contribute etc.

I cycle but also drive. Should I have the option of paying one or the other?

Absolutely not.

If I have two cars, I have to pay road tax on both, if I've a car and a motorbike I've to pay both etc. Same principal - your using the infrastructure with each mode of transport, so you get to pay just like the rest of us

You do however get the option of getting rid of one of the two methods of transport, if you don't want to pay tax on both. If you only use your car occassionally perhaps an occasional hire car, membership of service like GoCar might be the solution for you and others who also don't need a car regularly ?

 

[Purple]

If I have two cars, I have to pay road tax on both, if I've a car and a motorbike I've to pay both etc. Same principal - your using the infrastructure with each mode of transport, so you get to pay just like the rest of us

You do however get the option of getting rid of one of the two methods of transport, if you don't want to pay tax on both. If you only use your car occassionally perhaps an occasional hire car, membership of service like GoCar might be the solution for you and others who also don't need a car regularly ?

Bikes take up less space and have very little impact on the wear and tear of roads. They also reduce congestion. It would save the state money if we paid people to use bikes. I say that as someone who drives more than I cycle.

At what age to people start paying this tax? Should my 7 year old have to pay it? Should the few kids who cycle to school? Do we really want more mummies dropping their little darlings to school in their 4X4's instead of those kids not getting fat and cycling? Do we want more ignorant and lazy parents double parking in the mornings outside nearly every school in the country so their little dumplings can waddle the shortest distance possible to their classroom?
If it only applied to adults then what about the 18 year old's in 6th year?

 

[MrEarl]

Bikes take up less space and have very little impact on the wear and tear of roads. They also reduce congestion. It would save the state money if we paid people to use bikes. I say that as someone who drives more than I cycle.

At what age to people start paying this tax? Should my 7 year old have to pay it? Should the few kids who cycle to school? Do we really want more mummies dropping their little darlings to school in their 4X4's instead of those kids not getting fat and cycling? Do we want more ignorant and lazy parents double parking in the mornings outside nearly every school in the country so their little dumplings can waddle the shortest distance possible to their classroom?
If it only applied to adults then what about the 18 year old's in 6th year?

Anyone not in full time education or getting benefits should pay it.

Cyclists rely on traffic lights, rules of the road being enforced etc. it's not just about wear and tear of the concrete or tarmac they cross over each journey (although they do take up space on the roads, have special bike lanes built and maintained for them etc.). Also, I never said the rate should be the same as for a car.

BTW, if you take a quick look, you'll see the yummy mummy brigade are still double parking at all the schools in their 4x4s .... thats an issue that should be dealt with seperately.

 

[Purple]

We have gone way off topic here but...

Anyone not in full time education or getting benefits should pay it.

OK, the same people who don't pay for anything else. Got it. What about students from very wealthy families or with jobs?

Cyclists rely on traffic lights, rules of the road being enforced etc. it's not just about wear and tear of the concrete or tarmac they cross over each journey (although they do take up space on the roads, have special bike lanes built and maintained for them etc.). Also, I never said the rate should be the same as for a car.

So do pedestrians. Should they be taxed for using the footpath?
Cyclists reduce the number of cars on the road thus reducing wear and tear and reducing congestion. How about getting people to pay the full cost of the public transport they use? Get rid of the state subsidy and get bus and train users to pay the full cost?
The reason we don't is the same reason we don't tax cyclists; providing motor traffic infrastructure is expensive and not always possible to pt in place and congestion costs hundreds of millions a year in time wasted.

BTW, if you take a quick look, you'll see the yummy mummy brigade are still double parking at all the schools in their 4x4s .... thats an issue that should be dealt with seperately.

Yep, and discouraging cycling will mean more of them.

 

[TheBigShort]

We pay 52% on income over €33,800

So is this too high a tax rate on too low an income? I certainly would think so, so that is why I would not be in favour of transferring more tax liability from high earners onto these earners.

In Ireland someone on €18,000 a year pays €00.00 in tax.

Not true, USC kicks in after €12,001 @3%

In the UK someone on €18,000 a year pays €2280.00 in tax.

Again not true, either you are talking about £18,000 (€20,000) or €18,000 (£16,200).
Someone on €20,000 will pay €1,790 in tax/usc/prsi. The equivalent in the UK at that income would be €2,486 tax. A difference of some €696. Is this what this thread is all about?

Interestingly, if you go through the income bands supplied by Brendan Burgess here

http://www.askaboutmoney.com/threads/is-there-up-to-date-information-on-the-per-cent-of-income-taxes-paid-by-those-earning-over-€70-000.200615/

and go through the highest income bands, the level of taxation is not nearly as onerous as made out here. For instance, the very top 16,168 of earners who had a combined income of €8.887bn contributed €3.559 bn in taxes, or 40%.
The next highest group of earners in the €200,000 - €275,000 bracket contributed 35% of their combined income in taxes. The next income bracket contributes 32.5% of combined income in taxes. It keeps sliding downwards like any progressive system.

 

[TheBigShort]

We agree on one thing! I don't have measures to reduce class sizes do you?

Yes, build more schools and employ more teachers.

 

[TheBigShort]

The train drivers will be on strike looking for more pay yet there was a report out yesterday that the infrastructure itself is falling apart. Customers will suffer and be at risk, but it doesn't matter as long as the workers get more money eh?

We're still borrowing to consume. Wouldn't it be better to be at least washing our face before we borrow further.

So which is it? Continue to put customer's at risk or borrow to invest in upgrading the infrastructure?
If it was your decision, what would you do?

 

[ashambles]

Yes, build more schools and employ more teachers.

You must have missed my post #330 where I explained you could improve the situation for free by a more normal European style school year. We have plenty of teachers - there's just poorly allocated due to artificial timetable constraints.

 

[orka]

It keeps sliding downwards like any progressive system.

The direction is the same as any progressive system but the slope is much steeper. I'm happy with a progressive system but why is ours the most progressive in the world?

 

[TheBigShort]

You must have missed my post #330 where I explained you could improve the situation for free by a more normal European style school year. We have plenty of teachers - there's just poorly allocated due to artificial timetable constraints.

I didn't miss it, it just didn't make any sense to me, sorry.
What is a 'normal European style' school year?