Cut the dole to cut higher tax rates

[TheBigShort]

If you buy a 10 journey ticket and only use 5 of them, choosing to drive the other 5 times then yes, you are subsidising thhe public transport system.

You are not subsiding the public transport system. This is insane. So from trips 1-5 you expect the state to provide the public transport infrastructure, but on trips 6-10, as you have decided of your own free will to use private transport (on private roads? I doubt it), you think you are subsiding the public transport system and as such why should you have to pay the taxes that pays for the public transport infrastructure in the first place?
This is expecting the state to be able to re-act to every whim and desire of the individual. In effect, you want the state systems in place if you need them, but if you want to use alternative systems (of your own free will) then you shouldnt pay the taxes?

 

[TheBigShort]

If there was no private education or private healthcare would the State have to provide additional services, i.e. would it cost the State more?

No, it would be cheaper for everyone.

 

[Firefly]

No, it would be cheaper for everyone.

OK, I'll bite. How would it be cheaper for everyone for education?

 

[TheBigShort]

That's not necessarily true. Sure, there are people with so much money that private healthcare and education is a drop in the ocean. For a lot of others (my own family included), "going private" involves making sacrifices that others do not make.

That is your choice. If you believe that health services, education, transport etc are inadequate then you have the right to pay for your own services - but that is wholly conditional on being able to afford it.
Others, who cant afford such services, still need healthcare, still need education, still need housing and transport systems. Who is going to pay for it?

 

[TheBigShort]

OK, I'll bite. How would it be cheaper for everyone for education?

My err, it would be cheaper for fee-paying parents by virtue that any additional costs to the education budget would be borne by all taxpayers as a whole.
Save yourself a packet. Alternatively, if you choose to pay over and above that is your business, your investment in your children's education. But by no means are you subsiding my childrens education. I, and millions others pay for that through the taxation system.

 

[Leo]

post 437 says it all, we had someone on here in reply to my post saying why would people on low income want the services of high earners

Why don't you answer that question?

 

[Purple]

No, it would be cheaper for everyone.

So if private insurance wasn't spending €2 billion a year on healthcare consumed by Irish citizens that healthcare would not have to be provided or could be provided by the State funded service at less than the State currently spends?
There are 24000 kids in private schools. The State funds a teacher for every 23 pupils in fee paying schools. It fund a teacher for every 19 pupils in fee paying schools. Therefore the fee paying schools save the State the cost of 120 teachers at the moment. The State does not fund the cost of buildings or associated costs in the 50 fee paying schools. If all of those schools were not fee paying the State would have to provide an extra 120 teachers and the upkeep for 50 schools. The parents of those children have already paid for a place for their child in a public school through their taxes. They are paying twice for the same thing. That's a subsidy.

 

[Purple]

. But by no means are you subsiding my childrens education. I, and millions others pay for that through the taxation system.

He is; you would have to pay more if he wasn't paying for a place he wasn't using. He's one of the millions of others who is paying for it.
You should just thank him and move on

 

[jjm]

Private healthcare distroyed the public health system it changed the culture by paying healthcare you got the same competent surgeon who carried out the same amount of operations each day ,paying twice is not a subsidy it is a bribe to jump ahead of another taxpayer, private hospitals came later but by then the rot had set in

 

[TheBigShort]

So if private insurance wasn't spending €2 billion a year on healthcare consumed by Irish citizens that healthcare would not have to be provided or could be provided by the State funded service at less than the State currently spends?
There are 24000 kids in private schools. The State funds a teacher for every 23 pupils in fee paying schools. It fund a teacher for every 19 pupils in fee paying schools. Therefore the fee paying schools save the State the cost of 120 teachers at the moment. The State does not fund the cost of buildings or associated costs in the 50 fee paying schools. If all of those schools were not fee paying the State would have to provide an extra 120 teachers and the upkeep for 50 schools. The parents of those children have already paid for a place for their child in a public school through their taxes. They are paying twice for the same thing. That's a subsidy.

How is the state, paying for teachers salaries in a private school, a subsidy to the state?
In any case from the top of my head there are over 5,000 schools, 20,000+ teachers. The numbers you cite are chicken feed in the scheme of things.
And again, you expect the state to provide the infrastructure if you need it, but if you choose alternative means of your own free will, you expect some credit in the form of tax deductions?
If I buy a bottle of water, instead of drinking tap water, should I expect taxback?
You are avoiding the obvious dilemma here. You seem to want the option of paying privately for everything and in turn pay no or little taxes if that is the case. But simultaneously, to create such options you will require the organs of the state to provide the necessary infrastructure.
For instance, this discussion, in this format, is only possible by virtue of mobile and internet technology providers using the states communications apparatus. For that we all pay taxes. Even those who don't use the internet. They are subsidising you and me.
In the end, you would need to micro-manage everyones affairs to gauge at what point they use state services and at what point they pay privately, to such an extent that it would be the nanny-state in extreme.

 

[PGF2016]

Private healthcare distroyed the public health system it changed the culture by paying healthcare you got the same competent surgeon who carried out the same amount of operations each day ,paying twice is not a subsidy it is a bribe to jump ahead of another taxpayer, private hospitals came later but by then the rot had set in

As other posters have said it's very hard to understand what you're saying without punctuation.

 

[TheBigShort]

As other posters have said it's very hard to understand what you're saying without punctuation.

I think what he is saying is that a healthcare system, designed for profit, is not an efficient means of providing healthcare. So much so, that in order to initiate a private healthcare system, the public system must be allowed to deteriorate, otherwise, who would buy into it?
Private health insurance is not about providing healthcare, it is about generating profits.

 

[Purple]

Private healthcare distroyed the public health system it changed the culture by paying healthcare you got the same competent surgeon who carried out the same amount of operations each day ,paying twice is not a subsidy it is a bribe to jump ahead of another taxpayer, private hospitals came later but by then the rot had set in

That's incorrect. Private Hospitals came first.
I do think that doctors should have to work in the private or public system but not both. They should certainly not be allowed to use public resourced to run their private practice as they do at the moment.

 

[Purple]

I think what he is saying is that a healthcare system, designed for profit, is not an efficient means of providing healthcare. So much so, that in order to initiate a private healthcare system, the public system must be allowed to deteriorate, otherwise, who would buy into it?
Private health insurance is not about providing healthcare, it is about generating profits.

Belgium has the best healthcare system in Europe. It is mostly publicly funded and mostly privately delivered. I don't care if it's public or private as long as it's efficient and delivering the required services for the minimum cost.
The problem isnt's the two tier system. The problem is the State is utterly unable to regulate anything.

 

[Purple]

How is the state, paying for teachers salaries in a private school, a subsidy to the state?

That's not the subsidy. The other things I have outlined which they are not paying for; that's the subsidy. Why are you being so obtuse?

Take the emotion and ideology out of it and look at it coldly; if there were no private schools the state would have to find more money. If there was no private healthcare the state would have to find more money. That's the bottom line and no amount of ideological spin can change it.

 

[Purple]

And again, you expect the state to provide the infrastructure if you need it, but if you choose alternative means of your own free will, you expect some credit in the form of tax deductions?

No, of course not but if 10 people are paying for something but only 8 are using it then the other 2 are subsidising the cost of that thing to the 8 who use it.

 

[Purple]

You are avoiding the obvious dilemma here. You seem to want the option of paying privately for everything and in turn pay no or little taxes if that is the case. But simultaneously, to create such options you will require the organs of the state to provide the necessary infrastructure.

Why do you keep going on about not paying tax? That has nothing to do with it. If the option was to fund your own healthcare and pay less tax then you wouldn't be subsidising the public system. That option is not available (or desirable).

 

[Purple]

For instance, this discussion, in this format, is only possible by virtue of mobile and internet technology providers using the states communications apparatus. For that we all pay taxes. Even those who don't use the internet. They are subsidising you and me.

Good example. If people used a different communications apparatus which wasn't funded by the State then yes they would be subsidising us.

 

[TheBigShort]

If all of those schools were not fee paying the State would have to provide an extra 120 teachers and the upkeep for 50 schools.

In the scheme of things, the costs of which would be chicken feed.

I do think that doctors should have to work in the private or public system but not both. They should certainly not be allowed to use public resourced to run their private practice as they do at the moment

I agree.

if there were no private schools the state would have to find more money

Borne by all taxpayers, in the scheme of things, chicken feed.

No, of course not but if 10 people are paying for something but only 8 are using it then the other 2 are subsidising the cost of that thing to the 8 who use it.

Yes, that is the taxation system. I, perhaps incorrectly, assumed that you opposed paying for services that others use that you dont.

Why do you keep going on about not paying tax?

I assume, given the nature of this discussion, that there is an agenda on your part, not to pay no taxes, but to reduce taxes for high earners, in particular, where services are not being availed by those same earners and impose the cost of those services on lower-income earners.

If the option was to fund your own healthcare and pay less tax then you wouldn't be subsidising the public system. That option is not available (or desirable).

Again, I assumed the agenda was to be able to avail of such options.

 

[TheBigShort]

Private Hospitals came first.

True, not-for-profit healthcare was primarily provided through a voluntary and philanthropic ethos with donations and subscriptions from private individuals and estates.
The rich providing services to the poor.